The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect

[Mr Gray]

Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.

Talk is cheap could equally apply to your post..
Imo Wolters has evidence... Otherwise he would not have made all the claims he has.
If he is saying Maddie has been murdered by a paedophile... And has no evidence to support it... That would be unforgivable... I can't see him doing that

[Ms Para glider]

Like the parents?

Remind me again. Was the evidence (if you can call it that) against the parents anything more than "circumstantial"? Did the parents confess to someone else they had something to do with it? Did the parents fail to offer a corroborated alibi for where they were when MM disappeared? Did the parents have an obvious motive for taking MM? Did the parents have a criminal track record to indicate they might be capable of something like this?

[Mr Gray]

I think a lot of people fail to understand what "circumstantial" evidence actually means. They hear the word and think it means it is tenuous, weak or flimsy evidence. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, the alternative (direct evidence) is not that common. Direct evidence is something that directly implicates the suspect carried out the crime. So a video recording of the crime for example, or a witness who saw the crime take place would be direct evidence.

Forensics and DNA are usually classed as circumstantial evidence since they don't directly prove the suspect carried out the crime, only that they were there (at some point in time). I know HCW has stated they don't have any scientific (forensic or DNA) evidence either but just pointing out that most evidence used in cases is circumstantial. Even if an eye-witness saw CB bundling MM into his car on that night, it would still only be classified as circumstantial evidence that he murdered her (even though it would be direct evidence he abducted her). Or if they had a photo of them together, this would also be circumstantial since it doesn't directly prove he killed her.

The point is you cannot determine that the evidence is "weak" on the basis that it is "only" circumstantial. People are using the word as if it means something that it doesn't.

Thats a very good post. It's the amount of circumstantial evidence that's also important. David Gilroy was convicted of murder solely on circumstantial evidence. There is actually no definitive evidence Susan Pilay is dead

[G-Unit]

You need to differentiate between what the papers print and what Wolters actually says

Says the one who claimed that the Germans directed the well searches in Portugal. Did you read that in the papers?

When there are speech marks, that means the person is being quoted, so they did say what is written.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564

[Ms Para glider]

Talk is cheap could equally apply to your post..
Imo Wolters has evidence... Otherwise he would not have made all the claims he has.
If he is saying Maddie has been murdered by a paedophile... And has no evidence to support it... That would be unforgivable... I can't see him doing that

And not to mention that "talk" in this particular instance is most certainly not "cheap". If HCW cannot back up his words, he stands to lose his livelihood and his reputation. And the BKA would be looking at a massive libel claim if it turned out their accusations were without solid foundation. You know what else isn't cheap? Spending four and half years investigating one person.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Says the one who claimed that the Germans directed the well searches in Portugal. Did you read that in the papers?

When there are speech marks, that means the person is being quoted, so they did say what is written.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564

Hmm, that’s very trusting of you (and unlike you!) to consider anything reported in quotes in the MSM to be completely accurate.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And not to mention that "talk" in this particular instance is most certainly not "cheap". If HCW cannot back up his words, he stands to lose his livelihood and his reputation. And the BKA would be looking at a massive libel claim if it turned out their accusations were without solid foundation. You know what else isn't cheap? Spending four and half years investigating one person.

McCann sceptics have this theory that these investigations (Grange / BKA) can’t give up once they get going even when they know they’re on a hiding to nothing.  The theory is, they get so terrified of losing face they can only ever dig themselves into a deeper and deeper hole otherwise there would be riots in the street if the truth ever got out that they had nothing. 

[faithlilly]

Remind me again. Was the evidence (if you can call it that) against the parents anything more than "circumstantial"? Did the parents confess to someone else they had something to do with it? Did the parents fail to offer a corroborated alibi for where they were when MM disappeared? Did the parents have an obvious motive for taking MM? Did the parents have a criminal track record to indicate they might be capable of something like this?

Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.

Possibly, we have no idea of the full extent of the BKA evidence against CB. 

[Mr Gray]

Says the one who claimed that the Germans directed the well searches in Portugal. Did you read that in the papers?

When there are speech marks, that means the person is being quoted, so they did say what is written.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564

Do you really believe that because it's in quotation marks its totally correct. I think thats very naive

Do you realise that police have a defence of absolute privelige re defamation in a criminal cade

[Mr Gray]

Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.

Lol

[Ms Para glider]

Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.

Have cadaver dogs checked any of CB's vehicles and homes? Probably not since their alerts have no evidential value in court.

As for whether anyone has identified CB carrying a child, do you know that they haven't? In terms of the parents, I assume you are referring to Martin Smith's dubious claim about the way Gerry carried his other child from the aeroplane. How many distinctive ways are there to carry a child I ask? This is the same Martin Smith who also says in the PJ files :

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact.

and regarding the man carrying this girl:

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

And as for the etc, etc part of your post. That just means you've run out of any other evidence to cite doesn't it? Thank you for confirming how pathetically weak the evidence pointing to the parents actually is.

[Mr Gray]

Have cadaver dogs checked any of CB's vehicles and homes? Probably not since their alerts have no evidential value in court.

As for whether anyone has identified CB carrying a child, do you know that they haven't? In terms of the parents, I assume you are referring to Martin Smith's dubious claim about the way Gerry carried his other child from the aeroplane. How many distinctive ways are there to carry a child I ask? This is the same Martin Smith whos also says in the PJ files :

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact.

and regarding the man carrying this girl:

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

And as for the etc, etc part of your post. That just means you've run out of any other evidence to cite doesn't it? Thank you for confirming how pathetically weak the evidence pointing to the parents actually is.

According to Grime in his white paper Eddie isn't a reliable cadaver dog

[G-Unit]

Hmm, that’s very trusting of you (and unlike you!) to consider anything reported in quotes in the MSM to be completely accurate.

It's well known what Wolters said, but for those who missed it here is the horse using his mouth;

24:34

"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's well known what Wolters said, but for those who missed it here is the horse using his mouth;

24:34

"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c

So just to be clear - a prosecutor or a policeman is not allowed to say they have evidence that a suspect committed a crime?