More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Eleanor]

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous

I'm gobsmacked.  I don't know what to say.

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm gobsmacked.  I don't know what to say.

I do but I’m probably not allowed to say it.

[Venturi Swirl]

According to the ECHR, however, the McCanns were charged with a criminal offence;

"The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence
(Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, § 42; Brusco v. France, §§ 47-50), a suspect questioned about his
involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§ 41-43; Yankov
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 23; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, §§ 30-31) and a person who has been
questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39),
irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41) as
well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in
domestic law (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC],
§ 44) could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of
Article 6 of the Convention.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf

Charged but not tried.

What were the McCanns charged with and please provide the appropriate cites, ta.

[Eleanor]

What were the McCanns charged with and please provide the appropriate cites, ta.

Very restrained.  Thank you.

[Venturi Swirl]

Very restrained.  Thank you.

I haven’t had a warning for weeks, I’m obviously not trying hard enough.

[G-Unit]

What were the McCanns charged with and please provide the appropriate cites, ta.

They weren't charged according to Portuguese law, but the ECHR has different criteria, as my quote demonstrated. It's definition of 'charged with a criminal offence' includes those who are questioned on suspicion.

[Mr Gray]

They weren't charged according to Portuguese law, but the ECHR has different criteria, as my quote demonstrated. It's definition of 'charged with a criminal offence' includes those who are questioned on suspicion.

I thiink you need to read it again... It says regarded as charged... Not charged.

The POI means someone is regarded as innocent.. Not that they are innocent.

[Venturi Swirl]

They weren't charged according to Portuguese law, but the ECHR has different criteria, as my quote demonstrated. It's definition of 'charged with a criminal offence' includes those who are questioned on suspicion.

So the ECHR regards those who have been charged no differently to those who have been questioned, from a POI perspective- so what?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I never said it wasn't... But we have established its possible to know someone is guilty without being able to prove it.
If Wolters is in the same position with CB then it is significant. We need to wsit until we know what his evidence is.

All we established is that you were prepared to accept a confession as confirmation of a crime. Thankfully the concept of justice in the UK, Germany, and Portugal have much more robust standards for making a judgement on an aggrieved party attempting to establish "fact".

You don't "know with 100% certainty" that the person stole from you. You believe they did - with very reasonable grounds, imo.

If Wolters has evidence that absolutely proves MM is dead and evidence that proves the death was caused by CB then it is imperative that this evidence is heard in a criminal court. If he does not have sufficient evidence then he can not "know" for sure that CB is guilty of murdering Madeleine McCann.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

It is just another conspiracy theory amongst so many other conspiracy theories.  Didn't you know the world is flat?

Ignorance - malevolence - and the inexplicable urge to 'organise' seems to power this one.  It is their 'arguments' that are stupid.  What it is that drives them to do what they do is beyond my comprehension.

None more so than when the rights of the parents of a missing child are weighed against the rights of a prolific criminal - burglar - rapist - paedophile, the rights of the latter reign supreme.

Just check out the number of 'hate' sites set up to direct and promulgate 'the message' and wonder.

That CB is involved is also currently just another [conspiracy] theory.

In terms of legal rights both the doctor with no criminal record and the rapist / paedophile / burglar have an equal right to due legal process. I'd like to believe that most people on a miscarriage of justice forum are aware of this basic tenet of criminal law.

[Brietta]

That CB is involved is also currently just another [conspiracy] theory.

In terms of legal rights both the doctor with no criminal record and the rapist / paedophile / burglar have an equal right to due legal process. I'd like to believe that most people on a miscarriage of justice forum are aware of this basic tenet of criminal law.

Nonsense! Currently Brueckner is the police prime suspect in the case of a missing child.

Currently the rapist / paedophile / burglar is serving out his conviction in a German prison having undergone due process of the law and been found guilty of torture and rape and criminal offences against children.

He has neither been questioned, charged or tried for the offence for which he is the prime suspect and as a result is entitled to the presumption of innocence in that case irrespective of his proven guilt of rape/ torture and paedophilia in those cases for which he has been tried and found guilty.

The problem arises when members of a Justice Forum deny the presumption of innocence to individuals who having undergone exhaustive investigation have never been charged or tried for any offence.

Therein lies the injustice perpetrated by those on an 'injustice forum' who might or might not understand 'this basic tenet of criminal law' but who most certainly have no understanding of the respect due to victims of criminals such as Brueckner.

[G-Unit]

Nonsense! Currently Brueckner is the police prime suspect in the case of a missing child.

Currently the rapist / paedophile / burglar is serving out his conviction in a German prison having undergone due process of the law and been found guilty of torture and rape and criminal offences against children.

He has neither been questioned, charged or tried for the offence for which he is the prime suspect and as a result is entitled to the presumption of innocence in that case irrespective of his proven guilt of rape/ torture and paedophilia in those cases for which he has been tried and found guilty.

The problem arises when members of a Justice Forum deny the presumption of innocence to individuals who having undergone exhaustive investigation have never been charged or tried for any offence.

Therein lies the injustice perpetrated by those on an 'injustice forum' who might or might not understand 'this basic tenet of criminal law' but who most certainly have no understanding of the respect due to victims of criminals such as Brueckner.

As far as I know at this moment no-one has denied anyone the presumption of innocence. The situation is that the McCanns have accused Portugal of doing so, but no decision has been declared by the ECHR.

In CB's case the prosecutor may have interferred with his right under Article 6 of his right to a fair trial. If the prosecutor ever finds enough evidence to charge him, of course.

[Venturi Swirl]

All we established is that you were prepared to accept a confession as confirmation of a crime. Thankfully the concept of justice in the UK, Germany, and Portugal have much more robust standards for making a judgement on an aggrieved party attempting to establish "fact".

You don't "know with 100% certainty" that the person stole from you. You believe they did - with very reasonable grounds, imo.

If Wolters has evidence that absolutely proves MM is dead and evidence that proves the death was caused by CB then it is imperative that this evidence is heard in a criminal court. If he does not have sufficient evidence then he can not "know" for sure that CB is guilty of murdering Madeleine McCann.

Not in Portugal.  There two people (one of whom was definitely tortured) were imprisoned for murder on the strength of nothing more than a confession.   Do you have a problem with the Cipriano verdict?  I keep asking and you keep ignoring, I wonder why….

[Venturi Swirl]

As far as I know at this moment no-one has denied anyone the presumption of innocence. The situation is that the McCanns have accused Portugal of doing so, but no decision has been declared by the ECHR.

In CB's case the prosecutor may have interferred with his right under Article 6 of his right to a fair trial. If the prosecutor ever finds enough evidence to charge him, of course.

Do you think the McCanns would have received a fair trial?

[Mr Gray]

All we established is that you were prepared to accept a confession as confirmation of a crime. Thankfully the concept of justice in the UK, Germany, and Portugal have much more robust standards for making a judgement on an aggrieved party attempting to establish "fact".

You don't "know with 100% certainty" that the person stole from you. You believe they did - with very reasonable grounds, imo.

If Wolters has evidence that absolutely proves MM is dead and evidence that proves the death was caused by CB then it is imperative that this evidence is heard in a criminal court. If he does not have sufficient evidence then he can not "know" for sure that CB is guilty of murdering Madeleine McCann.

I dont accept a confession as proof of guilt. Portugal doeas as seen the Cipriano case. I have a lot more evidence and Im certain of her guilt.

You are drawing conclusions without knowing all the facts. Like Wolters... Im sure if I told you what evidence I have you would agree with me.

I dont know if CB is guilty but I dont think Wolters would make the claims he has if he doesnt have the evidence. Sceptics seem to want to write Wolters off without hearing his evidence... Id rather wait and see