So if CB was found guilty of MMs abduction and murder.... Would that completely clear the McCanns?
So if CB was found guilty of MMs abduction and murder.... Would that completely clear the McCanns?Don’t be absurd, of course not. The McCanns will only be cleared when Goncalo Amaral and Eddie say/bark the words “The McCanns have been cleared” and that is never happening.
That would depend on what evidence secured his conviction.
A half hour phone call, some children's swimwear & someone saying that Brueckner said that he dunnit wouldn't be enough imo
You are probably right about this much. But there is almost certainly more to it than that already.
I'm not often right about much, to be fair.
So if CB was found guilty of MMs abduction and murder.... Would that completely clear the McCanns?
Daftness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder imo.
Does being found guilty in a court of law mean someone actually did something? That would mean that the Ciprianos were guilty, for example.
Does being found guilty in a court of law mean someone actually did something? That would mean that the Ciprianos were guilty, for example.Does anything mean anything at the end of the day? Is this reality or just an illusion of reality? If a tree crashes in a forum does a pig flutter its wings? So many questions so little time left to find the answers....
Does being found guilty in a court of law mean someone actually did something? That would mean that the Ciprianos were guilty, for example.But seriously, it's clear by your answer that in your opinion the answer to the question (as I predicted yesterday) is a big fat sceptical NO, yes? Which begs the question how can anyone ever be cleared of any suspicion ever? Suspicion resides with the suspicious and is their problem, and shouldn't be something the suspected should have to worry about if they are innocent in the eyes of the law and know in their own hearts that they are innocent.
Does being found guilty in a court of law mean someone actually did something? That would mean that the Ciprianos were guilty, for example.
I'm surprised you need to ask that question.
The point I'm making is that sceptics make a lot of their claim that the McCanns have not been completely cleared.... Implying some measure of doubt. The point I'm making is that it's an absurd notion... Even if CB was found guilty on overwhelming evidence I'm sure some sceptics would simply not accept it
As you have acknowledged, someone's guilt or innocence is a matter of opinion, not necessarily of fact. I agree with the Supreme Court judges; the McCanns were not cleared by the archiving dispatch as has been claimed. I don't know if they are guilty or innocent of involvement in their daughter's disappearance, but I'm pretty sure they weren't eliminated. If CB is ever tried, I will do my best to understand the evidence and decide what I think about it. Until that happens I can't predict my response.
So if CB was found guilty of MMs abduction and murder.... Would that completely clear the McCanns?
You already have predicted your response. You may not be willing to accept the verdict of the German court.
As regards the SC... It would depend how they define cleared. ...when even a court verdict after a full trial doesn't necessarily mean cleared
It seems even if the mccanns we're tried and found not guilty tjst would not amount to being clrared in some peoples eyes
Cleared, Smeared. Do me a favour. The McCanns weren't even so much as arrested. And after all of the colossal effort put in by The PJ to implicate them, you might think that was enough.
As you have acknowledged, someone's guilt or innocence is a matter of opinion, not necessarily of fact. I agree with the Supreme Court judges; the McCanns were not cleared by the archiving dispatch as has been claimed. I don't know if they are guilty or innocent of involvement in their daughter's disappearance, but I'm pretty sure they weren't eliminated. If CB is ever tried, I will do my best to understand the evidence and decide what I think about it. Until that happens I can't predict my response.
You already have predicted your response. You may not be willing to accept the verdict of the German court.
As regards the SC... It would depend how they define cleared. ...when even a court verdict after a full trial doesn't necessarily mean cleared
It seems even if the mccanns we're tried and found not guilty tjst would not amount to being clrared in some peoples eyes
But they were questioned as arguidos, whereas Brueckner hasn't even had so much as an informal chat with the BKA, which is remarkable when you consider the enormous weight of evidence against him.
So when you boil it down, according to you everyone is guilty of everything anyone wishes to accuse them of whatever the evidence and without setting foot in a court of law where such decisions are normally taken.
Very strange.
I think you are offering your interpretation of what I said. I have declared no-one guilty of anything.
Some people, on the other hand, are happy to assert that the Ciprianos were innocent of murder and Goncalo Amaral was guilty of libel despite the decisions handed down by the courts.
Cleared, Smeared. Do me a favour. The McCanns weren't even so much as arrested. And after all of the colossal effort put in by The PJ to implicate them, you might think that was enough.
A lot of people were questioned as Arguidos. Breuckner wasn't questioned at all. Why was that, I wonder?
It has been left to Germany to sort out and they do things differently. For a start they don't beat up suspects.
I think you are offering your interpretation of what I said. I have declared no-one guilty of anything.
Some people, on the other hand, are happy to assert that the Ciprianos were innocent of murder and Goncalo Amaral was guilty of libel despite the decisions handed down by the courts.
Why should I accept the verdict of a court when others don't?
The SC judges didn't define 'cleared', they responded to the claims of the McCann's lawyer, who said they were;
"already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation" (page 40) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
The judge's reply was;
"let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings."
(page 70) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
I'm not asking to. What I'm pointing out is that is basically impossible to completely cleared of any crime so it's absurd to use this as s stick to beat kkthe McCanns
As regards the archiving report I seem to recall that the SC said it was not evidence of innocence which to me is completely wrong
I'm not asking to. What I'm pointing out is that is basically impossible to completely cleared of any crime so it's absurd to use this as s stick to beat kkthe McCanns
As regards the archiving report I seem to recall that the SC said it was not evidence of innocence which to me is completely wrong
Isabel Duarte claimed that the archiving dispatch cleared the McCanns, so she obviously didn't agree with you.
I expect you have a cite for your recall of what the SC judges said about the archiving report?
If Maddie turned up alive & well & said "a paedo abducted me & my parents had nothing to do with it"
Just like that, McCanns cleared.
If Maddie turned up alive & well & said "a paedo abducted me & my parents had nothing to do with it"
Just like that, McCanns cleared.
If Maddie turned up alive & well & said "a paedo abducted me & my parents had nothing to do with it"
Just like that, McCanns cleared.
If Maddie turned up alive & well & said "a paedo abducted me & my parents had nothing to do with it"You are kidding of course. You would simply say she was too young to remember the evening her parents sold her to the paedo.
Just like that, McCanns cleared.