New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[Anthro]

Well one of them was apparently in a Greek jail so he hadn't moved on very far, if at all.

He is out of jail, so probably he has moved on. How far? I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Mr Gray]

He is out of jail, so probably he has moved on. How far? I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think what some fail to grasp is that police informers play a massive role in solving crime and the majority of these informers are criminals

[barrier]

I think what some fail to grasp is that police informers play a massive role in solving crime and the majority of these informers are criminals

Yep, lie down with dogs and you'll get fleas.

[Mr Gray]

I think it needs to be borne in mind that the testimonies of CBs friends seem to have been accepted by the German court in the rape case so that would prove the court found them credible. ... .and thats what counts... Not the opinion of posters here.

[faithlilly]

I think it needs to be borne in mind that the testimonies of CBs friends seem to have been accepted by the German court in the rape case so that would prove the court found them credible. ... .and thats what counts... Not the opinion of posters here.

The court in the Michael Stone case accepted the testimony of informers. How did that go?

[Eleanor]

The court in the Michael Stone case accepted the testimony of informers. How did that go?

I don't know.  How did it go?

[Mr Gray]

The court in the Michael Stone case accepted the testimony of informers. How did that go?

Was there absolutely no other evidence

[faithlilly]

I don't know.  How did it go?

He got convicted but later the witnesses recanted their testimony.

There was no forensic or any other evidence.

http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/

[faithlilly]

Was there absolutely no other evidence

None that tied Stone to the crime.

[Brietta]

Was there absolutely no other evidence

As a result of the seriousness of one witness admitting to perjury ...
Snip
There was no identification evidence linking him to the scene. At best the evidence disclosed a knowledge of the area obtained while he stayed in a children's home not very far away in east Kent, a broad consistency with someone seen driving nearby and a failure to provide an alibi."

He told the court that Thompson had provided crucial support for Daley but that Thompson's account was now "wholly unreliable".

He said that during the trial all had "accepted the frailties of the crown case" and added: "The first ground of appeal is and always has been that Thompson has become completely discredited as a witness as he has now conceded and therefore the jury must have been quite inadvertently misled at trial into relying upon his evidence to provide support for that given by Daley."

Mr Clegg did not give the other grounds for appeal because Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Maurice Kay and Mrs Justice Heather Hallet decided to cut short proceedings because they concluded that the appeal "must succeed" on the first ground alone.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/07/audreygillan


Two points of relevance to Madeleine McCann's case and this one are ...

• the absolute seriousness of the crime of perjury which alone was enough to bring the Crown's case down is in my opinion bad and bad enough when committed by a known criminal but is intolerable when proved against a high ranking police officer as Amaral was.
• although it was accepted at trial that Michael Stone could have been familiar with the crime scene area having lived in a children's home 'not very far away' it is possible that assumption could have been entirely wrong.
  Whereas there is absolutely no doubt that Brueckner was entirely familiar with Praia da Luz in particular and the Algarve in general having lived and worked there both legitimately and as a criminal

The evidence provided by Brueckner's criminal friend was not solely reliant on his word alone; it was validated when it corroborated the evidence given by the woman he had tortured and raped and was sufficient to convict him of the crime.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He got convicted but later the witnesses recanted their testimony.

There was no forensic or any other evidence.

http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/

The lack of forensic evidence in the Cipriano case didn't seem to bother you one bit, and that involved torture and later retracted confessions. 

[Mr Gray]

Snip
There was no identification evidence linking him to the scene. At best the evidence disclosed a knowledge of the area obtained while he stayed in a children's home not very far away in east Kent, a broad consistency with someone seen driving nearby and a failure to provide an alibi."

So failure to provide an alibi can be important as I have suggested

[Eleanor]

Snip
There was no identification evidence linking him to the scene. At best the evidence disclosed a knowledge of the area obtained while he stayed in a children's home not very far away in east Kent, a broad consistency with someone seen driving nearby and a failure to provide an alibi."

So failure to provide an alibi can be important as I have suggested

More so, depending on what Brueckner does or doesn't have to say;

[G-Unit]

Snip
There was no identification evidence linking him to the scene. At best the evidence disclosed a knowledge of the area obtained while he stayed in a children's home not very far away in east Kent, a broad consistency with someone seen driving nearby and a failure to provide an alibi."

So failure to provide an alibi can be important as I have suggested

Failure to provide an alibi was seen as important because the evidence was purely circumstantial.

[Mr Gray]

Failure to provide an alibi was seen as important because the evidence was purely circumstantial.

It doesn't change the fact that failure to provide an alibi was seen to be important.