Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Brietta]

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

What he says he has ..and what he has are two different things.

I believe he has hoped for more credable evidence and hasn't got it.

Isnt it strange how they have known about CB for three years, yet only took interest it seems when they thought CB could get early release.

It doesn't matter how credible the evidence is it is whether or not it or all the components add up to proof. 
I don't think even a confession is sufficient if one considers the case of Sture Ragnar Bergwall who was known as Thomas Quick https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+the+serial+killer&rlz=1C1CHBH_en-GBGB802GB802&oq=quick+the+serial+killer&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l7.12808j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It is going to be a long drawn out process either to eliminate or find sufficient evidence to present a case strong enough to convict Brueckner.
Who I remind you has been around since 2007 but whose name arose in Germany and Britain only after the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.

The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof.  In my opinion establishing the proof - or not as the case may be - is the hardest part of the job.  But I think the determination to get it is evident and I wish them every good fortune in the pursuit of the truth.

They haven't yet spoken to Brueckner so obviously there is no pressure on them to do so.  But when they do the result might be interesting.

[Mr Gray]

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

What he says he has ..and what he has are two different things.

I believe he has hoped for more credable evidence and hasn't got it.

Isnt it strange how they have known about CB for three years, yet only took interest it seems when they thought CB could get early release.

All opinion as fact

[kizzy]

It doesn't matter how credible the evidence is it is whether or not it or all the components add up to proof. 
I don't think even a confession is sufficient if one considers the case of Sture Ragnar Bergwall who was known as Thomas Quick https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+the+serial+killer&rlz=1C1CHBH_en-GBGB802GB802&oq=quick+the+serial+killer&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l7.12808j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It is going to be a long drawn out process either to eliminate or find sufficient evidence to present a case strong enough to convict Brueckner.
Who I remind you has been around since 2007 but whose name arose in Germany and Britain only after the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.

The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof.  In my opinion establishing the proof - or not as the case may be - is the hardest part of the job.  But I think the determination to get it is evident and I wish them every good fortune in the pursuit of the truth.

They haven't yet spoken to Brueckner so obviously there is no pressure on them to do so.  But when they do the result might be interesting.

The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof

So circumstantial evidence is what HCW has.. it seems
.

Well, I believe the same could be said about the mcs.....only more circumstantial with them ..they also have not been cleared of any involvement.

That was my point when doing this thread.

[kizzy]

All opinion as fact

Well isnt what you wrote the same....as if that is a fact

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

[Mr Gray]

The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof

So circumstantial evidence is what HCW has.. it seems
.

Well, I believe the same could be said about the mcs.....only more circumstantial with them ..they also have not been cleared of any involvement.

That was my point when doing this thread.

Rowley said the mccanns have been ruled out..
The SC didn't say the mccanns have not been cleared

[Mr Gray]

Well isnt what you wrote the same....as if that is a fact

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

What I wrote is a fact... Yours is opinion

[kizzy]

What I wrote is a fact... Yours is opinion

How do you know HCW has enough evidence Maddie is dead......just because he said it.

Can you prove he has evidence ....if not its only your opinion he has.

[Mr Gray]

How do you know HCW has enough evidence Maddie is dead......just because he said it.

Can you prove he has evidence ....if not its only your opinion he has.

i'm quite precise as to what I post...I never said he had such evidence...as i said to gunit....you need to read my post again...my post is fact...not opinion

[Robittybob1]

How do you know HCW has enough evidence Maddie is dead......just because he said it.

Can you prove he has evidence ....if not its only your opinion he has.

I'd say Davel is taking HCW at face value.  What HCW has said, he has been reported as saying these things, and hence can be quoted as a fact that he has said it.   Whether what he has said is factually true is another matter.

[kizzy]

i'm quite precise as to what I post...I never said he had such evidence...as i said to gunit....you need to read my post again...my post is fact...not opinion

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

How is that factual when it has only been said by HCW

Can we count all that GA says then as factual....at least his book is from police files.

[Mr Gray]

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

How is that factual when it has only been said by HCW

Can we count all that GA says then as factual....at least his book is from police files.

see what rob posted above..

HCW claims he has evidence...that is  a fact

[Mr Gray]

I'd say Davel is taking HCW at face value.  What HCW has said, he has been reported as saying these things, and hence can be quoted as a fact that he has said it.   Whether what he has said is factually true is another matter.

Im reporting factually what he has said...I'm not taking him at face value.

My opinion is hes got something quite significant

[Robittybob1]

The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

How is that factual when it has only been said by HCW

Can we count all that GA says then as factual....at least his book is from police files.

When talking about GA "What GA has said, he has been reported as saying these things, and hence can be quoted as a fact that he has said it.   Whether what GA has said is factually true is another matter.

I tend to not believe what GA says as a rule.

[Robittybob1]

Im reporting factually what he has said...I'm not taking him at face value.

My opinion is hes got something quite significant

OK face value may not be the right expression.  You don't say he is a liar.  So you must think he is telling something like the truth. 

[Mr Gray]

OK face value may not be the right expression.  You don't say he is a liar.  So you must think he is telling something like the truth.

he seems to me to be very professional. I therefore dont think he would say such a thing if he didnt have something.