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

[Mr Gray]

You can't actually say what is the fact other than correctly quoting HCW's opinion.

I quoted HCWs opinion....I never claimed his opinion was fact. by posting HCW said....its clearly his opinion

If I had poisted ...HCW has enough evidence...that would be posting his opinion as fact

[Robittybob1]

I quoted HCWs opinion....I never claimed his opinion was fact. by posting HCW said....its clearly his opinion

If I had poisted ...HCW has enough evidence...that would be posting his opinion as fact

I agree with that.

[kizzy]

It may be his opinion but it is a fact that he said it..so my post is fact not opinion. Its quite simple

No, all that is - it is a fact he said it .....completely different to its a fact he definitely has evidence.

Like I could say I know GA ...its a fact I said it ... but not proof that I do.

[Mr Gray]

No, all that is - it is a fact he said it .....completely different to its a fact he definitely has evidence.

Like I could say I know GA ...its a fact I said it ... but not proof that I do.

You really haven't followed anything...I've explained  it to Rob and he agrees with me... See above.
If you cannot see I posted fact... That's your problem

[Robittybob1]

You really haven't followed anything...I've explained  it to Rob and he agrees with me... See above.
If you cannot see I posted fact... That's your problem

Kizzy hasn't got a problem either.   She can see you posted fact (the fact that HCW made a claim), but unless you define what the fact is, it is meaningless saying "I posted fact".

[Vertigo Swirl]

Some people's opinions are worth more than others, eg: experienced professionals with full access to ALL the information on a case have opinions that are worth more than those of armchair detectives and internet trolls.   Of course this is just my opinion but if you think I am wrong feel free to demonstrate why.

[G-Unit]

Going back to the original post;

snip/

HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

Did he actually say that? Not according to one source;

The German prosecutor leading the Madeleine McCann investigation last night said he had evidence that she was dead.

However, he warned that there was not enough evidence to charge the main suspect – 43-year-old Christian Brueckner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8400345/Lack-evidence-preventing-Christian-Brueckner-charged-Madeleine-McCanns-murder.html

So he said he had evidence that Madeleine was dead. He also said he had a suspect. He didn't say he had evidence that the suspect committed the murder.

[Mr Gray]

Kizzy hasn't got a problem either.   She can see you posted fact (the fact that HCW made a claim), but unless you define what the fact is, it is meaningless saying "I posted fact".

Kitty accused me of posting opinion as fact.. I didn't
She still thinks I did
I think we all understand the difference between the two so again.. If posters don't understand what a, fact is.. Then there's a problem

[The General]

Going back to the original post;

snip/

HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

Did he actually say that? Not according to one source;

The German prosecutor leading the Madeleine McCann investigation last night said he had evidence that she was dead.

However, he warned that there was not enough evidence to charge the main suspect – 43-year-old Christian Brueckner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8400345/Lack-evidence-preventing-Christian-Brueckner-charged-Madeleine-McCanns-murder.html

So he said he had evidence that Madeleine was dead. He also said he had a suspect. He didn't say he had evidence that the suspect committed the murder.

Looks like he's referring, quite rightly, to those wonderful dogs, as I have stated since June 3rd.
Although he's German, he's not daft. He knows not to go in to bat against Malcolm Marshall without making sure you've got your box firmly attached to your jock strap.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Looks like he's referring, quite rightly, to those wonderful dogs, as I have stated since June 3rd.
Although he's German, he's not daft. He knows not to go in to bat against Malcolm Marshall without making sure you've got your box firmly attache to your jock strap.

Dear oh dear.    If any brainbox here can explain how the dogs can be right and at the same time CB is the chief suspect kindly lay out your argument, until then I reserve the right to scoff and jeer at such nonsense.

[kizzy]

Kizzy hasn't got a problem either.   She can see you posted fact (the fact that HCW made a claim), but unless you define what the fact is, it is meaningless saying "I posted fact".

Thanks Rob 



IMO This is what the germans are more interested in ....the mcc case was just used for maximum publicity to CB.





Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the publication: "With regard to the excavations in Hanover, I would therefore only like to add that the search was not based on a current, specific indication, but rather the result of routine investigative work.


The dig at his former allotment near Hanover, Germany was sparked by an investigation into the disappearance of five-year-old Inga Gehricke, The Sun reported.


The German was convicted of possessing the images but Inga, who disappeared during a family picnic in 2015, was never found.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-investigators-dug-up-22700144



So there was no specific search for something special. Rather, as part of the investigation,

[Mr Gray]

Looks like he's referring, quite rightly, to those wonderful dogs, as I have stated since June 3rd.
Although he's German, he's not daft. He knows not to go in to bat against Malcolm Marshall without making sure you've got your box firmly attached to your jock strap.

There us a very obvious reason why the alerts cannot be the evidence he has of Maddies death

[G-Unit]

Going back to the original post;

snip/

HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie

Did he actually say that? Not according to one source;

The German prosecutor leading the Madeleine McCann investigation last night said he had evidence that she was dead.

However, he warned that there was not enough evidence to charge the main suspect – 43-year-old Christian Brueckner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8400345/Lack-evidence-preventing-Christian-Brueckner-charged-Madeleine-McCanns-murder.html

So he said he had evidence that Madeleine was dead. He also said he had a suspect. He didn't say he had evidence that the suspect committed the murder.

He then changed his tune. He told 60 minutes;

We have very strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her
8:52 at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=640s

In my opinion Wolters' statement above is in breach of Brueckner's human rights as he is suggesting that his suspect is guilty.

Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system. Such presumptions may result in suspects who are innocent being brought before a court to face criminal charges, with a risk of improperly being found guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt

[Brietta]

A man who alleges he had been Brueckner's partner in crime when burgling homes in the Algarve describes Brueckner's expertise in climbing and gaining access to buildings.

He claims Brueckner was nicknamed 'the climber' by fellow miscreants who admired his skills.

Madeleine McCann suspect nicknamed 'The Climber' for 'ability to climb buildings'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-nicknamed-the-22702765

Which might explain Mrs Fenn's burglar entering with ease through what I would have thought was a pretty inaccessible window in her property (now covered by a metal grille) and who would have had no problem whatsoever with the window Amaral has promoted as being 'impossible' since day one.

What is remarkable from Mrs Fenn's statement is that it is lacking entirely in any sort of description of the intruder into her property.  It seems to have been a question totally ignored by whoever took her statement to the police on 20 August 2007.

Quote
When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence.  Pamela Fenn

[Mr Gray]

He then changed his tune. He told 60 minutes;

We have very strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her
8:52 at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=640s

In my opinion Wolters' statement above is in breach of Brueckner's human rights as he is suggesting that his suspect is guilty.

Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system. Such presumptions may result in suspects who are innocent being brought before a court to face criminal charges, with a risk of improperly being found guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt

Do you feel the, same about what amaral said Re the mccanns