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

[Brietta]

Good question,what chance a fair trial? I expect some one will blame Amaral,he never named any one.

Of course not :))

Just as he didn't publicise a faked image of Bruekner with a dread lock hairstyle when in reality Bruekner according to dateable video footage had a short hairstyle at the time in question.

[The General]

Of course not :))

Just as he didn't publicise a faked image of Bruekner with a dread lock hairstyle when in reality Bruekner according to dateable video footage had a short hairstyle at the time in question.

Didn't happen, babes.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Didn't happen, babes.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.7650

[Brietta]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the German investigation is confident regarding the evidence they have collected on their chief suspect Brueckner.

Having worked at it systematically to build a full picture they have eliminated any thought that there is anything comparable with Madeleine's parents and this man whose lawyer doesn't even attempt to refute that Brueckner made a living from burglary.
Snip
Quizzed about reports Breuckner used to live off the proceeds of burglaries he committed on the Algarve, he admitted: 'It's not something that surprises me.

'As his lawyer it wouldn't surprise me if he was convicted for these burglaries.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749531/Prosecutor-investigating-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-says-suggests-alive.html

Current circumstances and information in the public domain make a nonsense of Amaral's always ludicrous and in my opinion the verging on insanity claim that her parents killed Madeleine with an overdose of Calpol and then hid her remains.
The path of the German investigation alone refutes that.  But there appear to be diehards who just cannot let go of long discredited speculation as epitomised in the lower than low - in my opinion - current thread title.

Snip
German authorities say there are 'many pieces' of the Madeleine McCann 'puzzle' pointing towards suspect Christian Brueckner.

Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters admitted there still was no 'smoking gun' evidence enabling charges to be brought against the 43-year-old paedophile over the British youngster's disappearance.

But he insisted in an interview on Portuguese state broadcaster RTP, referring to Brueckner only by his first name and initial of his surname: 'All I can say is this is like a puzzle and there are many pieces that lead us to believe Christian B is responsible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749531/Prosecutor-investigating-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-says-suggests-alive.html

[G-Unit]

That elusive piece of the jigsaw has defeated all attempts to find it. Perhaps it's because the picture they're trying to complete is the wrong one.

[faithlilly]

That elusive piece of the jigsaw has defeated all attempts to find it. Perhaps it's because the picture they're trying to complete is the wrong one.

The problem is that Wolter’s witnesses are as dodgy as Brueckner and would be absolutely annihilated on the stand if it ever came to court.

[Mr Gray]

The problem is that Wolter’s witnesses are as dodgy as Brueckner and would be absolutely annihilated on the stand if it ever came to court.

In your opinion

Have you heard of the Michael Stone case.  Convicted on the testimony of another criminal

[Vertigo Swirl]

That elusive piece of the jigsaw has defeated all attempts to find it. Perhaps it's because the picture they're trying to complete is the wrong one.

And hows the jigsaw puzzle called “Parents Dunnit” coming along after 13+ years?

[Eleanor]

Dear God, preserve me from despair.  Although it isn't all that serious at the moment as it happens.

Brueckner?  Who knows?  He would have to be a total fool to say anything just now.  But do carry on supporting his right to Innocence.

It is the fact that The McCanns have always been denied this right that might somewhat offend me.  This is hypocrisy in the extreme.

[faithlilly]

In your opinion

Have you heard of the Michael Stone case.  Convicted on the testimony of another criminal

And that’s why most people who know anything about the case think he is innocent.

[Mr Gray]

And that’s why most people who know anything about the case think he is innocent.

So the witness was not laughed out of court
I expect there to be a lot more evidence  against Breukner

[faithlilly]

Dear God, preserve me from despair.  Although it isn't all that serious at the moment as it happens.

Brueckner?  Who knows?  He would have to be a total fool to say anything just now.  But do carry on supporting his right to Innocence.

It is the fact that The McCanns have always been denied this right that might somewhat offend me.  This is hypocrisy in the extreme.

The problem is that we know the evidence against that parents, we have no idea what ties Brueckner to the case and after nearly four months Wolter doesn’t appear too keen on sharing.

[Mr Gray]

The problem is that we know the evidence against that parents, we have no idea what ties Brueckner to the case and after nearly four months Wolter doesn’t appear too keen on sharing.

We know there is no real evidence  against the parents... We know some of the evidence against breukner

[Vertigo Swirl]

So the witness was not laughed out of court
I expect there to be a lot more evidence  against Breukner

Bruckner has already been found guilty of another crime on the strength largely of evidence from one of his dodgy mates, so clearly the idea that such a witness would be “annihilated” is nonsense.

[G-Unit]

Dear God, preserve me from despair.  Although it isn't all that serious at the moment as it happens.

Brueckner?  Who knows?  He would have to be a total fool to say anything just now.  But do carry on supporting his right to Innocence.

It is the fact that The McCanns have always been denied this right that might somewhat offend me.  This is hypocrisy in the extreme.

It's opinion that the McCanns were denied their right to the presumption of innocence, not a proven fact in any court.