More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[G-Unit]

Do you think the McCanns would have received a fair trial?

I don't know. Do you think they wouldn't have?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know. Do you think they wouldn't have?

If the premise is that someone in a position of authority (and though Amaral may have resigned when he published his book and did his video he was nevertheless world famous as the cop on the McCann case and therefore an authoritative figure) endangers a fair trial by publicly accusing another of a heinous crime, then very evidently the McCanns would not have received one.  I wish for once you would answer honestly, is it too much to ask?

[Eleanor]

Where have all the Sceptics gone?  Long time passing.

[G-Unit]

I dont accept a confession as proof of guilt. Portugal doeas as seen the Cipriano case. I have a lot more evidence and Im certain of her guilt.

You are drawing conclusions without knowing all the facts. Like Wolters... Im sure if I told you what evidence I have you would agree with me.

I dont know if CB is guilty but I dont think Wolters would make the claims he has if he doesnt have the evidence. Sceptics seem to want to write Wolters off without hearing his evidence... Id rather wait and see

Your faith in Wolters is quite touching, but do try to remember that whatever evidence he has it isn't, on his own admission, good enough to lay charges let alone secure a guilty verdict in a court of law. Therefore it isn't acceptable as the basis of a public statement suggesting a suspect is guilty.

[Mr Gray]

Your faith in Wolters is quite touching, but do try to remember that whatever evidence he has it isn't, on his own admission, good enough to lay charges let alone secure a guilty verdict in a court of law. Therefore it isn't acceptable as the basis of a public statement suggesting a suspect is guilty.

I dont think Wolters would say what he has without strong evidence. Ive demonstrated its possible to know someone is guilty without being able to prove it. Im more confident he has proof Maddie is dead at the hands of an abductor.

As regards faith... Ive see nothing to suggest Wolters is a liar or fantasist... Unlike those with blind faith in Amaral

[Vertigo Swirl]

Where have all the Sceptics gone?  Long time passing.

All died of boredom I expect (or of a broken-heart because the McCanns aren't doing porridge in a s..mmy Portuguese jail).

[Eleanor]

All died of boredom I expect (or of a broken-heart because the McCanns aren't doing porridge in a s..mmy Portuguese jail).

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

[Mr Gray]

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

Youve got me singing

[G-Unit]

If the premise is that someone in a position of authority (and though Amaral may have resigned when he published his book and did his video he was nevertheless world famous as the cop on the McCann case and therefore an authoritative figure) endangers a fair trial by publicly accusing another of a heinous crime, then very evidently the McCanns would not have received one.  I wish for once you would answer honestly, is it too much to ask?

Unfortunately you tend to set the terms when you ask a question. For example;

Where was it announced that Amaral was in a position of authority, world famous and an authoritative figure? They sound to me like your personal opinions rather than facts.

Secondly, did he publicly accuse the McCanns of committing a heinous (your opinion) crime?

There is another way of looking at things;

The defendant Goncalo Amaral...states, synthetically, that the book was written mainly to defend his personal and professional honour, that the claimants were the ones who breached the reserve of their private life and the rights to image and good name, and that the book and the documentary describe the facts contained in the investigation.
page 7 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

He told the Appeal Court;

The book, documentary and interview involved in the autos have as main motivation the defence of Gonçalo Amaral's personal and professional honour.

The respective contents (book, DVD, interview) do not offend any of the claimants' fundamental rights,

          . neither their privacy, such as articles 80 (3) and 81 (4) of the CC (Civil Code) define it and describe its effects, insofar as they themselves voluntarily limited / alienated such right by multiplying interviews and interventions in the media organs.

               . nor, in the same way, their image and reputation, as they themselves placed the matter in the public area and gave it a worldwide celebrity, opening the doors to all opinions, even opposing views.

              . nor, furthermore, all the guarantees of a criminal procedure, namely a fair investigation and the right to liberty and safety (5), as the respective contents of the book, documentary and interview describe the facts included in the investigation.
page 1 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

[Eleanor]

Youve got me singing

Sorry about that.  We'll have it stuck in our heads for the rest of the day.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Unfortunately you tend to set the terms when you ask a question. For example;

Where was it announced that Amaral was in a position of authority, world famous and an authoritative figure? They sound to me like your personal opinions rather than facts.

Secondly, did he publicly accuse the McCanns of committing a heinous (your opinion) crime?

There is another way of looking at things;

The defendant Goncalo Amaral...states, synthetically, that the book was written mainly to defend his personal and professional honour, that the claimants were the ones who breached the reserve of their private life and the rights to image and good name, and that the book and the documentary describe the facts contained in the investigation.
page 7 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

He told the Appeal Court;

The book, documentary and interview involved in the autos have as main motivation the defence of Gonçalo Amaral's personal and professional honour.

The respective contents (book, DVD, interview) do not offend any of the claimants' fundamental rights,

          . neither their privacy, such as articles 80 (3) and 81 (4) of the CC (Civil Code) define it and describe its effects, insofar as they themselves voluntarily limited / alienated such right by multiplying interviews and interventions in the media organs.

               . nor, in the same way, their image and reputation, as they themselves placed the matter in the public area and gave it a worldwide celebrity, opening the doors to all opinions, even opposing views.

              . nor, furthermore, all the guarantees of a criminal procedure, namely a fair investigation and the right to liberty and safety (5), as the respective contents of the book, documentary and interview describe the facts included in the investigation.
page 1 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

YOu're right - there was no public proclamation that Amaral was an authority on the case - but it's self evident is it not?  He certainly sets himself up as one in his book, and in his media interviews.  He became the most (in)famous Portuguese policeman in the world off the back of the case (name another one as well known by the general public), so I don't think it is far fetched (or even simply my opinion) to say that Amaral who had been in a position of authority as far as the case was concerned, only got a publishing deal on the strength of that authority - I mean, if you'd written a book about the investigation I doubt any publisher would have been interested.  I think you are deflecting by claiming it is only my opinion that Amaral was a well-known authority on the case, I mean COME ON!!!!
And look at it any which way you like - Amaral has made a career out of claiming that Madeleine was not abducted, that she died in an accident in the apartment and that her death was covered up.  DOubtless you don't see that as accusing the parents, but that's because it suits you to twist things to fit your argument.  You're a wriggler and no mistake!

Here's a couple of questions for you - what factors influence whether or not someone receives a fair trial?  What factors specifically might influence a trial unfairly in the case of CB if he is ever put before a judge?

[Brietta]

As far as I know at this moment no-one has denied anyone the presumption of innocence. The situation is that the McCanns have accused Portugal of doing so, but no decision has been declared by the ECHR.

In CB's case the prosecutor may have interferred with his right under Article 6 of his right to a fair trial. If the prosecutor ever finds enough evidence to charge him, of course.

Did the McCann's come up with the super wheeze of wheeching the Portuguese State into the European Court of Human Rights on a whim just for the fun of it, which seems to be your inference.

In Brueckner's case we have a suspect who has been under investigation for a number of years ... please do tell in which way a legitimate evidence based investigation of a criminal is an infringement of his human rights?

He has already tried the procedural route to complain about his arrest (note, not his innocence) and got short shrift with that.
What makes you think he will have any better luck if he tries the same with Wolters who has stuck to the letter of the law.

It was Amaral who breached the confidentiality of police forces to set the media loose on Brueckner's trail in the first instance; Amaral who then backtracked and publicised a false description of Brueckner for reasons best known to himself.

[Brietta]

Where have all the Sceptics gone?  Long time passing.

I think they may be having a long and thoughtful look at the present situation and the path which has led to where we are and managed to work out what two + two equals.

Maybe they are looking with a less jaundiced eye at fourteen years of vitriol spewed without let up on individuals whose phone records before and after Madeleine's disappearance are scrutinised to the nth degree while no-one bothered with that of known criminals.

I wonder if the light is beginning to dawn.

[Eleanor]

I think they may be having a long and thoughtful look at the present situation and the path which has led to where we are and managed to work out what two + two equals.

Maybe they are looking with a less jaundiced eye at fourteen years of vitriol spewed without let up on individuals whose phone records before and after Madeleine's disappearance are scrutinised to the nth degree while no-one bothered with that of known criminals.

I wonder if the light is beginning to dawn.

If only you are right.  But sadly I don't think so.

[G-Unit]

Did the McCann's come up with the super wheeze of wheeching the Portuguese State into the European Court of Human Rights on a whim just for the fun of it, which seems to be your inference.

In Brueckner's case we have a suspect who has been under investigation for a number of years ... please do tell in which way a legitimate evidence based investigation of a criminal is an infringement of his human rights?

He has already tried the procedural route to complain about his arrest (note, not his innocence) and got short shrift with that.
What makes you think he will have any better luck if he tries the same with Wolters who has stuck to the letter of the law.

It was Amaral who breached the confidentiality of police forces to set the media loose on Brueckner's trail in the first instance; Amaral who then backtracked and publicised a false description of Brueckner for reasons best known to himself.

Your opinion of my 'inferences' are just that, your opinion. I simply stated the facts.

I haven't claimed that investigating Brueckner was an 'infringement of his human rights', so unless you have a cite showing I said that it's not something I feel the need to answer.

What I have said is that Wolters may have infringed Bruckner's rights under Article 6 of the ECHR by declaring him guilty of murder before he has been tried in a court of law.