CB has been declared ‘arguido’ by the PJ.

[The General]

CB was convicted of rape.. A pubic hair found in his bed.. Some sceptics are claiming him to be innocent.
If a CB pubic hair had been found in Maddie's bed... Perhaps you would come up with an innocent explanation

We need to wait till Wolters reveals his evidence

But he's stated it's not forensic, so no pubes for you.
Again, he's stated himself his evidence is circumstantial, so no physical articles.
He's also stated that there are no forensics. So you can wait for the evidence, but by drip feeding the press over the last 22 months he's actually shown his hand.

[Mr Gray]

But he's stated it's not forensic, so no pubes for you.
Again, he's stated himself his evidence is circumstantial, so no physical articles.
He's also stated that there are no forensics. So you can wait for the evidence, but by drip feeding the press over the last 22 months he's actually shown his hand.

whatever he has you would not accept it....fibres could be classed as circumstantial. ..they do not on their own prove maddies presence in that vehicle...and are therefore circumstantial

[Wonderfulspam]

whatever he has you would not accept it....fibres could be classed as circumstantial. ..they do not on their own prove maddies presence in that vehicle...and are therefore circumstantial

Well he doesn't have any fibres  so I wouldn't waste time thinking about it if I were you.

[The General]

whatever he has you would not accept it....fibres could be classed as circumstantial. ..they do not on their own prove maddies presence in that vehicle...and are therefore circumstantial

You're redefining global classifications of evidence now?
Fibres are physical forensic evidence. Their presence is a secondary element that is circumstantial, but the actual fibres themselves are forensic.
Spin it how you like, HCW has told us he has no forensic evidence - and fibres would be exactly that.

[Mr Gray]

You're redefining global classifications of evidence now?
Fibres are physical forensic evidence. Their presence is a secondary element that is circumstantial, but the actual fibres themselves are forensic.
Spin it how you like, HCW has told us he has no forensic evidence - and fibres would be exactly that.

I would say there is a level of interpretation...fibres may well be classed as forensic but they are also circumstantial..
we need to wait for clarification

[Vertigo Swirl]

Would text written in his own handwriting detailing what he did to Madeleine be considered forensic?  No.  Would it be circumstantial?  Yes.  Would it be evidence he did it?  Yes.  Would it be proof?  No.  Would it be enough to convince a prosecutor he murdered Madeleine?  Possibly - depends how the written account may be corroborated by other evidence. 

[barrier]

So its alleged that there maybe some fibres, how can they possibly match up unless of course the (incredibly useless to some ) collected fibres from Madeleines bed.

[jassi]

So its alleged that there maybe some fibres, how can they possibly match up unless of course the (incredibly useless to some ) collected fibres from Madeleines bed.

Now don't let practicality get in the way of a bit of speculation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It was the 15th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance yesterday and when all this McCann have prominence yet not a word on any of the major news channels about what, if true, would be one of the biggest breakthroughs in those 15 years, fibres linking Brueckner to Madeleine….fibres for which there could be no innocent explanation.

Why the media silence, apart from the s..m, do you think?

FYI it’s now front page news of the Times.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So its alleged that there maybe some fibres, how can they possibly match up unless of course the (incredibly useless to some ) collected fibres from Madeleines bed.

They know the PJs Madeleine was wearing so they could match the fibres to an identical pair. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

It was the 15th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance yesterday and when all this McCann have prominence yet not a word on any of the major news channels about what, if true, would be one of the biggest breakthroughs in those 15 years, fibres linking Brueckner to Madeleine….fibres for which there could be no innocent explanation.

Why the media silence, apart from the s..m, do you think?

And if the Times isn’t to your liking then perhaps this will be more up your street…

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/04/some-new-evidence-found-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner

Nothing in the Socialist Worker yet though…

[barrier]

They know the PJs Madeleine was wearing so they could match the fibres to an identical pair.

15 yrs down the line, seriously !!

Interestingly Wolters told SF he's sure his suspect killed Madeleine but he wouldn't commit to him having kidnapped her.

[barrier]

They know the PJs Madeleine was wearing so they could match the fibres to an identical pair.

To find fibres a forensics lab would be involved ,Wolters says they have not found any forensics,

[Vertigo Swirl]

15 yrs down the line, seriously !!

Interestingly Wolters told SF he's sure his suspect killed Madeleine but he wouldn't commit to him having kidnapped her.

Yes, seriously. 

[Carana]

CB was convicted of rape.. A pubic hair found in his bed.. Some sceptics are claiming him to be innocent.
If a CB pubic hair had been found in Maddie's bed... Perhaps you would come up with an innocent explanation

We need to wait till Wolters reveals his evidence

If the PT forensic police ever find the 6 that went AWOL between when they were photographed on her bed and the lab, which never received them... .