Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Eleanor]

Insufficient (not 'no') evidence.

The very same thing.  If it isn't admissable In Court then it isn't Evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Insufficient (not 'no') evidence.

So the open window is evidence of abduction.

And lots of evidence against CB

[Eleanor]

So the open window is evidence of abduction.

And lots of evidence against CB

Don't be silly.  They don't want to know about all of that mountainous pile of old rubbish.

[Wonderfulspam]

So the open window is evidence of abduction.

And lots of evidence against CB

Yes, the open window was described by Kate. That's her evidence of abduction. CB confessed to Busching, that's the evidence against him, and Martin Smith believed he saw Gerry. That's his evidence against Gerry.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There's evidence that Madeleine travelled the world after her disappearance as hundreds if not thousands of people claim (some with 100% certainty) to have seen her.  Are these eye witness statements not at least as important as Martin Smith's? 

[Eleanor]

There's evidence that Madeleine travelled the world after her disappearance as hundreds if not thousands of people claim (some with 100% certainty) to have seen her.  Are these eye witness statements not at least as important as Martin Smith's?

Absolutely.  And probably more so.  They actually know that they saw Madeleine.  So wheel that lot into Court.

[Wonderfulspam]

Absolutely.  And probably more so.  They actually know that they saw Madeleine.  So wheel that lot into Court.

Yes, if I was Brueckner's lawyer I'd be introducing into evidence some 8000 sightings of a living Maddie. Plenty for Wolters to get through.

[Eleanor]

Yes, if I was Brueckner's lawyer I'd be introducing into evidence some 8000 sightings of a living Maddie. Plenty for Wolters to get through.

All Wolters has to do is to produce Evidence that Brueckner Abducted Madeleine.

[John]

All Wolters has to do is to produce Evidence that Brueckner Abducted Madeleine.

His failure to provide such evidence to the child's parents says it all imo.

Put yourself in the McCann's shoes for a moment. If this was your child wouldn't you want to know if she is dead or alive?

Wolters refusal to provide such information to Kate and Gerry is indicative that he is has no credibility whatsoever in this case. I would go further and say that his actions are cruel and wholly unprofessional towards the parents of a long-term missing child.

His obvious attempts to procure a witness by underhand means has backfired on him imo.

[Wonderfulspam]

His failure to provide such evidence to the child's parents says it all imo.

Put yourself in the McCann's shoes for a moment. If this was your child wouldn't you want to know if she is dead or alive?

Wolters refusal to provide such information to Kate and Gerry is indicative that he is unreliable.

No John. Wolters has made it absoloutely clear that Madeleine is dead, that there is no hope she is alive. The McCanns just have to trust the word of the official spokesman for the BKA, but it appears they just don't.
Some members here are quite convinced by him though.

[Wonderfulspam]

All Wolters has to do is to produce Evidence that Brueckner Abducted Madeleine.

Should be easy enough, considering the amount of abduction evidence the three investigative forces have at their disposal. That & the murder evidence. There's no shortage of evidence against Brueckner. One could begin to wonder why he still hasn't been charged.

[Vertigo Swirl]

His failure to provide such evidence to the child's parents says it all imo.

Put yourself in the McCann's shoes for a moment. If this was your child wouldn't you want to know if she is dead or alive?

Wolters refusal to provide such information to Kate and Gerry is indicative that he is has no credibility whatsoever in this case. I would go further and say that his actions are cruel and wholly unprofessional towards the parents of a long-term missing child.

His obvious attempts to procure a witness by underhand means has backfired on him imo.

If this is still true to this day then I agree, it is cruel.  But perhaps it is done with the best intentions and not deliberately to be cruel?  And perhaps he HAS now divulged what information he has to the parents.  We simply don't know.  I mean if I WERE in the McCanns' shoes and such definitive information had been withheld from me I would be using the media to complain loudly about such a situation.  There must be a reason why they have remained reasonably silent on the matter for the last year or so. 

[G-Unit]

The very same thing.  If it isn't admissable In Court then it isn't Evidence.

Some evidence awakens suspicion; like a phone call made to a phone which may have belonged to your suspect for example. That wasn't evidence then.

[Eleanor]

Some evidence awakens suspicion; like a phone call made to a phone which may have belonged to your suspect for example. That wasn't evidence then.

I don't know if it was evidence.  It isn't for me to decide.  And I don't know if it will be used in Court.

[Eleanor]

I sometimes wonder if some of you know what  "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". means.