Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Wonderfulspam]

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

No one has mentioned proof. Evidence, yes, but not proof.

[G-Unit]

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.

Evidence is gathered but not all of it is used in court. That doesn't mean it's not evidence.

[Eleanor]

Evidence is gathered but not all of it is used in court. That doesn't mean it's not evidence.

If it isn't acceptable to The Court then it isn't Evidence.

[G-Unit]

If it isn't acceptable to The Court then it isn't Evidence.

There are different types of evidence. You are fixating upon one type only.

[Eleanor]

There are different types of evidence. You are fixating upon one type only.

What Type is that?

[G-Unit]

What Type is that?

That which is used in court to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt. I would have thought you knew this, but maybe reading this will help you to understand.
https://www.draycottbrowne.co.uk/investigations/types-evidence

[Eleanor]

That which is used in court to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt. I would have thought you knew this, but maybe reading this will help you to understand.
https://www.draycottbrowne.co.uk/investigations/types-evidence

Thank You.  Good stuff is that, which entirely proves my point.

As it is, The McCanns have never appeared In Court on this matter, or even been charged.  Consequently your Cite is irrelevant.  There is still No Evidence against The McCanns as only A Court can decide what is Evidence and what Isn't.

As for Brueckner, the same applies.  And I shall continue to support his right to Innocence Until Proven Guilty.

Just as a matter of interest, do you ever actually read the Cites you produce?

[Wonderfulspam]

Thank You.  Good stuff is that, which entirely proves my point.

As it is, The McCanns have never appeared In Court on this matter, or even been charged.  Consequently your Cite is irrelevant.  There is still No Evidence against The McCanns as only A Court can decide what is Evidence and what Isn't.

As for Brueckner, the same applies.  And I shall continue to support his right to Innocence Until Proven Guilty.

Just as a matter of interest, do you ever actually read the Cites you produce?

Ok, so no evidence of abduction then, if only a court can decide if there is evidence or not.
What do you base your belief Madeleine was abducted on? Bearing in mind there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of abduction?

[Eleanor]

Ok, so no evidence of abduction then, if only a court can decide if there is evidence or not.
What do you base your belief Madeleine was abducted on? Bearing in mind there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of abduction?

Neither The McCanns or I have to prove anything.  Do you not understand The Law at all?

[Brietta]

Thank You.  Good stuff is that, which entirely proves my point.

As it is, The McCanns have never appeared In Court on this matter, or even been charged.  Consequently your Cite is irrelevant.  There is still No Evidence against The McCanns as only A Court can decide what is Evidence and what Isn't.

As for Brueckner, the same applies.  And I shall continue to support his right to Innocence Until Proven Guilty.

Just as a matter of interest, do you ever actually read the Cites you produce?

Wheesht Eleanor!  At least after all these years something HAS penetrated and been learned.  Who would have thunk it that there is such a thing as evidence and the requirement of which is necessary to pass judgement on our fellow human beings.

Now all that is required is the acknowledgement that the "human beings" bit includes the McCanns 🙂

[Wonderfulspam]

Neither The McCanns or I have to prove anything.  Do you not understand The Law at all?

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I asked you what you base your belief on. Can you even Read?

[Wonderfulspam]

No evidence Madeleine was in her bed at 9pm, as Gerry claims. No, she just wasn't there, until proven so in a court of law.

[Brietta]

Neither The McCanns or I have to prove anything.  Do you not understand The Law at all?

Some ground has been broken with the dawning of the requirement for evidence.  Even a little smattering of what evidence actually is.  It's a start I suppose.  But there is a waaaaaaaaaaaay to go yet.

[G-Unit]

Thank You.  Good stuff is that, which entirely proves my point.

As it is, The McCanns have never appeared In Court on this matter, or even been charged.  Consequently your Cite is irrelevant.  There is still No Evidence against The McCanns as only A Court can decide what is Evidence and what Isn't.

As for Brueckner, the same applies.  And I shall continue to support his right to Innocence Until Proven Guilty.

Just as a matter of interest, do you ever actually read the Cites you produce?

Perhaps you should inform all the police forces wordwide who are busy collecting evidence that there's no point then.

[Wonderfulspam]

Some ground has been broken with the dawning of the requirement for evidence.  Even a little smattering of what evidence actually is.  It's a start I suppose.  But there is a waaaaaaaaaaaay to go yet.

What do you base your belief in Brueckner's guilt on, by the way?
You seem certain he's going to face trial some day. What is your belief founded upon, if not evidence? Oh wait, I know, it's because Wolters said so, isn't it.The strongest form of evidence known to man.