Wandering Off Topic

[Brietta]

Well spotted misty,  I agree,  if you look closely you can see the sleeve.

Therefore at some time after the crime scene photographs were taken and before the McCanns had been taken to Portimao to make statements ~ someone had access to the McCann apartment to pick up at least that item of clothing.

I would suggest that while they were at it they picked up a complete change of clothing for the parents and for the twins.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

You claimed he wasnt guilty... None of that proves hes not guilty

You don’t have to prove someone is “not guilty”. You have to prove that they are.

[Mr Gray]

You don’t have to prove someone is “not guilty”. You have to prove that they are.

CB may well be guilty...so you cant claim he isnt.

[Wonderfulspam]

CB may well be guilty...so you cant claim he isnt.

I have concrete evidence he isn't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have concrete evidence he isn't.

Please contact The BKA and /or Fulscher with your concrete evidence and let’s put this chapter to bed once and for all then.

[Wonderfulspam]

Please contact The BKA and /or Fulscher with your concrete evidence and let’s put this chapter to bed once and for all then.

Fulscher has the evidence, he's saving it for when Brueckner is questioned.
Shouldn't be much longer now.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Fulscher has the evidence, he's saving it for when Brueckner is questioned.
Shouldn't be much longer now.

Good job.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

CB may well be guilty...so you cant claim he isnt.

I didn't claim anything about his guilt. Though it is undeniable that he is presumed innocent at this moment in time..

Equally, then, by your logic you can not claim the McCann's are not guilty.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Additionally, it terms of legal methodology it's very hard to prove something did not happen as there is no evidence for something not happening. You can only prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that something did happen based on the evidence created by the execution of the event that happened.

I was making a legalistic point... you do not have to prove someone is not guilty in law (at least that's the case in the UK).

[Mr Gray]

I didn't claim anything about his guilt. Though it is undeniable that he is presumed innocent at this moment in time..

Equally, then, by your logic you can not claim the McCann's are not guilty.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Additionally, it terms of legal methodology it's very hard to prove something did not happen as there is no evidence for something not happening. You can only prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that something did happen based on the evidence created by the execution of the event that happened.

I was making a legalistic point... you do not have to prove someone is not guilty in law (at least that's the case in the UK).

You need to see my post in context.... Spam claims CB is not guilty..if you claim something you need to prove it

[Eleanor]

I didn't claim anything about his guilt. Though it is undeniable that he is presumed innocent at this moment in time..

Equally, then, by your logic you can not claim the McCann's are not guilty.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Additionally, it terms of legal methodology it's very hard to prove something did not happen as there is no evidence for something not happening. You can only prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that something did happen based on the evidence created by the execution of the event that happened.

I was making a legalistic point... you do not have to prove someone is not guilty in law (at least that's the case in the UK).

More Semantics.  You are going to have to up your game.

[Mr Gray]

I didn't claim anything about his guilt. Though it is undeniable that he is presumed innocent at this moment in time..

Equally, then, by your logic you can not claim the McCann's are not guilty.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Additionally, it terms of legal methodology it's very hard to prove something did not happen as there is no evidence for something not happening. You can only prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that something did happen based on the evidence created by the execution of the event that happened.

I was making a legalistic point... you do not have to prove someone is not guilty in law (at least that's the case in the UK).

We can say the Mccanns are innocent on the balance of probabilities.... Or even beyond reasonable  doubt.. The same cant be said for CB

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

More Semantics.  You are going to have to up your game.

It's not a question of semantics. It's a question of law. You do not prove innocence in law. Innocence is presumed. You prove guilt.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

We can say the Mccanns are innocent on the balance of probabilities.... Or even beyond reasonable  doubt.. The same cant be said for CB

Dave you know too well that no-one sets out to prove innocence in law.... The burden of proof you refer to is with regards to proving guilt. Innocence is presumed and a jury decides only if you are guilty or not guilty. This is not semantics but central to our concept of justice.

I disagree that there is any more evidence against CB then there is against the parents of Madeleine McCann, in my own opinion.

From what evidence is known in the public domain I do not believe either would be convicted on murder charges (in CB's case) or negligence and concealment of a corpse in the parents case.

[misty]

IMO Martin Ney must be due in court very soon as there have been a few media reports about him during the last couple of days. He was extradited from Germany to France at the end of Jan 2021 for a period of 8 months.

https://www.rtl.fr/actu/justice-faits-divers/meurtre-de-jonathan-coulom-les-derniers-secrets-de-martin-ney-7900068783
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2021-09-09-hans-bror-var-maskemandens-offer-og-et-spoergsmaal-har-plaget-ham-i-aarevis
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2021-09-09-den-danske-mordgaade-blev-foerst-loest-da-masken-blev-hevet-af-en-af-tysklands-vaerste

[Mr Gray]

Dave you know too well that no-one sets out to prove innocence in law.... The burden of proof you refer to is with regards to proving guilt. Innocence is presumed and a jury decides only if you are guilty or not guilty. This is not semantics but central to our concept of justice.

I disagree that there is any more evidence against CB then there is against the parents of Madeleine McCann, in my own opinion.

From what evidence is known in the public domain I do not believe either would be convicted on murder charges (in CB's case) or negligence and concealment of a corpse in the parents case.

Are you not aware the archiving despatch said by not attending the recon the mccanns lost their chance to prove their innocence