Andy Redwood...?

Keela wrote:Whilst I was in the Uk I was called for jury duty 3 times. Each time I was called I sat on the jury for more than one case.

I have never been called, hence why it baffled me. Thanks for enlightening me. However, my other points about needing 100% reliable witnesses testimonies where forensic evidence is lacking is, I think, relevant. I think it was Tanzi who made this point originally but did not make clear the eventual verdicts. However the post by Tanzi implied they were guilty verdicts from the way I read it, so I would have to conclude the lack of forensic evidence would have been made up by extremely reliable witnesses.

There are no such witnesses in the McCann case imo and there is a lack of 100% reliable forensic evidence as well, although some does exist but what does exist only proves that Madeleine died imo. The Police have therefore very little to work with imo.

I agree LJC. Very little to work with and I'm sure it will never be solved.

I implied neither a verdict of guilty nor not guilty what I said was "what was said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement". and a lot was said in court by the Prosecution and defence. I heard 3 cases.

dazedandconfused wrote:I agree LJC.  Very little to work with and I'm sure it will never be solved.

If there are any "non-whitewash believers" still left, then this is a very good reason for what seems like a never ending, never progressing Operation Grange. They have only one shot at solving this crime, if there is ever to be a trial, then they require every single piece of evidence they can get their hands on and have every piece of evidence checked and re-checked.

In theory, a trial without a body is becoming more common, in practice it requires a lot of other evidence for a strong case.

I don't believe in the perfect crime and still believe the truth will surface some day. It's whether or not that happens in my lifetime is the question.

There is plenty of evidence that Madeleine died, the evidence to accuse somebody in a court of law is what is lacking, IMO.

tanszi wrote:I implied neither a verdict of guilty nor not guilty what I said was "what was said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement".  and a lot was said in court by the Prosecution and defence.  I heard 3 cases.

Thanks Tanszi. However, I am thinking, if that is the case, there must have been something by way of witness testimony that was 100% reliable for or against in all cases in order to help determine a guilty or innocent verdict, more so for a guilty I should think.

mossman wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I agree LJC.  Very little to work with and I'm sure it will never be solved.

If there are any "non-whitewash believers" still left, then this is a very good reason for what seems like a never ending, never progressing Operation Grange.  They have only one shot at solving this crime, if there is ever to be a trial, then they require every single piece of evidence they can get their hands on and have every piece of evidence checked and re-checked.

In theory, a trial without a body is becoming more common, in practice it requires a lot of other evidence for a strong case.

I don't believe in the perfect crime and still believe the truth will surface some day.  It's whether or not that happens in my lifetime is the question.

There is plenty of evidence that Madeleine died, the evidence to accuse somebody in a court of law is what is lacking, IMO.  

This is absolutely correct mossman.

mossman wrote:They have only one shot at solving this crime, if there is ever to be a trial, then they require every single piece of evidence they can get their hands on and have every piece of evidence checked and re-checked.

I couldn't have put it better.