Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Eleanor]

Your posts really are quite a remarkable entity. 

They say absolutely nothing.  And they mean even less.

What they achieve is confirmation of precisely how little you have taken in and understood of what has been going on in the real world over the past few years.  Your posts owe much to what was in vogue amongst sceptics circa 2007 ~ really quite tragic your failure to appreciate that absolutely everyone in the world except a chosen few, have moved on and don't live their lives immersed daily in negativity about someone else's.

I wondered what that comment meant but decided that it had nothing to do with anything relevant.

[Venturi Swirl]

I wondered what that comment meant but decided that it had nothing to do with anything relevant.

G-Unit obviously thinks DP is in on it.  I mean, look at the huge wealth of evidence against him compared to someone like CB (who is obviously innocent, even of the crimes he has been convicted of!)

[Brietta]

I wondered what that comment meant but decided that it had nothing to do with anything relevant.

The only known relevance to Madeleine's case is sitting in a German jail praying to the devil for his teams of expensive lawyers to get him out of jail on a technicality.

He is charged with five serious sexual crimes against women and children but no-one is interested at all in that.

It has been one of the most unedifying experiences of my life to watch sceptics vigorously throw in their lot in support of this abhorrent still technically innocent creature without waiting to see what the evidence is against him.
That is now part of my learning curve - sceptics are a million times worse than I ever thought possible.

[Wonderfulspam]

The only known relevance to Madeleine's case is sitting in a German jail praying to the devil for his teams of expensive lawyers to get him out of jail on a technicality.

He is charged with five serious sexual crimes against women and children but no-one is interested at all in that.

It has been one of the most unedifying experiences of my life to watch sceptics vigorously throw in their lot in support of this abhorrent still technically innocent creature without waiting to see what the evidence is against him.
That is now part of my learning curve - sceptics are a million times worse than I ever thought possible.

There's no need for us to 'wait & see' what the evidence against Brueckner is. We have long since established that Wolters doesn't really have anything.

[Wonderfulspam]

G-Unit obviously thinks DP is in on it.  I mean, look at the huge wealth of evidence against him compared to someone like CB (who is obviously innocent, even of the crimes he has been convicted of!)

There's more evidence DP came into contact with Maddie, than Brueckner ever did.

[Eleanor]

The only known relevance to Madeleine's case is sitting in a German jail praying to the devil for his teams of expensive lawyers to get him out of jail on a technicality.

He is charged with five serious sexual crimes against women and children but no-one is interested at all in that.

It has been one of the most unedifying experiences of my life to watch sceptics vigorously throw in their lot in support of this abhorrent still technically innocent creature without waiting to see what the evidence is against him.
That is now part of my learning curve - sceptics are a million times worse than I ever thought possible.

I did so hope that this wasn't the case, but after this last few days even I have to admit that you are right.
And all it took was two opposing statements.

[Wonderfulspam]

I did so hope that this wasn't the case, but after this last few days even I have to admit that you are right.
And all it took was two opposing statements.

But the statements didn't oppose each other. Both Gaspars witnessed the event.

[G-Unit]

Just how relevant does G unit think the Gasper statement is then?
I don't recall her mentioning it very often.

I haven't because I don't attach a lot of importance to it. It's simply part of the whole. I mentioned ir now only because someone tried to assert that the two witnesses disagreed, and, when it came to the bare facts they didn't.

[Eleanor]

I haven't because I don't attach a lot of importance to it. It's simply part of the whole. I mentioned ir now only because someone tried to assert that the two witnesses disagreed, and, when it came to the bare facts they didn't.

Bare Facts.  Regardless of interpretation.  Tell that to The Judge and Jury.

[Wonderfulspam]

Bare Facts.  Regardless of interpretation.  Tell that to The Judge and Jury.

You're quite right. Evidence can be open to interpretation. As a member of the jury in the court of public opinion, I don't interpret Martin Smiths sighting to be evidence of abduction.

[G-Unit]

You're quite right. Evidence can be open to interpretation. As a member of the jury in the court of public opinion, I don't interpret Martin Smiths sighting to be evidence of abduction.

Me too. I also never thought that Jane Tanner's sighting was evidence of abduction.

[Wonderfulspam]

I haven't because I don't attach a lot of importance to it. It's simply part of the whole. I mentioned ir now only because someone tried to assert that the two witnesses disagreed, and, when it came to the bare facts they didn't.

I don't see the incident as important either. It merely confirms to me that David & Gerry have a close relationship & as such, that Payne's claim that Maddie was alive & well on the evening of May 3rd should be treated with scepticism. That & the fact that Kate & David gave differing accounts of their meeting. But anyway, that's all been dealt with now. The matter cleared up. Wolters has conducted a very serious investigation, that hasn't involved interviewing either the McCanns or Dr Payne.

[jassi]

I don't see the incident as important either. It merely confirms to me that David & Gerry have a close relationship & as such, that Payne's claim that Maddie was alive & well on the evening of May 3rd should be treated with scepticism. That & the fact that Kate & David gave differing accounts of their meeting. But anyway, that's all been dealt with now. The matter cleared up. Wolters has conducted a very serious investigation, that hasn't involved interviewing either the McCanns or Dr Payne.

Very much like OG really.

[Venturi Swirl]

Very much like OG really.

And perfectly explicable to anyone with half a braincell.

[Venturi Swirl]

I haven't because I don't attach a lot of importance to it. It's simply part of the whole. I mentioned ir now only because someone tried to assert that the two witnesses disagreed, and, when it came to the bare facts they didn't.

they disagreed of its significance.  If it had no significance then it had no relevance, don’t make out that the  two witnesses were in agreement about DP and his actions because they werent.  Was a time on this forum when we weren’t even allowed to reference those statements if I recall correctly , any idea why this has changed?