If The Germans Have It Almost In The Bag...

[G-Unit]

You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?

What has that got to do with it?

[Brietta]

I found it quite bizarre the Amaral came up with the dreadlocks.   Why?   Plus why say his van was covered in stickers?  Very strange.

I think it strange and suspicious.

Quite an obvious attempt not just to criticises the German investigation but to derail it entirely.

I would say these are the pronouncements and the actions of a man who just does not want the German investigation to fail but any chance whatsoever of finding out what happened to Madeleine.

Given the influence he has already exerted on his own behalf over the years I think his recent actions require to be questioned.
Maybe his forthcoming book will shed some light on his motives.

[Brietta]

What has that got to do with it?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[Myster]

His campervan has sure seen some action.  The springs must be worn out...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9958837/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-ex-lover-tells-growing-obsession-girls.html

[kizzy]

You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?

Neither do you - although it does seem to be nothing but a ping hearsay an media stories.

Looks like the end result will be as what was predicted by most -  well over a year ago.

[Lace]

Neither do you - although it does seem to be nothing but a ping hearsay an media stories.

Looks like the end result will be as what was predicted by most -  well over a year ago.

I have never claimed to know.   Neither have I said there is no evidence that CB knew someone in the OC.

[Wonderfulspam]

You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?

Nothing.

[Venturi Swirl]

Nothing.

Correct.  You know nothing.

[Wonderfulspam]

Correct.  You know nothing.

I know Wolters can't prove either abduction, Brueckners involvement in it, or that he murdered Maddie.

[Venturi Swirl]

I know Wolters can't prove either abduction, Brueckners involvement in it, or that he murdered Maddie.

Well done, have a biscuit.  Not being able to prove something and having no evidence at all are two different things.  Amaral couldn't prove murder by the parents, so therefore he had nothing, is that your view?

[Wonderfulspam]

Well done, have a biscuit.  Not being able to prove something and having no evidence at all are two different things.  Amaral couldn't prove murder by the parents, so therefore he had nothing, is that your view?

Technically, yes, he had nothing that will stand up in court, much the same as Wolters.

[Venturi Swirl]

Technically, yes, he had nothing that will stand up in court, much the same as Wolters.

So your suspicions regarding the McCanns are based on nothing then. 

[Wonderfulspam]

So your suspicions regarding the McCanns are based on nothing then.

Well yes, they must be presumed innocent, so yes there's no evidence of their guilt, same as Brueckner.

[Venturi Swirl]

Well yes, they must be presumed innocent, so yes there's no evidence of their guilt, same as Brueckner.

But you KNOW they murdered Madeleine so what the hell is that all about then?

[Eleanor]

But you KNOW they murdered Madeleine so what the hell is that all about then?

Don't ask.  Nothing Spammy ever says will be relevant.