The timeline revisited

[Mr Gray]

It certainly should be…well spotted.

Now if you could apply the same diligence to your own spelling I’m sure your posts would be so much easier to understand.

Anyone who can't understand my posts is a bit thick imo so I'm not fussed if they can't understand then

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You fell into my trap Re the photo.. I'll answer shortly.
Th e devil is in the detail... You just don't pick up on the important details whereby this remark strengthens my thoughts on the fact the evidence is photograohic

You are so cunning to lay a trap for me, how long have you been planning this trap?
The devil is in the detail? there is no detail. You have somehow convinced yourself that the evidence is a photo by adding 2 + 2 and getting 5.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Neither Operation Grange nor the BKA has once referred to the dog alerts.  They are completely irrelevant as far as the current investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance is concerned.  Do you agree with this?

Yes I agree with this. Neither have ever really publicly referred to the alerts
Its almost like the alerts never happened. Maybe they have evidence that negates them who knows?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I've said the concrete evidence could well be photographis at least six moths ago if not more. Wolters has made a least half a dizen pointers it is photographic

I've said the photo shows the abuse of MM but not her death and CB is not in the photo...that would be proof if his involvement.
Woltere has confirmed he does not have a photo with Mm and CB in.
The fact he mentions photographic evidence is unusual and confirms my thoughts that his evidence is photographic.
He has also appealed fir descriptions if the interiors of any places CB lived or hhas access to.. Could well be trying to identify the location of the video/photo

So the fact he mentions a photo in reference that he doesn't have a photo of both MM and CB together, confirms to you that he has a photo but it just doesn't contain MM and CB in the same photo. That is some twisting of logic right there.

[Mr Gray]

So the fact he mentions a photo in reference that he doesn't have a photo of both MM and CB together, confirms to you that he has a photo but it just doesn't contain MM and CB in the same photo. That is some twisting of logic right there.

Doesn't definitively confirm anything on it's own.... It's just another pointer

You thought he said he didn't have a photo... You were wrong... That confirms
You aren't aware of all that Wolters has said

You're a bit sloppy in reading and understanding what you have read

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Doesn't definitively confirm anything on it's own.... It's just another pointer

You thought he said he didn't have a photo... You were wrong... That confirms
You aren't aware of all that Wolters has said

You're a bit sloppy in reading and understanding what you have read

Its all semantics, he said something very close to no photo

'It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.

'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.' 

He also hasn't said he has a photo but you seem convinced he has one.
I am quite hurt that you think my understanding and reading is sloppy, that feels quite hurtful. Be nice.

[Mr Gray]

This again is your opinion about Harrison coming up with the idea based on a single paragraph in Martin Grimes white paper. I have pointed out the FBI had human scent trailing programs prior to this. Has Harrison ever claimed it, if not its hearsay.

Grime hasn’t changed his mind he says in his profile in the PJ files

 “Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are

supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”

We have already covered the time spent in the apartment before the first alert. I believe it was 3mins 16 secs.

And of course the fly in the ointment for Grimes master plan to get more business for himself was what if the girl or body was found elsewhere.
And do you think he would try to coax false positives around the McCanns property by consciously spending more time there, so to get more business he was willing to through a young distressed couple under the bus so to speak.
Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.

You've missed the point again. I've never suggested Grime has tried to coax false positives.. I've said he wants to make sure he doesn't miss anything.. He is therefore getting more false positives.

If MM died elsewhere as I'm fairly sure it will be proved... How do you explain all those false positives for a dog that Grime CLAIMS has such an impressive record.. It simply doesn't add up.

[Mr Gray]

Its all semantics, he said something very close to no photo

'It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.

'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.' 

He also hasn't said he has a photo but you seem convinced he has one.
I am quite hurt that you think my understanding and reading is sloppy, that feels quite hurtful. Be nice.

When you accuse my logic of being twisted... When it isn't.. I have to respond. 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You've missed the point again. I've never suggested Grime has tried to coax false positives.. I've said he wants to make sure he doesn't miss anything.. He is therefore getting more false positives.

If MM died elsewhere as I'm fairly sure it will be proved... How do you explain all those false positives for a dog that Grime CLAIMS has such an impressive record.. It simply doesn't add up.

So how does the fact that Eddie alerted after 3 minutes 16 seconds in apt 5a fit in with your theory and Grime stating that he was interested before entering the apt. You believe some of what Grime says ie. Harrisons inventing scent evidence, no inference from alerts but other bits that don't fit into your theories you dismiss out of hand.
I don't need to explain anything, I accept its possible the alerts could be wrong. But you are putting the horse before the cart, when it is proved MM died elsewhere then we can castigate Grime and Eddie.

[Mr Gray]

Its all semantics, he said something very close to no photo

'It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.

'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.' 

He also hasn't said he has a photo but you seem convinced he has one.
I am quite hurt that you think my understanding and reading is sloppy, that feels quite hurtful. Be nice.

It's not semantics at all it's, being precise.  I'm fairly sure the man evidence is photographic... As in the, Rui Pedro case... Another child abduction in Portugal

[Icanhandlethetruth]

When you accuse my logic of being twisted... When it isn't.. I have to respond.

You could respond politely though couldn't you.
I have noticed a lot of your posts especially to G-Unit appear almost malicious.

[Mr Gray]

So how does the fact that Eddie alerted after 3 minutes 16 seconds in apt 5a fit in with your theory and Grime stating that he was interested before entering the apt. You believe some of what Grime says ie. Harrisons inventing scent evidence, no inference from alerts but other bits that don't fit into your theories you dismiss out of hand.
I don't need to explain anything, I accept its possible the alerts could be wrong. But you are putting the horse before the cart, when it is proved MM died elsewhere then we can castigate Grime and Eddie.

Gunit claimed yesterday Eddie has never given a false alert.... There is no evidence to show that's a fact and imo a daft claim
The McCanns cannot be innocent if, Eddie was correct... Unless the PJ planted evidence.. That's, why I think it's necessary to counter those who believe in the hype surrounding the dogs

[Mr Gray]

You could respond politely though couldn't you.
I have noticed a lot of your posts especially to G-Unit appear almost malicious.

You weren't around when my wife who has never posted here was racially abused on this forum and by members here on another forum

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It's not semantics at all it's, being precise.  I'm fairly sure the man evidence is photographic... As in the, Rui Pedro case... Another child abduction in Portugal

OK if we want to be really precise, I didn't say Walters has said he doesn't have a photo. I said

"Hasn't he said it's not a photo" in reference to what evidence that makes you so sure that Wolters has the case cracked.

To be clear I don't know if he has a photo or not.

[Mr Gray]

OK if we want to be really precise, I didn't say Walters has said he doesn't have a photo. I said

"Hasn't he said it's not a photo" in reference to what evidence that makes you so sure that Wolters has the case cracked.

To be clear I don't know if he has a photo or not.

And replied.. No he hasn't..
I said that because he hasn't said he doesn't have a photo and I'm reasonably sure from what he has, said he does.  Quite a few who follow the case agree.
An Australian jotlrnalist who interviewed him picked up thee exact phrase I did