The Remit of SY

[jassi]

Did he use it after the event?  Wolters will know that.

How would he know? Collected data only covered a few days.
Even then, use wouldn't identify user.

[Eleanor]

How would he know? Collected data only covered a few days.
Even then, use wouldn't identify user.

A few days?  One would do.  And then it would depend on who spoke to whom and from where.  So your argument won't do I'm afraid.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Best tell Wolters then.

I'm sure he's worked that one out for himself.  The problem is, ludicrous though the idea is, it could be used in defence, just as you can't prove the dog didn't eat the pupil's homework. 

[Wonderfulspam]

no one lends their phone out - not for more than a few minutes anyway.  You certainly don't give it to a mate when you're elsewhere in the country for any length of time.  It's a ridiculous idea.

Drug dealers share a phone number sometimes.
Don't ask me how I know that.

[Wonderfulspam]

Wolters already knows much more than you do.

Wolters has all the answers doesn't he.
He's just reluctant to prove it all in court, which tells you all you need to know about the strength of the concrete evidence really.
Well, at least, some people have cottoned on, others, not so sharp.

[jassi]

A few days?  One would do.  And then it would depend on who spoke to whom and from where.  So your argument won't do I'm afraid.

It certainly would, but as Wolters has made no mention of such an event it is likely not to be available.

Just wishful thinking, like so much on here

[Eleanor]

It certainly would, but as Wolters has made no mention of such an event it is likely not to be available.

Just wishful thinking, like so much on here

At least this is looking like a conversation, for which I am grateful.

[barrier]

Wolters already knows much more than you do.

Dare say he does, but that knowledge and tuppence h'appeny mighten get you a haircut.

From the updated appeal which has been posted previously.
Now almost doesn't cut it, Redwood was almost certain Tannerman was not an abductor, many or I should say supporters have jumped on that as not entirely ruling it out so using that criteria almost using the phone doesn't mean he was using it.

In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time of the crime in question . A telephone call was made to a previously unknown person on May 3, 2007 at a relevant time in the area of ​​Praia da Luz. The caller used the Portuguese number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness , but was not in the area during the call.

Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?

Heres the cite, use it wisely.

https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

Dare say he does, but that knowledge and tuppence h'appeny mighten get you a haircut.

From the updated appeal which has been posted previously.
Now almost doesn't cut it, Redwood was almost certain Tannerman was not an abductor, many or I should say supporters have jumped on that as not entirely ruling it out so using that criteria almost using the phone doesn't mean he was using it.

In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time of the crime in question . A telephone call was made to a previously unknown person on May 3, 2007 at a relevant time in the area of ​​Praia da Luz. The caller used the Portuguese number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness , but was not in the area during the call.

Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?

Heres the cite, use it wisely.

https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html

If 60%-80% sure = Gerry was Smithman, what does “almost certain” mean?

[Brietta]

Dare say he does, but that knowledge and tuppence h'appeny mighten get you a haircut.

From the updated appeal which has been posted previously.
Now almost doesn't cut it, Redwood was almost certain Tannerman was not an abductor, many or I should say supporters have jumped on that as not entirely ruling it out so using that criteria almost using the phone doesn't mean he was using it.

In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time of the crime in question . A telephone call was made to a previously unknown person on May 3, 2007 at a relevant time in the area of ​​Praia da Luz. The caller used the Portuguese number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness , but was not in the area during the call.

Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?

Heres the cite, use it wisely.

https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html

You really can't make up a narrative to suit yourself just because you pick and chose or pick and mix your cites.

Particularly at a time when no-one out with the investigation has the faintest idea what information has already  been imparted following appeals to the public, short of the fact that as promised, the BKA are obviously concentrating on gathering evidence against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
 

• Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
• Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons besides the perpetrator himself who have concrete knowledge of the possible course of events and, if necessary, location of the body. We expressly ask these persons to contact us and share their knowledge.
  
  https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#weitereInformationen132470

Only in sceptic wonderland does time stand still in investigative terms.  The rest of the world has moved on and are as near as they ever have been to finding answers to Madeleine's fate.  At this stage I think "festina lente" is the sensible way to proceed and I think that is precisely what the BKA are doing.

[Eleanor]

Get all of the other charges sorted first with individual sentences.  That'll fix him.

[jassi]

Get all of the other charges sorted first with individual sentences.  That'll fix him.

Or acquittals, depending on what the Judge(s) decides.

[Eleanor]

Or acquittals, depending on what the Judge(s) decides.

Hardly likely with the Child Abuse Cases with Witnesses and a Police Arrest.

The Rapes remain to be seen, but he has done this before as well.

[Wonderfulspam]

You really can't make up a narrative to suit yourself just because you pick and chose or pick and mix your cites.

Particularly at a time when no-one out with the investigation has the faintest idea what information has already  been imparted following appeals to the public, short of the fact that as promised, the BKA are obviously concentrating on gathering evidence against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
 

• Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
• Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons besides the perpetrator himself who have concrete knowledge of the possible course of events and, if necessary, location of the body. We expressly ask these persons to contact us and share their knowledge.
  
  https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#weitereInformationen132470

Only in sceptic wonderland does time stand still in investigative terms.  The rest of the world has moved on and are as near as they ever have been to finding answers to Madeleine's fate. At this stage I think "festina lente" is the sensible way to proceed and I think that is precisely what the BKA are doing.

You've basically just described Supporter Wonderland here.

Still keeping faith in the concrete evidence & believing Wolters really will be wrapping things up.

Well, best of luck with that, but I think you'll find you might be waiting a long time before Brueckner is ever charged with anything that has even the faintest connection to Madeleine's disappearance.

[Wonderfulspam]

It certainly would, but as Wolters has made no mention of such an event it is likely not to be available.

Just wishful thinking, like so much on here

It's gone beyond wishful thinking & ventured into outright delusion imo