Mark Williams-Thomas making new three part crime series for Ch5.

[Venturi Swirl]

Or, where can it possibly count?

Surely not the C-C-Cesspit?!

[Wonderfulspam]

Gosh.  You think she might not be.

A witness is certain she saw Maddie as recently as 4 years ago.

She saw the mark in her eye.

It had to be her.

She's a credible witness, a teacher, she wouldn't lie about this.

Wolters claims Maddie was murdered quite quickly, that doesn't fit with this evidence, does it?

Given that she saw Maddie's eye defect & even Brueckner's campervan I have no reason to believe Brueckner murdered Maddie in 2007.

Even if he did murder her years later after this sighting, that doesn't fit with Wolters photographic evidence of a dead child, so the photo Wolters doesn't have obviously isn't Maddie.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8559311/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-saw-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-VW-camper-van-four-years-ago.html

[Eleanor]

Surely not the C-C-Cesspit?!

I hesitate to say.  But hardly definitive.

[Mr Gray]

So your opinion of the statements was formed how? Did someone you believe tell you they weren't accurate? Wolters has talked the talk, but can he walk the walk? You think he can, I have doubts.

MWT may have information that hampers the German investigation, he may not. At least he's looking at it all from a neutral position, and I'm not convinced the German investigators have done that.

I don't feel the need to prove myself on here, that's been achieved elsewhere where it counts for something.

First... Translation is not an exact science
The statements are not verbatim
Kate has said there are mistakes... That's evidence
Colin Sutton said the room for error was enormous
I recall an article in the mail where Rebelo question ed their reliability
The mccanns could not read what they were signing

That's enough to cast doubt.
I find Wolters credible plus he is not speaking for himself.. He's speaking for the BKA investigation and there's not one word of dissent.
Everything he says is consistent.
You and others are going to look foolish if he does have this evidence.. Let's wait and see

[Brietta]

First... Translation is not an exact science
The statements are not verbatim
Kate has said there are mistakes... That's evidence
Colin Sutton said the room for error was enormous
I recall an article in the mail where Rebelo question ed their reliability
The mccanns could not read what they were signing

That's enough to cast doubt.
I find Wolters credible plus he is not speaking for himself.. He's speaking for the BKA investigation and there's not one word of dissent.
Everything he says is consistent.
You and others are going to look foolish if he does have this evidence.. Let's wait and see

My impression is that the realisation has dawned if the clutching at straws is anything to go by.  I don't think MWT documentary is going to solve Brueckner's problem for him.  What I'm finding extraordinary about it is that there are still a few members posting here fervently hoping that it will.

[jassi]

I think most members are just interested in seeing where this alibi that MWT is exposing is going to go.

Anxiety, it there is any, is with supporters some of whom were doing their best to rubbish MWT early in this thread.


IMO

[G-Unit]

Or, where can it possibly count?

In real life.

[faithlilly]

I think most members are just interested in seeing where this alibi that MWT is exposing is going to go.

Anxiety, it there is any, is with supporters some of whom were doing their best to rubbish MWT early in this thread.


IMO

They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.

IMO.

[barrier]

They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.

IMO.

That'll touch a nerve or two.

[jassi]

They've been critisising the fact that Brueckner hasn't provided an alibi.

Now there appears to be one and they're still  not happy.   

[barrier]

They've been critisising the fact that Brueckner hasn't provided an alibi.

Now there appears to be one and they're still  not happy.   

He's got a young nubile 18 yr old, he leaves her to abduct and kill a very young child, it all adds up.

[Mr Gray]

They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.

IMO.

If she was... She was.. You do post some absolute rubbish

[Venturi Swirl]

They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.

IMO.

You are a complete ***** if you don’t mind me saying so and here is why:  MWT believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, most likely a paedophile.  He therefore does not subscribe to your view that her father dumped her in a bin.  Got it?

[Venturi Swirl]

He's got a young nubile 18 yr old, he leaves her to abduct and kill a very young child, it all adds up.

Maybe she was in on it.

[jassi]

You'd think that supporters would be pleased that an alibi which might clear him of all involvement has been forthcoming

Innocent until proved guilty and all that.