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

[The General]

Please refrain from attacking other members, the subject can be debated without the need to lower the tone of the discussion.  Admin

Thank you, I agree wholeheartedly.

[The General]

you mean like this?
“but you couldn't illuminate a phone box with a light bulb up your arse.”

Glad you liked it.

[The General]

It appears MWT has spoken to CB (the most libeled man of the 21st century) on several occasions, with the latter having penned an exhaustive list of his whereabouts on those fateful days when he didn't abduct anyone.
MWT has subsequently tested the list and has found that his alibi stacks up.

I think we can dismiss CB (they play chess most days during rec) as the abductor. Why? Well what's the chances of CB's ('lights out' isn't really a thing anymore, as they have light switches in their cells - human rights) list being completely independently corroborated and the phone evidence dismissed?

It's over guys. Talk about unlikely saviours.

[Mr Gray]

It appears MWT has spoken to CB (the most libeled man of the 21st century) on several occasions, with the latter having penned an exhaustive list of his whereabouts on those fateful days when he didn't abduct anyone.
MWT has subsequently tested the list and has found that his alibi stacks up.

I think we can dismiss CB (they play chess most days during rec) as the abductor. Why? Well what's the chances of CB's ('lights out' isn't really a thing anymore, as they have light switches in their cells - human rights) list being completely independently corroborated and the phone evidence dismissed?

It's over guys. Talk about unlikely saviours.

You are very easily fooled. We will see just how easily after the programme

[Wonderfulspam]

It appears MWT has spoken to CB (the most libeled man of the 21st century) on several occasions, with the latter having penned an exhaustive list of his whereabouts on those fateful days when he didn't abduct anyone.
MWT has subsequently tested the list and has found that his alibi stacks up.

I think we can dismiss CB (they play chess most days during rec) as the abductor. Why? Well what's the chances of CB's ('lights out' isn't really a thing anymore, as they have light switches in their cells - human rights) list being completely independently corroborated and the phone evidence dismissed?

It's over guys. Talk about unlikely saviours.

But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....

What abduction? You may well ask.

Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.

[Mr Gray]

But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....

What abduction? You may well ask.

Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.

It seems you are starting to catch on

[The General]

But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....

What abduction? You may well ask.

Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.

Imagine HCW's face when some tin pot producer of a half-baked documentary waltzes in to his office and presents 'sensational' new evidence that will crack it wide open. Three years of investigation down das Klosett. Imagine the embarrassment, having some TV crank finish the job.
Clearly this wasn't the case, as they're considering an airing date for the latest in a long line of fluff pieces; nonsense. Isolate brain and open eyes. Disposable telly flotsam.

[Mr Gray]

Imagine HCW's face when some tin pot producer of a half-baked documentary waltzes in to his office and presents 'sensational' new evidence that will crack it wide open. Three years of investigation down das Klosett. Imagine the embarrassment, having some TV crank finish the job.
Clearly this wasn't the case, as they're considering an airing date for the latest in a long line of fluff pieces; nonsense. Isolate brain and open eyes. Disposable telly flotsam.

If you think that's what's going to happen you are even more deluded than I thought. In this instance once the programme is aired you will see just how deluded. Does it have a date.. Whats holding it up

[The General]

If you think that's what's going to happen you are even more deluded than I thought. In this instance once the programme is aired you will see just how deluded. Does it have a date.. Whats holding it up

They're probably, belatedly, checking that its content won't compromise legal process. Rather ironic given they've run roughshod across their own privacy laws with impunity.

[Mr Gray]

They're probably, belatedly, checking that its content won't compromise legal process. Rather ironic given they've run roughshod across their own privacy laws with impunity.

I agree they've run roughshod over their privacy laws.... Which suggests they have the proof you doubt

[Mr Gray]

They're probably, belatedly, checking that its content won't compromise legal process. Rather ironic given they've run roughshod across their own privacy laws with impunity.

How could presenting facts do anything but support the legal process

[barrier]

But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....

What abduction? You may well ask.

Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.

Not quite the ring of Wallis and Gromit.

[Venturi Swirl]

Not quite the ring of Wallis and Gromit.

Wallace.  New film out in 2025 so that’s something to look forward to.

[The General]

How could presenting facts do anything but support the legal process

By 'facts' you mean unverified conjecture that further impinges on 'fairness' of process that were all entitled to.
To broadcast such conjecture - even more so.

[The General]

I agree they've run roughshod over their privacy laws.... Which suggests they have the proof you doubt

I don't see it that way. I have almost no knowledge of German law, or indeed any law really, but they are surely giving CB, Fulscher and his legal team a free ride on the 'unfair trial' angle, evidence or no.
You can't go to the prosecutor and present your evidence as a slam dunk and run roughshod through due process. There is no latitude for 'means to an end' style of prosecution.
In addition, in my opinion, they're equally providing unfair treatment because he's currently incarcerated. They would act entirely differently and, I'd venture, with due equanimity, if he was a free man.