Tannerman, Smithman and Christian Brueckner

[Venturi Swirl]

The publicised time of 9.15pm arose out of JT's sighting, of course. Redwood then suggested 9.30pm to 10pm. In reality no-one knows.

I was addressing the connection between JT's sighting and Madeleine's disappearance which you claimed was "extremely tenuous" - are you not able to see things from JT's pov?  Granted it requires a degree of empathy and imagination in order to do so but please try again.  She sees a man carrying a small apparently female child in close proximity to the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared some time (as far as she is concerned between Madeleine's father's and Madeleine's mother's checks) and you wonder why she made a connection and then spoke up about it?  I ask again, what would you have done in such a situation?

[Mr Gray]

Rubbish, you're fawning over every word that come from Wolters or the press at the mention of CB.

You can assume I'm not extremely skilled at assessing evidence but I am.  My views are not simply based on what Wolters, says.. The jigsaw is far bigger than that and I understand how it goes together

[Mr Gray]

I would class this as disruption by someone who seems to get extremely aerated at the mere mention of the possibility of CB's involvement.

I think we have to make allowances for the desperation shown by some as it's dawning on them they've been wrong for 14 years... The insults don't bother me in the slightest

[barrier]

You can assume I'm not extremely skilled at assessing evidence but I am.  My views are not simply based on what Wolters, says.. The jigsaw is far bigger than that and I understand how it goes together

Quite agree, it all starts at 5a with the dogs and Wolters looking for the forensics to confirm their circumstantial evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Quite agree, it all starts at 5a with the dogs and Wolters looking for the forensics to confirm their circumstantial evidence.

The alerts are not evidence more an absolute joke based on the evidence I've found.. You will see

[barrier]

The alerts are not evidence more an absolute joke based on the evidence I've found.. You will see

All circumstantial which Wolters talks of.

[Mr Gray]

All circumstantial which Wolters talks of.

Whatever

[barrier]

Whatever

Stick with it, you see I'm right.

[Mr Gray]

Stick with it, you see I'm right.

I'm interested in what excuses grime comes up with... And amaral

[G-Unit]

I was addressing the connection between JT's sighting and Madeleine's disappearance which you claimed was "extremely tenuous" - are you not able to see things from JT's pov?  Granted it requires a degree of empathy and imagination in order to do so but please try again.  She sees a man carrying a small apparently female child in close proximity to the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared some time (as far as she is concerned between Madeleine's father's and Madeleine's mother's checks) and you wonder why she made a connection and then spoke up about it?  I ask again, what would you have done in such a situation?

Jane Tanner said;

At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the OC, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the creche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service.

So can we assume she just glanced at him? She gave a very detailed description of someone she didn't pay much attention to.

[G-Unit]

I'm interested in what excuses grime comes up with... And amaral

As Grime made no claims he has no need to make excuses.

[Mr Gray]

As Grime made no claims he has no need to make excuses.

Grime did make claims

[G-Unit]

I think we have to make allowances for the desperation shown by some as it's dawning on them they've been wrong for 14 years... The insults don't bother me in the slightest

I think you should wait for your chickens to hatch before you crow. You could still end up with egg on your face.

[Mr Gray]

I think you should wait for your chickens to hatch before you crow. You could still end up with egg on your face.

If you had followed and understood all the evidence ss I have you wouldn't say that.  I'm absolutely sure Wolters has proof Maddie was abducted by a paedophile

[Venturi Swirl]

Jane Tanner said;

At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the OC, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the creche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service.

So can we assume she just glanced at him? She gave a very detailed description of someone she didn't pay much attention to.

You can assume whatever you want.  She gave a description which matched closely with Totman's account of what he was wearing so you can sniff suspiciously and disdainfully at JT's statement but what you can't do is explain how she managed to get the description of how he looked so bang on can you?