So what exactly is Wolters sure about?

[barrier]

I don't see he would say that unless he was sure

He's none too sure of a fair trial.

[G-Unit]

I don't see he would say that unless he was sure

He seemed sure when he said that CB's phone pinged a mast belonging to the Ocean Club. When challeged he admitted that;

he wasn't 100% sure that the phone was in CB's possession on 3rd May 2007.
he didn't realise that the mast belonged to a mobile phone company, not to the Ocean Club.
he didn't know what radius the mast covered.

[Mr Gray]

He seemed sure when he said that CB's phone pinged a mast belonging to the Ocean Club. When challeged he admitted that;

he wasn't 100% sure that the phone was in CB's possession on 3rd May 2007.
he didn't realise that the mast belonged to a mobile phone company, not to the Ocean Club.
he didn't know what radius the mast covered.

A rather silly point imo... Im sure he's aware masts are owned by phone companies and his use of the word belonged was just poor English.
I think you simply can't accept that stranger abduction seems to be what actually happened

[G-Unit]

A rather silly point imo... Im sure he's aware masts are owned by phone companies and his use of the word belonged was just poor English.
I think you simply can't accept that stranger abduction seems to be what actually happened

Stranger abduction has been claimed for years but evidence in support of the claim hasn't been provided as yet.

[Brietta]

Stranger abduction has been claimed for years but evidence in support of the claim hasn't been provided as yet.

What is your theory?

You must have one don't you?

[barrier]

A rather silly point imo... Im sure he's aware masts are owned by phone companies and his use of the word belonged was just poor English.
I think you simply can't accept that stranger abduction seems to be what actually happened

Wolters needs to 100% certain and then some, its arguably the worlds biggest  mystery, not being sure isn't going to cut the mustard, ergo no arrest's.

[Venturi Swirl]

What is your theory?

You must have one don't you?

She refuses to say what it is but I recall she recently liked a post in which it was stated (as a matter of fact not opinion) that Amaral solved the case in 2007.  I think that tells us all we need to know about her theory.

[Venturi Swirl]

He quite clearly has.

@ 17:32 Wolters says "Because of our evidence we have to say that Madeleine is dead and she was murdered by our suspect"
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast

He’s stating his opinion of the evidence and what it points to, not that he has been declared guilty. 

[Mr Gray]

Stranger abduction has been claimed for years but evidence in support of the claim hasn't been provided as yet.

I would say stranger abduction has always been the most likely based on the existing evidence

[John]

I would say stranger abduction has always been the most likely based on the existing evidence

Aye but from the street outside, not from the apartment.

[Venturi Swirl]

Would sceptics (of Wolters) say that they were in a better position than Wolters to pronounce on Brückner’s involvement or otherwise, and if so why?

[barrier]

He seemed sure when he said that CB's phone pinged a mast belonging to the Ocean Club. When challeged he admitted that;

he wasn't 100% sure that the phone was in CB's possession on 3rd May 2007.
he didn't realise that the mast belonged to a mobile phone company, not to the Ocean Club.
he didn't know what radius the mast covered.

Clearly his investigators haven't been any where near the PJ to find out what the phone mast situ was at the time.

[barrier]

I would say stranger abduction has always been the most likely based on the existing evidence

Maybe, maybe not, what is Wolters certain of, now's your chance to big him up, thread title "what exactly is Wolters sure of", have a good listen to his interview with Saunokonoko he's not sure on much.

[G-Unit]

What is your theory?

You must have one don't you?

Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.

Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.

[Venturi Swirl]

Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.

Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.

So does that mean you dismiss out right the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed?