So what exactly is Wolters sure about?

[barrier]

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.

Very hard to determine just what he is sure of, no body, no body parts, no forensics, its the words attributed to a snitch imo.Still getting untoward 12 months of telling the world, won't be long now, except I wonder if he regrets the publicity, intimating he's not certain a fair trial can be had.

[barrier]

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

Almost certainly imo, even Wolters never claims his suspect has done that.

[Venturi Swirl]

Almost certainly imo, even Wolters never claims his suspect has done that.

Almost certainly what?

[G-Unit]

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

It could have happened, but I see no reason why it should be the only possibility.

[Venturi Swirl]

It could have happened, but I see no reason why it should be the only possibility.

There can only be one explanation for the disappearance, indeed there IS only one plausible, logical explanation IMO and this is borne out by the complete absence of a plausible, logical alternative explanation fitting all the known facts put forward by anyone commentating on the case in the last 14 years.

[Mr Gray]

It could have happened, but I see no reason why it should be the only possibility.

I don't see it as being the only possibility... Has anyone said it is... But I think its regarded as by far the most likely

[G-Unit]

There can only be one explanation for the disappearance, indeed there IS only one plausible, logical explanation IMO and this is borne out by the complete absence of a plausible, logical alternative explanation fitting all the known facts put forward by anyone commentating on the case in the last 14 years.

As you say, in your opinion the stranger abduction theory is plausible and logical. That's fine, but it is still only an opinion not a fact, just as Wolters' story remains an opinion unless he can find sufficient evidence to charge his suspect.

[Venturi Swirl]

As you say, in your opinion the stranger abduction theory is plausible and logical. That's fine, but it is still only an opinion not a fact, just as Wolters' story remains an opinion unless he can find sufficient evidence to charge his suspect.

As my opinion appears to be shared by at least two police forces investigating the disappearance I think it is a pretty credible opinion.  No police force appears to be actively investigating the "fell off a sofa and carried to a hiding place by Dad" theory which would tend to suggest that this theory has been discounted.

[Mr Gray]

As you say, in your opinion the stranger abduction theory is plausible and logical. That's fine, but it is still only an opinion not a fact, just as Wolters' story remains an opinion unless he can find sufficient evidence to charge his suspect.

As I understand Wolters has near enough proof of murder so abduction can be proven without CB being charged.
Its an opinion but the opinion of the German prosecution dept... That carries more weight than others

[Wonderfulspam]

As I understand Wolters has near enough proof of murder so abduction can be proven without CB being charged.
Its an opinion but the opinion of the German prosecution dept... That carries more weight than others

No.

The right to the presumption of innocence being an absolute until proven otherwise means there is no proof of abduction involving Brueckner.

[barrier]

No.

The right to the presumption of innocence being an absolute until proven otherwise means there is no proof of abduction involving Brueckner.

Was it ever thus.

[Mr Gray]

No.

The right to the presumption of innocence being an absolute until proven otherwise means there is no proof of abduction involving Brueckner.

Read the post again... I never said there was.

[Wonderfulspam]

Read the post again... I never said there was.

I did, you claim abduction can be proven without charge.

That's incorrect, if Brueckner murdered Maddie (we must presume he didn't) then all that shows is he murdered Maddie.

It doesn't demonstrate he or anyone else actually abducted Maddie, since the McCanns could have sold her instead.

[G-Unit]

As my opinion appears to be shared by at least two police forces investigating the disappearance I think it is a pretty credible opinion.  No police force appears to be actively investigating the "fell off a sofa and carried to a hiding place by Dad" theory which would tend to suggest that this theory has been discounted.

I'd be more impressed if the police had been able to explain their reasons for taking the investigative path they have chosen.

[Venturi Swirl]

I'd be more impressed if the police had been able to explain their reasons for taking the investigative path they have chosen.

Perhaps you could be patient or do you think they owe you an explanation now before the case has been closed or solved?