New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Once again there's a disconnect, Wolters beleives his suspect killed Madeleine in Luz, Clarke reckons there's a mystery about some sighting in Spain, so CB took her for a drive then went back to Luz, yeah right, the whole shebang is a fantasy.

On what basis do you find that fantastical?

[Mr Gray]

This is June from last year, produce a piece since where Wolters confirms death.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-could-still-alive-22187901

I've explained it all.... Look at the Rui Pedro case.  ..it's the same.

You need to look at everything Wolters has said then you will understand... Not take one statement out of context.

[barrier]

I've explained it all.... Look at the Rui Pedro case.  ..it's the same.

You need to look at everything Wolters has said then you will understand... Not take one statement out of context.

The context is, is the girl dead by the hands of CB, no is the short answer and no evidence of.

The germans created a legend in the form CB to attract publicity to the case to try and elicit any info after his bestest mates tried to dob him in it, he shook the tree , detritus fell and that's it .

[Mr Gray]

The context is, is the girl dead by the hands of CB, no is the short answer and no evidence of.

No is not the answer.. And there is evidence it was CB... Lots of evidence

[Wonderfulspam]

No is not the answer.. And there is evidence it was CB... Lots of evidence

Such as?

[barrier]

Such as?

Its all in the stars.

[Mr Gray]

Posters need to understand the difference between evidence  and proof

[G-Unit]

Posters need to understand the difference between evidence  and proof

Reaching conclusions based on evidence is one thing. Reaching and promoting conclusions based on a belief that someone else has evidence is a remarkable leap of faith imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Reaching conclusions based on evidence is one thing. Reaching and promoting conclusions based on a belief that someone else has evidence is a remarkable leap of faith imo.

No more so that someone believing a dog's bark is evidence of death at the hands of the parents, imo.

[G-Unit]

No more so that someone believing a dog's bark is evidence of death at the hands of the parents, imo.

Ignoring or rejecting alerts by cadaver dogs is not advisable imo. Unlike testimony by former 'friends' these dogs have no agenda.

But Fiedler said prosecutors offered no independent evidence to corroborate the dogs’ indications, noting that no remains were found. He also noted an analysis offered by Zapata’s defense team that all three dogs failed to identify odors left by human remains more than 50 percent of the time.

“The state has failed to convince me that it’s any more reliable than the flip of a coin,” Fiedler said.
https://www.twincities.com/2007/08/31/judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-cannot-be-used-at-murder-trial/

[Mr Gray]

Reaching conclusions based on evidence is one thing. Reaching and promoting conclusions based on a belief that someone else has evidence is a remarkable leap of faith imo.

Absolute rubbish

Yesterday you posted..

 I have no reason to believe that the German police didn't identify the owner of the van using the number plate they were given.


So it seems you believe the German police when it suits you... Lol

I have no reason to believe that Wolters and the entire investigating team are lying.. Do you

[Mr Gray]

Ignoring or rejecting alerts by cadaver dogs is not advisable imo. Unlike testimony by former 'friends' these dogs have no agenda.

But Fiedler said prosecutors offered no independent evidence to corroborate the dogs’ indications, noting that no remains were found. He also noted an analysis offered by Zapata’s defense team that all three dogs failed to identify odors left by human remains more than 50 percent of the time.

“The state has failed to convince me that it’s any more reliable than the flip of a coin,” Fiedler said.
https://www.twincities.com/2007/08/31/judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-cannot-be-used-at-murder-trial/

The dogs handlers may well have an agenda.  The FACT is we don't know what the alerts in Luz point to.. I thought you preferred factsvto speculation

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ignoring or rejecting alerts by cadaver dogs is not advisable imo. Unlike testimony by former 'friends' these dogs have no agenda.

But Fiedler said prosecutors offered no independent evidence to corroborate the dogs’ indications, noting that no remains were found. He also noted an analysis offered by Zapata’s defense team that all three dogs failed to identify odors left by human remains more than 50 percent of the time.

“The state has failed to convince me that it’s any more reliable than the flip of a coin,” Fiedler said.
https://www.twincities.com/2007/08/31/judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-cannot-be-used-at-murder-trial/

I suggest you pass on the benefit of your wisdom to the German and British police then, who appeared to have done just that in this case, they're sure to bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.

[G-Unit]

Absolute rubbish

Yesterday you posted..

 I have no reason to believe that the German police didn't identify the owner of the van using the number plate they were given.


So it seems you believe the German police when it suits you... Lol

I have no reason to believe that Wolters and the entire investigating team are lying.. Do you

I didn't say I believed the German police specifically. I do believe they would investigate a number plate if Interpol asked them to do so.

I would have been very suspicious if they told Interpol they had evidence about the keeper of the van but didn't want to share it though.

[Mr Gray]

I didn't say I believed the German police specifically. I do believe they would investigate a number plate if Interpol asked them to do so.

I would have been very suspicious if they told Interpol they had evidence about the keeper of the van but didn't want to share it though.

Do you not understand why Wolters doesn't want to share the evidence