New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[G-Unit]

What do you think airing your scepticism about it on this forum actually achieved?

That my opinion was the correct one, despite others insisting that theirs was correct? There should always be those to put the alternative point of view unless we want a cosy little gang here all with the same convictions.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, there are those who are still content to rely on the Germans convicting their (not so new) suspect of crimes against Madeleine McCann, for example.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That my opinion was the correct one, despite others insisting that theirs was correct? There should always be those to put the alternative point of view unless we want a cosy little gang here all with the same convictions.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, there are those who are still content to rely on the Germans convicting their (not so new) suspect of crimes against Madeleine McCann, for example.

So what you achieved was the self-congratulatory glow of being right for once.  What an achievement, well done.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That my opinion was the correct one, despite others insisting that theirs was correct? There should always be those to put the alternative point of view unless we want a cosy little gang here all with the same convictions.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, there are those who are still content to rely on the Germans convicting their (not so new) suspect of crimes against Madeleine McCann, for example.

What realistically do you see as the alternative to relying on the Germans to bring a successful conviction against Bruckner for the abduction of Madeleine McCann?  What is intrinsically wrong with waiting and seeing whether or not this happens?  What should we be doing instead?

[Wonderfulspam]

What realistically do you see as the alternative to relying on the Germans to bring a successful conviction against Bruckner for the abduction of Madeleine McCann?  What is intrinsically wrong with waiting and seeing whether or not this happens?  What should we be doing instead?

Looking for Madeleine. We should never give up hope & keep looking for her. Even though Wolters has irrefutable, concrete evidence Brueckner murdered her, & if we saw the evidence Wolters has we would be in no doubt & even though there's simply no other possibility & no hope she is alive, we should never stop looking for her. I'm sure that's what the McCanns would want.

[G-Unit]

So what you achieved was the self-congratulatory glow of being right for once.  What an achievement, well done.

I didn't know how it would all turn out. All I did was challenge those who were convinced that they were cleverer, more intelligent and knowledgeable than I was. They weren't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I didn't know how it would all turn out. All I did was challenge those who were convinced that they were cleverer, more intelligent and knowledgeable than I was. They weren't.

You want more congratulations I see.   

[G-Unit]

You want more congratulations I see.   

Thank you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thank you.

You’re welcome.  Now perhaps you can give us the further benefit of your wisdom and advise us on the following:
What realistically do you see as the alternative to relying on the Germans to bring a successful conviction against Bruckner for the abduction of Madeleine McCann?  What is intrinsically wrong with waiting and seeing whether or not this happens?  What should we be doing instead?

[G-Unit]

You’re welcome.  Now perhaps you can give us the further benefit of your wisdom and advise us on the following:
What realistically do you see as the alternative to relying on the Germans to bring a successful conviction against Bruckner for the abduction of Madeleine McCann?  What is intrinsically wrong with waiting and seeing whether or not this happens?  What should we be doing instead?

You can do what you like just as I can. Your instincts seem to lie with relying on others, mine with examining and questioning their statements. We both have no choice when it comes to waiting, obviously.

[sadie]

With respect Eleanor, Up yours you miserable old witch.

Watch it, WS.

Eleanor cares about people and Justice; she is no witch.   She is a carer, abused by the likes of you and she has worked hard since Madeleine went missing showing empathy and seeking Justice .


You are sorely lacking in both departments, IMHO.


You enjoy showing off using disruption.  It's a technique whose purpose is to prevent Justice in this case IMO.

There has to be a reason that you do it.   Why, what is it?

[sadie]

You hope Maddie was murdered by a paedophile?

Disgusting, some of the things people 'hope for' on this forum are quite disgusting.

Madeleine still lives and it makes sense that she was never abused as a child.

She was wanted because of her very special bloodline, as a pure unadulterated Mother for a very special baby, fathered by a selected person of a certain special bloodline ... criminal, of course, but she doesn't know that

[Vertigo Swirl]

You can do what you like just as I can. Your instincts seem to lie with relying on others, mine with examining and questioning their statements. We both have no choice when it comes to waiting, obviously.

IMO you are engaging in a completely pointless task, one which you have been engaged in for years and which has uncovered nothing of merit.  You are going over very old ground day in day out, and don’t seem to care that you haven’t got the full set of data to work with, nor the access, skills and expertise to fully understand them.  Relying on the authorities to solve this mystery is literally all our only realistic option.

[Wonderfulspam]

Watch it, WS.

Eleanor cares about people and Justice; she is no witch.   She is a carer, abused by the likes of you and she has worked hard since Madeleine went missing showing empathy and seeking Justice .


You are sorely lacking in both departments, IMHO.


You enjoy showing off using disruption.  It's a technique whose purpose is to prevent Justice in this case IMO.

There has to be a reason that you do it.   Why, what is it?

No I'm sorry sadie, I'm usually restrained & don't dish out personal insults, but from now on, if members wish to call me names, well, they'll be getting some back. That is justice.

[Wonderfulspam]

IMO you are engaging in a completely pointless task, one which you have been engaged in for years and which has uncovered nothing of merit.  You are going over very old ground day in day out, and don’t seem to care that you haven’t got the full set of data to work with, nor the access, skills and expertise to fully understand them.  Relying on the authorities to solve this mystery is literally all our only realistic option.

Yes, we just have to trust that the MET really do have convincing EMWTIACABAS, even though none of us can imagine what EMWTIACABAS they could possibly have, beyond points 1 & 2 previously listed.

[Mr Gray]

I didn't know how it would all turn out. All I did was challenge those who were convinced that they were cleverer, more intelligent and knowledgeable than I was. They weren't.

I dont think an intelligent educated person would use such an ineleagnt word as "cleverer".
Having said that I dont think intelligence comes into it....and i know Im streets ahead on that score. whats important is knowledge...and Im streets ahead there too.

The General kindly showed me why all my analysis of the facts came to nought.... the link he supplied has been deleted... a link to an official paper....but I may well have posted the snip somewhere.

The reason the mccanns lost was because the portuguese courts included what can only be described as lies in the proven facts.....they did the same in the cipriano case too... it must be a quirk of their judicisl system.

The ECHR simply accept the facts from the trial ..they dont examine their veracity so as far as the ECHR were concerned cadaver odour was confirmed in 5a. Based on that fact it was quite reasonable for the ECHR to see Amarals thesis as factuallly based. ..when in fact it wasnt.

The problem is no sceptic Ive come accross has the intelligence or knowledge to undestand my factual explanation....do you. see if you can include some facts in your counter explanation if you reply.

As for spelling and grammar i take refuge in Einstein saying he hated grammar and he was poor at spelling