New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[G-Unit]

As i said...my post would go right over your head. I explained why they didnt.

The portuguese court accepted a lie as a proven fact..the ECHR dont question the findings of the national court..even if theyre total bo77ocks as in this case

The ECHR are there to decide if a nation breached someone's human rights. That often involves examining and disagreeing with the findings of that nation's courts surely?

Germany's courts may decide that Wolters didn't breach Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence, but if the matter progresses to the ECHR they may disagree.

[Eleanor]

That's probably because whatever his name is can't even understand why he was wrong. I wonder if Wolters is ever going to produce a photo of Madeleine tying her to Brueckner or is that conviction of Mr Gray's wrong also?

You are much more wronger about everything.

As for photographs, please don't imagine that any of us will get to see them, even if there are any.  Some evidence is never shown beyond The Courts.

[Wonderfulspam]

You are much more wronger about everything.

As for photographs, please don't imagine that any of us will get to see them, even if there are any.  Some evidence is never shown beyond The Courts.

Well, there just aren't any, so no need to waste time thinking about that. Unless one enjoys imagining Maddie pornography I suppose.

[Wonderfulspam]

Well anyway, I believe the MET know where Madeleine is & have her under surveillance. They are just waiting until she reaches the right age when she can legally be rescued.

[Mr Gray]

The ECHR are there to decide if a nation breached someone's human rights. That often involves examining and disagreeing with the findings of that nation's courts surely?

Germany's courts may decide that Wolters didn't breach Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence, but if the matter progresses to the ECHR they may disagree.

You are confirming your lack of understanding... The ECHR look at the facts... I still don't understand how the presence of cadaver odour in 5a became a proven fact

[Mr Gray]

Yet you argued that they would not lose.

I didn't factor in the Portuguese courts presenting lies as proven facts... I don't think anyone would expect that

[G-Unit]

You are confirming your lack of understanding... The ECHR look at the facts... I still don't understand how the presence of cadaver odour in 5a became a proven fact

You are completely off topic. I will answer you on the appropriate thread.

[sadie]

You are completely off topic. I will answer you on the appropriate thread.

Unable to answer Mr Grays (Davels) point are you, Gunit ?

[Brietta]

I see you are limited by your intelligence to not being able to make a sensible reply.....you cannot counter one word Ive said....that shows your claim to intelligence as being rather weak

My firm opinion based on observation is that mccann sceptics are incapable of cogent thought or argument.  The unexpected advent of a suspect who ticks all the boxes in the profile investigators have long thought probable (eg Raymond Hewlitt ~ SNIP Yesterday Bild newspaper, Germany's biggest, reported that Hewlett admitted seeing Madeleine twice and described the mark in her right eye. The report is understood to be based on 'police sources' in Germany.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191094/Paedophile-Raymond-Hewlett-admits-I-saw-Madeleine-McCann-twice-disappeared.html) as Brueckner does, definitely appears to have upset their equilibrium somewhat.

There is little doubt sceptics have lost the argument of falsehoods they have built up over the years regarding Madeleine's family.

Logically the existence of a police suspect like Bruekner invalidates the "proven facts" of mccann sceptic inventiveness, making it impossible for them to engage in anything approaching meaningful debate to counter anything you are saying.  Unfortunately logic was never the driving force for them so I don't think intelligence was ever their issue; more a lack of humanity and common sense as much of their nonsensical posts attest.

[John]

I know there isn't much happening at the moment in this case guys but please keep comments and replies respectful at all times. TY

[Wonderfulspam]

My firm opinion based on observation is that mccann sceptics are incapable of cogent thought or argument.  The unexpected advent of a suspect who ticks all the boxes in the profile investigators have long thought probable (eg Raymond Hewlitt ~ SNIP Yesterday Bild newspaper, Germany's biggest, reported that Hewlett admitted seeing Madeleine twice and described the mark in her right eye. The report is understood to be based on 'police sources' in Germany.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191094/Paedophile-Raymond-Hewlett-admits-I-saw-Madeleine-McCann-twice-disappeared.html) as Brueckner does, definitely appears to have upset their equilibrium somewhat.

There is little doubt sceptics have lost the argument of falsehoods they have built up over the years regarding Madeleine's family.

Logically the existence of a police suspect like Bruekner invalidates the "proven facts" of mccann sceptic inventiveness, making it impossible for them to engage in anything approaching meaningful debate to counter anything you are saying.  Unfortunately logic was never the driving force for them so I don't think intelligence was ever their issue; more a lack of humanity and common sense as much of their nonsensical posts attest.

Well get back to us sceptics when the new prime suspect is charged, won't you dear.
It shouldn't be much longer now.

[John]

I didn't factor in the Portuguese courts presenting lies as proven facts... I don't think anyone would expect that

Really?  I think you are being just a tad naive David.

[Wonderfulspam]

The existence of the new prime suspect demolishes all the sceptic theories.

"It's over for sceptics lol, Wolters has solved the case"

An esteemed supporter once wrote.

Only, it's 2 years on, & still no charges in sight for Brueckner. None in the foreseeable future.

Get back to us when guys. Not much longer now!

[sadie]

Really?  I think you are being just a tad naive David.

John, sorry, but Davel is correct.

[Mr Gray]

Really?  I think you are being just a tad naive David.

It gets a little frustrating when posters with a lack of knowledge criticise me.... Have a look at proven facts 5 and 6...i think that's the correct number.. In the SC judgement
Then tell me what you think. Lies in the SC judgement is the only reasonable description of them... Same thing happened in the Cipriano trial. Its most odd... Most most odd