Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[kizzy]

I watched some of it because I'm open minded and open to have my opinion changed if new evidence comes to light. I've watched some David Icke stuff.. Not because I believe him but I can't dismiss him from a position of ignorance.
Thats the sign of someone who is truly open minded and forms a valid opinion based on evidence.
How much of Wolters have you listened to?

Well, what little there was - all of it.

Thus I would think I know as much as you -  after 8 months of nothing new.

[Mr Gray]

Well, what little there was - all of it.

Thus I would think I know as much as you -  after 8 months of nothing new.

We don't know what evidence the Germans have... You want to dismiss Wolters out of hand.. I want to hear what evidence he has first.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was I talking to you - but there again I talk to anyone I'm nice like that VS

It didn't suit my agenda as such but the conclusion was they did not know what happened that night.



Same as you and me really

You must have been watching a different video to the one I watched.  The one I watched concluded with them saying that it was a bit like the OJ Simpson case, you knew they did it but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.  That if you were on the jury you'd have to return a "not guilty" verdict and then be kicking yourself forever afterwards because you just knew they did it.  Perhaps you fell asleep before that bit, I wouldn't have blamed you....

[Eleanor]

I watched some of it because I'm open minded and open to have my opinion changed if new evidence comes to light. I've watched some David Icke stuff.. Not because I believe him but I can't dismiss him from a position of ignorance.
Thats the sign of someone who is truly open minded and forms a valid opinion based on evidence.
How much of Wolters have you listened to?

Absolutely.  And my goodness me, the rubbish I have watched over the years.

[kizzy]

Why would anyone willingly allow their intelligence to be insulted and corrupted by subscribing to videos and podcasts produced to permeate one opinionated aspect of a complex situation as the producer dictates and continue to think they have thought it all through for themselves?

Why would anyone willingly allow their intelligence to be insulted and corrupted by subscribing


Well, I would think anyone who doesn't believe the mccs version of events. 

as for subscription, you will have noticed they cover a vast amount of subjects, not just the mccs, they did that it seems because of public demand.

I wouldn't call it to insult intelligence ...more that they can think for themselves and not be brainwashed with every so called suspect.

[kizzy]

We don't know what evidence the Germans have... You want to dismiss Wolters out of hand.. I want to hear what evidence he has first.

So does everyone I suppose - as of yet though as you say no one knows what he has if anything of value.

Just pointless keep speculating what you think Wolt has.

[G-Unit]

I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is ... what do you think?

They mentioned Calpol because there was a theory at the time that the children had been given an overdose of it, and this was mentioned in the Netfix documentary. They didn't say they believed it was a sedative imo. Listen from 19:19.

[Mr Gray]

So does everyone I suppose - as of yet though as you say no one knows what he has if anything of value.

Just pointless keep speculating what you think Wolt has.

I'm happy to wait

[kizzy]

You must have been watching a different video to the one I watched.  The one I watched concluded with them saying that it was a bit like the OJ Simpson case, you knew they did it but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.  That if you were on the jury you'd have to return a "not guilty" verdict and then be kicking yourself forever afterwards because you just knew they did it.  Perhaps you fell asleep before that bit, I wouldn't have blamed you....

Lol NO. but well-done word for word.

I think basically it was more they didn't commit themselves, because you can only go so far as to the conclusion you yourself come to.

They couldn't go straight in accusing them and they didn't they tried to put a reasonable excuse for there behaviour.

It wasn't  there fault -  if they failed miserably at trying to defend them IMO 

[kizzy]

I'm happy to wait

I know - so am I even though it has been over thirteen years.

[Mr Gray]

They mentioned Calpol because there was a theory at the time that the children had been given an overdose of it, and this was mentioned in the Netfix documentary. They didn't say they believed it was a sedative imo. Listen from 19:19.

You need to listen agin. they suggest the child maight not be able to scream because she had beeen given calpol...they talk about lots of people giving children calpol to help them sleep. They even say ..as  a fact...a syringe was found. there was no syringe found...more Garbage

[Vertigo Swirl]

Lol NO. but well-done word for word.

I think basically it was more they didn't commit themselves, because you can only go so far as to the conclusion you yourself come to.

They couldn't go straight in accusing them and they didn't they tried to put a reasonable excuse for there behaviour.

It wasn't  there fault -  if they failed miserably at trying to defend them IMO

IMO, the outcome of their "investigations" and conclusions was completely predictable and pre-judged.  I watched the bit where the butch one said "They've taken her" was a red flag and that any reasonable person would simply assume their child had wandered off.  The weedy one said "yeah but what about the "alleged" open window?, surely that would be an indicator that your child had been taken rather than wandered off?", but that explanation was more or less completely brushed off without any reasonable rationale apart from the implication that Kate was lying.  Well, what if she WASNT lying and the window WAS found open?  Then that would explain why she said what she said (even though her exact words were not recorded anyway).  The whole podcast is an exercise in bias confirmation IMO, pandering to a McCann Bashing crowd who lap up  this sort of propaganda as it confirms their own biases.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I enjoyed the bit where the weedy one said how much he liked the fat cop with the glasses even though agreeing with the butch one that he was crap at his job.  He described him as "likeable" - I mean, what?!

[Vertigo Swirl]

They did talk about the dead dog she was stitched into and the volcano that the body was tossed into.  I think...

[G-Unit]

You must have been watching a different video to the one I watched.  The one I watched concluded with them saying that it was a bit like the OJ Simpson case, you knew they did it but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.  That if you were on the jury you'd have to return a "not guilty" verdict and then be kicking yourself forever afterwards because you just knew they did it.  Perhaps you fell asleep before that bit, I wouldn't have blamed you....

1:29:42 Paraphrasing what was said here, it was "Do you think, based on what we know and the evidence we have, that we can work out what the most likey scenario was?" Answer "No."

The one who said no nevertheless offered his opinion; he leaned towards the McCanns being involved, despite the fact that there was insufficient evidence and enough reasonable doubt to prevent them from being convicted in a court of law. He also pointed out that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the abduction theory.