Discovery Plus new 3 part documentary Feb 2021

[Lace]

Sorry I thought CB made the call to someone.

Correction,   I am wrong someone rang CB.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Some offenders may also be subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which prohibits certain activities, for example going near schools or playgrounds. There are also robust systems in place for vetting people seeking to work with children and barring all those who have convictions for sex offences from doing so


Paedophiles are not just let out of prison,  they are monitored.

Judging from Spam's comments (yes I know we are supposed to believe he is just on a wind-up but maybe he is sincere) we should not have any concerns for "ex" paedo rapists as to do so is to assume they may still pose a threat, whereas we should instead presume they will never offend again.

[Lace]

We've been through this before remember.

He hasn't raped or molested anyone in ages, same as I haven't taken drugs.
I'm an ex addict, ergo he's an ex rapist.
I can't see why you don't understand this.

There is a huge difference between dealing drugs and being a rapist and a paedophile.

You  took and sold drugs to others,   the others being like minded people taking drugs.   The woman didn't ask to be raped,  the children didn't ask to be molested,   That is the difference.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is a huge difference between dealing drugs and being a rapist and a paedophile.

You  took and sold drugs to others,   the others being like minded people taking drugs.   The woman didn't ask to be raped,  the children didn't ask to be molested,   That is the difference.

Also - an addict is always an addict even if they no longer feed their addiction.  Look at how attendees at AA meetings introduce themselves to the group: "My name is............. and I'm an alcoholic" even if they've been sober for 10 years. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Also - an addict is always an addict even if they no longer feed their addiction.  Look at how attendees at AA meetings introduce themselves to the group: "My name is............. and I'm an alcoholic" even if they've been sober for 10 years.

I've never been to an AA meeting so I wouldn't know, but good luck with your recovery.

[faithlilly]

I've never been to an AA meeting so I wouldn't know, but good luck with your recovery.

Now that did make me chuckle.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I've never been to an AA meeting so I wouldn't know, but good luck with your recovery.

Thanks, but as I'm sure you are only too well aware I wasn't referring to myself. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Now that did make me chuckle.

Bless you - little things please little minds.

[barrier]

Sorry, “grand master”?  You what?  It’s my understanding that the contents of the call are less interesting than  the location of the call recipient at the time the call was made, something that the maker of the call might be able to verify.

The caller might be dead in a ditch, drunk in a bar in Mogadishu, Wolters know's the caller can't be traced imo.

Hans Christian Wolters: The phone which was used for the call to Christian B. was a prepaid phone. … So, we are not able to find this person in an easy way.


With no witness's being able to provide evidence CB was there that night, the investigation is not going anywhere, any time soon.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The caller might be dead in a ditch, drunk in a bar in Mogadishu, Wolters know's the caller can't be traced imo.

Hans Christian Wolters: The phone which was used for the call to Christian B. was a prepaid phone. … So, we are not able to find this person in an easy way.


With no witness's being able to provide evidence CB was there that night, the investigation is not going anywhere, any time soon.

I see.  So he should never have bothered trying to trace him in the first place.  The Amaral style of policing much admired by so many.

[barrier]

I see.  So he should never have bothered trying to trace him in the first place.  The Amaral style of policing much admired by so many.

Obviously the critical line of enquiry Rowley talked of, that's why the appeal, its fallen on deaf ear's.
Wolters contradicts him self, talks of strong evidence his suspect done for Madeleine, then goes on to say,"in Germany they charge someone only if we are sure that he will be sentenced by the court. If there are doubts … we don't charge him". 

He's that sure, he has doubts, yeah right.

[jassi]

Obviously the critical line of enquiry Rowley talked of, that's why the appeal, its fallen on deaf ear's.
Wolters contradicts him self, talks of strong evidence his suspect done for Madeleine, then goes on to say,"in Germany they charge someone only if we are sure that he will be sentenced by the court. If there are doubts … we don't charge him". 

He's that sure, he has doubts, yeah right.

What might appear strong evidence to one person might be considered tenuous by another. Hence not proceeding to prosecution at present.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Obviously the critical line of enquiry Rowley talked of, that's why the appeal, its fallen on deaf ear's.
Wolters contradicts him self, talks of strong evidence his suspect done for Madeleine, then goes on to say,"in Germany they charge someone only if we are sure that he will be sentenced by the court. If there are doubts … we don't charge him". 

He's that sure, he has doubts, yeah right.

He doesn't say HE has doubts he means if there is any reason for doubt in a court of law the suspect could get off.   Like with the Submarine murder case - it was absolutely obvious what went on, the investigators had no doubt, but they needed the crucial piece of evidence that proved it before the suspect could be tried for murder.  Why you should find it necessary to mock the man's efforts for trying his best to find this evidence is beyond me quite frankly.

[kizzy]

He doesn't say HE has doubts he means if there is any reason for doubt in a court of law the suspect could get off.   Like with the Submarine murder case - it was absolutely obvious what went on, the investigators had no doubt, but they needed the crucial piece of evidence that proved it before the suspect could be tried for murder.  Why you should find it necessary to mock the man's efforts for trying his best to find this evidence is beyond me quite frankly.

So you can mock GA but not wolt..

IMO GA had a lot more to work with than wolt ever will.

The doc yet again is just the one-sided same old that they can only show because of all the stuff put in place by the mccs IMO.

No transparency - just follows on from the so-called abduction of which has never it seems has never been proved happened in the first place IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you can mock GA but not wolt..

IMO GA had a lot more to work with than wolt ever will.

The doc yet again is just the one-sided same old that they can only show because of all the stuff put in place by the mccs IMO.

No transparency - just follows on from the so-called abduction of which has never it seems has never been proved happened in the first place IMO.

Yes I believe you can mock Amaral for his belief that Calpol is a sedative, for his belief that MI5 are involved in a cover-up, for believing the McCanns used a hire car to transport Madeleine's corpse 23 days after her death, for also suggesting that her body was hidden in a coffin in the church, for deliberately misleading the public wrt to Bruckner's appearance and that of his van at the time of the disappearance, for his criminal record and proven history of deceit and fraud, for his penchant for tacky ear decorations, the list is almost endless.  When HCW amasses even half the number of mockable transgressions then I would agree he too would be an acceptable target, but as yet I don't believe he has done anything yet to merit that level of scorn.