The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[The General]

What utter arrogance that you set yourself up against experienced professional investigators who have determined that Brueckner is the chief suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The fact that Brueckner is the unequivocal suspect based on unequivocal evidence should really have penetrated your unequivocal prejudices ere now.

Unequivocal? Leaving no doubt? Are you still referring to the evidence against CB, you know, the circumstantial evidence?
Face it, the game is no longer afoot. This is not the nonce you are looking for.

[Mr Gray]

Yep, not the right kind of evidence to put to CB or even a judge, Mr Wolters said: “It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”

it could be a photograph...and perhaps more

[Brietta]

Unequivocal? Leaving no doubt? Are you still referring to the evidence against CB, you know, the circumstantial evidence?
Face it, the game is no longer afoot. This is not the nonce you are looking for.

You are ignorant of the evidence held by investigators ~ perhaps it would be a good idea for you to have patience to wait and see how the case against Brueckner progresses.  But no fun in that - is there.

[G-Unit]

What utter arrogance that you set yourself up against experienced professional investigators who have determined that Brueckner is the chief suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The fact that Brueckner is the unequivocal suspect based on unequivocal evidence should really have penetrated your unequivocal prejudices ere now.

Like most people these experienced professional investigators are liable to being instructed what they should or should not investigate.

[G-Unit]

Unequivocal? Leaving no doubt? Are you still referring to the evidence against CB, you know, the circumstantial evidence?
Face it, the game is no longer afoot. This is not the nonce you are looking for.

The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.

[Brietta]

Like most people these experienced professional investigators are liable to being instructed what they should or should not investigate.

I simply cannot countenance the mindset which thinks evidence making Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's case was magicked up to suit sceptic prejudices.
These erudite folk are still showing their ignorance under media articles declaring "dogs don't lie".  I'm afraid there is no cure for that.

[The General]

The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.

They're so reticent, they never even bothered trying to question him as a witness. That would the savvy thing to do, instead of blurting it out to the globe that the guy in the jug is also in the frame. And they call the PJ inpet. The frontage!

[Brietta]

The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.

You really don't know that nor do you know what evidence the German investigation holds against Brueckner; just your mere speculation not backed up with fact - unless you are being supplied with inside info from the horse's mouth and I don't think you are.

[Brietta]

They're so reticent, they never even bothered trying to question him as a witness. That would the savvy thing to do, instead of blurting it out to the globe that the guy in the jug is also in the frame. And they call the PJ inpet. The frontage!

Please allow me to remind you that the source of the information is Amaral who has evidenced more than a couple of other spoilers he parachuted into the German investigation for his own reasons.

[The General]

Please allow me to remind you that the source of the information is Amaral who has evidenced more than a couple of other spoilers he parachuted into the German investigation for his own reasons.

No, he rather presciently foresaw the coming of Patsy Man. He was right again, the good doctor. Get over it, if you can puncture your unequivocal prejudices.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Like most people these experienced professional investigators are liable to being instructed what they should or should not investigate.

second time of asking:
You think if the police uncovered CCTV clearly showing Gerry McCann carrying his daughter’s corpse they would have ignored it and continued investigating stranger abduction?  Is that seriously what you believe?

[Mr Gray]

No, he rather presciently foresaw the coming of Patsy Man. He was right again, the good doctor. Get over it, if you can puncture your unequivocal prejudices.

he did not forsee the coming of the patsy.....again I find it hard to believe you are serious or so easily taken in

[Mr Gray]

The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.

in your opinion..in mine they do...the latest article suggested Grange may well have closed as SY feel the Germans have soved the case....

[The General]

he did not forsee the coming of the patsy.....again I find it hard to believe you are serious or so easily taken in

You started it, you apparently think Martin Grime is a charlatan, but won't tell him.


Anyway, back on topic.....CB box ticking, totally not libelous, boxes, parameters created arbitrarily by supporters. Change the boxes.

[The General]

in your opinion..in mine they do...the latest article suggested Grange may well have closed as SY feel the Germans have soved the case....

Finally. So can we have last year's money back then, seeing as Dick was briefed by HCW?
And you accuse me of being gullible.