The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[barrier]

I think it's sceptics who in the main don't understand profiling... Look at the support Pat Brown gets.. Then statement analysis... Opinion.. Body language experts.. Opinion....cadaver dogs... Opinion
But most sceptics seem to swallow it all

You on the other hand swallow what a German prosecutor tells you with out being remotely interested in that he can't produce any facts.

[jassi]

Lets run with that, he says she's dead, what's the connection to CB, remember no photo with CB and Madeleine together, its circumstantial, circumstantial possibly doesn't cut it in a German court , forensics nailed CB for the rape, no scientific evidence in this case .

You're one of Amarals biggest critics, whats different about what Wolters say's, he's said if you knew what I knew you'd reach the same conclusion , is that it , his word ?

Not yet. Something might yet miraculously appear - say a recycled pubic hair. 

[Eleanor]

Number 3 was Madeleine the victim of a paedophile ?

Or was she just abducted?

[jassi]

No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.

[barrier]

Not yet. Something might yet miraculously appear - say a recycled pubic hair. 

Unlikely but I get your drift, any scientific evidence will have been gone over to the nth degree and then some.

[barrier]

No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.

Or was she just abducted?

It is of note that Wolters hasn't mentioned 5a.

[Mr Gray]

No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.

If Wolters has the evidence he has suggested he doesnt need to

[barrier]

If Wolters has the evidence he has suggested he doesnt need to

When you actually read of what he's suggested it adds up to nothing but his circumstantial.

[Eleanor]

No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.

Goodness me.  There's clever.

[Lace]

Amaral says he knew about CB back in 2007 -

Amaral said his detectives found nothing to suggest the German was involved in Madeleine’s abduction.

So he didn't notice his phone being used near to the Tapas Bar.    Isn't it such a shame he didn't look into him more closely.  He could have checked his van and house for DNA.   

Mind,  if he thought he had dreadlocks and cartoon characters on his van,  did he look at the wrong person?

[Eleanor]

Amaral says he knew about CB back in 2007 -

Amaral said his detectives found nothing to suggest the German was involved in Madeleine’s abduction.

So he didn't notice his phone being used near to the Tapas Bar.    Isn't it such a shame he didn't look into him more closely.  He could have checked his van and house for DNA.   

Mind,  if he thought he had dreadlocks and cartoon characters on his van,  did he look at the wrong person?

Amaral didn't think Brueckner had dreadlocks or cartoon characters on his van.  Amaral lied.  We don't know why he lied.  We only know that he did lie.

[G-Unit]

I think it's sceptics who in the main don't understand profiling... Look at the support Pat Brown gets.. Then statement analysis... Opinion.. Body language experts.. Opinion....cadaver dogs... Opinion
But most sceptics seem to swallow it all

I don't know if profilers, statement analysts or body language experts have given evidence in the courts as expert witnesses, but cadaver dog handlers have.

[Mr Gray]

I don't know if profilers, statement analysts or body language experts have given evidence in the courts as expert witnesses, but cadaver dog handlers have.

Its still opinion with no real evidence to support it

[G-Unit]

Its still opinion with no real evidence to support it

As is other expert witness testimony.

[Mr Gray]

As is other expert witness testimony.

Absolutely.. And there have been experts who have spoken rubbish