It is the repetition, ad finitum, that is goading AS WELL YOU KNOW
and that's why as a WUM you keep doing it.
John, why are WIND UP MERCHANTS allowed on this forum? Time to put a stop to it, please. It is counterproductive to the forum.
For me, life is all about comedy. I enjoy the slightly comedic effect I find resulting from the repetition. For example, it's pretty obvious now Wolters hasn't really solved the case & isn't about to anytime ever, so, by repeatedly utilising the phrase 'it shouldn't be much longer now' this serves to highlight the futility of that expectation being held. Mocking the, two year long now, anticipation held by those who believe Brueckner will at some point be charged. But, perhaps I'm wrong & Wolters really does serve CB his charge sheet tomorrow, I'll look a bit silly then, but Wolters can't see that happening.
Alternatively, one could try doing this same gag in reverse, referring to a sceptics expectation the McCanns will ever face charges. But, since the McCanns aren't even suspects, the 3 investigative forces aren't conducting a very serious investigation into them & a prosecutor hasn't forcefully declared he has concrete evidence against them (which might lead one to genuinely anticipate charges are imminent) that gag wouldn't really work.
So yeah, thank Wolters really. If he hadn't come storming out the traps the way he did, exaggerating the strength of his evidence & people hadn't been convinced by his claim (note: not Brueckner himself, & he of all people is in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not, the McCanns & the MET aren't convinced either) this opportunity to lark about would never have presented itself.
What Wolters faithful need to ask themselves is....
Why hasn't Wolters shared this concrete evidence with the McCanns?
They of all people have the most right to know if there's firm evidence of their daughters fate.
The answer to this has been it could damage the case, but no one can explain exactly how it could.
Why hasn't Wolters shared the concrete evidence with the MET?
If the answer to this is the same as before, explain how?
Why was Wolters even trying to sniff out Brueckner's location between 9pm & 10pm on May 3rd if he already has concrete evidence he murdered Maddie anyway? Abduction is a given, isn't it?
Brueckner couldn't possibly have an alibi, so why would Wolters even need to check it out?
I dunno man, like, when you really think about it, maybe Wolters doesn't really have concrete evidence after all, seems possible doesn't it. But alright, point taken, I promise I won't repeat the phrase it shouldn't be much longer now anymore & we can all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
