Is it immoral to think Madeleine was abducted and murdered?

[Wonderfulspam]

Imo it's all a storm in a teacup. Some people get accused of supporting a rapist and paedophile and others get accused of wanting Madeleine to have been abducted, abused and murdered. It all seems like the normal repartee enacted on here to me. I think everyone should just move on.

There's an information vacuum, we've done CB to death now, so we should probably all go tend our gardens for the rest of the summer until any developments. The next development is likely to be Brueckner being charged with rape, exposure & molestations, but even Wolters himself can't see anything coming in the Maddie case.

[Mr Gray]

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 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  anymore & we can all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.

Every point you raised is easily answered and has been answered before. ....why bother answering again when you didn't accept it the first time.
I'll give you one example..the alibi.

In the German system the prosecutor has to look for evidence that could clear the accused..not just evidence to prosecute. Thsts a simple factual explanation...do you accept that

[Wonderfulspam]

Every point you raised is easily answered and has been answered before. ....why bother answering again when you didn't accept it the first time.
I'll give you one example..the alibi.

In the German system the prosecutor has to look for evidence that could clear the accused..not just evidence to prosecute. Thsts a simple factual explanation...do you accept that

Any system investigates the defences.

Brueckner doesn't have an alibi, apparently, SY have firm evidence Maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Bit strange that evidence didn't lead them to the abductor really.

When did you answer the question about how revealing the concrete evidence to the McCanns could harm the case against CB?

I still never got Wolters quote out of you for that one.

[Wonderfulspam]

They investigate Brueckners alibi, Wolters gets Brueckner to talk, he can't give a firm alibi & yet Wolters is still stumped, well done Wolters apparently.

[Mr Gray]

Any system investigates the defences.

Brueckner doesn't have an alibi, apparently, SY have firm evidence Maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Bit strange that evidence didn't lead them to the abductor really.

When did you answer the question about how revealing the concrete evidence to the McCanns could harm the case against CB?

I still never got Wolters quote out of you for that one.

The a German system puts a specific obligation on the prosecutor to look for evidence of innocence...you need to accept that factual point. Wolters explained why he is keeping evidence back. His explanation made perfect sense

He said he didn't want a witnesses testimony to be able to be challenged as being affected by something they had read in the press.

That's two of your points I've answered but it's pointless because you don't accept either

[Wonderfulspam]

The a German system puts a specific obligation on the prosecutor to look for evidence of innocence...you need to accept that factual point. Wolters explained why he is keeping evidence back. His explanation made perfect sense

He said he didn't want a witnesses testimony to be able to be challenged as being affected by something they had read in the press.

That's two of your points I've answered but it's pointless because you don't accept either

So Wolters believes the McCanns can't be trusted to keep the concrete evidence confidential?

Isn't that what you're saying?

That opens a can of worms really doesn't it.

[Mr Gray]

So Wolters believes the McCanns can't be trusted to keep the concrete evidence confidential?

Isn't that what you're saying?

That opens a can of worms really doesn't it.

No it doesn't open any can of worms. Wolters is running the investigation...it's his responsibility...his call
The mccanns have no right to be told anything and I haven't heard them complain

[Wonderfulspam]

No it doesn't open any can of worms. Wolters is running the investigation...it's his responsibility...his call
The mccanns have no right to be told anything and I haven't heard them complain

Well he doesn't trust the McCanns not to leak information according to you.  You said it.

[Mr Gray]

Well he doesn't trust the McCanns not to leak information according to you.  You said it.

Whatever

[Vertigo Swirl]

Imo it's all a storm in a teacup. Some people get accused of supporting a rapist and paedophile and others get accused of wanting Madeleine to have been abducted, abused and murdered. It all seems like the normal repartee enacted on here to me. I think everyone should just move on.

Hang on, it's not the same.  Some people on this forum DO support a rapist and paedophile.  They certainly have sympathy for his current plight and believe his human rights have been violated, a courtesy the same people have never exteneded to the McCanns.  It is not acceptable however IMO to accuse people of lacking a moral compass because they accept the police's line of investigation.  That is a personal attack which is not permitted on this forum, but now according to you it's "normal repartee". Right, so is it therefore acceptable for me to tell you that you lack a moral compass for any moral misjudgements I perceive you to have committed?  No, you'd accuse me of "abusing" you, right?
PS: at last, the thread is back on topic!

[Mr Gray]

Hang on, it's not the same.  Some people on this forum DO support a rapist and paedophile.  They certainly have sympathy for his current plight and believe his human rights have been violated, a courtesy the same people have never exteneded to the McCanns.  It is not acceptable however IMO to accuse people of lacking a moral compass because they accept the police's line of investigation.  That is a personal attack which is not permitted on this forum, but now according to you it's "normal repartee". Right, so is it therefore acceptable for me to tell you that you lack a moral compass for any moral misjudgements I perceive you to have committed?  No, you'd accuse me of "abusing" you, right?

I stopped trying to get any sense out of some posters some time ago. Thryve taken hypocrisy to a new level

[Wonderfulspam]

Whatever

Great response & still no quote from Wolters. That showed me aye.

[barrier]

They investigate Brueckners alibi, Wolters gets Brueckner to talk, he can't give a firm alibi & yet Wolters is still stumped, well done Wolters apparently.

How can CB give an alibi for where Wolters cannot place him .

[Mr Gray]

Great response & still no quote from Wolters. That showed me aye.

What difference would a quote from wolters make...would you believe him

[G-Unit]

Hang on, it's not the same.  Some people on this forum DO support a rapist and paedophile.  They certainly have sympathy for his current plight and believe his human rights have been violated, a courtesy the same people have never exteneded to the McCanns.  It is not acceptable however IMO to accuse people of lacking a moral compass because they accept the police's line of investigation.  That is a personal attack which is not permitted on this forum, but now according to you it's "normal repartee". Right, so is it therefore acceptable for me to tell you that you lack a moral compass for any moral misjudgements I perceive you to have committed?  No, you'd accuse me of "abusing" you, right?
PS: at last, the thread is back on topic!

You're still arguing about opinions, not about facts. As such, no-one can claim that they're right and someone else is wrong.