As we approach 2023, have we learned anything new?

[Wonderfulspam]

Amaral is a convicted perjurer who has tried to pervert the course of justice in Madeleine's case by publicising false information in response to an official police appeal.

These are the facts and I can well see why you would choose to ignore them.

Shocking. This is the first time I've heard about all this. Truly outrageous behaviour from Amaral.
Someone should do something about it. Have you thought about reporting him to Wolters?

[kizzy]

Amaral is a convicted perjurer who has tried to pervert the course of justice in Madeleine's case by publicising false information in response to an official police appeal.

These are the facts and I can well see why you would choose to ignore them.

by publicising false information

Seems to me that at this moment in time ...HCW is the culprit for that B

[Brietta]

As I said previously....the mcc tried to sue him for all these so-called lies and failed.

convicted perjurer or not .......stands for nothing it seems or is not as bad as your posts make out.

Seems his belief is more to the truth ...than the abduction is.

Your intervention on Amaral's behalf is confirmation going into 2023 of exactly how much of an influence on sceptic logic Amaral has been and is.

Nothing could be clearer about the depths of perfidy sceptics are willing to tolerate than the attempt to take the heat off a suspect who is a convicted rapist and child molester by publishing lies about his appearance - complete with photoshopped images.
Amaral did that.  It says a lot about sceptics that they are willing to tolerate and condone the actions of such a person.

[Wonderfulspam]

Your intervention on Amaral's behalf is confirmation going into 2023 of exactly how much of an influence on sceptic logic Amaral has been and is.

Nothing could be clearer about the depths of perfidy sceptics are willing to tolerate than the attempt to take the heat off a suspect who is a convicted rapist and child molester by publishing lies about his appearance - complete with photoshopped images.
Amaral did that.  It says a lot about sceptics that they are willing to tolerate and condone the actions of such a person.

So someone gave Amaral rubbish information. There wasn't any trace of Maddie in Brueckner's campervan either, but someone told Sandra F & Jon Clarke there was. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you really believe Amaral's dreadlocks & cartoon campervan damaged the case against Brueckner in any way? Wolters already had the concrete evidence before any of that.

[Brietta]

The resident Wind Up Merchant has not the slightest intention of bothering to write a fresh script for 2023 ... the old repetitive mantra seems sufficient for all purposes.

[Brietta]

by publicising false information

Seems to me that at this moment in time ...HCW is the culprit for that B

You do yourself or your cause absolutely no favours by posting libel.  Nothing changes for sceptic techniques in 2023.

[Wonderfulspam]

The resident Wind Up Merchant has not the slightest intention of bothering to write a fresh script for 2023 ... the old repetitive mantra seems sufficient for all purposes.

With respect Brietta, you're still spouting the same tired old crap, banging on about Amaral & dreadlocks again.
Maybe stop doing that, & I'll stop taking the Michael.

[kizzy]

Your intervention on Amaral's behalf is confirmation going into 2023 of exactly how much of an influence on sceptic logic Amaral has been and is.

Nothing could be clearer about the depths of perfidy sceptics are willing to tolerate than the attempt to take the heat off a suspect who is a convicted rapist and child molester by publishing lies about his appearance - complete with photoshopped images.
Amaral did that.  It says a lot about sceptics that they are willing to tolerate and condone the actions of such a person.

Wrong again as your posts usually are IYO as that's just all it is

I'm not trying to take the heat off anyone. Just saying like, the evidence isn't even lukewarm.

What it says about sceptics IMO....... is they have a mind of there own

[Lace]

With respect Brietta, you're still spouting the same tired old crap, banging on about Amaral & dreadlocks again.
Maybe stop doing that, & I'll stop taking the Michael.

Ahh but why did Amaral say these things,  very strange I would say.

[Lace]

Wrong again as your posts usually are IYO as that's just all it is

I'm not trying to take the heat off anyone. Just saying like, the evidence isn't even lukewarm.

What it says about sceptics IMO....... is they have a mind of there own

You don't know what evidence they have.   

[Wonderfulspam]

You don't know what evidence they have.

No DNA or forensics, we know that.
Care to guess what evidence they might have?

[kizzy]

You don't know what evidence they have.

Neither do you.

[jassi]

You don't know what evidence they have.

 
Quite, so we shouldn't assume that they have anything conclusive.

[G-Unit]

Nothing new has been learned imo. Nothing has ever been revealed which connects Brueckner to Madeleine's disappearance anyway. Lots of speculation but no evidence imo.

[Brietta]

Wrong again as your posts usually are IYO as that's just all it is

I'm not trying to take the heat off anyone. Just saying like, the evidence isn't even lukewarm.

What it says about sceptics IMO....... is they have a mind of there own

Funny how you all happen to be singing from the same hymn sheet.  Just as a matter of interest - why do you think Amaral mixed up an illustration of a suspect who habitually wore his hair short back and sides showing him wearing dreadlocks?
Information on why might progress the learning curve for 2023.