Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The bit G-Unit chose to omit from Arul Gaspar’s statement

“I can say that Dave was a pleasant person.

I do not remember him having any unusual characteristics.

During the holidays Dave never behaved in an inappropriate manner with Madeleine or with any of the other children.

Dave was popular with the children and I took this to be because he was a close friend to the family.

I never distrusted Dave...”

[Eleanor]

They disagreed about its significance and about the character of DP as well you know

Yes, Gunit does know.  This is just gratuitous nastiness with no foundation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes, Gunit does know.  This is just gratuitous nastiness with no foundation.

It’s typical propaganda spreading.  The obsession with the Gaspar Statement continues.  It must be incredibly puzzling to those obsessed by it why none of the professionals investigating Madeleine’s disappearance has ever been remotely interested in it.

[G-Unit]

They disagreed about its significance and about the character of DP as well you know

Yes. They agreed on the facts but their opinions differed. Facts are objective, opinions are subjective.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes. They agreed on the facts but their opinions differed. Facts are objective, opinions are subjective.

These so called facts tell us nothing wrt to what happened to Madeleine so  that’s another  fact for you to file.

[Eleanor]

Still no explanation as for why two fathers would discuss the sexual abuse of their daughters with a female witness sitting between them at a holiday dinner table.

[Brietta]

There is such an absolute desperation for all the horrible misconceptions fabricated around this case that I have learned to trust in nothing printed about them on the internet.

Particularly anything produced from the stable of so called journalist Levy; which true to form only his nom-de-plume.   At least he had the excuse for his perfidy of making a dishonest buck or two.

What motivates the others who have been looking for a paedophile since 2007 while following his lead, is one big mystery of this case.

Particularly when the prime suspect is
a) a resident at the time in Luz
b) a convicted paedophile
c) a convicted rapist
d) prime suspect of British police
e) prime suspect of Portuguese police
f) prime suspect of German police who have taken a step further and added for child murder
There is supporting evidence for all of this ~ all that is remaining is for the system to move along and test it in court.

The vile insinuations still being put forward about demonstrably innocent people while lending moral support to a monster certainly has been a part of my learning curve.
I didn't believe such arrant stupidity was possible - I know better now.

[G-Unit]

There is such an absolute desperation for all the horrible misconceptions fabricated around this case that I have learned to trust in nothing printed about them on the internet.

Particularly anything produced from the stable of so called journalist Levy; which true to form only his nom-de-plume.   At least he had the excuse for his perfidy of making a dishonest buck or two.

What motivates the others who have been looking for a paedophile since 2007 while following his lead, is one big mystery of this case.

Particularly when the prime suspect is
a) a resident at the time in Luz
b) a convicted paedophile
c) a convicted rapist
d) prime suspect of British police
e) prime suspect of Portuguese police
f) prime suspect of German police who have taken a step further and added for child murder
There is supporting evidence for all of this ~ all that is remaining is for the system to move along and test it in court.

The vile insinuations still being put forward about demonstrably innocent people while lending moral support to a monster certainly has been a part of my learning curve.
I didn't believe such arrant stupidity was possible - I know better now.

Well done. Can I assume that your scepticism extends to the online stories amanating from the newspapers?

[Wonderfulspam]

There is such an absolute desperation for all the horrible misconceptions fabricated around this case that I have learned to trust in nothing printed about them on the internet.

Particularly anything produced from the stable of so called journalist Levy; which true to form only his nom-de-plume.   At least he had the excuse for his perfidy of making a dishonest buck or two.

What motivates the others who have been looking for a paedophile since 2007 while following his lead, is one big mystery of this case.

Particularly when the prime suspect is
a) a resident at the time in Luz
b) a convicted paedophile
c) a convicted rapist
d) prime suspect of British police
e) prime suspect of Portuguese police
f) prime suspect of German police who have taken a step further and added for child murder
There is supporting evidence for all of this ~ all that is remaining is for the system to move along and test it in court.

The vile insinuations still being put forward about demonstrably innocent people while lending moral support to a monster certainly has been a part of my learning curve.
I didn't believe such arrant stupidity was possible - I know better now.

The case against The New Prime Suspect, won't be getting tested in court, anytime in the foreseeable future. He hasn't even been charged, so it isn't a matter of the court system 'moving along'. The case isn't at that stage & never will be. I did try telling you this 3 years ago, & here we are 3 years later. Still no charges for Brueckner. So my question to the forum is this...
How many more years before supporters realise Wolters never really had anything?

[Wonderfulspam]

It's interesting that Brietta says the McCanns are 'demonstrably innocent', considering the AG determined that they lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. So my question to the forum is this...
What demonstrates the McCanns innocence?

[Wonderfulspam]

Well done. Can I assume that your scepticism extends to the online stories amanating from the newspapers?

It certainly doesn't extend as far as the hot air from Wolters mouth.

[Wonderfulspam]

Nice moderating there.

I gather we are allowed to say the McCanns are demonstrably innocent, but what we're not allowed to do is ask what exactly demonstrates this innocence. 

[Eleanor]

I am not sure how I feel beyond the fact that there are some horrible people alive and breathing spite all over everything.  I think I probably feel sorry for them.  At least I hope so.

But I have also improved my English Language Skills and my ability to spot hogwash when I read it.  Sceptics need to improve their Hogwash Skills.  Although The McCanns will never be indicted for anything.  Bottom Line, Folks, but do keep on trying.  It is often amusing.

[Wonderfulspam]

I am not sure how I feel beyond the fact that there are some horrible people alive and breathing spite all over everything.  I think I probably feel sorry for them.  At least I hope so.

But I have also improved my English Language Skills and my ability to spot hogwash when I read it.  Sceptics need to improve their Hogwash Skills.  Although The McCanns will never be indicted for anything.  Bottom Line, Folks, but do keep on trying.  It is often amusing.

Why is it so important to you that no one questions the innocence of the McCanns?

[Eleanor]

It is a Fact of Law that no one has to prove their Innocence.  We all should have learned that in the last 16 Years.

If we could cut the garbage on this one then it will make my life easier.