Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Either that, or they know that Wolters does not have that evidence

Do you think they don’t actually want Madeleine’s disappearance pinned on a scapegoat then?  Perhaps they get off on all the unfounded suspicion and want it to continue.  Yes, that will be the reason for their alleged scepticism (when did they last comment on this publicly btw?)

[Vertigo Swirl]

That could also it seem apply to the mccs

Yes, and it could also apply to CB, do you understand that?

[Wonderfulspam]

Do you think they don’t actually want Madeleine’s disappearance pinned on a scapegoat then?  Perhaps they get off on all the unfounded suspicion and want it to continue.  Yes, that will be the reason for their alleged scepticism (when did they last comment on this publicly btw?)

Their website still says that there is nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed. That's how convinced they are by the concrete evidence.

[Wonderfulspam]

Re Mr Gray, he doesn't seem to have been around for most of this year.
Perhaps he has passed over to that great Dental surgery in the sky, or more likely is giving some other forum the benefit of his great legal knowledge.

Yes. It appears there are about 5 of us left who still use the forum. It's a pity because there's still so much abduction evidence we could be discussing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Had CB actually been convicted of the crimes he was recently tried for this would have made all you McCann doubters

But he hasn't been ...has he.

Where is your logic

Silly post all  based on probabilities

Your ill considered reply does not explain why you think CB’s failed conviction on rape and child abuse charges means the police need to go back to square one in the Madeleine McCann case.  Explain the logic. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Three police forces disagree with your (uninformed) assessment.

That's the abduction evidence that convinces you isn't it. Well, I suppose it's all there is really. We've established that after 17 years. The abduction evidence amounts to it was abduction because they said so.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Re Mr Gray, he doesn't seem to have been around for most of this year.
Perhaps he has passed over to that great Dental surgery in the sky, or more likely is giving some other forum the benefit of his great legal knowledge.

He’s on Websleuths where all the cool kids hang out these days.  TBF it’s the only place you can have a half way mature discussion about the case without the likes of Spammy trolls making idiotic remarks after everything you write.  That said, their mods are like the Stasi so a bit too rigid for my liking.

[kizzy]

Do you think they don’t actually want Madeleine’s disappearance pinned on a scapegoat then?  Perhaps they get off on all the unfounded suspicion and want it to continue.  Yes, that will be the reason for their alleged scepticism (when did they last comment on this publicly btw?)

I have no interest in CB whatsoever....my concern is the ones we have in the UK.

I believe Maddie was a scapegoat also ...used bY HCW for maximum publicity for information on the cases he has just dealt with.

[kizzy]

Yes, and it could also apply to CB, do you understand that?

No I don't... because I don't believe there was an abduction in the first place.

Do you understand that.

[The General]

Yes. It appears there are about 5 of us left who still use the forum. It's a pity because there's still so much abduction evidence we could be discussing.

6

[Vertigo Swirl]

No I don't... because I don't believe there was an abduction in the first place.

Do you understand that.

What you believe is neither here nor there, but understanding principles such as the one I’ve described is important in order for there to be any meaningful discussion.  If you don’t understand it then it’s the end of the discussion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no interest in CB whatsoever....my concern is the ones we have in the UK.

I believe Maddie was a scapegoat also ...used bY HCW for maximum publicity for information on the cases he has just dealt with.

What “ones” are you referencing to?  So you think HCW was hellbent on solving the rape of some unknown Irish woman and the molestation of some tourist children on the Algarve and just used Madeleine as a scapegoat to secure a conviction?  Interesting tactic.

[The General]

What “ones” are you referencing to?  So you think HCW was hellbent on solving the rape of some unknown Irish woman and the molestation of some tourist children on the Algarve and just used Madeleine as a scapegoat to secure a conviction?  Interesting tactic.

Cart before the horse. It's possible he used these now failed prosecutions partially as an attempt to bolster his hand against CB being responsible for abducting / killing MM. A high-risk gambit that totally imploded with the incomprehensible use of utterely feckless, untrustworthy witnesses as the only evidence proferred.

CB will be out soon, and is no doubt preparing the ground for dozens of lucrative lawsuits, as I predicted 4 years ago.

[kizzy]

What you believe is neither here nor there, but understanding principles such as the one I’ve described is important in order for there to be any meaningful discussion.  If you don’t understand it then it’s the end of the discussion.

That's absolutely fine with me .. I dont come on here to discuss anything with you anyway.

[Wonderfulspam]

Cart before the horse. It's possible he used these now failed prosecutions partially as an attempt to bolster his hand against CB being responsible for abducting / killing MM. A high-risk gambit that totally imploded with the incomprehensible use of utterely feckless, untrustworthy witnesses as the only evidence proferred.

CB will be out soon, and is no doubt preparing the ground for dozens of lucrative lawsuits, as I predicted 4 years ago.

Now that would be pretty hilarious. Imagine a situation where rather than going to prison for the rape he didn't commit, Hazel B had to pay Brueckner compensation.