What Iffery.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I predicted 5 years ago that Brueckner wouldn't be charged. How did I know he would'nt be charged?Because the McCanns did it. I don't need to prove anything. The three expert investigative forces, in possession of all the evidence, they can't prove Madeleine was abducted. And that's because she just wasn't.

I predicted in May 2007 that the McCanns would never be charged with child neglect nor with having anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.  How did I know they wouldn’t be charged?  Because I have a brain inside my head and it was obvious she was taken and also because the PJ found no evidence to prove they dunnit.  So, I was right all along it seems.  Nice one me.

[The General]

I predicted in May 2007 that the McCanns would never be charged with child neglect nor with having anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.  How did I know they wouldn’t be charged?  Because I have a brain inside my head and it was obvious she was taken and also because the PJ found no evidence to prove they dunnit.  So, I was right all along it seems.  Nice one me.

The dogs, Judith, the dogs.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The dogs, Judith, the dogs.

Jezus, how do you know my real name?  Have you been stalking me?

[Vertigo Swirl]

And if the dogs prove the McCanns did it, someone please explain why they are not currently in prison, thanks,
 love Judith.

[Wonderfulspam]

I predicted in May 2007 that the McCanns would never be charged with child neglect nor with having anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.  How did I know they wouldn’t be charged?  Because I have a brain inside my head and it was obvious she was taken and also because the PJ found no evidence to prove they dunnit.  So, I was right all along it seems.  Nice one me.

You have a woman's brain inside your head. And you're wrong about the no evidence bit.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You have a woman's brain inside your head. And you're wrong about the no evidence bit. The Smith sighting is evidence the McCanns did it.

And you have a WUM’s brain inside your head.  And you’re wrong about there being no evidence against Bruckner.  If anecdotal, unverified and vague evidence is acceptable to you when it’s against the McCanns then it should also be acceptable to you when it’s against Bruckner but your little troll brain can’t compute that can it?  Bless.

[Wonderfulspam]

And you have a WUM’s brain inside your head.  And you’re wrong about there being no evidence against Bruckner.  If anecdotal, unverified and vague evidence is acceptable to you when it’s against the McCanns then it should also be acceptable to you when it’s against Bruckner but your little troll brain can’t compute that can it?  Bless.

So what's the evidence against Brueckner then? Is there anything at all that places him & Maddie together at any point in time, like the Smiths sighting does Gerry?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So what's the evidence against Brueckner then? Is there anything at all that places him & Maddie together at any point in time, like the Smiths sighting does Gerry?

God you’re boring.  Do you accept that the Smiths sighting is unverified and vague and that there are countless examples where witness statements are simply false or inaccurate for one reason or another?  Or are you certain that Smith definitely saw Gerry with Madeleine, even though thr witness himself was not certain?  Let’s start from this point before we proceed to the evidence against Bruckner.

[Wonderfulspam]

God you’re boring.  Do you accept that the Smiths sighting is unverified and vague and that there are countless examples where witness statements are simply false or inaccurate for one reason or another?  Or are you certain that Smith definitely saw Gerry with Madeleine, even though thr witness himself was not certain?  Let’s start from this point before we proceed to the evidence against Bruckner.

I'm certain it was Gerry because it was.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm certain it was Gerry because it was.

Is that a mature and well argued response?  Well, a troll might think so I guess.

[faithlilly]

I find this bandying about of the terms wum and troll very Trumpian and not at all conducive to the adult debate we spectics are trying to have.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I find this bandying about of the terms wum and troll very Trumpian and not at all conducive to the adult debate we spectics are trying to have.

LOL.  If you think The General and Spam are conducting adult debate then that doesn’t say much about your judgement.  Spam is a self-confessed WUM.   The General himself admits he only comes on here to troll when he’s bored.  The terms I use about these two are wholly accurate.  Trumpian?  Spam is the biggest Trump supporter on this forum, yet you seem to think he’s great.
Now.  How about you contribute something adult to the debate for a change instead of your usual snarky comments aimed in my direction?  I shan’t hold my breath.