Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

Most sceptics, imo, aren't convinced by Wolters' claims that he's guilty, which is a completely different thing than thinking he's likely to be innocent.

I answered your point about faulty logic; not by deflecting, but by pointing out that Ian Horrocks thought that examining a person's past can inform investigators about their future actions. The Met seem to use your 'faulty logic' too imo.

Of course a suspect's past can inform investigator's about what such a person is capable of, what their predilections are, their habits and interests, there's nothing faulty in creating a picture of a suspect, it's what investigators do, or do you think the police are remiss in calling up information on a suspect's previous criminal history?  It's very different from claiming that the absence of a previous criminal record for murder or abduction means it's unlikely a person committed such a crime which, despite your protestations, is precisely what has regularly been argued wrt to CB. 

[G-Unit]

Of course a suspect's past can inform investigator's about what such a person is capable of, what their predilections are, their habits and interests, there's nothing faulty in creating a picture of a suspect, it's what investigators do, or do you think the police are remiss in calling up information on a suspect's previous criminal history?  It's very different from claiming that the absence of a previous criminal record for murder or abduction means it's unlikely a person committed such a crime which, despite your protestations, is precisely what has regularly been argued wrt to CB.

So it's not 'likely innocent' now, it's 'unlikely he committed murder or/and abduction'? They don't mean the same thing, you know.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So it's not 'likely innocent' now, it's 'unlikely he committed murder or/and abduction'? They don't mean the same thing, you know.

so you're resorting to your usual pathetic semantic quibbles, always the last resort of he or she who has run out of any other reasonable argument.

[G-Unit]

so you're resorting to your usual pathetic semantic quibbles, always the last resort of he or she who has run out of any other reasonable argument.

You can argue, wriggle and squirm all you like, it still doesn't make your original statement true;

"Please never let us hear again that a rapist / paedophile could not become a child abductor and murderer on the basis that they had no previous history of such crimes."

Who said 'could not' then? Or was it 'unlikely to become'?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You can argue, wriggle and squirm all you like, it still doesn't make your original statement true;

"Please never let us hear again that a rapist / paedophile could not become a child abductor and murderer on the basis that they had no previous history of such crimes."

Who said 'could not' then? Or was it 'unlikely to become'?

what difference does it make?  The logic is faulty whichever words you use.  Claiming that a person such as CB could not or is unlikely to have committed a crime because they have no previous history of committing a similar crime is just plain dumb. End of.

[G-Unit]

what difference does it make?  The logic is faulty whichever words you use.  Claiming that a person such as CB could not or is unlikely to have committed a crime because they have no previous history of committing a similar crime is just plain dumb. End of.

Returning to the facts it's evidence that matters, not speculation or rumour. If Wolters' concrete evidence is as shaky as that he has released then his chances of charging his suspect seem low. So whatever the significance of his background, it's not going to help to convict him imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Returning to the facts it's evidence that matters, not speculation or rumour. If Wolters' concrete evidence is as shaky as that he has released then his chances of charging his suspect seem low. So whatever the significance of his background, it's not going to help to convict him imo.

This has nothing to do with my point and is stating the obvious imo.

[G-Unit]

This has nothing to do with my point and is stating the obvious imo.

I'm afraid I have zero interest in your point.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm afraid I have zero interest in your point.

The last few posts of yours attempting  to argue the toss with me tell a different story.  If my posts really hold zero interest for you I strongly suggest you don’t respond to them.   

[Vertigo Swirl]

My argument is that pointing out CB has no previous convictions for abduction or murder (as some have done on here) is entirely irrelevant.  It means nothing, and certainly does not mean CB is unlikely or unable to have committed such crimes. It may be of zero interest to some but nonetheless it is an entirely logical and IMO  irrefutable point.

[faithlilly]

My argument is that pointing out the parents have no previous convictions is entirely irrelevant.  It means nothing, and certainly does not mean that the parents are unlikely or unable to have committed a crime.  It may be of zero interest to some but nonetheless it is an entirely logical and IMO  irrefutable point.

See how it works?

[Eleanor]

What happened to Faithlily's Comment?  Although I can't remember now exactly what it was.

On balance, I would say that Brueckner's previous record makes him a very likely candidate as opposed to The McCanns, which is what it is all about on this Forum, if truth be told.

I have found the hypocrisy levelled against The McCanns absolutely mind blowing, when they have no record of anything at all.  Innocent Until Proven Guilty never came into it with some.  But I will continue to expect the same for Brueckner until proven otherwise.

How any of you have the nerve to deny The McCanns a basic Right which you now call on for Brueckner, Human Rights notwithstanding is completely beyond me.

[Mr Gray]

What happened to Faithlily's Comment?  Although I can't remember now exactly what it was.

On balance, I would say that Brueckner's previous record makes him a very likely candidate as opposed to The McCanns, which is what it is all about on this Forum, if truth be told.

I have found the hypocrisy levelled against The McCanns absolutely mind blowing, when they have no record of anything at all.  Innocent Until Proven Guilty never came into it with some.  But I will continue to expect the same for Brueckner until proven otherwise.

How any of you have the nerve to deny The McCanns a basic Right which you now call on for Brueckner, Human Rights notwithstanding is completely beyond me.

If the ECHR rule that Portugal did not support the Mccanns human rights will gunit be critical of Portugal and the SC verdict or will she refuse to accept the ruling

[Eleanor]

If the ECHR rule that Portugal did not support the Mccanns human rights will gunit be critical of Portugal and the SC verdict or will she refuse to accept the ruling

Dear God.  If only I could care about what Gunit thinks of anything.  This is hard and fast prejudice for many a long year.  So I don't care what she thinks.

[G-Unit]

If the ECHR rule that Portugal did not support the Mccanns human rights will gunit be critical of Portugal and the SC verdict or will she refuse to accept the ruling

It's not a question of whether Portugal supported the McCanns' human rights; the question is did it breach them. I believe in the rule of law, which means accepting decisions handed down by all courts, not just those we agree with.