Wandering Off Topic

[Eleanor]

Some facts about Mark Williams Thomas.

He joined the Police as a Constable in 1989.  He left the Police Force in the year 2000 at the age of 30 with the lowly rank of Detective Constable.  So not much of a career as a Detective.

His statement that Brueckner has an Alibi is a gross distortion of the facts as the girl in question has stated that she can't remember precise dates or times.  This could have been a preplanned attempt to set up aforementioned Alibi.

[barrier]

Some facts about Mark Williams Thomas.

He joined the Police as a Constable in 1989.  He left the Police Force in the year 2000 at the age of 30 with the lowly rank of Detective Constable.  So not much of a career as a Detective.

His statement that Brueckner has an Alibi is a gross distortion of the facts as the girl in question has stated that she can't remember precise dates or times.  This could have been a preplanned attempt to set up aforementioned Alibi.

He doesn't need an alibi, Wolters told MWT   he can't place CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007.

[Wonderfulspam]

He doesn't need an alibi, Wolters told MWT   he can't place CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007.

I'm not sure how many more times this needs explaining before it sinks in.

[G-Unit]

I'm not sure how many more times this needs explaining before it sinks in.

Wolters' 'evidence' pointing to CB's presence in Luz has been revealed subsequently as extremely unreliable. Even if he did recieve a phone call in the area at 7.30pm, that's not an indication of guilt.

[Brietta]

Wolters' 'evidence' pointing to CB's presence in Luz has been revealed subsequently as extremely unreliable. Even if he did recieve a phone call in the area at 7.30pm, that's not an indication of guilt.

What evidence is that, then?

As far as I am aware none of the evidence gathered by the BKA in the McCann case has been passed to Brieckner's legal team as yet.
Therefore they know nothing ~
You may make suppositions based on MSM but I don't think you can pretend to know anything at all about the actual evidence which may determine whether or not charges are laid against Brueckner in Madeleine's case.

So why do it?

[Mr Gray]

Wolters' 'evidence' pointing to CB's presence in Luz has been revealed subsequently as extremely unreliable. Even if he did recieve a phone call in the area at 7.30pm, that's not an indication of guilt.

Without knowing what Wolters has you may end up looking very foolish... Like MWT.. and many others.  I cannot see Wolters making his claims without very strong eviidence

[G-Unit]

Without knowing what Wolters has you may end up looking very foolish... Like MWT.. and many others.  I cannot see Wolters making his claims without very strong eviidence

I've never encountered a case where the crime and the criminal have been publicly identified without any charges being brought or any evidence being offered. I can't share your faith in a man who was prepared to breach his suspect's human rights in that way. Strong evidence leads to charges and a trial, not to public accusations of guilt imo.

[Mr Gray]

I've never encountered a case where the crime and the criminal have been publicly identified without any charges being brought or any evidence being offered. I can't share your faith in a man who was prepared to breach his suspect's human rights in that way. Strong evidence leads to charges and a trial, not to public accusations of guilt imo.

I think you are going to look very foolish.  I don't share your faith in Grime and his dogs for the reasons I've given... And It  seems I'm right not to.
I've never seen a case where the suspect was beaten by the police and found guilty with no real other evidence.
I see Wolters as shrewed and professional... He's already made CB talk..
I will judge him when we see all the evidence and if he solves the case

[G-Unit]

I think you are going to look very foolish.  I don't share your faith in Grime and his dogs for the reasons I've given... And It  seems I'm right not to.
I've never seen a case where the suspect was beaten by the police and found guilty with no real other evidence.
I see Wolters as shrewed and professional... He's already made CB talk..
I will judge him when we see all the evidence and if he solves the case

I think you've already judged him and jumped onto his bandwagon. It's you who are in danger of looking very foolish imo.

[Mr Gray]

I think you've already judged him and jumped onto his bandwagon. It's you who are in danger of looking very foolish imo.

Ive made a measured judgement that he wouldnt make these claims unless he had his strong evidence. Seems I was right about Grime and his cadaver dog.
.SY and the BKA seem happy to ignore them

[Wonderfulspam]

Ive made a measured judgement that he wouldnt make these claims unless he had his strong evidence. Seems I was right about Grime and his cadaver dog.
.SY and the BKA seem happy to ignore them

But, aren't you always telling us that no inference can be drawn from the dog alerts, that they are meaningless?

So, what are they supposed to be ignoring exactly?

[barrier]

But, aren't you always telling us that no inference can be drawn from the dog alerts, that they are meaningless?

So, what are they supposed to be ignoring exactly?

Now if Wolters were to say his evidence is the dog alerts...................................

[Wonderfulspam]

Now if Wolters were to say his evidence is the dog alerts...................................

They're not evidence though, so that's a non starter, but Wolters didn't want to deny that they found anything in Brueckner's van, but he denied there was anything physical or forensic, so, reading between the lines, I reckon dogs alerted to in the back of the VW.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Now if Wolters were to say his evidence is the dog alerts...................................

Which he won’t, but what if he did, eh?  Where would that leave the dog worshiping sceptics…?

[Brietta]

I've never encountered a case where the crime and the criminal have been publicly identified without any charges being brought or any evidence being offered. I can't share your faith in a man who was prepared to breach his suspect's human rights in that way. Strong evidence leads to charges and a trial, not to public accusations of guilt imo.

What is that Fulcher guy getting paid for if he is allowing every tomdickorharry to pick up on alleged breaches to his client's human rights while he has done nothing.
Wonder why that is?