Wandering Off Topic

[barrier]

Giant step back by the met.. Because they realise the Germans have solved it

Defence too prosecution, how was Madeleine removed from 5a, in answer, err, lets not get bogged down in detail, he's guilty.

[Wonderfulspam]

Defence to prosecution, how was Madeleine removed from 5a, in answer, err, lets not get bogged down in detail, he's guilty.

Indeed, just look at this photo of Maddie we don't have.

Can't argue with it really can you.

[barrier]

Wolters on tape on screen on CH5,  he cannot place CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007, he has no forensic evidence into the death of Madeleine .

[Vertigo Swirl]

Defence too prosecution, how was Madeleine removed from 5a, in answer, err, lets not get bogged down in detail, he's guilty.

Irrelevant to securing a conviction if there's incontrovertible evidence that CB murdered Madeleine. 

[Mr Gray]

Wolters on tape on screen on CH5,  he cannot place CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007, he has no forensic evidence into the death of Madeleine .

He doesn't necessarily need to

[Vertigo Swirl]

You need to remember that Wolters appealed about the phone call because he needed to trace the caller in order to ASK THEM WHO THEY SPOKE TO. Therefore Wolters et al weren't absolutely sure who was answering that phone on 3rd May 2007.

And you have to remember that that was not what we were discussing - HCW said the phone was owned by CB, you are claiming that the phone has not been identified as Bruckner's.  So which is it? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Given that MWT is an independent researcher and investigstor and clearly not controlled by the High Ups, how do sceptics explain his complete failure to arrive at the conclusion wrt to Madeleine’s parents  that is so blatantly obvious to themselves?

I wonder if we will get a sensible answer to this question...?

[Wonderfulspam]

I wonder if we will get a sensible answer to this question...?

You've already had it, but I suppose you can just carry on pretending otherwise. Suit yourself.

[Wonderfulspam]

He doesn't necessarily need to

You are all in on this imaginary paedo photo, aren't you.

So was it found under the dog or somewhere else?

[barrier]

Irrelevant to securing a conviction if there's incontrovertible evidence that CB murdered Madeleine.

At some point some one is going to have to explain how Madeleine and CB came together for him to have allegedly done for her .

[Wonderfulspam]

At some point some one is going to have to explain how Madeleine and CB came together for him to have allegedly done for her .

No no, the photo alone is enough, whilst simultaneously being not enough.

[Wonderfulspam]

Irrelevant to securing a conviction if there's incontrovertible evidence that CB murdered Madeleine.

Yeah, there isn't, that's why he isn't being charged.

[Wonderfulspam]

At some point some one is going to have to explain how Madeleine and CB came together for him to have allegedly done for her .

Mr Brueckner, where were you on the unknown time & date that we're unable to show Maddie was murdered?

[Mr Gray]

At some point some one is going to have to explain how Madeleine and CB came together for him to have allegedly done for her .

Not true.. It's enough to establish that they did come together... Not necessarily how

[Wonderfulspam]

Not true.. It's enough to establish that they did come together... Not necessarily how

Only it's impossible to establish that either, so I wouldn't waste time thinking about it if I were you.