Wandering Off Topic

[Eleanor]

The evidence against the parents, whether you agree with it or not, is there for all the world to see. Other than his offending history we have not one scintilla of evidence to date of Brueckner even being in the vicinity of 5a on the night in question.

There is no evidence against The McCanns.  Unless you would like to list it.

[faithlilly]

There is no evidence against The McCanns.  Unless you would like to list it.

You don’t agree…that’s fine.

[Eleanor]

You don’t agree…that’s fine.

So you can't list the evidence against The McCanns.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You don’t agree…that’s fine.

There is a lack of evidence of the practice of any crime against the McCanns, even the PJ admitted it, so why can’t you?

[Mr Gray]

The uncritical unquestioning stance of the average believer is starkly illustrated in their belief in Wolter’s claims that on the evidence he has that Bruckner killed Madeleine. Over two years on and with no charges brought, no evidence presented and nothing of consequence happening soon and they still believe. Imagine that that had been Amaral. It is not even as if they are saying ‘shall we just wait and see what he has’ but a solid belief that Brueckner is guilty based on nothing but Wolter’s words. Of course Brueckner is simply a long line of individuals targeted to take the focus off of where believers definitely don’t want it to be. Brueckner is a nasty character who should be kept inside for as long as is legally possible but to declare him guilty at this point while presenting no evidence is fair on no one, least of all Madeleine herself.

This is a typical post that convinces me that on the whole sceptics arent too bright.....combined with the fact that your brilliant detective skills have convinced you Im some sort of imposter...if thats the level of your critical thinking you have provrd how poor it is

[faithlilly]

So you can't list the evidence against The McCanns.

No can’t, won’t. It’s all been documented elsewhere.

[Wonderfulspam]

No Supporter here has stated that Brueckner is unequivocally guilty.  Least of all me.

Such a pity that even after 15 years some persons do not afford The McCanns the same rights.  That is what pees me off.

Well that's not true is it.
Davel has said Wolters has solved the case.

[G-Unit]

I don't think you have a very good grasp of the reality of the way sceptics think. I  find your post total junk. Your first mistake which you cannot deny us  that you see your limited opinion as fact.
You accept the statements as 100% correct when the evidence suggests they are not.

I think you totally underestimate the intelligence and critical thinking of some posters such as myself....yet you admire those such as CMOMM posters who clearly do not have a clue

I'm sorry, but I've not been impressed by your intelligence and critical thinking. Is it intelligent to dismiss the inconsistencies in the statements by casting unproven assertions on the statements themselves? I don't think so.

[Mr Gray]

I'm sorry, but I've not been impressed by your intelligence and critical thinking. Is it intelligent to dismiss the inconsistencies in the statements by casting unproven assertions on the statements themselves? I don't think so.

I haven't dismissed the inconsistencies.....your first error.

I've stated that they could well be due to poor translation and theirs plenty of evidence to suggest that's a possibility or even a probability.

You decide to accept them uncritically without proof that they are accurate...the jokes on you

[Mr Gray]

No can’t, won’t. It’s all been documented elsewhere.

Documented as junk....it's not cadaver dogs sceptics should follow...dogs for the blind would be more appropriate

[Eleanor]

Documented as junk....it's not cadaver dogs sceptics should follow...dogs for the blind would be more appropriate

Thank you.  I couldn't be bothered to get my head around that non reply.

[G-Unit]

I haven't dismissed the inconsistencies.....your first error.

I've stated that they could well be due to poor translation and theirs plenty of evidence to suggest that's a possibility or even a probability.

You decide to accept them uncritically without proof that they are accurate...the jokes on you

There is not plenty of evidence that the statements were poorly translated imo. On the other hand the evidence of inconsistencies is clearly documented.

[faithlilly]

Thank you.  I couldn't be bothered to get my head around that non reply.

Not sure what was ambiguous about my post but I’m glad Davel clarified it for you.

[Mr Gray]

There is not plenty of evidence that the statements were poorly translated imo. On the other hand the evidence of inconsistencies is clearly documented.

There is plenty..I've quote it all before. Liste n again and try to understand..I don't dispute there are inconsistencies...I dispute your blind acceptance of them being 100% accurate

[G-Unit]

There is plenty..I've quote it all before. Liste n again and try to understand..I don't dispute there are inconsistencies...I dispute your blind acceptance of them being 100% accurate

Come back when you have incontravertible evidence that the statements are inaccurate.