Wandering Off Topic

[kizzy]

i dont have contempt for Amaral I just think hes as thick as a plank and a very poor policeman

No problem..... it's just exactly the same as what I think to Wolt.

[Mr Gray]

No problem..... it's just exactly the same as what I think to Wolt.

The Germans solved the American rape case where the PJ. Failed. Wolters is not a policemen. Wolters is speaking for the policemen who found the evidence.

[G-Unit]

No problem..... it's just exactly the same as what I think to Wolt.

The supporters think that the PJ's suspicions of the McCanns were unfounded. It's looking more and more like Wolter's suspicions of CB are also unfounded.

[The General]

Please keep comments relevant and within the rules please guys and gals. TY

What about the cyber bullying from your moderator?

[kizzy]

The Germans solved the American rape case where the PJ. Failed. Wolters is not a policemen. Wolters is speaking for the policemen who found the evidence.

No, I know he isn't a police man lol.

He is just a prosecutor that came from nowhere to say he had concrete evidence to say he could solve the Maddie case.

That was two and a half years ago ....he hasn't solved it has he....or even come close.

[Mr Gray]

The supporters think that the PJ's suspicions of the McCanns were unfounded. It's looking more and more like Wolter's suspicions of CB are also unfounded.

No it isnt

[The General]

The supporters think that the PJ's suspicions of the McCanns were unfounded. It's looking more and more like Wolter's suspicions of CB are also unfounded.

It's a good point, as it's looking like both instances are going to have the same outcome - suspicion, circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make a case.

[Mr Gray]

No, I know he isn't a police man lol.

He is just a prosecutor that came from nowhere to say he had concrete evidence to say he could solve the Maddie case.

That was two and a half years ago ....he hasn't solved it has he....or even come close.

Based on everything I would say he has so it... Amaral's thesis was based on his poor understanding of the dog alerts.. That isnt opinion.. Its fact

[Mr Gray]

It's a good point, as it's looking like both instances are going to have the same outcome - suspicion, circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make a case.

Its a poor point.. We know what evie Amaral relied on.. And it was junk

[kizzy]

Based on everything I would say he has so it... Amaral's thesis was based on his poor understanding of the dog alerts.. That isnt opinion.. Its fact

Based on everything I would say he has so it.


Like what ...because he said so.

[The General]

Its a poor point.. We know what evie Amaral relied on.. And it was junk

Again, you miss the point. It is a fact that both parties have been / are suspects. It's also looking extemely likely that both parties are not going to be charged.
Never mind the quality of the evidence, the statement is correct.

[Mr Gray]

Again, you miss the point. It is a fact that both parties have been / are suspects. It's also looking extemely likely that both parties are not going to be charged.
Never mind the quality of the evidence, the statement is correct.

That doesn't make it a good choice. What's important is what evidence is their to support the suspicions

[Mr Gray]

Based on everything I would say he has so it.


Like what ...because he said so.

Based on everything.. If you don't understand that statement it's your problem

[kizzy]

Based on everything.. If you don't understand that statement it's your problem

 it's your problem


No, it isn't, it's yours ...you will probably still be here next year saying the same thing

[Mr Gray]

 it's your problem


No, it isn't, it's yours ...you will probably still be here next year saying the same thing

Sceptics have been saying the s thing for 15 years