Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

Nothing of any note.  The McCanns will never be charged with anything.  But Brueckner well might.

Sorry. Not sure which rule my last post breached, so let me explain again.
Brueckner will never be charged with anything in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. That much is blindingly obvious.

[Lace]

Kate might yet have to take the stand against Brueckner & tell the court how the curtains just blew open.
A decent cross examination would be interesting.

Well that's easy the window was open.

[Lace]

Perhaps if the landfill closest to PDL had been searched then the taxpayers of multiple countries would not have been  asked to cough up millions of pounds and euros.

And perhaps if the parents had put their children’s welfare above the need for ‘adult time’…..well you know the rest.

When would the McCann's have dumped Madeleine's body in the bin?

[Wonderfulspam]

Well that's easy the window was open.

If it even was open, then maybe Kate opened it. Her prints were on it.

[Lace]

If it even was open, then maybe Kate opened it. Her prints were on it.

Kate looked out of the window.

[Wonderfulspam]

Kate looked out of the window.

She never mentioned that to the police.

[Lace]

Some time after her death?
Unless they put her in there alive, which would be even worse really.

What time would that have been?

[Lace]

She never mentioned that to the police.

Maybe they didn't ask.

[Wonderfulspam]

Maybe they didn't ask.

It's alright. She explained away her prints via a book & chat shows.

[Brietta]

I can see no reason why I shouldn't comment when an apparent response to my post isn't a response at all. I have seen such behaviour described as creating a deflection.

Your posts evidence nothing but your bias and antipathy directed towards two people you know nothing about.

I think they are also devoid of common sense as you continue to batter your head against the actual facts of the case while endeavouring to promote the facts as you think they should be.

Neither do you in your posts, reveal even the slightest comprehension of police procedures in a serious crime investigation such as the case of a missing child.

Can you justify your apparent misunderstanding of what "a person of interest" is (aka "arguido" in Portugal).

Your ignorance of what has passed into the history of this case, in tandem with your reluctance as a result to follow what is presently underway in the case, is quite mind boggling.

The main deflection I suggest is the persistent misuse of this "Wandering Off Topic" thread to dishonestly keep up your ceaseless apathetic campaign which is nothing short of a disgrace.

[Brietta]

That may well come into question at some time if Wolters says CB went into 5a, now crime scene photos don't show any open window, under questioning as an arguido we all know Kate refused to answer and the very first question was about the alleged crime scene.

Amaral had to have questions asked about the crime scene.  He hadn't been there to see it for himself - unless you or anyone else can show he had been there.

[G-Unit]

Your posts evidence nothing but your bias and antipathy directed towards two people you know nothing about.

I think they are also devoid of common sense as you continue to batter your head against the actual facts of the case while endeavouring to promote the facts as you think they should be.

Neither do you in your posts, reveal even the slightest comprehension of police procedures in a serious crime investigation such as the case of a missing child.

Can you justify your apparent misunderstanding of what "a person of interest" is (aka "arguido" in Portugal).

Your ignorance of what has passed into the history of this case, in tandem with your reluctance as a result to follow what is presently underway in the case, is quite mind boggling.

The main deflection I suggest is the persistent misuse of this "Wandering Off Topic" thread to dishonestly keep up your ceaseless apathetic campaign which is nothing short of a disgrace.

Thank you for your opinions. (Not really; they are nasty and vicious imo). It is, of course, a fact that Kate McCann decined to answers the questions put to her as an arguido and her husband didn't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thank you for your opinions. (Not really; they are nasty and vicious imo). It is, of course, a fact that Kate McCann decined to answers the questions put to her as an arguido and her husband didn't.

What IS undeniably nasty and vicious is to still be pointing the finger at the parents of a child who police stongly believe was abducted and murdered by a paedophile 15 years ago.  That’s deeply unpleasant indeed IMO.

[G-Unit]

What IS undeniably nasty and vicious is to still be pointing the finger at the parents of a child who police stongly believe was abducted and murdered by a paedophile 15 years ago.  That’s deeply unpleasant indeed IMO.

Does repeating this mantra achieve anything I wonder? Some supporters seem able to discuss the evidence without resorting to such ploys, you know.

[Eleanor]

Does repeating this mantra achieve anything I wonder? Some supporters seem able to discuss the evidence without resorting to such ploys, you know.

Some of us are forced to repeat ourselves when disinformation and sometimes downright fibs reappear over and over again.  I for one am not having it.