Everybody has something to say, but very few say anything worth hearing. I don't know who this Anna Raccoon is, what her background is, or why her opinions are worth quoting.
I don't understand how Amaral has got away with this for so long. Why does Portugal do nothing to stop him spreading disinformation?
But for some bright spark finding that video we might all still think that Brueckner had dreadlocks at the time. Although no doubt some still do.
Is this not Criminal and Interfering With The Course of Justice?
Which just proves how very little you know.
Very helpful response. Why, in your opinion, is this woman's opinion significant then?
The stupidity permeating this case from start to finish is mind boggling and defies all reason.
For example there was the huge DNA "breakthrough" promoted from 16 April 2019 in podcasts which spilled over into MSM.
At this point it is worth bearing in mind that Scotland Yard had no locus in what was Portuguese evidence held in Portugal in what was not their case but evidently Portugal's who had claim to be the leading investigative authority.
But it was apparently all SY's fault anyway according to those 'experts' who are prone to opening their mouths to let their tummies rumble!
From Saunokonoko's podcast >
Sutton, has said solving those DNA samples could be a "gamechanger" for police.
Two of the 18 DNA samples being sought for analysis by Dr Perlin were lifted from a rental car hired weeks after Madeleine vanished.
To date, Dr Perlin has had no response or acknowledgement from Scotland Yard. "The natural conclusion I think is what's the harm of doing the analysis? And if you don't want to do the analysis then perhaps what you're afraid of is that you'll be shown to have been wrong in your initial theory," Rudolf said, speaking about Operation Grange's apparent unwillingness so far to take up Dr Perlin's offer.
Might have been of some significance if the correct police force had been targeted. Why didn't it occur to anyone to consult with the Policia Judiciaria instead of or even as well as Scotland Yard?
Which just proves how very little you know.
Which is indicative of so many who pontificate about the cherry picking of which "facts" are worthy of promulgating.
Sagely pointed out in Saunokonoko's podcast >
Speaking in episode eight of Maddie, Nine.com.au's podcast investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Rudolf explained why, generally, it can sometimes be hard for police to back away from a line of inquiry that later appears to be flawed or wrong.
"The larger problem is not the kind of corruption that we normally think about but what ... is called noble cause corruption," Rudolf said. "And that's the kind of corruption that occurs when the police believe in a particular theory, and take steps that are extra-judicial in order to prove their theory."
Rudolf explained that police and judges, like all human beings, can suffer from confirmation bias - a psychological dynamic where people tend to ignore or emphasise relevant facts depending on their beliefs. "We all to a greater or lesser extent suffer from tunnel vision," he said.
I don't think there is a more exact definition to describe what happened in Madeleine McCann's case. So obvious to some yet so obscure to others ... but with a damning effect to a proper investigation of events. And corroborated events (evidence) are what matter, not one individual or even a group of individuals and their opinions.
It is when some people use one set of rules for some suspect and another set of rules for other suspects that I get peed off.
This is rife on this Forum. And it is a disgrace for what was once a good Forum.
Because she tried to present evidence logically. And not just on The McCann Affair.
Try Google. She is dead now and for quite some time.
Very helpful response. Why, in your opinion, is this woman's opinion significant then?That’s an irrelevant question IMO. The relevant question is: which bits if any of her piece are based on incorrect information? Can you challnge her opinion and if so on what basis?
My opinion is that the present conflicting situation of different rules for different individuals being the nom rather than the exception is indeed a destabilising factor to the integrity of the forum.
I'm not convinced that isn't the intention because the one thing which can be said about this forum is that its ethos is unique as far as Madeleine's investigation is concerned. Some people just cannot abide that thought.
First of all there is the canard that there was no abduction despite three police forces following evidence which confirms that this was no "inside job" but was indeed a stranger abduction.
It is also difficult to reconcile the vociferous support for the rights of a career criminal with the even more vociferous rubbishing of the rights of innocent people.
Just one of the small drawbacks of a forum like ours which allows all opinions if not expressed as obvious libel.
"Yet that book has been treated as though it is ‘the truth’ written on tablets of stone, by people around the world"
What evidence does she offer for that statement? I can't see any.
"Yet that book has been treated as though it is ‘the truth’ written on tablets of stone, by people around the world"Perhaps you were unaware of the thousands of people around the world who believed Amaral’s theory thar the McCanns sedated their kids and covered up the death of one of them? I find it hard to believe you weren’t aware of them but stranger things have happened I suppose…
What evidence does she offer for that statement? I can't see any.
It seems this woman is quoted just because she holds certain opinions.And what is wrong with that, pray tell?
It seems this woman is quoted just because she holds certain opinions.
Do you realise this is a discussion forum?
"This woman" was quoted because she had something to say which was thought provoking and worthy of using to instigate wider discussion.
I have included material from Saunokonoko's podcasts as well in the hope of dragging us out of the one thread "Off Topic Thread" we've been bogged down and where many good discussions are being lost and to move on.
I take being a Mod on this forum very seriously - as did Eleanor - and I see part of my role as nudging forward when we've become bogged down.
On a McCann Board a thread entitled "Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction" should give plenty of scope for all points of view to be discussed if there is a will to do so.
Some are probably quite happy with a moribund forum; we've got the opportunity here to use it more appropriately, I think it would be good for you to have a bash at it - engage your brain - and come up with some reasonable contributions.
Do you realise this is a discussion forum?
"This woman" was quoted because she had something to say which was thought provoking and worthy of using to instigate wider discussion.
I have included material from Saunokonoko's podcasts as well in the hope of dragging us out of the one thread "Off Topic Thread" we've been bogged down and where many good discussions are being lost and to move on.
I take being a Mod on this forum very seriously - as did Eleanor - and I see part of my role as nudging forward when we've become bogged down.
On a McCann Board a thread entitled "Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction" should give plenty of scope for all points of view to be discussed if there is a will to do so.
Some are probably quite happy with a moribund forum; we've got the opportunity here to use it more appropriately, I think it would be good for you to have a bash at it - engage your brain - and come up with some reasonable contributions.
Well if you think this is a subject which can instigate debate, carry on.
Sigh ~ I've done that already. That is what "instigate" means. The trick to having a discussion is to continue with an exchange of ideas. Rather revealingly you are obviously less than impressed with my initiative. Nothing new about that though. It all depends on which direction you think the forum should go; I think your preference is for groundhog day.
I've got a contribution for you.
What abduction?
Sigh ~ I've done that already. That is what "instigate" means. The trick to having a discussion is to continue with an exchange of ideas. Rather revealingly you are obviously less than impressed with my initiative. Nothing new about that though. It all depends on which direction you think the forum should go; I think your preference is for groundhog day.
It's presented as a fact by certain people all the time, perhaps to lay down the parameters for debate. Strictly speaking it should be referred to as a disappearance imo.Abduction is what is being investigated by three police forces, perhaps you should put all your collecive sceptic efforts into persuading them all that they are mistaken? With all the enormous weight of evidence against the parents it should be an easy job for you and Spam so get to it, why don’t you…
I think the forum should allow people the freedom to express their opinions without being sighed at.LOL
Abduction is what is being investigated by three police forces, perhaps you should put all your collecive sceptic efforts into persuading them all that they are mistaken? With all the enormous weight of evidence against the parents it should be an easy job for you and Spam so get to it, why don’t you…
Talking of groundhog day I interpreted your opening post as an attempt to restate the opinion that Amaral alone chose to suspect the parents and make them arguidos, which is ludicrous.
The opinion that people all over the place read his book and believed every word of it is not really capable of being tested. The McCanns were unable to offer any evidence in court that Amaral's book 'damaged the search for Madeleine'. That's why their claim on her behalf was dismissed.
Nobody knows why a lot of people doubted the abduction story. I think there's probably a lot of different reasons why people arrived at that opinion.
It's presented as a fact by certain people all the time, perhaps to lay down the parameters for debate. Strictly speaking it should be referred to as a disappearance imo.
He certainly did pull a few ludicrous rabbits out of the hat though, didn't he? Little wonder that no-one wants to be associated either with him or with them. There was the one where he went on TV on the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's abduction and told an interviewer "We had information three figures went into the church via a side door at night.
"They had a box and there was to be a cremation of a British woman.
"It is possible the child’s remains were in this box and cremated as well. The parents had the key to the church."
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-10333617?service=responsive
I would be a bit embarrassed to acknowledge that I gave this man any credence whatsoever, so I know exactly where you are coming from while appreciating that your opinion is yours and yours alone and owes nothing to him.
That was Amaral's tenth anniversary contribution as Kate and Gerry continued raising Madeleine's profile as they have always done. For example in 2013 they had made an appearance on Aktenzeichen XY, a long-running German TV crime programme to raise awareness. I'm not sure whether or not that was what prompted the first identification of Brueckner. But the tenth anniversary definitely turned up trumps and his name appeared again; only this time the police had more to work with. And they did.
Indeed ~ apparently children "disappear" as if in a puff of smoke all the time. Well known phenomenon apparently and if not a parameter for debate most certainly the most damning legacy for the missing child and the devastated family left behind them.But how on earth can he be guilty? He has no previous history of abduction and murder!
Then there are those who are subsequently found to have been abducted from their beds by a stranger.
Isabel Celis being a case in point.
UPDATE
On Friday, September 14th, 2018 Tucson Detectives arrested 36 year old Christopher Clements in connection with two murders. In total, Clements was charged with two counts of first degree murder, two counts of kidnapping a minor under 15, two counts of second degree burglary, one count of theft by controlling stolen property, one count of trafficking in stolen property and 14 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
According to Tucson Police Chief, Chris Magnus, the FBI received a tip in 2017 about a man who may possess information about the disappearance of Isabel Celis, and that man was named to be Christopher Clements. It appears that it was their conversation with Clements at that time which led them to the discovery of Isabel’s remains. When Isabel’s remains were recovered, they were in an area very close to where another young girl had been found on June 6th, 2014.
=============================================
Christopher Clements has a long history of crimes. In 1998, he was convicted of a sex offense in the state of Oregon when he was only fifteen years old. He was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, and ten years of probation following his release. He was required to register as a sex offender, but in 2006, he was found guilty in the state of Florida for failing to register as a sex offender. Later that year, Clements was charged with violating a protection order and harassing someone via telephone in Oregon. In 2007 he was charged with providing false information to police when it was found that he gave a false name to Tucson Police on two separate occasions. Clements lived in various residences in Tucson between 2007 and 2012. One of these locations was an apartment complex less than two miles away from the Celis home.
https://www.trace-evidence.com/updates/isabel-celis
But don't worry about it too much - all is not yet lost. These cases can be horribly difficult to prove and despite Clements giving up Isabel's remains it hasn't yet been possible to bring him to trial.
Trials postponed for Christopher Clements, man accused of killing Tucson girls
https://www.kold.com/2022/04/13/trials-postponed-christopher-clements-man-accused-killing-tucson-girls/
They've been investigating abduction for 15 years.
Still haven't solved it though, so, maybe it just wasn't an abduction then.
That would explain the total lack of progress, wouldn't It.
If there's no abductor there was no abduction. Has it all been, as Matthew Steeples put it, 'an almighty b**ls-up'?Ah Yes!... Steeples... another clueless money-grubber. His kowtowing to the Bamber-supporting clan is just as sickening.
Has £14 million been wasted looking for a child who most likely died in 2007?
https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/nonsensical-mccann/ (https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/nonsensical-mccann/)
Groundhog day; Amaral...Amaral...Amaral.
If there's no abductor there was no abduction. Has it all been, as Matthew Steeples put it, 'an almighty b**ls-up'?Perhaps you might like to consider the inanity of Spam’s logic? It seems that there is a belief held by some on this board that the longer you investigate something or someone the less likely it is that it or they are involved. So, for example, police have spent years and years investigating the abduction and murder of Suzy Lamplugh so that must mean (using Spamlogic) they’ve wasted all that time investigating a crime that probably never happened. It’s foolish beyond belief but it seems you don’t have a problem with it?
Has £14 million been wasted looking for a child who most likely died in 2007?
https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/nonsensical-mccann/
Ah Yes!... Steeples... another clueless money-grubber. His kowtowing to the Bamber-supporting clan is just as sickening.his website boasts “wit and wisdom in equal measure “. Having just read the propaganda piece G-Unit supplied the link to I think it’s fair to say he could be sued under the Trades Description Act. @)(++(*
If there's no abductor there was no abduction. Has it all been, as Matthew Steeples put it, 'an almighty b**ls-up'?
Has £14 million been wasted looking for a child who most likely died in 2007?
https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/nonsensical-mccann/
Ah Yes!... Steeples... another clueless money-grubber. His kowtowing to the Bamber-supporting clan is just as sickening.
Perhaps you might like to consider the inanity of Spam’s logic? It seems that there is a belief held by some on this board that the longer you investigate something or someone the less likely it is that it or they are involved. So, for example, police have spent years and years investigating the abduction and murder of Suzy Lamplugh so that must mean (using Spamlogic) they’ve wasted all that time investigating a crime that probably never happened. It’s foolish beyond belief but it seems you don’t have a problem with it?
Incidentally £14m has not been spent hunting a living child, where did you get the idea that it had?
his website boasts “wit and wisdom in equal measure “. Having just read the propaganda piece G-Unit supplied the link to I think it’s fair to say he could be sued under the Trades Description Act. @)(++(*
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion of the man. Do you have anything to say about his opinions? He is, after all, expressing opinions which are shared by others.As you refused to say anything about Anna Raccon’s opinions why should anyone do the courtesy of answering your question about Steeples?
Groundhog day; Amaral...Amaral...Amaral.
It is actually a very sad opinion piece.
This guy posted that in May 2022 and managed to include many of the tropes beloved of sceptics as they dream on.
And all calculated to celebrate the fact that another year is marked by the continued absence of a dearly loved child.
Like minded people at one time were in charge of Madeleine's investigation. I think the evidence is scant that they had a thought in their heads about looking for her. But the evidence they were looking for a criminal conviction for her parents is myriad. Amaral even wrote a book outlining it.
Given that mindset what chance did the investigation have or even what chance did Madeleine have during the squandered golden hours of her disappearance?
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion of the man. Do you have anything to say about his opinions? He is, after all, expressing opinions which are shared by others.His opinions aren't worth considering, just like those in his comments section and of a handful of others here. The man is incapable of serious research, end of.
Do you think I cannot quote nonentities in their thousands who all mirror the sceptic views they appear to have received in a blindingly collective Damascene flash of opinion forming light which had nothing at all to do with the opinions promoted by Amaral. Despite the fact he formulated many of them if not all.
Oh wait a minute.
Not even he subscribes to the Sunday death nor I think the clone theory. There are those who thought that madness up all by themselves.
What evidence supports the views of all these opinionated people? I know of none but they are entitled to hold them because at the end of the day they are essentially harmless. Unlike Amaral who is using the media to derail an active police investigation in existence to find out the fate of a missing child.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion of the man. Do you have anything to say about his opinions? He is, after all, expressing opinions which are shared by others.
I know you can find nonenities - you quoted one in your opening post. Operation Grange has spent years trying to find an abductor, because that's what their remit was. There's no evidence that Amaral has derailed anything. It seems to me that a lack of evidence is the biggest hurdle facing the police (again).
I know you can find nonenities - you quoted one in your opening post. Operation Grange has spent years trying to find an abductor, because that's what their remit was. There's no evidence that Amaral has derailed anything. It seems to me that a lack of evidence is the biggest hurdle facing the police (again).Thankfully despite his best efforts so far Amaral has failed to derail the investigation into Madeleine’s abduction by 3 police forces. I wonder if he still has that ace up his sleeve and if he ever plans to play it…? *%87
I know you can find nonenities - you quoted one in your opening post. Operation Grange has spent years trying to find an abductor, because that's what their remit was. There's no evidence that Amaral has derailed anything. It seems to me that a lack of evidence is the biggest hurdle facing the police (again).
Thankfully despite his best efforts so far Amaral has failed to derail the investigation into Madeleine’s abduction by 3 police forces. I wonder if he still has that ace up his sleeve and if he ever plans to play it…? *%87
I know you can find nonenities - you quoted one in your opening post. Operation Grange has spent years trying to find an abductor, because that's what their remit was. There's no evidence that Amaral has derailed anything. It seems to me that a lack of evidence is the biggest hurdle facing the police (again).
I know you can find nonenities - you quoted one in your opening post. Operation Grange has spent years trying to find an abductor, because that's what their remit was. There's no evidence that Amaral has derailed anything. It seems to me that a lack of evidence is the biggest hurdle facing the police (again).
Thankfully despite his best efforts so far Amaral has failed to derail the investigation into Madeleine’s abduction by 3 police forces. I wonder if he still has that ace up his sleeve and if he ever plans to play it…? *%87
Who said that finding an abductor was the remit of Operation Grange to the exclusion of all else?
This sounds like Libel to me. And not even in your opinion, but stated as a fact.
Someone makes a quote confirming your prejudices and that becomes engraved in tablets of stone to the exclusion of all other independent thought.
It is risible that there is a belief that Scotland Yard did not and are not following evidence.
That's what police investigations do. No evidence = end of except in the land of the McCann sceptic where normal rules and procedures do not apply.
Anna Raccoon you mean?Anyone who seriously believes that Operation Grange have allowed themselves to be sent on a wild goose chase for years really does need to give their head a wobble IMO. The fact that their investigation into abduction is now supported by two foreign police forces must surely give you some pause for thought? But then again, probably not...
Operation Grange spent years following evidence to no avail. Is that because the evidence which might support abduction doesn't? It seems that none of the sightings of Madeleine or of men behaving or looking strange were useful.
Who said that finding an abductor was the remit of Operation Grange to the exclusion of all else?
This sounds like Libel to me. And not even in your opinion, but stated as a fact.
Anna Raccoon you mean?
Operation Grange spent years following evidence to no avail. Is that because the evidence which might support abduction doesn't? It seems that none of the sightings of Madeleine or of men behaving or looking strange were useful.
Yet again you are pontificating from a position of absolute ignorance.
Anna Racoon posted on a website, the name of which I have forgotten. She then became a Moderator and did her best to be fair and logical to all opinion.She started off being quite sceptical as I recall, but then her logic and common sense prevailed. She was always worth reading even if you didn't always agree with everything she wrote.
She also had a Blog on which she pursued many other things with the same logic.
She was a friend of mine, although we didn't always agree. Her name was Susan Nundy. I visited her in Provence, but sadly at a time when she was becoming really ill.
A Nonentity she most certainly was not. But this was happening before any sceptic had even got their act together beyond salacious gossip. Nothing much has changed since then.
Oh right, so Brueckner was seen lurking close to 5a was he?
Yes, maybe that's the concrete evidence.
She started off being quite sceptical as I recall, but then her logic and common sense prevailed. She was always worth reading even if you didn't always agree with everything she wrote.
She started off being quite sceptical as I recall, but then her logic and common sense prevailed. She was always worth reading even if you didn't always agree with everything she wrote.
I didn't always agree with some of her opinions although I respected all she had to say. I think she was an intellectual giant of a woman.
It is as plain as the nose on a face, Eleanor.
It is arrant stupidity to imagine that Scotland Yard or any investigating body would embark on any initiative major or minor without taking absolutely EVERYTHING - that is every miniscule record - of ALL the investigative work which had gone on before and putting it under the closest scrutiny.
It beggars belief there are those who imagine it all wasn't gone over in fine detail which INCLUDED the investigation of witnesses ~ particularly the main ones.Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
- The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
- UK Law Enforcement agencies,
- Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
"(as if the abduction occurred in the UK) "
Says it all - the crime was decided before they started.
"(as if the abduction occurred in the UK) "Personally I think you read far too much into that one short phrase - this is exactly how conspiracy theories get started....
Says it all - the crime was decided before they started.
"(as if the abduction occurred in the UK) "
Says it all - the crime was decided before they started.
The German investigators haven't contacted me with that information yet. I'm sure they will have it just not ready to impart it yet.
I do know where he was on the 9th of May though. He hadn't yet left Portugal for Germany by then, unless he had made a flying round trip there and back.
But it isn't really important for us to know the fine detail. It is enough the BKA have sussed it out and have included it all in their chain of evidence.
The chain of evidence that leads to a total dead end, you mean?
That chain of evidence, that isn't sufficient to press charges against Brueckner any time in the foreseeable future, you mean?
Yes, that's some concrete stuff right there, isn't it.
I'm content to wait for the German investigation to reach its conclusion and progress as indicated by their prosecutors.
Seems you are less than sanguine about your expectations.
Oh Dear, what a poor sad article you are. Even Sceptics want no truck with you. But your comments aren't even worth deleting.Spam thinks if he says it often enough it will become true - I blame the drug use in his earlier years for destroying his synapses.
Just go away and find a life. If in fact this is possible.
I don't think I have ever encountered such a closed mind as yours or are all sceptics so inclined?
This review was not carried out in a vacuum.
It is stated categorically that all the evidence from previous investigations would be scrutinised and given appropriate weight and it starts off with the sentence ~
"The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1." What do you suppose their role might have been? just sitting around twiddling their thumbs while they were having evidential rings run around them?
This was no ordinary review process.
"Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process."
Do you think the PJ evidence which exonerated the McCanns wasn't part of this review?
The McCanns had fought long and hard to reach this stage. Do you realise that without the supporting evidence that could have been as far as as they might have managed to go with Madeleine's investigation?
That was not the case.
Evidence which should have been addressed starting in 2007 was found in abundance. The incidence of intrusion into holiday accommodation where children were abused being paramount.
If no-one is looking for links they won't be found. I think time will tell on that one if ever Brueckner is brought to trial on the beach assault on the little German ten year old whose assailant addressed her in English.
What was 'the PJ evidence which exonerated the McCanns? The PJ weren't even able to identify the crime, so how did OG manage it?By being superior detectives 8(>((
What was 'the PJ evidence which exonerated the McCanns? The PJ weren't even able to identify the crime, so how did OG manage it?
You mean the pride of Portugal were incapable of identifying crime??? Come to think of it though you are absolutely correct.
It is a proven fact they do have an appalling record particularly where crimes against women and children are concerned so why should anyone be at all surprised they are incapable not only of solving a crime but even of determining what crime has been committed and the appropriate steps required to get justice for the victims.
You mean the pride of Portugal were incapable of identifying crime??? Come to think of it though you are absolutely correct.
It is a proven fact they do have an appalling record particularly where crimes against women and children are concerned so why should anyone be at all surprised they are incapable not only of solving a crime but even of determining what crime has been committed and the appropriate steps required to get justice for the victims.
Everyone familiar with the case knows that the Portuguese didn't identify the crime, surely?
"But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship."
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Everyone familiar with the case knows the impact police incompetence had on Madeleine's case the only thing was that we just had no real conception until recently of the depths actually plumbed.
Ah. The much trumpeted incompetence of the PJ. As opposed to the much admired professionalism of the Met. The truth, imo, lies somewhere in between.How do you come to terms with the fact that not only the Met but also the PJ and the BKA are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction? How do you explain that to yourself? Surely it must put your brain in a real whirl, no?
How do you come to terms with the fact that not only the Met but also the PJ and the BKA are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction? How do you explain that to yourself? Surely it must put your brain in a real whirl, no?
We'll know if they're right when they manage to arrest someone. Until then it's speculation imo.Well done for once again answering a question I didn’t ask, I applaud your skill at question dodging!
I've got a contribution for you.
What abduction?
We'll know if they're right when they manage to arrest someone. Until then it's speculation imo.It is not speculation that three police forces are investigating an abduction. OK, you believe the Met was instructed by the High-Ups to investigate an abduction to the exclusion of anything else but how do you rationalize to yourself the fact that both the PJ and the BKA are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction as well? Let’s see how well you manage to swerve this question this time.
We'll know if they're right when they manage to arrest someone. Until then it's speculation imo.
It is not speculation that three police forces are investigating an abduction. OK, you believe the Met was instructed by the High-Ups to investigate an abduction to the exclusion of anything else but how do you rationalize to yourself the fact that both the PJ and the BKA are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction as well? Let’s see how well you manage to swerve this question this time.
To get where we are today logic dictates that Madeleine had to have been abducted. Tragically there is no room for ambiguity in the words of the German prosecutor that Brueckner is a murder suspect.
Very much a chicken and egg situation which goes straight to the nub of the matter.
It is not speculation that three police forces are investigating an abduction. OK, you believe the Met was instructed by the High-Ups to investigate an abduction to the exclusion of anything else but how do you rationalize to yourself the fact that both the PJ and the BKA are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction as well? Let’s see how well you manage to swerve this question this time.
Like everything else associated with Madeleine's case the investigators find themselves in quite an unusual situation.Therefore although the crimes we are told Brueckner may be charged with are potentially very serious ones they are probably not as serious as murder so it is probably appropriate to get the lesser charges resolved first. Which would leave prosecutors a margin of error to ensure Madeleine's case receives the attention it merits.
- The prime suspect is already in jail.
His recent request for early release was unsuccessful so no risk of flight as far as Madeleine's case is concerned.- Do the Portuguese still retain primacy in more recent alleged cases and/or Madeleine's case?
Bearing in mind that their initial agreement was with Scotland Yard and their now prime suspect was tried and convicted in Germany for a rape which took place on Portuguese soil while under Portuguese jurisdiction.
It seems that German prosecutors have handed over files to Brueckner's defence council detailing alleged crimes - all of which were perpetrated in Portugal - as a precursor to bringing him to trial in Germany.
These files may include details of another vicious rape.
I suspect the combined evidence gathered by SY ~ PJ ~ BKA is going to be mind boggling in quantity and content.
Like everything else associated with Madeleine's case the investigators find themselves in quite an unusual situation.Therefore although the crimes we are told Brueckner may be charged with are potentially very serious ones they are probably not as serious as murder so it is probably appropriate to get the lesser charges resolved first. Which would leave prosecutors a margin of error to ensure Madeleine's case receives the attention it merits.
- The prime suspect is already in jail.
His recent request for early release was unsuccessful so no risk of flight as far as Madeleine's case is concerned.- Do the Portuguese still retain primacy in more recent alleged cases and/or Madeleine's case?
Bearing in mind that their initial agreement was with Scotland Yard and their now prime suspect was tried and convicted in Germany for a rape which took place on Portuguese soil while under Portuguese jurisdiction.
It seems that German prosecutors have handed over files to Brueckner's defence council detailing alleged crimes - all of which were perpetrated in Portugal - as a precursor to bringing him to trial in Germany.
These files may include details of another vicious rape.
I suspect the combined evidence gathered by SY ~ PJ ~ BKA is going to be mind boggling in quantity and content.
Madeleine's Abduction is still an enigma to me as I continue to hope that she is still alive and loved somewhere.
I simply cannot decide that Brueckner is guilty, although this reaction doesn't have a logical reason. My mind just goes blank when I try to think about it.
Perhaps because I have no experience or knowledge of people like Brueckner, who undoubtedly exist. But never in my world.
Just another interesting pointer for you WS. Not proof but yet another interesting observation that might mean something.
Prior to September 2013, I am musing over whether The Mccann private detectives were already wondering about CB, presumably from descriptions given by Tasmin Silence and the other three witnesses shown in the video
Cutting Edge Video dated 11th September 2013
https://youtu.be/lkc3C6csaHI
Between 1.20 and 4.32 there are several shots of the man who was watching 5A. These show his body shape, which is long, lean and quite unusual and with a pretty distinctive style
1) Show general body shape
2) Show long straight neck and prominent Adams apple
3) Show general body shape and the hollow tummy area with thighs thrust forward
4) Thighs thrust forward like HCW’s suspect, as seen on the images with the man leaning against 5A wall staring in 9seeimages taken from both directions in the alleyway.
5) Dark sunglasses
6) Clothes worn are pretty similar to those in the German photo supplied, I think, by Anthro. Baggy white short sleeved T-shit with what look like jeans.
(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/PRC_183036264.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C482)
Compare this mans body to that of CB in the photograph taken inside his warehouse in Germany. There are so many similarities.
I seem to remember that there is already a photofit image of this mans face which we thought was rather a good likeness.
I can only hope that any convictions will be treated individually when it comes sentencing. As they would have been if pursued by the country in which they happened. I am appalled by the fact that they were not.
It is not speculation that three police forces are investigating an abduction. OK, you believe the Met was instructed by the High-Ups to investigate an abduction to the exclusion of anything else but how do you rationalize to yourself the fact that both the PJ and the BKA are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction as well? Let’s see how well you manage to swerve this question this time.
I haven't a clue how German procedures are conducted. Three judges? and I'm not sure about a few lay people as "jury".
Speaking from ignorance ~ I would imagine that each case file would be judged and acquitted or upheld in its own right and sentenced as such???
For example I think Brueckner's lawyer already has had the file for one case for some time and it is expected that he will need a considerable amount of time to study the rest. I think he may have the right of rebuttal of some content - whether on points of law or whatever.
Now being the time for alibi evidence etc to come to the fore?
For example I read somewhere that if found guilty of the rape charge there might be serious repercussions because of his prior. Bit like our bizarre Scottish Moorov Doctrine.
I may be way off track here with my musings but if I'm disastrously wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected. But I do have every confidence that Brueckner will get a fair trial in Germany if it comes to that.
Madeleine's Abduction is still an enigma to me as I continue to hope that she is still alive and loved somewhere.
I simply cannot decide that Brueckner is guilty, although this reaction doesn't have a logical reason. My mind just goes blank when I try to think about it.
Perhaps because I have no experience or knowledge of people like Brueckner, who undoubtedly exist. But never in my world.
But why The BKA? That's the bit that I don't get. Okay, Brueckner is German. And now suddenly Portugal is interested?
What has Portugal been doing for the last fifteen years? Other than supporting Amaral.
I wonder if the Portuguese establishment would have allowed the Germans their co-operation in the prosecution of the 2005 Praia da Luz rape case had they been able to foresee the repercussions in relation to Madeleine McCann.
Completely out of the blue for everyone concerned, that one piece of the jigsaw puzzle slotted neatly into place and the rest is history as they say.
Portuguese police 'failed to DNA test evidence in 2005 rape case which could have led to capture of Madeleine McCann suspect two years BEFORE her disappearance'By JACK WRIGHT FOR MAILONLINE
- Items at scene of 2005 Christian Brueckner rape case were not DNA tested
- German prosecutors believe this oversight left Brueckner free to snatch Maddie
- Brueckner raped 72-year-old American woman near McCann holiday apartment
PUBLISHED: 01:15, 1 July 2020
The 2005 rape case inquiry was abandoned five months after the horrific attack, while neither a red T-shirt stuffed in the victim's mouth nor a nylon rope used to tie her hands together were DNA tested, according to The Sun.
Official documents show Carlos Farinha, then Director of the Judicial Police's Forensic Science Laboratory, wrote in a November 2009 letter: 'We have learned by telephone that the examination is no longer necessary. We are therefore cancelling the tests and returning the material sent to us for analysis.'
Brueckner was arrested over the rape in 2017 and convicted in December after German police reinvestigated and did DNA tests.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8477199/Police-failed-DNA-test-evidence-led-capture-Maddies-prime-suspect.html
Amaral who seems to be on a mission to prove how seriously flawed an individual he is but whose word carries a lot of weight still in Portugal has taken it upon himself to use that credulity to rubbish not only the present German investigation but the last one.
Snip
In October 2021, the former inspector published a new book, Maddie: Enough Lies! (Counterpoint), in which he seeks to dismantle the German investigation into Christian Brueckner.
"My conclusion is that Brueckner is a scapegoat. He is under arrest for the rape of a U.S. citizen that occurred in 2005 in Praia da Luz.
The gynaecological examination performed in the hospital, according to the protocol for cases of rape, concludes that it did not happen.
The question is how he could be tried and convicted of this offense if the examination of the victim concludes that it did not happen", says Amaral.
"The process Portuguese was translated into German, except for the gynaecological examination, handwritten by the doctor, because the translator said it was illegible."
"There was such a great desire on the part of the German investigators to stop Christian Brueckner that the main element of the case was not taken into account. In Germany an individual is arrested for a non-existent offense, it is a vale-tudo, a sadness," the former inspector told El País.
https://observador.pt/2022/05/03/procurador-alemao-diz-ter-a-certeza-de-que-christian-brueckner-e-o-assassino-de-maddie-goncalo-amaral-responde-que-e-bode-expiatorio/
Amaral isn't very bright.. If his claim is true that doesn't mean she wasn't raped
Amaral isn't very bright.. If his claim is true that doesn't mean she wasn't rapedIf his claim is true, I very much doubt it is, the man has a proven track record in peddling propaganda and untruths.
But why is Amaral doing this? It can't be just because he can't handle being wrong.it’s that, and the fact that he gets paid every time he opens his gob.
it’s that, and the fact that he gets paid every time he opens his gob.
If his claim is true, I very much doubt it is, the man has a proven track record in peddling propaganda and untruths.
I have long wondered if it is something more sinister.
Me too.
His input over the years somehow seemed orchestrated to me.
And I can't help wondering if he's a puppet for someone else / some mega organisation / some brotherhood / fraternity ?
but then another side of me thinks that he seems the sort of guy who will move heaven and earth to get his own back. I think that he now perceives Kate and Gerry as the enemy because he failed to humble them ... he failed to break them down. Now he has to get his own back and earn money at the same time.
These are just my feelings. There does seem something sinister about him to me, but I know I could be wrong.
If, as some fantasize, it was Amaral who influenced thousands of people to disbelieve the McCanns' widely publicised abduction story then he achieved his goal. When, in their fury, they chose to sue him for damages and failed to prove their case, he won again. I don't think he needs to 'get his own back' at all.He didn’t break the McCanns, he didn’t get them banged up, no one with any sense respects his opinions on the case, so he failed.
He didn’t break the McCanns, he didn’t get them banged up, no one with any sense respects his opinions on the case, so he failed.
What makes you think he wanted to break the McCanns and/or get them 'banged up'? He's never said those things so they are figments of your imagination rather than Amaral's motives imo. His motivation in writing his book was clearly stated; it was to defend himself and the conduct of the investigation until September 2007, not to attack others.These are my opinions to which I am entitled, kindly do not belittle my opinion by calling them figments of my imagination. Any policeman building a case against suspects he 100% believes committed a crime wants to see them charged and found guilty of said crimes, unless there is something very wrong with them. IMO Amaral and his cohorts deliberately leaked to the media prior to his dismissal in an attempt to break down the McCanns. Now, how do you cope the fact that three police forces are investigating Madeleine’s abduction? How do you rationalize that to yourself? BTW Madeleine was abducted. I can say this quite safely because it is apparently also ok to say Madeleine wasn’t abducted on this forum, no IMOs needed.
If, as some fantasize, it was Amaral who influenced thousands of people to disbelieve the McCanns' widely publicised abduction story then he achieved his goal. When, in their fury, they chose to sue him for damages and failed to prove their case, he won again. I don't think he needs to 'get his own back' at all.
What makes you think he wanted to break the McCanns and/or get them 'banged up'? He's never said those things so they are figments of your imagination rather than Amaral's motives imo. His motivation in writing his book was clearly stated; it was to defend himself and the conduct of the investigation until September 2007, not to attack others.
If, as some fantasize, it was Amaral who influenced thousands of people to disbelieve the McCanns' widely publicised abduction story then he achieved his goal. When, in their fury, they chose to sue him for damages and failed to prove their case, he won again. I don't think he needs to 'get his own back' at all.
In the light of more recent information becoming available, people in Portugal are beginning to question Amaral's theories as never before.
I think it is naive in the extreme to imagine that Amaral's unremitting propaganda war did not have a calculated influence on the perception of individuals with a resultant effect on the general perception of Madeleine's case.
He didn't do it alone.
He had help from his friends ~ as a quick glance at what records remain will confirm.
Why the admiration for Gonçalo Amaral? (Madeleine case)
Debate/Discussion
In recent times I have developed special interest in this case. I've seen the Netflix documentary, a few more out there. I've seen several interviews with this investigator.
I noticed that internationally it is not at all respected, but that in Portugal it is very applauded by the population, who seem to like his thesis very much.
Gonçalo is a person who married the theory that parents are responsible.
You've written a book about it, and you'll never admit to being wrong.
It's his reputation that's at stake. Any other conclusion, he'll classify as conspiracy. And Portugal, too.
In fact, it is interesting to compare Portuguese discussions on the subject with discussions in international subs: the difference is that the Portuguese defend almost all that parents are responsible, while out there this theory does not seem to catch much.
Especially now, there's a new suspect. But for the Portuguese, he's just a scapegoat.
I've been doing a lot of research on this case. I've traveled all over Europe, been to the crime scene several times. Well, not literally. Youtube and Google Maps.
My conclusion is that the investigation of Gonçalo Amaral was terrible, and leads me to question why it is said so much that our PJ is very good, when the investigation was a tremendous amateurism, in several aspects.
Next I would like to question some of this gentleman's theories, and perhaps promote further discussion around the subject.
4- Fallacious interpretation of the mother's speech
Gonçalo Amaral says the mother claimed that her daughter had been kidnapped by a pedo.
And he asks, "How does she know that? Usually if a girl is kidnapped by a pedo, she no longer comes back." According to him, the mother, being guilty, does not expect her daughter to return, so gave the warning in this sense.
But there are two serious flaws of reasoning:
1) It is false that girls kidnapped by pedos no longer return. There are cases where they were found alive years later.
2) His interpretation of his intention with that statement is not a fact. That's an opinion.
I think it's something that would cross the mind of any parent.
It doesn't mean anything.
3) The mother speaks of her daughter in the present, in all interviews, so this theory of her is not based on reality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/portugal/comments/ngp9w2/porqu%C3%AA_a_admira%C3%A7%C3%A3o_por_gon%C3%A7alo_amaral_caso/
He was Not a "Lone Voice". But The Portuguese People worry about being targeted, unsurprisingly. Although a fair few of The PJ are themselves convicted criminals who never seem to get anything beyond a suspended sentence. And still remain employed by The PJ.
Apart from Cristovao who is now in prison. But that didn't half take some doing.
How many supporters do the McCanns have in Portugal then?
Well found! A Portuguese person doubting Amaral. Was he a lone voice? The other perception of the abduction was also represented below that post;
Not only do I continue to think that the parents did it (at the very least they were negligent), but I have a hard time even posing the hypothesis that the other guy did it. Where's the evidence? I don't see any.
Regolas1
1 yr. ago
How many supporters do the McCanns have in Portugal then?
I can tell for sure that you don't know.
But you are on dangerous ground if you believe that the entire Portuguese Nation supports a lying perjurer.
These are my opinions to which I am entitled, kindly do not belittle my opinion by calling them figments of my imagination. Any policeman building a case against suspects he 100% believes committed a crime wants to see them charged and found guilty of said crimes, unless there is something very wrong with them. IMO Amaral and his cohorts deliberately leaked to the media prior to his dismissal in an attempt to break down the McCanns. Now, how do you cope the fact that three police forces are investigating Madeleine’s abduction? How do you rationalize that to yourself? BTW Madeleine was abducted. I can say this quite safely because it is apparently also ok to say Madeleine wasn’t abducted on this forum, no IMOs needed.
I can tell for sure that you don't know.
But you are on dangerous ground if you believe that the entire Portuguese Nation supports a lying perjurer.
snip/
The point being made by the original quote was that Amaral's opinion has been adopted as being the definitive one by the man in the street in Portugal to the detriment of free and analytical thought.
Neither do you, despite your post; "He was Not a "Lone Voice"
So one poster agrees with you and another poster agrees with me. So what?
I have seen and read a few things over the years which told me he isn't a Lone Voice. But I can't be bothered to find them again, mainly because I am not in the least bit interested in what you think.
My prime intention was to defend the Right to Innocence of The McCanns. That is done now.
I have in passing, defended the same Right for Brueckner.
You will have to go a very long way to fault me. My only interest now is Justice for Madeleine. But I will point out Lies and Misrepresentations when I see them.
Well found! A Portuguese person doubting Amaral. Was he a lone voice? The other perception of the abduction was also represented below that post;No he wasn't a lone voice. Sandra F also doubted Amaral. And I have no doubt after viewing her documentary that at least one other Portuguese person now also doubts him, so shall we say at least 3 people?
Not only do I continue to think that the parents did it (at the very least they were negligent), but I have a hard time even posing the hypothesis that the other guy did it. Where's the evidence? I don't see any.
Regolas1
1 yr. ago
No he wasn't a lone voice. Sandra F also doubted Amaral. And I have no doubt after viewing her documentary that at least one other Portuguese person now also doubts him, so shall we say at least 3 people?
Was there not a Lawyer turned News Interviewer who made minced meat out of Amaral On Camera?
And then there was that Comic Sketch. That was really funny, HaHa.
I had forgotten about that. Miguel Sousa Tavares.
Miguel continues: you go to your home, wake up in the morning, this is in your book, and the first thing that comes to your brain is to ask the British who are the McCanns?
And you start immediately to suspect and ask questions, the questions you ask are:and then, much ahead you say is common sense in these cases to suspect of the parents, so,
- if they hurt children,
- if the have a serious problem with law,
- if they have psychological problems,
- if they are in fact doctors in full time,
and you´re already suspect them? Is it, or is it not. You´re a master).
- you have not yet seen the McCanns,
- you have not yet been at the crime scene
GA says: yes, then says, listen, I or any other, yes, yes, it´s normal, to suspect, you´re wrong, it´s common sense, listen doctor, you are making fantasies, something,
Miguel says: no, I´m not making fantasies, I read your book).
GA repeats: the issue is this: the national and international laws in any of these cases and we were criticised by the FBI about this, is the issue of suspect or not of parents, or the closest in these types of cases and I can tell you, (Miguel says: you believe, but I don´t say suspect, at a certain time now, the first suspicions is that it?).
GA says: it´s not the first suspicion, we have to know first who those people are.
Miguel says: Was it not most urgent to know if the borders were all closed? Are all the marinas under surveillance? All the cars who left there under control?).
He literally had Amaral squirming. He didn't get the usual sycophantic 'interview' from Miguel.
I had forgotten about that. Miguel Sousa Tavares.
Miguel continues: you go to your home, wake up in the morning, this is in your book, and the first thing that comes to your brain is to ask the British who are the McCanns?
And you start immediately to suspect and ask questions, the questions you ask are:and then, much ahead you say is common sense in these cases to suspect of the parents, so,
- if they hurt children,
- if the have a serious problem with law,
- if they have psychological problems,
- if they are in fact doctors in full time,
and you´re already suspect them? Is it, or is it not. You´re a master).
- you have not yet seen the McCanns,
- you have not yet been at the crime scene
GA says: yes, then says, listen, I or any other, yes, yes, it´s normal, to suspect, you´re wrong, it´s common sense, listen doctor, you are making fantasies, something,
Miguel says: no, I´m not making fantasies, I read your book).
GA repeats: the issue is this: the national and international laws in any of these cases and we were criticised by the FBI about this, is the issue of suspect or not of parents, or the closest in these types of cases and I can tell you, (Miguel says: you believe, but I don´t say suspect, at a certain time now, the first suspicions is that it?).
GA says: it´s not the first suspicion, we have to know first who those people are.
Miguel says: Was it not most urgent to know if the borders were all closed? Are all the marinas under surveillance? All the cars who left there under control?).
He literally had Amaral squirming. He didn't get the usual sycophantic 'interview' from Miguel.
Amaral was hampered at the time by an injunction taken out by the McCanns to silence him.Hampered in what way exactly? Was this extract not from a tv interview that he was presumably not forced to give at gunpoint? Hardly hampered was he?
Hampered in what way exactly? Was this extract not from a tv interview that he was presumably not forced to give at gunpoint? Hardly hampered was he?
Hampered in what way exactly? Was this extract not from a tv interview that he was presumably not forced to give at gunpoint? Hardly hampered was he?
Amaral was hampered at the time by an injunction taken out by the McCanns to silence him.
Hampered in what way exactly? Was this extract not from a tv interview that he was presumably not forced to give at gunpoint? Hardly hampered was he?
Maybe, like the McCanns, he was tricked.
"Frustrated Gerry McCann snapped and walked out of an interview for Spanish TV today"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gerry-mccann-storms-out-of-tv-501922
Maybe, like the McCanns, he was tricked.You just can’t answer a straight question can you? You claim he was hampered when clearly he was quite the opposite, speaking his mind on a broadcast interview.
"Frustrated Gerry McCann snapped and walked out of an interview for Spanish TV today"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gerry-mccann-storms-out-of-tv-501922
You just can’t answer a straight question can you? You claim he was hampered when clearly he was quite the opposite, speaking his mind on a broadcast interview.
There were certain questions Gerry McCann claimed he couldn't answer due to the secrecy of justice. There were subjects Amaral was not suposed to discuss due to an injunction taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann. The difference was, imo, that one didn't want to discuss the investigation anyway and the other did.
There were certain questions Gerry McCann claimed he couldn't answer due to the secrecy of justice. There were subjects Amaral was not suposed to discuss due to an injunction taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann. The difference was, imo, that one didn't want to discuss the investigation anyway and the other did.
There were certain questions Gerry McCann claimed he couldn't answer due to the secrecy of justice. There were subjects Amaral was not suposed to discuss due to an injunction taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann. The difference was, imo, that one didn't want to discuss the investigation anyway and the other did.
There were certain questions Gerry McCann claimed he couldn't answer due to the secrecy of justice. There were subjects Amaral was not suposed to discuss due to an injunction taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann. The difference was, imo, that one didn't want to discuss the investigation anyway and the other did.Amaral was not hampered by anything clearly, despite your claim. There’s nothing more that needs to be said on this particular subject.
Amaral was not hampered by anything clearly, despite your claim. There’s nothing more that needs to be said on this particular subject.
Oh! And there was me wanting to talk some more about what was said in this interview on The Cipriano Case.Don’t let me hamper you 8(0(*
But never mind. If you insist.
Don’t let me hamper you 8(0(*
It seems to me here that the more The Sceptics try to trash The McCanns and exonerate Amaral then the more The Supporters remember of what actually happened. Mostly from being around for a good bit longer.
I've still got a few tricks up my sleeve, coupled with a very long memory. So it might be a good idea for The Sceptics to pack it in.
I still haven't entirely given up on The de Silvas. A Brazilian couple with a boat who disappeared at the same time as Madeleine.
I don't think anything was done about them at all until 2014 when Scotland Yard started tying up loose ends when they opened their case.
EXCLUSIVE: Brazilians in the frame in Madeleine hunt
The behaviour of a Brazilian couple who were seen acting suspiciously around the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is now being re-examined by Portuguese police.
By JAMES MURRAY
00:01, Sun, Dec 14, 2014
After British detectives sat in on interviews in Faro with witnesses last week, the Sunday Express can reveal Policia Judiciaria co-ordinator Ana Paula Rito is taking a broader look at leads which may not have been fully pursued.
She is now keen to learn more about the Brazilian couple, who are said to have expressed a strong desire to have a child when they were in the Algarve in May 2007 when Madeleine vanished.
The couple, who were staying on a yacht at the marina left shortly after the disappearance and have not been seen again.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/546818/Brazilian-couple-who-wanted-a-child-re-examined-in-Madeleine-hunt
If for nothing other than curiosities sake any investigation worth its salt should have been all over this one.
As far as I know the injunction taken out in the civil court concerned the distribution of Amaral's book. Was an injunction taken out against him to desist from libel?
Please provide a link to the injunction to which you refer.
I think you really should attempt to put your intense dislike of Madeleine's parents behind you and move on.
Apart from being crushingly boring it bears no relevance to the direction in which Madeleine's case has progressed.
Ironic isn't it? I find your intense dislike of Amaral crushingly boring and irrelevant.Do you not find it relevant that three police forces are investigating Madeleine’s abduction? How can that possibly be when apparently there is no evidence of abduction?
Do you not find it relevant that three police forces are investigating Madeleine’s abduction? How can that possibly be when apparently there is no evidence of abduction?
Do you not find it relevant that three police forces are investigating Madeleine’s abduction? How can that possibly be when apparently there is no evidence of abduction?
In fifteen years I have never gone to sleep without thinking of Madeleine. And any other shite that was ongoing at the time. And there has been some shite.
Perceptions? Who raises those? I don't have things like that. It is only Sceptics who. have perceptions. And then proceed to abuse them.
In the last four weeks I have seen hypocrisy, the like of which even I would not have believed. And how bloody dare they. But I wasn't allowed to question that as a Moderator. While Gunit rides rough shod.
There are two sets of rules going on here at the moment, depending on who John feels the most sorry for. But I can promise you that having your decisions reversed as a Moderator is not a good way to go. You give up in the end. And then come back fighting later.
The funniest thing of all is that I have knowledge that I never used when I could have done. In some semblance of fair play.
Some people just can't see the connection between their own actions and their consequences. I suppose it's easier to rail against others as Kate McCann did. Mark Warner didn't warn them that PdL was 'unsafe', the PJ didn't offer refreshments and sympathy, they scared her by driving her back to Portimao at speed, they didn't keep her sufficiently informed, etc etc etc.Which of Kate’s actions were responsible for the lousy insensitive incompetent treatment she received at the hands of the PJ?
Some people just can't see the connection between their own actions and their consequences. I suppose it's easier to rail against others as Kate McCann did. Mark Warner didn't warn them that PdL was 'unsafe', the PJ didn't offer refreshments and sympathy, they scared her by driving her back to Portimao at speed, they didn't keep her sufficiently informed, etc etc etc.Many of your posts display almost hatred for the McCanns... I don't really understand why that is
The abduction 'evidence' is that someone said that Brueckner said he did it.
Do you know of any other abduction 'evidence'?
If so, I suggest you tell Wolters, because he can't find any.
Wolters did find a witness who identified Brueckner's mobile number at the time (perhaps). That phone was answered on 3rd May somewhere near or in PdL - oh, and he had some vehicles. We know he stole deisel and his acquaintances said he burgled.
Wolters did find a witness who identified Brueckner's mobile number at the time (perhaps). That phone was answered on 3rd May somewhere near or in PdL - oh, and he had some vehicles. We know he stole deisel and his acquaintances said he burgled.Yes, and as you and Spam already know everything that HCW has on Brückner you are both clearly in the best position to tell us that he has nothing on him.
We know he's a paedophile and a rapistyeah, funny how G-Unit failed to mention the paedo/rapist bit in her rundown of the evidence, I guess she didn’t think either facts were important or relevant enough to merit a mention. @)(++(*
We also know that the Germans have evidence that convinces them 100% that he murdered Maddie
Many of your posts display almost hatred for the McCanns... I don't really understand why that is
Yes, and as you and Spam already know everything that HCW has on Brückner you are both clearly in the best position to tell us that he has nothing on him.
Many of your posts display almost hatred for the McCanns... I don't really understand why that is
yeah, funny how G-Unit failed to mention the paedo/rapist bit in her rundown of the evidence, I guess she didn’t think either facts were important or relevant enough to merit a mention. @)(++(*
No they don't. I just tell the truth and supporters interpret that as me disliking them. I'm sure Kate McCann thought she was explaining, but imo she was complaining and blame-shifting.
The logic seems to be: if you leave your kids alone in an unlocked apartment for periods of 30 minutes at a time, then expect to suffer the consequences of the resort failing to inform residents of recent and repeated break-ins at said resort or of shoddy treatment by the police *%87
Does any holiday provider tell it's guests there have been recent and repeated break-ins at their resort? I doubt it. 'Shoddy treatment' by police is a subjective opinion, and Kate McCann's expectations seemed high to me. Perhaps the PJ should have taken the time to serve them drinks of their choice and a tour of the police station as, allegedly, Leicestershire Constabulary did with their family members.
Does any holiday provider tell it's guests there have been recent and repeated break-ins at their resort? I doubt it. 'Shoddy treatment' by police is a subjective opinion, and Kate McCann's expectations seemed high to me. Perhaps the PJ should have taken the time to serve them drinks of their choice and a tour of the police station as, allegedly, Leicestershire Constabulary did with their family members.
Wolters did find a witness who identified Brueckner's mobile number at the time (perhaps). That phone was answered on 3rd May somewhere near or in PdL - oh, and he had some vehicles. We know he stole deisel and his acquaintances said he burgled.
You again are not being truthful.. UK police did not offer a tour of the police station.. Nor supply their choice of drinks
Oops, incident room.
DS
Stuart Prior, the senior investigating officer, was kind enough to show our relatives round the incident room
– and Gerry, too, later on.
madeleine page 112 kindle
Witnesses were offered drinks and biscuits, it seems.
1485
'I will switch the video off and you can go and have a bit of a drink and a'.
Reply
'A jammy dodger'.
1485
'A jammy dodger and we will resume again in about fifty minutes, alright''
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Some people just can't see the connection between their own actions and their consequences. I suppose it's easier to rail against others as Kate McCann did. Mark Warner didn't warn them that PdL was 'unsafe', the PJ didn't offer refreshments and sympathy, they scared her by driving her back to Portimao at speed, they didn't keep her sufficiently informed, etc etc etc.
Oops, incident room.Talk about scraping the barrel - you're level of knowledge on the most trivial of details is really quite awesomely sad IMO.
DS
Stuart Prior, the senior investigating officer, was kind enough to show our relatives round the incident room
– and Gerry, too, later on.
madeleine page 112 kindle
Witnesses were offered drinks and biscuits, it seems.
1485
'I will switch the video off and you can go and have a bit of a drink and a'.
Reply
'A jammy dodger'.
1485
'A jammy dodger and we will resume again in about fifty minutes, alright''
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Tea and coffee is not giving them their choice of drinks. Its a very limited choice.... And no tour of the police station. Why are these silly little details so important to you
It's real solid stuff, isn't it.
It's clear to see why Brueckner is about to be charged any day now.....oh, wait, no he isn't.
I am so pleased by something that I thought never mattered to anyone else other than me. But apparently it did, even if only briefly.
There is nothing to say that Brueckner didn't abduct Madeleine for financial gain after he appears to have said that he had a bad job to do.
Tis hard to tell sometimes. But I will sleep better tonight than I have when I was forced to contemplate the death of that small child.
There's nonsense in the press about his lawyer being handed files, not one quote attributed to Wolters in that non story.
These 'silly little details' can be used to form a picture of what someone is like.
Yep, he's being charged for some crimes that actually happened.
He's not, however, being charged for the abduction of MM any time in the foreseeable future though.
Unless you're a gullible f*ckwit, desperate & in total denial of reality, then it's just a case of Wolters getting those pesky lesser crimes out of the way before he whips out his concrete evidence & wraps up the Maddie case.
The press say his lawyer has received files, nothing official from anyone.
Best climb aboard the Tiger dear, Wolters has been telling us for two years the girl is dead soon after the alleged abduction by the hand of the prime suspect, won't be long now.
Talk about scraping the barrel - you're level of knowledge on the most trivial of details is really quite awesomely sad IMO.
Really? It might be that my level of knowledge allows me to have a fuller understanding than those who know less than me.Yeah, right - you know better than the combined forces of the PJ, the Met and the BKA too I expect. Such utter arrogance.
These 'silly little details' can be used to form a picture of what someone is like.So what do these details tell you about Kate? That she likes a biscuit with her tea which means she's probably guilty of covering up her child's death?
No they can't. It's very subjective and full of confirmation bias and does not give a true picture of what someone is like
Yeah, right - you know better than the combined forces of the PJ, the Met and the BKA too I expect. Such utter arrogance.
These 'silly little details' can be used to form a picture of what someone is like.
I didn't say that, you did. Typical exaggeration. I think I know more than some people.What do you think you know about this case that makes you a better judge of Kate and Gerry McCann than me for example? Furthermore, I take that as a tacit admission that you don't know as much as the 3 police forces that are investigating an abduction - does that not tell you something?
I didn't say that, you did. Typical exaggeration. I think I know more than some people.
What do you think you know about this case that makes you a better judge of Kate and Gerry McCann than me for example? Furthermore, I take that as a tacit admission that you don't know as much as the 3 police forces that are investigating an abduction - does that not tell you something?
....and are at a total dead end.
You forgot to add that minor detail, that's where the vast weight of abduction evidence has led them after 15 years, that is, absolutely nowhere.
Why do you always forget that part?
....and are at a total dead end.When Wolters says CB is no longer prime suspect... That will be a fead end... But that hasn't happened
You forgot to add that minor detail, that's where the vast weight of abduction evidence has led them after 15 years, that is, absolutely nowhere.
Why do you always forget that part?
Because they are not at a total dead end
Concrete evidence.
100% convinced.
Wolters simply cannot be wrong, can he.
Only, he is.
[/quote
What do you think you know about this case that makes you a better judge of Kate and Gerry McCann than me for example? Furthermore, I take that as a tacit admission that you don't know as much as the 3 police forces that are investigating an abduction - does that not tell you something?
Really? It might be that my level of knowledge allows me to have a fuller understanding than those who know less than me.
Well, I suppose, if you've deluded yourself for the past 15 years with the nonsense idea that Maddie was definitely abducted, & that SY found evidence that proves as much, might just aswell imagine Brueckner is going to be charged some time in the future too, if you're desperate.
By deciding I'm deluded and desperate shows what a fool you are. ...it's your opinion nothing moreSo that's you, me, Scotland Yard, the PJ and the BKA that are desperate and deluded then and drug dealing, paedo-supporting internet troll Wonderfulspam and convicted, disgraced lying ex-cop Amaral that know the truth of the matter - LOL!!!
So that's you, me, Scotland Yard, the PJ and the BKA that are desperate and deluded then and drug dealing, paedo-supporting internet troll Wonderfulspam and convicted, disgraced lying ex-cop Amaral that know the truth of the matter - LOL!!!
So that's you, me, Scotland Yard, the PJ and the BKA that are desperate and deluded then and drug dealing, paedo-supporting internet troll Wonderfulspam and convicted, disgraced lying ex-cop Amaral that know the truth of the matter - LOL!!!
Get back to us when the 3 investigative experts find an abductor, because they're not having much luck with that, for obvious reasons.
Knowledge? Those nit picking articles have been circling for years along with Kate's bruised hand, playing tennis etc etc
All rubbish trying to blacken the McCann's names.
Why you would spend time even bringing any of it up is questionable.
Yer, you are right. Amaral mucked up that one.
Amaral, again.
Moan about Amaral every day, I suppose you have to really, since 15 years & 3 investigative forces haven't been able to prove him wrong.
He hasn't been able to prove himself right either.
I didn't. My information came from her book, in which many complaints about others can be found.
Well, the fact that the 3 investigative forces have reached a complete dead end rather suggests he could be.
According to Wolters if it wasn't Brueckner, they have no evidence against anyone else.
So, since it wasn't Brueckner, that means there wasn't an abduction.
Wolters has proven there wasn't an abduction, well done Wolters.
I didn't. My information came from her book, in which many complaints about others can be found.Do people who feel they have been falsely accused, treated badly or unfairly not have the right to express themselves in your view? For example, Christian Bruckner has been whingeing and complaining for the last 2 years and he's a convicted rapist - what does that tell you about him? It's the little details that help you form an opinion of someone as you said, so do impart your insight...
What frightfully peculiar thinking. But then that is you to a T. You must have addled your brain at some time. What a surprise.It's a perfect example of the complete absence of logic in yer typical sceptic braincell.
What frightfully peculiar thinking. But then that is you to a T. You must have addled your brain at some time. What a surprise.
It's a perfect example of the complete absence of logic in yer typical sceptic braincell.
I didn't. My information came from her book, in which many complaints about others can be found.
Oh, so you don't agree that Brueckner must be presumed innocent?
He must be, you see, same as the McCanns, can't just go saying he's guilty, that's libel, & since there's no 'evidence' against any other 'abductor', then there wasn't one.
The only legally acceptable possibility is that Maddie must have left the apartment to start a life on her own, good for her.
Oh, so you don't agree that Brueckner must be presumed innocent?
He must be, you see, same as the McCanns, can't just go saying he's guilty, that's libel, & since there's no 'evidence' against any other 'abductor', then there wasn't one.
The only legally acceptable possibility is that Maddie must have left the apartment to start a life on her own, good for her.
Have you not realised how often you are critical of others
I do agree that Brueckner must be presumed innocent.
I don't have to worry about The McCanns anymore. That is done and dusted.
Good for you, frees up more time for you to obsess about Amaral, in between periods of obsessing about Amaral, I suppose.
Simple logic which you are accused of then having a addled brain,
It is a known fact that Cannabis addles your brain.
Spammy has himself admitted to this.
Or Gunit.
Simple logic which you are accused of then having a addled brain,"Simple" logic indeed.
Yep, done loads of drugs, still not gullible enough to believe in fantasy abductors just because someone said there was one, though.
I lead a very sad and lonely life with nothing better to do with my excellent brain. But at least I can read and write perfectly good English.
And I know precisely what Perceptions means.
The really sad thing about you is that you are still capable of reasoned thinking on other subjects when you take the time.
"Simple" logic indeed.
Idling away hours discussing a case of a missing child or being bitter and twisted about Portugal , yeah right.
Well the logic that no one can produce the abductor is reasoned thinking, some don't want to see it.
Feel free to out logic it, but try doing it without another desperate appeal to authority.
Brueckner is innocent, so are the McCanns, apparently, the 'evidence' leads only to Brueckner, according to Wolters, but since Brueckner didn't do it, no abduction.
How will you counter that?
But remember, can't say Brueckner did it, the presumption of innocence trumps everything, you see.
Feel free to out logic it, but try doing it without another desperate appeal to authority.Is this the presumption of innocence that enables people to be jailed on remand
Brueckner is innocent, so are the McCanns, apparently, the 'evidence' leads only to Brueckner, according to Wolters, but since Brueckner didn't do it, no abduction.
How will you counter that?
But remember, can't say Brueckner did it, the presumption of innocence trumps everything, you see.
Well the logic that no one can produce the abductor is reasoned thinking, some don't want to see it.Explain that logic to me then. What you and Spam seem to believe is that because no charges of abduction have yet been brought against any abductor then that must mean there is no abductor. Using this same brilliant logic we can also say "because no charges have been brought against anyone for covering up the death of the child in the apartment, the child did not die in the apartment and no one covered it up". Great logic isn't it? We must use it more often. Because no abductor / murderer has been identified in the cases of Claudia Lawrence or Suzy Lamplugh this must mean that neither woman was abducted or murdered. Yes, they probably ran off together and are performing in some circus double act somewhere, that'll be it.
Is this the presumption of innocence that enables people to be jailed on remand
Explain that logic to me then. What you and Spam seem to believe is that because no charges of abduction have yet been brought against any abductor then that must mean there is no abductor. Using this same brilliant logic we can also say "because no charges have been brought against anyone for covering up the death of the child in the apartment, the child did not die in the apartment and no one covered it up". Great logic isn't it? We must use it more often. Because no abductor / murderer has been identified in the cases of Claudia Lawrence or Suzy Lamplugh this must mean that neither woman was abducted or murdered. Yes, they probably ran off together and are performing in some circus double act somewhere, that'll be it.
It's utterly pointless trying to reason with people whose reason deserted them years ago that's plainly evident.
I didn't. My information came from her book, in which many complaints about others can be found.
They had the right to complain. Being accused of faking an abduction. Amaral was incompetent. There are no two ways about it. He tried to get things to fit with his theory. He didn't prove a thing. Now he is trying to get his voice heard in the Germans investigation but they have the sense not to listen to him.
I fail to see the relevance really, Brueckner isn't on remand, he's not even charged with anything, nor will he ever be, much to your disappointment I'm sure, but you'll just have to get used to the idea, because that's reality.
Absolutely right yet again. Well done.
When is Brueckner due to be released?
Around 2025, probably, good for him, I'm looking forward to reading his book.
I fail to see the relevance really, Brueckner isn't on remand, he's not even charged with anything, nor will he ever be, much to your disappointment I'm sure, but you'll just have to get used to the idea, because that's reality.He's been charged on here ,
He's been charged on here ,as have the McCanns then.
He's been charged on here ,
as have the McCanns then.
Well, either the McCanns did it, or Brueckner did, & since Brueckner didn't do it, that just leaves the McCanns.
Elementary my dear.
You need a course on Logic, my dear.Spam just says silly things for attention, pay him no mind.
Spam just says silly things for attention, pay him no mind.
My opinion is that the present conflicting situation of different rules for different individuals being the nom rather than the exception is indeed a destabilising factor to the integrity of the forum.
I'm not convinced that isn't the intention because the one thing which can be said about this forum is that its ethos is unique as far as Madeleine's investigation is concerned. Some people just cannot abide that thought.
First of all there is the canard that there was no abduction despite three police forces following evidence which confirms that this was no "inside job" but was indeed a stranger abduction.
It is also difficult to reconcile the vociferous support for the rights of a career criminal with the even more vociferous rubbishing of the rights of innocent people.
Just one of the small drawbacks of a forum like ours which allows all opinions if not expressed as obvious libel.
I don’t agree. I think the prevailing consensus on this forum is that there was an abduction. If anyone questions this accepted narrative they are met with vitriol and reported to admins.
I think there has been a huge effort to make abduction the only scenario, but it isn't working so well any more. Clinging to the 'three police forces are investigating abduction' is a poor argument to rely on imo. The Portuguese police, according to some, are useless. The Met have destroyed their reputation by their own behaviour. The Germans have a suspect but can't, as yet, charge him, despite a desperate search for evidence. If these police forces believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, they seem unable to find any evidence of it.It's about time you woke up.. Unless Wolters is a total idiot and liar with the backing of the BKA concrete evidence exists of CB murdering Maddie
I think there has been a huge effort to make abduction the only scenario, but it isn't working so well any more. Clinging to the 'three police forces are investigating abduction' is a poor argument to rely on imo. The Portuguese police, according to some, are useless. The Met have destroyed their reputation by their own behaviour. The Germans have a suspect but can't, as yet, charge him, despite a desperate search for evidence. If these police forces believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, they seem unable to find any evidence of it.I see. So do you think the idea that Madeleine wasn’t abducted is gaining ground amongst the general population? You really are dreaming if you believe this IMO.
It's about time you woke up.. Unless Wolters is a total idiot and liar with the backing of the BKA concrete evidence exists of CB murdering Maddie
Right, it just isn't enough to press charges for some reason though.
Just got to find that place the photograph was taken, isn't it.
I see. So do you think the idea that Madeleine wasn’t abducted is gaining ground amongst the general population? You really are dreaming if you believe this IMO.
The reason why charges have not been brought has been explained many times..
From what Wolters has, said you are right about the photo
The subject of my post was this forum, and the attempts to make abduction the only crime discussed here.
The subject of my post was this forum, and the attempts to make abduction the only crime discussed here.LOL, nothing but NOTHING would ever make you change your mind about Madeleine not being abducted (not even a full frank confession from CB and him leading police to the body), twas ever thus. But really, your opinion is not very important in the grand scheme of things, just provides grist to the mill that's all... 8(0(*
I do not see any attempts to make abduction the only crime discussed.. What I see are attempts to dismiss it...posters choice.I see attempts made to scorn and belittle anyone who agrees with the current police investigations' direction. Sheeple I believe was the word used today....
The difference is ni one is, claiming there is concrete evidence of an accidental death in the apartment.. In fact there's no evidence..... But the Germans claim concrete evidence of murder
I see attempts made to scorn and belittle anyone who agrees with the current police investigations' direction. Sheeple I believe was the word used today....
The reason why charges have not been brought has been explained many times..
From what Wolters has, said you are right about the photo
I feel honoured to be included in such a group of non-believers 8)--))And I feel honoured to think you actually deigned to read my post. Truly humbled.
The fact is - anyone on here who thinks the police are on the right track is subjected to constant scorn and / or ridicule by:
Spam
Jassi
Barrier
G-Unit
Faith
The General (though he has been quiet recently)
Angelo
John
therefore to claim that we (supporters) are attempting to make abduction the only thing discussed on here is utterly pathetic. The only thing TO discuss now is the current investigation (unless you want to keep returning like a dog to sick to discuss Gerry touching his nose or swearing on a bus 15 years ago, or Kate refusing to answer the 48 questions) and it just so happens that the current investigation is solely focused on stranger abduction. If you want to divert the discussion away from that, nothing is stopping you but it's really not a good look IMO.
The fact is - anyone on here who thinks the police are on the right track is subjected to constant scorn and / or ridicule by:
Spam
Jassi
I rest my case 8(>((
And I feel honoured to think you actually deigned to read my post. Truly humbled.
I read all your posts - always good for a laugh 8(0(*OK. What do you find particularly funny about them?
Who here agrees with the following statement:
The longer it takes the police to arrest and charge an abductor in the Madeleine McCann case, the less likely it is she was actually abducted.
LOL, nothing but NOTHING would ever make you change your mind about Madeleine not being abducted (not even a full frank confession from CB and him leading police to the body), twas ever thus. But really, your opinion is not very important in the grand scheme of things, just provides grist to the mill that's all... 8(0(*
I don't know if Madeleine was abducted or not. What I do no is that I've seen nothing which proves she was. Therefore I refuse to treat it as a fact, unlike some people here, some journalists, some MP's and some policemen.
No charges anytime soon in the disappearances of Claudia Lawrence and Suzy Lamplugh despite years of police investigation = no abductor. Simple(ton) logic.
I don't know if Madeleine was abducted or not. What I do know is that I've seen nothing which proves she was. Therefore I refuse to treat it as a fact, unlike some people here, some journalists, some MP's and some policemen.No one is asking you to treat it as a fact, you are constructing a strawman. So - you don't treat abduction as a fact, instead you do treat it as an "almost impossibility" which IMO is very blinkered and not at all objective.
The fact is - anyone on here who thinks the police are on the right track is subjected to constant scorn and / or ridicule by:
Spam
Jassi
Barrier
G-Unit
Faith
The General (though he has been quiet recently)
Angelo
John
therefore to claim that we (supporters) are attempting to make abduction the only thing discussed on here is utterly pathetic. The only thing TO discuss now is the current investigation (unless you want to keep returning like a dog to sick to discuss Gerry touching his nose or swearing on a bus 15 years ago, or Kate refusing to answer the 48 questions) and it just so happens that the current investigation is solely focused on stranger abduction. If you want to divert the discussion away from that, nothing is stopping you but it's really not a good look IMO.
And of course there can be death without abduction - eg sex games gone wrong, followed by disposal of body.Are you referring to the rape of a nearly 4 year old as a sex game? That's nice.
No one is asking you to treat it as a fact, you are constructing a strawman. So - you don't treat abduction as a fact, instead you do treat it as an "almost impossibility" which IMO is very blinkered and not at all objective.
Poor things. Are they constantly accused of lying, being illogical and biased, lacking empathy, decency, logic, sense and understanding? I know how difficult it can be.........No they're constantly accused of being stupid, gullible, child neglect supporters oh and of actively wanting Madeleine to have been raped and murdered by a paedo. Pleasant.
No they're constantly accused of being stupid, gullible, child neglect supporters oh and of actively wanting Madeleine to have been raped and murdered by a paedo. Pleasant.
There are so many strawmen on this thread I guess it must be Scarecrow Festival time again.
I don't know if Madeleine was abducted or not. What I do know is that I've seen nothing which proves she was. Therefore I refuse to treat it as a fact, unlike some people here, some journalists, some MP's and some policemen.
you do post some rubbish....I havent seen anyone here claim abduction as a fact. ....just the most likely
you are happy to accept the statements are accurate even though theres no proof they are. Im just waiting to see your reaction when wolters produces his evidence
No one is asking you to treat it as a fact, you are constructing a strawman. So - you don't treat abduction as a fact, instead you do treat it as an "almost impossibility" which IMO is very blinkered and not at all objective.
you do post some rubbish....I havent seen anyone here claim abduction as a fact. ....just the most likely
you are happy to accept the statements are accurate even though theres no proof they are. Im just waiting to see your reaction when wolters produces his evidence
Given the timeline and the movement of people around 5A it would have been almost impossible. Why else would 'the abductor' have been portrayed as the Billy Whiz of the Algarve by some?
People who we know were around;
Matthew Oldham
Gerry McCann
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja
Jez Wilkins
Jane Tanner
A British holidaymaker carrying his child
Russell O'Brien
The Moyes
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
All between 9 & 10pm.
I think the name of this thread treats "Madeleine's abduction" as a fact.
you do post some rubbish....I havent seen anyone here claim abduction as a fact. ....just the most likely
you are happy to accept the statements are accurate even though theres no proof they are. Im just waiting to see your reaction when wolters produces his evidence
Given the timeline and the movement of people around 5A it would have been almost impossible. Why else would 'the abductor' have been portrayed as the Billy Whiz of the Algarve by some?What on earth are you talking about? Since when does proximity of numerous people to a place or child cancel out the possibility of an abduction? What is the physical law of science that makes this an impossibility?
People who we know were around;
Matthew Oldham
Gerry McCann
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja
Jez Wilkins
Jane Tanner
A British holidaymaker carrying his child
Russell O'Brien
The Moyes
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
All between 9 & 10pm.
What on earth are you talking about? Since when does proximity of numerous people to a place or child cancel out the possibility of an abduction? What is the physical law of science that makes this an impossibility?
The fact is - anyone on here who thinks the police are on the right track is subjected to constant scorn and / or ridicule by:
Spam
Jassi
Barrier
G-Unit
Faith
The General (though he has been quiet recently)
Angelo
John
therefore to claim that we (supporters) are attempting to make abduction the only thing discussed on here is utterly pathetic. The only thing TO discuss now is the current investigation (unless you want to keep returning like a dog to sick to discuss Gerry touching his nose or swearing on a bus 15 years ago, or Kate refusing to answer the 48 questions) and it just so happens that the current investigation is solely focused on stranger abduction. If you want to divert the discussion away from that, nothing is stopping you but it's really not a good look IMO.
We're all waiting for that day. Certainly a long time in coming.
Its like the second coming, hang on it'll be here shortly .
Given the timeline and the movement of people around 5A it would have been almost impossible. Why else would 'the abductor' have been portrayed as the Billy Whiz of the Algarve by some?
People who we know were around;
Matthew Oldham
Gerry McCann
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja
Jez Wilkins
Jane Tanner
A British holidaymaker carrying his child
Russell O'Brien
The Moyes
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
All between 9 & 10pm.
It seems rather strange to me that, despite watching the McCanns movements during the week, where the abductor would have learned that they were checking every hour & half hour, that rather than waiting for Gerry to finish his 9pm check, & thus allowing an uninterrupted half hour window of opportunity thereafter, the abductor decides to be present inside the apartment at precisely the same time as Gerry.
Weird.
Oh well, I'm sure there's a perfectly logical & plausible explanation for this.
Given the timeline and the movement of people around 5A it would have been almost impossible. Why else would 'the abductor' have been portrayed as the Billy Whiz of the Algarve by some?
People who we know were around;
Matthew Oldham
Gerry McCann
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja
Jez Wilkins
Jane Tanner
A British holidaymaker carrying his child
Russell O'Brien
The Moyes
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
All between 9 & 10pm.
Don't forget Myster (Ret Sym). He is The Generals father IMO'Myster is not a sceptic as far as I’m aware….
Myster is an absolute wizard at anything electronic and loads of other things too. Oxford educated..
The General is a whiz kid too IMO . The self proclaimed youngest poster on forum and an impressively clever young man. Just like his father.
Oh, dear ! I keep saying too much. Now I must wait for my punishment
Myster is not a sceptic as far as I’m aware….
I don’t know why the troll is so hung up on the idea that the abductor (“what abductor?”) was in the building at the same time as Gerry. I supoose it’s a good way of heaping ridicule onto the abduction theory but as far as I know, no police force has claimed that this happened.
@Sadie, at least you're not using the notion that they used the window.
Myster is not a sceptic as far as I’m aware….
Don't forget Myster (Ret Sym). He is The Generals father IMO'Oxford educated?... Where did that come from? The longest time I spent in Oxford was on a week's study of new student housing there, aeons ago - including the Florey Building and the Keble College extension by "Big Jim" Stirling and the ABK practice. Luvverly buildings!
Myster is an absolute wizard at anything electronic and loads of other things too. Oxford educated..
The General is a whiz kid too IMO . The self proclaimed youngest poster on forum and an impressively clever young man. Just like his father.
Oh, dear ! I keep saying too much. Now I must wait for my punishment
Myster is not a sceptic as far as I’m aware….8((()*/
Oxford educated?... Where did that come from? The longest time I spent in Oxford was on a week's study of new student housing there, aeons ago - including the Florey Building and the Keble College extension by "Big Jim" Stirling and the ABK practice. Luvverly buildings!
As for being der General's daddy - his predilection for writing obfuscatory gobbledygook wasn't inherited from me.
And from the get-go (oops) in 2007, I've always believed that MBM was abducted by a stranger, and nothing to do with mischief hatched by her parents. You just "know".
So no reason for me to be on that list, sorry dearest!
Because that is the McCanns 'evidence'.
Gerry entered at 9, & the door had strangely moved, https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=748
and no police force is able to present any evidence an abduction actually occurred.
When you factor my first point in, it's very easy to see why.
You were at Oxford. Mathematics. Exceptionally clever bloke. Quite a wizard in fact.Which psychic told you that, sadie?... because he or she are mistaken. My proficiency in higher maths was and still is extremely poor.
I know who he is. He knows who I am. All about me.
He is a very clever man. Oxford graduate. Quite a wizard.
He is a sceptic, as is his son The General, who is also a whiz kid. Self proclaimed as the youngest poster on forum
I wonder if this post will stand. My last attempt was whooshed.
I wonder why? Is the truth not allowed to stand?
But we just skip this inconvenient detail now, brush it out of history, then 'the abduction' becomes a bit easier to explain.Nothing inconvenient about it. You are wrong..
Nothing inconvenient about it. You are wrong..
If it were CB, then he is so skinny that he could possibly have even been standing hidden in the triangular space behind the door. Not likely but a possibility.
Also with the two bedrooms being immediately opposite each other and recessed into a lobby, a perp could have walked across the small open space (lobby)between the two doors as Gerry entered via the patio door. With that patio door opening at its westward end, Gerry would walk towards Madeleines bedroom with his left shoulder close to the wall of his bedroom. In this situation, initially he would have a view of neither of the bedroom doors nor of the lobby. Plenty of opportunity for the perp tp move rooms unseen.
Personally, I think he got warning that Gerry was coming and scootled outside in time. Or maybe Gerrys feeling of the perp being present were unjustified. We really do not know.
With Jane having witnessed Tannerman with ?Madeleine, it seems that the perp must have been very close to 5A and Gerry from the time scale.
Yeah, flashlight or smoke signal from the watcher outside, or maybe Wolters has found a text message on Brueckners phone, along with the photograph.
Yeah, flashlight or smoke signal from the watcher outside, or maybe Wolters has found a text message on Brueckners phone, along with the photograph.
Which psychic told you that, sadie?... because he or she are mistaken. My proficiency in higher maths was and still is extremely poor.
Sadie, it’s just Myster’s sense of humour- it’s not meant to be malicious, he /she is just pulling your leg. Maybe he/she has pulled your leg a bit too hard on occasion but I honestly don’t think they’re a baddie.... or wallowing about in the polluted sceptic tank, don't forget!
Oh, it was in an article, a promotional one it seemed and was about you and your cousin. The article was called called "- --o- --s-" published about 10-15 years ago. And now whooshed. Copies kept by me and others. Some lovely photos of you in the article. The article covered your complete education and more.Never appeared in any article in my life, let alone one with my cousin, so there! Mmm... mmmm.
Seems that you have bewitched VS into thinking that you are a supporter of The Mccanns.
VS
- Have you not noticed how Myster keeps having a go at Mr Grey. Wolverhampton, Dudley etc
- Have you not noticed how Myster keeps having a go at Eleanor? Intimating dirty home etc. Nothing unclean about it when I went. Elli was a cleaner and gardener to pay for her boys school fees, bless her. I bet she clears up immediately when needed
- Have you not noticed how Myster keeps having a go at me? Brown knickers + demeaning me etc.
The above are not the actions of someone on our side of the argument
His modum operandi is to bring up something contentious and unfair about The Mccanns, The case etc. Have a real go at them,
Then
After the damage is done, Myster always agrees with comments by the supporters side ... clever move ... and IMO, that is why you think he is a supporter.
All IMO, but do not be hoodwinked.
... or wallowing about in the polluted sceptic tank, don't forget!noted (didn’t want to get your pronouns wrong now it’s a crime against humanity).
Last time I managed to glance over my generous corporation, VS, I was most definitely male.
noted (didn’t want to get your pronouns wrong now it’s a crime against humanity).I've been considering gender reassignment as it's the 'in thing' these days, but need to lose my paunch first, otherwise the surgeon won't operate for fear of an enormous explosion at first cut.
Could be flash light, but safer for balcony man to have a long drag on his fag to light it up IMO Nothing suspicious about that to a casual observer; just a man smoking on the balcony enjoying sea views.
Oh, it was in an article, a promotional one it seemed and was about you and your cousin. The article was called called "- --o- --s-" published about 10-15 years ago. And now whooshed. Copies kept by me and others. Some lovely photos of you in the article. The article covered your complete education and more.
[snipped]
Who in their right mind keeps copies of articles from 10-15 years ago about people they don't know ?I think there was once a whole website dedicated to keeping articles on anything related to the McCanns and Madeleine so....
How can such behaviour be justified? Trawling the internet trying to identify people is inexcusable imo. As is insisting x is y despite x's assurance that the identification is wrong.
I think there was once a whole website dedicated to keeping articles on anything related to the McCanns and Madeleine so....
Quite hypocritical......when stephen did the same you didnt protest...when faith recently did the same ...you didnt protest.
Quite hypocritical......when stephen did the same you didnt protest...when faith recently did the same ...you didnt protest.
I might if I knew how and why it all began. As I don't I've always kept out of it.
Keeping articles and creating dossiers are two different things.Oh? Please explain the difference. What was the McCannfiles website then? Is a file different to a dossier?
I think it's fairly obvious that certain posters maintain personal data files - you see it on Websleuths as well
The question I ask is why?
Probably due to the constant demand for Cites, often from years ago.
You didn't know what was going on? Everyone else did. It was pretty obvious.
Sadie, it’s just Myster’s sense of humour- it’s not meant to be malicious, he /she is just pulling your leg. Maybe he/she has pulled your leg a bit too hard on occasion but I honestly don’t think they’re a baddie.
It was obvious that the animosity between Davel and Stephen began before they joined this forum. Therefore I had no idea how and why it began. It may have been obvious to you what was going on, but I prefer to rely on my judgement, not someone else's.
Oh? Please explain the difference. What was the McCannfiles website then? Is a file different to a dossier?
... or wallowing about in the polluted sceptic tank, don't forget!
Last time I managed to glance over my generous corporation, VS, I was most definitely male.
It was obvious that the animosity between Davel and Stephen began before they joined this forum. Therefore I had no idea how and why it began. It may have been obvious to you what was going on, but I prefer to rely on my judgement, not someone else's.
It was obvious that the animosity between Davel and Stephen began before they joined this forum. Therefore I had no idea how and why it began. It may have been obvious to you what was going on, but I prefer to rely on my judgement, not someone else's.
You didn't notice that Stephen and Slarty were doubling up on 40 Points each to silence Supporters?
Some people are just antagonistic by nature. Be thankful that that you only meet them in cyberspace
It's not just antagonism, I've seen some other very strange traits too. Mostly I feel sorry to see how many people have so many negative opinions of others and are so aggressive. I've always been quite choosy who gets close to me in real life too, so maybe that's why such people haven't really shown up on my radar previously.
How would I be able to see that? Can you supply evidence?
If you click on the name of a Poster who is being Watched then you can see how many Warning Points that poster has. This facility is still available to me.
When Warning Points jump from 40% to 60 or 80% in the space of less than a day then you know that something not quite right is happening.
You as a Moderator should know this as 40% is the maximum anyone can give in the space of one day.
Hope this helps.
Wrong again.. Poor judgement and logic. I never knew Stephen until I joined this forum. I don't see how any decent person could not condemn his attacks on my wife on this forum. Faith has also been stalking me in the real world recently.. Finding information from those who supposedly know me. The hypocrisy is laughable
I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy with people who complain to other members and tell them what they should think. In your place I would have dealt with it myself at the time, aided by the forum management and in accordance with forum rules.
If you click on the name of a Poster who is being Watched then you can see how many Warning Points that poster has. This facility is still available to me.
When Warning Points jump from 40% to 60 or 80% in the space of less than a day then you know that something not quite right is happening.
You as a Moderator should know this as 40% is the maximum anyone can give in the space of one day.
Hope this helps.
What a crass reply. Moderators are supposed to put a stop to this.
I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy with people who complain to other members and tell them what they should think. In your place I would have dealt with it myself at the time, aided by the forum management and in accordance with forum rules.LoL...im not expecting sympathy...Im just pointing out your hypocrisy. you might remember stephen was eventually
You seem to be deducing rather more than that, though, naming those responsible as you have.
Stephen and Slarti. Both banned. And you don't half have to go some to get Banned from this Forum.
Are you now supporting their grossly underhand tactics?
Weren't you a moderator when it was happening? I wasn't.
Slarti was logged in last on the 23rd, look at his profile no mention of a ban.
When was the last time Slarti Posted? I note that he is no longer a Moderator.
Don't know, but he stopped being a mod at the time you were purged along with robbitybobby and Holly from modding.
Whey Hey. And what a relief that was after ten years of Moderating.
But I am still here and still Commenting.
Hang on in there you and sadie are the last of the old guard.
I don't know which website you're referring to, but 'articles' suggests publicly available newspaper stories. Armchair detectives researching anonymous people's identities and creating dossiers of the (often wrong) information they have amassed is not the same.Why is it different? If you spend years researching the McCanns why shouldn't someone spend years researching you? I mean I couldn't think of anything less interesting but each to their own.
Why is it different? If you spend years researching the McCanns why shouldn't someone spend years researching you? I mean I couldn't think of anything less interesting but each to their own.
I did mostly. But 24/7 was difficult even for me.
Why is it different? If you spend years researching the McCanns why shouldn't someone spend years researching you? I mean I couldn't think of anything less interesting but each to their own.
He did mention it quite a lot.
Did Myster spend years researching the McCanns? He was being investigated by dossier compilers some years ago. It seems no-one was safe from their suspicions, even those who agreed with them. Was that due to paranoia I wonder?
The McCanns don't have the privilege of being anonymous. And I didn't need it anyway. But I suspect that Gunit and the odd few others wouldn't like it.
This being my perception.
The McCanns willingly abandoned their privacy. I don't know your name even now, and I don't want to.
The McCanns willingly abandoned their privacy. I don't know your name even now, and I don't want to.
Did Myster spend years researching the McCanns? He was being investigated by dossier compilers some years ago. It seems no-one was safe from their suspicions, even those who agreed with them. Was that due to paranoia I wonder?Who said Myster was being investigated by dossier compilers? Who said Myster spent anytime at all researching the McCanns? IMO this is a load of deflecting nonsense. Sadie has very obviously imo got hold of the wrong end of the stick. As both you and Myster are moderators I would suggest ironing this out with Sadie privately?
The McCanns willingly abandoned their privacy. I don't know your name even now, and I don't want to.They didn’t willingly want their detractors to track them down to their front door and publishing their address on the net for all to see.
They didn’t willingly want their detractors to track them down to their front door and publishing their address on the net for all to see.
Then why did they, along with Clarence Mitchell, address the media whilst standing right outside the front of their house?
Seems like a strange thing to do, if they didn't want people knowing where they lived.
If you engage with the media as they did you can say goodbye to privacy.
Like saying couldn't make love to Gerry helps in the search for Madeleine.
If you engage with the media as they did you can say goodbye to privacy.The media didn’t publish their address on the web or report their exact location in real time whilst they were having a family meal together in a restaurant or encourage people to slap them as they ate or disrupt their sporting endeavours by wearing Madeleine masks to the event. But I suppose you think this is what they should have expected (ie hundreds of sad sacks intent in making their lives a misery) when appealing to the media to keep their missing daughter high profile?
The media didn’t publish their address on the web or report their exact location in real time whilst they were having a family meal together in a restaurant or encourage people to slap them as they ate or disrupt their sporting endeavours by wearing Madeleine masks to the event. But I suppose you think this is what they should have expected (ie hundreds of sad sacks intent in making their lives a misery) when appealing to the media to keep their missing daughter high profile?
Oh I see, having cameras right outside their house showing their address was fine then, just don't go repeating that address on the web later.
Yeah, alright then.
So if I stand outside my house with a television crew you’d know my exact address would you? The troll is talking crap as per.
If the sign outside had your house name on it & it was made widely known you were in Rothley, that would narrow it down a bit yes.
https://www.alamy.com/kate-l-and-gerry-mccann-c-the-parents-of-missing-british-girl-madeleine-mccann-attend-a-news-conference-with-spokesman-clarence-mitchell-outside-their-home-in-rothley-central-england-september-18-2007-mitchell-said-on-tuesday-it-was-ludicrous-to-suggest-they-were-guilty-of-harming-her-reutersdavid-jonespool-britain-image379869761.html
How was the money for the fund to find its way originally ?
All dealt with very efficiently within 2 weeks of the 'abduction';Did you get this info from your own dossier on all things McCann? Your ability to lay your hands on this kind of detail at ease leads me to believe you have well indexed reference files. All very odd imo.
Thursday May 17th:
members of the public will be able to make donations to 'Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited' over-the-counter in any branch of NatWest and The Royal Bank of Scotland.
From now:
· Postal Donations can be made with cheques payable to 'Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned'. Cheques should be posted to the following address:
‘Madeleine’s Fund’
c/o The International Family Law Group
26 Southampton Street
Covent Garden
London
WC2E 7RS
Internet donations can be made into the following account:
'Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned'
Branch
Natwest
PO BOX 113
Cavell House
2A Charing Cross Road
London
WC2H ONN
Sort Code 60 40 05.
Account Number 32130058
Internet banking donations from abroad
IBAN : GB63 NWBK 6040 0532 1300 58
or
IBAN : GB63NWBK60400532130058
Sort Code : 60 – 40 – 05
Account number : 32130058
Iban bic : NWBKGB2L
All donations will be processed free of charge.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DAYS_1_to_50.htm
Did you get this info from your own dossier on all things McCann? Your ability to lay your hands on this kind of detail at ease leads me to believe you have well indexed reference files. All very odd imo.
There's nothing odd about people who have a good memory and internet skills, except to those who are less able perhaps.
There's nothing odd about people who have a good memory and internet skills, except to those who are less able perhaps.
There's nothing odd about people who have a good memory and internet skills, except to those who are less able perhaps.Why would you even feel the need to remember or go looking for that information, especially as you clearly have no intention whatsoever of ever making a donation to the Fund. It’s quite obsessive imo.
Sadie, it’s just Myster’s sense of humour- it’s not meant to be malicious, he /she is just pulling your leg. Maybe he/she has pulled your leg a bit too hard on occasion but I honestly don’t think they’re a baddie.
I think attention would have been drawn to a man leaning dangerously off a balcony trying to see round the building to the sea lol.
ORLY ?OYESLY ! ?{)(**
If you remember something, then you remember something.Sorry, who are you?
I recall Mr Gray claims to have a phenomenal memory, so nothing odd in that.
I on the other hand tend to forget certain things
The most important skill in solving problems is sorting the wheat from the chaff... Some of us have that skill.. Sceptics certainly don't.. In my esteemed opinion
No need to lean out to see the sea. Not all of it, but who passing by would stop to assess how much sea he could see.
His purpose IMO was to watch the immediate neighbourhood for parents and others coming and going ... and he wanted not to attract attention if anyone saw him
If you remember something, then you remember something.
I recall Mr Gray claims to have a phenomenal memory, so nothing odd in that.
I on the other hand tend to forget certain things
That only works if you know the difference.That's the skill I'm referring to.. Understanding how reliable evidence is. Being scientifically trained it's part of my education. The statements cannot be relied upon to being accurate because of the way they were taken.. That's not opinion it's fact. The cadaver alerts have no evidence to support them... Another fact
How memory works is different for everyone. I remember written information very well, but have a poor memory for faces.And that is why human memory cannot be relied upon for accuracy when recalling events such as who was where, when, what they looked like, what time it was etc.
That's the skill I'm referring to.. Understanding how reliable evidence is. Being scientifically trained it's part of my education. The statements cannot be relied upon to being accurate because of the way they were taken.. That's not opinion it's fact. The cadaver alerts have no evidence to support them... Another fact
Statements only need to conform with the rules of the judiciary of the country where they are taken. They don't have to conform with your opinion of how they should be taken, and your opinion is just that; an opinion and not a fact.
Once a witness has signed a statement as accurate then the judiciary is entitled to treat the statement as evidence, as are others who read them.
And that is why human memory cannot be relied upon for accuracy when recalling events such as who was where, when, what they looked like, what time it was etc.
That went well in Portugal, didn't it.
As demonstrated by the differences in the statements of Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins. Other examples can be seen in the statements of the T9 concerning the visit to the beach on 3rd and the times relating to the men's involvement in the tennis that evening. Fiona Payne was sure that all four men were actually playing tennis at 6.30pm when she arrived back from the beach, but her husband was away from the tennis courts visiting 5A at 6.40pm and then visited his own apartment before returning. Clearly her memory wasn't reliable.And? What about the memories of those who "have no reason to lie"? Are they more reliable in your view?
The statements remain as part of the body of evidence, whether or not people believe they are accurate.
And? What about the memories of those who "have no reason to lie"? Are they more reliable in your view?
All useless of course.
Yes, in your opinion of course.
Yes, in your opinion of course.And surely in yours as they did not help secure a conviction of those you consider to be the prime suspects, and nor will they ever do so - therefore useless surely?
I am not alone of course. Even The Portuguese Judiciary found it to be useless. Along with Scotland Yard and The BKA.
The Portuguese Judiciary found they didn't have enough evidence to identify the crime or to bring charges. Operation Grange chose to interpret that as meaning the arguidos were wrongly suspected and proceeded to identify the crime without relying on evidence. The BKA followed suit.No they did not, they had information that implicated CB and worked from that point, they were never charged with investigating or eliminating the parents.
The Portuguese Judiciary found they didn't have enough evidence to identify the crime or to bring charges. Operation Grange chose to interpret that as meaning the arguidos were wrongly suspected and proceeded to identify the crime without relying on evidence. The BKA followed suit.So, do you think The Met never actually reviewed the case files? Is that your belief and upon what do you base your beliefs?
The Portuguese Judiciary found they didn't have enough evidence to identify the crime or to bring charges. Operation Grange chose to interpret that as meaning the arguidos were wrongly suspected and proceeded to identify the crime without relying on evidence. The BKA followed suit.
The Portuguese Judiciary found they didn't have enough evidence to identify the crime or to bring charges. Operation Grange chose to interpret that as meaning the arguidos were wrongly suspected and proceeded to identify the crime without relying on evidence. The BKA followed suit.Just in case you don't realise that's your opinion and it's total junk
The Portuguese Judiciary found they didn't have enough evidence to identify the crime or to bring charges. Operation Grange chose to interpret that as meaning the arguidos were wrongly suspected and proceeded to identify the crime without relying on evidence. The BKA followed suit.
And surely in yours as they did not help secure a conviction of those you consider to be the prime suspects, and nor will they ever do so - therefore useless surely?
So, do you think The Met never actually reviewed the case files? Is that your belief and upon what do you base your beliefs?
I don't know what they did but saying the man seen by Jane Tanner was leaving the night creche was a rookie mistake imo. Geography didn't seem to be one of Britain's finest's strong points.I think you should have just stopped at "I don't know" if you wanted to be strictly accurate.
You have to vaguely admire the use of semantics from someone who almost certainly didn't know the meaning of the word until recently.
Just don't ever expect a straight answer.
The word seems to have become a favourite with some. As they never explain how it's applicable it's not clear if it's relevant or not. However. My opinion is that efficient detectives make sure they don't give out misleading information.
The word seems to have become a favourite with some. As they never explain how it's applicable it's not clear if it's relevant or not. However. My opinion is that efficient detectives make sure they don't give out misleading information.What misleading information? It's not incumbent on police to explain to the general public every detail of how they arrived at any given conclusion and for all we know there may be a perfectly valid explanation behind their decision to dismiss JT's sighting as a father returning from the creche.
You suggested he was 'enjoying sea views', not me.
As demonstrated by the differences in the statements of Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins. Other examples can be seen in the statements of the T9 concerning the visit to the beach on 3rd and the times relating to the men's involvement in the tennis that evening. Fiona Payne was sure that all four men were actually playing tennis at 6.30pm when she arrived back from the beach, but her husband was away from the tennis courts visiting 5A at 6.40pm and then visited his own apartment before returning. Clearly her memory wasn't reliable.
The statements remain as part of the body of evidence, whether or not people believe they are accurate.
Wot? Like Amaral do you mean?
The meaning of the word Semantics isn't difficult to understand. Try Google.
What misleading information? It's not incumbent on police to explain to the general public every detail of how they arrived at any given conclusion and for all we know there may be a perfectly valid explanation behind their decision to dismiss JT's sighting as a father returning from the creche.
The police chose to give out an explanation that didn't make sense. Why, then, should I trust them to know what they're doing despite that?
So ?
Playing tennis at 6.30pm. At 5A (less than a minute away) at 6.40pm Ten minutes to walk a one minute walk.
What's untrue about that ?
Nothing. You're just trouble making, Gunit, or so it appears.
Has Amaral consistently given out information that was incorrect?
The police chose to give out an explanation that didn't make sense. Why, then, should I trust them to know what they're doing despite that?
The police chose to give out an explanation that didn't make sense. Why, then, should I trust them to know what they're doing despite that?As I said in my post they don’t owe you an explanation therefore you can’t know whether it makes sense or not because you don’t know everything that they know about it.
Not when he was a serving police officer.
The fallibilty of memory, Sadie.Out of interest how can you tell who is in that picture? Which one is FP?
Fiona said she watched her husband play tennis from 6.30 to 7pm. She didn't. At 6.36 she was still sitting in the Paraiso.
(https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/14_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3273.jpg)
I don't know what they did but saying the man seen by Jane Tanner was leaving the night creche was a rookie mistake imo. Geography didn't seem to be one of Britain's finest's strong points.
Not when he was a serving police officer.
Really? So he didn't start writing his book on day one? That was a lie, was it?
And accusing the British Police of protecting The McCanns was a fantasy on his part?
There's a bit of semantics for you.
As I said in my post they don’t owe you an explanation therefore you can’t know whether it makes sense or not because you don’t know everything that they know about it.
No I don't, so I can only judge them on what they say. They said a holidaymaker had collected his child from the night creche. They also said he was walking 'near' 5A. So he was either going in the wrong direction or Jane Tanner got his direction of travel wrong and he was moving towards 5A, not away from it.
I don't know. Was it ?
Was not that for why he got the sack? Presuming he actually got the sack. Maybe he didn't. Who knows?
I thought he was removed from the case, which is not the same as being sacked.
Dear God. Can You help me?
I wouldn't bet on it. @)(++(*
No I don't, so I can only judge them on what they say. They said a holidaymaker had collected his child from the night creche. They also said he was walking 'near' 5A. So he was either going in the wrong direction or Jane Tanner got his direction of travel wrong and he was moving towards 5A, not away from it.But you’ve already decided the Met are incompetent so no need to pretend there may be another explanation now.
But you’ve already decided the Met are incompetent so no need to pretend there may be another explanation now.
Here you go again. You seem to be confusing the evidence.
Tannerman as described by Jane Tanner was walking in a direction eastwards, which was the direction that anyone taking Madeleine from the front of 5A would have come from. After the junction with Rua Dr F G Martins, which Jane was walking up, Tannerman went further along Rua Dr A de Silva
You are talking about Dr Totman who may, or may not, have been seen by Jane.
Jane recollects her sighting as
1) being much earlier in the evening than Totman.
2) She was close to Tannerman, quoted as being only about 5 metres away and she remembered his carrying on, going eastward along Rua Dr A. de Silva. In order for Totman to enter block 6, he had to change direction and go in a southerly direction along Dr F G Martins rather than carry on along R. Dr A. de Silva. That is NOT what Jane saw.
3) Dr Totmans child was wearing bluey coloured pyjamas IIRC, Madeleines were basically creamy white
With the wrong coloured blue Pjays , the wrong direction and the wrong time, I think that Dr. Totman was NOT the man that Jane saw.
Since Dr Totman kindly came forward, how interesting it would be to speak to Jane, and find out what her perceptions are now.
Well it was either that or a witness didn't know right from left.And there can’t possibly be any other explanation?
Why would anyone be going to Block 6? If it was Totman he was staying in Block 4, to the west of Block 5.Can we clarify once and for all in which block Dr. Totman was staying - was it 4 or 6?...
Can we clarify once and for all in which block Dr. Totman was staying - was it 4 or 6?...
This is when he ate at the Tapas restaurantMy maths isn't too hot despite getting a First at Oxford, but does G4N (?) definitely mean he stayed at that Block 4 flat number?
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg (https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg)
My maths isn't too hot despite getting a First at Oxford, but does G4N (?) definitely mean he stayed at that Block 4 flat number?
Yes. The Wilkins, Totmans and Weinburgers were all in Block 4. As were the McCanns after Madeleine's disappearance. They were moved to G4G.OK, Thanks.
I think he was at the men's tennis on the evening of 3rd too, unless there were several Julians;
That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Is it your opinion that SY have looked at all these statements and ignored any discrepancies or do you think they just haven't looked at them
Well despite what you think any half decent defence will want these looked at .You think CB's defence will raise the issue of where Fiona Payne was when her husband was playing tennis?
You think CB's defence will raise the issue of where Fiona Payne was when her husband was playing tennis?
@)(++(*
Well despite what you think any half decent defence will want these looked at .More junk.. Any lawyer would understand the way the, statements were taken renders them useless. Any judge would not accept a defence trying to put the mccanns on trial when it was CB who was accused. CBs fate depends on the evidence against him.. Not the supposed evidence against the mccanns.. Sceptics are living in fantasy land
More to do with the last to see Madeleine alive, the BKA cannot pick and choose when they pitch in, it'll be taken in context to the disappearance, but with the blinkers you have you can't see it.Could you tell me who was the last person to see Maddie alive.. You'll need to take your blinkers off to answer the question
More junk.. Any lawyer would understand the way the, statements were taken renders them useless. Any judge would not accept a defence trying to put the mccanns on trial when it was CB who was accused. CBs fate depends on the evidence against him.. Not the supposed evidence against the mccanns.. Sceptics are living in fantasy land
Junk! you need to proof read your's. CB will not stand trial over Madeleines disappearance, the legend is writ though.
More to do with the last to see Madeleine alive, the BKA cannot pick and choose when they pitch in, it'll be taken in context to the disappearance, but with the blinkers you have you can't see it.What do you think Fiona Payne has got to do with it? If CB is in the dock, then how do you think FP is going to save his arse? Explain.
Is it your opinion that SY have looked at all these statements and ignored any discrepancies or do you think they just haven't looked at them
I got the impression they were looking for leads to follow rather than evaluating the evidence.Then I'd say you have git the wrong impression and are totally mistaken. Rowley said Re the mccanns.. Thst was dealt with by the first investigation.. WE'VE LOOKED. AT ALL THAT..
Sonia Poultin has interviewed Perlin. She's sending a cioy of the interview to Boris. She thinks this is evidence of an SY cover up... What an absolute idiot she isI'm sure the disappearance of Madeleine McCann will speed to the top of the Tories agenda now, over and above Ukraine, the COLC and the rest. Thank God for Sonia "I Once Interviewed David Bowie" Poulton.
I got the impression they were looking for leads to follow rather than evaluating the evidence.So when the Met said that they had forensically examined the timeline was that just a lie in your opinion?
What fun it is going to be when Brueckner gets arrested and charged.
This does not mean he will be found guilty.
There you go. I've said it for you.
Is he going to be ?
Then I'd say you have git the wrong impression and are totally mistaken. Rowley said Re the mccanns.. Thst was dealt with by the first investigation.. WE'VE LOOKED. AT ALL THAT..
That's just from my memory.. Do ou think he's another liar
...the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
Rowley seems to be convinced that Madeleine was abducted, but that conviction wasn't shared by the Portuguese Prosecutors who recommended archiving the case. They had insufficient evidence to identify the crime or the perpetrator(s). So what, I wonder did SY find within the evidence which allowed them to do so?
...the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigationWhy do you think Rowley is convinced Madeleine was abducted? Do you think he's ignorant or corrupt? Why can't he see what you can so clearly see?
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
Rowley seems to be convinced that Madeleine was abducted, but that conviction wasn't shared by the Portuguese Prosecutors who recommended archiving the case. They had insufficient evidence to identify the crime or the perpetrator(s). So what, I wonder did SY find within the evidence which allowed them to do so?
Why do you think Rowley is convinced Madeleine was abducted? Do you think he's ignorant or corrupt? Why can't he see what you can so clearly see?
When the Met said that they had forensically examined the timeline was that just a lie in your opinion?
...the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
Rowley seems to be convinced that Madeleine was abducted, but that conviction wasn't shared by the Portuguese Prosecutors who recommended archiving the case. They had insufficient evidence to identify the crime or the perpetrator(s). So what, I wonder did SY find within the evidence which allowed them to do so?
Operation Grange was set up to investigate an abduction. Examining the timeline may show an opportunity for abduction, but that doesn't mean an abduction took place.Does that mean you now accept that there was an opportunity for an abduction having previously claimed such an event was virtually impossible?
The point you all need to take note of is how exactly one police force managed to identify a crime when another was unable to do so. Was evidence withheld from the initial investigation?presumably by using the powers of logic and deduction which obviously the previous investigation had a shortage of.
presumably by using the powers of logic and deduction which obviously the previous investigation had a shortage of.
So you don't know the answer, you merely presume they've got it right.How would you expect me to know the answer? But I do know this - abduction is the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine's disappearance when taking into account all the information we know about the case.
How would you expect me to know the answer? But I do know this - abduction is the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine's disappearance when taking into account all the information we know about the case.
So you don't know the answer, you merely presume they've got it right.
This is when he ate at the Tapas restaurant
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg
My maths isn't too hot despite getting a First at Oxford, but does G4N (?) definitely mean he stayed at that Block 4 flat number?
Why would anyone be going to Block 6? If it was Totman he was staying in Block 4, to the west of Block 5.
[snip]
But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor.
Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way.
He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment.
“I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” [/snip]
No he was not. He was staying in block 6. We all know that. This has been gone over many times and eaxmined thoroughly
Total fabrication. And done in a grand manner. Even newspaper articles have been changed
This is the first one I came across and someone has added a yellow bit to the image to falsely give the impression that The Totmans stayed at block 4
But they forget to read the text. Sloppy!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/)
^ For some reason this is refusing to open. ^ Why?
Ian Horrocks used his logic. He also confirmed that Totman, walking West to East had passed block 4 if he was at the junction with the road that Jane was on; where she saw him going in an easterly direction. From West to East.
Totman was staying in block 6
Are you suggesting that Mark Warner didn't know where Totman was staying? This is from their computerised guest list.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_611.jpg
It's your opinion they haven't... Just your opinion. I would say based on a proper understanding of all the evidence by a mile the most probable explanation is stranger abduction. The Portuguese did not understand the evidence... Appalling
Oh really?
Two posts within 3 hours both giving out disinformation. Both attempting to alter evidence.
Time for you to go, Gunit ... or alternatively to be reported to OG Imo .... unless you can give satisfactory reasons why you keep providing the false stuff.
Is someone feeding it to you?
This is happening too often.
Another one simply assuming that Op Grange got it right.I'm assuming nothing..how could the Portuguese reach a valid opinion when they did not understand the evidence.. That's a fact.. Not an assumption
Are you suggesting that Mark Warner didn't know where Totman was staying? This is from their computerised guest list.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_611.jpg
Where is your evidence that G-unit is wrong ?
The above list was for the 9th of May. Madeleine vanished on the 3rd May.Instead of relying on Bennett's BS, the actual record which G-Unit provided says that Totman arrived on the 29th.April and departed on the 5th.May, staying in Block 4 (G4M T2) for that FIRST week.
The Totmans arrived on 28th April according to:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus (https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus) (much as I hate to use this forum I found the items below interesting.)
They stayed for a fortnight, but were only in block 4 for the second week. Madeleine vanished during the first week of their stay. It doesn't state where they stayed for the first week but they must have been staying at OC as they used the creche facilities that week also. Seems likiely that they were staying in block 6 as we have been lead to believe earlier. I can see no reason to disbelieve this, can you?
Presumably they wanted to be near friends.
What I am suggesting is that you have presented a page that is from the wrong date, giving false info for the correct date. Was this deliberate?
You need to put it right. Alter your posts. And Myster or any other posters who have used it and created a myth.
Please be fair and do that.
Read the posts and you will see.
The above list was for the 9th of May. Madeleine vanished on the 3rd May.
The Totmans arrived on 28th April according to:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus (much as I hate to use this forum I found the items below interesting.)
They stayed for a fortnight, but were only in block 4 for the second week. Madeleine vanished during the first week of their stay. It doesn't state where they stayed for the first week but they must have been staying at OC as they used the creche facilities that week also. Seems likiely that they were staying in block 6 as we have been lead to believe earlier. I can see no reason to disbelieve this, can you?
Presumably they wanted to be near friends.
What I am suggesting is that you have presented a page that is from the wrong date, giving false info for the correct date. Was this deliberate?
You need to put it right. Alter your posts. And Myster or any other posters who have used it and created a myth.
Please be fair and do that.
Date 1/05/07 Totman. G4M
(https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME%20_IIa_Page_618.jpg)
So the Totmans stayed in Block 4 for two weeks, not just the one. That blows sadie's obsession with Block 6 out of the water! But what else can one expect.
So the Totmans stayed in Block 4 for two weeks, not just the one. That blows sadie's obsession with Block 6 out of the water! But what else can one expect.
Why is this important? Does it affect the direction in which Totman was walking?
I think someone is trying to explain where he was going by saying he was going to his apartment in Block 6. He wasn't, he was walking away from his apartment in Block 4. What he was doing in any case, whoever he was and wherever he was going, was walking towards the night creche with that child, not away from it. Unless Jane Tanner got his direction of travel wrong, of course.
Going to the creche at half past nine at night?Maybe he was off to a swingers party after.
Going to the creche at half past nine at night?And if The Totmans had already eaten at 7pm, which according to Gunits piece was the sort of time they ate. ( were there other children? ) why would he take his youngest child to the creche at that time i.e. about 9.20pm
Maybe he was off to a swingers party after.
And if The Totmans had already eaten at 7pm, which according to Gunits piece was the sort of time they ate. ( were there other children? ) why would he take his youngest child to the creche at that time i.e. about 9.20pmW
No there are lies and obfuscation going on here. At the time we all knew exactly which apartment block he was in ... and that was block 6.
Elli, it is very important that facts do not get changed. We have seen too much of it on this forum.
Justice cannot take place where there is false information
W
No-one has said anyone was going to the creche, just that this man was going towards the creche, not away from it as Redwood et al claimed.
As to the Totmans, there is ample evidence from the Ocean Club computer records that they spent their whole holiday in Block 4. Their apartment number G4M also appears on the creche records and the Tapas restaurant booking sheets.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is clearly mistaken and has no evidence to support their claim that the Totmans stayed in Block 6. How and why this myth arose and is being peddled I can't imagine, but such myths have been a feature of this case. No evidence? Invent a myth.
Why would Totman be going towards The Creche at that time of night with a sleeping child?
Whoever he was and whatever he was doing, it's pretty obvious he wasn't, despite what was said on Crimewatch, heading home from the night creche carrying his child. The creche was on R. Direta. Blocks 4, 5 and 6 were off R. Agostinho da Silva as marked on my map. The man was, according to JT walking in the direction of my arrow along
R. Agostinho da Silva. If he had collected his child from the creche why was he coming from the opposite direction? Crimewatch misled people imo.
If Tanner got it wrong and he was travelling in the opposite direction, then it would make perfect sense.This is what I think happened. Great minds think alike, eh Jassi? @)(++(*
Perhaps this what Grange thought, but didn't wish to openly challenge Tanner, so chose to dismiss her sighting instead.
I don't think it can be stated as a fact.
More like an unsubstantiated claim as no one else appears to have seen this person.
I don't think it can be stated as a fact.
More like an unsubstantiated claim as no one else appears to have seen this person.
If Tanner got it wrong and he was travelling in the opposite direction, then it would make perfect sense.
Perhaps this what Grange thought, but didn't wish to openly challenge Tanner, so chose to dismiss her sighting instead.
If Tanner got it wrong and he was travelling in the opposite direction, then it would make perfect sense.
Perhaps this what Grange thought, but didn't wish to openly challenge Tanner, so chose to dismiss her sighting instead.
Amaral believed her when he was trying to stitch up Robert Murat.
Amaral believed her when he was trying to stitch up Robert Murat.
The PJ noticed Murat because of a British journalist, didn't they? They then had to investigate him, it had nothing to do with JT, unless she did identify him off the record. She, her husband and Fiona testified that he (and his mother) lied about his whereabouts that night too. It makes you wonder if some people were trying to stitch him up.
The PJ noticed Murat because of a British journalist, didn't they? They then had to investigate him, it had nothing to do with JT, unless she did identify him off the record. She, her husband and Fiona testified that he (and his mother) lied about his whereabouts that night too. It makes you wonder if some people were trying to stitch him up.Oooh, a conspiracy! Do exapnd….
Trying to throw investigators off the scent rather than a stitch-up. IMOAh right, so the Tapas group conspired to throw investigators off the scent that the McCanns dunnit, by fingering Murat *checks calendar to see if it’s suddenly flipped back in time fifteen years*
Ah right, so the Tapas group conspired to throw investigators off the scent that the McCanns dunnit, by fingering Murat *checks calendar to see if it’s suddenly flipped back in time fifteen years*
Oooh, a conspiracy! Do exapnd….
It was said after the Crimewatch programme that Exton questioned JT's sighting in his report. No doubt OG read that report and perhaps they agreed with Exton's findings. They clearly preferred to concentrate on the Smith sighting rather than the Tanner one. Suddenly things changed and the McCann's were no longer in charge of the narrative.
The PJ noticed Murat because of a British journalist, didn't they? They then had to investigate him, it had nothing to do with JT, unless she did identify him off the record. She, her husband and Fiona testified that he (and his mother) lied about his whereabouts that night too. It makes you wonder if some people were trying to stitch him up.
Ah right, so the Tapas group conspired to throw investigators off the scent that the McCanns dunnit, by fingering Murat *checks calendar to see if it’s suddenly flipped back in time fifteen years*
Did you all miss the bit where Amaral had Jane Tanner hiding in a blacked out van? And him saying she said it was him when she didn't?
Or was that Bob Small? That was such a strange affair imo, and I wonder if it's only purpose was to see if JT would identify someone who didn't match the description of the man she saw. Where did it take place? Did they manage to get Murat to walk along the correct road in the correct direction? How? When last seen he was going home in his car.
Was Amaral there? Did Small think he was in Spain?
Amaral obviously knew about it, but there's no evidence he was involved.
Conspiracy is your interpretation, no-one else's. OG may have been tasked with finding an abductor, but they soon got rid of the sighting which was promoted as 'the abductor' for 10 years. This case has developed over time, and it's no use pretending that it's latest developments are unconnected to what went before. Imo some would prefer to forget the convoluted past, which, imo, still has many unanswered questions.Do you understand what a conspiracy is, even? What you have described perfectly fits the description, I suggest you refer to a dictionary..
What makes you think it was a conspiracy? That's about as likely as employees of the Ocean Club conspiring to hide where the Totman's apartment really was imo, by falsifying their records.I don’t think there was a conspiracy- you clearly do.
I don’t think there was a conspiracy- you clearly do.
They never did find any of those in power who were lurking for the swinger's party. I wonder what happened to them.
How many years did it take for Andrews failings to come out, not that I think any one of that bunch were involved,or any one else ,but 20 yrs or there abouts wasn't it.
Is that Prince Andrew you are referring to? Has he been convicted of anything?
No. Jane Tanner was afraid she was going to be abducted. You have got all of it very mixed up. But then you generally do.
Did I say he had, but an out of court settlement cause he didn't do nowt wrong, like you do.
I don’t think there was a conspiracy- you clearly do.
Jolly good show. Innocent until proven guilty.
No I don't, but no doubt you'll air your opinion as you so frequently do.
Jolly good show. Innocent until proven guilty.
According to some on here the press settled out of court with the McCanns but did nothing wrong so…
Did I say he had, but an out of court settlement cause he didn't do nowt wrong, like you do.
Still, lets get back to the alleged abduction, how was it done again?
Are you accusing The McCanns?
Of what ? can't some one enlighten the reader how it happened then, so the thread title is not a misnomer .an abductor entered the ground floor unlocked apartment and removed the child, how complicated does it need to be?
Of what ? can't some one enlighten the reader how it happened then, so the thread title is not a misnomer .
an abductor entered the ground floor unlocked apartment and removed the child, how complicated does it need to be?
Riddle me this , no ones solved it yet.I think they have, they just need to amass enough evidence to make it stick.
But The Night Creche closed at 11pm. Not much time for a swing, was there. Or anything else.
W
No-one has said anyone was going to the creche, just that this man was going towards the creche, not away from it as Redwood et al claimed.
As to the Totmans, there is ample evidence from the Ocean Club computer records that they spent their whole holiday in Block 4. Their apartment number G4M also appears on the creche records and the Tapas restaurant booking sheets.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is clearly mistaken and has no evidence to support their claim that the Totmans stayed in Block 6. How and why this myth arose and is being peddled I can't imagine, but such myths have been a feature of this case. No evidence? Invent a myth.
I think it closed earlier than that Elli. I think it closed at 10pm(ish). It is in one of the statements, was it Amys?
I agree with you that from the records you show, it appears that they stayed in block four for two weeks.
However, on this forum, we have become used to false changes to details. (Facts)
I also note what was said on Haverns forum
And at the time, I remember well the hours of work that I did finding out and describing the path that Dr Totman took to his apartment in block 6. I am unable to find my posts; they seem to have vanished. Probably they have been vanished, but mayhap, I haven't looked in the right thread.
I am sorry but I am no longer prepared to believe so called facts on this forum, without proof that I trust.. We have been hoodwinked too often.
cont:
Of what ? can't some one enlighten the reader how it happened then, so the thread title is not a misnomer .
the crêche also offered a free service permitting parents to leave their children in the care of the crêche workers during dinner between 19.15 and 23.00, seeing as the abovementioned situation occurred during this time and that she was on duty for that service on that night.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
I agree with you that from the records you show, it appears that they stayed in block four for two weeks.
However, on this forum, we have become used to false changes to details. (Facts)
I also note what was said on Haverns forum
And at the time, I remember well the hours of work that I did finding out and describing the path that Dr Totman took to his apartment in block 6. I am unable to find my posts; they seem to have vanished. Probably they have been vanished, but mayhap, I haven't looked in the right thread.
I am sorry but I am no longer prepared to believe so called facts on this forum, without proof that I trust.. We have been hoodwinked too often.
cont:
Believe what you like Sadie, but beliefs can't compete with evidence and you have none.
My aplogies to you and to Elli.
However, I am sure tho that on the night of the 3rd it closed at around 10pm. There is quite a lot about it in the statements.
Nor do you or anyone else on this Forum.
I've got more than Sadie has. 8(>((
I've got more than Sadie has. 8(>((Evidence of what?
I wouldn't bank on that if I were you. Especially as you have just admitted that you can't help Sadie.
I doubt that anyone can say what time The Creche closed that night with all the fuss going on. But where was Totman going if he wasn't going to The Creche?
Well all three nannies were there at 22.15;
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
If the man was Totman he wasn't heading to his apartment. If he was another holidaymaker he wasn't heading away from the night creche. Did OG make a big mistake?
Well all three nannies were there at 22.15;
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
If the man was Totman he wasn't heading to his apartment. If he was another holidaymaker he wasn't heading away from the night creche. Did OG make a big mistake?
OG never named Totman,so it could have been any one but what can be gleamed from whom ever it was he/she saw nothing suspicious that is why the time moved on to smithy.
I think there was a good reason for offering up a new story, whether it was the one OG gave or not.And that good reason was...?
Well all three nannies were there at 22.15;Only according to one witness whose memory was certainly not infallible. Why are you taking it as fact?
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
If the man was Totman he wasn't heading to his apartment. If he was another holidaymaker he wasn't heading away from the night creche. Did OG make a big mistake?
OG never named Totman,so it could have been any one but what can be gleamed from whom ever it was he/she saw nothing suspicious that is why the time moved on to smithy.Gleamed? Do you mean gleaned? Why should what he or she didn't see have any bearing on anything?
Gleamed? Do you mean gleaned? Why should what he or she didn't see have any bearing on anything?
I said what they saw not what they didn't . One thing the BKA never said is , what time this alleged abduction occurred , have they ?
I said what they saw not what they didn't . One thing the BKA never said is , what time this alleged abduction occurred , have they ?You said they saw nothing suspicious. Nothing suspicious = they didn’t see anything. I repeat my question. Why should what he or she didn’t see have any bearing on anything?
According to OG it was between 9.30 and 10pm. An hour and a half after Brueckner (allegedly) finished that phone call.
So where was he going do you think?Tannerman (abductor, if Brueckner) headed towards where one of his vehicles, Jaguar or Westfalia camper, was parked, in the triangular area between Block 6 and the block to the right, say? Then off to his yellow and white hidey-hole cottage up on the foothills of the Rocha Negra. Or possibly walked there, although he and his arms would have been mightily tired by then. Strange way to carry a sleeping child (dead-weight) for a long or even a short distance though, whereas the normal over-the-shoulder position (like Smithman) would be expected if he was a genuine father used to carrying his own three/four-year old.
Tannerman (abductor, if Brueckner) headed towards where one of his vehicles, Jaguar or Westfalia camper, was parked, in the triangular area between Block 6 and the block to the right, say? Then off to his yellow and white hidey-hole cottage up on the foothills of the Rocha Negra. Or possibly walked there, although he and his arms would have been mightily tired by then. Strange way to carry a sleeping child (dead-weight) for a long or even a short distance though, whereas the normal over-the-shoulder position (like Smithman) would be expected if he was a genuine father used to carrying his own three/four-year old.
Not only tiring on the arms but also a strain on the back muscles.Very much doubt it. OG and Redwood should have questioned exactly why Dr.T was heading in the wrong direction for Block 4 and revealed such on Crimewatch, instead of causing endless frustration for those seriously interested in the case.
I wonder if that was ever enacted to see how far someone could carry such a load ?
Very much doubt it. OG and Redwood should have questioned exactly why Dr.T was heading in the wrong direction for Block 4 and revealed such on Crimewatch, instead of causing endless frustration for those seriously interested in the case.
Perhaps they knew full well that Totman wasn't travelling in that direction, but it suited their purposes not to say that.
Reputedly they are highly experienced investigators, not idiots
Tannerman (abductor, if Brueckner) headed towards where one of his vehicles, Jaguar or Westfalia camper, was parked, in the triangular area between Block 6 and the block to the right, say? Then off to his yellow and white hidey-hole cottage up on the foothills of the Rocha Negra. Or possibly walked there, although he and his arms would have been mightily tired by then. Strange way to carry a sleeping child (dead-weight) for a long or even a short distance though, whereas the normal over-the-shoulder position (like Smithman) would be expected if he was a genuine father used to carrying his own three/four-year old.
Perhaps a wig, but false eyebrows and moustache? Brueckner no longer lived in that cottage btw.Did JT mention a mustache and bushy eyebrows in her initial statement?
(https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
Believe what you like Sadie, but beliefs can't compete with evidence and you have none.
I am of the opinion that no evidence exists to support her claims, so I have no intention of looking. Maybe those who share her beliefs can find some? It just involves trawling through the statements of the Nannies;
- Pauline Francis M.
- Emma Louise W.
- Sarah Elizabeth W.
- Susan bernadette O.
- Leanne Danielle W.
- Shinead Maria V.
- Jacqueline Mary W.
- Kirsty Louise M.
- Lynne R.F.
- Catriona Treasa Sisile B.
- Stacey P.
- Lyndsay Jayne J.
- Amy Ellen T.
-SNIP-
After this, the "missing child procedure" was initiated, which consists of an organised search, spread over different areas of the complex. The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm -SNIP-
Well all three nannies were there at 22.15;
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
If the man was Totman he wasn't heading to his apartment. If he was another holidaymaker he wasn't heading away from the night creche. Did OG make a big mistake?
Your very comprehensive list of carers.
Why did you leave Charlotte Pennington off your list? She was first on the scene having run there from the night crech. Perhaps you preferred that her evidence wasn't seen ?
Quite a few things in her statements and face to face reports that you wouldn't like. One statement translated twice, and the other translated from French, so translated three times.
The crech did close at 10ish on the 3rd because of hearing that Maddeleine was missing and the staff rushing out to help. The last parent had come to fetch her child just before 10pm and she was telling of a distraught man running around shouting for Maddie. Charlotte ran all the way there and I doubt that it took more than a minute
The crech normally closed at 11pm or 11.30 pm according to different witness, so you were right on that one.
Tannerman (abductor, if Brueckner) headed towards where one of his vehicles, Jaguar or Westfalia camper, was parked, in the triangular area between Block 6 and the block to the right, say? Then off to his yellow and white hidey-hole cottage up on the foothills of the Rocha Negra. Or possibly walked there, although he and his arms would have been mightily tired by then. Strange way to carry a sleeping child (dead-weight) for a long or even a short distance though, whereas the normal over-the-shoulder position (like Smithman) would be expected if he was a genuine father used to carrying his own three/four-year old.
Did JT mention a mustache and bushy eyebrows in her initial statement?
Joining up with such a vehicle might have been his intention, if Tannerman were Bruckner, but the route he took did not go in that direction as you well know. Seems to me that a vehicle was meant to drive up to the car park entrance of block 5, but Gerry and Jez and Jane got in the way. This altered plans and the car driver took fright seeing Jerry that he shot off with the car in a southerly direction.Not muddying the waters at all!!! They're crystal clear... I consulted my long-lost Uncle Occam and he's in complete agreement.
Just muddying the water again aren't you? Trying to spread confusion it seems to me.
Oh dear! How people can try to confuse with a little girl missing is beyond comprehension to me. SY will have worked it out anywy.
Not muddying the waters at all!!! They're crystal clear... I consulted my long-lost Uncle Occam and he's in complete agreement.
You mean the BKA have it sorted, whereas OG are well behind.
Not muddying the waters at all!!! They're crystal clear... I consulted my long-lost Uncle Occam and he's in complete agreement.
You mean the BKA have it sorted, whereas OG are well behind.
Joining up with such a vehicle might have been his intention, if Tannerman were Bruckner, but the route he took did not go in that direction as you well know. Seems to me that a vehicle was meant to drive up to the car park entrance of block 5, but Gerry and Jez and Jane got in the way. This altered plans and the car driver took fright seeing Jerry that he shot off with the car in a southerly direction.
Just muddying the water again aren't you? Trying to spread confusion it seems to me.
Oh dear! How people can try to confuse with a little girl missing is beyond comprehension to me. SY will have worked it out anywy.
Ret Sym
Stop being facetious. I understand why you are trying to muddy the waters, but please play fair.
What does Ret Sym mean?It was a temporary anagram I adopted to avoid the chop when John was cutting out dead wood and giving Holly a prune.
The arrow show Tannerman's route according to Jane, Sadie. He goes towards Murat's house, passing Block 6. It's quite possible that his vehicle was parked at point A.Spot on! Although it's also poss. he might have parked in a bay further along that road where less likely to be noticed.
It was a temporary anagram I adopted to avoid the chop when John was cutting out dead wood and giving Holly a prune.
What is wrong with Operation Grange still looking for a Missing Child?They'll not be looking for much longer once their funding dries up permanently. Besides, I'd rather put faith in the progressing BKA investigation than that Crimewatch OG fiasco where we were left wanting about Tannerman.
They'll not be looking for much longer once their funding dries up permanently. Besides, I'd rather put faith in the progressing BKA investigation than that Crimewatch OG fiasco where we were left wanting about Tannerman.
You're a hopeful idealist Eleanor, whereas as a pessimistic realist, I'm less likely to be as disappointed should future news about MBM turn out worse than expected.
What is wrong with Operation Grange still looking for a Missing Child?Nothing at all, other than wasted effort.
Nothing at all, other than wasted effort.
OG is and has always been deeply flawed IMO
Grange had an almost impossible task.. Investigating a cold case where they were limited to what they could and couldn't look at by the Portuguese.
They did arrange the appeal on German TV.. A brilliant idea.. Leading to the identification of CB as prime suspect
If he is convicted then SY and the McCanns deserve credit for their efforts
If he's not do they then deserve criticism ?Criticism for what.. Launching an appeal.
Criticism for what.. Launching an appeal.
You put the qualifying word's "if he is convicted" , instead of what ever happens .
If he's not do they then deserve criticism ?For what?
The arrow show Tannerman's route according to Jane, Sadie. He goes towards Murat's house, passing Block 6. It's quite possible that his vehicle was parked at point A.
What does Ret Sym mean?
Good thinking Gunit. That is a possibility.
In which case, Janes sighting at about 9.20 becomes even more likely and we can forget The Smiths sightings altogether cos there was nothing to impede the vehicle getaway
It doesn't make sense tho that the getaway vehicle didn't pick Tannerman up at the entrance to 5A car park. That would have saved Tannerman being seen.
Any ideas on that?
A clue to what, I wonder?
Ret Sam is an anagram, isn't it? Or am I thick?Actually it’s Ret Sym and it’s simply Myster backwards with a space inserted. I feel partly responsible for that bit of mischief making as he changed his name shortly after I played about with mine. @)(++(* I think Sadie is reading too much into it tbh…
Actually it’s Ret Sym and it’s simply Myster backwards with a space inserted. I feel partly responsible for that bit of mischief making as he changed his name shortly after I played about with mine. @)(++(* I think Sadie is reading too much into it tbh…
What does Ret Sym mean?
A clue to what, I wonder?
I think vehicles are figments of the imagination. I wasn't subscribing to the idea, just explaining Myster's thoughts to you. He thinks just one man and his vehicle were involved, so there was no imaginary driver.
Oh really?
Does Ret Sym need you to explain his thoughts? He seems rather clever to me, altho he is acting rather dull atm
I think vehicles are figments of the imagination. I wasn't subscribing to the idea, just explaining Myster's thoughts to you. He thinks just one man and his vehicle were involved, so there was no imaginary driver.That's what I originally thought because of Wolter's view that Brueckner alone killed Madeleine, as he was usually a sole operator whether burgling, raping or kiddy-fiddling. Although it's possible that he worked in tandem to abduct for a healthy profit, so there could have been a getaway driver waiting nearby. If there was a contract between Brueckner and a Mr. Big, Russians or whoever and the deal fell through for some reason, then he would have had no alternative but to destroy and dispose of the evidence to avoid being caught.
That's what I originally thought because of Wolter's view that Brueckner alone killed Madeleine, as he was usually a sole operator whether burgling, raping or kiddy-fiddling. Although it's possible that he worked in tandem to abduct for a healthy profit, so there could have been a getaway driver waiting nearby. If there was a contract between Brueckner and a Mr. Big, Russians or whoever and the deal fell through for some reason, then he would have had no alternative but to destroy and dispose of the evidence to avoid being caught.
That's what I originally thought because of Wolter's view that Brueckner alone killed Madeleine, as he was usually a sole operator whether burgling, raping or kiddy-fiddling. Although it's possible that he worked in tandem to abduct for a healthy profit, so there could have been a getaway driver waiting nearby. If there was a contract between Brueckner and a Mr. Big, Russians or whoever and the deal fell through for some reason, then he would have had no alternative but to destroy and dispose of the evidence to avoid being caught.
I think Brueckner got paid for doing something, hence the fancy van he bought. He smuggled drugs, he was involved with a lot of dodgy people, he was using the dark web, who knows who he was in contact with. Maybe someone thought as he smuggled drugs he could smuggle a child. He bragged about that, probably thinking if he joked about it people wouldn't take him seriously.
My sceptical nature has yet to be convinced that there was a stranger abduction, so speculating about who did it isn't of much interest to me tbh.
Wasn't he supposed to have been involved in e100,000 robbery , plenty of disposable income there .
My sceptical nature has yet to be convinced that there was a stranger abduction, so speculating about who did it isn't of much interest to me tbh.Have you yet to be convinced the parents were involved, owing to your sceptical nature? After all you seem convinced that they are hiding something…
Have you yet to be convinced the parents were involved, owing to your scepicsl nature? After all you seem convinced that they are hiding something…
No he doesn't, but you do.
This Forum has become nonsensical. And frightfully boring. But having nothing better to do then we might as well go through all of the rubbish all over again, and again.
And I am up for it. And with a very long memory. So don't imagine that I am done. I will see the nasty innuendos and debunk them.
There is way too much Libel going on. And Innuendo is Libel. Anthony Bennett knows this only too well.
The legal background of expertise in libel is ?
The legal background of expertise in libel is ?
I'm still waiting for a link showing Bennett had a conviction for 'libelling by innuendo'. I know he was convicted of contempt of court, which, with Carter Ruck representing the McCanns, meant he had to pay large costs imo.
Bennett libelled the mccanns according to UK libell law. He offerred no defence and agreed not to repeat the allegations
Was he found guilty of libel, a simple yes or no will suffice.
You should already know the answer to that.. I do. Its apathetic attempt to suggest his claim wasnt libellous...which it clearly was.
Ok so he wasn't , simple wasn't it .The rest is your imagination .
Was he found guilty of libel, a simple yes or no will suffice.
Bennett libelled the mccanns according to UK libell law. He offerred no defence and agreed not to repeat the allegations
That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.
That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.
Forum rules...libellous post removed on site
as a mod would you deem Bennetts claims libellous
So do you understand libel
do you understand the forum rules
I understand that unqualified people who claim expertise in the libel laws of any country are not experts at all, but just think they are. It's all opinion dressed up as fact. I have been accused of libel and had posts deleted by some who think they understand libel, but I've had those posts reinstated on appeal. Courts and judges decide what is or is not libel, not posters on forums. I have no intention of accepting your none expert opinions. I have no intention of believing people who suggest that Benett was convicted of libelling 'by inference' when they can produce no evidence of this conviction.
That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.I thought he used money raised on his behalf by his fanclub?
I understand that unqualified people who claim expertise in the libel laws of any country are not experts at all, but just think they are. It's all opinion dressed up as fact. I have been accused of libel and had posts deleted by some who think they understand libel, but I've had those posts reinstated on appeal. Courts and judges decide what is or is not libel, not posters on forums. I have no intention of accepting your none expert opinions. I have no intention of believing people who suggest that Benett was convicted of libelling 'by inference' when they can produce no evidence of this conviction.In which case nothing we write on this forum can possibly be judged as libellous as none of us is an expert on libel laws as far as I'm aware, nor are we in a court. The McCanns murdered Maddie. We can say that without having it removed as it cannot be judged as libellous by you or John. Right?
In which case nothing we write on this forum can possibly be judged as libellous as none of us is an expert on libel laws as far as I'm aware, nor are we in a court. The McCanns murdered Maddie. We can say that without having it removed as it cannot be judged as libellous by you or John. Right?
https://www.anorak.co.uk/290238/madeleine-mccann/kate-and-gerry-mccann-sue-madeleine-foundation-secretary-tony-bennett.html
Spammy would agree with you.And he is allowed to say so because we cannot judge it as libellous. So I can say that Amaral knows CB was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and deliberately tried to set the parents up with Grime's help to deflect attention from CB and his paedo mates. Not libellous. Not at all.
Anthony Bennett certainly came a rather large financial cropper for some legal reason or another.
Anthony Bennett certainly came a rather large financial cropper for some legal reason or another.
And he is allowed to say so because we cannot judge it as libellous. So I can say that Amaral knows CB was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and deliberately tried to set the parents up with Grime's help to deflect attention from CB and his paedo mates. Not libellous. Not at all.
What a pity you didn't understand why and how.
In which case nothing we write on this forum can possibly be judged as libellous as none of us is an expert on libel laws as far as I'm aware, nor are we in a court. The McCanns murdered Maddie. We can say that without having it removed as it cannot be judged as libellous by you or John. Right?
Nope, but out and out bull shite.Same as the McCanns murdering Madeleine. Out and out manure but exactly what you would expect from a troll.
It's John's forum and John's choice. You can challenge him but his decisions will always prevail.Is John in any position to decide what is libel and what is not? It would seem from what you have written that you don't think so.
It's John's forum and John's choice. You can challenge him but his decisions will always prevail.
Is John in any position to decide what is libel and what is not? It would seem from what you have written that you don't think so.
It's your understanding of libel that is being questioned not Johns... And if you think bennets claims were not libellous you don't understand libel
Which ever way you want to look at it, Anthony Bennett did Libel The McCanns. And repeatedly. And whatever it was that actually happened it did cost him huge amount of money.
I'm not an expert on libel, but if I think a post is libelous and John doesn't he will overrule me and I don't have a problem with that.Why do you think you need to be an expert to spot a written statement is defamatory f you can’t provide proof to vback it up.? For example when Spam says the McCanns murdered Maddie why do you allow that to remain on the forum? Do you think it isn’t libellous to accuse someone of murder without proof? It only seems to bother you when CB is being accused of said crimes.
Which ever way you want to look at it, Anthony Bennett did Libel The McCanns. And repeatedly. And whatever it was that actually happened it did cost him huge amount of money.
He has no conviction for libel though, unless you have a cite?
He has no conviction for libel though, unless you have a cite?
That's irrelevant... And does not mean he didn't commit libel
No, it means he wasn't convicted of libel and paid costs for contempt of court, not damages for libelling anyone. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Try reading what I post if you are going to reply.
Bennett was guilty of libel... It's simple. He wasn't convicted but his comments were libellous
So you keep saying. Over and over again.It seems it takes a long time for it to sink in to you
It seems it takes a long time for it to sink in to you
What a pity you didn't understand why and how.
I suppose the present libel discussion could be considered to be touching on the topic of the current thread by dint of the libellous content under discussion.
So heigh ho.
Did Mr B chose to sign a legal undertaking with the High Court?
Was that legal agreement to the effect that he promised not to repeat the libels he had made?
Did the law firm Carter-Ruck, accuse him of breaking his word to the High Court that he would not repeat the libels?
Had he indeed broken his word to commit no more libels by repeating them on no less than 26 further occasions?
Did he appear in the High Court for Contempt of Court not for libel, but for breaking a solemn undertaking to the High Court that he would libel no more?
You mean the same as your claim that Wolters has breached
Carter Ruck and Smethurst accused Bennett of libel but he was never tried or convicted. Without a conviction it remains opinion, whoever said what.
Bennett's statements... By definition... Were libellous.
Carter Ruck and Smethurst accused Bennett of libel but he was never tried or convicted. Without a conviction it remains opinion, whoever said what.
Bennett's statements... By definition... Were libellous.
In UK libel law the onus is on Bennett to prove his innocence.
Do you understand that simple fact.
He gave no defence.. He is therefore guilty.. There is no POI..
There's a presumption of guilt
Here are the actual facts;so if I write a newspaper article claiming Boris Johnson is a paedophile are you telling me he has to prove that he is not for the claim to be considered libellous?
The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim.
https://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/defamation-elements-of-a-claim/
The claimant being the one who sues and it's the claimant who has to provide the proof. Wrong again!
so if I write a newspaper article claiming Boris Johnson is a paedophile are you telling me he has to prove that he is not for the claim to be considered libellous?
Here are the actual facts;I think that post can truly be desribed as junk.. You don't seem to understand the written word.... From your cite.
The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim.
https://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/defamation-elements-of-a-claim/
The claimant being the one who sues and it's the claimant who has to provide the proof. Wrong again!
Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.
It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.
The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.
I have to say that Gunit's Cite seems quite clear to me. And not much to do with what Gunit thinks it means.
Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.
In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.
Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.
It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.
The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.
Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.
In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.
Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.So, please explain how someone who had been publicly accused of being a paedophile would prove that they were not a paedophile? Over to you.
It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.
The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.
So, please explain how someone who had been publicly accused of being a paedophile would prove that they were not a paedophile? Over to you.
Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.
In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.
One mans junk is another mans treasure.
they obviously dont have to..the burden of proof is on the defendant...gunit cant seem to grasp that simple fact.I seem to recall Jason Donovan sued a magazine for suggesting he was homosexual. I wonder how he proved to the court's satisfaction that he wasn't. It doesn't really bear thinking about!
I seem to recall Jason Donovan sued a magazine for suggesting he was homosexual. I wonder how he proved to the court's satisfaction that he wasn't. It doesn't really bear thinking about!
Don't worry, he didn't need to prove he wasn't homosexual. The magazine's claim was that he was a liar and a hypocrite because he presented himself as straight. It was that statement that was ruled to be defamatory, not the statement that he was homosexual.Erm, by your assertion Donovan would have to prove he wasn't a liar and a hypocrite. Please explain how he did this?
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/donovan-v-the-face.php
Gunit's Comments are a treasure alright. @)(++(*
Good to see you don't see Gray's as such.
Erm, by your assertion Donovan would have to prove he wasn't a liar and a hypocrite. Please explain how he did this?
Not my assertions, those of the website I quoted. May I suggest a revolutionary idea? You could try looking up the case yourself if you want to dispute my cite.So you can't answer my question. Fair enough.
So you can't answer my question. Fair enough.
Why should I? If you wish to add to your knowledge it's not up to me to teach you. Answer your own questions.LOL - you seemed verrrrrry keen on educating us earlier though...?
Here are the actual facts;What proof would Christian Bruckner need to supply to win a claim of libel against the British Media who have suggested he may be involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim.
https://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/defamation-elements-of-a-claim/
The claimant being the one who sues and it's the claimant who has to provide the proof. Wrong again!
LOL - you seemed verrrrrry keen on educating us earlier though...?
Don't be ridiculous.
The backsliding is self evident.
LOL - you seemed verrrrrry keen on educating us earlier though...?
That's my view on a point raised, nothing to do with educating anyone.Yes it was - you were "correcting" us on points of libel law, as you perceived it. IMO you do rather set yourself up as an educator of us lesser beings, or try to at any rate...
That's my view on a point raised, nothing to do with educating anyone.
Your point is neither here nor there. The fact is Bennett's claims were defamatory ss you would have realised if you read the article you cited
In your opinion. What has he been convicted of?
In your opinion. What has he been convicted of?
In your opinion. What has he been convicted of?Why did the judge instruct Bennett not to repeat his claims if there was nothing wrong with them?
Why did the judge instruct Bennett not to repeat his claims if there was nothing wrong with them?
Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking? An undertaking that he then didn't keep.
This I think is where The Innuendo came in.
If he accused them of a criminal act that's more than innuendo.
In your opinion. What has he been convicted of?
He was convicted for repeating libellous accusations . He was told not to repeat them but he did.
Yes, he got a suspended sentence - 3 months for contempt of court. What were these accusations then?
You aren't seriously saying that you don't know, are you?
Yes. Do you know? What crime did he accuse the McCanns of committing?
Yes. Do you know? What crime did he accuse the McCanns of committing?Why don’t you ask him? You’re a member of his forum aren’t you? You know, the one where they’re all convinced Madeleine died on or before the 29th and there was a huge conspiracy to cover up and profit from her death?
Abandonment and Culpability in the disappearance of Madeleine. And calling for their arrest. Stopping people in the streets and creeping around The Rothely Estate putting leaflets through doors. And that's just for starters.
However, I hardly think The Judge would order Anthony Bennett to sign an agreement not to repeat if there was nothing Libellous to repeat.
Why don’t you ask him? You’re a member of his forum aren’t you? You know, the one where they’re all convinced Madeleine died on or before the 29th and there was a huge conspiracy to cover up and profit from her death?
I just wondered how much those who seem so sure of the 'facts' actually know, and how much they're assuming. So far there seems to be plenty of assumptions but few definitive facts.I should think we are all very well aware of the facts thanks. Unlike you we saw it all play out in real time.
I don't think the Judge ordered him to do it, he agreed because otherwise Carter Ruck were going to sue him, and he couldn't afford to defend himself.You think the judge just asked him if he wouldn’t mind awfully stop spreading misinformation and lies and stalking the McCanns? Get real.
Yes, he got a suspended sentence - 3 months for contempt of court. What were these accusations then?
Judge Michael Tugendhat said Bennett had been responsible for the publishing of several libellous claims that the couple should be suspected of causing their daughter's death.
https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10247558.display/
bingo! I expect this will be spun as the judge merely suggesting it might have been libellous but probably wasn’t and suggesting Mr Bennett might kindly refrain from it, if it wasn’t too inconvenient.
Judge Michael Tugendhat said Bennett had been responsible for the publishing of several libellous claims that the couple should be suspected of causing their daughter's death.
https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10247558.display/
I don't think the Judge ordered him to do it, he agreed because otherwise Carter Ruck were going to sue him, and he couldn't afford to defend himself.
Those of us who are around at the time know exactly what Anthony Bennett was up to. Although The Why still defeats me.
I was at the court case but sadly just missed the actual verdict. No seats so coffeeing with a prominent sceptic at the pertinent moment. Grenville Green was very affable and carried my overnight case downstairs for me. We chatted the case and he allowed me to speak, which was nice. He bought the first round of coffees, I bought the second. Such trivia!! I guess the news had filtered thru to him and he forgot to carry my case back up again. There was a viscious woman there on the sceptic side.
I learned afterwards that the "sceptics" had arranged to fill all the seats so that no suppoerters could get in. What a bunch of saddoes.
Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking? An undertaking that he then didn't keep.Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.
Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.
I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.
By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.
During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.
So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking? An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.
The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.
During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.
I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10 instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.
After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.
For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.
Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.
Of course, I still have my opinions.
Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.
I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.
By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.
During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.
So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking? An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.
The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.
During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.
I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10 instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.
After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.
For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.
Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.
Of course, I still have my opinions.
Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.“I am sure that you intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.
I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.
By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.
During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.
So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking? An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.
The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.
During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.
I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10 instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.
After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.
For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.
Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.
Of course, I still have my opinions.
"Merely"?
/snip/
“I am sure that you intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.
It seems there's no need to hear all the evidence or have a trial for a judge to decide what happened and who is guilty.I think in Britain how it works is that until a trial determines you caused the death of your daughter and covered it up, you remain innocent of any wrongdoing and shouldn’t have idiots like TB going round with libellous pamphlets informing people otherwise.
I think in Britain how it works is that until a trial determines you caused the death of your daughter and covered it up, you remain innocent of any wrongdoing and shouldn’t have idiots like TB going round with libellous pamphlets informing people otherwise.
It seems there's no need to hear all the evidence or have a trial for a judge to decide what happened and who is guilty.Are you suggesting the judge was incorrect and that TB did not intend to allege the the McCanns caused Madeleine’s death and covered it up?
It seems there's no need to hear all the evidence or have a trial for a judge to decide what happened and who is guilty.
Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.You accused the McCanns of a criminal act. You claim is libellous.. That is not opinion its fact. You claim that you could not defend the action because of finances whereas in reality you could not defend the action because you could not substantiate it. You made claims that were not backed by evidence . Libellous claims
I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.
By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.
During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.
So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking? An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.
The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.
During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.
I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10 instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.
After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.
For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.
Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.
Of course, I still have my opinions.
I think in Britain how it works is that until a trial determines you caused the death of your daughter and covered it up, you remain innocent of any wrongdoing and shouldn’t have idiots like TB going round with libellous pamphlets informing people otherwise.
How can anyone, especially a judge, pronounce somone guilty of libel without a trial?
I have explained.. Read back
How can anyone, especially a judge, pronounce somone guilty of libel without a trial?
I can't quite believe you have posted that.
So no need for a trial in some cases then? How strange. Even when someone is found standing over a blood-soaked body holding the murder weapon dripping blood a trial is held.
That's a criminal not civil case
It seems that accusations of libel by the McCanns, Smethurst, Carter Ruck and the McCann's supporters remain "merely" that; accusations.
A lot of people think German judges won't be swayed by the public accusations levelled at CB, but at least two of our English judges have demonstrated their willingness to believe unconfirmed "facts" such as an abduction having taken place.
So guilt can be pronounced without a trial in civil cases?
In a libel case in the UK....making a statement implying criminal acts is classed as libel...its up to the person making the claim to prove it isnt. the burden of proof is on bennett. Do you really not understand that
The trial ascertains whether the alleged libel can be defended. Public interest is one possible defence. Until such proceedings not even a judge can pronounce guilt, only allege it.
You say the alleged libel.. Its not alleged... It's a fact.. Unless proven otherwise
Isn't there a difference between accusing someone of committing a crime and suggesting that there are reasons to doubt what someone is saying?So you think Bennett's accusations were not libellous.. Perhaps you just don't understand what libel is
I can't see any direct accusations in Mr Bennetts leaflet; "60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted" (i.e Madeleine McCann)
Isn't there a difference between accusing someone of committing a crime and suggesting that there are reasons to doubt what someone is saying?
I can't see any direct accusations in Mr Bennetts leaflet; "60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted" (i.e Madeleine McCann)
So you think Bennett's accusations were not libellous.. Perhaps you just don't understand what libel is
Where are these criminal accusations?
http://genreith.de/MMcC/bennet-text-1.pdf
So no need for a trial in some cases then? How strange. Even when someone is found standing over a blood-soaked body holding the murder weapon dripping blood a trial is held.you are being ridiculous. You can take out a restraining order on someone who persistently harasses or stalks you without the need for them to be found guilty in a court of law first. Does that mean the person who is being restrained is not guilty of harassing or stalking?
Where are these criminal accusations?
http://genreith.de/MMcC/bennet-text-1.pdf
Isn't there a difference between accusing someone of committing a crime and suggesting that there are reasons to doubt what someone is saying?
I can't see any direct accusations in Mr Bennetts leaflet; "60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted" (i.e Madeleine McCann)
the accusations can be implied...you real dont understand libel law.
Where are these criminal accusations?you yourself claim not to be a legal expert and maybe that’s why you don’t understand. Here’s what the legal expert said:
http://genreith.de/MMcC/bennet-text-1.pdf
I understand you have added membership of another forum to your tally.
I understand the standards regarding libel or libellous links are seriously upheld there.
Can you think of any reason why you would not post that link there but think nothing of propelling this forum into disrepute by posting it here.
Why write Booklet about this case for any other reason. Mr. Bennett certainly wasn't trying to help The McCanns.
Most of it is distorted rubbish, by the way. The rest of it is lies.
So people who doubt their story aren't allowed to speak because it's not helpful?
No because it's libellous.. Human rights too..
If something is recorded in the case files and it raises doubts about the abduction it's not libellous to say so. It's just one interpretatation of it's meaning.
Just following in your hallowed footprints Brietta...
The zzzzzzzs at the end of your post say it all.
Lunchtime, Sunday, 29th April 2007.
NOT lunchtime, Thursday, 3rd May, as claimed.
Incidentally according to forum rules you aren’t allowed to write opinion as fact, isn’t that right G-Unit? I’m sure you will be the first to put “Blonk” straight on that matter… @)(++(*
Lunchtime, Sunday, 29th April 2007.
NOT lunchtime, Thursday, 3rd May, as claimed.
Thats junk and libellous too
Lunchtime, Sunday, 29th April 2007.
NOT lunchtime, Thursday, 3rd May, as claimed.
Its libellous to suggest Maddie may have died in the apartment and the McCanms hid and disposed of the body
Its libellous to suggest Maddie may have died in the apartment and the McCanms hid and disposed of the body
Why did you just write it then.
There's plenty in the files which is true. One of the first 'myths' given to the press was that a window was jemmied open, for example.Plenty of what? In fact what are you on about? Why are you defending Tony Bennett’s poisonous campaign against the McCanns?
Incidentally according to forum rules you aren’t allowed to write opinion as fact, isn’t that right G-Unit? I’m sure you will be the first to put “Blonk” straight on that matter… @)(++(*
Feel free to highlight breaches of the forum rules VS. Just make sure you highlight all the breaches by everyone.
Plenty of what? In fact what are you on about? Why are you defending Tony Bennett’s poisonous campaign against the McCanns?
Feel free to highlight breaches of the forum rules VS. Just make sure you highlight all the breaches by everyone.why should I when you are so selective? Aren’t mods supposed to enforce the rules fairly and equally? Doesn’t Blink’s post break forum rules?
Justice? Innocent until found guilty?Come again? Are you seriously suggesting Bennett was a victim of a miscarriage of justice?
Isn't that your job?
Everyone's an expert on how someone else should do their job. So (not) helpful.
Everyone's an expert on how someone else should do their job. So (not) helpful.Madeleine was abducted.
Madeleine was abducted.
Madeleine was abducted.
Of course she was.And definitely true.
This statement is definitely Not Libellous.
It seems that accusations of libel by the McCanns, Smethurst, Carter Ruck and the McCann's supporters remain "merely" that; accusations.
A lot of people think German judges won't be swayed by the public accusations levelled at CB, but at least two of our English judges have demonstrated their willingness to believe unconfirmed "facts" such as an abduction having taken place.
Of course she was.Indeed but the burning question is by who, a stranger or not.
This statement is definitely Not Libellous.
Indeed but the burning question is by who, a stranger or not.Definitely a stranger.
Despite reporting this post and drawing it to G-Unit’s attention on the thread, no IMO added. It’s official: claiming opinion as fact is now tolerated on this forum.
Lunchtime, Sunday, 29th April 2007.
NOT lunchtime, Thursday, 3rd May, as claimed.
Definitely a stranger.
Despite reporting this post and drawing it to G-Unit’s attention on the thread, no IMO added. It’s official: claiming opinion as fact is now tolerated on this forum.
Absolutely.
Perhaps OG have allowed them sight of the video showing ?Madeleine that I sent in?
Despite reporting this post and drawing it to G-Unit’s attention on the thread, no IMO added. It’s official: claiming opinion as fact is now tolerated on this forum.
OG wasn't in existence when Judge Hogg made clear her views in 2008 when the McCanns were still arguidos.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-plea-to-madeleine-mccanns-abductor-317135
Despite reporting this post and drawing it to G-Unit’s attention on the thread, no IMO added. It’s official: claiming opinion as fact is now tolerated on this forum.
There are many examples of opinion posted as fact on this forum, despite efforts to eliminate the practice. Members neglect to add imo, and if asked for cites often refuse to provide them. I wonder why someone has suddenly decidedI stopped doing so when I noticed you turning a blind eye to the rule breaking and will continue to do so all the while I see others like Spam and Blonk getting away with it. Just so’s we’re clear - you don’t have a problem with it any more?
that this problem should be highlighted and enforced?
Cool.
In which way does your post represent any reference to the thread title which remains ~ Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction
Judge Hogg's perception of Madeleine's abduction was clear. She believed wholeheartedly in the abduction and the parent's innocence. So what convinced her?Her ability to use her undoubted high intelligence to deduce that the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance was a stranger abduction.
Despite the McCanns being suspects in Portugal, and the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police saying of her parents;
While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
I stopped doing so when I noticed you turning a blind eye to the rule breaking and will continue to do so all the while I see others like Spam and Blonk getting away with it. Just so’s we’re clear - you don’t have a problem with it any more?
Of course it's a problem, but while members disapprove of a rule it isn't easy. I don't think you were all that committed and supportive actually;
I have posted on numerous forums in the last 10years and this is the only one where posters MUST write IMO when expressing an opinion, or provide cites. It’s also the only forum I’ve posted on where posters are punished with points for breaking the rules.
Vertigo Swirl on August 15, 2018.
Her ability to use her undoubted high intelligence to deduce that the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance was a stranger abduction.
Whether she's intelligent or logical I don't know, but the case of Ellie Butler highlights her lack of perceptiveness imo and she was heavily criticised.Soooo predictable. Your response I mean.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/ellie-butler-judge-took-unwarranted-steps-to-reunite-her-with-violent-parents
Of course it's a problem, but while members disapprove of a rule it isn't easy. I don't think you were all that committed and supportive actually;You’re right, thanks for quoting me. I am utterly against it but if you are going to sanction me for not doing something then you’d better bloody well be even handed about it and not turn a blind eye when someone you support “forgets” to do it.
I have posted on numerous forums in the last 10years and this is the only one where posters MUST write IMO when expressing an opinion, or provide cites. It’s also the only forum I’ve posted on where posters are punished with points for breaking the rules.
Vertigo Swirl on August 15, 2018.
They cleared bruckner without even speaking to him, how does one supposedly great police force do that?Brilliant question!
Whether she's intelligent or logical I don't know, but the case of Ellie Butler highlights her lack of perceptiveness imo and she was heavily criticised.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/ellie-butler-judge-took-unwarranted-steps-to-reunite-her-with-violent-parents
A perfect example of taking in the broader picture I think.
There are those who have leapt to the defence of a habitual sexual offender and frequenter of the dark paedophile web where the most unimaginable obscenities are posted and where Brueckner was a contributor and member.
How do you and fellow sceptics equate your blaming post with Brady's recording of the death of a child which brought hardened detectives and all who heard it to their knees.
At the time Brady wasn't a murderer - because he hadn't been caught.
How do you and fellow sceptics equate defending a convicted felon who hoards horrific child pornography exactly as Brady did, by using the exoneration that he doesn't have a conviction for child abduction.
If you are going to use anyone's post event record against them as a debating point, don't you realise that opens the flood gates to everyone being fair game? within the confines of libel laws.
In other words - Brueckner may or may not have harmed Madeleine - but his record to date is a tough one to defend.
You’re right, thanks for quoting me. I am utterly against it but if you are going to sanction me for not doing something then you’d better bloody well be even handed about it and not turn a blind eye when someone you support “forgets” to do it.
A perfect example of taking in the broader picture I think.
There are those who have leapt to the defence of a habitual sexual offender and frequenter of the dark paedophile web where the most unimaginable obscenities are posted and where Brueckner was a contributor and member.
How do you and fellow sceptics equate your blaming post with Brady's recording of the death of a child which brought hardened detectives and all who heard it to their knees.
At the time Brady wasn't a murderer - because he hadn't been caught.
How do you and fellow sceptics equate defending a convicted felon who hoards horrific child pornography exactly as Brady did, by using the exoneration that he doesn't have a conviction for child abduction.
If you are going to use anyone's post event record against them as a debating point, don't you realise that opens the flood gates to everyone being fair game? within the confines of libel laws.
In other words - Brueckner may or may not have harmed Madeleine - but his record to date is a tough one to defend.
They cleared bruckner without even speaking to him, how does one supposedly great police force do that?
Her ability to use her undoubted high intelligence to deduce that the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance was a stranger abduction.
And how's the search for the abductor going?
Not having much luck are they, for obvious reasons.
I thought we were discussing "Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction"? What have CB and IB got to do with it?They both abducted and murdered children.
Lunchtime, Sunday, 29th April 2007.
NOT lunchtime, Thursday, 3rd May, as claimed.
They both absucted and murdered children.
OG wasn't in existence when Judge Hogg made clear her views in 2008 when the McCanns were still arguidos.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-plea-to-madeleine-mccanns-abductor-317135
IB did. No charges against CB, just lots of suspicion.
Err?
The video wasn't in existence until 2012. IIRC it was taken in to Belgravia Police Station and handed in personally later in 2012
IB did. No charges against CB, just lots of suspicion.yet.
No Alibi and a Hideous Conviction Rate.
No Alibi and a Hideous Conviction Rate.
No alibi for what time and date? Was it 9.15pm on 3rd May, 9.45? When?
IB did. No charges against CB, just lots of suspicion.
His girlfriend of the time says that she can't remember where or when. So she won't be much use.
No alibi for what time and date? Was it 9.15pm on 3rd May, 9.45? When?
No alibi for what time and date? Was it 9.15pm on 3rd May, 9.45? When?For any of it.
For any of it.
They cleared bruckner without even speaking to him, how does one supposedly great police force do that?
Lunchtime, Sunday, 29th April 2007.
NOT lunchtime, Thursday, 3rd May, as claimed.
At the time referred to in my post the child rapist and murderer Brady's crimes were unknown. Brueckner's propensity to commit violent crimes against women and children is a matter of record even before Madeleine's abduction and consists only of that which he was caught doing.
"Suspicion" hardly comes into it as far as I can see. The German prosecutor has evidence against Brueckner gathered over a period of years and the only suspicion I harbour about that is wonderment about those who are in denial and feel the need to publicly throw their hats into the ring alongside his.
I think it risible that a criminal known to associates as 'the climber' because of his skills is deemed by sceptics as having difficulty entering or exiting a a property with a ground floor window.
I think it risible that a criminal who made a living from burglary would have failed to notice people entering a property via a patio door the design of which ensured it could only be locked from the inside.
One of the main attributes granted to human beings is their skill of learning from their mistakes. Unfortunately McCann sceptics prove there are those who are incapable of acquiring that particular skill. Which is amply demonstrated by their replication of the 2007 ignoring of a paedophile like Brueckner or another with his skill set living in plain sight while every obstacle is put in place to thwart the parents of a missing child in their search for her and to cause as much distress to them as is inhumanly possible to do.
Brueckner or someone with a matching profile did this and sceptics are doing today much as they did in 2007 with perfect examples of "plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose" fuelled by their stranger abduction denial. All when it was possible that over the years at least one collector and perpetrator of vicious attacks on children recorded on his private memory sticks could have been removed from the equation.
Imagine the mindset which allows that for I cannot.
Brady did not drive a car and only had an audio cassette tape recorder to work with ~ imagine what a pervert such as he was could have accomplished if he had had the resources available to a Brueckner.
Brady did have a car. He also has nothing to do with this case. CB's involvement has yet to be confirmed using evidence.I think you’ll find Brady did not have a car, it was Hindley that had the car.
Brady did have a car. He also has nothing to do with this case. CB's involvement has yet to be confirmed using evidence.
I think you’ll find Brady did not have a car, it was Hindley that had the car.
A perfect example of taking in the broader picture I think.
There are those who have leapt to the defence of a habitual sexual offender and frequenter of the dark paedophile web where the most unimaginable obscenities are posted and where Brueckner was a contributor and member.
How do you and fellow sceptics equate your blaming post with Brady's recording of the death of a child which brought hardened detectives and all who heard it to their knees.
At the time Brady wasn't a murderer - because he hadn't been caught.
How do you and fellow sceptics equate defending a convicted felon who hoards horrific child pornography exactly as Brady did, by using the exoneration that he doesn't have a conviction for child abduction.
If you are going to use anyone's post event record against them as a debating point, don't you realise that opens the flood gates to everyone being fair game? within the confines of libel laws.
In other words - Brueckner may or may not have harmed Madeleine - but his record to date is a tough one to defend.
Says something of the supporter mindset when Brady is brought into the discussion to justify suspicion of CB.
Says something of the supporter mindset when Brady is brought into the discussion to justify suspicion of CB.Makes a change considering the number of times over the year sceptics have compared Kate McCann to Myra Hindley or Rosemary West.
His car, her car, he drove it though.Thanks for confirming I was factually correct.
He agreed and she offered him a lift home. Brady was driving.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39934966
Makes a change considering the number of times over the year sceptics have compared Kate McCann to Myra Hindley or Rosemary West.
It was a temporary anagram I adopted to avoid the chop when John was cutting out dead wood and giving Holly a prune.
Oh really ??? It has other connotations too, in my very honest opinion. Doesn't it, Ret?Trying to dig up some dirt by ferreting through my year-old posts? Quite Bonkers!
Trying to dig up some dirt by ferreting through my year-old posts? Quite Bonkers!
You're better off investigating why Musk has deleted your moggy video from X.