Author Topic: Brueckner V McCann's  (Read 6393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline barrier

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2020, 12:05:40 PM »
I can't be bothered as you and other sceptics are so biased you won't accept  the truth... Imo... We will know in a month or two

Its you who are biased,list them,or is it a case of there's nowt.What specific point makes you so sure.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2020, 12:06:01 PM »
I can't be bothered as you and other sceptics are so biased you won't accept  the truth... Imo... We will know in a month or two
Or 5 months.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline barrier

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2020, 12:07:11 PM »
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2020, 12:08:09 PM »
Or 5 months.

HCW has been quite clear... Even before todays article that we can expect something before the end of the year

Offline barrier

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2020, 12:10:44 PM »
HCW has been quite clear... Even before todays article that we can expect something before the end of the year

Christmas.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2020, 12:16:36 PM »
There is a suspect,we know that, what is in the public domain that allows him to be more culpable than the McCann's who were not cleared of any involvement.
Means, motive, opportunity. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline barrier

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2020, 12:18:42 PM »
Means, motive, opportunity.

Why do they apply to the new suspect anymore than the McCanns?
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2020, 12:33:12 PM »
Why do they apply to the new suspect anymore than the McCanns?
Because stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance and in 13 years no one has put forward a theory of parental involvement that came close to being plausible or logical.  It would seems at least two highly respected police forces concur with that viewpoint as they appear to have completely ruled out parental involvement .
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2020, 12:42:32 PM »
There is a suspect,we know that, what is in the public domain that allows him to be more culpable than the McCann's who were not cleared of any involvement.
Did you notice that the McCanns are no longer suspects?  What is in the public domain that allows them not to be considered suspects or under investigation?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2020, 01:14:35 PM »
Question: what is the main difference between this thread and the one Kizzy started asking "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the McCanns than against CB?" 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2020, 01:19:34 PM »
Its you who are biased,list them,or is it a case of there's nowt.What specific point makes you so sure.

Im more than happy for you to think theres nowt...but it doesnt make it true....Im happy to wait  a couple of months..

I'd say I'm one of the most open minded memberes of the forum..I don't do bias....I do evidence
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 01:25:56 PM by Davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2020, 01:34:02 PM »
Its you who are biased,list them,or is it a case of there's nowt.What specific point makes you so sure.

I posted this this morning...its not one specific point...circumstantial evidence buildds a case.....a thin piece of twine is weak but when woven together with other peices makes a strong rope....thats how circumstantial evidence works...


My view and I think the view of the the professional investigators is..

We have a person with a history of burglary, paedophilia and sexual violence in the area that night......evidenced by the phone ping.

This person has been identified by a witness as the culprit. It doesnt matter that the witness satement MAY be unreliable...it still warrants investigation.

There is also the fact that he deregistered his car the day after....that he is recorded as fantasising about keeping a small child and abusing it over days.

This evidence in itself warrants regarding this person as a suspect but the investigators claim to have strong evidence that this man killed MM.

The suspect should have the right to explain why he should not be considered as a suspect.... explain where he was on the night...who he spoke to...why he deregistered his car.  This information would totally rule the suspect out and he would no longer be associated with the case or under any suspicion.

I'm sure he will be given the opportunity to do this but his lawyer has suggested he will refuse to supply any of this information...why would that be ....why would he not want to clear himself.

Imagine the situation where the mccanns refused to give any details of their movements on the evening of may 3...what would that suggest.

Of course he has the right to silence but a court has the right to draw inference from that silence. There may well be enough evidence to take this case to trial. HCW is gathering that evidence IMO. Just like in the Gilroy case where Gilroy was unable to explain his actions and wherabouts ...the court can draw inference from CB's silence. That combined with other evidence that HCW has  may be enough to convict...interesting times ahead

at the moment..plenty to rule CB in....little to rule him out...and thats due to his own actions

Offline barrier

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2020, 01:36:23 PM »
Because stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance and in 13 years no one has put forward a theory of parental involvement that came close to being plausible or logical.  It would seems at least two highly respected police forces concur with that viewpoint as they appear to have completely ruled out parental involvement .

Because its the only logical plausible explanation? what makes you so sure.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline barrier

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2020, 01:45:22 PM »
Question: what is the main difference between this thread and the one Kizzy started asking "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the McCanns than against CB?"

Kizzy is asking for circumstantial I'm asking what definitive evidence in the public domain makes the new suspect anymore culpable than the Mccanns?  what definitive piece of evidence makes a supporter know the McCanns didn't do it?
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Brueckner V McCann's
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2020, 01:48:29 PM »
Because its the only logical plausible explanation? what makes you so sure.
13 years of waiting for someone, anyone to describe a plausible, logical theory of parental involvement.  Can you do it?  If so PM me, I'd love to hear it!
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly