Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[Brietta]

Madeleine's case began when Kate found her missing from her bed.

Should have been easy enough for the police to set the ball rolling on their procedures for missing children.  That is, if they actually had any for reference.

The failed investigation had one extraordinary outcome which influenced how Madeleine's case was perceived over the years and is summed up as follows.

What is striking about the McCann saga is the vitriol and vehemence with which each side condemns the other.
Neither side ‘knows’ anything, and yet they are prepared to fight to the death, and certainly into the libel courts to prove that their belief represents the ‘truth’.

None has gained as much currency as the views of the policeman who was in charge of the initial investigation.

Gonçalo Amaral.

His working hypothesis became that ‘the child was dead’, and the parents were to blame.

He viewed the parents as arguidos, the Portuguese equivalent of ‘persons of interest’, not charged, but under suspicion.

It was a reasonable hypothesis, there were many unexplained details, but hypothesis is all it was, and the Attorney-General of Portugal refused to go to trial on that basis.

After six months, Amaral was removed from the case.

There were other cases proceeding against him and the men under him, and it wasn’t a happy situation to have the man in charge of the investigation under suspicion himself – particularly not when the other cases also involved his suspicion of a Mother whose child had never been found.

Amaral went onto write a book about his first six months in charge of the investigation, and unfortunately chose to call it ‘Maddie, The Truth of the Lie’.
He explained in detail his theory of why he thought ‘it was the parent’s what did it’.
That book has divided the watching armchair detectives as never before.

Amaral has now pointed out that ‘the book deals with six months of the investigation and the conclusions at the time so the investigation needed to continue.
The truth is only known when an investigation is finished’. Amaral’s own words, taken from a helpful translation of his recent Panorama interview.

Yet that book has been treated as though it is ‘the truth’ written on tablets of stone, by people around the world who have made it their business to harry the McCann’s mercilessly quite content to risk prison sentences to make their opinions, their beliefs, accepted by the ‘non-believers’.  Anna Raccoon May 3, 2012

[Brietta]

The investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is still ongoing and was a very active one from 2017 when a name which had been given to the German police in 2013 was raised by another informant.
This time there was no elimination from enquiries and although not publicised until Amaral took to the airwaves to do just that in 2019, it did not hit the public domain until 2000.

The interesting thing about that breach of confidence is that it was instigated by the same cop whose book and opinions had negatively coloured the investigation since 2007.

[Eleanor]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

Which just proves how very little you know.

[Brietta]

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?

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?

[G-Unit]

Which just proves how very little you know.

Very helpful response. Why, in your opinion, is this woman's opinion significant then?

[Eleanor]

Very helpful response. Why, in your opinion, is this woman's opinion significant then?

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.

[Eleanor]

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?

The McCann Affair was the perfect example of how not to run an investigation.

It has never quite recovered since.

[Brietta]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

"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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[Eleanor]

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.

You think there is No Libel?  And there is definitely a different set of Rules for The McCanns as opposed to Brueckner.

I believe quite firmly in Brueckner's Right to Innocence as I have said right from the start.  But I want the same Right for The McCanns and actually shouldn't even need to ask.

As it is, rubbishing The McCanns is as ever an ongoing sport.

The hypocrisy of this sickens me and I shall do whatever I can to expose this.