To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?
I don't know why they ever started, the case was solved by Amaral in 2007.No he didn’t (see the final report), but thanks for your input. Anyone who isn’t a self-confessed WUM care to answer?
Can we expand on the thread and ask how can Scotland Yard assist now? what can their role be ?As Maddie is a UK suspect SY need to be kept in the loop.
Can we expand on the thread and ask how can Scotland Yard assist now? what can their role be ?
Some interesting "Likes" to Spammy's wumming.
As Maddie is a UK suspect SY need to be kept in the loop.
Can you imagine a meeting in Portugal with just the PJ and the Germans.
Interesting times ahead
Madeleine McCann is a British Citizen lost abroad. Her passport gives her the right. Scotland Yard didn't have a choice. They must find what they can.
Some interesting "Likes" to Spammy's wumming.Indeed. We now know exactly what G-Unit thinks about it which makes a change from the usual prevarication and denial.
You don't know when you're being played.It's pretty transparent... That's why I ignore most of his posts
Their role? just observers now ?Who knows? When do you think the Germans should have dropped their investigation into CB?
You don't know when you're being played.
Who knows? When do you think the Germans should have dropped their investigation into HCW?
So all Wums then? Very funny. That'll help.
It's pretty transparent... That's why I ignore most of his posts
Indeed. We now know exactly what G-Unit thinks about it which makes a change from the usual prevarication and denial.The problem quite a few posters here have is that they have been able to express their opinion on the basis that no one can prove them wrong... The celestial teapot argument.
The problem quite a few posters here have is that they have been able to express their opinion on the basis that no one can prove them wrong... The celestial teapot argument.
Their problem now is they may well be proven wrong.
All the points they've seen as important evidence..
Dogs.. Dna.. Statements.. 48 questions.. Hours spent studying the files... All shown to be unimportant
Getting your acronyms mixed up.Sorry, a lot on my mind atm, and little sleep.
You are wise at times.We all know Spam is a WUM, as (in my opinion) are two of those who liked his post. The third though is a serious “researcher” and moderator. That’s the interesting one.
So you agree the legend is writ irrespective if charges are ever brought.
Sorry, a lot on my mind atm, and little sleep.b....r all to be sorry about, we've all been there.
We all know Spam is a WUM, as (in my opinion) are two of those who liked his post. The third though is a serious “researcher” and moderator. That’s the interesting one.
It depends on what evidence HCW has to a large extent. He has contributed himself to his suspect status so must take some blame. If he wasn't a convicted paedophile and rapist he may not have been a suspect
Indeed, but is there any reason now to stop investigating him, and were the Germans wrong in appealing to the GP for any information which may help them in their investigation? In other words, there seems to be a lot of scorn directed at the German investigation despite there being good grounds for suspicion, IMO.
To a large extent I agree, no reason not to investigate him.
Indeed, but is there any reason now to stop investigating him, and were the Germans wrong in appealing to the GP for any information which may help them in their investigation? In other words, there seems to be a lot of scorn directed at the German investigation despite there being good grounds for suspicion, IMO.
Concrete evidence was the terminology, until its tested in a court its anything but.
I disagree. It may still be concrete evidence, we just don’t know UNTIL it is tested in court.
Concrete evidence was the terminology, until its tested in a court its anything but.
It doesn't need to be tested in court... To a certain extent we can make our own minds up
True of here, all of 6 or 7 regular poster's , in the real world ?Purely for an example..
Purely for an example..
If CBs DNA was found on MMs bedsheets...could we draw, conclusions without it going to court
Indeed. We now know exactly what G-Unit thinks about it which makes a change from the usual prevarication and denial.
Poor example, there's nowt to link him DNA wise, Wolters tells us that much.
It shows there is evidence that doesn't need to be tested in court
Your obsession is showing - again. As to the thread question, if the Germans think they can get the evidence they need to charge their suspect they should continue with their investigation. I don't know who decides when they've apparently been trying for some years before they issued a public appeal and six months after that they still don't have the evidence they need.Then are we agreed? The Germans were right to investigate this man, they have good grounds to suspect him, and should continue with their investigation until all avenues are exhausted. Anyone disagree? Obviously apart from those who think Amaral cracked the case in 2007.
Your obsession is showing - again. As to the thread question, if the Germans think they can get the evidence they need to charge their suspect they should continue with their investigation. I don't know who decides when they've apparently been trying for some years before they issued a public appeal and six months after that they still don't have the evidence they need.
Purely for an example..Perhaps a better example would be the hair of CB's that was found in the rape victim's bed. That was concrete evidence even before it got tested in a court of law.
If CBs DNA was found on MMs bedsheets...could we draw, conclusions without it going to court
Perhaps a better example would be the hair of CB's that was found in the rape victim's bed. That was concrete evidence even before it got tested in a court of law.
You don't know what evidence they have or need. You don't know the precise details of what evidence the German system requires. Doesn't matter. I'm open minded...your mind seems closed. Let's see what happens in the near future
I wasn't suggesting they had, this evidence... I was showing that evidence can be judged to be significant without a court appearance.As was I.
Wolters knows, and on 8th December he said;I'm sure you would want Wolters to be able to gather sufficient evidence to bring a successful charge, so let's hope (dirty word on here for some reason) that he is able to do so shortly.
Hans Christian Wolters told the BBC that while his team does not currently have enough evidence to charge Christian B, he is "very confident"...
Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904
I'm sure you would want Wolters to be able to gather sufficient evidence to bring a successful charge, so let's hope (dirty word on here for some reason) that he is able to do so shortly.
Hope is only a dirty word among Sceptics.
Hope is only a dirty word among Sceptics.It's only a matter of time before some righteously indignant person full of faux outrage accuses me of hoping Madeleine suffered terribly at the hands of this man. 8(8-))
That's because we know it doesn't alter events.Gosh, aren't you clever. Guess what? I know it doesn't either. It doesn't mean I can't hope that events turn out for the best. What is the actual problem with that?
It's only a matter of time before some righteously indignant person full of faux outrage accuses me of hoping Madeleine suffered terribly at the hands of this man. 8(8-))
We can still hope that she didn't.Indeed.
We can still hope that she didn't.
Of course you can if it makes you feel better.Can I ask - have you never hoped for anything, ever in your life? Does the phrase "I hope...." simply not exist in your verbal lexicon?
Doesn't change what happened though.
Wolters knows, and on 8th December he said;
Hans Christian Wolters told the BBC that while his team does not currently have enough evidence to charge Christian B, he is "very confident"...
Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904
Of course you can if it makes you feel better.
Doesn't change what happened though.
Wolters knows, and on 8th December he said;
Hans Christian Wolters told the BBC that while his team does not currently have enough evidence to charge Christian B, he is "very confident"...
Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904
Who said I thought it would?
Does this mean that you know what happened? You seem to be very sure.
Who said I thought it would?
Does this mean that you know what happened? You seem to be very sure.
Some thing happened, I'm sure of that. Doesn't matter what it was, it happened
Some people seem to hope that The McCanns killed Madeleine. Now that's a strange one since they can't possibly know.I think what they actually hope for is that the McCanns will be punished one way or the other, regardless of what actually happened to Madeleine. They believe the McCanns are the most contemptible and terrible parents who got away with it and were rewarded for doing so, and they can't bear it so want them to suffer and to be punished. Some people are very vindictive and emotionally invested in the fate of Kate and Gerry, IMO.
So it must be hope.
Some people seem to hope that The McCanns killed Madeleine. Now that's a strange one since they can't possibly know.
So it must be hope.
Can I ask - have you never hoped for anything, ever in your life? Does the phrase "I hope...." simply not exist in your verbal lexicon?
I know you asked it of another poster, I once saw a proud woman reduced by cancer to look like some one who had just emerged out of Belsen, I hoped she would survive, did it help, did it feck, gave up on hope then.
Thanks for cheering us all up.
I know you asked it of another poster, I once saw a proud woman reduced by cancer to look like some one who had just emerged out of Belsen, I hoped she would survive, did it help, did it feck, gave up on hope then.That's sad, but hope is an understandable, normal human reaction - what I find sad is cynical judgement of those who still have hope. And I'm pretty sure you still have hopes on a daily basis, whether you consciously notice it or not.
I think what they actually hope for is that the McCanns will be punished one way or the other, regardless of what actually happened to Madeleine. They believe the McCanns are the most contemptible and terrible parents who got away with it and were rewarded for doing so, and they can't bear it so want them to suffer and to be punished. Some people are very vindictive and emotionally invested in the fate of Kate and Gerry, IMO.
I really don't care if they're never bought to justice.That's really weird IMO, but thanks for sharing - you might get a few likes for that one.
One day they will both be dead regardless, & that brings me great comfort.
My pleasure, life's a bitch, then you die.
That's really weird IMO, but thanks for sharing - you might get a few likes for that one.8((()*/
Some people seem to hope that The McCanns killed Madeleine. Now that's a strange one since they can't possibly know.
So it must be hope.
Accepting the possibility that Madeleine's parents could have been involved in her disappearance isn't the same as hoping they killed her.
No? You could have fooled me. It's the glee you see.
Thirteen years of chucking muck at the parents and along comes a Convicted Paedophile and Rapist worth defending.
Why the random capital letters during the sentence?
8((()*/Clever boy!
No? You could have fooled me. It's the glee you see.
Thirteen years of chucking muck at the parents and along comes a Convicted Paedophile and Rapist worth defending.
Give me one good reason why I shouldn't defend Brueckner?
He hasn't raped or molested me & I'd never have even heard of him if not for the McCann's preference of tapas over child care.
Give me one good reason why I shouldn't defend Brueckner?Because he's a violent rapist (but we know you don't think rape should be a crime), because he abused little children (you probably think that's OK too), was a drug dealer (au undoubted plus point in your book) and a burglar (a man's got to put food on the table when the drugs run out). No, can't think of a single reason why you shouldn't defend this man, he is a someone who clearly shares your traditional family values.
He hasn't raped or molested me & I'd never have even heard of him if not for the McCann's preference of tapas over child care.
Give me one good reason why I shouldn't defend Brueckner?
He hasn't raped or molested me & I'd never have even heard of him if not for the McCann's preference of tapas over child care.
Just think, we'd likely never have heard of the McCanns if it wasn't for their choice of holiday destination.That might be construed as a criticism of Portugal, best amend your post if you want to keep on the right side of your pals.
Because he's a violent rapist (but we know you don't think rape should be a crime), because he abused little children (you probably think that's OK too), was a drug dealer (au undoubted plus point in your book) and a burglar (a man's got to put food on the table when the drugs run out). No, can't think of a single reason why you shouldn't defend this man, he is a someone who clearly shares your traditional family values.
None of anything you mentioned has affected me, so I don't see an issue with any of it.OK, I understand and feel your pain. Have you considered therapy?
On the other hand, I've had to put up with hearing about the McCanns & their daughter for the past 13 years, I didn't ask for it, I've never consented to it, & so technically that is like being raped.
None of anything you mentioned has affected me, so I don't see an issue with any of it.
On the other hand, I've had to put up with hearing about the McCanns & their daughter for the past 13 years, I didn't ask for it, I've never consented to it, & so technically that is like being raped.
To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?
Clever boy!
You could always try bogging off
You could always try bogging offQuite. It's a strange affliction that makes a man continue to inflict such harm upon himself by actively seeking out that which harms him so grievously. He would be so much happier and healthier if he asked John to cancel his membership of the forum, then he never need have to think about those "rapists" he so deplores.
ditto 8((()*/
Gives you a reason to post, works every time.
There's a well known saying that goes something like, if in a hole with a shovel, stop digging. I believe the Germans have dug themselves into such a hole and have no way out.Now that you've got that all off your chest perhaps you could actually answer my question?
They claim 'concrete evidence' that Maddie is dead and that CB did it but cannot take the matter any further. IMHO that is bullshit and they are liars.
Now that you've got that all off your chest perhaps you could actually answer my question?
You're hoping for a bit much.Hope springs eternal.
Hope springs eternal.
There's a well known saying that goes something like, if in a hole with a shovel, stop digging. I believe the Germans have dug themselves into such a hole and have no way out.
They claim 'concrete evidence' that Maddie is dead and that CB did it but cannot take the matter any further. IMHO that is bullshit and they are liars.
There's a well known saying that goes something like, if in a hole with a shovel, stop digging. I believe the Germans have dug themselves into such a hole and have no way out.
They claim 'concrete evidence' that Maddie is dead and that CB did it but cannot take the matter any further. IMHO that is bullshit and they are liars.
There's a well known saying that goes something like, if in a hole with a shovel, stop digging. I believe the Germans have dug themselves into such a hole and have no way out.
They claim 'concrete evidence' that Maddie is dead and that CB did it but cannot take the matter any further. IMHO that is bullshit and they are liars.
They wouldn't be the first to think they had a case solved when they didn't. Sometimes judges and juries are convinced too. At least Wolters is admitting that he hasn't got enough to make an arrest at the moment. Quite why not is difficult to imagine if he has concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner did it. Unless assumptions are involved I would expect that evidence to show that the two of them met."the two of them met"? Are you referring to CB and Madeleine?
They wouldn't be the first to think they had a case solved when they didn't. Sometimes judges and juries are convinced too. At least Wolters is admitting that he hasn't got enough to make an arrest at the moment. Quite why not is difficult to imagine if he has concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner did it. Unless assumptions are involved I would expect that evidence to show that the two of them met.
They wouldn't be the first to think they had a case solved when they didn't. Sometimes judges and juries are convinced too. At least Wolters is admitting that he hasn't got enough to make an arrest at the moment. Quite why not is difficult to imagine if he has concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner did it. Unless assumptions are involved I would expect that evidence to show that the two of them met.
I wasn't suggesting they had, this evidence... I was showing that evidence can be judged to be significant without a court appearance.Even if there was CB's DNA on Madeleine's bed cover, you have t still give CB a chance to explain how that could have got there.
Even if there was CB's DNA on Madeleine's bed cover, you have t still give CB a chance to explain how that could have got there.
Those apartments are hired out and he may have been there visiting previous tenants, for example.
thats the point im making...it would be concrete evidence but not proofDefine what you mean by "concrete evidence", please.
Define what you mean by "concrete evidence", please.
The term is clear...its strong evidenceDefine "concrete evidence" or "strong evidence".
Define what you mean by "concrete evidence", please.It is the definition of Concrete and evidence combined.
It is the definition of Concrete and evidence combined.
Google evidence definition:
"What does evidence mean?
noun. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever."
So as i said it means strong evidence...it doesnt mean proofI'm thinking it is only "evidence" when you say what it points to.
I'm thinking it is only "evidence" when you say what it points to.
For example, if you say "concrete evidence" against CB, it is evidence that CB committed some crime or other.
Do you agree that we need to define what the evidence points to?
IMO it is wrong to say you have concrete evidence unless you say what the evidence points to.
Wolters had said concrete evidence that CB murdered MaddieSo it is not evidence he abducted her, or evidence he was in the apartment. Not even just evidence she is dead, but evidence he killed her? What sort of evidence is that?
So it is not evidence he abducted her, or evidence he was in the apartment. Not even just evidence she is dead, but evidence he killed her? What sort of evidence is that?
So it is not evidence he abducted her, or evidence he was in the apartment. Not even just evidence she is dead, but evidence he killed her? What sort of evidence is that?
Head line grab, his evidence may only be in the form of some one saying his suspect killed her.
So it is not evidence he abducted her, or evidence he was in the apartment. Not even just evidence she is dead, but evidence he killed her? What sort of evidence is that?
Head line grab, his evidence may only be in the form of some one saying his suspect killed her.But was that considered "concrete"?
But was that considered "concrete"?
A confession was considered concrete in that list of uses of the words "concrete evidence".
A confession taken under caution may be considered concrete evidence, but is that the same as for a statement from a "friend" of CB who says CB confessed to them? Is that concrete or quicksand?
But was that considered "concrete"?
A confession was considered concrete in that list of uses of the words "concrete evidence".
A confession taken under caution may be considered concrete evidence, but is that the same as for a statement from a "friend" of CB who says CB confessed to them? Is that concrete or quicksand?
We may never know
Wolters said he is sure Maddie is dead and is sure CB killed her....beleive what you wish
I think you may be right.
I think we will. At some stage he will ahve to explain to the parents.
If Brueckner is arrested/questioned, then this evidence will come out.
However if this does not happen then the Germans will b reluctant for this evidence to become common knowledge just in case they can make use of it later.
IMO there is no reason why the parents should be party to this information if Brueckner is not questioned and prosecuted
Of course you can if it makes you feel better.
Doesn't change what happened though.
My pleasure, life's a bitch, then you die.
Give me one good reason why I shouldn't defend Brueckner?It is not about you.
He hasn't raped or molested me & I'd never have even heard of him if not for the McCann's preference of tapas over child care.
Wolters said he is sure Maddie is dead and is sure CB killed her....beleive what you wishI know what he said, but I'm trying to work out what type of evidence he has, to justify him saying it was concrete evidence of CB killing her.
So what happened then? We were talking about Madeleine suffering at the hands of CG, were we not?I know CB = Christian Brueckner but who the heck is CG ? Was it a typo? This is the first time the word "suffering" has ever come into the conversation IIRC.
How do you KNOW that Madeleine suffered at his hands?
I know what he said, but I'm trying to work out what type of evidence he has, to justify him saying it was concrete evidence of CB killing her.
Could be video as in other cases .
Identifying a child on a video is, imo, not an exact science. I have seen photos and videos of the child but I very much doubt if I could be absolutely sure it was her.
Identifying a child on a video is, imo, not an exact science. I have seen photos and videos of the child but I very much doubt if I could be absolutely sure it was her.That’s why such a video could be described as “concrete evidence” but not proof.
That’s why such a video could be described as “concrete evidence” but not proof.
Concrete evidence that a child was harmed, perhaps, but enough to announce the name of the child? I think not.Why not?
Concrete evidence that a child was harmed, perhaps, but enough to announce the name of the child? I think not.But you don't know what the evidence is and how reliable it is
I know CB = Christian Brueckner but who the heck is CG ? Was it a typo? This is the first time the word "suffering" has ever come into the conversation IIRC.
But you don't know what the evidence is and how reliable it is
Could be video as in other cases .There was a documentary about a serial killer that photographed his crime scenes in the USA. Made me think of CB.
It would depend on several factors... Best not go there really... That's why I prefer not to discuss itI just hope HCW doesn't have the same hide head in the sand attitude.
There was a documentary about a serial killer that photographed his crime scenes in the USA. Made me think of CB.In which case they could forensiclly link him,Wolters admits to no forensics.
He kept himself out of the frame but his arm showed up in a photo, so they compared the pattern of moles in the photo to the suspect's arm and got a conviction.
There was a documentary about a serial killer that photographed his crime scenes in the USA. Made me think of CB.
He kept himself out of the frame but his arm showed up in a photo, so they compared the pattern of moles in the photo to the suspect's arm and got a conviction.
I just hope HCW doesn't have the same hide head in the sand attitude.
I just hope HCW doesn't have the same hide head in the sand attitude.
It's Wolters job. I don't want to go there either, especially On Forum.Quite, right
In which case they could forensiclly link him,Wolters admits to no forensics.Images are not forensics bit are physical or material evidence which wolters says he has
Quite, right
I don't know why they ever started, the case was solved by Amaral in 2007.
Don't be silly I just don't think detailed discussion of possible abuse is of any use .How did you go from what G-unit says in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11870.msg636215#msg636215 to discussing "possible abuse" beats me.
How did you go from what G-unit says in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11870.msg636215#msg636215 to discussing "possible abuse" beats me.
The thin end of the wedge, Rob.That is rather an obscure answer isn't it? It has come down to HCW possibly having photos.
Images are not forensics bit are physical or material evidence which wolters says he hasAre you implying these photos are of Madeleine McCann? I suspect they would also have to have been taken on or after the 3rd of May 2007.
Are you implying these photos are of Madeleine McCann? I suspect they would also have to have been taken on or after the 3rd of May 2007.What else could 'concrete evidence' be, if not forensic?
Now there's a thought.What were you actually thinking?
In which case they could forensiclly link him,Wolters admits to no forensics.It might be a matter of thinking outside of the box. Come up with something new, from what he has got.
That is rather an obscure answer isn't it? It has come down to HCW possibly having photos.
It might be a matter of thinking outside of the box. Come up with something new, from what he has got.He's got photographs or video (via HDD storage devices or cameras) that he believes depict the dead body of MM.
What were you actually thinking?
He's got photographs or video (via HDD storage devices or cameras) that he believes depict the dead body of MM.
But apart from maybe the environment and articles in and around the scene, there's a tenuous link to CB - may be a camera was found with the dog.
So EXIF data has not proved to be useful, bearing in mind they have the world's best analysts at their disposal.
In addition, by definition, there can't be any physical link to CB, such as prints / DNA, or he'd be charged by now.
So it could be the actual camera, which has a degree of separation from him, or a HDD.
But if either had pictures or video of both a crime scene and CB that would be enough for a link - unless they're sitting on this evidence to charge him with other offences.
How did you go from what G-unit says in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11870.msg636215#msg636215 to discussing "possible abuse" beats me.
It is said that the videos discovered had all been downloaded from the internet, so no connection there.Thanks for that Sceptic 4.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8654423/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-secret-stash-391-child-porn-photos-68-videos.html
I think alot beats you rob. I was almost unwilling to mention it because Ive done some research and I know where it leads...and its very unpleasant
He's got photographs or video (via HDD storage devices or cameras) that he believes depict the dead body of MM.
But apart from maybe the environment and articles in and around the scene, there's a tenuous link to CB - may be a camera was found with the dog.
So EXIF data has not proved to be useful, bearing in mind they have the world's best analysts at their disposal.
In addition, by definition, there can't be any physical link to CB, such as prints / DNA, or he'd be charged by now.
So it could be the actual camera, which has a degree of separation from him, or a HDD.
But if either had pictures or video of both a crime scene and CB that would be enough for a link - unless they're sitting on this evidence to charge him with other offences.
Thanks for that Sceptic 4.
So I assume they would have been through these images comprehensively.
Therefore this cannot be the evidence.
Let's keep going with the process of elimination.
why cant it be the evidenceBecause they would have used it by now. They wouldn't have just busted him for child porn possession.
Because they would have used it by now. They wouldn't have just busted him for child porn possession.
Good question though.
I can see scenarios where that would not be the casePlease provide two.
From this same article - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8654423/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-secret-stash-391-child-porn-photos-68-videos.htmlI think you're right. Whatever evidence they currently have, which depicts the murder of MM in some way, is not ticking enough boxes to link him - legally.
According to the document, the abuse of the five-year-old took place on June 16, 2013, in Braunschweig at around the same time that Brueckner came on to the radar of German investigators as a suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine.
Yet it was only mid 2020 that they their appeal for information, so it sounds to me as if they had hit a wall in their investigation and that they haven't progressed any further.
Please provide two.
I think you're right. Whatever evidence they currently have, which depicts the murder of MM in some way, is not ticking enough boxes to link him - legally.
If they could have found the caller they could strengthen the case as a minimum, or the caller could implicate him.
sorry...Im not interested in a pointless debate... either HCW has evidence or as angelo says hes a liarBut you just answered my post - that's already a debate, team mate.
not watertight...thats not far away from my thoughtsNot watertight? I'm afraid that, although we're both on the same side of the tracks, I can't concur with that.
I think you're right. Whatever evidence they currently have, which depicts the murder of MM in some way, is not ticking enough boxes to link him - legally.
If they could have found the caller they could strengthen the case as a minimum, or the caller could implicate him.
Not watertight? I'm afraid that, although we're both on the same side of the tracks, I can't concur with that.
Here's why - the images were watertight enough to convict him on child porn possession charges. So if he was in them, or they went above 'abuse' in to murder, then they would have charged him accordingly at the time.
They certainly were not clairvoyant, sitting on them for 6 years to try to charge him with the murder of MM.
No, if there's images / videos then it's not these.
You are assuming that this call was in some way sinister. This may not be the case.I actually believe the caller may well be dead.
For example the caller may be dead and unable to respond, or moved to a country that is less obsessed with reporting news on Madeleine McCann. I'm sure such places do exist
images found buried under his dog...when was that...2016. iI'm sorry, but I don't believe that's how it works.
Did they immediately look at every image...how long did it take to go through all 8000...perhaps they only went through all of them when he became a suspect in the MM case
sorry...Im not interested in a pointless debate... either HCW has evidence or as angelo says hes a liar
I actually believe the caller may well be dead.
Or, despite the remonstrations to the contrary from HCW that the caller is not a suspect, which sane person would come forward to put themselves out there voluntarily, particularly a criminal.
I believe the caller is a dead or savvy criminal cohort, perhaps a nonce himself. In which case, he's in the wind.
You're right a criminal wouldn't come forward and say it was he/she who rang CB, but the Police put the number out to the public, someone could have that number in their phone or phone book. I think some people have got the number but are scared to come forward. IMOGood afternoon, Lace.
Good afternoon, Lace.
I actually believe the number was a burner; a throwaway, which were ubiquitous and unregistered at the time, otherwise the police could simply pop down to Vodafone and find out who registered the number - like they did with CB's.
This is also why I think the caller was a criminal acquaintance, perhaps one with the same proclivities.
I Agree with Angelo.
I think what Wolt is saying is - he knows Maddie is dead [in the law of average he is right]. IMO
I still believe he used Maddie for maximum publicity for whatever his hidden agenda was to keep CB behind bars.
Or someone interested in a cheap load of diesel, or even buying a car 8)-)))Quite possibly Number 4, quite possibly.
For all the reasons Ive given I think angelos idea is totally barmy...we will see. He didnt need this case to keep CB behind bars and he wont be able to keep him behind bars without evidenceWhat about this, anything? Barmy? Come on mate, we can talk freely here now we're enmeshed and embedded.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's how it works.
Because they would need to analyse every image to formulate charges. It would be quite remiss of them to charge him with simple possession if they could charge him with abuse, abduction or murder (and everything that goes with that, such as tracing missing people, dead people)
I'm not familiar with German interpretation of double jeopardy, but that must also be factored in.
Quite possibly Number 4, quite possibly.
A 30 minute conversation seems quite long for any illegal activity to be discussed.
More likely shooting the breeze with a 'friend', interspersed with dodgy dealings and future arrangements.
I'm not sure one single 30 minute call fits the model of a man loitering in a creeper van in situ planning an abduction right there and then. A succession of brief calls in and around the area would be a red flag.
And again, on his own registered number?
For all the reasons Ive given I think angelos idea is totally barmy...we will see. He didnt need this case to keep CB behind bars and he wont be able to keep him behind bars without evidence
Quite possibly Number 4, quite possibly.
A 30 minute conversation seems quite long for any illegal activity to be discussed.
More likely shooting the breeze with a 'friend', interspersed with dodgy dealings and future arrangements.
I'm not sure one single 30 minute call fits the model of a man loitering in a creeper van in situ planning an abduction right there and then. A succession of brief calls in and around the area would be a red flag.
And again, on his own registered number?
Not only that but there's no mention of either phone being used on other days.I agree with that. If the German police wanted to trace the caller, then what better way to jog the memory than to disclose whether additional calls were made.
If a major crime was being planned and executed, one might expect further dialogue after the event and also calls to other phones
To me CB comes across as an arrogant man, I think he thought he was invincible. Exposing himself to children in a park with the parents not far away. Climbing into apartments, bragging to people about what he had done. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't bother with a burner phone and just used the one he had. IMO
To me CB comes across as an arrogant man, I think he thought he was invincible. Exposing himself to children in a park with the parents not far away. Climbing into apartments, bragging to people about what he had done. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't bother with a burner phone and just used the one he had. IMO
Could very well be. I'm led to believe that this sort of offender reacts on impulse and urges and are quite opportunistic. Although I doubt this one would be bragging about child abuse, I may be wrong, but I can see him bragging about his other criminal exploits, particularly with other criminals.
To me CB comes across as an arrogant man, I think he thought he was invincible. Exposing himself to children in a park with the parents not far away. Climbing into apartments, bragging to people about what he had done. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't bother with a burner phone and just used the one he had. IMO
To me CB comes across as an arrogant man, I think he thought he was invincible. Exposing himself to children in a park with the parents not far away. Climbing into apartments, bragging to people about what he had done. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't bother with a burner phone and just used the one he had. IMO
I agree with that. If the German police wanted to trace the caller, then what better way to jog the memory than to disclose whether additional calls were made.
The caller is either dead, in the wind or in the clink.
What do you mean by 'in the wind'?On the lam, on the run. AWOL. Lesser spotted. In absentia.
Images are not forensics bit are physical or material evidence which wolters says he has
CB is supposed to have filmed himself assaulting the lady he was done rape for, this film's authenticity was never established save for words of bestest mates, its the same imo with an alleged one regarding Madeleine only this time its more serious its murder, whats stopping him questioning CB, can't actually prove the existence, no forensics no link to 5a, no body, no hope.
Hope springs eternal I see.
I think alot beats you rob. I was almost unwilling to mention it because Ive done some research and I know where it leads...and its very unpleasantWell, that sounds terrible Davel that you've researched these terrible things that you can't talk about. You're not one of these devil worshipers, are you?
From what he has said it isnt the dead body. In a similar case the perps face was pixellated so absolute ID not possible...thats about as far as I would like to go having read details of a recent case that looks similarWhich case was that?
I can see scenarios where that would not be the caseAre you turning into one of those crystal balls viewing psychics?
I think alot beats you rob. I was almost unwilling to mention it because Ive done some research and I know where it leads...and its very unpleasant
Why research it then.
It wasn't intentional.. I didn't expect to find out what I didPM us if it is that bad. Do you need moral support?
PM us if it is that bad. Do you need moral support?
Research what... Other cases on wiki..which may be related
Why research it then.
That's because it was funny.Yes but the things you find funny are the things most people find revolting.
Yes but the things you find funny are the things most people find revolting.
I'm not the one researching paedophilia.Who was doing that?
Who was doing that?Not spam OK.
Right. Now’s your chance to explain what exactly is morally reprehensible about believing that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. Off you go...
Says those that support the notion a paedo was the one that did for Madeleine.
Says those that support the notion a paedo was the one that did for Madeleine.
Perhaps we could explore the notion that the Germans should have dropped their investigation into the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile because it’s just not very nice, and the police should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking such a vile thing?
Kate was right when she disclosed the contents of her dream that Maddie was buried on a hillside overlooking Praia da Luz.What a very bizarre response to my post.
Any one who thinks it's based on a vote by persons here is an absolute fool.. It's not a matter if supporting anything.
What happened to Maddie happened ..nothing can change it.
Most likely imo she was abducted by a paedophile
I disagree. Statistically that is not the "most likely" scenario. All law enforcement agencies are well aware of this.Statistics are irrelevant when it comes to individual cases with their own set of circumstances and evidence. Statistically its more likely Joanna Yeates was murdered by her partner, but she wasn’t, for example.
I disagree. Statistically that is not the "most likely" scenario. All law enforcement agencies are well aware of this.
You are quoting general statistics.. In this case based on all the evidence I would say stranger abduction is the most likely.. By farCan you show us a breakdown of your ratios of likely scenarios?
Can you show us a breakdown of your ratios of likely scenarios?
Just the top 5.
I've done it many times... No one else is prepared to do it... Are you.Yes, it's not an act of bravery, we're not going to Vietnam, Dav, none of this matters:
Yes, it's not an act of bravery, we're not going to Vietnam, Dav, none of this matters:You appear to have flipped sides again. That didn't last long.
- Occulation of corpse post mortal accident by persons known - 21.3%
- Occulation of corpse post mortal accident by persons unknown - 20.8%
- Abduction by stranger (non-specific) - 20.4%
- Abduction by known person (non specific) - 9.7%
- Woke, horror stricken at plight / neglect, wandered (none specific fate) - 7.7%
- Woke, wandered, fell asleep in dumpster - 6.06%
- MM unilaterally decided to pursue a better life, due to neglect - 5.1%
- MM recruited persons unknown to assist in pursuance of a better life, due to neglect - 4.1%
- Persons known supplanted MM to new location to save her from neglect - 2.83%
- Really good at hide and seek - 0.031%
- Alien abduction - 0.0029%
- Snatched due to Ancient Canaanite bloodline - 0.002%
There's a few oddball theories that I've omitted for brevity.
You appear to have flipped sides again. That didn't last long.What are you talking about? That's a very even-handed spread.
What are you talking about? That's a very even-handed spread.Please supply your workings out then to show how you came to your percentages.
I'm a sceptical, agnostic, neo-supporter supporting realist. I've got pamphlets.
Please supply your workings out then to show how you came to your percentages.I have devised an algorithm based on rigorous mathematical analysis by expressing it through a set of axioms.
I have devised an algorithm based on rigorous mathematical analysis by expressing it through a set of axioms.Let's see them then.
These axioms are assigned values based on numerical variable hierarchy based on Pascal's 'Problem of Points' theory.
Let's see them then.OK.
OK.Why did you use a quill and ink? don't you have excel? It seems to me like you are making poor excuses of the "dog ate my homework" variety. I call bs.
They're handwritten, so it will take a wee while to redact, scan, upload and post.
Plus quill-written calculations often don't scan too well, something to do with the opacity of Bombay Violet ink colour and light refraction during the scanning process.
Statistics are irrelevant when it comes to individual cases with their own set of circumstances and evidence. Statistically its more likely Joanna Yeates was murdered by her partner, but she wasn’t, for example.
Well of course when a case concludes we are wise to the actual event. This case hasn't concluded so we can't claim "the most likely scenario is she was abducted by a paedophile". This is not the "most likely" scenario. If it's proved that this did happen then we can say that it was a rare case of stranger abduction.
We can claim its the most likely scenario based on all the available evidence
There's little evidence, if any, of stranger abduction. Unless you think the fact that she is missing is evidence enough.So what is your interpretation of the odds... Do you think it's most likely the parents are involved
There's little evidence, if any, of stranger abduction. Unless you think the fact that she is missing is evidence enough.
There's little evidence, if any, of stranger abduction. Unless you think the fact that she is missing is evidence enough.
There's little evidence, if any, of stranger abduction. Unless you think the fact that she is missing is evidence enough.Thanks for your insight. Perhaps you should contact the Met and the German prosecutor and tell them that statistically it's highly unlikely Madeleine was abducted and see what they come back with. It may not have occurred to them and they may thank you.
There's little evidence, if any, of stranger abduction.Thank god at least that the Germans have a proper legal system where CB does not have to prove his innocence.. What a disgrace to justice Portugal are
Exactly non what so ever - seems the mccs friends let them down on that too.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
Well of course when a case concludes we are wise to the actual event. This case hasn't concluded so we can't claim "the most likely scenario is she was abducted by a paedophile". This is not the "most likely" scenario. If it's proved that this did happen then we can say that it was a rare case of stranger abduction.In this case what would you suggest was the most likely scenario, statistically speaking? That the family did it?
Thank god at least that the Germans have a proper legal system where CB does not have to prove his innocence.. What a disgrace to justice Portugal are
Thank god at least that the Germans have a proper legal system where CB does not have to prove his innocence.. What a disgrace to justice Portugal are
The McCanns and their friends were interested only in finding Madeleine, or so they said. They thought the reconstruction requested by the PJ wouldn't help to find Madeleine so they refused to take part.
On the other hand the couple were arguidos, meaning that the PJ suspected them of being involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Taking part in the reconstruction could have shown that the group's timeline and their accounts of the evening were correct. Why would they think that wouldn't help?
We've been through it many times. The PJ had made their mind up that the mccanns we're guilty. Have you ever heard any judicial system require a suspect to prove their innocence... It's an absolute disgrace
The McCanns and their friends were interested only in finding Madeleine, or so they said. They thought the reconstruction requested by the PJ wouldn't help to find Madeleine so they refused to take part.
On the other hand the couple were arguidos, meaning that the PJ suspected them of being involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Taking part in the reconstruction could have shown that the group's timeline and their accounts of the evening were correct. Why would they think that wouldn't help?
There's little evidence, if any, of stranger abduction.
Exactly non what so ever - seems the mccs friends let them down on that too.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
You want CB to provide a alibi to prove his innocence, thats a disgrace.
You want CB to provide a alibi to prove his innocence, thats a disgrace.
Christian Brueckner can please himself. I don't care what he does.
No ones asking him to prove his innocence ..he's innocent until proven guilty. The mccanns hadn't even been charged and were being asked to prove innocence
I'm sure he'll be pleased to have your blessing.
Do you or not see no reason why he shouldn't provide an alibi.
The McCanns and their friends were interested only in finding Madeleine, or so they said. They thought the reconstruction requested by the PJ wouldn't help to find Madeleine so they refused to take part.
On the other hand the couple were arguidos, meaning that the PJ suspected them of being involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Taking part in the reconstruction could have shown that the group's timeline and their accounts of the evening were correct. Why would they think that wouldn't help?
There is nothing even remotely strange about providing an Alibi, if you have one.
But it seems they have more than that according to HCW. It also seems CB will have no alibi for one or more days . That will also be significant. I think HCW is building his case carefully and CB will be charged. You and others disagree. No point in debating it we will know soon enough
It's a double edged sword. If CB cannot say who he spoke to then further evidence of guilt
He hasn't got an Alibi?
We've been through it many times. The PJ had made their mind up that the mccanns we're guilty. Have you ever heard any judicial system require a suspect to prove their innocence... It's an absolute disgrace
Explain , why ? at this moment in time he needs one.
The McCanns and their friends were interested only in finding Madeleine, or so they said. They thought the reconstruction requested by the PJ wouldn't help to find Madeleine so they refused to take part.It could have shown that there were inconsistencies in the various accounts, then what? Bang 'em up?
On the other hand the couple were arguidos, meaning that the PJ suspected them of being involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Taking part in the reconstruction could have shown that the group's timeline and their accounts of the evening were correct. Why would they think that wouldn't help?
Do you or not see no reason why he shouldn't provide an alibi.LOL, try untwisting that one!
We've been through it many times.At last, the dogs!! It's been an AGE since we discussed blessed Eddie and Keela. Let's not forget "dogs don't lie" Just "ask the dogs, Sandra".
It doesn't matter how many times you go through things its a forum FGS.
the dogs IMO were not wrong with everything - specially trained dogs it seems got everything wrong impossible IMO.
Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).
From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
2 - That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
3 - Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);
5 - In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);
6 - This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault - 59-DA-27 - that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
7 - Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
8 - The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
9 - After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
10 - It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
11 - It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
12 - Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
13 - This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.
The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.
We've been through it many times.
It doesn't matter how many times you go through things its a forum FGS.
the dogs IMO were not wrong with everything - specially trained dogs it seems got everything wrong impossible IMO.
Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).
From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
2 - That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
3 - Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);
5 - In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);
6 - This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault - 59-DA-27 - that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
7 - Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
8 - The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
9 - After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
10 - It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
11 - It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
12 - Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
13 - This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.
The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.
At last, the dogs!! It's been an AGE since we discussed blessed Eddie and Keela. Let's not forget "dogs don't lie" Just "ask the dogs, Sandra".
Well they don't lie do they - but its a bit much IMO too say they got every single thing wrong.So tell us what evidence they found again?
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/9ehuov/the_canine_evidence_in_the_disappearance_of/
What does this tell us? DNA can be compromised or contaminated, fingerprints can be smudged or explained in many ways but how can these two British dogs identifying blood and the smell of a dead body in so many areas be discounted?
While it could be said that Madeleine may have died in the apartment and then been removed by an unknown party, how can the evidence found in the new apartment and car almost a month after the disappearance be explained?
Why has this evidence not been given more credit for its indication of the McCann's having more to do with the disappearance and likely death of their daughter?
I'm sure there's not, he's not been questioned, you and davel and others think the Mccann's were treated harshly, yet davel say's this of one who hasn't even been questioned.Notice no imo.
The legend is writ and firmed by the hero's on here.
We've been through it many times.
It doesn't matter how many times you go through things its a forum FGS.
the dogs IMO were not wrong with everything - specially trained dogs it seems got everything wrong impossible IMO.
Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).
From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
2 - That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
3 - Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);
5 - In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);
6 - This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault - 59-DA-27 - that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
7 - Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
8 - The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
9 - After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
10 - It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
11 - It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
12 - Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
13 - This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.
The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.
Lest we forget.Has he died?
Martin Grime
Honorary Research Fellow (Burial Research Group, Forensic Canine Research and Development Group) School of Law, Policing and Forensics Staffordshire University
Honorary Research Fellow, School of Science and Technology Nottingham Trent University
https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-grime-9724a78/?originalSubdomain=uk
Lest we forget.
Martin Grime
Honorary Research Fellow (Burial Research Group, Forensic Canine Research and Development Group) School of Law, Policing and Forensics Staffordshire University
Honorary Research Fellow, School of Science and Technology Nottingham Trent University
https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-grime-9724a78/?originalSubdomain=uk
So tell us what evidence they found again?
The alerts we're a total red Herring... Total BS IMO.
It's along explanation eeve been through many times.
It's clear neither SY nor the BKk consider the alerts of any value.
What is it about... No evidential reliability ...you and others don't understand
Hang on a doggone minute there. You posted a screed suggesting that we must not ignore all the evidence the dog alerts revealed, so why don't you tell us what all that evidence was? You must have posted that excerpt for a reason....
What evidence have they found against CB?...yet Wolt believes Maddie is dead.
What is it about... No evidential reliability ...you and others don't understand
Lol that just might come back to bite you - when CB is never charged imo
Hang on a doggone minute there. You posted a screed suggesting that we must not ignore all the evidence the dog alerts revealed, so why don't you tell us what all that evidence was? You must have posted that excerpt for a reason....
, how can the evidence found in the new apartment and car almost a month after the disappearance be explained?
Why has this evidence not been given more credit for its indication of the McCann's having more to do with the disappearance and likely death of their daughter?
Well they don't lie do they - but its a bit much IMO too say they got every single thing wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/9ehuov/the_canine_evidence_in_the_disappearance_of/
What does this tell us? DNA can be compromised or contaminated, fingerprints can be smudged or explained in many ways but how can these two British dogs identifying blood and the smell of a dead body in so many areas be discounted?
While it could be said that Madeleine may have died in the apartment and then been removed by an unknown party, how can the evidence found in the new apartment and car almost a month after the disappearance be explained?
Why has this evidence not been given more credit for its indication of the McCann's having more to do with the disappearance and likely death of their daughter?
Has he died?
The beleif in the dogs abilties are based to a certain extent on lies. Im not easily taken in.
So you believe dogs lie then.
As for not been easily taken in [your posts] that remains to be seen IMO
I think certain posters need to understand the difference between unreliable and requiring further evidence. The dog alerts are intelligence but not in themselves proof.
I think certain posters need to understand the difference between unreliable and requiring further evidence. The dog alerts are intelligence but not in themselves proof.
So you believe dogs lie then.
As for not been easily taken in [your posts] that remains to be seen IMO
Especially when they said they would do anything to help - especially when the said facts remain unclarified.
IMO it obviously had something to do with the timeline - it has never been checked.
You would have thought also the mccs themselves would have wanted to know where everyone was and what they were doing.
IIRC the tapas were not all known to the mccs - so if the mcs thought an abduction took place you would have thought that everything should have been checked out and not by assuming it was by a stranger IMO.
IMO the only purpose of the reconstitution requested by PJ was to prove that there was insufficient time between checks for an abduction to have occurred, thus adding to circumstantial evidence against the parents. By attempting to prove that their checks were both frequent & diligent, T9 would have actually been adding to PJ belief that no abduction could have occurred - a double-edged sword only pointed at guilt.
We have already learned through the media that CB's lawyer has stated there was only a 90sec timeframe for an abduction to have occurred, meaning his client couldn't possibly have committed such a crime in such a short time.
As we've digressed from the main topic to the dogs, I'd like to ask the following question:-
What was so significant about the wicker chair that warranted Keela's prolonged examination of it, despite the fact Eddie had not alerted to it in earlier deployment? I understood Keela was only used where Eddie had already alerted. The chair was in the children's bedroom on May 3rd but situated in the parents' bedroom when Grime's dogs were deployed in 5A.
https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=2143
And now you might understand finally why no one in their right mind would want take part in such a blatant exercise of entrapment.
Sounds a reasonable objective to me.
IMO the only purpose of the reconstitution requested by PJ was to prove that there was insufficient time between checks for an abduction to have occurred, thus adding to circumstantial evidence against the parents. By attempting to prove that their checks were both frequent & diligent, T9 would have actually been adding to PJ belief that no abduction could have occurred - a double-edged sword only pointed at guilt.
We have already learned through the media that CB's lawyer has stated there was only a 90sec timeframe for an abduction to have occurred, meaning his client couldn't possibly have committed such a crime in such a short time.
And now you might understand finally why no one in their right mind would want take part in such a blatant exercise of entrapment.
It sounds like the group weren't confident that their story would stand up to close inspection.
Did Keela alert to the chair? If not it’s irrelevant.No, she didn't but that wasn't my question. I asked what the significance of the chair was when Eddie hadn't alerted to it or near it in the first instance.
It sounds like the group weren't confident that their story would stand up to close inspection.There were 9 slightly different versions of that night’s events. Which one would they have agreed upon and ehat would that have meant for those accounts which were slightly different? They could of course have all got their stories to match exactly before speaking to the police at all, would that have been more or less suspicious in your view?
In your opinion... Try to remember that.
Imo they did not trust the PJ and who can blame them
Showing the PJ that everything they said was true would have been a better reaction than staying away in my opinion. That just made it seem like they weren't able to do so, and, what's more, they knew it.It was impossible for Jez, Jane and Gerry to agree on what happened in their own reconstruction, so what hope all 10 of them? It doesn’t mean any of them was lying just recalling things slightly differently. Do you understand this?
It was impossible for Jez, Jane and Gerry to agree on what happened in their own reconstruction, so what hope all 10 of them? It doesn’t mean any of them was lying just recalling things slightly differently. Do you understand this?
Jes Wilkins' wife says he returned just before 9.30pm. I assume it would take between 5 and 10 minutes to reach his apartment from the location where he spoke with Gerry McCann. So why, I wonder, did he say he spoke to Gerry some time between 8.45pm and 9.15pm? If he spoke to him at 8.45pm he would have arrived home at 9pm, not 9.30pm.There you go. A perfect example of how a reconstituion would have been nigh on impossible and/ or completely pointless.
No, she didn't but that wasn't my question. I asked what the significance of the chair was when Eddie hadn't alerted to it or near it in the first instance.
Why do you think that the chair was significant?
I've absolutely no idea, which is why I posed the question for people to discuss. The examination of the chair was inconsistent with the way Eddie & Keela operated imo.
There you go. A perfect example of how a reconstituion would have been nigh on impossible and/ or completely pointless.
Can I ask when you did your VRD training?
So what is your interpretation of the odds... Do you think it's most likely the parents are involved
I think you need to read what Grime said again. Its this misunderstanding that leads you to the wrong conclusions.
Grime never mentioned proof...he said the alerts were intelligence...not evidence. Have another look and you will see Im right
The alerts we're a total red Herring... Total BS IMO.
It's along explanation eeve been through many times.
It's clear neither SY nor the BKk consider the alerts of any value.
What is it about... No evidential reliability ...you and others don't understand
There is No Evidence that The McCanns harmed their daughter. Unless you have some, of course.
Jes Wilkins' wife says he returned just before 9.30pm. I assume it would take between 5 and 10 minutes to reach his apartment from the location where he spoke with Gerry McCann. So why, I wonder, did he say he spoke to Gerry some time between 8.45pm and 9.15pm? If he spoke to him at 8.45pm he would have arrived home at 9pm, not 9.30pm.
Jes Wilkins' wife says he returned just before 9.30pm. I assume it would take between 5 and 10 minutes to reach his apartment from the location where he spoke with Gerry McCann. So why, I wonder, did he say he spoke to Gerry some time between 8.45pm and 9.15pm? If he spoke to him at 8.45pm he would have arrived home at 9pm, not 9.30pm.
I find it interesting because in theory all Wilkins had to do was work backwards from when he arrived home and he would have known beyond doubt that he met with Gerry McCann after 9pm, so why did he refuse to do that? Why did he insist on including the 15 minutes from 8.45pm to 9pm? That only makes sense if it was possible that he met Gerry during that 15 minutes, and if he did he either arrived home earlier than his wife said or he met Gerry on his way out, not on his way back.
I find it interesting because in theory all Wilkins had to do was work backwards from when he arrived home and he would have known beyond doubt that he met with Gerry McCann after 9pm, so why did he refuse to do that? Why did he insist on including the 15 minutes from 8.45pm to 9pm? That only makes sense if it was possible that he met Gerry during that 15 minutes, and if he did he either arrived home earlier than his wife said or he met Gerry on his way out, not on his way back.And I find it interesting that you keep avoiding my point.
What is it about 95% accuracy according to peer reviewed research don't you understand? The alerts can't be discounted as "BS" as someone else stated above. The alerts led to the collection of human cellular material. What the FSS failed to establish was whether some of this material came from Madeleine McCann. Perhaps it was that nosebleed she might of had, perhaps not! We don't know unless the DNA evidence is re-examined when scientific technology moves forward.Re-examination of the “human cellular material “ isn’t going to tell you if it was a nosebleed or not.
You didn't address my point. I said there is little, if any, evidence to suggest stranger abduction in this case. The German authorities will no doubt be forced to concede this - or present the evidence they have in court.
What is it about 95% accuracy according to peer reviewed research don't you understand? The alerts can't be discounted as "BS" as someone else stated above. The alerts led to the collection of human cellular material. What the FSS failed to establish was whether some of this material came from Madeleine McCann. Perhaps it was that nosebleed she might of had, perhaps not! We don't know unless the DNA evidence is re-examined when scientific technology moves forward.
What is it about 95% accuracy according to peer reviewed research don't you understand? The alerts can't be discounted as "BS" as someone else stated above. The alerts led to the collection of human cellular material. What the FSS failed to establish was whether some of this material came from Madeleine McCann. Perhaps it was that nosebleed she might of had, perhaps not! We don't know unless the DNA evidence is re-examined when scientific technology moves forward.
Because of the nose bleed there is no way that any blood alert can be linked to any supposed abductor, defence already secured.? If Bruckner’s DNA is found amongst the “human cellular material” then why not?
? If Bruckner’s DNA is found amongst the “human cellular material” then why not?
If there’s anything to be gained from re-examining the DNA then do it, I’m sure it’s a police decision at the end of the day, not mine, yours or Perlin’s.
His DNA is obviously known, thats ruled him out, unless you think Perlins offer should be taken up to further it.How do we know its not been, he's not repeated his offer.
Erm, can dogs speak? I must have missed that. What was it the dogs were saying?
I am able to read & understand how Grime stated his dogs were deployed. There was no alert to the wicker chair by Eddie during his run through. What reason could Grime have had for choosing that specific item for Keela to spend a prolonged period scenting?
To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?
Jes Wilkins wife said he returned just before 9.30pm.
Jez said that he talked to Gerry some time between 8.45pm and 9.15pm
If Jez talked with Gerry at 9.15pm then he would have arrived home just before 9.30pm . QED
What's your problem Gunit ?
How do you know they haven't already done so.Because HCW is still talking about the investigation and there are reports that CB is to be questioned about the case this year. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they have stopped investigating Brückner, unless you have some?
The reason being no evidence.
Nearly eight months now when Wolt came out with all guns blazing.
Because HCW is still talking about the investigation and there are reports that CB is to be questioned about the case this year. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they have stopped investigating Brückner, unless you have some?
Talk is not evidence in other words IMO you are just speculating that something might happen this year.
No, I haven't any evidence - same as Wolt hasn't it seems.
Talk is not evidence in other words IMO you are just speculating that something might happen this year.If the German prosecutor says they are still investigating Brückner then that is evidence they are still investigating Bruckner, end of.
No, I haven't any evidence - same as Wolt hasn't it seems.
If Wolters doesn't produce the evidence then CB can sue him.. I look forward to it
So do I. Then the evidence will come out. Not a good idea for Brueckner.
I’m not sure that it’ll be Wolter that Brueckner will sue.Who then?
I’m not sure that it’ll be Wolter that Brueckner will sue.
If Wolters doesn't produce the evidence then CB can sue him.. I look forward to it
Speculation again.
I would look forward to CB being charged as the abductor - to see what can of worms would be opened if he was
No way would he be capable of pulling this off on his own..
No evidence of him was found in 5a...
Then, Kate Healy ran to the restaurant, immediately alerting Gerald McCann and the other friends;
- Following that alert, the entire apartment was searched and rummaged by an indeterminate number of people, thus resulting in the contamination of traces, with irreversible and undetermined damage in terms of the acquisition of evidence;
Did kmc & gmcc ever explain why they deleted information on their phones?
Was the content of any text messages ever revealed?
What a splendid idea clearing their phones of old calls. It is obvious that they have organised minds and have made the space on their phones for a rush of messages that such a devastating happening as their daughter vanishing would create.
How I wish that I had the same organisational skills. I tend to miss everything because I haven't prepared properly. Kate and Gerry did.
Well done Kate and Gerry.
Speculation again.You mean all the calls and texts they made to CB's phone? That's what you are implying arent' you?
I would look forward to CB being charged as the abductor - to see what can of worms would be opened if he was
No way would he be capable of pulling this off on his own..
No evidence of him was found in 5a...
Then, Kate Healy ran to the restaurant, immediately alerting Gerald McCann and the other friends;
- Following that alert, the entire apartment was searched and rummaged by an indeterminate number of people, thus resulting in the contamination of traces, with irreversible and undetermined damage in terms of the acquisition of evidence;
Did kmc & gmcc ever explain why they deleted information on their phones?
Was the content of any text messages ever revealed?
Yes well done.How you do enjoy using Kate's words with which to beat her time and again, it's such an unpleasant characteristic of yours. IMO.
They were ‘non functioning’ as Kate admits but ‘functioning’ enough to clear their phone memories.
Glad they got their priorities right though a little more searching and a little less phone activity may not have gone amiss.
Yes well done.
They were ‘non functioning’ as Kate admits but ‘functioning’ enough to clear their phone memories.
Glad they got their priorities right though a little more searching and a little less phone activity may not have gone amiss.
How you do enjoy using Kate's words with which to beat her time and again, it's such an unpleasant characteristic of yours. IMO.
That sounds like you're reproaching Faithlilly for noticing, and drawing attention to, the fact that Kate McCann's words and actions differed. What you seem to be ignoring is that Kate's actions cast doubt upon her words. It's an unpleasant characteristic of yours to blame the person who notices an anomaly rather than the person who created it imo.
That sounds like you're reproaching Faithlilly for noticing, and drawing attention to, the fact that Kate McCann's words and actions differed. What you seem to be ignoring is that Kate's actions cast doubt upon her words. It's an unpleasant characteristic of yours to blame the person who notices an anomaly rather than the person who created it imo.Whatever. You're entitled to your opinion and I to mine. At least I'm only criticising an anonymous nobody on the net, whereas the anonymous nobody is criticising the mother of a missing child for doing something that she may not even have done herself (did Kate say she deleted the messages herself or did her husband on a friend free up the space on her phone for her, at her behest?) and using it to sneerily suggest that Kate was not bothered enough to get out and search for her own daughter which is patently false.
Accusing another of their own behavior is a classic gaslighter's tactic.LOL
That sounds like you're reproaching Faithlilly for noticing, and drawing attention to, the fact that Kate McCann's words and actions differed. What you seem to be ignoring is that Kate's actions cast doubt upon her words. It's an unpleasant characteristic of yours to blame the person who notices an anomaly rather than the person who created it imo.It's focusing on one phrase out of Kate's book "non-functioning" and blowing it up into evidence of suspicious behaviour that is so unattractive and unpleasant, and well, downright pathetic, IMO. "Non-functioning" means what, exactly? Unable to walk, talk, breathe? Unable to perform simple tasks? Or does it simply describe a state of mind, a numb devastation, the inability to control ones thoughts, to feel helpless and panicky? Why is this phrase so significant to you, apart from as a useful tool with which to cast doubt on other actions that Kate said she performed that night? All completely irrelevant of course as she is not a suspect, a German paedophile and rapist is, hard though it is for you to get your head around.
The problem, Sadie, is that if you and I can make the calculation and arrive at the approx. time the men met, why couldn't or wouldn't Wilkins do the same?
What a splendid idea clearing their phones of old calls. It is obvious that they have organised minds and have made the space on their phones for a rush of messages that such a devastating happening as their daughter vanishing would create.
How I wish that I had the same organisational skills. I tend to miss everything because I haven't prepared properly. Kate and Gerry did.
Well done Kate and Gerry.
You mean all the calls and texts they made to CB's phone? That's what you are implying arent' you?
I agree...they were obviously hiding something imo..As you believe Madeleine left the apartment and was knocked down by a car after these deleted calls were made, what do you think the McCanns were hiding exactly?
As for the Germans dropping their investigation, it will fizzle out eventually.
Well seems its what your thinking.I'm thinking that's what you're thinking, am I right or am I wrong?
How come that you chose the calculation that made Jez and Jerry look liars, when it was so obvious that using the later time given by Brigitte, Jez and Gerry were spot on ?
It seemed devious to me to chose the earlier time, omitting the later time which was spot on? Why did you do that?
What is unexplained is why Wilkins chose to suggest he might have met Gerry McCann earlier than Gerry said he did.It's totally irrelevant, especially to the thread topic.
As you believe Madeleine left the apartment and was knocked down by a car after these deleted calls were made, what do you think the McCanns were hiding exactly?
It's focusing on one phrase out of Kate's book "non-functioning" and blowing it up into evidence of suspicious behaviour that is so unattractive and unpleasant, and well, downright pathetic, IMO. "Non-functioning" means what, exactly? Unable to walk, talk, breathe? Unable to perform simple tasks? Or does it simply describe a state of mind, a numb devastation, the inability to control ones thoughts, to feel helpless and panicky? Why is this phrase so significant to you, apart from as a useful tool with which to cast doubt on other actions that Kate said she performed that night? All completely irrelevant of course as she is not a suspect, a German paedophile and rapist is, hard though it is for you to get your head around.
According to Kate McCann non-functioning seemed to mean a lack of strength of some kind;
Mrs McCann said: "The first 48 hours were incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning I'd say, but after that we got strength from somewhere."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
For her husband it was;
the "information void" in the first 48 hours of the investigation was the "hardest thing for Kate and I to deal with".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
By 10pm on Saturday 5th then, they were recovering whatever 'strength' they had lacked earlier because;
The McCanns said "communication channels" had opened since then: "Certainly at the minute we are happy about how information is conveyed to us."
And they said it had helped "tremendously" when they began to take some control of publicity around the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
So lack of control and information seems to have been what drained their strength in the first 48 hours.
According to Kate McCann non-functioning seemed to mean a lack of strength of some kind;So like I said then, “non-functioning” did not mean their ability to perform simple tasks was completely compromised, so no mystery there, just using Kate’s words as a stick with which to beat her. Thanks for clarifying.
Mrs McCann said: "The first 48 hours were incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning I'd say, but after that we got strength from somewhere."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
For her husband it was;
the "information void" in the first 48 hours of the investigation was the "hardest thing for Kate and I to deal with".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
By 10pm on Saturday 5th then, they were recovering whatever 'strength' they had lacked earlier because;
The McCanns said "communication channels" had opened since then: "Certainly at the minute we are happy about how information is conveyed to us."
And they said it had helped "tremendously" when they began to take some control of publicity around the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
So lack of control and information seems to have been what drained their strength in the first 48 hours.
Can you think of any good reason for members to indulge in a hate fest which is tolerated and abetted by those who have been appointed to keep order ~ for example ~ the discussion topic should be, Re: Should the Germans Have Dropped Their Investigation By Now?
Some posters do appear to take other member’s comments rather too personally. It almost as if they’re frien.....nah, that can’t be true.And would that be a problem if it was true? Actually it might be - for you.
Can you think of any good reason for members to indulge in a hate fest which is tolerated and abetted by those who have been appointed to keep order ~ for example ~ the discussion topic should be, Re: Should the Germans Have Dropped Their Investigation By Now?
A hate fest? What on earth makes you think such a thing is going on, rather than a discussion about available evidence? In my opinion some people are too sensitive and see hate where none exists.
I’m not sure why anyone would think that the revealing of someone’s true identity would be a problem...everyone does have a right to disbelieve the parents. The only problem would be if it triggered the behaviour of zealots, on both sides, who use that information to make mischief.You'd need to take that up with ADMIN.
Of course what would be unconscionable is the moderator of a well known Facebook page revealing the personal details of a contact, against all data protection laws, knowing that that information may be used to cause harm. Now that would be a problem.
Is revealing my email address a breach of GDPR?
The Data Protection Act stipulates that you must take all reasonable measures to ensure the data you hold, such as people's email addresses, are not divulged to third parties unless they have given you permission to do so. ... This is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act.
The German police haven't released details of all the evidence they have against CB. Why, therefore, are some posters clamouring for the Germans to drop their investigation so those same posters can justify continuation of meaningless discussions about unproven evidence against the parents?
I’m not sure why anyone would think that the revealing of someone’s true identity would be a problem...everyone does have a right to disbelieve the parents. The only problem would be if it triggered the behaviour of zealots, on both sides, who use that information to make mischief.LOL
Of course what would be unconscionable is the moderator of a well known Facebook page revealing the personal details of a contact, against all data protection laws, knowing that that information may be used to cause harm. Now that would be a problem.
Is revealing my email address a breach of GDPR?
The Data Protection Act stipulates that you must take all reasonable measures to ensure the data you hold, such as people's email addresses, are not divulged to third parties unless they have given you permission to do so. ... This is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act.
The German police haven't released details of all the evidence they have against CB. Why, therefore, are some posters clamouring for the Germans to drop their investigation so those same posters can justify continuation of meaningless discussions about unproven evidence against the parents?A very good question.
What's with this clamoring ? Do you really think that anyone is paying attention to anything said on this forum ?
The German police haven't released details of all the evidence they have against CB. Why, therefore, are some posters clamouring for the Germans to drop their investigation so those same posters can justify continuation of meaningless discussions about unproven evidence against the parents?
The German police have released details of no evidence against CB, except a phone call to a phone which may have been his and which was in PdL or nearby at 7.30pm on 3rd May. The prosecutor has admitted there isn't enough evidence to arrest or charge their suspect.you have your blinkers on then, imo.
The only clamour I can see is by those who have spent 13 years trying to convince others that the first investigation was wrong/incompetent/stupid/corrupt/backward, and that the McCanns were and are pure as the driven snow.
you have your blinkers on then, imo.
The German police have released details of no evidence against CB, except a phone call to a phone which may have been his and which was in PdL or nearby at 7.30pm on 3rd May. The prosecutor has admitted there isn't enough evidence to arrest or charge their suspect.
The only clamour I can see is by those who have spent 13 years trying to convince others that the first investigation was wrong/incompetent/stupid/corrupt/backward, and that the McCanns were and are pure as the driven snow.
You'd need to take that up with ADMIN.
BKA are investigating their suspect retrospectively rather than in real time. They reached a point whereby a public appeal was needed to acquire certain information to fill in gaps in their knowledge about the suspect & his movements during the intervening years. Surely, for the purpose of ensuring the truth is uncovered, you cannot begrudge German (and UK) police time to achieve the correct & successful result PJ failed to deliver all those years ago.Which would/will be?
Don’t worry Rob...I don’t think that we’ll be having any more posts in the same vein.Don’t count on it, your pathetic attempts at intimidation have been noted and dismissed.
Oh yes. And accusing anyone who thought and still thinks that there are many unanswered questions arising from the first investigation of being stupid, biased, blinkered, vindictive, or otherwise lacking.Crikey, I said blinkered (for not seeing the absolute determination of some people on here to ridicule the German investigation and keep all eyes focused on the parents), not any of the other words. Chill.
BKA are investigating their suspect retrospectively rather than in real time. They reached a point whereby a public appeal was needed to acquire certain information to fill in gaps in their knowledge about the suspect & his movements during the intervening years. Surely, for the purpose of ensuring the truth is uncovered, you cannot begrudge German (and UK) police time to achieve the correct & successful result PJ failed to deliver all those years ago.
From what I've seen the BKA are exploring the possibility that CB was involved in various unsolved crimes against children across Europe, including Madeleine McCann. That's why they they asked for information which might place him in PdL on or around 3rd May 2007. Whether they are on the trail of 'the truth' remains to be seen.
Don’t count on it, your pathetic attempts at intimidation have been noted and dismissed.
Crikey, I said blinkered (for not seeing the absolute determination of some people on here to ridicule the German investigation and keep all eyes focused on the parents), not any of the other words. Chill.
I'm perfectly chilled, thank you. I just wanted to make it clear that the various ploys used by some to try to silence others have been noticed.
In my opinion those who, based on what we know, think the Germans have a case are relying on wishful thinking rather than facts, because the BKA have given us very few of those. They may find the evidence they seek, but they don't have it yet.
I'm perfectly chilled, thank you. I just wanted to make it clear that the various ploys used by some to try to silence others have been noticed.
In my opinion those who, based on what we know, think the Germans have a case are relying on wishful thinking rather than facts, because the BKA have given us very few of those. They may find the evidence they seek, but they don't have it yet.
I'm perfectly chilled, thank you. I just wanted to make it clear that the various ploys used by some to try to silence others have been noticed.Can you give me an example of some of the "various ploys to silence others" you think you see? Actually scrub that, I really don't give two hoots for your opinion, and as for your views on the investigation they are entirely worthless IMO because you don't have the full facts at your disposal. As for me, I'm open minded, and content to wait and see what transpires without feeling the need to continually state as fact that the Germans have nothing and are barking up the wrong tree and that HCW is a liar or a fool as some on here have done. That's the clamour being referred to by Misty, I believe, and the fact that people like you and Faith would much rather pick at old scabs like what Kate wrote in her book and call her out on it for your own amusement, when that is sooooooo last decade. But no doubt you think you're fulfilling some vitally important function by constantly deflecting from and belittling the current investigation and continually returning to all your "doubts" about the McCanns for a long, long time to come. Far be it for me to silence you, but don't think you will silence me from having my views about your agenda either.
In my opinion those who, based on what we know, think the Germans have a case are relying on wishful thinking rather than facts, because the BKA have given us very few of those. They may find the evidence they seek, but they don't have it yet.
Can you give me an example of some of the "various ploys to silence others" you think you see? Actually scrub that, I really don't give two hoots for your opinion, and as for your views on the investigation they are entirely worthless IMO because you don't have the full facts at your disposal. As for me, I'm open minded, and content to wait and see what transpires without feeling the need to continually state as fact that the Germans have nothing and are barking up the wrong tree and that HCW is a liar or a fool as some on here have done. That's the clamour being referred to by Misty, I believe, and the fact that people like you and Faith would much rather pick at old scabs like what Kate wrote in her book and call her out on it for your own amusement, when that is sooooooo last decade. But no doubt you think you're fulfilling some vitally important function by constantly deflecting from and belittling the current investigation and continually returning to all your "doubts" about the McCanns for a long, long time to come. Far be it for me to silence you, but don't think you will silence me from having my views about your agenda either.
I think I've made my point. I expect bandwagons will continue to come along for those who need them. Those of us who don't need them will no doubt continue to point out that moving on requires closure and that the PJ's findings have never been explained, dismissed or replaced by new evidence imo.No, you just stick on the "Parents Dunnit" bandwagon and you should be good for another few years yet.
Can you give me an example of some of the "various ploys to silence others" you think you see? Actually scrub that, I really don't give two hoots for your opinion, and as for your views on the investigation they are entirely worthless IMO because you don't have the full facts at your disposal. As for me, I'm open minded, and content to wait and see what transpires without feeling the need to continually state as fact that the Germans have nothing and are barking up the wrong tree and that HCW is a liar or a fool as some on here have done. That's the clamour being referred to by Misty, I believe, and the fact that people like you and Faith would much rather pick at old scabs like what Kate wrote in her book and call her out on it for your own amusement, when that is sooooooo last decade. But no doubt you think you're fulfilling some vitally important function by constantly deflecting from and belittling the current investigation and continually returning to all your "doubts" about the McCanns for a long, long time to come. Far be it for me to silence you, but don't think you will silence me from having my views about your agenda either.
A lot of the problem on here imo is that some have CB as the abductor - without any evidence he is whatsoever.Believe what you like, but when you try and make something out of nothing to make a vindictive and spiteful point that is classed as "beating with a stick" imo.
Not even really any circumstantial apart from a mobile phone number IIRC was found in a book connecting it to CB.
Why should what Wolt keeps saying be took as gospel he has proved nothing to date.
The mccs on the other hand has not been totally cleared of any involvement.
Yet to believe they are involved in what happened to Maddie is classed as beating them with a stick.
If I thought for one moment IMM they were totally innocent I would not give this forum the time of day.
IMO the only people beaten with a stick are the ones who have done no harm to any other poster apart from having a different opinion to them by believing the mccs are involved in some way.
Nothing as yet is set in stone what happened to Maddie on the 3rd of May 2007 apart from she disappeared.
No, you just stick on the "Parents Dunnit" bandwagon and you should be good for another few years yet.
I don't know who did or didn't do it. All I know is that the PJ imo had as much if not more reason to suspect parental involvement as they had to suspect stranger abduction.
imo they didnt....they misunderstood the evidence...that isnt opinion its a documented fact
Believe what you like, but when you try and make something out of nothing to make a vindictive and spiteful point that is classed as "beating with a stick" imo.
I don't know who did or didn't do it. All I know is that the PJ imo had as much if not more reason to suspect parental involvement as they had to suspect stranger abduction.As you liked a post by wonderfulspam in which he claimed the PJ solved the case in 2007 that would indicate to me that you think you do know what happened and are very much of the "parents dunnit" opinion. Further, you have claimed abduction was virtually impossible. There's really no need to keep up the pretense of impartiality any further, I think I know exactly where you're coming from.
Why is it spiteful and vindictive...how many times have I been accused of beating kmcc with a stick or a hate fest.I wasn't referring to you on this occasion. Like I said, think what you like, and I will think what I like about you and your ilk, that seems a fair trade off, no?
The opinion I have is that they could still be involved in what happened to Maddie - si why should I have any empathy for the woman.
It doesn't matter over a decade has gone by there is still no proof that CB is abductor so why should that be concentrated on more than the mccs.
Any way not hanging around etertaining you all day places to go people to see [I wish lol]
imo they didnt....they misunderstood the evidence...that isnt opinion its a documented fact
Whatever you think doesn't mean they don't still believe the mccs were involved in what happened to Maddie.
Same as others have a right to think the same IMO.
I wasn't referring to you on this occasion. Like I said, think what you like, and I will think what I like about you and your ilk, that seems a fair trade off, no?
So why imo does that sound you treat me like an enemy - instead of respecting what my opinion is.Don't be silly - I don't treat you like an enemy, I just think you're misguided and wrong, and I genuinely can't understand your mindset. No doubt it's exactly the same for you. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong (clue: I was right 8(0(* )
After all, we are exactly the same ...just posters giving our opinion on a forum
Don't be silly - I don't treat you like an enemy, I just think you're misguided and wrong, and I genuinely can't understand your mindset. No doubt it's exactly the same for you. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong (clue: I was right 8(0(* )
I completely understand the sceptic mindset. They have been totally taken in by the propaganda re the dogs.... If you believe the dogs are 95 per cent accurate then there is no alternative apart from parental guilt. Almeida said the main evidence against the parents was the alerts... The ones that have no evidential valu or reliability
Wrong ...not taken in by anything including the mccs
they can think what they like but the fact they misunderstood the evidence makes their conclusions useles. even the proven facts in the police files are wrong
There's no wishful thinking..as Simon Foy has said... The Germans must have something significant based on what they have said
Let us not forget that Operation Grange were instructed to pursue a certain line of inquiry without any evidence being offered to justify that decision. Unless Rowley's revelation that four year olds don't decide to go off and start a new life can be classed as evidence, of course.
Let us not forget that Operation Grange were instructed to pursue a certain line of inquiry without any evidence being offered to justify that decision. Unless Rowley's revelation that four year olds don't decide to go off and start a new life can be classed as evidence, of course.
They thought that by issuing statements effectively putting Brueckner in the frame that someone would come forward to provide the little thing called evidence. Obviously they were wrong and are now effectively pissing up against a very high wall.oh dear angelo...pride before a fall springs to mind. I go with Simon Foy...ex scotland yard who says they have something significant
The fact that nobody came forward to collect their twenty pieces of silver says it all imo.
No I'm right...what were all those doggie posts about.. Lolwhat were all those doggie posts about
oh dear angelo...pride before a fall springs to mind. I go with Simon Foy...ex scotland yard who says they have something significant
Foy's genius moment or not, was when he claimed the parents were not involved on the basis that they weren't at the apartment when the child disappeared. Problem about this is that nobody outside the parents and another doctor saw Maddie after 5.30pm so nobody knows when she actually disappeared. There is a window of over 4½ hours in which anything could have happened.
what were all those doggie posts about
Well obviously dogs
Let us not forget that Operation Grange were instructed to pursue a certain line of inquiry without any evidence being offered to justify that decision. Unless Rowley's revelation that four year olds don't decide to go off and start a new life can be classed as evidence, of course.
Your opinion of Operation Grange has never been proved and is twisted to say the least.
but not about evidence
iIt looks like the Germans now have that evidence
Same old, same old. If you can't fit up one suspect then move on to another. They'll spend months on Ney now that Brueckner has proven elusive.
Foy's genius moment or not, was when he claimed the parents were not involved on the basis that they weren't at the apartment when the child disappeared. Problem about this is that nobody outside the parents and another doctor saw Maddie after 5.30pm so nobody knows when she actually disappeared. There is a window of over 4½ hours in which anything could have happened.Anything?
Same old, same old. If you can't fit up one suspect then move on to another. They'll spend months on Ney now that Brueckner has proven elusive.
The very obvious flaw in your argument is there was no reason for the germans to get involved
They were interested in a few unsolved crimes IMO the Maddie case gave them full-blown maximum publicity.Can I ask - do you think there is absolutely no good reason why the German police are right to consider CB as a suspect in the disappearance at all?
Seems they are no further on with any.
German prosecutors are investigating whether the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was involved in a similar case of a five-year-old girl who went missing in Germany in 2015.
Reports on Friday night also said authorities were looking into connections with the disappearance of a six-year-old German boy in Portugal in 1996.
They were interested in a few unsolved crimes IMO the Maddie case gave them full-blown maximum publicity.
Seems they are no further on with any.
German prosecutors are investigating whether the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was involved in a similar case of a five-year-old girl who went missing in Germany in 2015.
Reports on Friday night also said authorities were looking into connections with the disappearance of a six-year-old German boy in Portugal in 1996.
Can I ask - do you think there is absolutely no good reason why the German police are right to consider CB as a suspect in the disappearance at all?
Can I ask - do you think there is absolutely no good reason why the German police are right to consider CB as a suspect in the disappearance at all?
Sure............but in his past activities is there any evidence of tying to abduct anyone.
Seems then he gets caught for practically everything .. but is a master at abduction. think not
Sure............but in his past activities is there any evidence of tying to abduct anyone.Unless you know about all the crimes he has ever committed you cannot say he has been caught for practically everything. So - he may have abducted one or more children, and that’s what the Germans are investigating. Is there any good reason for them to stop investigating him?
Seems then he gets caught for practically everything .. but is a master at abduction. think not
Thats a poor argument.....did Ian Huntley have any past murder activities
He soon got caught didn't he - its a poor argument when you are using a proved murderer as an example.I think you missed the point.
He soon got caught didn't he - its a poor argument when you are using a proved murderer as an example.
Re-examination of the “human cellular material “ isn’t going to tell you if it was a nosebleed or not.
I understand that the dogs have never been properly scientifically tested so your 95 % has little reliability
It might tell you who the blood belonged to though.And if it belonged to Madeleine who had a nosebleed then what?
Peer reviewed forensic science journals counter that fallacy. Google is your friend, Dave.Could you provide a few cites?
He had a connection ...he wasnt astranger..tahts the difference. Can you quote one case where a murderer who commits his first murder has murdered before...dont think too longWhat?
What?That's a first for Davel too.
What?Can a suspect be dismissed as an abductor / murderer if he doesn’t have a previous conviction for abduction/ murder?
Peer reviewed forensic science journals counter that fallacy. Google is your friend, Dave.I said properly scientifically tested... They havent
Can a suspect be dismissed as an abductor / murderer if he doesn’t have a previous conviction for abduction/ murder?Thanks for that, but that's not even close to what he said.
Thanks for that, but that's not even close to what he said.
Thanks for that, but that's not even close to what he said.It's the point he was making, I believe.
It's the point he was making, I believe.Well in that case, no, probably not.
Well in that case, no, probably not.Thank you.
I said properly scientifically tested... They haventWell, roughly 95% then.
Well, roughly 95% then.The good news, Rob, is that they demonstrate their efficacy, or other wise, every day.
Well, roughly 95% then.All that tells us is that the dogs will recognise cadaver odour on carpet squares 95 per cent of the time.
The good news, Rob, is that they demonstrate their efficacy, or other wise, every day.
If they were rubbish at sniffing out bombs and beak they wouldn't exist.
And what do you think would happen if bomb detecting dogs continually alerted where no bombs were found...Then they'd stop using them and switch to ferrets or trained ocelots or something.
All other detection dogs work by detecting what they are trained to detect... And they regularly find it
Anyone ever heard of remnant scent drug dogs.. Remnant scent explosive dogs.. And their evidence used in courtYes. All the time. Dogs (and perhaps ferrets) regularly trace minute vestiges of all manner of substances, which are then subsequently corroborated as being the correct location of previous, temporary storage.
Anyone ever heard of remnant scent drug dogs.. Remnant scent explosive dogs.. And their evidence used in courtYes, I believe a drug dog alerted to a traveller at Dubai airport who was flung in jail because a poppy seed from his bread roll had adhered itself to his clothing. Not sure if that counts as remnant scent though as the seed was present. Also dogs can alert to banknotes that have been used for snorting cocaine, again not sure if this counts as cocaine residue may still be present on the notes.
Yes, I believe a drug dog alerted to a traveller at Dubai airport who was flung in jail because a poppy seed from his bread roll had adhered itself to his clothing. Not sure if that counts as remnant scent though as the seed was present. Also dogs can alert to banknotes that have been used for snorting cocaine, again not sure if this counts as cocaine residue may still be present on the notes.
From what I've seen it may well be that Grime and Harrison invented the whole idea of remnant scent in 2005...prior to that cadaver dogs were used to find victimsI don't think you actually believe that.
They will be alerting to cocaine residue still present on the notesSo you want a case of dogs alerting the what, the 'essence' of cocaine? Isn't cocaine a solid? Cadaverine is a liquid isn't it, an amine?
All that tells us is that the dogs will recognise cadaver odour on carpet squares 95 per cent of the time.Just got on to this. Let me get this right; you dismiss any test of the efficacy of the dogs if that test doesn't accurately match the exact circumstances of the method of use of the dogs particular to that case?
That wasn't the situation in the apt
So you want a case of dogs alerting the what, the 'essence' of cocaine? Isn't cocaine a solid? Cadaverine is a liquid isn't it, an amine?
Just got on to this. Let me get this right; you dismiss any test of the efficacy of the dogs if that test doesn't accurately match the exact circumstances of the method of use of the dogs particular to that case?
So you'd propose that, for any 'evidence' or 'testimony' to be used derived from dog searches, you'd want a full-scale mock up of Apartment 5a and the parking garage, complete with all furnishings and environmental conditions? Then what, a dead body rolled around the floor in a couple of spots? Maybe rubbed on Cuddle Cat or some checked peddle pushers that look like they might belong to a dwarf chef?
From what I've seen it may well be that Grime and Harrison invented the whole idea of remnant scent in 2005...prior to that cadaver dogs were used to find victims..
If that is true it would make the whole PDL search nothing more than an experiment
you are getting close to how science and testing work. Dogs need to be tested under the conditions taht they work.So in my example you'd also like it to be conducted double blind?
there was a test carried out with expolosive dogs...its been posted here....where explosive residue was planted in a house and several dogs used to find the location. several dogs did...problem was there was never any residue palnted...the handlers cued the dogs
Which I believe it was.In what way?
I'd be interested to know how often dogs make false positive alerts on actual searches for missing people and / or bodies. I bet there's no data on that available. I recall watching a programme last year (which I have referred to before) in which a cadaver dog was being used (in Scotland I think) and it alerted to a dead bird whilst searching for a missing person. The handler explained it was just a dead bird and rewarded the dog for finding it, which I found quite bizarre.In all serious, I'd also like to see that. Unfortunately charlatans and blaggards will exploit anything emerging, and this is the case with both cadaver dogs and 'sniffer dogs' more generally. I believe the Washington Sniper case was virtually cracked with the assistance of an unlicensed, untrained sniffer dog handler, for example, so there's cases for both sides.
In all serious, I'd also like to see that. Unfortunately charlatans and blaggards will exploit anything emerging, and this is the case with both cadaver dogs and 'sniffer dogs' more generally. I believe the Washington Sniper case was virtually cracked with the assistance of an unlicensed, untrained sniffer dog handler, for example, so there's cases for both sides.Any amount of unreliable is enough for reasonable doubt. And in most cases it's not the dogs abilities that are in doubt, it's the handler's input - IMO.
I do know that the testing in their use and efficacy is being developed all the time, just like anything 'novel' I suppose.
Dogs are not infallible, that's a given for me, but I'd cast doubt on the assertion that they are 'incredibly unreliable'.
Any amount of unreliable is enough for reasonable doubt. And in most cases it's not the dogs abilities that are in doubt, it's the handler's input - IMO.It is fraught with difficulty and unreliability, granted. The relationship between the dog and the handler and the manner in which the dog was developed both carry an inherent bias. If there was a way to take the variable of the handler out of the process, reliability would be more certain. Certainly EVRD dogs are let off the leash and are given very little direction - that would be an ideal situation.
In all serious, I'd also like to see that. Unfortunately charlatans and blaggards will exploit anything emerging, and this is the case with both cadaver dogs and 'sniffer dogs' more generally. I believe the Washington Sniper case was virtually cracked with the assistance of an unlicensed, untrained sniffer dog handler, for example, so there's cases for both sides.
I do know that the testing in their use and efficacy is being developed all the time, just like anything 'novel' I suppose.
Dogs are not infallible, that's a given for me, but I'd cast doubt on the assertion that they are 'incredibly unreliable'.
no evidential RELIABILITY...from the man himself.So, if you were an investigating body, would you have used them or not in the MM case?
You only have to look at what eddie actually acheived in his whole career to see the real value of cadaver dogs in these situations. They have a use but as s everal experts have said ...they can also divert the investigation...as wassaid in Jersey...massive excavations oin the strength of an alert...and nothing of any use found
So, if you were an investigating body, would you have used them or not in the MM case?
By 'them' I mean any blood or cadaver dog / team.
He had a connection ...he wasnt astranger..tahts the difference. Can you quote one case where a murderer who commits his first murder has murdered before...dont think too long
I dont see any point. I think it was part of the new idea of Harrison and Grime to gain case intelligence. ...the idea referred to in Grimes white paper.
can anyone find any reference to residual cadaver scent prior to 2005.
In 2005 it was realised that detection canines may be of assistance to the law enforcement investigation of homicide and allegations of abduction where the pace of investigations is of paramount importance. Innovative method and ‘out of the box thinking by the UK National Search Manager introduced Human Scent Trailing, Human Blood Detection and Victim Recovery Dogs (now collectively designated as Forensic Canines) within critical case investigations to ascertain whether or not they could provide case intelligence.
Ah so basically you are saying there can be a first time for everything. - for whatever reason
A lot of people believe the mccs because they don't think them capable of doing such a horrendous thing as disposing of Maddie being involved in some way. IMO
But your reckoning IMO then a first time for everything if needs must or desperation for that first time act - whatever that may be.
I dont see any point. I think it was part of the new idea of Harrison and Grime to gain case intelligence. ...the idea referred to in Grimes white paper.Professor Cassella appointed Martin Grime as an Honorary Research Fellow not too long ago, as I recall. He gave him a glowing testimonial.
can anyone find any reference to residual cadaver scent prior to 2005.
In 2005 it was realised that detection canines may be of assistance to the law enforcement investigation of homicide and allegations of abduction where the pace of investigations is of paramount importance. Innovative method and ‘out of the box thinking by the UK National Search Manager introduced Human Scent Trailing, Human Blood Detection and Victim Recovery Dogs (now collectively designated as Forensic Canines) within critical case investigations to ascertain whether or not they could provide case intelligence.
On page 45 of that paper Grime says;
"To my knowledge a victim has never been found alive in a case where the author's VRD team has provided a related positive final response."
Professor Cassella appointed Martin Grime as an Honorary Research Fellow not too long ago, as I recall. He gave him a glowing testimonial.
Seems he has more faith in him than you.
how long ago ...in the Pillay podcast hes certainly at odds with grimes ides2018.
On page 45 of that paper Grime says;Which author?
"To my knowledge a victim has never been found alive in a case where the author's VRD team has provided a related positive final response."
it looks like you ahve now accepted you are wrong....theres no evidence whatsoever maddie died in an accident..none. the mccanns are no longer suspects and ther enever wa s any rael evidence against them. ther is lots of evidence since to show they were not involved...end of
Which author?
There is absolutely no evidence to say Maddie was abducted either. [sorry not understand the rest of your post D]
There's a clue; "Grime says". He is the author.He is talking about himself in the 3rd person? So what he's saying is
why is it that an expert such as grime ha snot once given evidence in court...and how many times in Grimes career has any alert been any use in solving any UK caseI don't think that's any indicator of competence. We know that murder and concealment of victims is still exceptionally rare in the UK, most of which are solved by other means, mainly due to advancements in forensics.
why is it that an expert such as grime ha snot once given evidence in court...and how many times in Grimes career has any alert been any use in solving any UK case
Ok I’ll bite.
Martin Grime has testified under oath concerning the alerts given by his dogs at least twice in the USA and at least once in the UK. At least three cases in the UK have heard dog alert evidence, one for Grime and two for others all within the span of Grime’s career. All five cases resulted in convictions.
In some cases the dog alerts allow the police to find forensic evidence. In others they find the body. Or, as in the Prout case a confession ensues. The VRD dog handler doesn't need to testify in those cases.
Ok I’ll bite.
Martin Grime has testified under oath concerning the alerts given by his dogs at least twice in the USA and at least once in the UK. At least three cases in the UK have heard dog alert evidence, one for Grime and two for others all within the span of Grime’s career. All five cases resulted in convictions.
In some cases the dog alerts allow the police to find forensic evidence. In others they find the body. Or, as in the Prout case a confession ensues. The VRD dog handler doesn't need to testify in those cases.
One case in the UK...was that Attract Harron... So Grimes dogs have resulted in one conviction in the UK... One...
How pathetic
One case in the UK...was that Attract Harron... So Grimes dogs have resulted in one conviction in the UK... One...
How pathetic
Just answering your question. And I wasn't referring to Attracta Harron
Are you sure Grime hasn't testified in any other cases in the UK?
It's also not very nice to label my answer as pathetic as I was only trying to help your quest for information.
Just answering your question. And I wasn't referring to Attracta Harron
Are you sure Grime hasn't testified in any other cases in the UK?
It's also not very nice to label my answer as pathetic as I was only trying to help your quest for information.
I'll ask you the direct question... How many times has anything found by Grimes dogs been used in a prosecution in the UK.
Who were you referring to
Davel said ‘ why is it that an expert such as grime ha snot once given evidence in court’
This has been shown to be palpably false.
Details of the involvement of particular dog handlers isn't in the public domain, so I can't answer that. In some cases, as I already pointed out, the dogs are used and that leads investigators to evidence which is used in the prosecution case.
Details of the involvement of particular dog handlers isn't in the public domain, so I can't answer that. In some cases, as I already pointed out, the dogs are used and that leads investigators to evidence which is used in the prosecution case.You are guessing
One case in the UK...was that Attract Harron... So Grimes dogs have resulted in one conviction in the UK... One...
How pathetic
Grime listed his CV... It was incredibly sparce.... Are you suggesting he didn't bother listing his successful cases
Davel said ‘ I'm talking about a UK court’
This claim has also been shown to be palpably false.
Well, imagine what would have happened to his career if Maddie had been found alive and well.
But she hasn't has she- still not a single trace.
Well, imagine what would have happened to his career if Maddie had been found alive and well.
But she hasn't has she- still not a single trace.
I remember Martin Grime did testify in the Attracta Harron case, so with the Bob Rose case that makes two appearances testifying in a UK court and three in the USA.
actuallly it hasnt...no evidence yet supplied. Good job he wasnt paid by results...he hardly had any
Well, imagine what would have happened to his career if Maddie had been found alive and well.
But she hasn't has she- still not a single trace.
in the Bob rose case on eof the accused led polie to the body so not sure what grime had to testify......eddie did find attracta harrons body...again a very sparce record
Just correcting the fallacy you posted that Martin Grime never gave evidence in court.
Sparse record ? How many cases would satisfy you, 5, 10 or 100
Just correcting the fallacy you posted that Martin Grime never gave evidence in court.
Sparse record ? How many cases would satisfy you, 5, 10 or 100
You havent provided any cites ....so at the moment its opinion. Im pointing out how little his contribution to justice seems to have been
I dont see any scenario that fits the alerts to cadaver in 5a
SY is a missing persons caseso they arent convinced...neither are the Germans.
From what grime has said all the alerts could have been to blood...no cadaver at all
You didn't ask for any cites. And faithlilly just provided one.
all you have managed to do is show how little Grime and his dogs have ever acheived.
Whenever dogs alert to any substance hey are alerting to the vapour produced...not the substance if its a solid or al iquid...remember who the scientist is
What a lovely distraction this argument is from the fact that the dog alerts don't appear to have any relevance whatsoever to either the current British or German investigations, both of which are pursuing a theory of stranger abduction. If the dogs are so reliable, and if their alerts tell us almost certainly that Madeleine died in the apartment why were the parents never charged?
Who is this scientist you are referring to?
What are your expectations for what they should have achieved?
How can you judge their achievements with all the second hand information we receive.
I wouldn't dare to judge their performance with so little to go on.
It seems to be popular though doesn't it as it always rears it head up. Go with it, its a discussion forum.Of course it's popular - it's the only thing McCann sceptics have got, but yet they cannot explain why the dogs which are so reliable and world beating were not sufficient to bring the McCanns to court. If the dogs 95% definitely alerted to a body in the apartment it's pretty much an open and shut case isn't it?
Amaral claimed they had helped solve over 200 cases...some sceptics beleive it
actuallly it hasnt...no evidence yet supplied. Good job he wasnt paid by results...he hardly had any
Of course it's popular - it's the only thing McCann sceptics have got, but yet they cannot explain why the dogs which are so reliable and world beating were not sufficient to bring the McCanns to court. If the dogs 95% definitely alerted to a body in the apartment it's pretty much an open and shut case isn't it?I also think it's the one facet that most supporters can't reconcile fully themselves. What's the chances, right? They have to assauge the cognitive dissonance by grasping on to anything remotely congruent....the dogs are mad, the handler told Shep to bark there, they're doctors FFS, Grime and Harrison created this branch of pseudo-science in 2005, the handler is a charlatan, loads of people died there, who's idea was it anyway, rubbish batting average, coconut in Jersey, Pilley case was all circumstantial, the coppers ransacked the place, cross contamination from sea bass and sardines from boozy lunches, they weren't even the right set of pyjamas, dogs are trained on piglets I heard, that's not blood, that could be anyone's blood, the dog could smell sausages, the dog was in heat, the heat was too hot, Harrison was the puppetmaster.....
Did we ever find out how much Grime was paid or who paid the bill? Oh, and to whom did the money go?Well Leicestershire Police and the PJ requested their services, so I would imagine the invoice would have been split, like the bill for a 4 hour boozy lunch at the Tapas Bar.
Of course it's popular - it's the only thing McCann sceptics have got, but yet they cannot explain why the dogs which are so reliable and world beating were not sufficient to bring the McCanns to court. If the dogs 95% definitely alerted to a body in the apartment it's pretty much an open and shut case isn't it?
But does he say "they help solve over 200 cases" or they never gave a false alert in over 200 cases".
Not trying to score points generally interested if he said that.
As we all now 200 cases refer to 200 individual searches but I agree a lot of people especially on You Tube say they were never wrong in 200 cases.
No you would definitely need more evidence than an alert from an EVRD dog, apart from maybe the USA where D'andre Lane was convicted with little more than the evidence provided by Martin Grime's dog Morse who picked out Lanes car by cadaver scent from a multitude of others in a car park.
But I agree you do need more.
No you would definitely need more evidence than an alert from an EVRD dog, apart from maybe the USA where D'andre Lane was convicted with little more than the evidence provided by Martin Grime's dog Morse who picked out Lanes car by cadaver scent from a multitude of others in a car park.
But I agree you do need more.
amaral from his documentary...OK, so we've got to the bottom of this now, thanks for that quote.
The investigation uses two very special dogs that are used by the English and North American police, that have successfully solved over 200 cases.
was lanes car the only car that had a child seat in the back....how many other cars were thereIt was like Fords of Winsford down there, let me tell you.
There was only one ever Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog and that was Eddie.Kudos to you Eleanor, I agree, there was only one. Like Highlander. RIP Eddie.
OK, so we've got to the bottom of this now, thanks for that quote.
Clearly he's referring to the aggregate number of 'cases' across North America and English police. I'll wager that includes all specialist dog teams that have assisted in bringing a successful conclusion to cases.
I can see how / why that may be misconstrued by supporters, given my unique, independent eye. Well done again, Dav.
And what was he referring to when he said Eddie found a body under a flagstone in Jersey.. More BSWell you tell me. I'm led to believe it was inconclusive. But your goalposts are on castors today Dav, like a wonky shopping trolley that gets wellied in to the canal off a pedestrian bridge.
No you would definitely need more evidence than an alert from an EVRD dog, apart from maybe the USA where D'andre Lane was convicted with little more than the evidence provided by Martin Grime's dog Morse who picked out Lanes car by cadaver scent from a multitude of others in a car park.Why do you need more if the dogs are so great, as everyone here seems determined to prove?
But I agree you do need more.
amaral from his documentary...
The investigation uses two very special dogs that are used by the English and North American police, that have successfully solved over 200 cases.
I also think it's the one facet that most supporters can't reconcile fully themselves. What's the chances, right? They have to assauge the cognitive dissonance by grasping on to anything remotely congruent....the dogs are mad, the handler told Shep to bark there, they're doctors FFS, Grime and Harrison created this branch of pseudo-science in 2005, the handler is a charlatan, loads of people died there, who's idea was it anyway, rubbish batting average, coconut in Jersey, Pilley case was all circumstantial, the coppers ransacked the place, cross contamination from sea bass and sardines from boozy lunches, they weren't even the right set of pyjamas, dogs are trained on piglets I heard, that's not blood, that could be anyone's blood, the dog could smell sausages, the dog was in heat, the heat was too hot, Harrison was the puppetmaster.....How do you suppose Operation Grange and the German Investigation manage to reconcile themselves to the dog alerts? Or are they all part of the same sinister cabal to protect the McCanns at any cost, even their own credibility?
I'm still sat here on the wall of 5a since last week. Like bird shit.
Why do you need more if the dogs are so great, as everyone here seems determined to prove?
How do you suppose Operation Grange and the German Investigation manage to reconcile themselves to the dog alerts? Or are they all part of the same sinister cabal to protect the McCanns at any cost, even their own credibility?It's a great question. Well, the first bit anyway.
As I said before I would need more. I wouldn't like to see a conviction based purely on a human eye witness statement either, if you believe that dog alerts are unreliable wait till you read up on eye witness evidence.You don't need to tell me about the unreliability of eye witness evidence, and as I'm not someone whose been busting a gut claiming it's 99% reliable for the last 13 years I don't know why you even felt the need to bring it up with me. Surely you view the dog alerts as waaaaay more reliable than rubbishy old human witnesses? So I don't see why you wouldn't view them as sufficient in and of themselves to bring a conviction. If there was a body apt5a (and according to the dogs there was) then why not charge the parents? It's a no brainer, surely?
It's a great question. Well, the first bit anyway.I'm glad you agree it's a good question - see, it's not just us cognitively dissonanced plebs that have been able to park the dog alerts as irrelevant. Odd, huh? Must be a reason...
I don't know is the answer. At least one of them must have reviewed that evidence and the 'DNA' (I put it in apostrophes for your benefit, neutrality and all that).
I'd like a thorough review of all of it to be honest; root and branch. Gather what's in archive and start again. See what drops out the end of the sausage machine.
Why do you need more if the dogs are so great, as everyone here seems determined to prove?I think it's been established that the alerts need additional corroboration. But the evidential value is, as you quite rightly point out, great.
It's a great question. Well, the first bit anyway.
I don't know is the answer. At least one of them must have reviewed that evidence and the 'DNA' (I put it in apostrophes for your benefit, neutrality and all that).
I'd like a thorough review of all of it to be honest; root and branch. Gather what's in archive and start again. See what drops out the end of the sausage machine.
You don't need to tell me about the unreliability of eye witness evidence, and as I'm not someone whose been busting a gut claiming it's 99% reliable for the last 13 years I don't know why you even felt the need to bring it up with me. Surely you view the dog alerts as waaaaay more reliable than rubbishy old human witnesses? So I don't see why you wouldn't view them as sufficient in and of themselves to bring a conviction. If there was a body apt5a (and according to the dogs there was) then why not charge the parents? It's a no brainer, surely?
I'm glad you agree it's a good question - see, it's not just us cognitively dissonanced plebs that have been able to park the dog alerts as irrelevant. Odd, huh? Must be a reason...You don't have to be a pleb to be cognitively dissonanced, but it helps.
You can leave O'Connor out of this, although he could find a Cadaver if there is one.My dog can hear the fridge opening from the next postcode.
It's a great question. Well, the first bit anyway.
I don't know is the answer. At least one of them must have reviewed that evidence and the 'DNA' (I put it in apostrophes for your benefit, neutrality and all that).
I'd like a thorough review of all of it to be honest; root and branch. Gather what's in archive and start again. See what drops out the end of the sausage machine.
You don't need to tell me about the unreliability of eye witness evidence, and as I'm not someone whose been busting a gut claiming it's 99% reliable for the last 13 years I don't know why you even felt the need to bring it up with me. Surely you view the dog alerts as waaaaay more reliable than rubbishy old human witnesses? So I don't see why you wouldn't view them as sufficient in and of themselves to bring a conviction. If there was a body apt5a (and according to the dogs there was) then why not charge the parents? It's a no brainer, surely?
Can you imagine the morale of those 4 officers right now? When they signed up it was all overtime allthetime, trips to Portugal, Bermuda shorts and flip flops, send the intern out for Costa every morning, unlimited resources being pumped in - you want a laminator? Get two, just in case. Need some of those oversize bulldog clips - get me some! Anyone want any violet coloured ring binders while I'm at Staples? I want an executive office chair - in pleather. I've got RSI, can I have a gel mouse rest. Barbara keeps turning the air conditioning down.
Sounds a good way of keeping those 4 officers in jobs for a few more years
What a lovely distraction this argument is from the fact that the dog alerts don't appear to have any relevance whatsoever to either the current British or German investigations, both of which are pursuing a theory of stranger abduction. If the dogs are so reliable, and if their alerts tell us almost certainly that Madeleine died in the apartment why were the parents never charged?
It seems to be popular though doesn't it as it always rears it head up. Go with it, its a discussion forum.
The usual practice is for discussion forums to discuss a particular topic.
This thread has nothing to do with dogs.
The topic is ~ "Should the Germans Have Dropped Their Investigation By Now?"
If you wish to add to the many 'dog' threads already on the forum might I respectfully suggest you start one; it would certainly save me the bother of ruminating the deletion of eight pages of 'off topic' comment; I've never done that many in a oner before so it certainly could be interesting if I can be bothered 😁
I didn't start the conversation about dogs I was just responding to another poster who asked a question. Look back and see who starting with the dogs.
The topic of this thread is "Should the Germans Have Dropped Their Investigation By Now?" From this point forward ALL off topic points will be deleted.
it looks like you ahve now accepted you are wrong....theres no evidence whatsoever maddie died in an accident..none. the mccanns are no longer suspects and ther enever wa s any rael evidence against them. ther is lots of evidence since to show they were not involved...end of
I cannot see a scenario which fits the alert to a cadaver 5a...can anyoneThe "child swap" theory does.
And what was he referring to when he said Eddie found a body under a flagstone in Jersey.. More BSIt was a fictional story, wasn't it?
Not involved? Of course they were involved. The child and her two siblings were in their charge and they failed all three abysmally. That renders them INVOLVED and RESPONSIBILE!
Any evidence the Germans haven't dropped their investigation ? Wolters is very quiet along with the press, CB is all played out and now its alleged Grange are looking elsewhere.There’s no evidence they have dropped their investigation, no. What grounds would they have for doing so?
Do you think the three police forces currently investigating are investigating them for negligence then...
They've already been investigated by social services in England and still have two children so must have passed that test. They were ultimately responsible for Maddie going missing so they will have to live with that shame for ever.
They've already been investigated by social services in England and still have two children so must have passed that test. They were ultimately responsible for Maddie going missing so they will have to live with that shame for ever.Obviously the authorities did not think they were ultimately responsible for Madeleine going missing otherwise they would have been charged with neglect.
I don't think they do shame.
It's not fun. It's a very serious matter. It's not conventional fun, not like actual Jenga."We're all having way too much fun, particularly now they're engaged in Paedo Roulette, with the reported re-interviewing of Martin Ney. Maybe they'll exhume Monteiro soon too, what a hoot that will be".
"We're all having way too much fun, particularly now they're engaged in Paedo Roulette, with the reported re-interviewing of Martin Ney. Maybe they'll exhume Monteiro soon too, what a hoot that will be".
Perhaps you should tone down your enthusiasm a little then, and show some decorum when discussing what is a very serious matter.
I told you earlier, it's not conventional fun. It's not fun fun.
And I am the embodiment of decorum; I bring validation and prestige to what would ordinarily be unverified and mundane. That's why I'm so popular, or part of the reason. And independent.
Actually, I believe that you at least have half a brain. Such a pity that you don't put it to better use.I do in real life.
I do in real life.
But now I'm imbued with the liberating properties of independence and totally bias free (as far as one can be, as bias is inherent in all of us, alas), I can pour my significant cerebral resources in to weighing all arguments and evidence and developing rational, diplomatic, centrist conclusions. Like Kofi Annan on ketamine.
If you're the embodiment of decorum what did you get a warning for?Disparity in standards. We're ironing it out.
"We're all having way too much fun, particularly now they're engaged in Paedo Roulette, with the reported re-interviewing of Martin Ney. Maybe they'll exhume Monteiro soon too, what a hoot that will be".
Perhaps you should tone down your enthusiasm a little then, and show some decorum when discussing what is a very serious matter.
I think you may have touched on a subject which seems to have been largely ignored. Which is the re-emergence of Ney into the equation.Quite. I'm interested to see how this pans out, if, as we have been led to believe, he's being re-interviewed.
Quite. I'm interested to see how this pans out, if, as we have been led to believe, he's being re-interviewed.
He might not be a suspect, but they may see him as a potential cohort of CB and may have information. Strike while the iron's hot, I suppose, while they have him at their disposal.
It might also rattle CB and his team.
Much will depend on the cooperation of the French. They are after him for a crime on their soil and maybe little interested in what others may be after.True.
I think you may have touched on a subject which seems to have been largely ignored. Which is the re-emergence of Ney into the equation.
According to a rumour emerging from German TV station RTL.
According to a rumour emerging from German TV station RTL.
According to a rumour emerging from German TV station RTL.Why do you describe it as a rumour?
The police have spent 13 years investigating the Male paedo theory & it has got them absoloutley nowhere.
I really think it's time they started investigating lesbian paedos, for the sake of gender equality if nothing else.
Did you ever wine and dine in a neighbour's house across the road and leave your kids in the house with the back door open on 4 consecutive nights, despite having acknowledged the obvious distress caused by this act to one or more of them?Many of us and / or our parents have done a version of this, we self flagellate on a daily basis.
Did you ever wine and dine in a neighbour's house across the road and leave your kids in the house with the back door open on 4 consecutive nights, despite having acknowledged the obvious distress caused by this act to one or more of them?
Did you ever wine and dine in a neighbour's house across the road and leave your kids in the house with the back door open on 4 consecutive nights, despite having acknowledged the obvious distress caused by this act to one or more of them?They weren't across the road, just a little footpath which they could see over, the shrubs had just been cut … and the group could see the back patio windows. The back patio door was unlocked but appeared the same as all the other back patio doors in that it was closed and curtains drawn. Did anyone else in other flats, ever report having heard someone trying their back patio door? If you can prove that, please do.
The kicker for me is leaving the door open so they didn’t have to walk a few extra yards. As a betrayal of their parental duty it’s right up there.
The kicker for me is leaving the door open so they didn’t have to walk a few extra yards. As a betrayal of their parental duty it’s right up there.
Almost twice the journey and the front door was almost pitch back. The light outside was broken.
No wonder it woke the children trying to get an unfamiliar key in an unfamiliar keyhole in the pitch blackness. Ever tried it? All the other flats had front doors off a well lit hallway
Ever tried what, leaving 3 under 4s in an insecure flat? No, never.
People tend to ‘move on’ from things when they understand them.Get over it, you’ve had your fun, nearly 14 years of it. Time to focus on other far more serious cases of child neglect (as if you really cared about any of them to the degree you seem to care about putting the boot in to the McCanns).
In a UK paper, it said he was being extradited to France, but it omitted to say from where.
Was he living in Germany prior to his extradition?
Why do you describe it as a rumour?
I thought he was in prison. Can someone be extradited from prison?
How did a German TV station know in 2019 that SY wanted to question Ney about Madeleine?I’ve no idea but the were right were they not?
If he's convicted in France, does the sentence run concurrent, where does he do his time ?
How did a German TV station know in 2019 that SY wanted to question Ney about Madeleine?
If he's convicted in France, does the sentence run concurrent, where does he do his time ?
The kicker for me is leaving the door open so they didn’t have to walk a few extra yards. As a betrayal of their parental duty it’s right up there.How did the rest of the group react to that? Did they just ignore it?
How did the rest of the group react to that? Did they just ignore it?
I’ve no idea but the were right were they not?
Do you not realise this is totally off topicAt least I quoted Faithlilly. So you know what I'm talking about.
At least I quoted Faithlilly. So you know what I'm talking about.
How did the rest of the group react to that? Did they just ignore it?
It's still off topic. I didn't quote Eleanor because Eleanor has shown that talk of abuse upsets her
Were they?Maybe. I guess we’ll find out eventually.
It's still off topic. I didn't quote Eleanor because Eleanor has shown that talk of abuse upsets her
Almost twice the journey and the front door was almost pitch back. The light outside was broken.
No wonder it woke the children trying to get an unfamiliar key in an unfamiliar keyhole in the pitch blackness. Ever tried it? All the other flats had front doors off a well lit hallway
and the front door was almost pitch back. The light outside was broken.Which would look more suspicious to a passer by, breaking in through a window or a door?If challenged you could come up with a plausible excuse for wrestling with the door; the window, not so much.
This is one of the reasons I think the German investigation is going nowhere.
Why would CB mess around using a window with shutters if he had been watching -
He would know the front door nearest to Maddie bed led into the car park in complete darkness
Being a burglar a quick exit would obviously be priority using the door not a narrow window imo
Which would look more suspicious to a passer by, breaking in through a window or a door?If challenged you could come up with a plausible excuse for wrestling with the door; the window, not so much.The window could’ve also been used to pass Madeleine to a person outside 5A?
Besides, he could have simply popped in through the patio door that wasn't open, but then was left unlocked.
The window could’ve also been used to pass Madeleine to a person outside 5A?
The window could’ve also been used to pass Madeleine to a person outside 5A?Why not walk out the door, making it even less suspicious? Just carrying this baby to the car, nothing to see here. Or - just passing this child through the window to my mate, nothing to see here.
Why not walk out the door, making it even less suspicious? Just carrying this baby to the car, nothing to see here. Or - just passing this child through the window to my mate, nothing to see here.
Did Gerry take the front door key with him, or could he lock it from the inside and leave the key in the lock?
The door would have just opened from the inside.Unless it was double-locked and the key removed. Which it wasn't; it was just closed from the inside.
The window could’ve also been used to pass Madeleine to a person outside 5A?
Unless it was double-locked and the key removed. Which it wasn't; it was just closed from the inside.Imagine CB's surprise when he discovered both doors unlocked. Dumkopf. He must've been tempted to abduct all 3, given the ease of egress and their seeming superhuman tolerance to noise.
Imagine CB's surprise when he discovered both doors unlocked. Dumkopf. He must've been tempted to abduct all 3, given the ease of egress and their seeming superhuman tolerance to noise..
.Has it ever happened that a stranger kidnaps the whole family of children rather than just one?
Easily could have been done - IMO they were there left for the taking. without any protection
Although I do not believe Maddie's fate was abduction from her bed.
Has it ever happened that a stranger kidnaps the whole family of children rather than just one?Not that I'm aware of, but there are one or two cases of abduction where one child has been taken and the other(s) left alone that I can think of.
and the front door was almost pitch back. The light outside was broken.
This is one of the reasons I think the German investigation is going nowhere.
Why would CB mess around using a window with shutters if he had been watching -
He would know the front door nearest to Maddie bed led into the car park in complete darkness
Being a burglar a quick exit would obviously be priority using the door not a narrow window imo
I believe that the front door was used, both in and out, and the window was an escape route.
There is a flaw in your argument, Kizzy.
If he needed a quick exit and didn't want to seen, then as soon as anyone checking came to the patio door. then if he were as agile as CB obviously is, he would be better going thru the window, To go out through the front door, he would have to come out of the children's bedroom into the living room and potentially come face to face with whoever was checking.. And the checker would certainly see him exiting via the front door, and chase after him.
I wouldn't fancy his chances against Gerry
CB is obvious extremely agile, but the window would not be such a good escape route for your average man
I thought the 'watcher on the balcony' was there to make sure they were warned if anyone approached? It seems they had no faith in him at all, even before he allegedly ran off and left them.
Yep, seems s/he did a good job when Gerry arrived to do his check. He felt that there was someone around. If it were CB in there, slim as he is, he could even have been behind the open door whilst Gerry was in the apartment
Who felt that there was someone around?
I think that was one of those hindsight moments where information is later added to support the narrative.
If you thought there was someone in your apartment, would you not check at the time. ?
I think that was one of those hindsight moments where information is later added to support the narrative.Maybe he was too scared to check, so he left and went back to finish his pint?
If you thought there was someone in your apartment, would you not check at the time. ?
Absolutely but wasn’t it being suggested that Gerry knew at the Times?Could we have the cite please?
Who felt that there was someone around?
Gerry had a feeling. It is in the statements somewhere if you are interested. Surely you have read it?
Could we have the cite please?
Gerry had a feeling. It is in the statements somewhere if you are interested. Surely you have read it?It was on the video that the Tapas group did to show how things unfolded that night. Gerry says words to that effect. We may be misinterpreting what he said, but I thought he was overemphasizing the drama of the situation.
It was on the video that the Tapas group did to show how things unfolded that night. Gerry says words to that effect. We may be misinterpreting what he said, but I thought he was overemphasizing the drama of the situation.
It was on the video that the Tapas group did to show how things unfolded that night. Gerry says words to that effect. We may be misinterpreting what he said, but I thought he was overemphasizing the drama of the situation.
perhaps you and sadie are misunderstanding what he said...so what did he sayIt was the same video where he turns the light on when he enters Madeleine's room.
It was the same video where he turns the light on when he enters Madeleine's room.
Sadie seems to be saying.. And you agreeing with her... That when Herry entered the apartment he said he felt someone was in there.. I'm pretty sure that isn't trueUnless we can find the video "Madeleine was here" we won't be able to check it at this late stage.
Unless we can find the video "Madelene was here" we won't be able to check it at this late stage.
It seems to be here https://youtu.be/TiYmcU8QxYo That is part 1 we'd need to all parts of it.
Thats fine so Sadies post is opinion not factIt is a problem when our perceptions are based on videos that get taken off YouTube at a later stage.
AFAIK he said at a later date... Perhaps the abductor was in the apt... Not that he had a feeling at the time there was someone else there... That sounds absurd to mr
It is a problem when our perceptions are based on videos that get taken off YouTube at a later stage.
them its not a fact...simple...and should not be claimed as a factIs that logical. It was a fact when the video existed. Is into longer a fact since the video is taken down? To me it seems just to put the argument into the impossible to solve category at this stage.
Is that logical. It was a fact when the video existed. Is it no longer a fact since the video is taken down? To me it seems just to put the argument into the impossible to solve category at this stage.
You need to consult a lawyer about the legality of it.
Its never been a fact as far as I remember and ive got a very sharp memory. Gunit and Faith seem to agree with me. It doesnt make any sense either ...if gerry had thought someone wa sin the apt surely he would have had alook round.If we searched this site we may even find the words he used. But it is difficult for the search engine needs the exact words used.
What you are missing is sadie claimed it as a fact
If we searched this site we may even find the words he used. But it is difficult for the search engine needs the exact words used.
I remember it as odd. I thought he was just trying to make his visit at 9:05 more important than it really was. We keep hearing about his "proud Father moment" how can that be proven to have happened?
Unnamed sauce said it ?
A close family source said: "Gerry is firmly of the view that the abductor was already hiding in the apartment when he went to check on Madeleine.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-bedroom-door-was-ajar-when-gerry-checked-508018
Quite...but when did he come to that conclusion....not at the time but afterFind the video! I regret not having my own video library to refer to.
It was on the video that the Tapas group did to show how things unfolded that night. Gerry says words to that effect. We may be misinterpreting what he said, but I thought he was overemphasizing the drama of the situation.
It certainly wasn't in any of his statements imo. Therefore he only came up with the idea after September 2007, with hindsight and speculation.Do you remember the one where Gerry is approaching the front door and unlocks it. Goes inside the apartment and it is that dark in there he turns the bedroom light on. He was talking to Matthew and Matthew says he didn't go past the threshold and wishes he had. That is the video we need to see again.
Do you remember the one where Gerry is approaching the front door and unlocks it. Goes inside the apartment and it is that dark in there he turns the bedroom light on. He was talking to Matthew and Matthew says he didn't go past the threshold and wishes he had. That is the video we need to see again.
Sounds like fiction to me.We have written about it on the forum many times. I know it sounds like fiction but it was true. Truth can be stranger than fiction.
We have written about it on the forum many times. I know it sounds like fiction but it was true. Truth can be stranger than fiction.
Are you sure?Absolutely.
Find the video! I regret not having my own video library to refer to.
Read the Sun article barrier quoted..I don't need to find any video"But Gerry and wife Kate - who are both official suspects - are convinced their daughter was snatched to order after being watched for days."
"But Gerry and wife Kate - who are both official suspects - are convinced their daughter was snatched to order after being watched for days."
So that is suggestive of keeping her alive rather than just to kill.
I was referring to Gerry saying he thought the abductor was in the apartment when he went to do his checkWhat would have made him think that? That surely is when he was trying to put the blame on Tannerman. If it was Tannerman, Tannerman had to be in the apartment when he did his check. But Tannerman was sort of ruled out.
What would have made him think that? That surely is when he was trying to put the blame on Tannerman. If it was Tannerman, Tannerman had to be in the apartment when he did his check. But Tannerman was sort of ruled out.
Do you remember the one where Gerry is approaching the front door and unlocks it. Goes inside the apartment and it is that dark in there he turns the bedroom light on. He was talking to Matthew and Matthew says he didn't go past the threshold and wishes he had. That is the video we need to see again.
I understand but can't be bothered to explainMy psychic powers tell me your logic would fail.
No we don't. That video was put together on the instructions of Gerry McCann. It's not some neutral piece of evidence. According to Michael Wright;Have you kept a copy of that documentary?
"the Channel 4 documentary (Emma Loach's one) wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book."
Have you kept a copy of that documentary?
Not knowing how to manage videos has been my biggest regret of researching the McCann case.
I feel like a failure and wasting my time.
It is time to call it a day.
Please don't call it a day, Rob. We will miss you and so will the investigation because you have done such valuable work, methodically dissecting situations with your many new questioning threads.
You are no failure, but it seems that a number on this forum don't back you, nor me, when they really should. It seems to me that you and I are being abused by a certain member who is very powerful and keeps on trying to trip us up.
Thank you, Barrier, for coming to my/our rescue with that article. It is very much appreciated
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-bedroom-door-was-ajar-when-gerry-checked-508018
Why do you think we should back you.. I think posters should reach their own conclusions.I'm sure Sadie and I are willing to wait until HCW shows the public what evidence he has.
Barriers link doesn't support your view it proves you wrong.
It doesn't say Gerry had a feeling the abductor was in the apt at the time.. It says that's a conclusion he reached later. You've got that wrong too
You need to be more open minded and accept HCW may have evidence... But your mind is totally closed
I'm sure Sadie and I are willing to wait until HCW shows the public what evidence he has.
Please don't call it a day, Rob. We will miss you and so will the investigation because you have done such valuable work, methodically dissecting situations with your many new questioning threads.
You are no failure, but it seems that a number on this forum don't back you, nor me, when they really should. It seems to me that you and I are being abused by a certain member who is very powerful and keeps on trying to trip us up.
Thank you, Barrier, for coming to my/our rescue with that article. It is very much appreciated
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-bedroom-door-was-ajar-when-gerry-checked-508018
I believe that the front door was used, both in and out, and the window was an escape route.
There is a flaw in your argument, Kizzy.
If he needed a quick exit and didn't want to seen, then as soon as anyone checking came to the patio door. then if he were as agile as CB obviously is, he would be better going thru the window, To go out through the front door, he would have to come out of the children's bedroom into the living room and potentially come face to face with whoever was checking.. And the checker would certainly see him exiting via the front door, and chase after him.
I wouldn't fancy his chances against Gerry
CB is obvious extremely agile, but the window would not be such a good escape route for your average man
If he needed a quick exit and didn't want to seen,
I cant see the logic of opening the bedroom window if CB needed a quick exit. [time wasting and noise]
Surely the quickest exit would have been the front door - in and out in minute/seconds.
Strange too that kmcc although spent 10 mins searching the apartment did not look out the front door.
Also letting twenty-odd people into the search when she knew Maddie was not in there and if abducted there could be evidence.
Hopefully, Friedrich Fulschner will be well aware of what proof there was for an abduction etc.
Although deathly quiet on everything now it could mean as expected the investigation is going to be dropped.
What else can you expect with witnesses like this?
The lawyer for the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case Christian Brueckner has said that he does not believe the German will ever be charged in the case.
Friedrich Fulscher has said that the main witness against Brueckner, 43, is a criminal who swapped information for police favours.
I don't see the investigation being dropped... Far from it
If he needed a quick exit and didn't want to seen,
I cant see the logic of opening the bedroom window if CB needed a quick exit. [time wasting and noise]
Surely the quickest exit would have been the front door - in and out in minute/seconds.
Strange too that kmcc although spent 10 mins searching the apartment did not look out the front door.
Also letting twenty-odd people into the search when she knew Maddie was not in there and if abducted there could be evidence.
Hopefully, Friedrich Fulschner will be well aware of what proof there was for an abduction etc.
Although deathly quiet on everything now it could mean as expected the investigation is going to be dropped.
What else can you expect with witnesses like this?
The lawyer for the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case Christian Brueckner has said that he does not believe the German will ever be charged in the case.
Friedrich Fulscher has said that the main witness against Brueckner, 43, is a criminal who swapped information for police favours.
Please don't call it a day, Rob. We will miss you and so will the investigation because you have done such valuable work, methodically dissecting situations with your many new questioning threads.
You are no failure, but it seems that a number on this forum don't back you, nor me, when they really should. It seems to me that you and I are being abused by a certain member who is very powerful and keeps on trying to trip us up.
Thank you, Barrier, for coming to my/our rescue with that article. It is very much appreciated
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-bedroom-door-was-ajar-when-gerry-checked-508018
I think it's a possibility he entered through the window and left via the front door
Why - if he had been watching he would have known the patio door was left open.
Imagine also the risk he would have taken of Maddie waking up with the noise.
Seeing a stranger climbing/tampering within the window risking her screaming blu murder - a child's nightmare.
IMO the only sense of that window being opened was to back up abduction.
Although it has still never been corroborated with any proof it was with curtains blowing. IMO.
Although you would think the scenario would be part of the Germans investigation.
Why do you think we should back you.. I think posters should reach their own conclusions.
Barriers link doesn't support your view it proves you wrong.
It doesn't say Gerry had a feeling the abductor was in the apt at the time.. It says that's a conclusion he reached later. You've got that wrong too
From the article...
Although Gerry thought nothing of it at the time, he has told friends he is now sure he previously shut it.
You need to be more open minded and accept HCW may have evidence... But your mind is totally closed
Pity that you can't see the beam in your own eye.
I have a reason for believing that Madeleine is still alive, or was so in 2012, because I believe that I saw her on video in 2012. You have chosen to take HCW's word ( which he has softened now) that Madeleine is dead. I agree he seems a very sound fellow, but do you know the calibre of the Police officers giving him the info?
If I am correct about the massive organisation behind Madeleines (and other childrens) abduction, wanting to set CB up as the fall guy who killed Madeleine, then they had to find some way of doing it. A good method would be to Blackmail a senior paedophilic Police officer into presenting a false case to HCW., who believed him. This would be to stop the search for Madeleine because she is considered dead. This is what they want to get them off the hook ad infinitum. No Jail for them and free, for ever, to keep Madeleine for their own purposes.
These are my considered thoughts only. I will make it plain that I do not know if this has happened, but as I believe that I saw a living Madeleine in 2012, I am wondering why HCW is so convinced? He seems to have softened a little recently. Perhaps he has been showed the Madeleine video from 2012?.
You continue to post the most ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Are you actually keeping up with what HCW is saying. Far from softening his statement in Dec went further. You obviously are not aware of the latest facts. So now you think HCW may be being blackmailed... Totally barmy. Its his whole department.
I think you are making an absolute fool of yourself.
I would say you have got the identification wrong... Simple
Imo your whole post could be summed up in one word.. Codswallop
Try reading what I actually said, Davel. Nothing about HCW being blackmailed in it.
May I kindly suggest that you have a rest for a few days, you sound very wound up.
BTW, can't pm you atm . jobs to do.
Do you not think if CB did not have the record he has anyone would have the slightest interest in him. although he is a disgusting+++ individual - could this be sort of trial by the record, not evidence.What are you trying to say?
Maybe this is the wrong thread and probably will be removed - but there is an actual case going on at the moment.
It seems this man although another disgusting +++ individual has been charged with murder because of his past record.
Although at the time he was not known to police before the Libby case. It was only when people recognised him and came forward they got DNA and charged him with several sex offences that he is now serving 8 years for.
The Jury has not yet reached a decision although it could be tomorrow. it will be interesting what the outcome will be. although a terribly sad case whatever it is.
The majority of people and police think he murdered Libby although there is no evidence he did or how she died.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/libby-squire-murder-accused-pawel-4882281
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/libby-squire-murder-accused-pawel-4882281
Seeing very quiet on here at the moment wonder how many will think him innocent till proven guilty before the actual verdict is announced.
What are you trying to say?
I'm not trying to say anything - I have said it.I didn't get its relevance to your argument, did anyone else?
I didn't get its relevance to your argument, did anyone else?
I suppose the verdict will make more sense to the case I was referring too.
It ties in with CB as I believe Your record can sometimes precede any evidence.
Sure enough investigate it - but dont jump the gun because they have a record they are automatically guilty.
If the Germans havent got the evidence now they are not going to get any - and should drop the case imo.
I suppose the verdict will make more sense to the case I was referring too.There is absolutely no logic to that sentence whatsoever.
It ties in with CB as I believe Your record can sometimes precede any evidence.
Sure enough investigate it - but dont jump the gun because they have a record they are automatically guilty.
If the Germans havent got the evidence now they are not going to get any - and should drop the case imo.
There is absolutely no logic to that sentence whatsoever.
I don't know what The Germans have got and since I firmly believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty I am presuming Nothing. Such a pity that The McCanns weren't afforded the same courtesy.
But one thing is certain sure. Brueckner will always be watched from now on. So at least The Germans have accomplished that.
This man is dangerous, albeit a very damaged individual himself.
This man is dangerous, albeit a very damaged individual himself.
Agreed - but it does not make him the abductor committing a perfect crime.
I don't think it was "the perfect crime" I think it was more the imperfectly handled investigation which Amaral is still intent on sending on the wrong track with his recent inept intervention.
I think it is worth waiting to see if the German investigation will turn up trumps in finding out what actually happened to Madeleine ... much as the once verbose strangely silent Brueckner lawyers are doing.
This man is dangerous, albeit a very damaged individual himself.
Agreed - but it does not make him the abductor committing a perfect crime.
They've been at it since 2017, I think, so shouldn't be long now.
They've been at it since 2017, I think, so shouldn't be long now.Wrong. It might take many more years, same as many cases which can take a generation or more of sheer dogged determination and hard work to solve, so sneer away at those efforts if you must but understand it is not a foregone conclusion that their efforts are all in vain.
I don't think it was "the perfect crime" I think it was more the imperfectly handled investigation which Amaral is still intent on sending on the wrong track with his recent inept intervention.
I think it is worth waiting to see if the German investigation will turn up trumps in finding out what actually happened to Madeleine ... much as the once verbose strangely silent Brueckner lawyers are doing.
Did I say it does?
Do you never wonder why the investigators from elite police have found so much to keep themselves investigating Madeleine's case since it was reopened by Britain and Portugal in 2013 and now joined by Germany?
I think that may be a rhetorical question.
Do you not think if CB did not have the record he has anyone would have the slightest interest in him. although he is a disgusting+++ individual - could this be sort of trial by the record, not evidence.Guilty of murder. A man with a long history of sex crimes, who had never before committed a murder before this one (as far as we know) and his previous crimes were reported in the press and discussed in court. All these factors rebutt the numerous reasons given on here for why we shouldn’t take HCW’s suspect seriously.
Maybe this is the wrong thread and probably will be removed - but there is an actual case going on at the moment.
It seems this man although another disgusting +++ individual has been charged with murder because of his past record.
Although at the time he was not known to police before the Libby case. It was only when people recognised him and came forward they got DNA and charged him with several sex offences that he is now serving 8 years for.
The Jury has not yet reached a decision although it could be tomorrow. it will be interesting what the outcome will be. although a terribly sad case whatever it is.
The majority of people and police think he murdered Libby although there is no evidence he did or how she died.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/libby-squire-murder-accused-pawel-4882281
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/libby-squire-murder-accused-pawel-4882281
Seeing very quiet on here at the moment wonder how many will think him innocent till proven guilty before the actual verdict is announced.
Do you never wonder why the investigators from elite police have found so much to keep themselves investigating Madeleine's case since it was reopened by Britain and Portugal in 2013 and now joined by Germany?
I think that may be a rhetorical question.
Operation Grange was a full MIT at first, but that stopped over five years ago. There are just four officers in the team now, keeping it ticking over I assume.
Operation Grange was a full MIT at first, but that stopped over five years ago. There are just four officers in the team now, keeping it ticking over I assume.
Probably becasue the Germans are now leading the investigation which is as good as solved..imoBe careful not to libel CB. He has the ECHR right of innocence until proven guilty.
Be careful not to libel CB. He has the ECHR right of innocence until proven guilty.
i have never come close to libelling him and i support his POI. Im stating as a fact that Wolters ha ssaid he has strong evidence CB murdered Maddie. If Cb isnt happy with that he needs to take it up with Wolters.Repeating Wolter's libel doesn't help your case IMO.
Repeating Wolter's libel doesn't help your case IMO.
Repeating Wolter's libel doesn't help your case IMO.
Who says wolters is commiting libel...I think its possible he has taht evidence...remeber its evidence he has not proof.I think if it is potential libel, as you already have said, "If Cb isnt happy with that he needs to take it up with Wolters", repeating what Wolters said is also potential libel IMO.
Im not repeating what wolters is saying...Im not repeating libel...Im not saying wolters has strong evidence....im saying thats what wolters is saying...its a fact that he is saying it
I think if it is potential libel, as you already have said, "If Cb isnt happy with that he needs to take it up with Wolters", repeating what Wolters said is also potential libel IMO.
I thought we had established that on the other thread. Everyone has the right to a good reputation.
Operation Grange was a full MIT at first, but that stopped over five years ago. There are just four officers in the team now, keeping it ticking over I assume.I don't know enough to pontificate on operational matters and your assumptions rather suggest that you know nothing either.
iWolters is staing as afact that he has concrete evidence....Im not sating fact he has concrete evidence. What im saying is not libellous.....We also have to judge cases of potential libel on the forum.
I think if it is potential libel, as you already have said, "If Cb isnt happy with that he needs to take it up with Wolters", repeating what Wolters said is also potential libel IMO.
I thought we had established that on the other thread. Everyone has the right to a good reputation.
Close down this Thread now then. Or remove every mention of what Wolters has said.And how do you do that?
I think if it is potential libel, as you already have said, "If Cb isnt happy with that he needs to take it up with Wolters", repeating what Wolters said is also potential libel IMO.
I thought we had established that on the other thread. Everyone has the right to a good reputation.
I think if it is potential libel, as you already have said, "If Cb isnt happy with that he needs to take it up with Wolters", repeating what Wolters said is also potential libel IMO.
I thought we had established that on the other thread. Everyone has the right to a good reputation.
And how do you do that?
And how do you do that?
Quite often I wish you would pause for thought prior to hitting the post button, Rob, so many of your posts are harbingers of total disruption to the threads.That is a similar argument the SC tried to raise against the McCanns.
The thread consists of discussing the German case which features a proven violent rapist and child abuser. Good luck to anyone who can find any signs of him having any claim to a 'good reputation' ~ his convictions seem to show that has already been blown away many years ago.
Having once done so inadvertently ... I have absolutely no intention of telling you how to do it.Yes, get Eleanor to answer the question. I'm not at war.
Is there any chance of us progressing the thread without constant aggravation? This is a discussion forum ... not a war zone.
Probably becasue the Germans are now leading the investigation which is as good as solved..imoWhen you say "as good as solved" I took that to mean the case against CB is as good as solved, implying CB is guilty of murder, and that you had this view even before the evidence has been presented in court and CB being found guilty by a court.
I don't know why they ever started, the case was solved by Amaral in 2007.
What about this one...liked by gunit. Can we have some comsistencyA good point. G Unit gave me a warning for libel and not using IMO, but she has liked a post which claims that Amaral’s theory is correct without an IMO in sight.
A good point. G Unit gave me a warning for libel and not using IMO, but she has like a post which claims that Amaral’s theory is correct without an IMO in sight.Good point.
Getting back on topic.. Wolters does seem convinced of CBs guilt... We will just have to wait and see what this concrete evidence isWas that the topic?
To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?
Has the BKA/HCW ever visited soc, interviewed Mc's, T7? If not what makes them think they know more about the case than PJ and SY?
Was that the topic?it so on topic because only Wolters knows the answer... No one here does
From the OP "To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?"
Not any easy question in anyone's book.
Has the BKA/HCW ever visited soc, interviewed Mc's, T7? If not what makes them think they know more about the case than PJ and SY?
Has the BKA/HCW ever visited soc, interviewed Mc's, T7? If not what makes them think they know more about the case than PJ and SY?I don't know, does it have a bearing on the questions I asked though?
It would depend on what evidence he has... A video of Maddie being abused for instance
If such evidence exists why not charge CB? Afaik he hasn't even been interviewed? Its over 8 months since HCW made his pronouncements.
Have you followed the case against CB. They may have that evidence but the abuser pixel lated... Its happened before.
There's lots of reasons not to act yet. HCW wants to return to Portugal but its off limits at the moment
I don't know, does it have a bearing on the questions I asked though?
So why didn't he go when it wasn't off-limits - seems like an excuse to me
Have you followed the case against CB. They may have that evidence but the abuser pixel lated... Its happened before.
There's lots of reasons not to act yet. HCW wants to return to Portugal but its off limits at the moment
Have you followed the case against CB. They may have that evidence but the abuser pixel lated... Its happened before.
There's lots of reasons not to act yet. HCW wants to return to Portugal but its off limits at the moment
To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?As I understand its none of those.. Something far more substantial such that idlf we knew we would agree with him
BKA/HCW have yet to reveal what convinces them that CB is their man. If its CB's criminal past, a phone call registered at circa 7.30 pm on 4th May, a vehicle in his ownership re-registered on 5th May and a dubious character saying it was im wot dunnit then I think I understand why CB hasn't even been interviewed.
The concrete evidence he has was first mentioned on June the 16th 2020....he has had more than enough time to visit Portugal IMOAfaiu they have been since june
The lead investigator into the main suspect in Madeleine McCann's disappearance said police have "concrete evidence" Christian Brueckner killed the missing British girl
Afaik there's no evidence the crime was sexually motivated.? if the authorities have evidence of MM being abused with the abuser pixel lated then how would anyone know the abuser's identity?
Thats why they need more evidence
As I understand its none of those.. Something far more substantial such that idlf we knew we would agree with him
He isn't being interviewed because Wolters doesn't want to reveal his evidence and won't be interviewed until shortly before being charged
To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?
BKA/HCW have yet to reveal what convinces them that CB is their man. If its CB's criminal past, a phone call registered at circa 7.30 pm on 4th May, a vehicle in his ownership re-registered on 5th May and a dubious character saying it was im wot dunnit then I think I understand why CB hasn't even been interviewed.
Hello stranger! It's obvious that the BKA/HCW don't have a case just yet, because they would have moved on to questioning/arresting their suspect if they had.Opinion as fact.. He has a case... But its not watertight and he's in no rush... That's my opinion
Looking at what has been shared in public, it's not much (btw the phone call was 3rd May, and the car re-registration was 4th). Whatever unshared evidence exists it has been admitted that it's not enough to question/charge their suspect.
I find it surprising that a prosecutor would publicly accuse a suspect of murder based on evidence which he admits isn't even sufficient to arrest and charge the suspect.
Hello stranger! It's obvious that the BKA/HCW don't have a case just yet, because they would have moved on to questioning/arresting their suspect if they had.
Looking at what has been shared in public, it's not much (btw the phone call was 3rd May, and the car re-registration was 4th). Whatever unshared evidence exists it has been admitted that it's not enough to question/charge their suspect.
I find it surprising that a prosecutor would publicly accuse a suspect of murder based on evidence which he admits isn't even sufficient to arrest and charge the suspect.
Opinion as fact.. He has a case... But its not watertight and he's in no rush... That's my opinion
If he's in no rush why the need to go public some 8 months ago?
He made an appeal for information.. Simple
Exactly because he has no real evidence against CB and was on a massive fishing expedition imo.
To the people on here who think they know more about the case than the German investigation - do you believe the Germans should have conceded defeat by now and already given up trying to build a case against Bruckner, and if so why?The Germans haven't revealed what it is that convinces them that CB is their man. It's in addition to the things you list above, as they have stated.
BKA/HCW have yet to reveal what convinces them that CB is their man. If its CB's criminal past, a phone call registered at circa 7.30 pm on 4th May, a vehicle in his ownership re-registered on 5th May and a dubious character saying it was im wot dunnit then I think I understand why CB hasn't even been interviewed.
Exactly because he has no real evidence against CB and was on a massive fishing expedition imo.It is possible to have a ton of strong circumstantial evidence which still isn't enough to ensure a successful conviction - see the submarine murder case as a good example. It was an absolute no brainer who the murderer was but they still couldn't charge him with murder and hope for a successful conviction without incontrovertible proof.
They did
The Germans haven't revealed what it is that convinces them that CB is their man. It's in addition to the things you list above, as they have stated.
Seems this was this the result
December 1, 2020
A leaked note from Policia Judicialia seen by The Sun revealed negative comments made in an internal email following a top secret meeting in Lisbon.
Officials from Portugal’s Policia Judicialia, Germany’s BKA, and Scotland Yard gathered to discuss the condition of the spacecraft.
‘Sorry’
An unidentified Portuguese officer claimed that the German BKA did not have a solid lead and had put the suspect in jail.
He writes: “There is no evidence, it’s just speculation. I was shocked when I read the German case. I didn’t expect BKA to investigate so badly.
added
“This is not a serious and objective investigation, but just to keep the suspect in jail at all costs.
“The meeting was to get the point of the situation. The suspect will not leave prison until the end of the year and will imprison him because BKA wants to investigate two other possible cases of sexual harassment.”
You're telling me. If such a video exists what's the connection with CB?
It is possible to have a ton of strong circumstantial evidence which still isn't enough to ensure a successful conviction - see the submarine murder case as a good example. It was an absolute no brainer who the murderer was but they still couldn't charge him with murder and hope for a successful conviction without incontrovertible proof.
It is possible to have a ton of strong circumstantial evidence which still isn't enough to ensure a successful conviction - see the submarine murder case as a good example. It was an absolute no brainer who the murderer was but they still couldn't charge him with murder and hope for a successful conviction without incontrovertible proof.Did they announce to the world who the suspect was, rhetorical.
I dont believe prosecutors/criminal trials require incontrovertible proof just enough to convince a jury or judges. If in CB's case it doesn't exist then how do we know HCW isn't barking up the wrong tree?! (Hopefully this isn't going to bring us back to the dogs 8)><()
SY thought Colin Stagg was a no brainer but they were ultimately proved completely wrong.
I dont believe prosecutors/criminal trials require incontrovertible proof just enough to convince a jury or judges. If in CB's case it doesn't exist then how do we know HCW isn't barking up the wrong tree?! (Hopefully this isn't going to bring us back to the dogs 8)><()
SY thought Colin Stagg was a no brainer but they were ultimately proved completely wrong.
You and others are going round in circles... It depends what evidence Wolters has. We don't know
Please don't make it personal. We don't know that HCW has any evidence.What we do know is, its not enough to question CB.
If its in addition then what exactly is it?I have no idea - they haven't told us.
Did they announce to the world who the suspect was, rhetorical.I believe so, yes.
Please don't make it personal. We don't know that HCW has any evidence.So you don't accept his word?
I dont believe prosecutors/criminal trials require incontrovertible proof just enough to convince a jury or judges. If in CB's case it doesn't exist then how do we know HCW isn't barking up the wrong tree?! (Hopefully this isn't going to bring us back to the dogs 8)><()They did in the case I'm referring to it would seem. They already had a suspect who had admitted to cutting up and disposing of the body, they just didn't have enough to prove he intended to murder her and so were not able to take it forward to trial until they got the proof they needed.
SY thought Colin Stagg was a no brainer but they were ultimately proved completely wrong.
So you don't accept his word?
Why would I when he hasn't delivered over 8 months and his position seems at odd with communication from DCI Mark Cranwell, MET Commissioner Cressida Dick, PJ and the Mc's?You're under no obligation to accept his word but that doesn't mean he is lying. There is no reason I can think of as to why he should make such a bare-faced lie. I therefore choose to take him at his word and would expect you to respect that point of view.
Why would I when he hasn't delivered over 8 months and his position seems at odd with communication from DCI Mark Cranwell, MET Commissioner Cressida Dick, PJ and the Mc's?
Ctessida Dicck said last month as I recall SY are working very very closely with the Germans. No matter... We all have our views... Wait and see
You're under no obligation to accept his word but that doesn't mean he is lying. There is no reason I can think of as to why he should make such a bare-faced lie. I therefore choose to take him at his word and would expect you to respect that point of view.
Exactly because he has no real evidence against CB and was on a massive fishing expedition imo.
I dont have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to take HCW at his word. All I'm saying is that 8 months on afaik CB hasn't even been interviewed. HCW's position also seems to be at odds with positions held by MET, PJ and Mc's.Do you still think he would be in a job if he was a lying egotistical maniac? As you don’t know the full picture wouldn’t it be sensible not to make such suggestions?
We don't know anything about HCW. He might be some sort of egotistical maniac. It seems to me he was convinced CB was involved based on his criminal past, the phone call, car re-reg and his pal's revelations and was happy to take a punt by going on a fishing expedition with the appeal.
I dont have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to take HCW at his word. All I'm saying is that 8 months on afaik CB hasn't even been interviewed. HCW's position also seems to be at odds with positions held by MET, PJ and Mc's.
We don't know anything about HCW. He might be some sort of egotistical maniac. It seems to me he was convinced CB was involved based on his criminal past, the phone call, car re-reg and his pal's revelations and was happy to take a punt by going on a fishing expedition with the appeal.
I made the same point myself some weeks ago. I assume your post will incite the same reaction.
Assuming he's being quoted correctly, to my mind, he seems to talk in riddles. He's a prosecutor and therefore reasonable to expect him to have a good understanding of what evidence is required to bring about charges and secure a conviction. And yet he states:I understand it completely. I refer you back to the case I mentioned earlier. The only conclusion you could reach was that the inventor had a sexual motivation to kill and behead the victim based on the evidence and the search history on his computer but it still wasn’t enough to ensure the suspect would be found guilty of murder.
Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904
If what he has doesn't allow for any other conclusion at all then surely the judges within the German judiciary (trial by judges in Germany) will agree so why not charge CB?
Holly, in your experience do police when investigating any crime divulge every last piece of evidence they have to the general public before beinging charges? Do you think that’s what’s happened in this case?
SY are working with the police in Germany and Portugal. Why would the head of MET say it is still treating case as a missing person if HCW has concrete evidence MM is dead?
Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357
Assuming he's being quoted correctly, to my mind, he seems to talk in riddles. He's a prosecutor and therefore reasonable to expect him to have a good understanding of what evidence is required to bring about charges and secure a conviction. And yet he states:
Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904
If what he has doesn't allow for any other conclusion at all then surely the judges within the German judiciary (trial by judges in Germany) will agree so why not charge CB?
I can't think of another case where a proseuctor has made such damning public statements about a suspect who afaik hasn't even been interviewed. Why do the public need to know anything including the prosecutor's views?Holly, could you answer my question please.
I understand it completely. I refer you back to the case I mentioned earlier. The only conclusion you could reach was that the inventor had a sexual motivation to kill and behead the victim based on the evidence and the search history on his computer but it still wasn’t enough to ensure the suspect would be found guilty of murder.
Everything he says makes perfect sense to me
It seems to me he suffers from confirmation bias:You don't know what evidence he has.. I think it's those who doubt him who suffer from confirmation bias
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228188891_Confirmation_Bias_in_Criminal_Investigations
Holly, could you answer my question please.
You don't know what evidence he has. I think it's those who doubt him who suffer from confirmation bias
Neither do you, assuming he has any.
based on many many points....i think he has the evidence
based on many many points....i think he has the evidence
What points are you referring to?
Even the Mc's find it "bizarre".
https://www.portugalresident.com/parents-of-madeleine-mccann-describe-german-police-probe-as-beyond-bizarre/
i think its bizarre you are quoting the portugal resident.
Ive given my points many times and cant be bothered to go through it all again. Im sure he has some highly significant evidence....which will be revealed
OK hows about the Daily Record
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-believe-german-23159156
Do you think the Mc's have been misquoted?
i think its bizarre you are quoting the portugal resident.
Ive given my points many times and cant be bothered to go through it all again. Im sure he has some highly significant evidence....which will be revealed
Yes...Im sure they have
If he has some highly significant evidence why they need to beat the drum publicly? Why not just get on and charge him?
On what basis are you sure the Mc's have been misquoted?
On what basis are you sure the Mc's have been misquoted?
Of course the prosecution doesn't reveal the evidence to the public before trial, why would it? Nor does it make public pronouncements about a suspects guilt before even interviewing him/her.So you concede that we are unlikely to know all the evidence that the Germans have against CB?
If he has some highly significant evidence why they need to beat the drum publicly? Why not just get on and charge him?
As of Christmas 2020 the Mc's still have hope of finding MM. If they believed HCW why would they have hope of finding MM?
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.html
So you concede that we are unlikely to know all the evidence that the Germans have against CB?
Are you unaware that HCW hasn't shared his evidence
I'm sure the Germans know exactly what they are doing and will do it in their own good time. Why should they do something in haste when they've got loads of time to do it slowly and carefully.
I'm aware that HCW has made some big bold claims and yet CB hasn't even been interviewed.
I'm aware that HCW has made some big bold claims and yet CB hasn't even been interviewed.
If the Johnny-Come-Lately has any evidence it begs the question why CB hasn't even been interviewed.Why are you deriding HCW?
McCanns 3rd june
in the search for Madeleine.
All we have ever wanted is to find her, uncover the truth and bring those responsible to justice. We will never give up hope of finding Madeleine alive but whatever the outcome may be, we need to know as we need to find peace.
Looks like they accept she may be dead
They've stated they will never give up hope of finding Madeleine alive. If they believed HCW has evidence MM is dead why would they state the former?
If the Johnny-Come-Lately has any evidence it begs the question why CB hasn't even been interviewed.
They've stated they will never give up hope of finding Madeleine alive. If they believed HCW has evidence MM is dead why would they state the former?I really don’t think the McCanns are the best people to give a rational view of the situation, in much the same way as Kerry Needham hasn’t given up hope of finding Ben alive.
I'm aware that HCW has made some big bold claims and yet CB hasn't even been interviewed.Mr Wolters has clarified why Brückner has not been interviewed as yet by the BKA and himself as prosecutor.
I really don’t think the McCanns are the best people to give a rational view of the situation, in much the same way as Kerry Needham hasn’t given up hope of finding Ben alive.
I think Wolters is painstakingly building a record of where CB was around the time of the disappearance by interviewing every associate of CB. [He needs to return one more time to Portugal to complete it... But Portugal is off limits at the moment.
IMO when he has all this info he will then interview CB...
The MET is still treating as a missing person.
Mr Wolters has clarified why Brückner has not been interviewed as yet by the BKA and himself as prosecutor.
I think HCW, a Johnny-come-lately, wants to make a name for himself on the back of the MM case.
A criminal associate of CB's has implicated him in MM's disappearance (probably because it has benefitted him in some way) and this along with the phone call, car re-reg, CB's criminal past, and the fact MM's whereabouts remains unknown, has led HCW to believe CB is his man. He knows its a long shot but is prepared to take a punt and made a public appeal in anticipation of securing some evidence, but so far nothing hence CB hasn't even been interviewed let alone charged.
Nothing much to loose for HCW until such time the case takes a different direction and then he will have to face the music...
I think HCW, a Johnny-come-lately, wants to make a name for himself on the back of the MM case.
A criminal associate of CB's has implicated him in MM's disappearance (probably because it has benefitted him in some way) and this along with the phone call, car re-reg, CB's criminal past, and the fact MM's whereabouts remains unknown, has led HCW to believe CB is his man. He knows its a long shot but is prepared to take a punt and made a public appeal in anticipation of securing some evidence, but so far nothing hence CB hasn't even been interviewed let alone charged.
Nothing much to loose for HCW until such time the case takes a different direction and then he will have to face the music...
I think HCW, a Johnny-come-lately, wants to make a name for himself on the back of the MM case.
A criminal associate of CB's has implicated him in MM's disappearance (probably because it has benefitted him in some way) and this along with the phone call, car re-reg, CB's criminal past, and the fact MM's whereabouts remains unknown, has led HCW to believe CB is his man. He knows its a long shot but is prepared to take a punt and made a public appeal in anticipation of securing some evidence, but so far nothing hence CB hasn't even been interviewed let alone charged.
Nothing much to loose for HCW until such time the case takes a different direction and then he will have to face the music...
I think HCW, a Johnny-come-lately, wants to make a name for himself on the back of the MM case.It’s an opinion but I think it would be far wiser to keep it to yourself until a decision is made on whether or not to charge CB.
A criminal associate of CB's has implicated him in MM's disappearance (probably because it has benefitted him in some way) and this along with the phone call, car re-reg, CB's criminal past, and the fact MM's whereabouts remains unknown, has led HCW to believe CB is his man. He knows its a long shot but is prepared to take a punt and made a public appeal in anticipation of securing some evidence, but so far nothing hence CB hasn't even been interviewed let alone charged.
Nothing much to loose for HCW until such time the case takes a different direction and then he will have to face the music...
I think HCW, a Johnny-come-lately, wants to make a name for himself on the back of the MM case.
A criminal associate of CB's has implicated him in MM's disappearance (probably because it has benefitted him in some way) and this along with the phone call, car re-reg, CB's criminal past, and the fact MM's whereabouts remains unknown, has led HCW to believe CB is his man. He knows its a long shot but is prepared to take a punt and made a public appeal in anticipation of securing some evidence, but so far nothing hence CB hasn't even been interviewed let alone charged.
Nothing much to loose for HCW until such time the case takes a different direction and then he will have to face the music...
I think it will be those who have underestimated Wolters who will end up with egg their face... I look forward to it
I think HCW, a Johnny-come-lately, wants to make a name for himself on the back of the MM case.
A criminal associate of CB's has implicated him in MM's disappearance (probably because it has benefitted him in some way) and this along with the phone call, car re-reg, CB's criminal past, and the fact MM's whereabouts remains unknown, has led HCW to believe CB is his man. He knows its a long shot but is prepared to take a punt and made a public appeal in anticipation of securing some evidence, but so far nothing hence CB hasn't even been interviewed let alone charged.
Nothing much to loose for HCW until such time the case takes a different direction and then he will have to face the music...
Wolters revealing why he hasn't revealed evidence -
Mr Wolters said: "If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do but I can't give you details because we don't want the accused to know what we have on him - these are tactical considerations."
It appears OG haven’t been told either.OG haven’t commented recently. Perhaps they have now been brought up to speed.
What ‘tactical considerations’ would stop one police authority sharing information with another who they are supposed to be working with do you think?
OG haven’t commented recently. Perhaps they have now been brought up to speed.
It appears OG haven’t been told either.
What ‘tactical considerations’ would stop one police authority sharing information with another who they are supposed to be working with do you think?
The Germans can't risk the information getting in to the hands of the ever leaking PJ
Speed is not a word to be associated with pc plod.
Well you know the saying, 'time's money'. The longer it takes, the more funding OG gets.That’s right. They’re only in it for the money, otherwise those 4 policemen would be out of a job.