MADELEINE McCann cops have requested more cash in their £12million hunt – as her parents hail their “iron will determination” to find her.
Detectives have put a bid into the Home Office for more money when their current tax payer-funded handout runs out in four weeks.
Around £12million has been spent on the investigation by UK authorities – with £300k last awarded to the team in June last year.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “It is good news that the Met Police are seeking a new budget to continue the search for Madeleine.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11047514/madeleine-mccann-cops-cash-12m/
great news
great news
MADELEINE McCann cops have requested more cash in their £12million hunt – as her parents hail their “iron will determination” to find her.
Detectives have put a bid into the Home Office for more money when their current tax payer-funded handout runs out in four weeks.
Around £12million has been spent on the investigation by UK authorities – with £300k last awarded to the team in June last year.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “It is good news that the Met Police are seeking a new budget to continue the search for Madeleine.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11047514/madeleine-mccann-cops-cash-12m/
I thought this was s Portuguese investigation with SY assisting...seems the Portuguese still have something to investigate
Excellent news.
I think you'll find the Portuguese have better things to do rather than chase ghosts. IMO they know what happened to the child so spending further resources on a wild goose chase is pointless.
Amaral had the best opportunity to solve this case but he was hung out to dry.
I think amaral showed he hadn't got a clue
I think you'll find the Portuguese have better things to do rather than chase ghosts. IMO they know what happened to the child so spending further resources on a wild goose chase is pointless.
Amaral had the best opportunity to solve this case but he was hung out to dry.
A good excuse for some but fortunately there are those who know better.
Did Amaral share your opinion of what happened to Madeleine?
I thought he believed her parents disposed of her body.
If the Portuguese police KNOW what happened to Madeleine why do they not share this knowledge with Operation Grange?
Do the Portuguese police believe your theory orAmarals theory?
Amaral had several theories, some were promoted more than others. He too was of the opinion the Smiths saw the man carrying Maddie down past the medical centre that night. Joining up the dots isn't too hard.
I think amaral showed he hadn't got a clue
You haven't answered my question.
You posted that the Portuguese police KNOW what happened to Madeleine.
Why do they not share this knowledge with Operation Grange?
Because they have differing priorities.
You haven't answered my question.
You posted that the Portuguese police KNOW what happened to Madeleine.
Why do they not share this knowledge with Operation Grange?
well that dont you think could be because SY - are only interested in maddie being abducted no other possibility.
He did..he wrote s book and made s documentary which proved beyond doubt he hadn't got a clue
he didn't get chance to show he had did he.
Amaral had several theories, some were promoted more than others. He too was of the opinion the Smiths saw the man carrying Maddie down past the medical centre that night. Joining up the dots isn't too hard.
It was for Amaral and his investigators who didn't appear to take a blind bit of notice of them until after Mr Smith changed his story by misidentifying Gerry coincidentally, exactly the same as Mr McCluskey had done before him.Is this fact now?
he didn't get chance to show he had did he.
Is this fact now?Yes it is a fact now and was fact at the time. Mr McCluskey and Mr Smith added to their original statements and gave almost identical amendments to the police.
Yes it is a fact now and was fact at the time. Mr McCluskey and Mr Smith added to their original statements and gave almost identical amendments to the police.No it's not. It was rhetorical.
MADELEINE McCann cops have requested more cash in their £12million hunt – as her parents hail their “iron will determination” to find her.
Detectives have put a bid into the Home Office for more money when their current tax payer-funded handout runs out in four weeks.
Around £12million has been spent on the investigation by UK authorities – with £300k last awarded to the team in June last year.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “It is good news that the Met Police are seeking a new budget to continue the search for Madeleine.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11047514/madeleine-mccann-cops-cash-12m/
Yes - you never know they may find another barmaid to interview.
The public have had enough of this farce. IMO Maddie died in Praia da Luz nearly thirteen years ago and nothing this lot will do will ever change that or bring her back. Had her parents had a bit more common sense we wouldn't be here today debating this case.What on earth makes you think “the guy who run her over” is dead?
The guy who ran her over and transported her away is long dead imo. IMO she is most probably buried in the hills near to PdL and will never be found.
Because they have differing priorities.What’s the Portuguese priority in this case? Protecting one of their own maybe?
What’s the Portuguese priority in this case? Protecting one of their own maybe?
If she has relevant information what would be wrong with that, or do you think barmaids should not be involved in police investigations?
Yes - you never know they may find another barmaid to interview.
Being id’ed as the dead guy who ran over Madeleine maybe? Just trying to work out what the heck Angelo’s going on about tbh.
From what?
He did..he wrote s book and made s documentary which proved beyond doubt he hadn't got a clue
If she has relevant information what would be wrong with that, or do you think barmaids should not be involved in police investigations?
Book still stands though D - its not banned there for all to read
no idea.
How long and how much did it take to find her - did it do any good is the question.
How long and how much did it take to find her - did it do any good is the question.
Shouldn't have taken 9 yrs,she's been there since 2007,no hurry it seeems.If Madeleine was abducted chances are it was by someone local who still lives in the area so why would you think it ludicrous or contemptible that the Met, as part of their investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance would want to interview or re-interview people from PdL?
If Madeleine was abducted chances are it was by someone local who still lives in the area so why would you think it ludicrous or contemptible that the Met, as part of their investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance would want to interview or re-interview people from PdL?£12 million for that! and please sir can I have more,wonder who plays Bumble at the HO.
£12 million for that! and please sir can I have more,wonder who plays Bumble at the HO.You think £12m was spent on interviewing one barmaid? OK, interesting logic, or lack of it. Has it been confirmed to you that this interview shed no light on Madeleine’s disappearance? Just wondering how you know so much about the apparent failure of Op Grange. Are you part of the team?
They may need more money to investigate Holly's theory...
The problem for SY is that they either ask for more money or have to account for that already spent. The former being much simpler given they have totally failed to solve the case or provide any sustainable leads.Looks like Admin’ s being kept abreast of Op Grange’s failures too. So many people on here with the inside track, it’s quite amazing.
Looks like Admin’ s being kept abreast of Op Grange’s failures too. So many people on here with the inside track, it’s quite amazing.Stick with us kid, you're learning. And there's plenty more where that came from [conspiratorial winking yellow emoji]
Stick with us kid, you're learning. And there's plenty more where that came from [conspiratorial winking yellow emoji]As someone who’s been involved in online discussions about this case for nearly 13 years I don’t think I have anything more to learn about the kind of bullshit that some people claim to know about what’s going on behind the scenes, but thanks for the attention.
As someone who’s been involved in online discussions about this case for nearly 13 years I don’t think I have anything more to learn about the kind of bullshit that some people claim to know about what’s going on behind the scenes, but thanks for the attention.No problem. As you say, inside track.
If Madeleine was abducted chances are it was by someone local who still lives in the area so why would you think it ludicrous or contemptible that the Met, as part of their investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance would want to interview or re-interview people from PdL?
You have to wonder why, if it was the Met, they chose to speak to the monkey and not the organ grinder. Jehle wasn't hard to find, was he?
You have to wonder why, if it was the Met, they chose to speak to the monkey and not the organ grinder. Jehle wasn't hard to find, was he?
You have to wonder why, if it was the Met, they chose to speak to the monkey and not the organ grinder. Jehle wasn't hard to find, was he?We've only heard from the monkey through the medium of a tabloid and now the silence is deafening. I don't think there is much profit in placing too much reliance on that although it was interesting to get information about police searches not in the files to which we have access.
We've only heard from the monkey through the medium of a tabloid and now the silence is deafening. I don't think there is much profit in placing too much reliance on that although it was interesting to get information about police searches not in the files to which we have access.In 2010, there were around 3,630 Sure Start centres. By late 2017, the number of Sure Start centres had fallen by around 1,200. The National Audit Office found that spending by councils in England on Sure Start fell by 50% in real terms from 2010/11 to 2016/17.
I think the good news is that Scotland Yard are not making any obvious preparation to let us know they are starting to wind down. Quite the reverse if they are asking for continued funding to keep going.
In 2010, there were around 3,630 Sure Start centres. By late 2017, the number of Sure Start centres had fallen by around 1,200. The National Audit Office found that spending by councils in England on Sure Start fell by 50% in real terms from 2010/11 to 2016/17.
Spend the £300k on something that will positively impact 1000's of young lives.
If the McCann's want to continue searching, then perhaps ask the public to donate again - let them decide.
In 2010, there were around 3,630 Sure Start centres. By late 2017, the number of Sure Start centres had fallen by around 1,200. The National Audit Office found that spending by councils in England on Sure Start fell by 50% in real terms from 2010/11 to 2016/17.
Spend the £300k on something that will positively impact 1000's of young lives.
If the McCann's want to continue searching, then perhaps ask the public to donate again - let them decide.
No. Not the point. If the cash dried up they could employ private detectives - real ones this time.
Are the McCaans asking for the further cash or Operation Gange.?
No. Not the point. If the cash dried up they could employ private detectives - real ones this time.
It is the point of your post.No. They could do a round of GoFundMe. There's thousands of gullible sops out there willing to splurge on such things. Let the public decide if they want to pay.
You want the public to decide whether the search should continue.
That is a choice for the current investigation to make, not the public.
Or do you want another referendum?
No. They could do a round of GoFundMe. There's thousands of gullible sops out there willing to splurge on such things. Let the public decide if they want to pay.
Who could do a round of GoFundMe?Eh? Referendum for what? You're on the internet right now, you know that right?
Operation Grange who have asked for extra funding?
You DO want a referendum!
Eh? Referendum for what? You're on the internet right now, you know that right?
GoFundMe? Patreon?
There is always a point in any exchange of posts with your goodself, that I have no idea of that which you are trying to say.! Lol.Indeed.
Eh? Referendum for what? You're on the internet right now, you know that right?
GoFundMe? Patreon?
Oh that didn't work Herr general. When the GFM was set up for Amaral to stand up to the McCanns- Kate also sought money for her charity run... didn't do all that well, where as Amarals fund. well...
Oh that didn't work Herr general. When the GFM was set up for Amaral to stand up to the McCanns- Kate also sought money for her charity run... didn't do all that well, where as Amarals fund. well...The McCanns raised a million quid plus for the Fund, how much did Gonc’s appeal raise?
The McCanns raised a million quid plus for the Fund, how much did Gonc’s appeal raise?
Snort. Not a lot.
Please do be careful.
They stopped when they had enough to fund the appeal which they won. Justice would have been denied if people hadn't rallied round, wouldn't it?
Be careful of what? why are you threatening me? You need posters. posters don't need you.
They stopped when they had enough to fund the appeal which they won. Justice would have been denied if people hadn't rallied round, wouldn't it?
They stopped when they had enough to fund the appeal which they won. Justice would have been denied if people hadn't rallied round, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't that have been a pile of rubbish. Amaral would have been abandoned for lack of money?
Do me favour. How daft do you think I am? You think that a Portuguese Court would have denied Amaral because he had no money? That is the most stupid thing that I have ever heard.
I have evidence on which my claims are based. Are your claims based on evidence?
A second injunction succeeded in freezing Dr. Amaral's assets and income, denying him the opportunity to defend himself in court...
In April 2015, as the legal action dragged on and costs were becoming difficult to handle, an approach was made to the friends who created PJGA, suggesting that a GoFundMe page be launched to generate additional funds...
On 21 October 2015, when it was considered that sufficient funds had been raised, it was decided the GoFundMe page would be closed on 28 October 2015...
The group of friends and Mr Amaral himself remain eternally grateful for your support in allowing a man to defend himself in court and for justice to prevail.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2016/
So this is on which Portuguese Justice depends. No wonder Leonor Cipriano didn't stand a hope in hell's chance.
I take it you're not offering any evidence to uphold your claims?
I have evidence on which my claims are based. Are your claims based on evidence?
A second injunction succeeded in freezing Dr. Amaral's assets and income, denying him the opportunity to defend himself in court...
In April 2015, as the legal action dragged on and costs were becoming difficult to handle, an approach was made to the friends who created PJGA, suggesting that a GoFundMe page be launched to generate additional funds...
On 21 October 2015, when it was considered that sufficient funds had been raised, it was decided the GoFundMe page would be closed on 28 October 2015...
The group of friends and Mr Amaral himself remain eternally grateful for your support in allowing a man to defend himself in court and for justice to prevail.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2016/
It’s not a valid comparison. Amaral’s fund was to benefit him directly (and supported by a small but fanatically devoted bunch of internet warriors) , so much more like the Madeleine Fund which was set up because of the huge donations that were sent in to the McCanns when Madeleine disappeared. Kate’s run was to raise funds for a charity, not anyone specific, so far urgent or emotive.
Indeed!
My initial comparison was not about the McCann company fund it was about Kate doing a charity run for missing persons. Amaral got more money! to pay his legal fees to standup to the McCanns
It’s not a valid comparison. Amaral’s fund was to benefit him directly (and supported by a small but fanatically devoted bunch of internet warriors) , so much more like the Madeleine Fund which was set up because of the huge donations that were sent in to the McCanns when Madeleine disappeared. Kate’s run was to raise funds for a charity, not anyone specific, so far urgent or emotive.
You are trying to hijack this. The comparison is: the British public chose to support Amaral who was being pursued by the McCanns, as opposed to less support for Kate McCann and her 'charity' run.You have completely missed the point and how does countering your illogical argument constitute “highjacking”?
Which surprised me! aswe are told that the majority love them and feel sorry for them- that is still to be proved.
You have completely missed the point and how does countering your illogical argument constitute “highjacking”?
Who has told you that “the majority love and support” Kate McCann?
You tried to claim Kate won one million pounds for her charity when I was making the comparison about charity run.I did not try to claim that Kate won one million pounds for her charity, you are quite Miss Taken!
Check back to earlier days, posting on the forum was the gushing... and news papers telling their story... it was played out the sympathy of the public however, the public soon got sick of them as was seen when comments were allowed.
We've only heard from the monkey through the medium of a tabloid and now the silence is deafening. I don't think there is much profit in placing too much reliance on that although it was interesting to get information about police searches not in the files to which we have access.
I think the good news is that Scotland Yard are not making any obvious preparation to let us know they are starting to wind down. Quite the reverse if they are asking for continued funding to keep going.
To me, the continued funding is related to a real and honest attempt to find out what happened to Madeleine. Madeleine’s case may bring to the surface a context that may lead the way to other missing children cases. My view is that the person who took Madeleine, plays a small part in the whole. It might be that the person who took her, is already in custody and that s/he has no knowledge of where she might be.
I agree with that post Anthro; In my opinion it is highly likely that Madeleine's case might have revealed other investigative opportunities widening its scope and which have had to be followed.
Like you I do not think Madeleine's case is being dealt with in isolation.
I think it is incredibly naive of some to think that nothing is happening just because we don't know what is going on.
As long as the police are requesting finance to continue their investigation they must have a valid reason for doing so, as well as being able to justify the request.
Indeed!
My initial comparison was not about the McCann company fund it was about Kate doing a charity run for missing persons. Amaral got more money! to pay his legal fees to standup to the McCanns
Disgusting way they went about raising money for Amaral. Stating 'Justice for Madeleine' public were tricked into thinking Madeleine would be searched for in my opinion. Even asking for money on Madeleine's birthday, people must have thought it was helping Madeleine in some way. Despicable.
Disgusting way they went about raising money for Amaral. Stating 'Justice for Madeleine' public were tricked into thinking Madeleine would be searched for in my opinion. Even asking for money on Madeleine's birthday, people must have thought it was helping Madeleine in some way. Despicable.
Well not if this is anything to go by from one of there own - the very people looking for her
[hopefully this time not of topic]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL_xv0OidfPlcLAzudKmVIA6DbeJhHxSAH&v=D6C0pHau30c&feature=emb_title
Thank you for bringing this to our attention kizzy, I think this YouTube clip requires its own thread.
Your welcome John, and so do
I remember being bullied too by a Superintendent because I reported a bank manager for motoring offences.
I remember being bullied too by a Superintendent because I reported a bank manager for motoring offences.
I imagine that the wistleblowers are the tip of a rather large iceberg. Another one is Peter Francis who was tasked with gathering material to discredit those campaigning for a better investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/23/stephen-lawrence-undercover-police-smears
On hold it seems.
Historical crimes – like the 2007 disappearance of Maddie McCann - will also be put on hold as police prioritise cases where there is a 'critical' need to investigate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8130069/London-12-hour-warning-lockdown.html
Not on hold...no decision taken yet.
If SY decide to then I would fully support that but this may just be paper talk
It just seems odd that the source mentions the mccann case when there are other historical cases
Not on hold...no decision taken yet.
If SY decide to then I would fully support that but this may just be paper talk
It just seems odd that the source mentions the mccann case when there are other historical cases
Im sure SY will be more than satisfied Davel from the JF is in accord with them.
I think it'll be the beginning of the end,budgets will be squeezed and then some,a girl mysteriously disappearing in a country where SY have no jurisdiction will be way down on a list.imo
I think it'll be the beginning of the end,budgets will be squeezed and then some,a girl mysteriously disappearing in a country where SY have no jurisdiction will be way down on a list.imo
Don't bank on it. Madeleine is a British Citizen lost abroad. Her passport alone gives her rights.Civis Britannicus sum.......has been the principle since Palmerston's speech in 1850
Civis Britannicus sum.......has been the principle since Palmerston's speech in 1850
Civis Britannicus sum.......has been the principle since Palmerston's speech in 1850
so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England, will protect him against injustice and wrong
On hold it seems.
Historical crimes – like the 2007 disappearance of Maddie McCann - will also be put on hold as police prioritise cases where there is a 'critical' need to investigate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8130069/London-12-hour-warning-lockdown.html
Hasn't helped John Ward bring justice.Still we'll see,I've better things to do with my time than argue with you.
Hasn't helped John Ward bring justice.Still we'll see,I've better things to do with my time than argue with you.
The 'search'has been a farce for many years now. Time to call it quits and spend the money in the UK on ventilators for children with cystic fibrosis/cancers who are at very serious risk. The family are not 'searching' even though they have the money to do so.
There's more being spent on aid to China than on the mccann case..every penny paid to SY justified imo
Comparing pears to apples doesn't count. Foreign aid is a separate issue and not for this thread.
but you dont object to respirators,... all expenses have to be seen in context so i think it is for this thread
No it is not the same at all. I would explain, but it seems the low intellect you speak of is catching... ^*&&
The UK and Portugal are both fully committed in solving this case so it will continue. They know who is involved IMO.
But do they have enough evidence to bring closure?
If they don't have enough evidence they don't know who did it
GOOD MORNING MY MINIONS.
That's not quite the case; for example if someone confesses off the record and you don't have quite enough evidence to put to the CPS.
But great, thought provoking post.
Do we have some sort of psychic connectionI imagine clandestine recording is a problem, or is that just in US cop shows?
I have an employee who stole a fair amount of money from me.. Several thousand pounds.
She confessed to me and agreed to pay it back. I have a taped phone call of her agreeing to pay it back. Multiple alterations to computer records to try and hide the theft.
CPS say not enough evidence
I imagine clandestine recording is a problem, or is that just in US cop shows?
A civil claim would be expensive and time consuming and probably wouldn't get your money back with any efficiency - i.e. 50p a week for 300 years.
What would The General do? The old General would wreak eternal vengeance. The new one would draw a line under it and move on. If the CPS won't go for it, then that money is effectively gone, so there's little point expending energy on it. (Yes, I did just talk about myself as a fictional pseudonym in the third person and dispensed wisdom that this fictional character would never have the faculties to impart).
Someone ripped me off a year ago. They conned me out of £350. I took it to the small claims court and they found in my favour, and the twunt agreed to pay me back £50 a month for 8 months to cover all my costs. I have received one payment and he has missed two payments. I’m now considering hiring a hitman so if you’re up for it General, I send you the address. It’s not about the money anymore it’s about teaching lying crooks a lesson.I couldn't possibly be seen to be condoning vigil[ censored word]m or extorting monies with menaces, but I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. (There's lads round our way who'll snap fingers for a couple of cans of Kestrel Super.)
A whole week without a single post in the Madeleine part of the forum. That has to be a record!
Sadly, nothing happening at the moment. But Madeleine will be eighteen shortly.Would have been. In my opinion. Alas.
Would have been. In my opinion. Alas.
How dreadful it must be to live without hope.You assume I live without hope in all aspects of life.
You assume I live without hope in all aspects of life.
A whole week without a single post in the Madeleine part of the forum. That has to be a record!
So just no hope for other people then.Nope. Even narrower than that. Just this one. I think she's dead unfortunately.
How dreadful it must be to live without hope.
The advantage is that one is never disappointed by the failure of unrealistic expectations.
And one's soul never sours.There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. (C Jung)
There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. (C Jung)
Sadly, nothing happening at the moment. But Madeleine will be eighteen shortly.
Been there and done all that.Good init. Takes its toll though, I find, reading too much of Jung. He was a miserable b*****d.
Good init. Takes its toll though, I find, reading too much of Jung. He was a miserable b*****d.
Good init. Takes its toll though, I find, reading too much of Jung. He was a miserable b*****d.
I was wondering what is meant by the following words from KM on the 'Find Madeleine' site:
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.htm
The investigation to find Madeleine remains open and continues, even though, in a way different to the ideal. We remain grateful for the ongoing efforts and commitment from all those involved in the search to find her and we hope and pray, as always, that our efforts will be fruitful.
*%87
I was wondering what is meant by the following words from KM on the 'Find Madeleine' site:I’m pretty sure it is referring to the investigation continuing through the lockdown, in a way which is different to the ideal (ie no lockdown).
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.htm
The investigation to find Madeleine remains open and continues, even though, in a way different to the ideal. We remain grateful for the ongoing efforts and commitment from all those involved in the search to find her and we hope and pray, as always, that our efforts will be fruitful.
*%87
I was wondering what is meant by the following words from KM on the 'Find Madeleine' site:
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.htm
The investigation to find Madeleine remains open and continues, even though, in a way different to the ideal. We remain grateful for the ongoing efforts and commitment from all those involved in the search to find her and we hope and pray, as always, that our efforts will be fruitful.
*%87
The thread concerns money so its the best place to put it.
Madeleine McCann: Police figures lay bare staggering amount spent on investigation
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1322499/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-met-police-scotland-yard-spending-portugal-spt
The Met confirmed to Express.co.uk that the total spend of the probe, from May 2011 to April 2020 was £12,124,870.46.
Speaking to Express.co.uk exclusively though, investigative journalist and former detective in the Surrey Police Mark Williams-Thomas questioned what the money had been spent on.
He said: “There was a considerable amount of support provided in the initial days, weeks, months and years of the investigation.
“But, thereafter, they provided support because they were sharing information and making enquiries on behalf of the Portuguese for the British elements of the inquiry.
“One of the biggest questions I cannot answer is where on Earth £12million has been spent.
“I am at a loss to explain the huge scale of that figure.”
The thread concerns money so its the best place to put it.Hopefully alot of it was siphoned off and sent straight to the McCanns to help fund their lavish lifestyle.
Madeleine McCann: Police figures lay bare staggering amount spent on investigation
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1322499/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-met-police-scotland-yard-spending-portugal-spt
The Met confirmed to Express.co.uk that the total spend of the probe, from May 2011 to April 2020 was £12,124,870.46.
Speaking to Express.co.uk exclusively though, investigative journalist and former detective in the Surrey Police Mark Williams-Thomas questioned what the money had been spent on.
He said: “There was a considerable amount of support provided in the initial days, weeks, months and years of the investigation.
“But, thereafter, they provided support because they were sharing information and making enquiries on behalf of the Portuguese for the British elements of the inquiry.
“One of the biggest questions I cannot answer is where on Earth £12million has been spent.
“I am at a loss to explain the huge scale of that figure.”
I think it’s highly likely these days most people either don’t think they did it, don’t care either way or haven’t a clue who the McCanns are.
Carl Beech cost taxpayers £150 million.
Puts the cost of policing into perspective, don't you think. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-westminster-paedophile-ring-is-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-carry-out-a-police-investigation
12 million quid & nothing to show for itIncreasing aid to china and pakistan too....i think you have a good point...defund the police must be next on your list
Seriously, just think of all the things 12 million could have done, like donating to food banks, housing the homeless, filling pot holes or investigating genuine abductions.
Increasing aid to china ansd pakistan too....i think you have a good point...defund the police must be next on your list
No, having the police investigate genuine abductions would be fine by me.How would you validate Madeleine’s disappearance if it was not a genuine abduction?
No, having the police investigate genuine abductions would be fine by me.How much per abduction before calling it a day?
How would you validate Madeleine’s disappearance if it was not a genuine abduction?
Abduction isn't the only (or the most likely) reason why children disappear.I get that, thank you. How do you apply this to Madeleine’s disappearance?
How much per abduction before calling it a day?
I get that, thank you. How do you apply this to Madeleine’s disappearance?
No proof of abduction is available.Not yet. From your personal point of view, what do you propose happened to Madeliene?
No proof of abduction is available.What would constitute proof of abduction in your view?
50 pence.No wonder you’re always so angry with the police then, clearly you’d rather we didn’t have to spend any money on them at all.
Abduction isn't the only (or the most likely) reason why children disappear.
Not yet. From your personal point of view, what do you propose happened to Madeliene?
You can't solve a case by statistics
You can't decide what crime was committed by calculating possibilities either.
Isn't that what SY should have found out by starting at the beginning instead of ruling out abduction with no proof of one ever happening.
Isn't that what SY should have found out by starting at the beginning instead of ruling out abduction with no proof of one ever happening.
It looks like the Germans believe abduction is likely
I am about to commit Infanticide. I really don't know about anyone else.well do it in Portugal, you’ll get off scot-free there.
well do it in Portugal, you’ll get off scot-free there.
According to the prosecutor the PJ still think the parents are.....what to make of that.
well do it in Portugal, you’ll get off scot-free there.
So you don't expect the prime suspect will be charged then.certainly not if we leave it to the Portuguese no.
Of course. Why didn't I think of that?....I thought they coerced convictions irrespective? Which is it?
....I thought they coerced convictions irrespective? Which is it?The Portuguese police only go after the nearest and dearest, if a stranger dunnit then it’s too much like hard work.
The Portuguese police only go after the nearest and dearest, if a stranger dunnit then it’s too much like hard work.How is your xenophobia?
How is your xenophobia?
How is your xenophobia?Surely that was worth a warning? I haven’t had my daily 5% yet.
Surely that was worth a warning? I haven’t had my daily 5% yet.
I don't think holding obviously wrong opinions is against the rules, although posting them as facts might be. You didn't do that though, did you?Yes I did, best get out the whipping stick, you know I love to be punished.
I don't think holding obviously wrong opinions is against the rules, although posting them as facts might be. You didn't do that though, did you?
Who can possibly decide if an opinion is obviously wrong
Anyone who doesn't agree with you.Perhaps they are the ones who are wrong
Perhaps they are the ones who are wrong
Who can possibly decide if an opinion is obviously wrong
When the opinion is obviously ludicrous most people can see it's wrong.You mean such as the dog alerts support the idea there was a body in 5a...yes I understand now
You mean such as the dog alerts support the idea there was a body in 5a...yes I understand now
Mark Harrison didn't find that idea ludicrous.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Mark Harrison didn't find that idea ludicrous.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
you quote harrison who said this...AFTER the searches..
However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison clearly states the alerts DO NOT support the previous presence of a body in 5a
Have you never wondered why he changed his mind? I have. Eddie was certainly capable of indicating where a body had been when no forensic evidence was recoverable. What he could do once he could do again, surely?
Further searches identified a location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I don't see he did change his mind...it's obvious from that post you see the alerts as evidence of a body in 5 a....which in my opinion is ludicrous.....but you think it's quite reasonable. If CB is a suspect then the present investigation agrees with me and doesn't think a lot of the alertsWhen I think of CB I think there could be any number of bodies in 5A. May not be Madeleine's body but someone else.
I don't see he did change his mind...it's obvious from that post you see the alerts as evidence of a body in 5 a....which in my opinion is ludicrous.....but you think it's quite reasonable. If CB is a suspect then the present investigation agrees with me and doesn't think a lot of the alerts
So saying the dog alerts could be used as intelligence before the searches and then saying they couldn't afterwards isn't changing his mind?You don’t need a barking dog to consider the possibility.
I don't see the alerts as evidence, I see them as intelligence suggesting a possibility deserving of being considered.
So saying the dog alerts could be used as intelligence before the searches and then saying they couldn't afterwards isn't changing his mind?
I don't see the alerts as evidence, I see them as intelligence suggesting a possibility deserving of being considered.
MADDIE SEARCH CASH Madeleine McCann cops get extra £350,000 to continue investigtion — taking total to over £12million
EXCLUSIVE
Mike SullivanNick Pisa
30 Sep 2020, 22:49Updated: 30 Sep 2020, 22:51
POLICE have been given more cash to continue their probe into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance — taking the total to well beyond £12million.
The latest Home Office grant to the Met’s Operation Grange is believed to be around £350,000 and will cover work on the inquiry until the end of March 2021.
The extra cash suggests the international probe into prime suspect Christian B. will continue for at least another six months, experts say.
The Home Office declined to specify the amount of the grant, but said: “Ministers have agreed funding up to March 31, 2021. The cost of Operation Grange was £12million to the end of the 2019-20 financial year.”
Former Met detective chief inspector Mick Neville said: “The sum of £12million seems an awful lot of money. But if she has been murdered, her killer must be brought to justice. Any parent would want the same if it was their child.”
Madeleine was three when she disappeared while on holiday in Portugal in 2007. German paedophile and rapist Christian B., 43, is suspected of snatching her from her room in Praia da Luz while her parents were dining at a tapas bar.
German prosecutors say they have firm evidence Madeleine is dead.
The Grange team of four officers is in a background role. German cops are taking the lead with Portuguese authorities.
Wages for the officers are the Met’s responsibility but the government money will fund flights, hotels and other costs of the international inquiry.
Mr Neville added: “It must be remembered that Madeleine McCann may still be alive, whatever the opinion of German prosecutors.”
Operation Grange was set up in 2011 following an open letter in The Sun from Madeleine’s parents to PM David Cameron.
It has provided mobile phone data to German prosecutors as they slowly build a case against Christian B, who is in jail for drug offences.
His lawyer insists he was not involved.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12813759/madeleine-mccann-cops-get-more-cash-to-continue-investigtion/
Perhaps it’s for that undercover operation Brunt was talking about ?
Perhaps it is for "Justice for Madeleine",
Not sure what your getting at but there appears to be or has been an undercover operation running alongside that of the German one. At the least there appears to be two suspects.
You may think that there are and in all likelihood have been as many suspects as you wish. It is what the real police do after allJust mundane and systematic everyday repetitive police procedure ... nothing at all extraordinary about it.
- following evidence
- investigating suspects as a result
- ruling in or ruling out said suspects as appropriate
- following the evidence
But since you can only speculate in the absence of any in-depth knowledge it is probably best to wait for the professionals to let us know if they have a result or not.
So the Germans have the prime suspect under lock and key yet OG still need the money which is similar to previous years to take a back seat?
The Grange team of four officers is in a background role. German cops are taking the lead with Portuguese authorities.
So the Germans have the prime suspect under lock and key yet OG still need the money which is similar to previous years to take a back seat?What’s the prime suspect under lock and key got to do with it?
The Grange team of four officers is in a background role. German cops are taking the lead with Portuguese authorities.
So the Germans have the prime suspect under lock and key yet OG still need the money which is similar to previous years to take a back seat?
The Grange team of four officers is in a background role. German cops are taking the lead with Portuguese authorities.
Grange will be working on their own suspect. The Germans can waste time on theirs.And when the Germans and the Grange detectives release the names of their suspects then we will find out if they are the one and the same supect.
And when the Germans and the Grange detectives release the names of their suspects then we will find out if they are the one and the same suspect.
We probably won't. Particularly if someone who is under investigation is ruled out of the inquiry. On the other hand there is nothing to prevent charges being brought against any number of individuals if there is evidence which warrants it.
Price gone up?
The Home Office is expected to agree to £350,000 over six months.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14961643/madeleine-mccann-cops-ask-for-extra-cash/
What a constructive comment ... not. I don't think you should reveal your angst about it as you do though.The more the Met spends, the more it pisses off these people which is good news as far as I’m concerned.
What a constructive comment ... not.I've studied your posts long enough to be able to master it.
The more the Met spends, the more it pisses off these people which is good news as far as I’m concerned.Typical of all supporters of the McCann's, to continue to happily fritter taxpayer money, not to search for the child, per se (approximately 250 children reported missing in the UK daily), but to use the circa £13m expense as a means to 'piss off' the good folk of the UK.
Typical of all supporters of the McCann's, to continue to happily fritter taxpayer money, not to search for the child, per se (approximately 250 children reported missing in the UK daily), but to use the circa £13m expense as a means to 'piss off' the good folk of the UK.
They're all the same, those supporters. All at it. Same opinion on this, every one of them. The comment quoted proves it.
Typical of all supporters of the McCann's, to continue to happily fritter taxpayer money, not to search for the child, per se (approximately 250 children reported missing in the UK daily), but to use the circa £13m expense as a means to 'piss off' the good folk of the UK.
They're all the same, those supporters. All at it. Same opinion on this, every one of them. The comment quoted proves it.
It doesn't seem to occur to people that the money spent by Operation Grange to 'help her parents' may have been completely wasted. Until it's justified by release of the reasons and evidence it's been based on it's perfectly reasonable for people to question it. Obviously p***ing off those who question the expenditure isn't a serious or useful reason to continue.
How many children are victims of stranger abduction... Most of the children who go missing have just popped to the chip shop.
The money isn't to search for Maddie it's to bring to justice the criminal who took her.
In my opinion you just unilaterally changed the raison d'etre of an entire £13m+ police operation.
it doesnt seem to occur to you that your assessment of the case is completely wrong and all the evidence points to abduction. It doesnt seem to occur to you that the money is not to help the parents but to bring to justice the abductor....and it seems to have done the job.
what do you think the purpouse of Grange is...its a criminal investigation..not a search partyIt won't be much of a party for the 3 remaining civilian police support admin staff, sat in that stationery cupboard, waiting for the phone to ring. Talk about 'rust out' and being disincentivised and disenfranchised, they would have known all along that it was a fool's errand when they were shoe-horned in to backfill for the PCSO's who replaced the actual police back in 2018. They would all have known, as we all knew at the time, that the 'investigation' was a one-pronged.
It won't be much of a party for the 3 remaining civilian police support admin staff, sat in that stationery cupboard, waiting for the phone to ring. Talk about 'rust out' and being disincentivised and disenfranchised, they would have known all along that it was a fool's errand when they were shoe-horned in to backfill for the PCSO's who replaced the actual police back in 2018. They would all have known, as we all knew at the time, that the 'investigation' was a one-pronged piss take.
So to then hear that they're now pulling the rug, those poor sods will be doing even less, which is almost impossible.
3 more for the list of the collateral damage those negligent 'parents' left in their wake. The good old British taxpayer will bail them out for their boozy, entitled antics.
How many children are victims of stranger abduction... Most of the children who go missing have just popped to the chip shop.
The money isn't to search for Maddie it's to bring to justice the criminal who took her.
boozy entitled antics......how many billions do you think that costs the govt each year. Maddie deserves to have her disappearnce solved and the guikty person jailed. Or shall we just let criminals think they can rape and murder and wont be caught...not in portugal anyway. If it is proven CB is the culprit then the PJ have alot to answer for...maddie would still be alive if he had been caught for one of the rapes...he knew he could get away with itBoris and his mates? Who knows?
Boris and his mates? Who knows?
Would you agree that to 'solve her disappearance' they should have started from the very beginning?
....and let's get it right, if it does turn out to be CB (and it won't - the fee per member from me is now £53), then it was blind, luck that cracked the case, not SY, not circa £14m, not the McCann's and not HCW, blind luck.
.....aaannndd......'boozy entitled'; I meant to extend that to 'nightly, boozy, entitled, child negligent, 8 hour dinners'.
I agree.
SY aearranged an appeal on german TV...thats what brought CB into the frame..well donr Grange. They did satrt from the beginning..looked at all the evidence .and decided the parents were not involved...just as I did.I think you'll find most CVs are self-penned, that's the point. Or did you get Barry Cryer to ghost write yours?
you and other sceptics have been fooled by Grimes self penned CV
I think you'll find most CVs are self-penned, that's the point. Or did you get Barry Cryer to ghost write yours?
I actually spoke to Martin a few weeks ago. He say's tell Davel he's a ****. He was laughing when he said it like, the scamp.
No I write my own.. And like Grime Im UK and USA trainedNice one.
A reduced budget to match their reduced role. As the Mirror's police mouthpiece said, they are probably just dotting i's and crossing t's now.
A reduced budget to match their reduced role. As the Mirror's police mouthpiece said, they are probably just dotting i's and crossing t's now.
The money is spent and it has been spent well. The fact that it seems to concern you so probably reflects your chagrin exactly in like measure. You've absolutely no idea how much I enjoy that while at the same time being bemused at the type who resents attempts to solve the mystery of a missing child when given the opportunity and the assurance of police that there now is enabling evidence.
If you're ever left wondering why this enabling evidence you imagine doesn't lead to the abductors conviction anytime I'll happily explain why that is for you.
Conviction? It might help if we ever get get to the point of laying charges.
I thought the Bundeskriminalamt were supposed to be running the show?!...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11905333/Police-probing-Madeleine-McCann-case-set-hundreds-thousands-pounds-new-funding.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11905333/Police-probing-Madeleine-McCann-case-set-hundreds-thousands-pounds-new-funding.html)
Operation Grange, despite claims to the contrary, don't agree with the Germans imo.Ah yes, I forgot about Sadie's lavender library!
I thought the Bundeskriminalamt were supposed to be running the show?!...Amazing! I felt sure that in light of recent criticisms the Met would be forced to wind up their role in the investigation. This is good news.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11905333/Police-probing-Madeleine-McCann-case-set-hundreds-thousands-pounds-new-funding.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11905333/Police-probing-Madeleine-McCann-case-set-hundreds-thousands-pounds-new-funding.html)
Amazing! I felt sure that in light of recent criticisms the Met would be forced to wind up their role in the investigation. This is good news.
More than enough to pay for four new sets of motorised golf trolleys, woods, wedges, irons, putters and niblicks.Cynic.
Cynic.8(8-))
Operation Grange, despite claims to the contrary, don't agree with the Germans imo.
I find it strange that Grange even needs further funding, considering Wolters has already solved the case.
The vicious paedophile, Brueckner, is being prosecuted in 2024, for Madeleine's abduction & murder.
"A source close to the ongoing investigation last night said her parents would be 'delighted' with the news."
Maybe they're wandering round the world showing CB's photo to the thousands of people who reported sightings of Madeleine?
Maybe they're wandering round the world showing CB's photo to the thousands of people who reported sightings of Madeleine?Why would they need to do that in person?
I see there is a FOI request concerning cost's and visits to Portugal as yet unanswered.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_operation_grange_madelei#incoming-2258417
I see there is a FOI request concerning cost's and visits to Portugal as yet unanswered.J Roberts clearly has an awful lot of time on their hands - over 1300 FOI requests to their name and counting....I wonder if it's a Tony Bennett pseudonym?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_operation_grange_madelei#incoming-2258417
J Roberts clearly has an awful lot of time on their hands - over 1300 FOI requests to their name and counting....I wonder if it's a Tony Bennett pseudonym?
ETA to put that in context this individual has made an FOI request on average once every 3 days for the last 10 years - at what cost to the taxpayer I wonder?
Operation Grange, despite claims to the contrary, don't agree with the Germans imo.
British police receive new millionaire fund to find Maddie
The investment comes at a time when the disappearance case, which has been almost 16 years, should be closed.
27/03/23
At a time when it is about to turn 16 years old that Madeleine McCann disappeared, in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, the British police will receive a few more "hundreds of thousands of euros" to continue searching for her, reports The Sun on Monday.
The case should have closed last year after 15 years of searches, but was extended for another 12 months. With the validity of this deadline about to expire, news now emerges that the police will receive new investment.
A source close to the investigation told The Sun that this information will leave Kate and Gerry McCann "delighted" because it renews the "hope" of finding their daughter.
In all, about 14 million euros have already been spent on the search for Maddie.
It is recalled that the German authorities guarantee that Christian Brueckner, already arrested for several sexual crimes and drug trafficking, is responsible for the disappearance of the British girl. However, recently, investigative journalist Mark Williams-Thomas discovered that there is "no solid evidence" linking the 45-year-old inmate to Maddie's disappearance.
https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/mundo/2276118/policia-britanica-recebe-novo-fundo-milionario-para-encontrar-maddie
It is easy enough to see why so much confusion abounds in Madeleine's case with reference to the above. There is no "statute of limitations" as far as Britain is concerned. As long as the evidence is there the case will be investigated.
On the other hand there are statutes of limitations on crimes in Portugal.
I'm not entirely sure of the reason the author qualifies the usage of "hope" by use of punctuation. Very strange;)
I found it interesting that MWT's opinion is quoted - while the fact that the British and German prime suspect is also an arguido is overlooked. Which I think makes him the Portuguese prime suspect too - strange not to mention the fact.
In my opinion it's clear that the writer isn't convinced that the McCann's hope is realistic. Operation Grange haven't announced that CB is their prime suspect for abducting Madeleine as far as I know. They haven't agreed with the Germans that Madeleine is dead, either. The Portuguese move to make CB an arguido could have been due to Portugal's statute of limitations as was rumoured; it kept Portugal 'in the game' as it were.Why do you think the Met (who were instructed under no circumstances investigate the parents for this crime, according to you) are apparently reluctant to go along with the view that Madeleine was abducted by CB and is now dead? Wouldn't it be very convenient for all involved if they had reached the same conclusions if there is some sort of top level conspiracy to protect the parents in the way that has been suggested?
In my opinion it's clear that the writer isn't convinced that the McCann's hope is realistic. Operation Grange haven't announced that CB is their prime suspect for abducting Madeleine as far as I know. They haven't agreed with the Germans that Madeleine is dead, either. The Portuguese move to make CB an arguido could have been due to Portugal's statute of limitations as was rumoured; it kept Portugal 'in the game' as it were.
Why do you think the Met (who were instructed under no circumstances investigate the parents for this crime, according to you) are apparently reluctant to go along with the view that Madeleine was abducted by CB and is now dead? Wouldn't it be very convenient for all involved if they had reached the same conclusions if there is some sort of top level conspiracy to protect the parents in the way that has been suggested?Not only that, but the German investigation has presented the Met with the perfect opportunity to bow out gracefully without losing face (one reason given by sceptics in the past that the Met could never stop investigating this case for fear of looking like they'd been barking up the wrong tree for the last 10 years).
Why do you think the Met (who were instructed under no circumstances investigate the parents for this crime, according to you) are apparently reluctant to go along with the view that Madeleine was abducted by CB and is now dead? Wouldn't it be very convenient for all involved if they had reached the same conclusions if there is some sort of top level conspiracy to protect the parents in the way that has been suggested?
SY could end this now by simply saying ,OG is continuing , to assist the BKA to hopefully bring the prime suspect to court.
In my opinion it's clear that the writer isn't convinced that the McCann's hope is realistic. Operation Grange haven't announced that CB is their prime suspect for abducting Madeleine as far as I know. They haven't agreed with the Germans that Madeleine is dead, either. The Portuguese move to make CB an arguido could have been due to Portugal's statute of limitations as was rumoured; it kept Portugal 'in the game' as it were.
You having been party to discussion confirming the requirement for evidence supporting making a person a prime suspect in Portugal. Maybe it just dropped from your mind. Just as it appears to have escaped you regarding the closeness of SY and the BKA in their investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance and how central the prime suspect Brueckner is to both forces.
The BKA certainly do not have to go anywhere cap in hand to plead for money to investigate a wrong.
Unfortunately SY do.
The fact they have confirms to all but the very dim witted that SY continue to have justification for pleading their case.
If they get the money necessary to continue the investigation into what happened to Madeleine, it rather suggests that the case they put forward justifies their plea.
You seem to be firm in your opinion of what isn't going on in their investigation. Wonder if you would care to share with other members what your concrete reasons for that might be.
You having been party to discussion confirming the requirement for evidence supporting making a person a prime suspect in Portugal. Maybe it just dropped from your mind. Just as it appears to have escaped you regarding the closeness of SY and the BKA in their investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance and how central the prime suspect Brueckner is to both forces.
The BKA certainly do not have to go anywhere cap in hand to plead for money to investigate a wrong.
Unfortunately SY do.
The fact they have confirms to all but the very dim witted that SY continue to have justification for pleading their case.
If they get the money necessary to continue the investigation into what happened to Madeleine, it rather suggests that the case they put forward justifies their plea.
You seem to be firm in your opinion of what isn't going on in their investigation. Wonder if you would care to share with other members what your concrete reasons for that might be.
Any investigation of the McCanns, by The MET, would be illegal though, wouldn't it? My thanks to davel.
As the self confessed WUM of the forum I rarely acknowledge your posts but I think it is worth the while to rectify one of your many mythconceptions which are so blatantly obvious to the majority and go a long way to cancelling the problem some have of realising why a predatory paedophile familiar with the Algarve and Luz is the current focus of police interest and has been for some time.
Snip
GERRY AND KATE MCCANN
Why the success of the investigation in the Madeleine case is mainly due to the parents
09.06.2020,
It was the parents of the missing three-year-old Madeleine McCann who fought all these years for clarification. In doing so, they themselves repeatedly got into the vísier of conspiracy theorists. What did all this do to them?
By Cornelia Fuchs
https://www.stern.de/gesellschaft/maddie-mccann--warum-der-ermittlungserfolg-vor-allem-den-eltern-zu-verdanken-ist-9293010.html
I think there are a lot of assumptions being made. Perhaps your concrete reasons for your opinions could be shared?We don't know how or whether CB figures in the Met's investigation. He may do, he may not, until then any opinion pro or anti is a complete guess. Best wait and see, eh?
Have SY confirmed publicly that CB is their prime suspect? What have they said they suspect him of doing?
I think there are a lot of assumptions being made. Perhaps your concrete reasons for your opinions could be shared?
Have SY confirmed publicly that CB is their prime suspect? What have they said they suspect him of doing?
We don't know how or whether CB figures in the Met's investigation. He may do, he may not, until then any opinion pro or anti is a complete guess. Best wait and see, eh?
We don't know how or whether CB figures in the Met's investigation. He may do, he may not, until then any opinion pro or anti is a complete guess. Best wait and see, eh?
Scotland Yard are telling nobody nothing at this very active and critical stage of proceedings in Madeleine's case.
That is precisely as it should be.
You do make such silly non sequiturs; of course "there are a lot of assumptions being made". And your opinionated posts support many assumptions ~ what a pity you always appear so reluctant to justify them all though.
Could make for ephemeral reading in which nothing is ever really backed up or substantiated. Uninformed opinions really counts for little. I think the word I'm looking for is vacuous.
By the way the normal form is that if you want to ask me a question, you get an answer once you have answered what I have asked you first. You are not of course required to answer and neither am I ~ unfortunately observation reveals you really never do. Not conducive either to debate or to substantiating unsubstantiated opinion.
We don't know how or whether CB figures in the Met's investigation. He may do, he may not, until then any opinion pro or anti is a complete guess. Best wait and see, eh?
I prefer not to argue, thank you. I will only say that you gave no 'concrete' reasons for your assumptions and I'm entitled to do the same in my reply. That's as far as this conversation needed to go imo.
Well they've never endorsed Wolter's frank disclosures, that's for sure. They have said only that they are investigating a missing person, not a murder.
Well they've never endorsed Wolter's frank disclosures, that's for sure. They have said only that they are investigating a missing person, not a murder.Do you take any comfort from this?
Has anyone asked of what evidence The PJ have got? They must have something.
The Germans have named CB as the abductor and murderer of Madeleine McCann in Portugal?
Do you take any comfort from this?
That won't do, will it. The PJ need evidence to make Brueckner an Arguido.
So Carlos Pinto de Abreu said.
I feel no need for comfort or discomfort, why would I? Unlike a rather garrulous German prosecutor the British police are habitually tight-lipped so nothing can be deduced from what they say, although some try.Because you’re clearly very involved in this case and it obviously matters to you greatly what is said about it and by whom. You seem to take something positive from your belief that there is a lack of agreement between the Germans and the English police about Madeleine’s fate, though why I can only hazard a guess.
So Carlos Pinto de Abreu said.He wasn’t the only one either.
Because you’re clearly very involved in this case and it obviously matters to you greatly what is said about it and by whom. You seem to take something positive from your belief that there is a lack of agreement between the Germans and the English police about Madeleine’s fate, though why I can only hazard a guess.
Truth matters to me and I object to opinions being posted as if they were facts.When did I do that? You’re deflecting again.
When did I do that? You’re deflecting again. .
He wasn’t the only one either.
Who else said it? Journalists quoting him or others connected with the McCanns perhaps?
I was speaking generally, not to anyone in particular. You asked why I was interested in the McCann case and my answer is that in my opinion the truth is hard to find in this case because the interest it has generated has resulted in so much speculation and truth-twisting.That was not the question I asked , hence you WERE deflecting by utilising your frequently used tactic of answering a question not asked.
Who else said it? Journalists quoting him or others connected with the McCanns perhaps?We’ve recently been over this at great length. I suggest you revisit the (pointless) arguement to refresh your memory.
That was not the question I asked , hence you WERE deflecting by utilising your frequently used tactic of answering a question not asked.
Are you denying that this is The Law in Portugal?
Sorry, what question did you actually ask then?Are you actually incapable of looking back over half a dozen posts?
I'm denying that the change in the law specifically mentioned evidence. If it did, and I haven't noticed a cite saying that, I will naturally apologise.LOL.
Are you actually incapable of looking back over half a dozen posts?
LOL.
Please try to curb your aggression towards others. I don't understand what exactly you are asking me.There was no aggression in my post, just bemusement that you are asking me to repeat a question which I asked only a few posts earlier and which is there for you to find with the barest minimum of effort. I realise it's just your way of deflecting and winding me up, so I would respectfully request that you curb your WUMming.
LOL to you too!Silly post.
Let's try this one again shall we? This is I believe the 3rd time of posting
the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PORTUGAL said. “The law DID NOT DEMAND JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS AT THE TIME THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS”.
ergo
The law has changed and now DEMANDS JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS.
Do you accept this or not?
Do you disagree with the Attorney General of Portugal?
Do you know more about his country's laws than he does?
There was no aggression in my post, just bemusement that you are asking me to repeat a question which I asked only a few posts earlier and which is there for you to find with the barest minimum of effort. I realise it's just your way of deflecting and winding me up, so I would respectfully request that you curb your WUMming.
Silly post.
You've made me quote myself for the umpteenth time in order to show you that it wasn't just Abreu who made the claim about the necessity now for evidence when being made an arguido, from one of my posts back in February when clearly your WUMming was beginning to work on me, hence the use of capitals. @)(++(*
So you think the words 'justified suspicion' and 'evidence' are interchangeable?
So you think the words 'justified suspicion' and 'evidence' are interchangeable?How does one justify a suspicion?
It seems you are actually incapable of understanding that I have re-read your posts and can't see an unanswered question, which is why I asked you to clarify. Your refusal suggests to me that you are the one deflecting and wumming. Please desist and ask clear questions if you can.The question I asked was
How does one justify a suspicion?
The question I asked was
Do you take any comfort from this?
You claimed I asked what it was that interests you in the case. That was not the question I asked. So you answered a question I did not ask. Do you understand now?
With Evidence. Otherwise it can't be justified.
I suspect that we might have a bit of a problem here, with the understanding of The English Language.
According to KMc Carlos Pinto de Abreu told her after her interview with the PJ on 6th September that the PJ had a lot of evidence against her and her husband and she was sure to be made arguido the following day. He seems to have believed there was justified suspicion at that time to create KMc as an arguida.
I apologise for not realising your question required an answer, comfortable seemed such a bizarre concept to me. The answer is no.Once again you have misinterpreted what I asked. I didn't ask if you were comfortable I asked if you took comfort from your belief that the Met do not agree with the German investigation. What do you find bizarre about that as a concept?
Justified Suspicion wasn't required at the time. Any old stitch up would do. So he wasn't wrong about that. What he seems to have believed is irrelevant because you don't know. So stop second guessing because this is bordering on Libel.
Once again you have misinterpreted what I asked. I didn't ask if you were comfortable I asked if you took comfort from your belief that the Met do not agree with the German investigation. What do you find bizarre about that as a concept?
Do you think KMc misreported what Abreu said to her?
I repeat - the answer is no. It's the idea of anything comforting someone that I think is a bizarre concept.I can see you’re uncomfortable with the word “comfort”. Let’s put it another way. Does it sit well with you to think that the Met and the BKA are not on the same page? If the Met announced tomorrow that they fully supported the BKA and were working with the Germans to bring about a successful conviction of CB would that not sit well with you? I hope “sit well” is a less bizarre concept for you to grapple with than “comfort”.
I can see you’re uncomfortable with the word “comfort”. Let’s put it another way. Does it sit well with you to think that the Met and the BKA are not on the same page? If the Met announced tomorrow that they fully supported the BKA and were working with the Germans to bring about a successful conviction of CB would that not sit well with you? I hope “sit well” is a less bizarre concept for you to grapple with than “comfort”.
I don't have any feelings about the relationship between OG and the Germans. My only concern is that any assessment of it is based upon known facts. I think it gets portrayed as closer than the evidence supports.It seems very important to you that we are reminded the Met have not commented on whether or not they share the Germans’ opinions in this case. Whether they do or not, it’s worth reminding you that the Met are convinced that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Therefore in my opinion this cannot sit well with you at all.
It seems very important to you that we are reminded the Met have not commented on whether or not they share the Germans’ opinions in this case. Whether they do or not, it’s worth reminding you that the Met are convinced that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Therefore in my opinion this cannot sit well with you at all.
Of course it's important. Saying that the two forces are closer in their aims than they have said is an assumption, so posting as if it were a fact certainly doesn't sit well with me. I do have feelings about people who claim to know more than they do.Who are you accusing of posting this as fact? Come on and be honest. What really doesn’t sit well with you at all is that not one police force currently investigating the disappearance has named her parents as suspects and all seem convinced she was taken by a stranger. How do you rationalise this to yourself, or do you just try and blank it out?
Who are you accusing of posting this as fact? Come on and be honest. What really doesn’t sit well with you at all is that not one police force currently investigating the disappearance has named her parents as suspects and all seem convinced she was taken by a stranger. How do you rationalise this to yourself, or do you just try and blank it out?
I see no point in this discussion. I'm interested in accuracy and you're interested in accusing me of having 'feelings' which you are busily inventing.Gosh, accused of having feelings, what a crime.
Who are you accusing of posting this as fact? Come on and be honest. What really doesn’t sit well with you at all is that not one police force currently investigating the disappearance has named her parents as suspects and all seem convinced she was taken by a stranger. How do you rationalise this to yourself, or do you just try and blank it out?
I can see you’re uncomfortable with the word “comfort”. Let’s put it another way. Does it sit well with you to think that the Met and the BKA are not on the same page? If the Met announced tomorrow that they fully supported the BKA and were working with the Germans to bring about a successful conviction of CB would that not sit well with you? I hope “sit well” is a less bizarre concept for you to grapple with than “comfort”.
That won't do, will it. The PJ need evidence to make Brueckner an Arguido.
Gosh, accused of having feelings, what a crime.
Once again let's be accurate. Feelings invented by you, not felt by me.If you look at my post again you will see that the second part (my question) refers to rationality, not feelings. Once again you’ve deflected. I don’t need to invent anything. “Sitting well” is about opinion, not feelings, and I don’t think it’s any invention at all to suggest that it doesn’t sit well with you that the parents are not being investigated. It’s as clear as the nose on Goncalo Amaral’s face that you disapprove of the Met’s focus, and that of the Germans. You can deny until you’re blue in the face, but your thousands of posts say otherwise.
If you look at my post again you will see that the second part (my question) refers to rationality, not feelings. Once again you’ve deflected. I don’t need to invent anything. “Sitting well” is about opinion, not feelings, and I don’t think it’s any invention at all to suggest that it doesn’t sit well with you that the parents are not being investigated. It’s as clear as the nose on Goncalo Amaral’s face that you disapprove of the Met’s focus, and that of the Germans. You can deny until you’re blue in the face, but your thousands of posts say otherwise.
I see the troll is goading the mods into giving me warning points. What on earth for? Speaking plainly? Saying what is completely obvious? Speaking truth to power (to use a popular phrase atm)?
Anyway, back to verifiable facts. I think it's worth noting that when the Home Office pay Operation Grange from the Special Grants Fund they make no judgement about whether the request is justified or not;
"When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police."
Also, the requests are not necessarilly connected to future expenditure, they could be related to extra spending in the previous period;
"Funding for Special Grant applications can be paid retrospectively for operational work already done in the same financial year."
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
All about your opinions, not mine. Your opinions don't interest me and neither do your unrelenting attempts to discredit me. Stick to the facts and leave out your speculations please.So sticking to the facts, I'm interested in how sceptics rationalise their beliefs in the face of the FACT that 1) the police in at least two countries are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (even if they differ on who committed the crime) and 2) Sceptics come at the case from a position of ignorance by dint of the FACT that they do not have all the FACTS of the case at their disposal. I'm interested in why they think they know better than the professional experts who have spent years investigating the FACTS of the case, that is all. I don't think any sceptic is prepared or even able to explain this. I certainly don't expect you to be able to rationalise it, it's obviously a FACT better ignored.
Anyway, back to verifiable facts. I think it's worth noting that when the Home Office pay Operation Grange from the Special Grants Fund they make no judgement about whether the request is justified or not;And that's exactly as it should be, unless you want the police to take their orders from government.
"When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police."
Also, the requests are not necessarilly connected to future expenditure, they could be related to extra spending in the previous period;
"Funding for Special Grant applications can be paid retrospectively for operational work already done in the same financial year."
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
So sticking to the facts, I'm interested in how sceptics rationalise their beliefs in the face of the FACT that 1) the police in at least two countries are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (even if they differ on who committed the crime) and 2) Sceptics come at the case from a position of ignorance by dint of the FACT that they do not have all the FACTS of the case at their disposal. I'm interested in why they think they know better than the professional experts who have spent years investigating the FACTS of the case, that is all. I don't think any sceptic is prepared or even able to explain this. I certainly don't expect you to be able to rationalise it, it's obviously a FACT better ignored.
So sticking to the facts, I'm interested in how sceptics rationalise their beliefs in the face of the FACT that 1) the police in at least two countries are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (even if they differ on who committed the crime) and 2) Sceptics come at the case from a position of ignorance by dint of the FACT that they do not have all the FACTS of the case at their disposal. I'm interested in why they think they know better than the professional experts who have spent years investigating the FACTS of the case, that is all. I don't think any sceptic is prepared or even able to explain this. I certainly don't expect you to be able to rationalise it, it's obviously a FACT better ignored.
Speculations, not facts;
That 'sceptics' have beliefs.
That 'sceptics' need all the facts.
That 'sceptics' think they know better than the experts.
The supporters have no choice now but to accept that Brueckner abducted & murdered Maddie really, because to doubt the German experts would be outright lunacy. They are in possession of all the FACTS, which needs to be written in capital letters for some unknown reason, & there's no good reason not to have 100% concrete faith in the word of the learned expert, Hans Wolters.
There are facts the Germans have CB has prime suspect, these facts will not convict though, known unknowns are the problem along with what is unknown. But back to the funding what can OG do that has not already been done.
Speculations, not facts;So is it a fact then that
That 'sceptics' have beliefs.
That 'sceptics' need all the facts.
That 'sceptics' think they know better than the experts.
So is it a fact then that
Sceptics DO have beliefs and many of them DO believe they know better than the Met and the BKA - that is a FACT, which can be borne out by reading the millions of views that they have been so very kind to share with us in the last 16 years, some of which are even posted on this forum. To claim that sceptics have no beliefs is hogwash of the highest order.
So is it a fact then that
Sceptics DO have beliefs and many of them DO believe they know better than the Met and the BKA - that is a FACT, which can be borne out by reading the millions of views that they have been so very kind to share with us in the last 16 years, some of which are even posted on this forum. To claim that sceptics have no beliefs is hogwash of the highest order.
Facts;So are you saying that not all sceptics believe the McCanns are hiding something and should be investigated further? Are you saying some sceptics accept that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger? Absolute horse crap. IMO.
I expect some 'sceptics' do have beliefs, but suggesting they are shared by all is an assumption. Views not expressed on this forum aren't relevant here unless they are included in cites, and even then can't be assumed to apply to people posting here. Your views are immaterial unless evidence supporting them is provided. I can say 'supporters believe Madeleine is alive', but it's not true.
I see no point in this discussion. I'm interested in accuracy and you're interested in accusing me of having 'feelings' which you are busily inventing.
I think OG needed more money to help the German police get evidence on CB.
It is very difficult even if you know someone is guilty of a crime to get the evidence to prove it. The phone call for one. It was a burner phone so if this person was in on it, this person is very unlikely to get in touch with the police, but without that person coming forward they can't place CB by the Ocean Club. Maybe others knew this persons phone number but I doubt it, if it was used just for the crimes it would be unlikely the number was shared.
The only way is to go over the witnesses statements and see if there is anything they can pursue. There must be people out there who know and are not speaking up. They were terrified of CB he carried a gun, whether that was for his own protection or to intimidate who knows.
I wonder if they could get DNA from the swim suits found in his van. Maybe finding out who those belonged to could give them more information on CB.
So are you saying that not all sceptics believe the McCanns are hiding something and should be investigated further? Are you saying some sceptics accept that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger? Absolute horse crap. IMO.
Now you're getting down to specifics. That's a nice change from throwing vague accusations at all 'sceptics' anyway. Now that was horse crap imo.ALL sceptics believe elements of the McCanns version of events are untrue. ALL sceptics doubt that Madeleine was abducted. MOST sceptics (including yourself) doubt CB is in any way involved in her disappearance. Now tell me that that is horse crap. You can't because it's the truth.
I think OG needed more money to help the German police get evidence on CB.
It is very difficult even if you know someone is guilty of a crime to get the evidence to prove it. The phone call for one. It was a burner phone so if this person was in on it, this person is very unlikely to get in touch with the police, but without that person coming forward they can't place CB by the Ocean Club. Maybe others knew this persons phone number but I doubt it, if it was used just for the crimes it would be unlikely the number was shared.
The only way is to go over the witnesses statements and see if there is anything they can pursue. There must be people out there who know and are not speaking up. They were terrified of CB he carried a gun, whether that was for his own protection or to intimidate who knows.
I wonder if they could get DNA from the swim suits found in his van. Maybe finding out who those belonged to could give them more information on CB.
It really doesn't matter what happens, whether Madeleine is found dead or alive or where, Sceptics will always believe that The McCanns were involved. I don't know why this is so and I don't really care anymore. I am here just to put the record straight when I see blatant lies and obfuscations. And to try to prevent this Forum from turning into a cess pit.
This is generally a good Forum and I want to keep it that way, although it is often hard work these days. But I don't have an awful lot else to do and I know more about this case than some whom I won't bother to mention. So en y var as they say in France.
Agreed Eleanor, this is an excellent forum with more than one string to its bow. There are few restrictions for members and plenty of inbuilt freedom for them to pretty much say what they want to say.
I hate to see that abused.
There has been constant scrutiny of the Home Office funding for Operation Grange and regular parliamentary questions asked and answered. In turn the Home Office is kept up to speed on progression of the case. "the progress" is wording which should be taken on board
Snip
“The Home Office regularly liaises with the Operation Grange investigation team to assess progress and challenge the use of funds as necessary. I also refer the Lord to my response to HL1446 and HL1447 concerning the National Audit Office’s review of Operation Grange in 2019 which determined that its oversight and governance by the Home Office was effective and that the Operation was compliant with the principles of Managing Public Money.” Anwer in the Lords 6th December 2021
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-11-22/HL4255
Obviously as stated, there has to be transparency for money coming from the public purse but I must admit I feel a bit let down as a Briton. Particularly when witnessing the Germans just rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the job of looking for a Briton only because the evidence to justify doing so is there.
I'm sure German public finances are as strapped as ours but Justice even for foreigners is demonstrably an ethos for them which we didn't latch onto until Scotland Yard opened their case in 2013 to continued resistance from some from then till now.
It is very difficult even if you know someone is guilty of a crime to get the evidence to prove it.
Couldnt agree more with that.
Well there isn't any evidence against the McCann's as they are innocent.
That's not entirely true. Martin Smiths alleged sighting of Gerry is evidence.
Well there isn't any evidence against the McCann's as they are innocent.
Smith was not sure it was Gerry he saw. The end.
Nonsence, that wasn't a sighting. Gerry was carrying his son as any caring parent would carry their sleeping child down aircraft steps
No evidence there .... Soz, WS
You are desperate aen't you? I wonder why?
That sounds logical, but it isn't. Innocent people have been arrested, tried and sent to prison. I expect there was evidence involved in those cases.Do you accept CB may be guilty
Do you accept CB may be guilty
Of course I do. The evidence that has been shared hasn't convinced me that he is guilty though.
Of course I do. The evidence that has been shared hasn't convinced me that he is guilty though.
Of course I do. The evidence that has been shared hasn't convinced me that he is guilty though.
So you accept that amaral could be wrong...grime and his dogs could be wrong..and the mccanns could be right in claiming abduction by a paedophile..
Good to hear
Evidence or information ?
There isn't enough evidence imo to decide what happened on 3rd May 2007.You are wriggling...if CB is guilty which you accept as a possibility ..then amaral is wrong and you also accept grime and his dogs could be an absolute joke..lol
I didn't know the McCanns claimed abduction by a paedophile? I thought they only claimed abduction as a certainty.
You are wriggling...if CB is guilty which you accept as a possibility ..then amaral is wrong and you also accept grime and his dogs could be an absolute joke..lol
There isn't enough evidence imo to decide what happened on 3rd May 2007.
I didn't know the McCanns claimed abduction by a paedophile? I thought they only claimed abduction as a certainty.
According to Wolters who has seen all the evidence...there is.
There isn't enough evidence imo to decide what happened on 3rd May 2007.Once you accept that the McCanns didn't play a part in their child's disappearance (and by using logic it's pretty obviously the only conclusion one can draw IMO) then IMO it becomes obvious that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment.
I didn't know the McCanns claimed abduction by a paedophile? I thought they only claimed abduction as a certainty.
Once you accept that the McCanns didn't play a part in their child's disappearance (and by using logic it's pretty obviously the only conclusion one can draw IMO) then IMO it becomes obvious that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment.
There isn't enough evidence imo to decide what happened on 3rd May 2007.
I didn't know the McCanns claimed abduction by a paedophile? I thought they only claimed abduction as a certainty.
If you know nothing of the McCann's fears for Madeleine ~ you should not be posting so authoritatively about her case because it demonstrably proves you know nothing.
Isn't it revealed in the files when Gerry's fears were overheard in a phone conversation by a witness on the night Madeleine vanished?
Wasn't it mentioned by Kate in her book precipitating a sceptic storm when Kate used the correct term for part of the human anatomy?
Tormented Kate McCann: I'm tortured by thought that Maddie is being abused by a paedophile
By SAM GREENHILL FOR THE DAILY MAIL and LYDIA WARREN
UPDATED: 11:33, 7 May 2011
Gerry McCann "Feared" that Madeleine had been taken by Paedophiles. I don't find that to be at all surprising.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5584.msg193294#msg193294
The internet is full of Madeleine's parents' fears for her.
You are wriggling...if CB is guilty which you accept as a possibility ..then amaral is wrong and you also accept grime and his dogs could be an absolute joke..lol
I don't need to wriggle. There are probably others who could be guilty, we just don't know who they are. If CB is innocent, which is also a possibilty the absolute joke would be Wolters.
Well there isn't any evidence against the McCann's as they are innocent.
I don't need to wriggle. There are probably others who could be guilty, we just don't know who they are. If CB is innocent, which is also a possibilty the absolute joke would be Wolters.You agree Amaral could be wrong..you agree Grime and his dogs could be wrong..that's enough for today.
I don't need to wriggle. There are probably others who could be guilty, we just don't know who they are. If CB is innocent, which is also a possibilty the absolute joke would be Wolters.
So either Amaral is a complete joke..grime and his dogs are a complete joke..
Or Wolters and the whole of the BKA are a complete joke...
So either Amaral is a complete joke..grime and his dogs are a complete joke..
Or Wolters and the whole of the BKA are a complete joke...
Well, Wolters, & the whole of the BKA, they aren't having very much luck in nailing Brueckner for Madeleine's murder at the moment. Maybe that's because Amaral, Grime & the dogs were right. It could be because of that, couldn't it.
As far as I know the BKA have made no public claims.What is the likelihood of the BKA being completely at odds with the Prosecutor in this case?
As always, all possibilities exist imo.No they don’t.
If you know nothing of the McCann's fears for Madeleine ~ you should not be posting so authoritatively about her case because it demonstrably proves you know nothing.
Isn't it revealed in the files when Gerry's fears were overheard in a phone conversation by a witness on the night Madeleine vanished?
Wasn't it mentioned by Kate in her book precipitating a sceptic storm when Kate used the correct term for part of the human anatomy?
Tormented Kate McCann: I'm tortured by thought that Maddie is being abused by a paedophile
By SAM GREENHILL FOR THE DAILY MAIL and LYDIA WARREN
UPDATED: 11:33, 7 May 2011
Gerry McCann "Feared" that Madeleine had been taken by Paedophiles. I don't find that to be at all surprising.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5584.msg193294#msg193294
The internet is full of Madeleine's parents' fears for her.
I wasn't commented on their fears, but on their claims.Just a reminder of what you actually did say ;(
Oh right, IYO is just the same as imo - so is CB........innocent of abducting Maddie.
Well let's see CB is a Paedophile, rapist and a burglar. Nope the odds are he could be the one who abducted Madeleine, I'll wait and see what happens in the near future.
As far as I know the BKA have made no public claims.
As far as I know the BKA have made no public claims..
.
Your in total denial....quite funny to watch
I find your conviction that you know all the answers very funny to watch.So are you under the impression that the BKA may be at odds with their own spokesman?
I'm sorry? What am I desperate for exactly?
So are you under the impression that the BKA may be at odds with their own spokesman?
I don't think Wolters speaks for the BKA. That's like saying that a district attorney in America is a spokesman for the FBI imo.
I don't think Wolters speaks for the BKA. That's like saying that a district attorney in America is a spokesman for the FBI imo.Still in denial but at least you now accept Wolters may be absolutely correct and it's amaral and grime who are the clowns. ....that's some progress for you
You don't know much about German Law do you.
Still in denial but at least you now accept Wolters may be absolutely correct and it's amaral and grime who are the clowns. ....that's some progress for you
I don't think Wolters speaks for the BKA. That's like saying that a district attorney in America is a spokesman for the FBI imo.It's clear Wolters is speaking for the BKA investigation ir do you think he's doing everything himself. It's also clear there's not been one word of criticism of him from the BKA..SY...ir PJ
Unlike some I don't kid myself that I know all the answers. The result of that kind of certainty can be rather embarassing at times.
Whoever is right about the McCann case I wouldn't label anyone as a clown. That says more about the person saying it than it does about the people the person is targetting imo.
No I don't. Do you know more than I do? Perhaps you'd care to share your superior knowledge if so?
It's clear Wolters is speaking for the BKA investigation ir do you think he's doing everything himself. It's also clear there's not been one word of criticism of him from the BKA..SY...ir PJ
Something to do with Adversarial and Inquisitorial. Try Google.
Well let's see CB is a Paedophile, rapist and a burglar. Nope the odds are he could be the one who abducted Madeleine, I'll wait and see what happens in the near future.
Wolters is speaking about the conclusions prosecutors have reached using information from a variety of sources imo.And no one of any credibility has criticised it
You've admitted Grime and Amaral coykd be wrong..that will be a massive embarrassment for both if them.
As youve pointed out..Amaral claimed to have all the answers and will look an absolute idiot if CB is seen to be guilty...same goes fir Grime.
And no one of any credibility has criticised it
Wolters is speaking about the conclusions prosecutors have reached using information from a variety of sources imo.Do the BKA usually give their own opinions on investigations then and if so how often are they at odds with their own prosecutors?
Do the BKA usually give their own opinions on investigations then and if so how often are they at odds with their own prosecutors?
State prosecutors use state police for investigations usually, although federal police [BKA] can be called in to help. As such, a state prosecutor can't be described as 'belonging' to the federal [BKA[ police.Does that response address the question I asked?
Oh, so it's down to odds on now, is it?
Could be .... isn't is.
State prosecutors use state police for investigations usually, although federal police [BKA] can be called in to help. As such, a state prosecutor can't be described as 'belonging' to the federal [BKA[ police.Wolters is speaking for the investigation..a BKA investigation...
Wolters is speaking for the investigation..a BKA investigation...
Wolters is speaking for the investigation..a BKA investigation...there is certainly no evidence that the police are at odds with the prosecutor, though that does seem to be the straw clutching hope in some quarters.
there is certainly no evidence that the police are at odds with the prosecutor, though that does seem to be the straw clutching hope in some quarters.
Why are you so sympathetic towards CB?
Why are you so sympathetic towards CB?
Nice pathetic try .....if u cant answer say so ...don't try and twist things
Answer what? I told you that I thought it more likely CB had abducted Madeleine than the MCCanns to be guilty of anything.
I was just wondering why you take the side of CB is it because you are worried he will be found guilty which will prove that all along you have been wrong about the McCann's?
Answer what? I told you that I thought it more likely CB had abducted Madeleine than the MCCanns to be guilty of anything.
I was just wondering why you take the side of CB is it because you are worried he will be found guilty which will prove that all along you have been wrong about the McCann's?
Wolters is speaking for the investigation..a BKA investigation...
Me personally, because I find him very sexually attractive.
Wolters is one of the press spokespersons for the Braunschwig Prosecutor's Office.
https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/pressekontakte/pressekontakte-170423.html
There's nowt so queer as folk. Poor you.
Wolters is one of the press spokespersons for the Braunschwig Prosecutor's Office.
https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/pressekontakte/pressekontakte-170423.html
Wolters is one of the press spokespersons for the Braunschwig Prosecutor's Office.Who generally speaks for the BKA then, for example to update the public at press conferences wrt to ongoing investigations?
https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/pressekontakte/pressekontakte-170423.html
Wolters is one of the press spokespersons for the Braunschwig Prosecutor's Office.
https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/pressekontakte/pressekontakte-170423.html
Thank you for providing a very informative link.
Haven't had time to read it closely as yet. But it definitely dismisses any notion that Herr Wolters is in anyway a loose cannon or a one man band as some would have it.
That is one very powerful organisation which has his back and in which he himself packs quite a punch.
Do tell me how I am taking CB's side ....just because I do not believe he abducted Maddie
How does that make me worried he will be found guilty?
Why do you twist things to suit your agenda?
How does it prove I have been wrong about mccs all along....
Has he been charged or summat to make you so certain. I am wrong.
Be honest you wouldn't believe that anyone abducted Madeleine as you believe the McCann's are guilty of hiding Madeleines body.
You have no proof of this.
Yet there is proof that CB is definitely a suspect in the abduction of Madeleine. Yet you say you don't believe CB did abduct Madeleine. How have you come to that conclusion?
Look you have answered most of what you asked in your own post as you always do.....[asuming]
What evidence is there on CB or proof...he abducted Maddie.
What evidence is there on mcs....inconclusive evidence awaiting to be backed up it seems.
That could be never in both cases.
It's a matter of what you believe .....I believe and imo the mcs were involved.
What evidence is there on mcs....inconclusive evidence awaiting to be backed up it seems.
@)(++(*. Nope
What evidence is there on mcs....inconclusive evidence awaiting to be backed up it seems.
@)(++(*. Nope
What evidence was there to rule them out?
Seems the laugh could be on you &^^&* ^*&&
The 'Inconclusive' DNA that could blow Maddie McCann case wide open
The DNA expert's world-renowned lab has since tested the same DNA, highlighting the UK's Forensic Science Service testing methods used in 2007 is now outdated.
The inconclusive data cast doubts over the work of the search dogs, however, the DNA expert believes more needs to be looked into the dog's investigative work.
He says if a lab can produce new data it may blow open the case.
"[The FSS testing] failed in this case 10 years ago," the DNA scientist said.
Seems like the FFS science .......was Junk Science.
What evidence was there to rule them out?Lack of means, motive and opportunity. This absence of any evidence to support mmo appears to have been enough for the Met to have ruled them out but not enough it would seem for the armchair detectives.
The inconclusive DNA was a soup of five people.
What does inconclusive DNA results mean?
Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing did not produce information that would allow an individual to be either included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence.
The DNA taken from the car showed a mixture of DNA from five people. Taking into account that Madeleine's DNA would match some pointers from her parents and brother and sister plus the fact that some of her DNA could be matched with members of the public. What chance would there be of finding a whole match of Madeleine's DNA? It was a hired car hundreds of people would have used that car.
Well you should take into account...
DNA testing did not produce information that would allow an individual to be either included or excluded
In other words, it did not clear the mcs it seems.
Well you should take into account...
DNA testing did not produce information that would allow an individual to be either included or excluded
In other words, it did not clear the mcs it seems.
Lack of means, motive and opportunity. This absence of any evidence to support mmo appears to have been enough for the Met to have ruled them out but not enough it would seem for the armchair detectives.
Means, motive and opportunity to do what? Without knowing what means were required, no-one knows if they possessed them or not. The same applies to motive; a motive to do what? As to opportunity, there was plenty of unsupervised time.The mccanns are no longer suspect..you need to understand and accept that
Do you think OG are stupid? Do you think the German Police are stupid? They have ruled the McCann's out eg they are not suspects.
Means, motive and opportunity to do what? Without knowing what means were required, no-one knows if they possessed them or not. The same applies to motive; a motive to do what? As to opportunity, there was plenty of unsupervised time.
The mccanns are no longer suspect..you need to understand and accept that
Means, motive and opportunity to do what? Without knowing what means were required, no-one knows if they possessed them or not. The same applies to motive; a motive to do what? As to opportunity, there was plenty of unsupervised time.Means, motive and opportunity to hide a body of course, within the time scales of the last time Madeleine was seen to when the alert was raised. No one (and I do mean no one) has ever come up with a plausible, logical explanation of parental involvement that addresses all these key factors. IMO.
Means, motive and opportunity to hide a body of course, within the time scales of the last time Madeleine was seen to when the alert was raised. No one (and I do mean no one) has ever come up with a plausible, logical explanation of parental involvement that addresses all these key factors. IMO.
Means, motive and opportunity to hide a body of course, within the time scales of the last time Madeleine was seen to when the alert was raised. No one (and I do mean no one) has ever come up with a plausible, logical explanation of parental involvement that addresses all these key factors. IMO.
I don't think this is an opinion. It's a Fact.
Means, motive and opportunity to do what? Without knowing what means were required, no-one knows if they possessed them or not. The same applies to motive; a motive to do what? As to opportunity, there was plenty of unsupervised time.
Do you think OG are stupid? Do you think the German Police are stupid? They have ruled the McCann's out eg they are not suspects.
Yes.
Corrupt Cops: What the Met Knew: Dispatches
Documentary and factual
News and current affairs
Summary
Is the Metropolitan Police force institutionally corrupt? Dispatches investigates concerns senior officers were linked to organised crime and that murders went unsolved because of corruption.
It seems GA had them weighed up.
Met police found to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic
Author of landmark report says Met can ‘no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police them’
Seems it could be in my opinion racism coming into it with the Portuguese police.
After all, GA was taken of the case for criticizing uk police.
Maybe they thought he was doing a better job than them...seems he need getting rid of
Which particular branch(es) of the UK police did Amaral have a problem with, and why?
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my post wasn't about who GA having a problem with ...or why.
After I was asked I thought OG/MET were stupid.
After Madeleine disappeared in Praia da Luz ten years ago, on May 3 2007, relations with Portugese Police soon became strained. Goncalo Amaral, the lead investigator in the case, was sacked in October 2007 after accusing British detectives of only chasing leads the McCanns wanted following.
Very few officers from the Met were involved in PJ investigation prior to Amaral's removal and none of the UK police were independently following leads the McCanns requested - they had no authority to do so. You claimed GA had the Met weighed up (based on current accusations of corruption, racism etc) yet he had virtually no dealings with the Met. to enable him to pass judgement.
Without the Met & Operation Grange Brueckner's crimes would have never been uncovered. Imo it's the PJ you should be scrutinising for institutional corruption and other issues when considering the fallout from Madeleine's case.
Do you honestly think he GA had no knowledge of what corruption ect ect was going on in the UK POLICE.
Do you honestly think he GA had no knowledge of what corruption ect ect was going on in the UK POLICE.Why would he?
Very few officers from the Met were involved in PJ investigation prior to Amaral's removal and none of the UK police were independently following leads the McCanns requested - they had no authority to do so. You claimed GA had the Met weighed up (based on current accusations of corruption, racism etc) yet he had virtually no dealings with the Met. to enable him to pass judgement.
Without the Met & Operation Grange Brueckner's crimes would have never been uncovered. Imo it's the PJ you should be scrutinising for institutional corruption and other issues when considering the fallout from Madeleine's case.
No investigation uncovered CB, a mate dobbed him in.
No investigation uncovered CB, a mate dobbed him in.That information is wrong and that fact has been posted on the forum. In future please check your facts; that will save you from posting misleading information.
Well the Portuguese investigation of the time were very remiss in proving the evidence your armchair sleuthing appears to have come up with.
Except your post doesn't actually say anything or indicate anything other than vitriol. Which is really all you can come up with.
On the other hand ~ Scotland Yard are still slogging away working on Madeleine McCann's case. You and others must find that galling ;) as you dream on.
But even more galling than that is the fact that the Home Office is continuing to dig deep to finance their efforts.
I think the UK police did follow leads given to them by the McCanns. They instigated enquiries about the Shearwater
'vision' for example.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
Do you honestly think he GA had no knowledge of what corruption ect ect was going on in the UK POLICE.
All of the above is ok if you think the mccs are innocent ..... it's your opinion.
Same as others are entitled to there's. whatever they think happened to Maddie.
Still to this day no one knows
After all, though we are all armchair detectives with opinions. You also seem to give your fair amount of vitriol yourself.
why anyone should find it galling SY is slogging away ...........is just plain stupid.
No-one knows because no-one but Madeleine's parents bothered.
We have armchair sleuths with opinions which are libellous, horrible and disgraceful. I prefer to go with the resources, the information and evidence the real detectives have been working on over the years which has led them to name Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
No-one knows because no-one but Madeleine's parents bothered.
We have armchair sleuths with opinions which are libellous, horrible and disgraceful. I prefer to go with the resources, the information and evidence the real detectives have been working on over the years which has led them to name Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Since when has a vision about a brand of boat been an official lead?
Since Kate McCann mentioned it to the UK police on 8th May 2007. That led to Glen Pounder discovering the owner and someone else doing a pnc check. Why I don't know, as the owner of the boat was Canadian. Sounds like following a lead to me; officially or not.
I prefer to go with the resources, the information and evidence the real detectives have been working on over the years which has led them to name Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Ye I know...........you believe what you are told to believe
Even though there is no evidence.
All of the above is ok if you think the mccs are innocent ..... it's your opinion.
Same as others are entitled to there's. whatever they think happened to Maddie.
Still to this day no one knows
After all, though we are all armchair detectives with opinions. You also seem to give your fair amount of vitriol yourself.
why anyone should find it galling SY is slogging away ...........is just plain stupid.
I see. You don’t credit those of us who think Madeleine was abducted with the ability to think for ourselves. Do you think we’re all stupid too?
I prefer to go with the resources, the information and evidence the real detectives have been working on over the years which has led them to name Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Ye I know...........you believe what you are told to believe
Even though there is no evidence.
Don't be so daft...you don't know there's no evidence. We know all the evidence against the McCann's...nothing of any real importance. The fact Wolters says he has is highly significant...you just can't bear to accept it
Wolters says he does know..has the evidence to prove it...is he lying.,no one in authority has contradicted him..,it's highly highly likely he's telling the truth
I see. You don’t credit those of us who think Madeleine was abducted with the ability to think for ourselves. Do you think we’re all stupid too?
It's highly likely he isn't as well.......he has already changed his mind or lied....after saying he knew Maddie was dead.There was no u turn ..absolutely no .I've explained why many times,.....do I need to do it again
Madeleine McCann could still be ALIVE, admits German prosecutor in U-turn as he confirms there is no forensic evidence to show she is dead
Seems the man is for turning.................all he has is speculation.
Don't be so daft...you don't know there's no evidence.
Well, the best form of defense is attack as they say.
I don't know if there is no evidence....you don't know if there is.
I can't bear to accept it .........I have never believed it since day one.
So in defense..... you're the daft one.
So you accept you were wrong to say there's no evidence...well done
Did I say it was you....... but jump on the ban wagon if you must.Well obviously you mean anyone who thinks Madeleine was abducted can’t think for themselves and believes everything they’re told. This is typical of a conspiracy theorist - they always believe that only they have the special insight and ability to see things that the common or garden brainwashed sheeple can’t. It makes them feel better about themselves.
Well obviously you mean anyone who thinks Madeleine was abducted can’t think for themselves and believes everything they’re told. This is typical of a conspiracy theorist - they always believe that only they have the special insight and ability to see things that the common or garden brainwashed sheeple can’t. It makes them feel better about themselves.
I came to that conclusion by you accusing Brietta of believing what she’s told to believe like she’s some sort of gullible moron, and unlike you who presumably never believes anything she’s told, always goes straight to the source for answers and is generally far cleverer and better informed on all matters. Right?
This is typical of a conspiracy theorist - they always believe that only they have the special insight and ability to see things that the common or garden brainwashed sheeple can’t. It makes them feel better about themselves.
Don't know how you came to that conclusion...but there again if it works for you
Wolters says this.Do you believe Christian B knows what happened to Madeleine?
Wolters says that.
You just have to believe in Wolters, is all. In the absence of anything tangible.
I came to that conclusion by you accusing Brietta of believing what she’s told to believe like she’s some sort of gullible moron, and unlike you who presumably never believes anything she’s told, always goes straight to the source for answers and is generally far cleverer and better informed on all matters. Right?
Wrong.then don’t accuse people you don’t agree with of believing what they’re told to believe, it’s insulting.
Firstly I would have thought B quite capable of answering for herself. herself ..obviously not.
You are the one who called her a gullible moron.
It isn't me who goes straight to the source for answers either...I don't believe HCW will ever charge CB.
I have always believed mccs are involved no one has ever told me what to believe on that.
I came to that conclusion all by myself.
You believe what you believe.....and so will I
then don’t accuse people you don’t agree with of believing what they’re told to believe, it’s insulting.
Do you believe Christian B knows what happened to Madeleine?
Do you believe all the various witnesses who have said that Christian B told them he knows what happened to Madeleine?
If you don't, would you say that Christian B is a compulsive liar?
Wrong.
Firstly I would have thought B quite capable of answering for herself. herself ..obviously not.
You are the one who called her a gullible moron.
It isn't me who goes straight to the source for answers either...I don't believe HCW will ever charge CB.
I have always believed mccs are involved no one has ever told me what to believe on that.
I came to that conclusion all by myself.
You believe what you believe.....and so will I
Oh right .... I get it now it's just you being sarcastic..I was a bit puzzled by your concern.I think my point was very clear from the start.
At least you got out in your roundabout way what you wanted to say.
Do you believe Christian B knows what happened to Madeleine?
Do you believe all the various witnesses who have said that Christian B told them he knows what happened to Madeleine?
If you don't, would you say that Christian B is a compulsive liar?
UK police delegated the matter to an agent in Portugal at the time. No UK officer took a statement from the owner/crew or searched the boat. Did the PJ follow that lead?
Which ever way you look at it Brueckner is a disgusting individual who can't be trusted under any circumstances.
Which ever way you look at it Brueckner is a disgusting individual who can't be trusted under any circumstances.
There are disgusting individuals everywhere. Some are known about, like Brueckner. The truly dangerous ones are those who aren't known about. If you meet them that's when your own judgement is needed to identify and avoid those who can't be trusted.Not so easy to do if you’re a child or a woman and in your own home when such a person enters unlawfully with i tent to harm.
There are disgusting individuals everywhere. Some are known about, like Brueckner. The truly dangerous ones are those who aren't known about. If you meet them that's when your own judgement is needed to identify and avoid those who can't be trusted.
There are disgusting individuals everywhere. Some are known about, like Brueckner. The truly dangerous ones are those who aren't known about. If you meet them that's when your own judgement is needed to identify and avoid those who can't be trusted.
Not so easy to do if you’re a child or a woman and in your own home when such a person enters unlawfully with i tent to harm.
I think my point was very clear from the start.
What point exactly do you think you have made clear from the start?I don't think it's me going soft, or mad. Thanks for the insults.
You are on a forum with two different intakes of what happened to Maddie.
Either there is a method in your madness ...or you are going soft.
Not so easy to do if you’re a child or a woman and in your own home when such a person enters unlawfully with i tent to harm.
That's another matter as such people can be identified immediately. Others, such as Dr Miles Bradbury hide their true natures.Why, did CB go around with a sign hanging round his neck saying "paedo / rapist"?
I don't think it's me going soft, or mad. Thanks for the insults.
You said to Brietta
"you believe what you are told to believe" implying that Brietta has no ability to think for herself. Do you agree that you said and implied this?
I then replied (and this was my point, clear from the start)
"I see. You don’t credit those of us who think Madeleine was abducted with the ability to think for ourselves. Do you think we’re all stupid too?"
Well, do you? You seem to think I'm mad or soft, stupid too perhaps? Is it only Brietta you think who believes what she is told to believe or are you accusing all "abduction believers" of being so manipulated too?
SY held the mobile phone data and independent witness sightings which helped corroborate HB's information. If OG didn't exist, who else would HB have approached and what would that force have done?
That information is wrong and that fact has been posted on the forum. In future please check your facts; that will save you from posting misleading information.
Maddie case. PJ erred when he did not investigate better Christian Brueckner, admits Gonçalo Amaral
This article is more than 1 year old
The former coordinator of the PJ investigation, Gonçalo Amaral, says that there were errors in the Portuguese investigation, but does not believe that Brueckner is to blame or that the German authorities have evidence.
oct. 08 2021, 09:34
Gonçalo Amaral admits that the German Christian Brueckner was also part of the list of the Judicial Police at the time of Maddie's disappearance in 2007, but no one insisted on looking for him.
The former inspector of the Judiciary Police, who coordinated the investigation at the time of the disappearance of the British girl, tells Correio da Manhã that they knocked on the door of Brueckner – now the main suspect of the German police – but no one opened it. A report was made on the situation and no one ever came to him again.
"I assume there's a mistake. There are several mistakes, but this is a mistake," says Gonçalo Amaral, who later justifies himself and his colleagues with the other investigations they had in progress.
https://observador.pt/2021/10/08/caso-maddie-pj-errou-quando-nao-investigou-melhor-christian-brueckner-admite-goncalo-amaral/
There is no one more honest or able to think for herself than Brietta. So we will cut the insults on that one.
Thank You.
She's hard enough to hand out points willy nilly, so don't fret on her behalf.
I'm not acting "so moral all of a sudden", nor am I defending Brietta specifically, I am challenging your apparent belief that anyone who doesn't think the McCanns dunnit must be a gullible idiot who blithely laps up everything they are told. Got it now?
"I see. You don’t credit those of us who think Madeleine was abducted with the ability to think for ourselves
Oh please, I have lost track of how many times the insults have come my way for what I believe.
But does it bother me NO....Im strong enough to take what I give. or id be off here like many have.
Why are you acting so moral all of a sudden ...is it that you think B can't take it, an you have to jump in to defend.
Seems she hasn't a problem with it, and nor should she the times she has posted her view on what we should think about GA an the poor poor parents etc etc . ffs
OG nor the BKA suspected CB, his name was given to them, the BKA even heard him as a witness its said in 2013.
I'm not acting "so moral all of a sudden", nor am I defending Brietta specifically, I am challenging your apparent belief that anyone who doesn't think the McCanns dunnit must be a gullible idiot who blithely laps up everything they are told. Got it now?
Why is it that sceptics take such delight at displaying their ignorance about every aspect of this case? It really isn't a good look.
I think the first thing to point out to you (as Eleanor has recently had to do elsewhere) that Madeleine's case was solely within the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Judicial Police.
Neither SY or BKA had any involvement in the melee of 2007. When we know thanks to Amaral that at least one resident convicted child molester had been allowed to escape interview despite being on the radar and thus his opportunity to be vindicated while the trail was hot and evidence fresh lost forever.
One wonders if Brueckner was ignored ~ how many others were too in the headlong race to convict primarily, the child's mother.
The "interview" to which you refer occurred as a direct result of Scotland Yard opening their own investigation into Madeleine's by this time very cold case and following through on the very many loose ends the PJ had proved incapable of addressing.
The request to Germany regarding Brueckner was as a direct result of SY checking the phone dump which had been available in 2007 but while no effort had been neglected for investigating McCann, Murat and Malinka calls it would seem known paedophiles were ignored.
This single minded backing by the PJ of the wrong horse to the exclusion of all else is one of the many root causes and incompetence which led to the 2013 funding of Madeleine's case which continues to the present day and to Germany clearing up some of the trail of havoc left behind by Brueckner. All of which the PJ were incapable of doing.
You are challenging nothing, you are the ones using words like a gullible idiot and gullible moron, not me.What do you think of people who believe what they are told to believe? Are they bright, switched on, independent thinkers, or stupid, gullible, uncritical thinkers?
Like I said I have had worse said to me just recently called daft a joke believing everything GA says...altho mild have had a lot worse.
a comment from B to another poster...one of the milder ones.
Except your post doesn't actually say anything or indicate anything other than vitriol. Which is really all you can come up with.
This single minded backing by the PJ of the wrong horse to the exclusion of all else is one of the many root causes and incompetence which led to the 2013 funding of Madeleine's case which continues to the present day and to Germany clearing up some of the trail of havoc left behind by Brueckner. All of which the PJ were incapable of doing.
Surely its only the boot on the other foot ...as what SY is doing now ..........abduction only.
What do you think of people who believe what they are told to believe? Are they bright, switched on, independent thinkers, or stupid, gullible, uncritical thinkers?
Where is the vitriol? I didn't call anyone names. I didn't question their sanity or ability to think rationally. No. You did that.
Please take note of the thread title ~ "Maddie cops seek yet more cash"
Possibly there will be a myriad of reasons why the Home Office continues to pay for the work being carried out on Madeleine's behalf, but I think the main one must be that there is still work to be done.
Had a proper investigation been carried out back in 2007 there is a fair chance that is when it could have been resolved. It is extraordinary that those who have been made aware of the mistakes made then, continue to advocate them now.
I don't think the scoping exercise, review and Scotland Yard investigation signify a classic "cold case". I don't think there was much of a case left to them that in effect they had to start a case from scratch and build an entirely new one based on evidence ignored at the time and worked only by the McCann detectives in the intervening period between archiving and the opening of Madeleine's case by SY.
Quite an indefensible disgrace, really.
Why do they want more money ....when HCW has supposedly got the abductor.
Supposedly charging him in the next year or so.
What was the motive for the abduction?
What happened between the abduction and the alleged murder?
IMO those investigations fall outside the jurisdiction of BKA.
Why do they want more money ....when HCW has supposedly got the abductor.
Supposedly charging him in the next year or so.
I didn't say it was your post I said it was BAgain you call me mad. Why?
So it's ok for her to call me and others ignorant just a couple of posts ago.
I can see there is a method in your madness ...twist twist twist. 8(0(*
Looks like this will be the end of it. B has spoken
There is imo no evidence [as the evidence seems to be the keyword to prove anything] there was an abduction in the first place.You are in a very poor position to judge on the evidence if you don’t mind me saying so.
What was the motive for the abduction?
What happened between the abduction and the alleged murder?
IMO those investigations fall outside the jurisdiction of BKA.
Why should it fall into the remit of OG if the perpetrator is of foreign extraction.Because they are investigating Madeleine’s disappearance.
There is imo no evidence [as the evidence seems to be the keyword to prove anything] there was an abduction in the first place.
Why should it fall into the remit of OG if the perpetrator is of foreign extraction.
Davel will tell you they don't need to, if the BKA can prove their suspect killed Madeleine the rest wont matter.
Davel will tell you they don't need to, if the BKA can prove their suspect killed Madeleine the rest wont matter.I assume you meant to answer my response? I don’t care what Davel said, the fact is the Met are investigating Madeleine’s disappearance and will continue up until the point charges are brought or the funding stops.
You are in a very poor position to judge on the evidence if you don’t mind me saying so.
"Evidence" is indeed the key to everything. Aided and abetted by "lack of".
When Scotland Yard assumed the investigation there was just sooooooooooooo much of it lying about that hadn't even had a cursory investigation.
As far as "abduction" is concerned ~ what evidence (sans libel) do you cite which indicates there was none. Bearing in mind that Madeleine was missing from her bed and a man was seen carrying a child from the scene, which to me is pretty compelling.
I assume you meant to answer my response? I don’t care what Davel said, the fact is the Met are investigating Madeleine’s disappearance and will continue up until the point charges are brought or the funding stops.
More compelling to me is .....who was the man IIRC only one name mentioned.
Please allow me to remind you that the thread topic is "Maddie cops seek yet more cash". Other discussion belongs elsewhere on other threads of which there are many, or if you feel the need you know you are free to start a new discussion on its own thread.
Errr.....you mentioned the man, not me B.
What more is there to investigate ?
"We have one suspicious person and this is Christian B.
“There is no other person for us who is suspicious.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-admit-suspect-29371161
What more is there to investigate ?
"We have one suspicious person and this is Christian B.
“There is no other person for us who is suspicious.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-admit-suspect-29371161
What more is there to investigate ?
"We have one suspicious person and this is Christian B.
“There is no other person for us who is suspicious.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-admit-suspect-29371161
Grange are just dotting the t's & crossing the i's now. This time next year it will all be over. Wolters has solved the case.
What more is there to investigate ?I trust you understand the difference between having a suspect and fully investigating a suspect in order to ensure a conviction when it comes to prosecuting them?
"We have one suspicious person and this is Christian B.
“There is no other person for us who is suspicious.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-admit-suspect-29371161
I trust you understand the difference between having a suspect and fully investigating a suspect in order to ensure a conviction when it comes to prosecuting them?
It is the stubborn resistance to understand the principle that once persons are eliminated from an inquiry that's it - END OF - unless or until evidence emerges to the contrary.
In this instance the indications are manifest that the Amaral theory was wrong from inception but with some refusing to accept reality and believing that denial will make it go away!
Not going to happen for them though and as time passes the more obvious it must become. Poor them with their belief system shredded in tatters.
The significance of continued injections of cash for Madeleine's investigation must be very difficult for them but I think they will recover enough to keep at it and become more of an oddity than at present. Wow💫 I hope I am spared to witness that.
What a sad post.
I doubt anyone cares whether SY gets the funding or not.
.
Oh I think there are those who care very much about the funding required to search for Madeleine from insidious attacks Madeleine's Fund to the downright nasty campaigns against the funding for Scotland Yard's operations.
I have to agree with you that it makes for very sad posting for me and very sad reading for some others. Bravo! to you for recognising the sadness.
Particularly since the funding has suffered relentless attack since inception to the present day one example of which is copied below.
CMOMM's 2019 letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid re: Extended Funding for Operation Grange
Post by Jill Havern
3rd March 2019
To The Right Honourable Sajid Javid PC, MP,
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Sir
EXTENDED FUNDING FOR OPERATION GRANGE
I have no doubt that you will be privy to information not in the public domain in this case.
I would however, with respect, invite you to seek answers from your senior advisors on the following important issues
1 The famous photo of the father ..................................
2 The ‘crèche’ record sheets are not .......................................
3 There is a body of evidence to be found within ................................................
You will be aware that the Police of ................................................................
I am of course willing to provide all ...........................................................
A detailed analysis, again with ..............................................................
I do not, ...................................................................... that the right questions were being asked at high level and that FOI requests would confirm this
You will be aware ...................................................................
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant
REDACTED
REF: https://jillhavern ...........................yet anotherletter-to-portugal-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-new-evidence-of-what-happened-to-her
I can see why knowledge that there was such malevolence directed towards a missing child saddens you particularly since it has continued since she was three until she has become an adult should she have survived.
It is the stubborn resistance to understand the principle that once persons are eliminated from an inquiry that's it - END OF - unless or until evidence emerges to the contrary.
In this instance the indications are manifest that the Amaral theory was wrong from inception but with some refusing to accept reality and believing that denial will make it go away!
Not going to happen for them though and as time passes the more obvious it must become. Poor them with their belief system shredded in tatters.
The significance of continued injections of cash for Madeleine's investigation must be very difficult for them but I think they will recover enough to keep at it and become more of an oddity than at present. Wow💫 I hope I am spared to witness that.
Were the McCanns eliminated from an inquiry? If you are referring to the PJ inquiry the answer is they weren't. As to Operation Grange, they were never included in their inquiry.
Were the McCanns eliminated from an inquiry? If you are referring to the PJ inquiry the answer is they weren't. As to Operation Grange, they were never included in their inquiry.Are the PJ not currently involved in an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance? If so are you suggesting that the McCanns have not been eliminated by them and are the subject of further investigation? Only it seems odd that the only person currently named as Arguido in the case is a German rapist / paedo. Odd innit?
Are the PJ not currently involved in an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance? If so are you suggesting that the McCanns have not been eliminated by them and are the subject of further investigation? Only it seems odd that the only person currently named as Arguido in the case is a German rapist / paedo. Odd innit?
Well, you know why don't you. The McCanns paid Brueckner to abduct Madeleine. Or they paid him to dispose of the body.it's either that or poor weak, subservient little Portugal is simply doing the bidding of its more powerful overlords - Germany and the UK.
I just thought I would get that one in first. It is bound to raise it's ugly head eventually.
Well, you know why don't you. The McCanns paid Brueckner to abduct Madeleine. Or they paid him to dispose of the body.
I just thought I would get that one in first. It is bound to raise it's ugly head eventually.
it's either that or poor weak, subservient little Portugal is simply doing the bidding of its more powerful overlords - Germany and the UK.
What a childish condensing post B
Do you not remember Mark Rowley saying...As for the parents...weve looked at all the informaton and decided they are not involved...not the exact words... thats ruling them out
Were the McCanns eliminated from an inquiry? If you are referring to the PJ inquiry the answer is they weren't. As to Operation Grange, they were never included in their inquiry.
When you can demonstrate that your posts are worth a response I will respond. Till then I recommend you interrogate the ill informed unlinked puerile posts directed at me and try to avoid recourse to the usual sceptic mantras which have been formerly debunked ad nauseam.
Definition of ad nauseam - ADVERB
used to refer to the fact that something has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome:
Actually I find the content of my post quite sinister. Pretty much as I find the volume of actions taken to deliberately obstruct the funding of a criminal investigation into a missing child by all means possible. No problems about public money being spent on hobby horse campaigns, are there?
National Audit Office: Re: Public Spending for Operation Grange
Post by Jill Havern 01.07.19
Dear Ms Havern,
Further to my e-mail of 25 July, I am writing to confirm that we have completed our enquiries with the Home Office and I am now able to respond to the questions that you have raised specifically in relation to the administration of special grants for the continued funding of Operation Grange.
....................................................................................
Therefore, the work we have undertaken in response to your correspondence has focused on establishing the facts around the Home Office’s use of Special Grant funding in support of Operation Grange. In doing so, we have also sought to ensure that we do not prejudice the ongoing police investigation.
....................................................................................
In this instance, while the costs of Operation Grange are significantly under 1% of the Metropolitan Police’s budget, Ministers have exercised their discretion to commission this investigation to draw on the specialist skills of the Metropolitan Police’s investigations team.
....................................................................................
You had expressed concern about whether the funding has produced results and is delivering value for money.
... in relation to Operation Grange include regular liaison with the Metropolitan Police investigation team to assess progress, challenging the use of funds as necessary and considering what, if any, additional funding may be required. The oversight arrangements have operated effectively and the Home Office team has not identified any instances of funds being misused.
....................................................................................
These oversight arrangements are sufficiently robust, timely and regular to ensure that spending is properly monitored. The Home Office has been able to provide financial reports demonstrating the oversight that they exercise.
....................................................................................
In conclusion, therefore, we are satisfied that the Home Office has used Special Grant funding in support of Operation Grange in accordance with its own guidance and has exercised adequate oversight of related expenditure by the Metropolitan Police. From our review of the funding and governance arrangements as well as our annual audits of the Home Office financial statements, we have not identified any areas of concern in relation to this expenditure.
Regards
....................................................................................
Criminals would be utterly delighted to have police budgets abolished. It would certainly cut their chances of ever being caught and enough evidence of a standard to enable them to be charged and tried ever being collected.
Fine - I understand the motivation of criminals to compromise any investigation of their nefarious pursuits.
What is it that this woman jh has against Madeleine McCann that she and her organisation are committed to attacking the search for her.
Criminals I can understand and have a guess at their self serving reasons. Those driven by emotions I do not understand particularly if
(a) they have no association with the crime either as victim - relation - witness
(b) their intention is to derail an active police investigation
(c) and they waste a considerable amount of their very being 'researching' and maligning the target of their choosing
I don't find my post either "childish" or "condensing" in the circumstances and context of the thread. I posted it because it is factual illustration of how some people have chosen to react to money being made available to fund a criminal particular investigation they consider anathema which I consider to be inexplicable.
So instead of following my posts around the threads to throw your one liners at, please consider responding seriously to a seriously written comment if you can.
Actually I find the content of my post quite sinister. Pretty much as I find the volume of actions taken to deliberately obstruct the funding of a criminal investigation into a missing child by all means possible. No problems about public money being spent on hobby horse campaigns, are there?
National Audit Office: Re: Public Spending for Operation Grange
Post by Jill Havern 01.07.19
Dear Ms Havern,
Further to my e-mail of 25 July, I am writing to confirm that we have completed our enquiries with the Home Office and I am now able to respond to the questions that you have raised specifically in relation to the administration of special grants for the continued funding of Operation Grange.
....................................................................................
Therefore, the work we have undertaken in response to your correspondence has focused on establishing the facts around the Home Office’s use of Special Grant funding in support of Operation Grange. In doing so, we have also sought to ensure that we do not prejudice the ongoing police investigation.
....................................................................................
In this instance, while the costs of Operation Grange are significantly under 1% of the Metropolitan Police’s budget, Ministers have exercised their discretion to commission this investigation to draw on the specialist skills of the Metropolitan Police’s investigations team.
....................................................................................
You had expressed concern about whether the funding has produced results and is delivering value for money.
... in relation to Operation Grange include regular liaison with the Metropolitan Police investigation team to assess progress, challenging the use of funds as necessary and considering what, if any, additional funding may be required. The oversight arrangements have operated effectively and the Home Office team has not identified any instances of funds being misused.
....................................................................................
These oversight arrangements are sufficiently robust, timely and regular to ensure that spending is properly monitored. The Home Office has been able to provide financial reports demonstrating the oversight that they exercise.
....................................................................................
In conclusion, therefore, we are satisfied that the Home Office has used Special Grant funding in support of Operation Grange in accordance with its own guidance and has exercised adequate oversight of related expenditure by the Metropolitan Police. From our review of the funding and governance arrangements as well as our annual audits of the Home Office financial statements, we have not identified any areas of concern in relation to this expenditure.
Regards
....................................................................................
Criminals would be utterly delighted to have police budgets abolished. It would certainly cut their chances of ever being caught and enough evidence of a standard to enable them to be charged and tried ever being collected.
Fine - I understand the motivation of criminals to compromise any investigation of their nefarious pursuits.
What is it that this woman jh has against Madeleine McCann that she and her organisation are committed to attacking the search for her.
Criminals I can understand and have a guess at their self serving reasons. Those driven by emotions I do not understand particularly if
(a) they have no association with the crime either as victim - relation - witness
(b) their intention is to derail an active police investigation
(c) and they waste a considerable amount of their very being 'researching' and maligning the target of their choosing
I don't find my post either "childish" or "condensing" in the circumstances and context of the thread. I posted it because it is factual illustration of how some people have chosen to react to money being made available to fund a criminal particular investigation they consider anathema which I consider to be inexplicable.
So instead of following my posts around the threads to throw your one liners at, please consider responding seriously to a seriously written comment if you can.
It’s about time Netflix did a series about the loons that spew out this crap about the case.
This woman thinks she is important, she runs a nasty forum dedicated to spewing out vile disgusting comments about the family of a missing child.
They believe enough money has been spent as Madeleine died on the Sunday four days before the date of disappearance. Their crazy ideas are that the McCann pretended to take Madeleine to the creche all week [there were a lot of blonde haired little girls you see so she wouldn't be missed] The fact that the Nannies would know who they were supposed to have in their group doesn't matter to them. They have done an awful lot of 'research' , they are very specialised 'Researchers' you can tell that by how many detailed blogs they have written and books etc. They can prove that Madeleine wasn't seen all week!! They know she wasn't seen all week as they have gone through all the statements and Police files. Never mind the members of the public whose children probably spent time with Madeleine. One who made an appearance on the Netflix documentary, his daughter was on the boat with Madeleine it also showed Madeleine playing in a group. Of course that was ridiculed too. No one really saw her, the Nannies must have been talking to a lookalike Madeleine.
They are completely off their heads but think their forum is the creme de creme. Some of the posts are of a rather dark sort such as comments about the photo of Madeleine dressing up using Kates makeup ' I think she looks dead'. says one 'me too' says another. Sickening beyond belief.
This woman thinks she is important, she runs a nasty forum dedicated to spewing out vile disgusting comments about the family of a missing child.
They believe enough money has been spent as Madeleine died on the Sunday four days before the date of disappearance. Their crazy ideas are that the McCann pretended to take Madeleine to the creche all week [there were a lot of blonde haired little girls you see so she wouldn't be missed] The fact that the Nannies would know who they were supposed to have in their group doesn't matter to them. They have done an awful lot of 'research' , they are very specialised 'Researchers' you can tell that by how many detailed blogs they have written and books etc. They can prove that Madeleine wasn't seen all week!! They know she wasn't seen all week as they have gone through all the statements and Police files. Never mind the members of the public whose children probably spent time with Madeleine. One who made an appearance on the Netflix documentary, his daughter was on the boat with Madeleine it also showed Madeleine playing in a group. Of course that was ridiculed too. No one really saw her, the Nannies must have been talking to a lookalike Madeleine.
They are completely off their heads but think their forum is the creme de creme. Some of the posts are of a rather dark sort such as comments about the photo of Madeleine dressing up using Kates makeup ' I think she looks dead'. says one 'me too' says another. Sickening beyond belief.
The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917
Well, IMO that is more credible than CB abducting Maddie.
"The parent's involvement was dealt with by the Portuguese" It was indeed, but that didn't include ruling them out.
"We're happy that's completely dealt with" As it was dealt with by archiving the case, we can only assume that OG were happy to leave it as the archiving dispatch left it; that the crime and the criminal were unknown.
This woman thinks she is important, she runs a nasty forum dedicated to spewing out vile disgusting comments about the family of a missing child.
They believe enough money has been spent as Madeleine died on the Sunday four days before the date of disappearance. Their crazy ideas are that the McCann pretended to take Madeleine to the creche all week [there were a lot of blonde haired little girls you see so she wouldn't be missed] The fact that the Nannies would know who they were supposed to have in their group doesn't matter to them. They have done an awful lot of 'research' , they are very specialised 'Researchers' you can tell that by how many detailed blogs they have written and books etc. They can prove that Madeleine wasn't seen all week!! They know she wasn't seen all week as they have gone through all the statements and Police files. Never mind the members of the public whose children probably spent time with Madeleine. One who made an appearance on the Netflix documentary, his daughter was on the boat with Madeleine it also showed Madeleine playing in a group. Of course that was ridiculed too. No one really saw her, the Nannies must have been talking to a lookalike Madeleine.
They are completely off their heads but think their forum is the creme de creme. Some of the posts are of a rather dark sort such as comments about the photo of Madeleine dressing up using Kates makeup ' I think she looks dead'. says one 'me too' says another. Sickening beyond belief.
"The parent's involvement was dealt with by the Portuguese" It was indeed, but that didn't include ruling them out.
"We're happy that's completely dealt with" As it was dealt with by archiving the case, we can only assume that OG were happy to leave it as the archiving dispatch left it; that the crime and the criminal were unknown.
Well, IMO that is more credible than CB abducting Maddie.(&^&
Let's have a quick look at the underlying circumstances which may have contributed to the reasons for the Home Office continued financing of Madeleine McCanns case.
Madeleine McCann: New evidence 'significant' - Portuguese police
Published
14 June 2020
Portuguese police say the German evidence against the new suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is "significant".
A senior police source also told the BBC they were keen to cooperate in the investigation into the disappearance of the British girl in Portugal in 2007.
The new suspect is a 43-year-old German man, named in reports as Christian B, who is in prison in Germany.
A senior Portuguese police source, who has seen the German evidence against Christian B, has told the BBC it is "very important" and "significant".
The source also rejected criticism that their procedures were slow, amid reports that the German authorities have privately been critical of their Portuguese counterparts.
Another source close to the investigation said Portuguese police accepted that Christian B was now a suspect.
Asked whether they had access to his previous convictions for child sexual offences at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, he said it was important not to judge the past with the benefit of hindsight, and that police systems since then had changed.
He was revealed as the main suspect earlier this month, as German and UK police made a fresh appeal for help.
The convicted paedophile is believed to have been in the area where Madeleine, aged three, was last seen while on holiday in Portugal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53043818
It's from the same interview where he served up the gem: However she left the apartment, she was abducted, because “She wasn’t old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life,”.
Pure gold that. She's gone therefore she was abducted is what he's saying. There's a prime example of Metropolitan Police logic,
Pure gold that. She's gone therefore she was abducted is what he's saying. There's a prime example of Metropolitan Police logic,It is perfectly logical, once you have ruled out the parents which they had done. Do you think the Head of the Metropolitan Police lacks logic?
It is perfectly logical, once you have ruled out the parents which they had done. Do you think the Head of the Metropolitan Police lacks logic? Are you smarter thsn he is, in your view? Perhaps you should apply for the job when he gets the boot, I’m sure you’ll have it all sorted in a jiffy.
It is perfectly logical, once you have ruled out the parents which they had done. Do you think the Head of the Metropolitan Police lacks logic?
It is perfectly logical, once you have ruled out the parents which they had done. Do you think the Head of the Metropolitan Police lacks logic?
I thought Rowley was saying that the parents were dealt with by the Portuguese investigation, not by OG. That did not rule them out. It didn't even identify the crime. I don't think it's logical to say definitively that a missing child was abducted, because there are other possibilities when children go missing, even though they are too young to disappear and start a new life.
Rowley is saying they've looked at all the evidence from the first investigation and decided the parents were not involved..ruling them out. You don't like it but that's how it is...you need to accept and understand
I thought Rowley was saying that the parents were dealt with by the Portuguese investigation, not by OG. That did not rule them out. It didn't even identify the crime. I don't think it's logical to say definitively that a missing child was abducted, because there are other possibilities when children go missing, even though they are too young to disappear and start a new life.I don’t think you’ve really properly understood what he said.
Rowley is saying they've looked at all the evidence from the first investigation and decided the parents were not involved..ruling them out. You don't like it but that's how it is...you need to accept and understand
OG have made the decisions they made and proceeded accordingly. I do accept what they have decided, but I don't have to accept that they were right.It's not particularly important what you do
I thought Rowley was saying that the parents were dealt with by the Portuguese investigation, not by OG. That did not rule them out. It didn't even identify the crime. I don't think it's logical to say definitively that a missing child was abducted, because there are other possibilities when children go missing, even though they are too young to disappear and start a new life.
What is it that you cannot comprehend about the concept of ~ a person is investigated in a police investigation > that person is suspected of involvement in a crime and is questioned under caution > no charge is laid because there is no evidence to prove wrongdoing > the person is eliminated from the inquiry as a result and released without stain on his/her character > police resources are freed up which allows them to proceed with the next step in the investigative process...
If they can't prove wrongdoing by Brueckner I assume he will also be eliminated from the enquiry?
If they can't prove wrongdoing by Brueckner I assume he will also be eliminated from the enquiry?Based on your extensive knowledge of all the evidence against him do you think CB should be eliminated from the enquiry?
Let's have a quick look at the underlying circumstances which may have contributed to the reasons for the Home Office continued financing of Madeleine McCanns case.
Madeleine McCann: New evidence 'significant' - Portuguese police
Published
14 June 2020
Portuguese police say the German evidence against the new suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is "significant".
A senior police source also told the BBC they were keen to cooperate in the investigation into the disappearance of the British girl in Portugal in 2007.
The new suspect is a 43-year-old German man, named in reports as Christian B, who is in prison in Germany.
A senior Portuguese police source, who has seen the German evidence against Christian B, has told the BBC it is "very important" and "significant".
The source also rejected criticism that their procedures were slow, amid reports that the German authorities have privately been critical of their Portuguese counterparts.
Another source close to the investigation said Portuguese police accepted that Christian B was now a suspect.
Asked whether they had access to his previous convictions for child sexual offences at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, he said it was important not to judge the past with the benefit of hindsight, and that police systems since then had changed.
He was revealed as the main suspect earlier this month, as German and UK police made a fresh appeal for help.
The convicted paedophile is believed to have been in the area where Madeleine, aged three, was last seen while on holiday in Portugal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53043818
Based on your extensive knowledge of all the evidence against him do you think CB should be eliminated from the enquiry?
I'm not surprised you feel that way. You'd believe anything never mind how bizarre it is, as long as the McCann's are not cleared.
You really have shown your true colours.
So what is that supposed to be .....evidence.
It's from a source ....three years ago.
It's not particularly important what you do
If they can't prove wrongdoing by Brueckner I assume he will also be eliminated from the enquiry?
True colors.........and what colors are they exactly.
You answered your own question ...the mccs are not cleared, are they.
So how come I'm the one who believes anything ....check out your own posts L
I see your true colours shining through
true colours & that's why I love you
So don't be afraid, to let them show
Your true colours, true colours
They're beautiful
Like a rainbow.
Or you really.
That's because there is nothing anyone can do here.......to help the case
So I would think everyone on this forum is important by participating with their opinions.
I see you are beginning to grasp the concept of the presumption of innocence. Excellent progress.
nothing said here is of any importance to the case..same for haverns forum...Its what the polic eforces involved do....and at the moment CB is the only suspect
Some say Grange has acheived nothing yet..
CB jailed for the rape of DM as adirect result of the appeal on german TV arrange dby SY
hazel Behan may now het justice ..this is what she has to say..
She continued: "Until that day I knew I had to bury it. I knew I had zero chance of justice, but thanks to all of the campaigning and the perseverance of Madeleine’s amazing parents, today, 18 long years after my rape, I have an opportunity to see my attacker behind bars."
" more rapes and 2 sex offences against chldremn. All down to Grange .
If it wasnt for Grange CB would be afree man ...commiting more offences. its through Grange hes locked up
It is perfectly logical, once you have ruled out the parents which they had done. Do you think the Head of the Metropolitan Police lacks logic?
Are you smarter thsn he is, in your view? Perhaps you should apply for the job when he gets the boot, I’m sure you’ll have it all sorted in a jiffy.
Nothing came of appeals on German TV. It was when his mate accused him that an investigation began.
It is unfortunate but intelligence has taken a back seat to political allegiance these days when appointing police chiefs in London.
It is unfortunate but intelligence has taken a back seat to political allegiance these days when appointing police chiefs in London.So do you think Mark Rowley lacks logic and is unintelligent then?
So do you think Mark Rowley lacks logic and is unintelligent then?
Nothing came of appeals on German TV. It was when his mate accused him that an investigation began.
So what is that supposed to be .....evidence.
It's from a source ....three years ago.
So do you disagree that the appointment of police chiefs especially in London are politically motivated?I don't have an opinion on it and I don't think that has any bearing on the words spoken by Mark Rowley before his appointment, so perhaps now you will answer my question without posing another of your own.
The presumption of innocence has nothing to say about eliminating suspects; it's about the treatment of suspects by the Judiciary. The Portuguese Judiciary didn't breach their suspect's right to the presumption of innocence, but I'm not so sure about a certain member of the German Judiciary in his pronoucements about CB. CB's lawyer feels his right to a fair trial may have been compromised if that trial takes place in Bruanchweig.
accused him to whom...as i recall it was down to the appeal
The point you have sidestepped is that neither the McCanns or Murat were ever charged with any offences making McCann, McCann and Murat as white as the driven snow as far as the law was concerned.
In Amaral's case when he went through the process of being an arguido, there was evidence to enable charges to be brought against him. He was tried and convicted. His appeal against conviction was not upheld. Making him a convicted criminal.
The subtle nuance for Brueckner is that he is already a convicted criminal serving time. He has been charged with five other crimes which will be tried when a jurisdiction is decided. He remains arguido in Madeleine's case and will be charged or not depending on the evidence.
No rush though. He's got five other trials to work his way through and at present delay seems to be suiting the defence case.
Oh not forgetting that funding for the continuance of the SY investigation of Madeleine's case doesn't appear to be a problem.
The point you have sidestepped is that neither the McCanns or Murat were ever charged with any offences making McCann, McCann and Murat as white as the driven snow as far as the law was concerned.
Not as white as what you seem to think.
About 3,400,000 results (0.54 seconds)
Now, Portugal's Supreme Court has ruled that neither parent has formally been proved innocent for Maddie's disappearance, and can't be assumed to be so. The couple were ruled out as 'arguidos' (formal suspects) in 2008, but judges have stressed that this does not equate to a ruling of innocence.
It is worth noting that once it has been entered into evidence remains evidence to build a case or to be ruled out. The evidence which convinced the Judicial Police to constitute Brueckner an arguido remains on file and as he is still arguido so obviously he has not been eliminated from their inquiry.
Just as Scotland Yard continues to be able to justify the funding for Madeleine's investigation based on evidence some of which originated in 2007.
So it doesn't matter from where or when evidence comes emanates the importance is that it exists and has been recorded on file.
Your post is mind numbingly repetitive as well as being off topic.
So as you are on about evidence ...notice there was a lack of evidence ...not no evidence.
The case was archived ....not closed.
The 76-page ruling read; “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”
It goes on to say it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their decision.
But it notes the case was shelved not because prosecutors believed Kate and Gerry were innocent, but due to a lack of evidence.
Lack of evidence can mean no evidence. In the case of the McCann's Pedro da carmo said no evidence.
Do you think there's any evidence against CB
The point you have sidestepped is that neither the McCanns or Murat were ever charged with any offences making McCann, McCann and Murat as white as the driven snow as far as the law was concerned.If the McCanns haven't been cleared they have certainly been ruled out of the current investigation. What's the difference?
Not as white as what you seem to think.
About 3,400,000 results (0.54 seconds)
Now, Portugal's Supreme Court has ruled that neither parent has formally been proved innocent for Maddie's disappearance, and can't be assumed to be so. The couple were ruled out as 'arguidos' (formal suspects) in 2008, but judges have stressed that this does not equate to a ruling of innocence.
Lack of evidence can mean no evidence. In the case of the McCann's Pedro da carmo said no evidence.
Do you think there's any evidence against CB
The point you have sidestepped is that neither the McCanns or Murat were ever charged with any offences making McCann, McCann and Murat as white as the driven snow as far as the law was concerned.
In Amaral's case when he went through the process of being an arguido, there was evidence to enable charges to be brought against him. He was tried and convicted. His appeal against conviction was not upheld. Making him a convicted criminal.
The subtle nuance for Brueckner is that he is already a convicted criminal serving time. He has been charged with five other crimes which will be tried when a jurisdiction is decided. He remains arguido in Madeleine's case and will be charged or not depending on the evidence.
No rush though. He's got five other trials to work his way through and at present delay seems to be suiting the defence case.
Oh not forgetting that funding for the continuance of the SY investigation of Madeleine's case doesn't appear to be a problem.
If the McCanns haven't been cleared they have certainly been ruled out of the current investigation. What's the difference?
You've avoided the question. What is the difference between "being cleared" and "being ruled out"? Apparently the McCanns have been ruled out of the current investigation but sceptics are still insistent that they haven't been cleared. They won't be charged (unless one or both of them suddenly decide to confess) because no one is investigating them or trying to build a case against them because they are not considered suspects in their child's disappearance.
They are not immune from being charged - seems they just need more evidence.
Just the same as CB.
You've avoided the question. What is the difference between "being cleared" and "being ruled out"? Apparently the McCanns have been ruled out of the current investigation but sceptics are still insistent that they haven't been cleared. They won't be charged (unless one or both of them suddenly decide to confess) because no one is investigating them or trying to build a case against them because they are not considered suspects in their child's disappearance.
Doubt the mccs would ever confess.
There are 7 more though who could change their minds.
There again though seems careers come first ...
People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.
Doubt the mccs would ever confess.Of course they won’t confess, they didn’t do it! But once again you avoided the question. I wonder why…. *%87
There are 7 more though who could change their minds.
There again though seems careers come first ...
They are not immune from being charged - seems they just need more evidence.
Just the same as CB.
Doubt the mccs would ever confess.
There are 7 more though who could change their minds.
There again though seems careers come first ...
People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.
People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.Based on everything you know about CB and the evidence against him would you have ruled him out of this case by now?
People who have criminal records which includes sexual interference with children are included in a register recording such crimes and are investigated as a matter of course should a child protection incident arise. For example a missing child.
Do you really not know this.
What sort of reputation do you suppose a convicted paedophile enjoys.
So what? Are you saying it's OK to convict a paedophile even if he didn't commit that crime?Of course she didn’t say that. And you have the cheek to accuse me of asking tiresome questions.
So what? Are you saying it's OK to convict a paedophile even if he didn't commit that crime?
Please do not presume to put words into my mouth ~ particularly ones which are so rankly puerile.
Your post makes no sense to me. What has reputation to do with anything?
Briettas post makes perfect sense so the problem is with you.
It's normal to look at local paedophiles in a case like this..just as it's normal to look at the parents. It's intelligence not evidence.
It is indeed, but perhaps you can explain if they should be viewed differently if both are never prosecuted due to insufficient evidence?Brietta never said they should...you seem to be imagining things
Brietta never said they should...you seem to be imagining things
It is indeed, but perhaps you can explain if they should be viewed differently if both are never prosecuted due to insufficient evidence?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=uxAQSwQuXh8&feature=share
Just watched this. Wolters is very calm and assured and continually starts his sentences with "We". These are not his own thoughts but those of the investigation.
The evidence they have makes him sure CB murdered MM
Herr Wolters reiterates that Amaral's continued accusations regarding Madeleine's parents are entirely wrong. Information which when balanced alongside affirmations from all who are privy to the evidence held that they are of no interest to the investigation, the only suspect being Brueckner, makes Amaral nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Who in reality, knows nothing.
I don't think they have covered all the bases yet as the indication of more funding for SY suggests to me that this might be a far bigger investigation than Brueckner. Who may be the only officially declared suspect but there may be more who are of interest, as Sandra tried unsuccessfully to get Herr Wolters to comment on.
Sigh.The bully is wrong again.
He told Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueiras during an interview last May: “We are convinced he is the murderer of Maddie McCann.
“We have one suspicious person and this is Christian B.
“There is no other person for us who is suspicious.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-admit-suspect-29371161
Sigh.The bully is wrong again.He also refused to comment on whether or not he believed Bruckner took Madeleine from the apartment himself which suggests he doesn’t rule out the possibility of an accomplice.
He told Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueiras during an interview last May: “We are convinced he is the murderer of Maddie McCann.
“We have one suspicious person and this is Christian B.
“There is no other person for us who is suspicious.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-admit-suspect-29371161
He also refused to comment on whether or not he believed Bruckner took Madeleine from the apartment himself which suggests he doesn’t rule out the possibility of an accomplice.
Snip
Herr Wolters reiterates that Amaral's continued accusations regarding Madeleine's parents are entirely wrong.
Well just like GA thinks HCW accusations are wrong and CB a scapegoat &^^&*
After all, GA was there he has all the inside knowledge of what was happening at the time.
He also refused to comment on whether or not he believed Bruckner took Madeleine from the apartment himself which suggests he doesn’t rule out the possibility of an accomplice.
Herr Wolters reiterates that Amaral's continued accusations regarding Madeleine's parents are entirely wrong.
Well just like GA thinks HCW accusations are wrong and CB a scapegoat &^^&*
After all, GA was there he has all the inside knowledge of what was happening at the time.
He also refused to comment on whether or not he believed Bruckner took Madeleine from the apartment himself which suggests he doesn’t rule out the possibility of an accomplice.
Snip
The next day, when Gonçalo Amaral arrives at the site accompanied by the Deputy National Director of Faro. "We were horrified" by the work that "was being done." There were elements of the technical police collecting traces and one had not even worn the appropriate suit.
https://www.lux.iol.pt/sociedade/ultimas-noticias/maddie-os-erros-da-pj-segundo-goncalo-amaral
We've all seen video/photographic evidence of that which has enabled us to make an evaluation.
What to my knowledge, nobody has ever seen is evidence pictorial or otherwise of Amaral's presence on the 4th. Any chance you can prove me wrong on that.
Bearing in mind that he is likely to have been otherwise engaged as the 4th is the day he was constituted arguido in the Cipriano torture trial.
The Portuguese investigation is now in line with Wolters not Amaral. Amaral is proven not to have understood the evidence.
What he shows is honesty. He answers most questions with a yes or a no....apart from a few. Do you have DNA..no.....do you have photographic evidence...I can't comment on that.
Interestingly he says CB doesn't have an an alibi
Maybe it's just that he doesn't really have a clue.
Still, this time next year guys. Don't lose faith. Wolters will be proving abduction once & for all, this time next year.
Well, your eggs are all in one basket with HCW.....
Seems something personal going on here IMO. When you don't even know what evidence HCW has
Who is your endless copy/past post trying to convince...me or yourself.
He could be implying there is only one German suspect .He wasn’t asked about suspect ethnicity so I doubt that’s what he was implying.
Well, your eggs are all in one basket with HCW.....You don’t know what evidence HCW either but you “know” CB didn’t do it, which is quite amazing really, how do you do it?
Seems something personal going on here IMO. When you don't even know what evidence HCW has
He says they have evidence which shows,,CB murdered Maddie
.no one from the BKA..PJ..or SY has contradicted him
The PJ have made CB an arguido.
The parents cannot be prosecuted now due to the SOL
You don’t know what evidence HCW either but you “know” CB didn’t do it, which is quite amazing really, how do you do it?
My "copy/past" cites back up my opinion or back up facts. Your opinions appear to be just that - opinion and nothing more.
For example you have opined that Amaral was there from the first. But you appear to have no evidence for that opinion and therefore cannot back it up.
GA wrote a book ...........no one has contradicted that.
The mccs tried .and failed.
Yes your opinion of what is said in newspapers HCW. ...you have no evidence it's true.Do you really think posters are being told what to think...that's plain daft
I think for myself on what I have seen since day one ....not what I am told to think.
After all no one knows what happened that night ..its all speculation ..not proof.
Do you really think posters are being told what to think...that's plain daft
Wolters would not be able to make these claims if he didn't have the backing of the BKA...SY.,or the Portuguese.
Therefore his claim has a lot of credibility
Is it
Yes it is. Do you think someone is telling me what to think...it's totally daft
Yes it is. Do you think someone is telling me what to think...it's totally daft
Yes it is. Do you think someone is telling me what to think...it's totally daft
I know that because you think you know it all.........But you don't its just your opinion of what is reported/said.
Nothing else
It's not my opinion.....it's the opinion of the BKA...who are investigating with the support of SY and the PJ...so not ...just my opinion
Oh so the BKA opinion as well......and that's proof/evidence is it yall opinions are right.
You're not making much sense
Patience Kizzy. There's no rush. When you see the evidence Wolters has, you will be in no doubt.
Seeing as how Operation Grange have just been given more money then we can expect this to go on for a bit longer.
Won't this be fun. No?
Have they got the money or still waiting for approval of getting it.
Will it make any difference?
Well if they have it, no
Just didn't know it had been confirmed....thought they were still waiting for confirmation.
He wasn’t asked about suspect ethnicity so I doubt that’s what he was implying.
Ok lets take him at his word, there are no other suspects and CB killed Madeleine , so OG is obsolete.He said they don’t have any other suspects which is not the same thing as saying CB acted alone.
How come
Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are to receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in new funding in an effort to finally discover what happened to the three-year-old.
When HCW knows what happened to Maddie. [allegidly.]
It seems OG are doing there own investigation - or why else would they need the money. *%87
If OG is it seems still investigating ....who or what can that be,
Former Metropolitan Police detective Peter Bleksley told the paper: 'As long as there are unanswered questions I can see why there is a case.
'But in the this time of squeezed budgets I can also see why eyebrows would be raised.
'I understand the frustrations of missing children who do not have the luxury of such ongoing funding.'
A Home Office spokesperson confirmed last night that it had received an application for further funding, but the exact amount being discussed is unknown.
Wonder what the unanswered questions are. - surely not the 48 kmc didn't answer.
It could be that SY are no longer working with the Germans and have teamed up with Amaral and Sutton. Kate to be reinterviewed soon...I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The Met have finally come to their senses... @)(++(*
It could be that SY are no longer working with the Germans and have teamed up with Amaral and Sutton. Kate to be reinterviewed soon...
Well, SY should have done that in the first place....instead of interfering.
You it seems have total faith in HCW. So why does SY need hundreds of thousands of pounds - this year.
When according to your posts you believe HCW will be charging CB next year.
Still not clear also whether HCW charges include a dead Maddie....
Yet SY It seems are looking for a missing child that is now an adult.
Well, SY should have done that in the first place....instead of interfering.
You it seems have total faith in HCW. So why does SY need hundreds of thousands of pounds - this year.
When according to your posts you believe HCW will be charging CB next year.
Still not clear also whether HCW charges include a dead Maddie....
Yet SY It seems are looking for a missing child that is now an adult.
That's because they haven't been given definitive evidence that Madeleine is dead and so have to continue the pretence of a live Madeleine. To do otherwise would bring the wrath and fury of McCann down on them.Don’t be so utterly ridiculous.
IMO
That's because they haven't been given definitive evidence that Madeleine is dead and so have to continue the pretence of a live Madeleine. To do otherwise would bring the wrath and fury of McCann down on them.
IMO
Well, SY should have done that in the first place....instead of interfering.
You it seems have total faith in HCW. So why does SY need hundreds of thousands of pounds - this year.
When according to your posts you believe HCW will be charging CB next year.
Still not clear also whether HCW charges include a dead Maddie....
seems are looking for a missing child that is now an adult.
Well, it does seem SY are looking for a live Maddie or else - what/who are they looking for.
What do they want the money for
When it all seems to have been done by the german prosecutor.
They allegedly have the abductor
This could be a reason for the turnaround.
Madeleine McCann could still be ALIVE, admits German prosecutor in U-turn as he confirms there is no forensic evidence to show she is dead
Wonder how many U-turns they will end up making.
Well, it does seem SY are looking for a live Maddie or else - what/who are they looking for.Where is your evidence that the Met are only looking for “a live Maddie”?
What do they want the money for
When it all seems to have been done by the german prosecutor.
They allegedly have the abductor
This could be a reason for the turnaround.
Madeleine McCann could still be ALIVE, admits German prosecutor in U-turn as he confirms there is no forensic evidence to show she is dead
Wonder how many U-turns they will end up making.
How many times have I explained this. SY are not looking for a live Maddie.
The evidence the BKA have means Maddie is 99.9999999999999⁹9⁹99999999999⁹9% dead...not 100%. She is unlikely to have survived the ordeal their evidence shows
Well, it does seem SY are looking for a live Maddie or else - what/who are they looking for.
What do they want the money for
When it all seems to have been done by the german prosecutor.
They allegedly have the abductor
This could be a reason for the turnaround.
Madeleine McCann could still be ALIVE, admits German prosecutor in U-turn as he confirms there is no forensic evidence to show she is dead
Wonder how many U-turns they will end up making.
How many times have I explained this. SY are not looking for a live Maddie.
The evidence the BKA have means Maddie is 99.9999999999999⁹9⁹99999999999⁹9% dead...not 100%. She is unlikely to have survived the ordeal their evidence shows
Wishful thinking.
Where is your evidence that the Met are only looking for “a live Maddie”?
Well if I had any evidence VS...I would be the only one that had. @)(++(*So if I’m reading you right it is merely your opinion that the Met are “only looking for a live Maddie”, nothing more. Thanks for the clarification.
So if I’m reading you right it is merely your opinion that the Met are “only looking for a live Maddie”, nothing more. Thanks for the clarification.
Of course, it's merely my opinion... the same as your post and everyone else's.
None of us has any evidence....have they.
If the BKA has it solved .why does SY need hundreds of thousands of pounds
How many times you have explained......I hope you don't mean to me.
How do you know what their evidence shows......you don't
Who are you trying to convince.......is it possibly yourself.
The truth is that no-one knows anything about the evidence, the state of the investigations or the likely outcome. Some like to pretend they know more rhan others, but they don't.
In Your Opinion.
Patience Kizzy. If you listen to what Wolters says. Wolters says they have concrete evidence Madeleine is dead. There is no hope she is alive. Wolters says they are sure Brueckner is the murderer & if only you knew the evidence Wolters has, you would be in no doubt. He wouldn't be saying such things if they weren't 100% true & he has the full backing of the BKA, The MET, The PJ, The Fire Department, NHS, MENSA, Loose Women & Green Flag.
The truth is that no-one knows anything about the evidence, the state of the investigations or the likely outcome. Some like to pretend they know more rhan others, but they don't.
The truth is that no-one knows anything about the evidence, the state of the investigations or the likely outcome. Some like to pretend they know more rhan others, but they don't.We know some things. We know that the Germans think that CB murdered Madeleine. WE know that the Met have dismissed the McCanns as suspects. We know that neither of these facts sit well with sceptics, yourself included.
IMO I am surprised CB has survived all this and not been found dead in his cell.
Although another year before being charged gives him time to "commit suicide" ect.
Then HCB will have all the evidence he wants without proving it.
IIRC GA predicted that.
You seem to be impressed with amara;s prediction....dont you realise he was dishonest in claiming this as a prediction
We know some things. We know that the Germans think that CB murdered Madeleine. WE know that the Met have dismissed the McCanns as suspects. We know that neither of these facts sit well with sceptics, yourself included.
The germans are convinced 100% that CB murdered Maddie. Thats not my opinion its the opinion of the German investigation. I think that demands a lot more respect than yours or any other poster on the net...or do you think your opinion is worth as much as the BKA
Yawn. No one is ever "ruled innocent". Murat has not been "ruled innocent" either but he's obviously not involved and is not a suspect. Neither are the McCanns, the police aren't interested in them. FACT. And if the McCanns didn't do it, then who did? That's what three police forces are investigating. FACT.
We know there is no proof of abduction either.
We know the mccs have not been ruled innocent.
We no it wasnt no DNA .just inconclusive....more evidence is needed.
Not............. no evidence.
I don't recall seeing any opinion being given by the BKA, just by prosecutor Wolters. Perhaps you have a cite?Here we go round G-Unit's pedantic mulberry bush again.
We know there is no proof of abduction either.
We know the mccs have not been ruled innocent.
We no it wasnt no DNA .just inconclusive....more evidence is needed.
Not............. no evidence.
Yawn. No one is ever "ruled innocent". Murat has not been "ruled innocent" either but he's obviously not involved and is not a suspect. Neither are the McCanns, the police aren't interested in them. FACT. And if the McCanns didn't do it, then who did? That's what three police forces are investigating. FACT.
Here we go round G-Unit's pedantic mulberry bush again.
You still don't get it do you, kizzy, so let me explain again....
WOLTERS SAYS
That means it's indisputable that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by Christian Brueckner.
Sure, it can't & won't ever be proven in a court of law, but it doesn't need to be, because.....WOLTERS SAYS
..which is good enough for supporters, & so it should be for you.
Here we go round G-Unit's pedantic mulberry bush again.
The germans are convinced 100% that CB murdered Maddie. Thats not my opinion its the opinion of the German investigation. I think that demands a lot more respect than yours or any other poster on the net...or do you think your opinion is worth as much as the BKA
I know accuracy isn't a popular word, but have the BKA made their opinion known?Yes, by not contradicting a single word uttered by the man who has become the spokesperson for the German investigation.
Hmmm, MET police are sure Cannan murdered S lamplugh, but the CPS said the suspect and the victim cannot be placed together so being sure adds up to diddly squat without the evidence.Yes, some criminals are never brought to justice despite the fact that those investigsting them are certain they are involved. This should not be a cause for gloating or celebration by anyone apart perhaps from the criminal and his friends and supporters. CB certainly seems to have one or two of the latter on this forum.
Yes, some criminals are never brought to justice despite the fact that those investigsting them are certain they are involved. This should not be a cause for gloating or celebration by anyone apart perhaps from the criminal and his friends and supporters. CB certainly seems to have one or two of the latter on this forum.
Yes, by not contradicting a single word uttered by the man who has become the spokesperson for the German investigation.
Sheesh. Is there anything more obvious?
Not when IMO mcs are involved. 8((()*/
Who are you comparing him with D
the ones who have published this.
“If you have information about a police officer or member of staff who works for the Met and is corrupt, abusing their position and power, please call the hotline on 0800 085 0000 so we can act.” Information can also be provided through Crimestoppers online
Whatever you think of your man. seems he should either put up ...or shut up.
We have yet to see how honest HCW IS.
Tell me why you think the McCann's are involved.
I don't recall seeing any opinion being given by the BKA, just by prosecutor Wolters. Perhaps you have a cite?
We know for a fact Amaral was dishonest but that doesn't seem to bother you.
The truth is that no-one knows anything about the evidence, the state of the investigations or the likely outcome. Some like to pretend they know more rhan others, but they don't.
Of course, it's merely my opinion... the same as your post and everyone else's.
None of us has any evidence....have they.
That's what three police forces are investigating. FACT.
Ye and none of them are any closer to solving it.
SY....want more money.
BKH .....maybe next year.
Do you think it appropriate for investigators to share evidence with the hoi polloi? Surely that cannot be police procedure.
I don't think it's appropriate for investigators to make much publicised claims about what the evidence tells them then still have failed to bring the case before the courts three years later.According to you the investigators have said nothing.
I don't think it's appropriate for investigators to make much publicised claims about what the evidence tells them then still have failed to bring the case before the courts three years later.
Kizzy, my dear
Please, don't underestimate people
Tell you ..............why who do you think "you" are.
Why should it bother me?
Silly post really... it's like me saying it doesn't bother you that mccs left babies in harm's way.
Seems there are a lot of dishonest cops around but the majority do a good job.
I don't recall seeing any opinion being given by the BKA, just by prosecutor Wolters. Perhaps you have a cite?
You are very out spoken about the McCann's being guilty of something, I would just like to know why you think this, please.
Not silly Amaral was found guilty in court the McCann's weren't. By the way I wouldn't have left my children alone, the McCann's regret doing it and have that guilt to carry for the rest of their lives.
I am not on my own in thinking mccs was involved in what happened to Maddie.
The mccs don't have as much support from the general public as you would expect.
But apart from that you think mccs is innocent because of circumstances what you are told the way the investigation going.
I don't I have followed this from day one and never once thought them innocent [even though earlier on I did try].
If I thought for one minute they were innocent I wouldn't be on here - this is why I cant understand you being on here defending them all the time.
Yes at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think ....so stop asking me for reasons it is not harming the case and standing by my opinion on it.
McCann's regret doing it and have that guilt to carry for the rest of their lives.
Well if you say so..and that's what you want to think.
On the other hand, I think - tell someone who cares.
I am not on my own in thinking mccs was involved in what happened to Maddie.
The mccs don't have as much support from the general public as you would expect.
But apart from that you think mccs is innocent because of circumstances what you are told the way the investigation going.
I don't I have followed this from day one and never once thought them innocent [even though earlier on I did try].
If I thought for one minute they were innocent I wouldn't be on here - this is why I cant understand you being on here defending them all the time.
Yes at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think ....so stop asking me for reasons it is not harming the case and standing by my opinion on it.
Not silly Amaral was found guilty in court the McCann's weren't. By the way I wouldn't have left my children alone, the McCann's regret doing it and have that guilt to carry for the rest of their lives.
And so they should
In the interview, Ms Felgueiras asked Mr Wolters: “Is it true that you found something belonging to Madeleine in the caravan of Christian Brueckner? You can’t deny it, can you?”
He replied: “I don’t want to deny it.
“We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann.
So in this conversation do you think Wolters searched the car himself
Who is the ...you and we,..in the conversation if not the BKA
What changed your mind about the McCann's.
I did something similar to The McCanns, as I have often admitted. Nothing happened to any of my children, so fortunately I have nothing about which to feel guilty. It just never crossed my mind that there would be a predator out there, as it never occurred to The McCanns.
There is no such thing as a Perfect Parent, although some of you like to think you are. And quite frankly you all make me feel ill. You would rather blame The McCanns than the predator. Now that is sick.
You seem to think those of us who do not believe the junk amaral spouted simply follow what we are told . You couldn't be more wrong. Based on all the evidence I think Maddie was taken. Either from inside the apartment or woke and wandered.
It just so happens the present investigation agrees with me
Where did I say I had?
I'm not asking you to believe anything ......I don't have to believe your Junk either.
I can't prove what I believe ...... the same as you can't either.
By the way, I came to my own conclusion on the mccs.................never been swayed by GA on anything.
You seem to think those of us who do not believe the junk amaral spouted simply follow what we are told . You couldn't be more wrong. Based on all the evidence I think Maddie was taken. Either from inside the apartment or woke and wandered.
It just so happens the present investigation agrees with me
I'm not asking you to believe anything ......I don't have to believe your Junk either.
I can't prove what I believe ...... the same as you can't either.
By the way, I came to my own conclusion on the mccs.................never been swayed by GA on anything.
I did something similar to The McCanns, as I have often admitted. Nothing happened to any of my children, so fortunately I have nothing about which to feel guilty. It just never crossed my mind that there would be a predator out there, as it never occurred to The McCanns.
There is no such thing as a Perfect Parent, although some of you like to think you are. And quite frankly you all make me feel ill. You would rather blame The McCanns than the predator. Now that is sick.
How did you come to your conclusion.
I have told you [Idont believe a word they say] ........more to the point how did you come to yours.
Why do you feel such a need to continually defend them
Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
I have told you [Idont believe a word they say] ........more to the point how did you come to yours.
Why do you feel such a need to continually defend them
Ye, I respect that view, if that's your belief.
But why do you have to be continually on their defense?
It's not like anything is set in stone in this case.
You don't know I am wrong, so doesn't that apply to me innocent till proven guilty?
I have told you [Idont believe a word they say] ........more to the point how did you come to yours.Why do you feel such a need to continually attack them
Why do you feel such a need to continually defend them
I debate. I have my view you have yours though it seems you don't want to share your view.
I believe Madeleine was taken from her bed. A man was seen staring at 5a twice and the girl who saw him described CB down to his leather jacket.
Before CB though. I came to my conclusion as I didn't believe there would be cadaver odour in 5a, whatever the dog smelt it wasn't cadaver. First stage body decomposition there are no gases and so no cadaver scent. The dog barked and picked up the clothes, which strangely were all placed together, I think Eddie got a bit fed up and decided to play. He played with Cuddle Cat too but didn't alert to it.
Grime as since then said on the Nexflix Documentary that Eddie could have been alerting to an ancient scent which was there before the McCann's arrived.
Gerry was sat at the table when Kate give the alert. We know this as Dianne in her statement said Kate said 'she's gone Gerry Madeleine's gone'. or similar words. The fact is she said 'Gerry' so unless there was another Gerry it was Gerry McCann she was speaking to.
No one who loved their daughter could eat drink and laugh if their daughter was already dead. Changing from that demeanour to totally distraught just can't be done. Witnesses described how they behaved and a Psychologist said they behaved exactly how he would expect parents who had found their daughter gone would behave.
Where would they have hidden Madeleine? The area was searched meticulously and yet Madeleine wasn't found. Then they are supposed to have got Madeleine's body from wherever they had hidden it and transported it in the car.
As for the forensics, there was no blood belonging to Madeleine in the car or in 5a. Even though there was a leak to the media that 100% Madeleine's DNA in the car.
It isn't my belief. It is The Law. I apply the same rules to Brueckner.
As it is I Post less often than most so I am not continually defending The McCanns.
You don't know if you are right and certainly can't prove it. This could well be Libel, which is against The Law.
Why do you feel such a need to continually attack them
In what way would it be liable
Well, I wished I'd never asked.
Your opinion and mine are completely different on the mccs
I could respond with what I think of them and their survival tactics....but I won't I have done it all over the years.
It doesn't help that my contempt for them when seeing it written down and feeling I didn't have to say that.
The short post to that really is ..you believe what you believe ...don't try and groom me into thinking your way
Groom you! don't be ridiculous you asked me how I came to my conclusion. Your post - I have told you [Idont believe a word they say] ........more to the point how did you come to yours.
Their survival tactics?? What do you mean by that. Having to cope with the loss of their child. What would you know about that?
Contempt for them, now we are getting there, you don't like the McCann's so that has clouded everything you know about the case.
You have no facts to back up why you believe the McCann's are guilty, you just have silly comments to say such as 'I don't believe a word they say'. Well that isn't proof of anything is it.
Groom you! don't be ridiculous you asked me how I came to my conclusion. Your post - I have told you [Idont believe a word they say] ........more to the point how did you come to yours.
Their survival tactics?? What do you mean by that. Having to cope with the loss of their child. What would you know about that?
Contempt for them, now we are getting there, you don't like the McCann's so that has clouded everything you know about the case.
You have no facts to back up why you believe the McCann's are guilty, you just have silly comments to say such as 'I don't believe a word they say'. Well that isn't proof of anything is it.
Look Im not on my own here.not everybody thinks as you do.
Profile photo for Anonymous
Anonymous
Related
How can someone logically look at the evidence and conclude Madeline McCann was killed by her parents?
Answering anonymously because I am a serving UK police officer. The theory I have most often heard “on the job” is that Madeleine’s parents, both of whom are medical doctors, gave the little girl a sedative to keep her from waking and disturbing her younger twins siblings while they (the parents) had dinner at the tapas restaurant with their friends. This somehow resulted in an accidental overdose and Madeleine sadly died. The abduction story was then created by one or both of the parents to disguise what really happened.
I have never been part of the McCann investigation. I do not work with anyone who has ever been part of the McCann investigation. What I report above is purely “station gossip” passing between police officers.
The point is, if police officers can give enough credence to the theory to continually repeat it, it’s hardly surprising that ordinary people are doing the same.
Yes ok one message by someone allegedly working in the police force. Do me a favour.
I'm not asking you to believe anything ......I don't have to believe you either.
I can't prove what I believe ...... the same as you can't either.
By the way, I came to my own conclusion on the mccs.................never been swayed by GA on anything.
Think I will just print some comments if allowed, it more or less thinks what I think anyway.
Profile photo for Sarah Williams
Sarah Williams
Author has 1.1K answers and 1.8M answer views
Related
Do you think Kate and Gerry McCann know what happened to Madeleine?
I’m sorry to even think that any parent could be responsible for the death of their child, however the McCann’s story doesnt add up. I, personally do not believe a word that either of them has said and they know what happened to their daughter and where she is buried.
Exactly from where did you receive the information which allowed you to arrive at your conclusion?
For me the information came on the evening of May 4th, when Gerry read a statement & as hard as Kate strained, she couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. It was at that moment I came to believe there wasn't any abductor, & here we are all these years later, still no abductor.
Same here.How utterly absurd. IMO.
How utterly absurd. IMO.
Not IMOSo because you don’t think you can see any tears on the cheeks of the mother of a missing child during a one minute tv broadcast that means she must be guilty? And you don’t think that is absurd logic?
For me the information came on the evening of May 4th, when Gerry read a statement & as hard as Kate strained, she couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. It was at that moment I came to believe there wasn't any abductor, & here we are all these years later, still no abductor.
I always think of that event as 'Belligerent Bull' and 'Scared Rabbit' @)(++(*I always think “what a sad bitch” when I read your posts. @)(++(*
So because you don’t think you can see any tears on the cheeks of the mother of a missing child during a one minute tv broadcast that means she must be guilty? And you don’t think that is absurd logic?
Groom you! don't be ridiculous you asked me how I came to my conclusion
So why do you continually jump on my posts....or assume and twist what I say..
I dont do debate......i come on with imo ...this lady not for turning, 8((()*/
What a Venturi Swirl this continues to be. I am getting Vertigo from all of the upping and downing. Either I am right and The McCanns are entirely innocent, or Operation Grange have lost the plot, presuming that they ever had a plot in the first place.
Have they got The Money yet, does anyone know?
The McCann's were told not to show emotion as the abductor could get some sort of thrill from seeing them cry. Sarah Payne was told the same if you watch her message to the abductor she doesn't cry either.
They ignore other mothers though they are only out to get Kate. Very sad, strange behaviour.
The McCann's were told not to show emotion as the abductor could get some sort of thrill from seeing them cry. Sarah Payne was told the same if you watch her message to the abductor she doesn't cry either.
They ignore other mothers though they are only out to get Kate. Very sad, strange behaviour.
What a gullible post.
The McCann's were told not to show emotion as the abductor could get some sort of thrill from seeing them cry. Sarah Payne was told the same if you watch her message to the abductor she doesn't cry either.
They ignore other mothers though they are only out to get Kate. Very sad, strange behaviour.
Did you mean Dr Sara Payne? Her murdered child Sarah wasn't told anything by the police.
I doubt if Kate McCann was given any advice before their first appeal on 4th May.
I remember the same as Lace. they were advised not to show emotion as this is what an abductor would want. Perhas lace and I just have better memories
You and Lace are not alone. I remember it as well.you have a good memory too
The only reason you think that is because youve swallowed all the junk from Amaral , Grime. in effect its you whos gullible. Grime claimed to be a special advisor to the FBI....he never was
What a gullible post.What's gullible about it?
Accordng to sceptics the McCanns were good actors when it came to appearing happy and relaxed at the dinner table having just discovered their child dead but terrible actors when it came to appealing for her to be found in front of the TV cameras and then good actors again when being observed by the FLO's but then bad actors when filmed outside the church and so on and so forth to suit.
you have a good memory too
Accordng to sceptics the McCanns were good actors when it came to appearing happy and relaxed at the dinner table having just discovered their child dead but terrible actors when it came to appealing for her to be found in front of the TV cameras and then good actors again when being observed by the FLO's but then bad actors when filmed outside the church and so on and so forth to suit.
If the McCanns were trying to fool anyone it would have been easy to put on a show of abject misery...they didn't..they haven't tried to fool anyone
Entirely subjective of course. I seem to remember the GNR weren't entirely convinced by the praying Arabs.
I remember the same as Lace. they were advised not to show emotion as this is what an abductor would want. Perhas lace and I just have better memories
The only reason you think that is because youve swallowed all the junk from Amaral , Grime. in effect its you whos gullible. Grime claimed to be a special advisor to the FBI....he never was
If the McCanns were trying to fool anyone it would have been easy to put on a show of abject misery...they didn't..they haven't tried to fool anyone
Just something else the Portuguese got entirely wrong 🥱 Not very bright at all - were they!
They are not Muslim.
They are Catholic.
The only Junk I know about this case is reading your posts
.they haven't tried to fool anyone
No because they can't.
What's that saying
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
youve beleived aload of junk...thats how youve raeched your conclusions. Youve just quoted a psychiatrist as though hes reliable. No proper psychiatrist would draw any conclusions from such limited information. He probably tihnks dogs dont lie like all the other dimwits
There is a Cabal that will never believe The McCanns no matter what transpires. It is just a miserable mirror of their miserable lives. This is sad. While Operation Grange continue to get Yet More Cash.
There is a Cabal that will never believe The McCanns no matter what transpires. It is just a miserable mirror of their miserable lives. This is sad. While Operation Grange continue to get Yet More Cash.
Youre absolute;y right. Even though CB was found guilty of rape many sceptics think hes innocent. thats why i doubt it will make much difference if CB is found guilty in teh Maddie case....many sceptics just wont accept it.
Clearly that saying is wrong then because professional and experienced investigators in three countries seem to be absolutely convinced that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
.they haven't tried to fool anyone
No because they can't.
What's that saying
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Clearly that saying is wrong then because professional and experienced investigators in three countries seem to be absolutely convinced that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
Youre absolute;y right. Even though CB was found guilty of rape many sceptics think hes innocent. thats why i doubt it will make much difference if CB is found guilty in teh Maddie case....many sceptics just wont accept it.
Then there was Jim Gamble highly experienced police officer and head of CEOP who suspected the McCanns at first but then on meeting them and spending time with them (and despite their apparent inability to shed any tears or convince the trolls online) he became utterly convinced of their innocence. I guess Jimbo must be a really big fool then, huh Kizbo?
youve beleived aload of junk...thats how youve raeched your conclusions. Youve just quoted a psychiatrist as though hes reliable. No proper psychiatrist would draw any conclusions from such limited information. He probably tihnks dogs dont lie like all the other dimwits
Just something else the Portuguese got entirely wrong 🥱 Not very bright at all - were they!
They are not Muslim.
They are Catholic.
All the Portuguese or just Silvia Batista, who used the words to describe Gerry's actions, not his religion;
Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand. Then Gerry stand up and accompanied her (the witness) and the other man in the car of the GNR to the apartment A5.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
I find that quite reasonable in the circumstances...cant see why sceptics find it so oddSome people get a kick out of using other people’s suffering to make fun of them. These are not very nice people, sadly.
All the Portuguese or just Silvia Batista, who used the words to describe Gerry's actions, not his religion;
Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand. Then Gerry stand up and accompanied her (the witness) and the other man in the car of the GNR to the apartment A5.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Some people get a kick out of using other people’s suffering to make fun of them. These are not very nice people, sadly.
Unfortunately I think Maddies fate was worse than expected. For that I hope CB is innocent
I find that quite reasonable in the circumstances...cant see why sceptics find it so odd
I don't find it odd at all for Gerry's legs to give way at the sight of the police. What I find odd is thinking anyone was talking about his religion.What an outrageous slur. Where is your evidence that it was the sight of the police that caused Gerry’s distress?
I find that quite reasonable in the circumstances...cant see why sceptics find it so odd
I don't find it odd at all for Gerry's legs to give way at the sight of the police. What I find odd is thinking anyone was talking about his religion.
I don't find it odd at all for Gerry's legs to give way at the sight of the police. What I find odd is thinking anyone was talking about his religion.
Entirely subjective of course. I seem to remember the GNR weren't entirely convinced by the praying Arabs.
What an outrageous slur. Where is your evidence that it was the sight of the police that caused Gerry’s distress?
Silvia Batista said he screamed 'twice of anger', she didn't mantion distress.FGS. Your pedantry knows no bounds. Where is your evidence that it was the sight of the police that caused Gerry’s anger then? Why would seeing the police make him so angry his legs buckled? What sort of nonsensical crap are you suggesting?
FGS. Your pedantry knows no bounds. Where is your evidence that it was the sight of the police that caused Gerry’s anger then? Why would seeing the police make him so angry his legs buckled? What sort of nonsensical crap are you suggesting?
I'm supplying the evidence of a witness, not expressing my opinion. You obviously reject the witnesses account, but why I'm being denigrated I don't understand. All evidence needs to be considered, not just that which is favourable to your stance.
I'm supplying the evidence of a witness, not expressing my opinion. You obviously reject the witnesses account, but why I'm being denigrated I don't understand. All evidence needs to be considered, not just that which is favourable to your stance.This is called supplying an opinion:
your bias knows no grounds. Im sure gerry was angry at what happened. What evidence do you have taht Gerys legs buckled at the sight of the police...none...yet you pontificate about evidence...laughable
FGS. Your pedantry knows no bounds. Where is your evidence that it was the sight of the police that caused Gerry’s anger then? Why would seeing the police make him so angry his legs buckled? What sort of nonsensical crap are you suggesting?
Im sure gerry was angry at what happened
Yes especially when most people believe Maddie died by accident.
Im sure gerry was angry at what happened
Yes especially when most people believe Maddie died by accident.
Didn't they do it at the bed also?Yes, isn't it? It has given you another juicy titbit of information to use against the parents, though God knows why sceptics find the idea of the McCanns' apparent distress so amusing.
Good job the police were there to witness their distress and anger.
You will of course have statistical data to back up this statement of fact. Oh wait, no you won't, it's just another Dizzy Kizzy opinion isn;t it?
Im sure gerry was angry at what happened
Yes especially when most people believe Maddie died by accident.
Silvia Batista said he screamed 'twice of anger', she didn't mantion distress.
For gods sake, imagine your daughter is missing, imagine waiting around for the Police to arrive, can't you understand why Gerry went down on his knees at finally seeing them! Every minute is vital when a child goes missing Gerry knew that. You can't put yourself in their place can you all you can see is deviousness for some reason.
For gods sake, imagine your daughter is missing, imagine waiting around for the Police to arrive, can't you understand why Gerry went down on his knees at finally seeing them! Every minute is vital when a child goes missing Gerry knew that. You can't put yourself in their place can you all you can see is deviousness for some reason.
You will of course have statistical data to back up this statement of fact. Oh wait, no you won't, it's just another Dizzy Kizzy opinion isn;t it?
I would say most think Maddie was abducted
What exactly did he gain by his amateur dramitics ?
What exactly did he gain by his amateur dramitics ?
You don't know how you would behave in the same situation.
For gods sake, imagine your daughter is missing, imagine waiting around for the Police to arrive, can't you understand why Gerry went down on his knees at finally seeing them! Every minute is vital when a child goes missing Gerry knew that. You can't put yourself in their place can you all you can see is deviousness for some reason.
You have no more idea than anyone else how Gerry McCann was feeling. You have decided what happened and you interpret everything based on that conviction. I don't know what happened and that means I can't share your interpretation of events.
You have no more idea than anyone else how Gerry McCann was feeling. You have decided what happened and you interpret everything based on that conviction. I don't know what happened and that means I can't share your interpretation of events.
Reply 'Yeah, sort of pretty much, you know, straight away, erm, I think it was only, but then it was a kind of, it was surreal when you got there, I said, you've got to phone the Police, you know, a child's been taken, and they went, oh no, she's probably just sort of woken up and he thought she's probably sort of wandered off or something like that and you thought, yeah, maybe you're right, maybe you're right, erm, can you please, it was sort of, it was kind of, it was sort a weird kind of lack of urgency, you know, he'd ring, but you had to sort and stand there and say, ring now, ring now, so I don't know if they rang at that point, but certainly, erm, you know, I certainly asked them to, about perhaps sort of maybe about ten past ten maybe. Erm, then we went back up to, or I went, because I was on my own, I went back up to the, erm, to the apartment and it was just obvious that she wasn't in the apartment, but we were still sort of just milling about on the street, everybody was just running around just sort of trying to, you know, sort of search nearby roads. And so we, erm, I volunteered to go up to the, erm, I went up to the Millennium Restaurant because it was just one of the routes that I thought she might have taken, although I couldn't say why I thought she would because we'd only been there once on that night before and maybe she'd been for the restaurant, so we'd only been at the initial welcoming, that was the only time that we went for that meal in the evening because the food wasn't great there, it wasn't quite up to the MARK WARNER resorts of, but anyway, so we did other things and that's why we liked the Tapas, so there was no reason really why she'd have gone up there, but it was a, just a different route. So a lot of it in terms of timing is blurred, but up and onto the top road to the Millennium Restaurant, which is pretty much you come up and along this road for about sort of five or ten minutes and sort of this end of town, let them know that a little girl was missing and then gone back through the back streets, down on the beach and then back to the apartment. Erm, at some point we were back and forth to the, to the reception as well. And I think what the reception probably did was ring the MARK WARNER people and say, there's somebody that's saying there's a child missing, because by that time there were lost of MARK WARNER people around, erm, and they were very good, they, you know, they obviously, you know, got there and that might have been the impetus that got them to ring the Police, if, because I understand that there is some discrepancy about when we thought we'd called the Police and when the Police were actually called and that might be that they went on the, on that route first and then went, I think it's Stuart HILL or, well the Manager, the sort of Manager got involved, that might have been when it occurred. Erm, so there was plenty of running around through the back streets and back to the apartment and then, you know, where's the, where are the Police, where are the Police, erm, and so went back down to the reception, this would have been about thirty minutes or so later, erm, back to reception, erm, and at that point, Gerry had come down as well, erm, and, erm, you know, was obviously, you know, sort of intermittently sort of calm and then completely, you know, hysterically upset, it was sort of, you know, it was sort of pretty sort of upsetting, because you didn't know what to really say, because you can't really say, you know, it's going to be okay, because, you know, you assume the worst and it's going to be particularly awful, you know, it's going, you know, some, erm, person's got, (inaudible), some xxxxxxx's got my, you know, got my daughter and she's so innocent. And, I mean, at that point, we were sort of in a room next door, you know, the bedroom across, and we thought maybe it could have been Grace quite easily.
we don't know that do we.....or that Maddie was abducted.
I think the statistics of comments on any story ..point more to not believing the mccs story for whatever reason they give.
I think you've totally lost the plot...to suggest Gerry went weak kneed at the police arrival is totally absurd...having just carried Maddie through the streets of Luz. Sceptics such as yourself have to continually come up with more absurd interpretation of events to try and make the facts fit your crazy claims...again laughable
You will probably find several websites claiming the world is flat..and none saying it's round...that doesn't mean most people think it's flat
I think you've totally lost the plot...to suggest Gerry went weak kneed at the police arrival is totally absurd...having just carried Maddie through the streets of Luz. Sceptics such as yourself have to continually come up with more absurd interpretation of events to try and make the facts fit your crazy claims...again laughable
This is called supplying an opinion:
"I don't find it odd at all for Gerry's legs to give way at the sight of the police"
your opinion is that there is nothing odd about Gerry's legs giving way at the sight of the police.
It's your opinion that Gerry's legs gave way at the sight of the police.
It is a slur in my opinion that has no basis in fact.
Your clear implication is that it was the police that caused Gerry's legs to buckle not the disappearance of his daughter.
Now do you understand the problem? You have made a sly insinuation which actually has no basis in fact.
Hope that's clear now.
What has emerged is the fact that Gerry arrived at the main reception and ended up on the floor 'like a praying arab'. Why he ended up like that isn't known, but as he is described as being on the floor a few times then it wasn't really odd.
Your interpretation of what I think once again lies more in your mind than mine.
You have no more idea than anyone else how Gerry McCann was feeling. You have decided what happened and you interpret everything based on that conviction. I don't know what happened and that means I can't share your interpretation of events.
I think you've totally lost the plot...to suggest Gerry went weak kneed at the police arrival is totally absurd...having just carried Maddie through the streets of Luz. Sceptics such as yourself have to continually come up with more absurd interpretation of events to try and make the facts fit your crazy claims...again laughable
All the witnesses say Gerry was distraught, if you can't imagine how he was feeling I feel sad for you. To make fun of a man who literally went on his knees and begged the Police for help is disgusting. He didn't carry Madeleine around or bury her he was at the table when the alert was raised, he was then seen searching for Madeleine. You have silly ideas of Gerry rushing off to hide Madeleine, where was the spade to bury her? Even Amaral said the ground was too hard and dry to bury his dog. She was so well hidden that no one could find her, do you think that is achievable in the time he had?
All the witnesses say Gerry was distraught, if you can't imagine how he was feeling I feel sad for you. To make fun of a man who literally went on his knees and begged the Police for help is disgusting. He didn't carry Madeleine around or bury her he was at the table when the alert was raised, he was then seen searching for Madeleine. You have silly ideas of Gerry rushing off to hide Madeleine, where was the spade to bury her? Even Amaral said the ground was too hard and dry to bury his dog. She was so well hidden that no one could find her, do you think that is achievable in the time he had?
How much time would that be do you think?
All the witnesses say Gerry was distraught, if you can't imagine how he was feeling I feel sad for you. To make fun of a man who literally went on his knees and begged the Police for help is disgusting. He didn't carry Madeleine around or bury her he was at the table when the alert was raised, he was then seen searching for Madeleine. You have silly ideas of Gerry rushing off to hide Madeleine, where was the spade to bury her? Even Amaral said the ground was too hard and dry to bury his dog. She was so well hidden that no one could find her, do you think that is achievable in the time he had?
and ended up on the floor 'like a praying arab'. Why he ended up like that isn't known, but as he is described as being on the floor a few times then it wasn't really odd
That won't have done his trousers very well...probably ended up straight in the wash.
Silly Question. You tell us.
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what happened or how everyone felt. Your resistance to any point of view except your own means discussing the case with you is a complete waste of time imo.
The main reception had a lot of cobbles outside; ouch!
A truly sickening response.
A truly sickening response.
Possibly up to 4 hours, I reckon.
Well I wouldn't have wanted to hit them too hard, that would have been sickening!
It's fair for you to have a sickening response because you believe they are innocent ...till proven guilty.
No problem with that.
But not everyone thinks like you.
There shouldn't be a problem with that.
There is a problem when it is against The Law.
There is a problem when it is against The Law.
Now now Vs no need to get nasty.It is your fault if you present your opinion as a fact. It's actually against forum rules. Just sayin....
Not my fault you don't like my opinion
Its against thr law to think?
What has emerged is the fact that Gerry arrived at the main reception and ended up on the floor 'like a praying arab'. Why he ended up like that isn't known, but as he is described as being on the floor a few times then it wasn't really odd.Oh really? So perhaps you can explain why in your opinion it's no surprise Gerry's legs buckled at the sight of the police. Go on, explain yourself. Bet you don't!
Your interpretation of what I think once again lies more in your mind than mine.
So, if theorising over the possible involvement of the McCanns is against the law, because they must be presumed innocent, then exactly the same applies to Christian Brueckner really.
So what would you rather we talked about? The weather?
But it isn't just thinking is it.. It is Libellous. In writing on this Forum.
Well I wouldn't have wanted to hit them too hard, that would have been sickening!Why do you like to make fun of Gerry McCann?
Of course the same applies to Bruecker. Are you thick or what?
If one cannot express thoughts and opinion on a forum, thin there is no point to that forum.
If one cannot express thoughts and opinion on a forum, thin there is no point to that forum.
It wasn't unprecedented for Gerry to end up on the floor. He was on the floor when he spoke by phone to his relatives and when their lawyer warned them on 6th/7th September 2007 that arguido status would follow; for Kate, at least. It was his reaction to stressful situations, it seems. That's why I don't find it odd.Do you have any evidence that Gerry was on the floor because he found the arrival of the police stressful? Please do share if you do.
There are ways of doing this within The Law. But if you want to leave then that is fine by me.
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what happened or how everyone felt. Your resistance to any point of view except your own means discussing the case with you is a complete waste of time imo.
You don't pretend to know what happened !! Well that's just laughable. You do it with snide remarks. Gerry's knees buckled at the sight of the Police, oh did they why? Because he was guilty of something? What would that be? It's ridiculous, but you can't think of anything else to say. You don't know why you think the McCann's guilty all you can do is make daft comments.G-Unit has made it clear that she finds Gerry a suitable subject for mockery which, considering she also concedes he could be the innocent father of a missing child, makes her a rather questionable individual imo.
You have no more idea than anyone else how Gerry McCann was feeling. You have decided what happened and you interpret everything based on that conviction. I don't know what happened and that means I can't share your interpretation of events.
What has emerged is the fact that Gerry arrived at the main reception and ended up on the floor 'like a praying arab'. Why he ended up like that isn't known, but as he is described as being on the floor a few times then it wasn't really odd.
Your interpretation of what I think once again lies more in your mind than mine.
Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another". A child has disappeared and you express yourself as being unable to appreciate how her father felt about that.
You are not alone in suffering what I think is a disability which separates man from beast. According to researchers psychopaths do too, "... psychopaths have no ability to authentically, emotionally empathize with others. They are completely incapable of putting themselves in the emotional shoes of another, and this explains why their behaviour towards others can be so disturbing at times.
This characteristic of low emotional empathy has been proven in brain scans done on psychopaths. The parts of the brain which are responsible for empathy are not active in the same way they are for normal people who do have some ability to empathize".
Well I wouldn't have wanted to hit them too hard, that would have been sickening!
I feel that I am watching something thrashing about in its death throes here reflected in the lack of standards in posting.
It really isn't an edifying sight :(
It is actually quite awful. Put the boot in and hope that some of it sticks. It won't of course. This is just desperation.
It is actually quite awful. Put the boot in and hope that some of it sticks. It won't of course. This is just desperation.
The weird thing is they've been doing it tirelessly for sixteen years, enjoying the camaraderie perhaps. But now that the belief system has been well and truly shattered can metaphorically smell the desperation
One thing McCann supporters agree on is that anyone who doesn't accept their opinions is delusional, nasty, desperate, cruel, heartless etc. etc. They know exactly which emotions the McCanns felt at every stage, but they are completely unable to understand how those with different opinions developed them. I don't think they're as perceptive as they like to claim. Nor are they as convinced as they claim, imo, - hence the vicious attacks they make on others.
The weird thing is they've been doing it tirelessly for sixteen years, enjoying the camaraderie perhaps. But now that the belief system has been well and truly shattered can metaphorically smell the desperation
OK you full of admiration for the mccs bla bla bla bla .
You think they are innocent ....all police force think so to bla bla bla
So why the constant attack on G....I believe it because you see her as some sort of threat.
One thing McCann supporters agree on is that anyone who doesn't accept their opinions is delusional, nasty, desperate, cruel, heartless etc. etc. They know exactly which emotions the McCanns felt at every stage, but they are completely unable to understand how those with different opinions developed them. I don't think they're as perceptive as they like to claim. Nor are they as convinced as they claim, imo, - hence the vicious attacks they make on others.One thing us supporters are agreed on is that people who enjoy mocking individuals who are clearly suffering intensely traumatic events in their lives are themselves exhibiting deeply unpleasant character traits. . I think I can speak for all all supporters on this matter?
So you know how each of us feels. What utter nonsense.She’s spouting utter bolleaux to deflect from her own unpleasant shortcomings and to avoid answering my questions (as usual).
Oh I think anyone who is not 100% pro McCann has to be attacked as a matter of course.
No deviation from the official McCann is innocent line is to be tolerated.
Pathetic really but its the rules of the game.
One thing McCann supporters agree on is that anyone who doesn't accept their opinions is delusional, nasty, desperate, cruel, heartless etc. etc. They know exactly which emotions the McCanns felt at every stage, but they are completely unable to understand how those with different opinions developed them. I don't think they're as perceptive as they like to claim. Nor are they as convinced as they claim, imo, - hence the vicious attacks they make on others.As I said earlier you really have lost the plot. Your post has no semblance of truth.
Oh and childish insults, I forgot that one.you mean like referring to supporters as pathetic?
you mean like referring to supporters as pathetic?
As I said earlier you really have lost the plot. Your post has no semblance of truth.
Could you give any examples of these vicious attacks.
One point Ive made is to a certain extent I don't blame amaral for his opinions...I blame Grime for making exaggerated claims re his dogs. I've said if the dogs were half as good as grime claims the McCann's are guilty..
Grime was heavily criticised for taking the investigation in the wrong direction in jersey...from what I can see he did the same in Luz. Special Advisor to the FBI...codswallop
As I said earlier you really have lost the plot. Your post has no semblance of truth.
Could you give any examples of these vicious attacks.
One point Ive made is to a certain extent I don't blame amaral for his opinions...I blame Grime for making exaggerated claims re his dogs. I've said if the dogs were half as good as grime claims the McCann's are guilty..
Grime was heavily criticised for taking the investigation in the wrong direction in jersey...from what I can see he did the same in Luz. Special Advisor to the FBI...codswallop
OK you full of admiration for the mccs bla bla bla bla .There are no constant attacks on g....g has just made a totally flawed attack on all sceptics
You think they are innocent ....all police force think so to bla bla bla
So why the constant attack on G....I believe it because you see her as some sort of threat.
I seem to remember you calling jassi a sad bitch the other day. That was nice of you.
I think G overall knowledge of the case can beat yours.....hands downYou can think what you like...I'd Say my understanding of the evidence is way superior.
So why continue explaining about grime ..your posts are like spin-doctors.
There are no constant attacks on g....g has just made a totally flawed attack on all sceptics
Come off it ....you see it every day....just have a look back.
all most like bullying really ....from all you such compassionate posters for the mccs
You can think what you like...I'd Say my understanding of the evidence is way superior.
Re Grime I offer explanations..did you know the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts...why hasn't grime corrected them. Amaral really believes what he claims.. because he has utmost faith in Grime...it's misplaced
You suffer from confirmation bias..I'm totally polite to those who are polite to me...but you see things only from one perspective
Do you have any evidence that Gerry was on the floor because he found the arrival of the police stressful? Please do share if you do.
You may like to think you know everything about the dogs.
But G has an all-around knowledge of everything to do with this case.
As I said I think she is classed as a threat to some on here....or else why practically attack every post she makes.
You may like to think you know everything about the dogs.
But G has an all-around knowledge of everything to do with this case.
As I said I think she is classed as a threat to some on here....or else why practically attack every post she makes.
It must be frustrating to realise that the files don't support their claims, which leaves them having to cast aspersions on the manner of taking statements in Portugal. If the statements can't be relied on, however, neither can the T9 timeline or the T9 statements.As I said you lack understanding..and you've just proved it
As I said earlier you really have lost the plot. Your post has no semblance of truth.
Could you give any examples of these vicious attacks.
One point Ive made is to a certain extent I don't blame amaral for his opinions...I blame Grime for making exaggerated claims re his dogs. I've said if the dogs were half as good as grime claims the McCann's are guilty..
Grime was heavily criticised for taking the investigation in the wrong direction in jersey...from what I can see he did the same in Luz. Special Advisor to the FBI...codswallop
As I said you lack understanding..and you've just proved it
More likely it was overwhelming a very positive reaction of relief that the police had finally turned up.. Something official was going to happen at long last. Just ten minutes after Madeleine was found missing, Matt ran to reception to ask them to call the PJ , but for some reason they didn't
I can only remember one time that my legs buckled ... and it was altogether different. To do with looking into a guys eyes on our first date and whoosh I fell to the ground. I had really fancied him, but it came as a shock when my very fit legs turned to jelly. He took it as a message that was not intended and what a fight we had as I eventually managed to get rid of him.. All this on a public footpath ascending the Wrekin, with people walking past I chucked him after that.
Still I had a nice ride in his MG TD
I wish I could support you with not baming Amaral, but I can't find my wat to doing that. Too many lies from his quarter.Grime gave amaral the false information...as he did to all the sceptics who believed him
It must be frustrating to realise that the files don't support their claims, which leaves them having to cast aspersions on the manner of taking statements in Portugal. If the statements can't be relied on, however, neither can the T9 timeline or the T9 statements.
Exacly good post.
After years of reading your in-depth knowledge on this case...... You more than anyone have gone into every aspect of it.
It's a shame that isn't recognized the work you have done.
Instead, just a constant barrage to discredit you as much as possible
The good thing is though you can take it and always keep your chin and dignity up. x
I know more about the dogs than anyone here.
G is no threat to anyone...that's a bit of a silly thing to say.
G might have knowledge but she lacks understanding.
It's a statement of fact imo
Just another way of trying to discredit G......... for reasons best known to your selves
You should understand that some of us don't agree with gunits logic
It's a statement of fact imo
It's like someone trying to use their knowledge of the bible to prove the existence of God.
I don't see how people can't see that the investigation has moved on...the parents are no longer suspects..the SOL means they can never be investigated..
Did she ?Childish insults not beneath you after all then? @)(++(*
Parr for the course I suppose - sad cow
It must be frustrating to realise that the files don't support their claims, which leaves them having to cast aspersions on the manner of taking statements in Portugal. If the statements can't be relied on, however, neither can the T9 timeline or the T9 statements.It must be frustrating to realise that the current investigation is not remotely interested in giving a single sceptic theory the time of day, despite the huMUNGous wealth of evidence in the files that point to the parents’ guilt. Not.
Exacly good post.Awww, bless x
After years of reading your in-depth knowledge on this case...... You more than anyone have gone into every aspect of it.
It's a shame that isn't recognized the work you have done.
Instead, just a constant barrage to discredit you as much as possible
The good thing is though you can take it and always keep your chin and dignity up. x
It must be frustrating to realise that the current investigation is not remotely interested in giving a single sceptic theory the time of day, despite the huMUNGous wealth of evidence in the files that point to the parents’ guilt. Not.
Exacly good post.
After years of reading your in-depth knowledge on this case...... You more than anyone have gone into every aspect of it.
It's a shame that isn't recognized the work you have done.
Instead, just a constant barrage to discredit you as much as possible
The good thing is though you can take it and always keep your chin and dignity up. x
Thanks Kizzy, you are very kind. I definitely reject taking part in slanging matches - I wouldn't lower myself to slag off others like some do. I wonder if OG need funds to search for a missing child to support Wolter's efforts to find the evidence he needs to charge his suspect or to set off in another direction altogether? As there's still only four of them it's not going to be anything too big imo.If I were you I would not take Kizzy’s endorsement as any sort of positive measure of my ability to understand the evidence.. .
If I were you I would not take Kizzy’s endorsement as any sort of positive measure of my ability to understand the evidence.. .
One thing McCann supporters agree on is that anyone who doesn't accept their opinions is delusional, nasty, desperate, cruel, heartless etc. etc. They know exactly which emotions the McCanns felt at every stage, but they are completely unable to understand how those with different opinions developed them. I don't think they're as perceptive as they like to claim. Nor are they as convinced as they claim, imo, - hence the vicious attacks they make on others.
OK you full of admiration for the mccs bla bla bla bla .
You think they are innocent ....all police force think so to bla bla bla
So why the constant attack on G....I believe it because you see her as some sort of threat.
Oh I think anyone who is not 100% pro McCann has to be attacked as a matter of course.
No deviation from the official McCann is innocent line is to be tolerated.
Pathetic really but its the rules of the game.
I think Kizzy was ralking about me, not you. Why you think that your understanding is something I'm interested in escapes me, I'm not, I can assure you..Tough, unless you put me on ignore I shall keep on giving you the benefit of my understanding and you’ll keep on reading it, despite your alleged lack of interest ?{)(**
I think G overall knowledge of the case can beat yours.....hands down
So why continue explaining about grime ..your posts are like spin-doctors.
I seem to remember you calling jassi a sad bitch the other day. That was nice of you.
Yes, I just have,
It must be frustrating to realise that the files don't support their claims, which leaves them having to cast aspersions on the manner of taking statements in Portugal. If the statements can't be relied on, however, neither can the T9 timeline or the T9 statements.
Oh yes, Russell was sent to reception by Gerry or was it Fiona to phone the police, wasn't he? His chance to impress which he completely failed to achieve. He didn't think to try the staff at the night creche, at the Tapas bar or even those upstairs in block 5 who were sure to be able to help. I don't think he even went back and reported his failure.
I neither remember such a post nor does a search indicate there was one. Please provide a cite to back up your memory.It’s true, I did. I don’t know if the post is there or not anymore and very sorry for being so naughty. I must not be abusive about people even if they do express sad, bitchy views. Now give me 40% and let’s move on.
Exacly good post.
After years of reading your in-depth knowledge on this case...... You more than anyone have gone into every aspect of it.
It's a shame that isn't recognized the work you have done.
Instead, just a constant barrage to discredit you as much as possible
The good thing is though you can take it and always keep your chin and dignity up. x
It’s true, I did. I don’t know if the post is there or not anymore and very sorry for being so naughty. I must not be abusive about people even if they do express sad, bitchy views. Now give me 40% and let’s move on.
Grime gave amaral the false information...as he did to all the sceptics who believed him
Nasty post. The logical place to approach when reporting a serious incident is reception. No-one required to run round like headless chickens as you suggest. Reception areas are the hub for communications - in the main the relevant authorities.
One thing most people can agree on is that there are individuals who want the so called mystery of Madeleine McCann resolved and there are people to which that resolution of the mystery is anathema.
The latter have organised campaigns designed to be as disruptive as is (in)humanly possible to anything beneficial for Madeleine. They just do not want her found.
To that end any financing for Madeleine's case is resented with a vengeance.
Well if Madeleine disappeared at 9.15 as the T9 believed, the 'golden hour' some go on about was already lost, and was getting longer every minute. Russell was as much use as a chocolate fireguard with no sense of urgency at all and failed to achieve his mission imo. He let the Ocean Club receptionist brush him aside and wandered off. It sounds like the Ocean Club's communication hub was not fit for purpose either. In that case another way needed to be found.Firstly the group had no idea at the time what time Madeleine disappeared - that only came later when they sat down and tried to work it out. Secondly (and for the umpteenth time) The Golden Hour isn’t an actual 60 minute period (butyou knew that really). Thirdly, unless you think Russell was deliberately stalling - so what? I dispute the “no sense of urgency “ on Russell’s part anyway. Where you there to observe it?
What rot. Anyone who's interested wants justice for Madeleine, but different people/groups only want the outcome which suits them. That applies to those who support the McCanns as well as those with different theories.Do you want funding into the police investigation to continue or not? Most sceptics seem very against the idea. How about you?
Well if Madeleine disappeared at 9.15 as the T9 believed, the 'golden hour' some go on about was already lost, and was getting longer every minute. Russell was as much use as a chocolate fireguard with no sense of urgency at all and failed to achieve his mission imo. He let the Ocean Club receptionist brush him aside and wandered off. It sounds like the Ocean Club's communication hub was not fit for purpose either. In that case another way needed to be found.
What rot. Anyone who's interested wants justice for Madeleine, but different people/groups only want the outcome which suits them. That applies to those who support the McCanns as well as those with different theories.
I think you have got that opinion entirely wrong ~ I have seldom witnessed individual posts which are more misleading and ill informed than g's.
Personal attacks and slanging matches do not make for interesting, informative or pleasant discussion. Then destroying the forum is the name of the game for some ~ what a pity for them they fail to recognise (or maybe they recognise only too well) that the game for them is already winding down to its conclusion.
That is a rather garbled post which tends to entirely overlook the pivotal role of evidence to a police investigation.
That rather extraordinary post is of relevance to the thread title in what way?
Do you want funding into the police investigation to continue or not? Most sceptics seem very against the idea. How about you?
It's as relevant as the posts which consist of nothing but criticism of fellow members imo.Have you already forgotten your post yesterday where you criticised those who hold a different opinion to you
Have you already forgotten your post yesterday where you criticised those who hold a different opinion to you
I'm indifferent. At this stage I don't see it as a seriously committed active investigation anyway. It's more of a watching brief imo.The purpose of which is…?
There are other things which you obviously didn't pick up on. Amarals lies were multiple
i pick up everything but cant include all the points in every post.
The point is that Grime claimed his dogs had never had a false positive in 2oo cases
He claimed he was the special advisor to the FBI
He claimed his dogs were the only dogs of their type in the world.
Amaral and pretty well all sceptics believe that junk..grime should have been clear about the dogs abilities
Have you already forgotten your post yesterday where you criticised those who hold a different opinion to you
Are there any members here who believe all this ?
I can't say I've seen any sceptics mention any of the above on this forum.
The purpose of which is…?
It's a strawman argument; argue against something that doesn't exist. It's much easier than trying to argue against what people actually say. The only one oThe alerts are the most important piece of information in the case,....that's what the PJ said. Without the alerts Amarals book would not have happened. Then when we look at the alerts we find they are not as some think.
bsessed with Grime and the dog alerts imo is Mr Grey.
I replied to the never-ending personal remarks about my perceived lack of certain skills and sensibilities. People seem to think that's acceptable when they don't agree with a poster. I don't, and just occasionally I make that point.you are not the only poster who receives insults
Are there any members here who believe all this ?
I can't say I've seen any sceptics mention any of the above on this forum.
Yea, I happily endorse what Mr Gray is saying. Anyone who was on top of the files at the relevant time will agree.
Well it's not a full-on investigation, is it?It’s you who has claimed it’s a watching brief, so you have an opinion about it and I’m wondering what you think the purpose of it is? Personally I haven’t been briefed on what they are investigating or need more funds for, maybe you have in order to haved reached your conclusion?
It's a strawman argument; argue against something that doesn't exist. It's much easier than trying to argue against what people actually say. The only one obsessed with Grime and the dog alerts imo is Mr Grey.
Mr GRAY only points out what Supporters already know, but that which Sceptics refuse to acknowledge.
Mr GRAY only points out what Supporters already know, but that which Sceptics refuse to acknowledge.
Mr GRAY only points out what Supporters already know, but that which Sceptics refuse to acknowledge.
I'm not going to acknowledge supporter's libellous (imo) slurs on Martin Grime. Accusing him of lying and self-promotion is beyond the pale imo.And yet you’re quite happy to contribute your own slurs about Gerry McCann. What a double standard!
And yet you’re quite happy to contribute your own slurs about Gerry McCann. What a double standard!
Awww, bless x
If a poster is posting discreditable information it gets challenged. And that is how it should be.
One thing most people can agree on is that there are individuals who want the so called mystery of Madeleine McCann resolved and there are people to which that resolution of the mystery is anathema.
The latter have organised campaigns designed to be as disruptive as is (in)humanly possible to anything beneficial for Madeleine. They just do not want her found.
To that end any financing for Madeleine's case is resented with a vengeance.
I'm not going to acknowledge supporter's libellous (imo) slurs on Martin Grime. Accusing him of lying and self-promotion is beyond the pale imo.
You can't tell the difference between doubts and slurs, it seems.You weren't expressing doubts when you claimed Gerry's legs buckled at the sight of the police, you were making a slur against him. You can deny it until the cows come home, it's blatantly obvious what you were implying.
You can't tell the difference between doubts and slurs, it seems.
Oh I think anyone who is not 100% pro McCann has to be attacked as a matter of course.
No deviation from the official McCann is innocent line is to be tolerated.
Pathetic really but its the rules of the game.
I think at one point years back this was a pro site only ....as I had seen a post that pointed me to it in the first place.
one of the posts were
comperedna wrote:
and finding out what happened to her but 'pro the McCanns'... ie the parents viewpoint. I was told so on another website... which explains why a pretty much innocent post questioning the abduction got me my head bitten off. I decided the moderation on the site wasn't up to much so I decided not to post there.
Well I don't think I'll be looking in there. I get far too much propaganda 'pro McCanns' from the U.K. media.
I was surprised I could still get on the site.....but I have seen it happen on here since joining over and over again.
I don't know if Martin Grime lied, but the Self Promotion is obvious and beyond the pale.
It's not a pro or anti site... everyone is allowed to make their point
I think at one point years back this was a pro site only ....as I had seen a post that pointed me to it in the first place.
one of the posts were
comperedna wrote:
and finding out what happened to her but 'pro the McCanns'... ie the parents viewpoint. I was told so on another website... which explains why a pretty much innocent post questioning the abduction got me my head bitten off. I decided the moderation on the site wasn't up to much so I decided not to post there.
Well I don't think I'll be looking in there. I get far too much propaganda 'pro McCanns' from the U.K. media.
I was surprised I could still get on the site...but I have seen it happen on here since joining over and over again
.
This has never been only a Supporter's Site. Not ever.
And yet you’re quite happy to contribute your own slurs about Gerry McCann. What a double standard!
This has never been only a Supporter's Site. Not ever.
It's only your opinion that I slurred Gerry McCann, that doesn't mean you're right you know.you did and I am. And that’s a fact.
Apologies
What I should have said is a pro site I will amend my post.
I have taken the only out.
@)(++(*well you’ve made enough of them, though I agree your use of the laughing emoji to describe them is quite apt.
@)(++(*
Your problem is you don't understand the law of libel...which makes John responsible for everything posted here. John has been threatened once already by the McCanns lawyers as I recall
I thought you agreed with what Mr Grey says? I'm pleased to see that you aren't prepared to accept all his accusations.
you did and I am. And that’s a fact.
It's a site that welcomes all..the problem for [ censored word] posting here is that their opinions are challenged...as opposed to sites like CMOMM allow their tripe to be challenged
I never accept anything that I haven't looked at myself. But Mr Gray isn't wrong about Martin Grime. Martin Grime in the process of self aggrandisement has caused more harm than can ever be accounted for.
I said that I didn't know if Martin Grime lied. This doesn't mean that he didn't lie. Martin Grime certainly made a right cock up of Jersey, but by then the damage was done.
So don't you dare thank me for something that I didn't do. With this comment alone you have proved that you are not to be trusted with anything you say.
Just don't take me on because I am way more smart than you will ever be when it comes to truth.
You started this one, not I.
Humble apologies, I made the mistake of believing what you said in a previous post;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11267.msg703794#msg703794
Still opinion, not fact.Wrong.
I don't know if Martin Grime lied, but the Self Promotion is obvious and beyond the pale.
I'm not going to acknowledge supporter's libellous (imo) slurs on Martin Grime. Accusing him of lying and self-promotion is beyond the pale imo.You are quite prepared to support members on here slurring innocent members of the public by claiming (without any evidence) that they received cash for media interviews in which they made up stuff. Double standards again.
I have never accused him of lying..
Which previous Post? And when did Mr Gray say that Martin Grime actually lied? Your Cite says no such thing.
You are losing the plot, but then the likes of you always do.
Wrong.
You stated that you were not surprised Gerry's legs buckled when he saw the police. However there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim that he collapsed on seeing the police. Therefore it is a lie, and a slur because of its implication that Gerry collapsed when he saw the police and not because of the more obvious reason which is that he was in a distressed state as his daughter had gone missing.
Please stop taking me for a fool. I know exactly what you're up to.
This is what I said. No mention of buckling legs or of collapsing.No. You have stated as fact that Gerry’s legs “gave way” (or buckled to use another term to mean exactly the same thing) at the sight of the police. That is a slur with no evidence to support it.
'I don't find it odd at all for Gerry's legs to give way at the sight of the police.'
There was no speculation at all about why Gerry McCann's legs gave way, but I think it's difficult to argue that it was unrelated to the sight of the police.
You have interpreted what I said, not simply repeated it. That means opinion.
This is what I said. No mention of buckling legs or of collapsing.
'I don't find it odd at all for Gerry's legs to give way at the sight of the police.'
There was no speculation at all about why Gerry McCann's legs gave way, but I think it's difficult to argue that it was unrelated to the sight of the police.
You have interpreted what I said, not simply repeated it. That means opinion.
Does anyone really care about the trivia and mismanagement of Madeleine's case at this remove. It was permanently damaged by cack-handed incompetence.
The proof of which was revealed by the number of un-investigated leads found by Scotland Yard when they started investigating Madeleine's case.
What's done is done and cannot be undone. So all that is left is to work with the information which is still available. That is what the police are doing and why they require the money to enable them to do it.
I for one am embarrassed for my country that out of the three National forces working Madeleine's live and active case, only in cheapskate Britain do investigators have to go cap in hand for the money to enable them to do their job.
Talk about a drama queen post.......cap in hand.
They have had over 13 million ......and still haven't done their job...[thought the Germans had it solved]
4 of them are at a desk....wanting more money.
I wonder what the families of other missing children/people would think of your post, who have to rely on charities.
Have you not considered that Madeleine’s case is more complex?
As in....... they are only looking for an abductor.
As in....... they are only looking for an abductor.
Here's what you said;So where does that say Grime lied
'Mr GRAY only points out what Supporters already know, but that which Sceptics refuse to acknowledge.'
Here's Mr Grey with his semantics;
'It's not about telling lies...it's about stretching the truth. Many professionals do it in their CVs'
No. You have stated as fact that Gerry’s legs “gave way” (or buckled to use another term to mean exactly the same thing) at the sight of the police. That is a slur with no evidence to support it.
Talk about a drama queen post.......cap in hand.
They have had over 13 million ......and still haven't done their job...[thought the Germans had it solved]
4 of them are at a desk....wanting more money.
I wonder what the families of other missing children/people would think of your post, who have to rely on charities.
No. As in CB could be involved in other cases, eg. the Inga Gehricke case had been re-opened.
So where does that say Grime lied
And? Has be been implicated ?And … best you look into Inga’s disappearance
And … best you look into Inga’s disappearance
to 'stretch the truth' is to report something that is not the truth, that is, to tell a lie. With this in mind, we can see using the phrase 'stretching the truth' as a way to soften the blow of the term 'lying'.Grime never lied but he regularly stretched the truth.
https://armchairopinions.org/is-stretching-the-truth-ever-really-okay/#:~:text=So%2C%20essentially%2C%20to%20'stretch,of%20the%20term%20'lying'.
Not interested in Inga, only whether CB is implicated or not
Well just go on and on and on if it seems relevant to you. I assume you think he chose to kneel down before the police officers. Now that I do find odd.What on earth are you on about? Why do you assume such a stupid thing? I will go on and on every single time you deny the fact that you slurred Gerry by claiming his legs gave way as a direct result of seeing the police.
What on earth are you on about? Why do you assume such a stupid thing? I will go on and on every single time you deny the fact that you slurred Gerry by claiming his legs gave way as a direct result of seeing the police.
to 'stretch the truth' is to report something that is not the truth, that is, to tell a lie. With this in mind, we can see using the phrase 'stretching the truth' as a way to soften the blow of the term 'lying'.
https://armchairopinions.org/is-stretching-the-truth-ever-really-okay/#:~:text=So%2C%20essentially%2C%20to%20'stretch,of%20the%20term%20'lying'.
He isn't.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9295981/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-ruled-probe-missing-German-Maddie.html
He isn't.There is no doubt that both SY and the BKA are happy to ignore grime and his dogs..that's truth and it speaks volumes
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9295981/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-ruled-probe-missing-German-Maddie.html
So just a red herring. Glad I didn't waste any time on itWait a minute. The McCanns have been ruled out by the Germans too, and most sceptics think theyr’re wrong about that so…!
There is no doubt that both SY and the BKA are happy to ignore grime and his dogs..that's truth and it speaks volumes
Wait a minute. The McCanns have been ruled out by the Germans too, and most sceptics think theyr’re wrong about that so…!
Did they ever investigate them?
to 'stretch the truth' is to report something that is not the truth, that is, to tell a lie. With this in mind, we can see using the phrase 'stretching the truth' as a way to soften the blow of the term 'lying'.stretch the truth
https://armchairopinions.org/is-stretching-the-truth-ever-really-okay/#:~:text=So%2C%20essentially%2C%20to%20'stretch,of%20the%20term%20'lying'.
I doubt it. Their sole interest is CB - IMOThey wouldn’t spend years trying to gather evidence on CB if they thought there was a likelihood the parents dunnit. Please try and use common sense, even if it doesn’t come naturally to you.
No. As in CB could be involved in other cases, eg. the Inga Gehricke case had been re-opened.
Talk about a drama queen post.......cap in hand.
They have had over 13 million ......and still haven't done their job...[thought the Germans had it solved]
4 of them are at a desk....wanting more money.
I wonder what the families of other missing children/people would think of your post, who have to rely on charities.
As in....... they are only looking for an abductor.
a stranger abductor no less.
What other cases...where there are active leads...are not being invesigatedI cannot think of another case which was terminated in such a short space of time while there was still evidence there to be followed.
It's not getting them anywhere though. But maybe next year
Ask the guy who said he would be quite happy to allow Brueckner to watch his dog for him, but certainly not his daughter if he had one. He is causing the delay as he is entitled to do.
As in ... they gave up on Madeleine almost immediately while throwing all their resources into building a case against her parents.
Oh you mean like they are building up a case against CB....three years on and still counting.
How do you reckon then they could have built a case against the mccs ....if there was no evidence.
Oh you mean like they are building up a case against CB....three years on and still counting.Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case.
How do you reckon then they could have built a case against the mccs ....if there was no evidence.
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
Seems the PJ didn't stand a chance.... Some posters say the mccs wasn't safe....even Clarence Mitchel was thrown in for good measure.
·
THE POWER OF THE McCANNS
----------------------------------------
Unbelievable!
THE PEOPLE WHO RUSHED OUT TO PRAIA DA LUZ AFTER 3 MAY 2007 AND BY FRIDAY 11 MAY 2007
This summarises a list of those known to have rushed out to Praia da Luz after 3 May 2007 (or on the case of Resonate and Robert Murat, BEFORE then). Dates of arrival given where known, all before Friday May 11 unless otherwise stated
Government and Embassy Officials
Robert Henderson – British Consul for the Algarve – immediate (persuaded Portuguese Police to allow the McCanns to wash clothes before seizing them)
John Buck – British Ambassador to Portugal (Lisbon), arrived immediately
Angela Morado – British Proconsul, arrived immediately
Liz Dow, British Consul rom the Embassy in Lisbon, arrived immediately
Andy Bowes, British Embassy Press Officer, arrived immediately
Sheree Dodd, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Other staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
British Police Officers
Glen Power, British Police Liaison Officer for Portugal, arrived 5 May
An ‘Analyst’ (unnamed) from the National Policing Improvements Agency, arrived 4 May
Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small, Leicestershire Police (4 May)
Two other police ‘family liaison’ officers from Leicestershire Police (4 May)
Government security and secret service personnel
Staff from MI5 (unnamed)
Staff from Child Exploitation and OnLine Protection Service (unnamed – Kate McCann in her book describes them As ‘Forensic Psychologists’), arrived 4 May
More staff from CEOP, the ‘Director of the Forensic Psychology Unit’ AND a CEOP ‘social worker’ (arrived 6 May)
Staff from Special Branch (unnamed)
‘Criminal profilers’ (unnamed - attached to unnamed government security departments)
Government-funded private security firms
Kenneth Farrow from Control Risks Group
Michael Keenan from Control Risks Group
Staff from government-supported private crisis psychology group
Alan Pike, Head of Yorkshire-based Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) (arrived 4 May)
Martin Alderton, Colleague of Alan Pike from CCP (arrived 5 May)
Public Relations Consultants
Michael Frolich, Head of Resonate, subsidiary of international PR company Bell Pottinger (already there by Monday 30 April)
Tricia Moon, Deputy Director of Resonate, (already there by Monday 30 April)
Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk for international PR company Bell Pottinger, arrived 4 May (helped to edit Gerry McCann’s photos before putting them on a disc for the PJ)
Lawyers
Staff from the recently-formed International Family Law Group (IFLG):
Michael Nicholls, barrister, arrived 11 May
Accompanied by a ‘paralegal’ from Leicestershire, arrived 11 May
There are references to other government lawyers having arrived
Top staff from Mark Warner (company that organised the holiday)
David Hopkins, Managing Director of Mark Warner
One of his senior colleagues
Interpreters
Oh you mean like they are building up a case against CB....three years on and still counting.
How do you reckon then they could have built a case against the mccs ....if there was no evidence.
The PJ failed because they didnt understand the evidence...thats fact not opinion. They thought the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartmnet.
The PJ failed because they didnt understand the evidence...thats fact not opinion. They thought the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartmnet.
Has it yet been proved that she didn't ?Can't you see that makes no difference to the PJs claim
Oh you mean like they are building up a case against CB....three years on and still counting.
How do you reckon then they could have built a case against the mccs ....if there was no evidence.
The 'evidence' Amaral used to build a case was the dog alerts, the Calpol and DNA.
He didn't understand the forensic results and jumped on what he believed the forensic results meant.
As soon as he heard the dog results he built a case around them.
Kate admitted she had Calpol for the children incase of illness, millions of parents take Calpol with them when they go on holiday. He took what Kate's father said the wrong way. Kate's father said the only medicine he had ever seen the McCann's giving their children was Calpol. He didn't mean they had given the children Calpol on the holiday in Portugal but this was taken as proof.
So Amaral devised a theory. Kate give Madeleine Calpol which made her sleepy [not true]. She woke at night hearing her Dad talking outside. This wasn't proven and I don't think Gerry's voice would have carried around to the front of the apartment where Madeleine was sleeping. Madeleine then climbed onto the settee to see through the window and fell onto the tiles. Unproven, if Madeleine had climbed onto the settee and leaned towards the window how would she fall?
Then the McCann's found her, when this was he didn't really say. It couldn't have been when Gerry came back to the apartment as that would rule out the bit that Madeleine heard her Dad's voice. So was it when Kate did her check. Unlikely as she couldn't have hidden Madeliene's body where no one could find her in the short time she was in 5a before she alerted that Madeleine was missing.
So you explain to me how it is possible that Amaral could have a case against the McCann's? Nothing was proven and nothing was possible.
What if Maddie was already dead before the McCanns left for the tapas?
Might that have changed what was possible?
What sort of death whilst the parents were present would not require an emergency ambulance being called for?
Well, I can think of murder for one.
And how would that work, exactly?
It's when you kill someone intentionally. That's what murder is. Unless I'm much mistaken.
And how would that work, exactly?The troll thinks the McCanns murdered Madeleine with David Payne present or at least in cahoots. And then they all went out to dinner leaving the corpse in the apartment, letting mates go back tocheck on the kids all without a care in the world and then (when dinner had been consumed) Gerry decided that 10pm would be a good time to take the murder victim's corpse for a walk through town past the local hostelries to the furthest away bin he can find.
Can't you see that makes no difference to the PJs claim
What if Maddie was already dead before the McCanns left for the tapas?
Might that have changed what was possible?
Seems the PJ didn't stand a chance.... Some posters say the mccs wasn't safe....even Clarence Mitchel was thrown in for good measure.
·
THE POWER OF THE McCANNS
----------------------------------------
Unbelievable!
THE PEOPLE WHO RUSHED OUT TO PRAIA DA LUZ AFTER 3 MAY 2007 AND BY FRIDAY 11 MAY 2007
This summarises a list of those known to have rushed out to Praia da Luz after 3 May 2007 (or on the case of Resonate and Robert Murat, BEFORE then). Dates of arrival given where known, all before Friday May 11 unless otherwise stated
Government and Embassy Officials
Robert Henderson – British Consul for the Algarve – immediate (persuaded Portuguese Police to allow the McCanns to wash clothes before seizing them)
John Buck – British Ambassador to Portugal (Lisbon), arrived immediately
Angela Morado – British Proconsul, arrived immediately
Liz Dow, British Consul rom the Embassy in Lisbon, arrived immediately
Andy Bowes, British Embassy Press Officer, arrived immediately
Sheree Dodd, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Other staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
British Police Officers
Glen Power, British Police Liaison Officer for Portugal, arrived 5 May
An ‘Analyst’ (unnamed) from the National Policing Improvements Agency, arrived 4 May
Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small, Leicestershire Police (4 May)
Two other police ‘family liaison’ officers from Leicestershire Police (4 May)
Government security and secret service personnel
Staff from MI5 (unnamed)
Staff from Child Exploitation and OnLine Protection Service (unnamed – Kate McCann in her book describes them As ‘Forensic Psychologists’), arrived 4 May
More staff from CEOP, the ‘Director of the Forensic Psychology Unit’ AND a CEOP ‘social worker’ (arrived 6 May)
Staff from Special Branch (unnamed)
‘Criminal profilers’ (unnamed - attached to unnamed government security departments)
Government-funded private security firms
Kenneth Farrow from Control Risks Group
Michael Keenan from Control Risks Group
Staff from government-supported private crisis psychology group
Alan Pike, Head of Yorkshire-based Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) (arrived 4 May)
Martin Alderton, Colleague of Alan Pike from CCP (arrived 5 May)
Public Relations Consultants
Michael Frolich, Head of Resonate, subsidiary of international PR company Bell Pottinger (already there by Monday 30 April)
Tricia Moon, Deputy Director of Resonate, (already there by Monday 30 April)
Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk for international PR company Bell Pottinger, arrived 4 May (helped to edit Gerry McCann’s photos before putting them on a disc for the PJ)
Lawyers
Staff from the recently-formed International Family Law Group (IFLG):
Michael Nicholls, barrister, arrived 11 May
Accompanied by a ‘paralegal’ from Leicestershire, arrived 11 May
There are references to other government lawyers having arrived
Top staff from Mark Warner (company that organised the holiday)
David Hopkins, Managing Director of Mark Warner
One of his senior colleagues
Interpreters
Both going to eat, joke and laugh in the Tapas Bar? I don't think so.
That is not an answer to my question.
Are the McCanns incapable of deceiving then?
Obviously they were incapable if they had to enlist the T7's help in the cover-up.
The PJ had no right to claim Maddie died in the apartment as a fact....they them built their case on a fallacyThat may be so , but isn't what I asked.
That may be so , but isn't what I asked.What you asked was a celestial teapot question..pointless with no value
Are the McCanns incapable of deceiving then?
Deceiving? They'd have to be Psychopaths to be able to laugh, eat and behave normally afterwards.
I don't think any of us know the McCanns well enough to make an objective judgement.and yet some people seem to think they know that they are capable of murdering their first born, then laughing and joking over dinner moments later before casually sauntering through town with her dead body in their arms before tossing it in the bin. Hmm….how do you account for that certainty of knowledge? Has the troll got first hand experience of their psychopathy do you think?
The 'evidence' Amaral used to build a case was the dog alerts, the Calpol and DNA.
He didn't understand the forensic results and jumped on what he believed the forensic results meant.
As soon as he heard the dog results he built a case around them.
Kate admitted she had Calpol for the children incase of illness, millions of parents take Calpol with them when they go on holiday. He took what Kate's father said the wrong way. Kate's father said the only medicine he had ever seen the McCann's giving their children was Calpol. He didn't mean they had given the children Calpol on the holiday in Portugal but this was taken as proof.
So Amaral devised a theory. Kate give Madeleine Calpol which made her sleepy [not true]. She woke at night hearing her Dad talking outside. This wasn't proven and I don't think Gerry's voice would have carried around to the front of the apartment where Madeleine was sleeping. Madeleine then climbed onto the settee to see through the window and fell onto the tiles. Unproven, if Madeleine had climbed onto the settee and leaned towards the window how would she fall?
Then the McCann's found her, when this was he didn't really say. It couldn't have been when Gerry came back to the apartment as that would rule out the bit that Madeleine heard her Dad's voice. So was it when Kate did her check. Unlikely as she couldn't have hidden Madeliene's body where no one could find her in the short time she was in 5a before she alerted that Madeleine was missing.
So you explain to me how it is possible that Amaral could have a case against the McCann's? Nothing was proven and nothing was possible.
I don't have to explain anything to you LLace is questioning Amaral’s narrative, surely you should applaud her for doing so and not lapping it up uncritically like many sceptics appear to have done over the years?
You just carry on believing what you're told ....or what you assumed happened.
I don't have to explain anything to you L
You just carry on believing what you're told ....or what you assumed happened.
Deceiving? They'd have to be Psychopaths to be able to laugh, eat and behave normally afterwards.
Perhaps they did laugh, eat and behave normally. I don't know how you can know they did though.
Lace is questioning Amaral’s narrative, surely you should applaud her for doing so and not lapping it up uncritically like many sceptics appear to have done over the years?
Do you really think that some of us just believe what we are told..that's just plain daft
Yes well, I think ...us skeptics are not as predictable as you pros.LOL, well I think us pros are not as daft as you skeptics.
Perhaps they did laugh, eat and behave normally. I don't know how you can know they did though.Did anyone at the table report that Kate and Gerry were not behaving normally or off their food that evening, or do you have them all “in on it”?
Jane Tanner uses words such as “comfortable”, “chatty” to describe her interactions with Kate McCann that evening. Is Kate a great actor or just a psychopath do you think?
4078 “And how were things?”
Reply “They were fine, completely normal, yeah”.
The short answer to all the above.... it's a wonder they had time with all the coming and going.I don’t understand your comment. Do you think the Tapas group are all in on it?
Remember the two timelines.
The short answer to all the above.... it's a wonder they had time with all the coming and going.
Remember the two timelines.
Perhaps they did laugh, eat and behave normally. I don't know how you can know they did though.
Yes I was going to ask what jokes they were telling....an where L sat at the table.
But answering one post was enough from L....but I thought exactly the same....as your post.
I don't have to explain anything to you L
You just carry on believing what you're told ....or what you assumed happened.
Try reading the statements in the Police files.Based on those files there was no case against the parents..no arrest...no charges
I've read all the statements I thought you had too. Unless you are saying they all lied.Let me guess the response: "I'm not saying they all lied but I'm not saying they all didn't lie, I'm giving no opinion at all but just making sly inferences as to what I really do believe which is nothing at all as I don't believe in believing" (&^&
Try reading the statements in the Police files.
While the group laughed at Russell falling off a catermaran and at Jane 'relieving' him, Kate shared her worries about leaving the patio door unlocked and where Gerry was from 9.05 till 9.15 (watching footie?)
Jesus Wept.
You don't like to be reminded that Kate McCann wasn't completely unconcerned?You don't like being reminded of the numerous statements by the Tapas group saying that the McCanns were perfectly normal, relaxed and chatty that evening?
You don't like being reminded of the numerous statements by the Tapas group saying that the McCanns were perfectly normal, relaxed and chatty that evening?
While the group laughed at Russell falling off a catermaran and at Jane 'relieving' him, Kate shared her worries about leaving the patio door unlocked and where Gerry was from 9.05 till 9.15 (watching footie?)
Cite
I think you'll find them in the files which you say you have read.
Yep. Jane and Fiona were involved.So you disagree with all those witnesses at the table that the McCanns appeared normal, chatty and relaxed do you?
While the group laughed at Russell falling off a catermaran and at Jane 'relieving' him, Kate shared her worries about leaving the patio door unlocked and where Gerry was from 9.05 till 9.15 (watching footie?)
You don't like to be reminded that Kate McCann wasn't completely unconcerned?
You really would prefer to post about anything which comes into your head as long as it is pejorative to the McCanns and as a result damaging to Madeleine. As far as the positive aspect that after all these years there is still funding to allow investigators the chance of finding out what her fate is, just doesn't come into it for you..
It's called balance. Not everyone was happy and trouble-free that night.
It's called balance. Not everyone was happy and trouble-free that night.So in your opinion Kate was troubled and unhappy was she? Perhaps you can provide the cites where her friends descibe her in these terms, thanks in advance.
I think you'll find them in the files which you say you have read.
I know Kate spoke to Fiona about her worries about the open door but I don't believe it was when everyone was laughing about Russell and Jane.the reason we’re even having this conversation is because you remarked how unlikely it would have been for the McCanns to have appeared relaxed and normal at dinner if they knew Madeleine had just died. G-Unit might like to ask herself how Kate’s concern about the unlocked door makes any sense in such a scenario.
I know Kate spoke to Fiona about her worries about the open door but I don't believe it was when everyone was laughing about Russell and Jane.
It was on the same evening. Nobody said the two things were happening simultaneously. Do you think Kate expressed her worries then forgot all about it?Who (apart from you) cares? If Kate was expressing concerns about the door being unlocked then quite obviously she didn’t know Madeleine was dead at that point or are you suggesting she is so fiendish thst she pretended to be concerned about it to throw her friends off?
she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'.
Who (apart from you) cares? If Kate was expressing concerns about the door being unlocked then quite obviously she didn’t know Madeleine was dead at that point or are you suggesting she is so fiendish thst she pretended to be concerned about it to throw her friends off?
Who (apart from you) cares? If Kate was expressing concerns about the door being unlocked then quite obviously she didn’t know Madeleine was dead at that point or are you suggesting she is so fiendish thst she pretended to be concerned about it to throw her friends off?
Just ensuring that people realise that it wasn't all about sitting there laughing and joking, having had a wonderful day.Why do you think that’s important? What does it signify to you? What can we read into the fact that, despite being described by friends as relaxed, chatty, normal that Kate also mentioned a concern about leaving the door unlocked and questioned where Gerry had got to? Do expressing these concerns make it more likely that Kate knew Madeleine was already dead? Please explain the significance as you see it.
Why do you think that’s important? What does it signify to you? What can we read into the fact that, despite being described by friends as relaxed, chatty, normal that Kate also mentioned a concern about leaving the door unlocked and questioned where Gerry had got to? Do expressing these concerns make it more likely that Kate knew Madeleine was already dead? Please explain the significance as you see it.
My, don't you go on!that’s an ad hom. I assume you have no answers which is pretty much as expected.
that’s an ad hom. I assume you have no answers which is pretty much as expected.
I'm under no obligation to answer your questions. I made a factual post so no explanation is needed.There was nothing factual about it, it was simply propaganda. making something out of nothing, for reasons you refuse to divulge but can easily be guessed at.
It was on the same evening. Nobody said the two things were happening simultaneously. Do you think Kate expressed her worries then forgot all about it?
she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'.
It might have been on her mind but she still enjoyed the evening eating her meal, so you honestly think she would sit and chat and eat if her child was already dead? Then change from laughing and chatting to screaming and crying, you really are clutching at straws.
There was nothing factual about it, it was simply propaganda. making something out of nothing, for reasons you refuse to divulge but can easily be guessed at.
I used to listen to a radio programme called "Thought for the Day" which expressed sentiments commensurate with well being and good thoughts to set one up for the day.
How sad is it that instead of thinking positively of the day ahead some appear to be bogged down in irrelevant negativity to which very few give credence.
Times have moved on from the groundhog days consistently posted about. Time to try casting minds over current events with a positive aspect for a change, such as the progress being made in Madeleine's case as signified by the fact the Home Office is still funding it.
I think something like that would be worth thinking and posting about ~ particularly since funding for SY is what this thread is actually all about.
Of course it was factual - it was in the statements just like your cites.this was the post of yours I was referring to
SY agreed to take on this investigation but not if the cost came out of their budget. That's why the Home Office pays.
this was the post of yours I was referring to
“Just ensuring that people realise that it wasn't all about sitting there laughing and joking, having had a wonderful day.”
Do you disagree with all the statements given by those in attendance at the Tapas table that the McCanns were perfectly normal, chatty and relaxed that evening? Because that is very much the impression I get from their statements. You are choosing to nit pick and focus one one small detail in order to make out that there was anxiety, unhappiness and stress at the table from Kate that night when the overall impression given from the statements is quite the opposite. This is how propaganda works. You are very good at it, well done.
I think there is always a grain utilised to enable the truth of the lie. Have we ever had a thread solely on propaganda?
“Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda”.
By ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the McCanns were perfectly normal, relaxed and chatty to focus on a couple of observations made not by Kate but one of her friends, we have a example of the propaganda techniques described above.
“Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda”.
By ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the McCanns were perfectly normal, relaxed and chatty to focus on a couple of observations made not by Kate but one of her friends, we have a example of the propaganda techniques described above.
Factoids make the "good guys" (NOUN - an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact:) but the reality is in the campaigns which have gone on against funding the search for Madeleine McCann since the earliest says when her parents were on their own but under constant attack. Until the present day and throughout the intervening period when Home Office money funding was made available,
The fact that gunit has look at such minutiae shows in reality there's no real evidence against the mccanns
What I will never understand is Why.
It's interesting to see how much time and effort some people devote to analysing and criticising my posts and myself. A lot of effort goes into trying to discredit me and everything I post, it seems. In my opinion it hasn't and doesn't work so it's a complete waste of their time.A lot of effort goes into trying to discredit the McCanns and the investigation into Madeleine’s possible abductor. In my opinion it hasn’t and doesn’t work thanks to the balance provided by those of us who are not pursuing a McCanns Dunnit agenda and so it would seem they are completely wasting their time.
The Special Grant funding of Operation Grange has been descibed as 'going cap in hand' to the Home Office, but I don't think that's quite how it works. Firstly, it was the MPS who made it a condition of their involvement that they would get this funding and not have to use their own budget. Secondly, OG can spend money and claim it back at the end of the year if they wish. Thirdly, it's the MPS/OG who decide if the investigation continues or not, not the Home Office.
My second and third points can be found on the Home Office's news blog, added in 2019;
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
It's interesting to see how much time and effort some people devote to analysing and criticising my posts and myself. A lot of effort goes into trying to discredit me and everything I post, it seems. In my opinion it hasn't and doesn't work so it's a complete waste of their time.
The Special Grant funding of Operation Grange has been descibed as 'going cap in hand' to the Home Office, but I don't think that's quite how it works. Firstly, it was the MPS who made it a condition of their involvement that they would get this funding and not have to use their own budget. Secondly, OG can spend money and claim it back at the end of the year if they wish. Thirdly, it's the MPS/OG who decide if the investigation continues or not, not the Home Office.
My second and third points can be found on the Home Office's news blog, added in 2019;
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
The fact that gunit has look at such minutiae shows in reality there's no real evidence against the mccanns
It's interesting to see how much time and effort some people devote to analysing and criticising my posts and myself. A lot of effort goes into trying to discredit me and everything I post, it seems. In my opinion it hasn't and doesn't work so it's a complete waste of their time.
The Special Grant funding of Operation Grange has been descibed as 'going cap in hand' to the Home Office, but I don't think that's quite how it works. Firstly, it was the MPS who made it a condition of their involvement that they would get this funding and not have to use their own budget. Secondly, OG can spend money and claim it back at the end of the year if they wish. Thirdly, it's the MPS/OG who decide if the investigation continues or not, not the Home Office.
My second and third points can be found on the Home Office's news blog, added in 2019;
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
It's interesting to see how much time and effort some people devote to analysing and criticising my posts and myself. A lot of effort goes into trying to discredit me and everything I post, it seems. In my opinion it hasn't and doesn't work so it's a complete waste of their time.
The Special Grant funding of Operation Grange has been descibed as 'going cap in hand' to the Home Office, but I don't think that's quite how it works. Firstly, it was the MPS who made it a condition of their involvement that they would get this funding and not have to use their own budget. Secondly, OG can spend money and claim it back at the end of the year if they wish. Thirdly, it's the MPS/OG who decide if the investigation continues or not, not the Home Office.
My second and third points can be found on the Home Office's news blog, added in 2019;
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
I think you are grossly over estimating you importance....I doubt anyone really cares what you post...its of no imprtance
Well when you ignore my posts I'll believe you. 8)-)))
Oh My God. You really want to be ignored? I don't believe that.
Please be so kind as to cite the accusations you allege of personal criticism directed at you. Bearing in mind my special subject of the day is "factoid"
Having just suffered from a prolonged episode of being bullied with every post made I am particularly anxious that such episodes are reported and nipped in the bud.
Please be so kind as to cite the accusations you allege of personal criticism directed at you. Bearing in mind my special subject of the day is "factoid"
Having just suffered from a prolonged episode of being bullied with every post made I am particularly anxious that such episodes are reported and nipped in the bud.
You can believe what you like; you will anyway. ?>)()<
I'm sorry, but (&^& (&^& (&^&
Well when you ignore my posts I'll believe you. 8)-)))Do you consider that answering a post confers upon it some level of importance?
Who is J C? Or is he Anonymous?
I'm sorry, but (&^& (&^& (&^&
Operation Grange
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
You may not know that Operation Grange has been subject to ill informed attack since its inception. My opinion is that the chief constable of the time thought he was eliminating one obvious cause for complaint with his funding solution.
How very wrong he was in making that assumption.
An Open Letter to Operation Grange
J C, former Met Police
I wish to register a formal complaint in regard to Operation Grange , the so called Met Police search for Madeleine McCann.
I do so on the following grounds.
*** Follows comments of sheer ignorance and outrageous slurs ***
I presume during the 5 years of its existence Grange was aware of these matters , yet has acted as if none of this ever happened.
4/ Grange has wasted huge amounts of public money and police time chasing shadows in Portugal which its legal advisors must surely have told them were not viable lines of enquiry. In other words it has done a lot of work and spent a lot of money for the sake of doing it , no other credible reason.
The conclusions here are blatantly obvious.
Operation Grange is a whitewash - a vast PR exercise to promote an abduction scenario that not one shred of evidence exists to support ever even happened.
The implications are equally obvious .
A/ It obstructs the real police investigation going on in Portugal
B/ It potentially supports a criminal fraud of huge proportions the McCanns ongoing business.
C/ It undermines the entire credibility of the whole Metropolitan Police Service ( as if it needed any further help)
D/ It threatens the credibility of the entire UK criminal justice system.
In summary Grange is simply corrupt , it has misappropriated huge amounts of public money , it potentially lets child murderers walk free, it is beyond a disgrace, it is worthy of extensive investigation in itself , that day can't come soon enough.
J C____________________
Those are the barely printable parts of a letter to be found in its libellous entirety still hosted on various hate sites illustrating just exactly what Operation Grange was and is up against
I always thought that Ret Sym is very clever and ultra religeous and thought of himself as JC.I'm not a policeman and never have been, Sadie...or even the risen Christ! I'm more of a humanist these days, and the first time I've seen that godawful letter.
Am I wrong?
Did you write it Myster?
I'm not a policeman and never have been, Sadie...or even the risen Christ! I'm more of a humanist these days, and the first time I've seen that godawful letter.You’re not the Messiah, you’re just a very naughty boy.
I always thought that Ret Sym is very clever and ultra religeous and thought of himself as Jesus C.
Am I wrong?
Did you write it Myster?
UK Government and Parliament
This petition was submitted during the 2015–2017 Conservative government
Rejected petition
Authorise an open Public Inquiry into Operation Grange
It is reported that Operation Grange has been funded £12M (of tax payers money).
The Met Police state The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The inquiry shall review the effectiveness of the MET remit meeting the three key objectives.
More details
The focus of the MET review was the the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
-The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
-UK Law Enforcement agencies,
-Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The UK public should understand the effectiveness of this review, including; what lines of inquiry were followed especially those from the Portuguese Law Enforcement, lines of inquiry closed down and new lines of inquiry opened.
This petition was rejected
Why was this petition rejected?
There’s already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept a new petition when we already have one about a very similar issue.
You are more likely to get action on this issue if you sign and share a single petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards.
Date submitted
13 April 2016
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/127820
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Petition
Order the Home Office to publish a report on the Madeleine McCann inquiry
Enquiries by British (and Portuguese) police forces have cost around £15 million in 8 years. The public is now entitled to a full report on how that has been spent. The report should cover the role of the government, the security services & UK police forces.
More details
This petition is closed
This petition ran for 6 months
3,111 signatures
Date closed
22 April 2016
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The desperation is almost palpable to do everything possible to throw a spanner into the workings of any initiative on behalf of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann. One petition on top of another! One tiresome FOI request after another. It really is quite unbelievable the lengths some will go to in their efforts to disadvantage Madeleine McCann.
It is way beyond time that people who do this with their time take a step back and have a good look at themselves.
Absolutely risible that their petition gleaned a miserable 3,111 over six months.
It's nice to see you supporting the MPS so determindly. They need all the support they can get at the moment after all.Are you more of a Defund Da Police kinda gal then?
I'm not a policeman and never have been, Sadie...or even the risen Christ! I'm more of a humanist these days, and the first time I've seen that godawful letter.
It's nice to see you supporting the MPS so determindly. They need all the support they can get at the moment after all.
Are you more of a Defund Da Police kinda gal then?
It is quite disappointing that you are unable to make a sensible on topic reply regarding the irrefutable campaigns directed towards the McCann family and the unrelenting campaigns against the funding of the body tasked with investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
If you wish to discuss police corruption in general I am sure there must be somewhere on the forum where you can open the topic if it affects you to any extent.
In the interim allow me to remind you that you are posting on the McCann board and the present topic on this thread on which you are posting is "Maddie cops seek yet more cash".
Never heard of that.Blimey, where have you been for the last few years?
There are different viewpoints in case you hadn't noticed. There are those who still hope that Operation Grange can achieve something after 12 years and those who have always suspected that their investigation was flawed from the beginning.And all because on one word in the short remit statement. Again, focusing on one small detail and ignoring anything that doesn’t sit with the agenda = propaganda.
There are different viewpoints in case you hadn't noticed. There are those who still hope that Operation Grange can achieve something after 12 years and those who have always suspected that their investigation was flawed from the beginning.It was up to the PJ to investigate the McCanns and they found no real evidence to implicate the parents
There are different viewpoints in case you hadn't noticed. There are those who still hope that Operation Grange can achieve something after 12 years and those who have always suspected that their investigation was flawed from the beginning.
It was up to the PJ to investigate the McCanns and they found no real evidence to implicate the parents
What you and others can't accept is that all the evidence you think implicates the parents does not stand up to scrutiny
This is no longer of any importance to some, although I am at a loss as to why. Was The PJ Investigation absolute rubbish or was there no real evidence?
As I said, there are different opinions.
its what the investigation believes thats important. ...not some conspiracy loons on the net. I wonder if you will accept the truth if CB is tried and found guilty in the McCann case. I think many sceptics wont
There are different viewpoints in case you hadn't noticed. There are those who still hope that Operation Grange can achieve something after 12 years and those who have always suspected that their investigation was flawed from the beginning.
I think it was described as insufficient evidence, not no evidence.
its what the investigation believes thats important. ...not some conspiracy loons on the net. I wonder if you will accept the truth if CB is tried and found guilty in the McCann case. I think many sceptics wont
And all because on one word in the short remit statement. Again, focusing on one small detail and ignoring anything that doesn’t sit with the agenda = propaganda.
No Chance. And I doubt that you will get an answer to that.
As I said, there are different opinions.
I think people have to be very thick to think that an active police investigation remains static like flies in aspic and doesn't evolve with the evidence.
The mere fact that money is still being given to the Met to keep Madeleine's show on the road proves that their opinion is that it is still very much a work in progress.
This is no longer of any importance to some, although I am at a loss as to why. Was The PJ Investigation absolute rubbish or was there no real evidence?
As I said, there are different opinions.
I think it was described as insufficient evidence, not no evidence.I thought it was described as a lack of evidence - same term as used for Robert Murat wasn't it?
Ultimately the Rebelo investigation was sound.
Proof of that is I believe, that very many of the events noted in the files were only collated when he took over the job after Amaral's sacking from the case and his demotion.
Some of those "opinions" have resulted in tabloids paying out a lot of money in libel damages.
I don't think they were convicted and ordered to pay by the courts, so they paid out a lot of money because in their 'opinions' they would lose any such case.yes because they knew they'd been caught bang to rights, just as Fox News has been shown to have lied resulting in a hasty out of court settlement with Dominion. So what is your point exactly?
I think it was described as insufficient evidence, not no evidence.
I already answered it. Brueckner isn't being charged. But supporters are trapped by the concrete evidence now, because to doubt the official spokesman for the BKA would be insane.
insufficient
ADJECTIVE
not enough; inadequate:
"there was insufficient evidence to convict him"
SIMILAR: inadequate deficient poor scant scanty scarce sparse short in short supply at a premium lacking wanting paltry meagre niggardly skimpy sketchy incomplete restricted limited exiguous not enough too little too few too small
There was NO evidence arising from dog interlligence
There was NO forensic evidence
There was NO circumstantial evidence
In effect there was NO evidence to validate the Amaral investigation's suspiciions.
Civilised societies do not conduct criminal proceedings of any kind under such circumstances. The kangaroo court of the internet can do very much whatever it feels like and who gives a tinker's curse about the impotence of that.
Quite simply - internet sceptics have failed in their prime objective of curtailing the funding of the investigation of Madeleine's case. And that is a very good thing as proceedings are under way to bring justice to victims of other crimes too many years after the crimes were committed, as a direct result.
I thought it was described as a lack of evidence - same term as used for Robert Murat wasn't it?
I don't think they were convicted and ordered to pay by the courts, so they paid out a lot of money because in their 'opinions' they would lose any such case.
They have legal advisors who unlike you know what the law is.There is a school of sceptic thought that the papers printed the truth but simply couldn't be arsed to defend themselves in court so decided to settle out of court and give lots of money to the criminal parents and their friends instead *%87
What's your rush.
There are five court cases pending against Brueckner and neither he or his legal team seem to be in a rush to proceed with any of them.
Nobody gets indicted for anything in any jurisdiction if the evidence to do so is lacking.
Portugal's attorney general said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/family/madeleine-mccann-parents-guilty-54748
Portugal's attorney general said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.your cite also contains
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/family/madeleine-mccann-parents-guilty-54748
your cite also contains
July 2008, the McCanns were formally cleared as suspects by a Portugese court and no longer named as "arguidos" in the case.