UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: kizzy on October 01, 2022, 02:28:28 PM
-
Who would have the motive to remove Maddie from the apartment and the most to gain from her disappearance.
-
Someone who enjoys harming little children, either purely for pleasure or for pleasure and profit.
-
As it seems at the moment every thing is concentrated on evidence yet it seems the only evidence is circumstantial.
Out of the two people currently involve are the mccs CB.
Who would have the most to gain from Maddie's disappearance?
There is no evidence of abduction
IMO it would be the mccs who would have lost everything if like GA says a tragic accident happened when they were not there.
What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found?
I can't see a child sex offender caring what child he took and would have gone for an easier target.
Although being a nasty piece of work two-bit crook ... he is supposed to have committed the perfect crime
-
Someone who enjoys harming little children, either purely for pleasure or for pleasure and profit.
That's your view ....but you don't know Maddie was actually abducted
-
As it seems at the moment every thing is concentrated on evidence yet it seems the only evidence is circumstantial.
Out of the two people currently involve are the mccs CB.
Who would have the most to gain from Maddie's disappearance?
There is no evidence of abduction
IMO it would be the mccs who would have lost everything if like GA says a tragic accident happened when they were not there.
What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found?
I can't see a child sex offender caring what child he took and would have gone for an easier target.
Although being a nasty piece of work two-bit crook ... he is supposed to have committed the perfect crime
The McCanns are not still involved.. They are not arguido and never can be
-
That's your view ....but you don't know Maddie was actually abducted
I didn’t even mention the word abducted. You asked a question and I answered.
-
As it seems at the moment every thing is concentrated on evidence yet it seems the only evidence is circumstantial.
Out of the two people currently involve are the mccs CB.
Who would have the most to gain from Maddie's disappearance?
There is no evidence of abduction
IMO it would be the mccs who would have lost everything if like GA says a tragic accident happened when they were not there.
What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found?
I can't see a child sex offender caring what child he took and would have gone for an easier target.
Although being a nasty piece of work two-bit crook ... he is supposed to have committed the perfect crime
What on earth does the sentence in bold mean? Furthermore if you think CB is supposed to have committed the perfect crime then what about the McCanns? Wasn’t theirs even more perfect? Get rid of the troublesome child AND all the fame and fortune that follows AND they can never, ever be prosecuted either! What master criminals, eh?
And - why does anyone go to the trouble of abducting a child from their bedroom? You do know it’s happened before don’t you?
-
What on earth does the sentence in bold mean? Furthermore if you think CB is supposed to have committed the perfect crime then what about the McCanns? Wasn’t theirs even more perfect? Get rid of the troublesome child AND all the fame and fortune that follows AND they can never, ever be prosecuted either! What master criminals, eh?
And - why does anyone go to the trouble of abducting a child from their bedroom? You do know it’s happened before don’t you?
what about the McCanns? Wasn’t theirs even more perfect?
Were they ever properly investigated?
Colin Sutton said he was warned by senior friend in the Met about case in 2010
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.
Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.
They were interviewed by Portuguese Police, who have always worked on the basis that Madeleine was abducted from her room, but Mr Sutton said other possibilities should be entertained.
-
what about the McCanns? Wasn’t theirs even more perfect?
Were they ever properly investigated?
Colin Sutton said he was warned by senior friend in the Met about case in 2010
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.
Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.
They were interviewed by Portuguese Police, who have always worked on the basis that Madeleine was abducted from her room, but Mr Sutton said other possibilities should be entertained.
I'm fairly sure that's all junk... On his blog he gives the totality of the advice he received.. I don't think the McCanns were mentioned
-
No one mentioned the mccanns to Sutton
However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well. This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".
That is the totality of the advice I received.
-
what about the McCanns? Wasn’t theirs even more perfect?
Were they ever properly investigated?
Colin Sutton said he was warned by senior friend in the Met about case in 2010
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.
Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.
They were interviewed by Portuguese Police, who have always worked on the basis that Madeleine was abducted from her room, but Mr Sutton said other possibilities should be entertained.
You seem to be suggesting that the PJ failed to investigate the McCanns properly. I don’t know what that’s got to do with my point. You claimed CB would have carried out the perfect crime - maybe if HE’D been properly investigated in 2007 he’d have been banged up sooner.
-
You seem to be suggesting that the PJ failed to investigate the McCanns properly. I don’t know what that’s got to do with my point. You claimed CB would have carried out the perfect crime - maybe if HE’D been properly investigated in 2007 he’d have been banged up sooner.
Still believing Brueckner abducted Maddie are we? Delusional.
-
Someone who enjoys harming little children, either purely for pleasure or for pleasure and profit.
What a lurid mind you have.
-
As it seems at the moment every thing is concentrated on evidence yet it seems the only evidence is circumstantial.
Out of the two people currently involve are the mccs CB.
Who would have the most to gain from Maddie's disappearance?
There is no evidence of abduction
IMO it would be the mccs who would have lost everything if like GA says a tragic accident happened when they were not there.
What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found?
I can't see a child sex offender caring what child he took and would have gone for an easier target.
Although being a nasty piece of work two-bit crook ... he is supposed to have committed the perfect crime
“What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found”?
A conviction for abusing his girlfriend’s 5-year-old daughter. The internet chat, wanting to catch something small, torture it for days … Him exposing himself to young children in Messines. The Joana Eilts incident at Salema beach.
-
“What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found”?
A conviction for abusing his girlfriend’s 5-year-old daughter. The internet chat, wanting to catch something small, torture it for days … Him exposing himself to young children in Messines. The Joana Eilts incident at Salema beach.
None of that is a motive, but decent effort.
-
None of that is a motive, but decent effort.
Please explain why it’s not motive.
-
Please explain why it’s not motive.
A motive is a reason. You've provided a list of examples of precursors to his deviant sexual proclivities. Cart before the horse.
-
A motive is a reason. You've provided a list of examples of precursors to his deviant sexual proclivities. Cart before the horse.
Can you please break that down. English is my third language.
-
Can you please break that down. English is my third language.
Based on his previous predilections and alleged statements of intent that you’ve already highlighted, CB’s motive would clearly be of a sexual and sadistic nature. The General is just splitting hairs, ignore him.
-
Can you please break that down. English is my third language.
Certainly. If you had said 'he is motivated by a sexual desire for young children', then that would be a motive.
The list of alleged / actual crimes committed are indicators of that sexual desire.
Happy to help, even when others aren't so forthcoming.
-
Certainly. If you had said 'he is motivated by a sexual desire for young children', then that would be a motive.
The list of alleged / actual crimes committed are indicators of that sexual desire.
Happy to help, even when others aren't so forthcoming.
So, it comes down to semantics.
-
So, it comes down to semantics.
No. The 'motive' is the reason why Karen killed Bob with a paperweight. Karen wanted to cash in Bob's life insurance. That's the motive - money.
Karen had a long history of domestic abuse towards Bob - that's the 'proof' of Karen's predeliction to violent outbursts.
Not semantics, but two very separate concepts, particularly in law.
Once again, happy to oblige.
-
Chloe Campbell (Australia) was abducted as a threat to her parents - retribution? Found alive.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/chloe-campbell-3-abducted-from-childers-home-after-threats-against-father/news-story/184111647172b239cc5d60e90f20a087
Cleo Smith was abducted by a stranger who had a fetish for dolls. Her abductor had been watching her family after noticing a pink bike outside the family's tent. He lured her away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10482913/Cleo-Smith-Four-year-old-allegedly-told-lie-taken-Blowholes-campsite-Carnarvon.html
There was a bucket and spade outside the front door of 5A which may have piqued a random deviant's interest, leading to him watching the family and abducting Madeleine.
The murders of Emily Jones and Lilia Valutyte in broad daylight had no obvious motives but they happened.
Christian B, the latest named suspect has a known tendency to burglary and child sexual abuse, both of which can result in financial gain, hence a motive. Do I think he sexually abused Madeleine? No. I think he was just paid to kill her for another reason.
-
So, it comes down to semantics.
I think we all knew exactly what you meant, it’s just that someone seized the opportunity to be pedantic.
-
Chloe Campbell (Australia) was abducted as a threat to her parents - retribution? Found alive.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/chloe-campbell-3-abducted-from-childers-home-after-threats-against-father/news-story/184111647172b239cc5d60e90f20a087
Cleo Smith was abducted by a stranger who had a fetish for dolls. Her abductor had been watching her family after noticing a pink bike outside the family's tent. He lured her away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10482913/Cleo-Smith-Four-year-old-allegedly-told-lie-taken-Blowholes-campsite-Carnarvon.html
There was a bucket and spade outside the front door of 5A which may have piqued a random deviant's interest, leading to him watching the family and abducting Madeleine.
The murders of Emily Jones and Lilia Valutyte in broad daylight had no obvious motives but they happened.
Christian B, the latest named suspect has a known tendency to burglary and child sexual abuse, both of which can result in financial gain, hence a motive. Do I think he sexually abused Madeleine? No. I think he was just paid to kill her for another reason.
I think that IF CB was involved, he was paid to merely abduct her and then possibly to drive her away out of the PdL area. I think it was a very strict part of the remit that he didn't touch her or do anything sexual in front of her.
With her exceptional biblical, royal and sacred bloodline (at least from John the Baptist and possibly from Jesus), she was wanted as a pure untouched person. For future breeding from at the correct age and probably she obliged rather than being forced.
The designated young man also had biblical, royal and sacred bloodlines, and it all happened immediately she was legally of age. He fell in love with her, but not immediately.
Now this fits very nicely into my much scorned theory a while ago, but is up for all to see on Matt James Tarot cards.
EXCEPT:
YOU CAN'T SEE IT cos someone has closed access to the relevant Madeleine Tarots on Matt James sites.. I wonder if Matt James knows that his website is being interfered with?
Amazing interference. I wonder why?
I think I know. Do you ?
I bet that OG will be interested that it has been blocked from our eyes, cos thay have a rapport with Matt James. They have spoken with him.
And * The Motive * is to join the two most important bloodlines (Jesus + John the Baptist) in Christianity together, maybe to make their family bloodline the most important in the World, or maybe to make money out it.
My bet is that it is Self aggrandisement, to make the family the most important in the World, but then all this is in my opinion only.
I should mention that one of the Tarot cards showed Madeleine with a tiny crown above her head, from King Davids line.
Oooh! ... and in Matt James' very special opinion too. He is a seriously good psychic, clairvoyant, medium etc and has taken a special interest in The Madeleine case from day 1.
-
I'm sorry Sadie but I no longer have any hope that Madeleine is still alive. 8(8-)) I have trust in the BKA.
-
I'm sorry Sadie but I no longer have any hope that Madeleine is still alive. 8(8-)) I have trust in the BKA.
Misty, I have huge respect for you
.... but can you tell me why SY are searching for a missing Madeleine rather than accepting that she is dead as BKA claim and PT are willing to follow?
I need to point out that The BKA have produced no evidence that Madeleine is dead and seem to be backsliding a wee bit on their claims
And can you tell me why OG are still being awarded money for the search?
These things rest uneasily for me. Also, even now, I keep finding proofs of my suspects involvement in Child S****** abuse. I want Justice for The Mccann family but mainly for Madeleine and the other missing children. Let's have Justice and The missing Children the opportunity to return to their families.
Three final things in case you forget them.
1, How about the photo of Madeleine on the wo/mans back in Zinat in the Rif mountains. Was that Madeleine or was it Bushra?
2. How about Madeleine on the video being walked around the bank at Molenbeek St John in Brussels. From the colours, she appears to be wearing the tartan of the family who I think abducted her. Also an Arran sweater which links in very closely to my suspect.
3. The sighting in Leh in the Himalayas. Three people, two British and one American were convinced that a little girl sighted there was Madeleine.
All these places have links with Hemp. Narcotics and the alterations to the hemp to manufacture the various drugs. Then the transportation and distribution around the Globe. Such distribution has close links with trafficking of humans.
I think that Madeleine was not trafficked as most slaves are because her bloodline was wanted for some nefarious reason as outlined in my post above.
Please do not make Madeleine dead when nothing is definitely known. If everyone claims her dead then the search for her will cease. It is like a death wish on her. I repeat that I am still finding evidence of my suspects involvement and there is lots of it.
Come over to mine and I will share most of it with you. I guarantee you will change your mind.
-
Misty, I have huge respect for you
.... but can you tell me why SY are searching for a missing Madeleine rather than accepting that she is dead as BKA claim and PT are willing to follow?
I need to point out that The BKA have produced no evidence that Madeleine is dead and seem to be backsliding a wee bit on their claims
And can you tell me why OG are still being awarded money for the search?
These things rest uneasily for me. Also, even now, I keep finding proofs of my suspects involvement in Child S****** abuse. I want Justice for The Mccann family but mainly for Madeleine and the other missing children. Let's have Justice and The missing Children the opportunity to return to their families.
Three final things in case you forget them.
1, How about the photo of Madeleine on the wo/mans back in Zinat in the Rif mountains. Was that Madeleine or was it Bushra?
2. How about Madeleine on the video being walked around the bank at Molenbeek St John in Brussels. From the colours, she appears to be wearing the tartan of the family who I think abducted her. Also an Arran sweater which links in very closely to my suspect.
3. The sighting in Leh in the Himalayas. Three people, two British and one American were convinced that a little girl sighted there was Madeleine.
All these places have links with Hemp. Narcotics and the alterations to the hemp to manufacture the various drugs. Then the transportation and distribution around the Globe. Such distribution has close links with trafficking of humans.
I think that Madeleine was not trafficked as most slaves are because her bloodline was wanted for some nefarious reason as outlined in my post above.
Please do not make Madeleine dead when nothing is definitely known. If everyone claims her dead then the search for her will cease. It is like a death wish on her. I repeat that I am still finding evidence of my suspects involvement and there is lots of it.
Come over to mine and I will share most of it with you. I guarantee you will change your mind.
I don't believe for a second SY is looking for a missing Madeleine
...
-
Feel free to waste your precious time on a psychic's fantasy site searching for a tarot card showing Madeleine McCann with a crown above her head...
https://mara-gamiel.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine%20McCann (https://mara-gamiel.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine%20McCann)
-
I don't believe for a second SY is looking for a missing Madeleine
...
That's probably why it was destined to fail.
Operation Grange destined to fail?
The review and investigation conducted by Operation Grange, a special unit set up within London’s police force more than a decade ago, was always destined to fail, according to a well-known, distinguished London detective who said he would not get involved in the case because the official remit of Operation Grange was to investigate the “abduction” in the Algarve as if it had taken place in the UK. Why such a limited remit when suspicions hovered over Madeleine’s parents and while there was very little credible evidence that Madeleine had been abducted?
-
What on earth does the sentence in bold mean? Furthermore if you think CB is supposed to have committed the perfect crime then what about the McCanns? Wasn’t theirs even more perfect? Get rid of the troublesome child AND all the fame and fortune that follows AND they can never, ever be prosecuted either! What master criminals, eh?
And - why does anyone go to the trouble of abducting a child from their bedroom? You do know it’s happened before don’t you?
You do know it’s happened before don’t you?
What like it's a natural occurrence children go missing in Portugal from their beds.
-
“What would CB's motive have been to abduct an English little girl that no trace has ever been found”?
A conviction for abusing his girlfriend’s 5-year-old daughter. The internet chat, wanting to catch something small, torture it for days … Him exposing himself to young children in Messines. The Joana Eilts incident at Salema beach.
Yes, he is an absolutely nasty piece of work ...but what motive would he have to suddenly start another career in abduction he comes across as being more impulsive rather than stealing a child.
If he had successfully got away with it as some think....why did he stop at just Maddie.
How would he know the children were left on their own in the first place....and would be for the rest of the week.
-
You do know it’s happened before don’t you?
What like it's a natural occurrence children go missing in Portugal from their beds.
I can only imagine you’re being deliberately obtuse. Did I say it was a natural occurrence? Did I mention Portugal? You questioned why any paedo would bother snatching a child from its bedroom and I pointed out that it has happened before, several times. Whether or not it happened in Portugal or Timbuktu is kind of irrelevant (though there may well be more registered paedos living in the Algarve than in Timbuktu).
-
That's probably why it was destined to fail.
Operation Grange destined to fail?
The review and investigation conducted by Operation Grange, a special unit set up within London’s police force more than a decade ago, was always destined to fail, according to a well-known, distinguished London detective who said he would not get involved in the case because the official remit of Operation Grange was to investigate the “abduction” in the Algarve as if it had taken place in the UK. Why such a limited remit when suspicions hovered over Madeleine’s parents and while there was very little credible evidence that Madeleine had been abducted?
You are just quoting someones opinion..
When SY first got involved I doubted very much tehy would be able to solve such a cold case....but it looks as though they have. Well done SY
-
Yes, he is an absolutely nasty piece of work ...but what motive would he have to suddenly start another career in abduction he comes across as being more impulsive rather than stealing a child.
If he had successfully got away with it as some think....why did he stop at just Maddie.
How would he know the children were left on their own in the first place....and would be for the rest of the week.
Let’s examine the McCanns motive then. Why do you think they had to dispose of the body?
-
You are just quoting someones opinion..
When SY first got involved I doubted very much tehy would be able to solve such a cold case....but it looks as though they have. Well done SY
Well, just seems the same now quoting someone's opinion...yours
-
I can only imagine you’re being deliberately obtuse. Did I say it was a natural occurrence? Did I mention Portugal? You questioned why any paedo would bother snatching a child from its bedroom and I pointed out that it has happened before, several times. Whether or not it happened in Portugal or Timbuktu is kind of irrelevant (though there may well be more registered paedos living in the Algarve than in Timbuktu).
more registered paedos living in the Algarve
Seems there are hundreds.
Why I'm not sure...but it does seem to me CB rather than have a motive for abducting Maddie
Is being fitted to the crime ....rather than the crime fitting him.
-
Well, just seems the same now quoting someone's opinion...yours
Aas long as you understand you are not quoting facts. Almost everything is an opinion. A guity verdict is an opinion.
You have to decide whos opinion caries the most weight.
I see Mark Rowly as a reliable opinion...went to the same school as I did..then went to cambridge to study maths...very bright.
Hes seen all the evidence that we havent....and concludes maddie was abducted
-
more registered paedos living in the Algarve
Seems there are hundreds.
Why I'm not sure...but it does seem to me CB rather than have a motive for abducting Maddie
Is being fitted to the crime ....rather than the crime fitting him.
Do you think CB is innocent of the crime of entering an old woman’s property and sadistically raping her?
-
Let’s examine the McCanns motive then. Why do you think they had to dispose of the body?
Not so hard VS ...if GA is right and an accident occurred either way Maddie would be dead.
Seems not only had they lost Maddie ...they would lose everything.
We know reputation for the mccs seems vital... reputation imo is top of the list even now.
The grieving process would be the same either way.
They were in a foreign country it seems on survival mode.
there is a thing called fight or flight.
Fight-or-flight response
The fight-or-flight or the fight-flight-or-freeze response is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. It was first described by Walter Bradford.
GA has never been proved wrong in his theory and to this day he believes only the mccs had a motive to make maddie disappear.
-
Not so hard VS ...if GA is right and an accident occurred either way Maddie would be dead.
Seems not only had they lost Maddie ...they would lose everything.
We know reputation for the mccs seems vital... reputation imo is top of the list even now.
The grieving process would be the same either way.
They were in a foreign country it seems on survival mode.
there is a thing called fight or flight.
Fight-or-flight response
The fight-or-flight or the fight-flight-or-freeze response is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. It was first described by Walter Bradford.
GA has never been proved wrong in his theory and to this day he believes only the mccs had a motive to make maddie disappear.
Sadies theory has ever been proven wrong either....Amnarals theory is not based on any evidence..hes an absolute clown afaiac
-
Not so hard VS ...if GA is right and an accident occurred either way Maddie would be dead.
Seems not only had they lost Maddie ...they would lose everything.
We know reputation for the mccs seems vital... reputation imo is top of the list even now.
The grieving process would be the same either way.
They were in a foreign country it seems on survival mode.
there is a thing called fight or flight.
Fight-or-flight response
The fight-or-flight or the fight-flight-or-freeze response is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. It was first described by Walter Bradford.
GA has never been proved wrong in his theory and to this day he believes only the mccs had a motive to make maddie disappear.
So if Madeleine had had an accident you think it would be better for the McCann's to stage an abduction rather than to admit that Madeleine had died from an accident??? To me it is worse that Madeleine could have been abducted. Falling and dying from an accident is far better than being abducted by some Paedophile. They admitted they weren't there they admitted the door was open so what in your way of thinking would be better to not admit to an accident but to stage an abduction instead?
By the way Amaral's theory was not proven, it was not proven that the McCann's had given Madeleine Campol, it was not proven that Madeleine could hear her father talking on the road, neither was it proven she fell. The dogs didn't prove anything either even though Amaral said they did.
-
Not so hard VS ...if GA is right and an accident occurred either way Maddie would be dead.
Seems not only had they lost Maddie ...they would lose everything.
We know reputation for the mccs seems vital... reputation imo is top of the list even now.
The grieving process would be the same either way.
They were in a foreign country it seems on survival mode.
there is a thing called fight or flight.
Fight-or-flight response
The fight-or-flight or the fight-flight-or-freeze response is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. It was first described by Walter Bradford.
GA has never been proved wrong in his theory and to this day he believes only the mccs had a motive to make maddie disappear.
Young children die in accidents all over the world and most cases can be traced back to inadequate parental supervision or care to a greater or lesser degree. Most people care about their reputstions and careers. Very few parents (personally I can’t think of any) have covered up the accidental death of a much loved and otherwise well cared for child by faking an abduction simply to protect their own skins. I would say it’s a less common occurrence than children actually being abducted by a stranger.
-
Sadies theory has ever been proven wrong either....Amnarals theory is not based on any evidence..hes an absolute clown afaiac
Well obviously ...
But he knows much much more than you.
Wolt's theory is not based on evidence either....and seems to have backfired big time,..you can't prove otherwise.
What you need to look at is motive.
Even wolt IMO had a motive to use Maddie's case to get maximum publicity for other cases he was trying to solve.
-
So if Madeleine had had an accident you think it would be better for the McCann's to stage an abduction rather than to admit that Madeleine had died from an accident??? To me it is worse that Madeleine could have been abducted. Falling and dying from an accident is far better than being abducted by some Paedophile. They admitted they weren't there they admitted the door was open so what in your way of thinking would be better to not admit to an accident but to stage an abduction instead?
By the way Amaral's theory was not proven, it was not proven that the McCann's had given Madeleine Campol, it was not proven that Madeleine could hear her father talking on the road, neither was it proven she fell. The dogs didn't prove anything either even though Amaral said they did.
No well GA never got the chance did he ...so you will never know what the outcome would be.
The DNA was inconclusive .......didn't gmc have to come back to uk for dna IIRCFN
-
Young children die in accidents all over the world and most cases can be traced back to inadequate parental supervision or care to a greater or lesser degree. Most people care about their reputstions and careers. Very few parents (personally I can’t think of any) have covered up the accidental death of a much loved and otherwise well cared for child by faking an abduction simply to protect their own skins. I would say it’s a less common occurrence than children actually being abducted by a stranger.
If an accident occurred Maddie was gone. They were in a foreign country ...survival could have kicked in.IMO
Seems GA has always been the thorn in the mccs side....k mcc even for gave abductor...yet not GA.
The abduction was the mccs theory ...yet they let 20+ people into the room to search...after kmcc had already searched for 10 mins.
Can you make any sense of why the mccs did that?
-
Yes, he is an absolutely nasty piece of work ...but what motive would he have to suddenly start another career in abduction he comes across as being more impulsive rather than stealing a child.
If he had successfully got away with it as some think....why did he stop at just Maddie.
How would he know the children were left on their own in the first place....and would be for the rest of the week.
I would agree that CB doesn't seem to be a plotter or planner. His previous/alleged encounters with children haven't been planned, anyway.
-
Let’s examine the McCanns motive then. Why do you think they had to dispose of the body?
Why do you think they had to dispose of the body?
Silly question really, but how else do you suppose maddie could have been abducted if she was still there.
-
Do you think CB is innocent of the crime of entering an old woman’s property and sadistically raping her?
Now I didn't say that, did I?
It's also not about crimes that CB has committed.
It's about what his motive was to abduct Maddie.
By your reply it seems you haven't got one VS.
-
Now I didn't say that, did I?
It's also not about crimes that CB has committed.
It's about what his motive was to abduct Maddie.
By your reply it seems you haven't got one VS.
Motive.. Who wouldn't want to **** a child.. Use it for days.. Torture and document it... Wouldn't get caught if evidence destroyed.. All those are his words
-
If an accident occurred Maddie was gone. They were in a foreign country ...survival could have kicked in.IMO
Seems GA has always been the thorn in the mccs side....k mcc even for gave abductor...yet not GA.
The abduction was the mccs theory ...yet they let 20+ people into the room to search...after kmcc had already searched for 10 mins.
Can you make any sense of why the mccs did that?
So your child has died in an accident. What sort of evidence do you think would be destroyed by allowing people into the room where she had been sleeping?
-
I would agree that CB doesn't seem to be a plotter or planner. His previous/alleged encounters with children haven't been planned, anyway.
Do you think he raped an old lady in her own home on a passing whim then?
-
Why do you think they had to dispose of the body?
Silly question really, but how else do you suppose maddie could have been abducted if she was still there.
So there was nothing about her body that would have pointed to any other form of neglect or abuse in your view?
-
Motive.. Who wouldn't want to **** a child.. Use it for days.. Torture and document it... Wouldn't get caught if evidence destroyed.. All those are his words
Is that documented ....or is it just more hearsay
Creeps like him can and do have fantasies.... doesn't mean to say they carry them out.
fantasy.
the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
I'm sure if that was the motive - as you think In Portugal at the time he could have done that with a lot less planning and risk [although horrible to say].
Or do you think it had to be a English child with blond hair.
-
Now I didn't say that, did I?
It's also not about crimes that CB has committed.
It's about what his motive was to abduct Maddie.
By your reply it seems you haven't got one VS.
I know you didn’t say it, that’s why I asked you if you think he’s innocent of the crime of entering a home and raping the owner. Well do you or not?
-
Is that documented ....or is it just more hearsay
Creeps like him can and do have fantasies.... doesn't mean to say they carry them out.
fantasy.
the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
I'm sure if that was the motive - as you think In Portugal at the time he could have done that with a lot less planning and risk [although horrible to say].
Or do you think it had to be a English child with blond hair.
It’s documented. He wrote those words.
-
Is that documented ....or is it just more hearsay
Creeps like him can and do have fantasies.... doesn't mean to say they carry them out.
fantasy.
the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
I'm sure if that was the motive - as you think In Portugal at the time he could have done that with a lot less planning and risk [although horrible to say].
Or do you think it had to be a English child with blond hair.
Anyone who has a good knowledge of the case knows he said that.. And where and when he said it. You obviously don't have a good knowledge of the case.. I'll leave it there
Perhaps if you understood all the real facts you would realise the mccanns are innocent... But you prefer the words of a convicted liar... Lol
-
So you child has died in an accident. What sort of evidence do you think would be destroyed by allowing people into the room where she had been sleeping?
What's wrong with you ...confusion for a start.......confusion is a good thing.
Any proof of an intruder would have been out the window. [the open one that was never proved]
So any proof of a so-called intruder would have been lost...as the crime scene destroyed it seems by the mccs.
-
So there was nothing about her body that would have pointed to any other form of neglect or abuse in your view?
I doubt it would be natural causes.
-
Anyone who has a good knowledge of the case knows he said that.. And where and when he said it. You obviously don't have a good knowledge of the case.. I'll leave it there
Perhaps if you understood all the real facts you would realise the mccanns are innocent... But you prefer the words of a convicted liar... Lol
Typical response... the best form of defence is attack.
I have all the knowledge I need ....wolt said CB is the abductor the fact is he has nothing to prove that.
-
It’s documented. He wrote those words.
Still doesn't prove it wasn't a fantasy....or motive
-
Typical response... the best form of defence is attack.
I have all the knowledge I need ....wolt said CB is the abductor the fact is he has nothing to prove that.
Amaral says Maddie died in the apartment.. He has no proof... And doesn't claim any evidence.. But you believe him
You don't know what evidence Wolters has
-
Motive.. Who wouldn't want to **** a child.. Use it for days.. Torture and document it... Wouldn't get caught if evidence destroyed.. All those are his words
Allegedly. 2nd hand, tainted account. But please do go on. Seems you'll happily accept the word of a convicted sex offender after all.
-
Allegedly. 2nd hand, tainted account. But please do go on. Seems you'll happily accept the word of a convicted sex offender after all.
Do you have a cite for that source
-
Allegedly. 2nd hand, tainted account. But please do go on. Seems you'll happily accept the word of a convicted sex offender after all.
Thh convicted sex offender found the video of the amarican rape.. Did he make that up too
-
Do you have a cite for that source
The source you alluded to and trust implicity? Of course I do. But you need to provide it, not me.
Or delete your post.
-
What's wrong with you ...confusion for a start.......confusion is a good thing.
Any proof of an intruder would have been out the window. [the open one that was never proved]
So any proof of a so-called intruder would have been lost...as the crime scene destroyed it seems by the mccs.
I’m struggling to stay polite with you but if you persist with the “what’s wrong with you” type comment I might have to reconsider. So you stage an abduction but the only thing you actually stage is the open window which you then close before the police get there. What’s your motive for doing so?
-
Do you have a cite for that source
The source is the dark web chat which was discovered by the police was it not?
-
The source is the dark web chat which was discovered by the police was it not?
Hehehe.....dark web.....
The experts are here in force again I see.
-
The source you alluded to and trust implicity? Of course I do. But you need to provide it, not me.
Or delete your post.
Afaik.. The police were monitoring the dark Web... They even had the name he used on line
-
Afaik.. The police were monitoring the dark Web... They even had the name he used on line
So not 2nd hand and not allegedly, these are the very words CB wrote, which some people would prefer to ignore or doubt.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/pledgetimes.com/they-reveal-the-conversations-on-the-dark-web-of-the-alleged-girls-kidnapper/amp/
-
Hehehe.....dark web.....
The experts are here in force again I see.
Strangely the dark web can be monitored but not shut down ?
-
Strangely the dark web can be monitored but not shut down ?
Why do you think it strange?
-
I’m struggling to stay polite with you but if you persist with the “what’s wrong with you” type comment I might have to reconsider. So you stage an abduction but the only thing you actually stage is the open window which you then close before the police get there. What’s your motive for doing so?
As for the window ...who knows maybe, it should have been jemmied ...but wasn't.
But seems it had to be opened for the curtains to blow....yet JT didn't see it open when she Passed or MO when he did the listening check
She ran out and left that window open ...so I presume the door would have slammed shut again.
How vulnerable would that have left the twins if that window had been opened by an intruder?
Like she searched the apartment for ten minutes..looked out the window, yet she didn't look out the front door that leads into the car park.
-
As for the window ...who knows maybe, it should have been jemmied ...but wasn't.
But seems it had to be opened for the curtains to blow....yet JT didn't see it open when she Passed or MO when he did the listening check
She ran out and left that window open ...so I presume the door would have slammed shut again.
How vulnerable would that have left the twins if that window had been opened by an intruder?
Like she searched the apartment for ten minutes..looked out the window, yet she didn't look out the front door that leads into the car park.
Your post is nonsensical in my view. The elephant in the room is the almost complete absence of staging. A window that had been open according to the abduction stager but then closed by the abduction stager before the police got there, the almost unruffled bedclothes, the presence of the cuddly toy, the lack of disturbance of any of the furniture in the room, all these factors are used by sceptics to say “what abductor “ and yet if you were staging an abduction wouldn’t you actually try and make it look like an abduction?
-
MOTIVE folks MOTIVE thankyou
-
Strangely the dark web can be monitored but not shut down ?
Pandora’s box has been opened, it cannot be shut down.
-
Wouldn’t the McCanns be the only parents ever to have staged an abduction of a much loved and cared for child that had died in an accident? Or are there other examples? Let’s see other cases where this has been the motive, ie staging an abduction to cover up the accidental death of one’s own child to protect a reputation or livlihood.
-
Pandora’s box has been opened, it cannot be shut down.
I think that is well known. Just as well known as the reasons for that. Stamp on a cockroach and you've got a problem and Brueckner as an inhabitant of the dark web most certainly had motive in spades for abducting children.
Paraguay cops dismantle global paedophile ring with links to Madeleine McCann
One of the senior figures in the gang is a known contact of the prime suspect in the little girl’s disappearance 14 years ago.
A global paedophile ring with links to disappeared British child Madeleine McCann has been dismantled in a major police bust.
Police in Paraguay arrested multiple people involved in an international network that shared child sex abuse images.
One of the top figures in the gang was a known contact of Christian Brueckner, the number one suspect in McCann’s kidnapping.
South American authorities think that the new arrests could help in solving McCann’s case, which has remained a mystery for 14 years.
Commissioner Nimio Cardozo from the Paraguay police anti-kidnap section, told The Mirror: “There are elements, we believe, whereby our security agencies could contribute to clarifying the Madeleine case.”
Paraguayan police officers arrested a senior member of the paedophile ring, German citizen Christian Kruse, on April 12.
The 58-year-old was arrested at his riverbank property in Belen, along with three others also believed to be high up in the gang.
Police seized his computer and believe they might find more information on the McCann case.
“Forensic analysis of computers in Paraguay and Germany led to the identification of more than 5000 connected IP addresses that were exchanging paedophile videos and photos,” Cardozo said.
“We haven’t ruled out the possibility that among all that big data there could be important information for the Madeleine case.”
Paraguay Police have passed on their findings to German authorities, who are currently investigating Brueckner.
In June 2020, German police for the first time named Christian Brueckner as a suspect in the case. Brueckner is a convicted paedophile currently serving time in jail for drug-related offences.
Children’s clothes and swimwear were reportedly found in his campervan, which caused him to become the lead suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
https://7news.com.au/news/missing-person/paraguay-cops-dismantle-global-paedophile-ring-with-links-to-madeleine-mccann-c-2889192
-
Old news. Any new news ?
-
Old news. Any new news ?
Don’t worry, we’ll wake you up when there is some.
-
Amaral says Maddie died in the apartment.. He has no proof... And doesn't claim any evidence.. But you believe him
You don't know what evidence Wolters has
No, neither do you.
-
Old news. Any new news ?
Recent news ~ Alex Turner-Cohen / Missing Person / Updated 20.05.2021
A man has been found guilty of the double murder of a mother and her toddler son 43 years ago. Old news and Current news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-63074084
Brueckner's associate was arrested and extradited very recently using that yardstick. What's the saying? "Justice Never Sleeps".
There are many possible motives for the perpetrators of crimes against children and Brueckner is a man whose associates - his association with the dark web - most certainly is a guy associated with the motivation behind such a crime.
Which is probably the train of thought being followed by the Policia Judiciaria when they constituted him arguido.
-
18 months - old news
-
I think that is well known. Just as well known as the reasons for that. Stamp on a cockroach and you've got a problem and Brueckner as an inhabitant of the dark web most certainly had motive in spades for abducting children.
Paraguay cops dismantle global paedophile ring with links to Madeleine McCann
One of the senior figures in the gang is a known contact of the prime suspect in the little girl’s disappearance 14 years ago.
A global paedophile ring with links to disappeared British child Madeleine McCann has been dismantled in a major police bust.
Police in Paraguay arrested multiple people involved in an international network that shared child sex abuse images.
One of the top figures in the gang was a known contact of Christian Brueckner, the number one suspect in McCann’s kidnapping.
South American authorities think that the new arrests could help in solving McCann’s case, which has remained a mystery for 14 years.
Commissioner Nimio Cardozo from the Paraguay police anti-kidnap section, told The Mirror: “There are elements, we believe, whereby our security agencies could contribute to clarifying the Madeleine case.”
Paraguayan police officers arrested a senior member of the paedophile ring, German citizen Christian Kruse, on April 12.
The 58-year-old was arrested at his riverbank property in Belen, along with three others also believed to be high up in the gang.
Police seized his computer and believe they might find more information on the McCann case.
“Forensic analysis of computers in Paraguay and Germany led to the identification of more than 5000 connected IP addresses that were exchanging paedophile videos and photos,” Cardozo said.
“We haven’t ruled out the possibility that among all that big data there could be important information for the Madeleine case.”
Paraguay Police have passed on their findings to German authorities, who are currently investigating Brueckner.
In June 2020, German police for the first time named Christian Brueckner as a suspect in the case. Brueckner is a convicted paedophile currently serving time in jail for drug-related offences.
Children’s clothes and swimwear were reportedly found in his campervan, which caused him to become the lead suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
https://7news.com.au/news/missing-person/paraguay-cops-dismantle-global-paedophile-ring-with-links-to-madeleine-mccann-c-2889192
“We haven’t ruled out the possibility that among all that big data there could be important information for the Madeleine case.”
OH, Lol ......is that it a possibility .... . or there could be.
-
“We haven’t ruled out the possibility that among all that big data there could be important information for the Madeleine case.”
OH, Lol ......is that it a possibility .... . or there could be.
Then of course the situation regarding who had a motive for abducting Madeleine might tie in with whoever it was who covered up for that person.
It is acknowledged that like the story which "was badly told" there was a badly conducted investigation. To which one has to give consideration of what was it, "incompetence" v "corruption"
I just don't think anyone could possibly have been as incompetent as the Amaral team was; at least not on purpose and certainly not twice in a row.
-
So not 2nd hand and not allegedly, these are the very words CB wrote, which some people would prefer to ignore or doubt.
Not at all.
I'm looking forward to reading his book actually.
-
I think that is well known. Just as well known as the reasons for that. Stamp on a cockroach and you've got a problem and Brueckner as an inhabitant of the dark web most certainly had motive in spades for abducting children.
Can I point out that there is no evidence that Bruckner abducted any child which renders your theory null and void.
IMO Bruckner is just a patsy like all the other patsies they tried to pin the abduction on.
-
“We haven’t ruled out the possibility that among all that big data there could be important information for the Madeleine case.”
OH, Lol ......is that it a possibility .... . or there could be.
Kizzy. There was a sighting of Madeleine near Asuncion, Paraquay.
-
Can I point out that there is no evidence that Bruckner abducted any child which renders your theory null and void.
IMO Bruckner is just a patsy like all the other patsies they tried to pin the abduction on.
why did “they” try and do that then? How do the Germans benefit from finding a patsy for Madeleine’s disappearance?
-
Can I point out that there is no evidence that Bruckner abducted any child which renders your theory null and void.
IMO Bruckner is just a patsy like all the other patsies they tried to pin the abduction on.
What 'theory' is that? I wasn't aware I had formulated one. Have you never stopped to wonder why Amaral and his team sought so assiduously to make a patsy out of Murat in the first instance before latching on to Kate and then Gerry McCann without a shred of supporting evidence and what their motive might have been for doing that.
There has been no official suspect (or patsy) since the McCanns were first set up in 2007. Not a single one! They uniquely hold that distinction of having been set up as patsies and continue so to be for some as the innuendo of this thread topic and the spirit of direction of the flow of some of the contributions made to it confirms.
It is disingenuous to wonder what motive a convicted paedophile might have for abducting a small child. Particularly considering he has given chapter and verse to it (vernichten) in chat with his fellow pervert https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393151/Luxury-villa-new-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-raped-72-year-old-tourist.html
-
Angelo’s contribution to this forum is to make some provocative, unevidenced claim and then flit off for days or weeks refusing to defend his claim only to return at a later date to make another goady comment, then rinse and repeat. It’s almost like he’s a troll…
-
Can I point out that there is no evidence that Bruckner abducted any child which renders your theory null and void.
IMO Bruckner is just a patsy like all the other patsies they tried to pin the abduction on.
Thanks for YOUR OPINION which I'm sure you won't my me saying many would regard as total junk.. You may remember it was Amaral the convicted liar who tried to make the McCanns patsys
-
It only took until the third post on this thread before the first slur was directed at Madeleine's parents. While at one and the same time using the vehicle of the same post to ridicule that mere idea that a rapist and prolific paedophile who was on the loose in Luz at the time and never eliminated by police enquiries, would stoop to criminal offending.
You really could not make up an agenda like that! But there it is in full sight for all to see and every bit as sordid as it always has been.
-
It only took until the third post on this thread before the first slur was directed at Madeleine's parents. While at one and the same time using the vehicle of the same post to ridicule that mere idea that a rapist and prolific paedophile who was on the loose in Luz at the time and never eliminated by police enquiries, would stoop to criminal offending.
You really could not make up an agenda like that! But there it is in full sight for all to see and every bit as sordid as it always has been.
There was nothing on which to rule Brueckner in, so pretty easy to rule him out really.
I mean, what evidence was there that Brueckner, in particular, went into 5a & took Maddie out of there?
Wolters can't find anything.
There is however an abundance of evidence the McCanns had easy access to the apartment & indeed, went in & out of it frequently.
Bit hard to rule them out really.
-
although the mccs were never going to leave any stone unturned seems they missed a golden opportunity here.
They have spent practically all their energy on a bitter fight going after GA.
The motive for that was he was harming the search for Maddie [seems it turned out it was reputation etc].
I wonder what their motive was in turning down a chance to prove they were innocent. and prove the DNA is no longer inconclusive.
Offer to help examine DNA samples ignored
Among the other things Operation Grange has showed no interest in is the remarkable offer by Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist and executive of an American company, Cybergenetics, which is reputed to have the world’s most advanced equipment and methods to examine and identify DNA samples. Asked by an Australian news outlet if he could help in the Madeleine case, Dr Perlin said he would gladly analyse forensic samples found by specialist dogs in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and in a car they had hired 25 days after the reported disappearance. He said he could decipher 18 previously unsolvable DNA samples dating back to 2007.
A now defunct laboratory in the UK had been unable to come to any proper conclusions about them. Despite the lapse of time, Dr Perlin was optimistic that if the samples were sent to him, he and his team could accurately identify the DNA in less than a fortnight. He offered his services to Operation Grange free of charge, but he got no response. Dr Perlin extended the offer to Gerry McCann, but he did not respond either. Again, one wonders why.
-
although the mccs were never going to leave any stone unturned seems they missed a golden opportunity here.
They have spent practically all their energy on a bitter fight going after GA.
The motive for that was he was harming the search for Maddie [seems it turned out it was reputation etc].
I wonder what their motive was in turning down a chance to prove they were innocent. and prove the DNA is no longer inconclusive.
Offer to help examine DNA samples ignored
Among the other things Operation Grange has showed no interest in is the remarkable offer by Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist and executive of an American company, Cybergenetics, which is reputed to have the world’s most advanced equipment and methods to examine and identify DNA samples. Asked by an Australian news outlet if he could help in the Madeleine case, Dr Perlin said he would gladly analyse forensic samples found by specialist dogs in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and in a car they had hired 25 days after the reported disappearance. He said he could decipher 18 previously unsolvable DNA samples dating back to 2007.
A now defunct laboratory in the UK had been unable to come to any proper conclusions about them. Despite the lapse of time, Dr Perlin was optimistic that if the samples were sent to him, he and his team could accurately identify the DNA in less than a fortnight. He offered his services to Operation Grange free of charge, but he got no response. Dr Perlin extended the offer to Gerry McCann, but he did not respond either. Again, one wonders why.
You really need to stop believing the junk you read from sceptic websites. Even if perlin could unravel the dna it would be no help whatsoever... But you think it could prove the mccanns innocence
.. It couldn't prove anything.... That's fact not opinion
All sceptics do by pushing this is showing total ignorance of dna science
-
You really need to stop believing the junk you read from sceptic websites. Even if perlin could unravel the dna it would be no help whatsoever... But you think it could prove the mccanns innocence
.. It couldn't prove anything.... That's fact not opinion
All sceptics do by pushing this is showing total ignorance of dna science
Maybe it's Brueckner's dna?
He'd have trouble explaining that away.
-
You really need to stop believing the junk you read from sceptic websites. Even if perlin could unravel the dna it would be no help whatsoever... But you think it could prove the mccanns innocence
.. It couldn't prove anything.... That's fact not opinion
All sceptics do by pushing this is showing total ignorance of dna science
Seems your assumption is wrong again ...Seems like your post will do anything to trash anything posted against the mccs.
https://www.portugalresident.com/madeleine-inquiry-in-the-uk-questions-still-needing-answers/
As you will see it's march this year.
Madeleine McCann has been making headline news internationally yet again as the London Metropolitan Police investigation into her disappearance is reportedly going to be shelved this autumn.
I wonder if the Met’s Operation Grange has been deeply flawed from the very start and could that have something to do with the British ‘establishment’, a network that is said to include top politicians, billionaire newspaper owners and some leading police officers? But now we’re getting into the realm of speculation. Let’s not go there. Let’s stick with some of the facts as we know them.
The UK charity Missing People says that 140,000 people go missing in Britain every year. That’s 383 a day. Two thirds of the cases examined by the charity are under 18 years-of-age. So, why did the British government, diplomats and certain other influential individuals immediately give unprecedented support to the parents of this particular missing child? That’s the first of many fundamental questions that need answering.
Operation Grange destined to fail?
The review and investigation conducted by Operation Grange, a special unit set up within London’s police force more than a decade ago, was always destined to fail, according to a well-known, distinguished London detective who said he would not get involved in the case because the official remit of Operation Grange was to investigate the “abduction” in the Algarve as if it had taken place in the UK. Why such a limited remit when suspicions hovered over Madeleine’s parents and while there was very little credible evidence that Madeleine had been abducted?
-
Maybe it's Brueckner's dna?
He'd have trouble explaining that away.
Gray has just told you the DNA route would be a waste of time, it couldn't prove anything.
-
It only took until the third post on this thread before the first slur was directed at Madeleine's parents. While at one and the same time using the vehicle of the same post to ridicule that mere idea that a rapist and prolific paedophile who was on the loose in Luz at the time and never eliminated by police enquiries, would stoop to criminal offending.
You really could not make up an agenda like that! But there it is in full sight for all to see and every bit as sordid as it always has been.
How can discussing a possible parental motive be described as a slur? They were official suspects in the case and have never managed to prove that they are innocent. Therefore discussing their hypothetical motive is acceptable imo.
CB's possible motive is also an acceptable subject for discussion of course.
-
How can discussing a possible parental motive be described as a slur? They were official suspects in the case and have never managed to prove that they are innocent. Therefore discussing their hypothetical motive is acceptable imo.
CB's possible motive is also an acceptable subject for discussion of course.
The McCanns have never had to prove their innocence, anymore than Brueckner has to prove his.
You really aren't on the right page.
-
How can discussing a possible parental motive be described as a slur? They were official suspects in the case and have never managed to prove that they are innocent. Therefore discussing their hypothetical motive is acceptable imo.
CB's possible motive is also an acceptable subject for discussion of course.
Murat has never proven his innocence either - can we discuss his possible motive?
-
Seems your assumption is wrong again ...Seems like your post will do anything to trash anything posted against the mccs.
https://www.portugalresident.com/madeleine-inquiry-in-the-uk-questions-still-needing-answers/
As you will see it's march this year.
Madeleine McCann has been making headline news internationally yet again as the London Metropolitan Police investigation into her disappearance is reportedly going to be shelved this autumn.
I wonder if the Met’s Operation Grange has been deeply flawed from the very start and could that have something to do with the British ‘establishment’, a network that is said to include top politicians, billionaire newspaper owners and some leading police officers? But now we’re getting into the realm of speculation. Let’s not go there. Let’s stick with some of the facts as we know them.
The UK charity Missing People says that 140,000 people go missing in Britain every year. That’s 383 a day. Two thirds of the cases examined by the charity are under 18 years-of-age. So, why did the British government, diplomats and certain other influential individuals immediately give unprecedented support to the parents of this particular missing child? That’s the first of many fundamental questions that need answering.
Operation Grange destined to fail?
The review and investigation conducted by Operation Grange, a special unit set up within London’s police force more than a decade ago, was always destined to fail, according to a well-known, distinguished London detective who said he would not get involved in the case because the official remit of Operation Grange was to investigate the “abduction” in the Algarve as if it had taken place in the UK. Why such a limited remit when suspicions hovered over Madeleine’s parents and while there was very little credible evidence that Madeleine had been abducted?
My post was about scept DNA ignorance... Which you haven't answered... The Portugal Resident is a junk pro Amaral newspaper that thinks the idiots on CMOMM are experts.. LOL
-
Gray has just told you the DNA route would be a waste of time, it couldn't prove anything.
Sorry but now you are showing your ignorance... They could already check the sample for any match whatsoever to CB... Dont need perlin for that
-
How can discussing a possible parental motive be described as a slur? They were official suspects in the case and have never managed to prove that they are innocent. Therefore discussing their hypothetical motive is acceptable imo.
CB's possible motive is also an acceptable subject for discussion of course.
You do post some rubbish... Could you explain.. as you think you are an expert in everything.... Just how could the mccanns prove their innocence... Its a stupid suggestion... You are welcome to prove me wrong
-
Murat has never proven his innocence either - can we discuss his possible motive?
You are wasting your time. This Thread is a bash The McCanns Thread without a scintilla of logic and more bull shit and innuendo than I have ever read so far on this Forum.
But do carry on you all. You just make yourselves look really vile.
-
Sorry but now you are showing your ignorance... They could already check the sample for any match whatsoever to CB... Dont need perlin for that
Sure you want to go down that road, remind the reader about your confidence about the ECHR going the way of the McCann's after studying case files.
-
You are wasting your time. This Thread is a bash The McCanns Thread without a scintilla of logic and more bull shit and innuendo than I have ever read so far on this Forum.
But do carry on you all. You just make yourselves look really vile.
Is it only vile when theorising McCann involvement or is it equally vile when suggesting anyone else could be responsible, IYO ?
-
My post was about scept DNA ignorance... Which you haven't answered... The Portugal Resident is a junk pro Amaral newspaper that thinks the idiots on CMOMM are experts.. LOL
that thinks the idiots on CMOMM are experts..
Well, you are entitled to your opinion.
It seems to me that anyone on a forum who claims to be an expert is a deluded idiot.
-
that thinks the idiots on CMOMM are experts..
Well, you are entitled to your opinion.
It seems to me that anyone on a forum who claims to be an expert is a deluded idiot.
They think they are experts.. They are deluded.. Fact
Anyone who thinks the cadaver dog confirmed cadaver in the apartment is deluded.. Fact
-
They think they are experts.. They are deluded.. Fact
Anyone who thinks the cadaver dog confirmed cadaver in the apartment is deluded.. Fact
Why is it still there then for all the deluded to read?
n that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A:
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
-
Why is it still there then for all the deluded to read?
n that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A:
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window.
you really have proved my point. This is saying the cadaver dog alerted...which he did. Its not saying what the significance of the alert is.
-
You do post some rubbish... Could you explain.. as you think you are an expert in everything.... Just how could the mccanns prove their innocence... Its a stupid suggestion... You are welcome to prove me wrong
I assume you agree, there's nothing preventing discussion of possible parental motives.
-
I assume you agree, there's nothing preventing discussion of possible parental motives.
You claimed the McCanns hadn't proved their innocence.
I asked you how they could do that.. You haven't replied
-
You claimed the McCanns hadn't proved their innocence.
I asked you how they could do that.. You haven't replied
I don't know, but their lawyer tried very hard to do it during a long running libel trial in Portugal. So why should any mention of parental motive be seen as a 'slur'?
-
I don't know, but their lawyer tried very hard to do it during a long running libel trial in Portugal. So why should any mention of parental motive be seen as a 'slur'?
If you don't know then you should stop saying they have proved their innocence...its a stupid suggestion as you've admitted you don't know how they could do it.
-
I don't know, but their lawyer tried very hard to do it during a long running libel trial in Portugal. So why should any mention of parental motive be seen as a 'slur'?
Can we discuss Murat’s possible motive? He’s not proven innocent so it wouldn’t be a slur to discuss it would it?
-
If you don't know then you should stop saying they have proved their innocence...its a stupid suggestion as you've admitted you don't know how they could do it.
It is indeed a stupid suggestion, but not one made by me. So do you have anything to contribute to my question? 'why should any mention of parental motive be seen as a 'slur'?'
-
Can we discuss Murat’s possible motive? He’s not proven innocent so it wouldn’t be a slur to discuss it would it?
You can discuss whatever interests you, no need to ask my permission.
-
You can discuss whatever interests you, no need to ask my permission.
So speculation about Murat’s possible motives is fine by you? Just wanted to check before I start speculating wildly about his possible connections with the Russian Mafia, his strange sexual kinks, his inconsistent statements etc. None of this would be seen as a slur I take it?
-
So speculation about Murat’s possible motives is fine by you? Just wanted to check before I start speculating wildly about his possible connections with the Russian Mafia, his strange sexual kinks, his inconsistent statements etc. None of this would be seen as a slur I take it?
As long as it's within forum rules go ahead. I'm sure someone will be interested.
-
It is indeed a stupid suggestion, but not one made by me. So do you have anything to contribute to my question? 'why should any mention of parental motive be seen as a 'slur'?'
You posted..
They were official suspects in the case and have never managed to prove that they are innocent.
So it's a stupid post made by yourself and confirmed by yourself
-
So speculation about Murat’s possible motives is fine by you? Just wanted to check before I start speculating wildly about his possible connections with the Russian Mafia, his strange sexual kinks, his inconsistent statements etc. None of this would be seen as a slur I take it?
Well it wasn't a slur on CB even before being made an arguido.
-
Well it wasn't a slur on CB even before being made an arguido.
No-one wants to discuss 'slurs' it seems.
-
No-one wants to discuss 'slurs' it seems.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word frankly. If I start suggesting ascribing motives to Murat such as child trafficking or paedophilia that would clear be a slur, and I doubt he would take very kindly to such slurs. If an ex-cop were to write a book full of outlandish speculation about Murat’s possible motives such as the ones I have already mentioned I would expect him to sue. Why wouldn’t he? It would very obviously be a massive SLUR.
-
I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word frankly. If I start suggesting ascribing motives to Murat such as child trafficking or paedophilia that would clear be a slur, and I doubt he would take very kindly to such slurs. If an ex-cop were to write a book full of outlandish speculation about Murat’s possible motives such as the ones I have already mentioned I would expect him to sue. Why wouldn’t he? It would very obviously be a massive SLUR.
How about pointing out that IF he was involved his motive might have been that he would have lost everything IF he'd been caught?
-
How about pointing out that IF he was involved his motive might have been that he would have lost everything IF he'd been caught?
That doesn’t make any sense. His motive for removing Madeleine was that he’d lose everything if he got caught? What are you on about?
-
Well it wasn't a slur on CB even before being made an arguido.
Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance?
The paedophile and rapist with no alibi for the night Madeleine was abducted has gathered quite a following amongst sceptics on this forum.
Even current slang usage sums it up - How SICK is that!
-
How about pointing out that IF he was involved his motive might have been that he would have lost everything IF he'd been caught?
The McCanns only have a motive if they were involved.. So the discussion only exists if you are implicating the mccanns. Doesnt bother me but its defamatory and therefore against forum rules... Which you seem to think important when it suits you
-
No-one wants to discuss 'slurs' it seems.
Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance?
How do you suppose it is possible to "slur" a convicted career criminal, rapist and a paedophile.
The sceptics on the Madeleine board are certainly following your example in totally ignoring posting as per thread topic.
-
That doesn’t make any sense. His motive for removing Madeleine was that he’d lose everything if he got caught? What are you on about?
Certainly absolutely nothing which relates to the thread topic "Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
-
The McCanns only have a motive if they were involved.. So the discussion only exists if you are implicating the mccanns. Doesnt bother me but its defamatory and therefore against forum rules... Which you seem to think important when it suits you
My opinion is that sums up entirely the raison d'etre of this thread "Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance." and what has been posted to date confirms that.
For discussion the choice can only be SLUR v INAPPRPRIATNESS. Dear Lord! who in their right minds tries to initiate discussion specifically on the motive in the disappearance of a child?
-
The McCanns only have a motive if they were involved.. So the discussion only exists if you are implicating the mccanns. Doesnt bother me but its defamatory and therefore against forum rules... Which you seem to think important when it suits you
I'm not implicating the McCanns; that happened when the PJ made them arguidos.
-
My opinion is that sums up entirely the raison d'etre of this thread "Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance." and what has been posted to date confirms that.
For discussion the choice can only be SLUR v INAPPRPRIATNESS. Dear Lord! who in their right minds tries to initiate discussion specifically on the motive in the disappearance of a child?
Well, obviously someone had to have a motive to make Maddie disappear
Going on circumstantial evidence IMO there is far more in the mcs investigation ...than CBs.
GA has not been proved wrong .....he also has far more support it seems than the mccs in his belifs.
-
You really don't understand do you? It's not possible to discuss the McCanns' motives for staging an abduction without defaming them. Apparently "defamatory material" will be removed on sight. But no, instead it is encouraged on this thread. Either it's OK to defame anyone you fancy or it's not - which is it?
GA wrote a book the mccs although no doubt intentionally ...made the book a best seller.
The book is not defamatory VS
He knew more than anyone the facts of the case.....more than anyone on here.
Seems there is no book on the mccs ....or is there.
-
I'm not implicating the McCanns; that happened when the PJ made them arguidos.
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
In the land of Casa Pia and the land of night assaults of children in their holiday beds strange that the first port of call without supporting evidence was the parent.
I note the courage of your conviction remains staggering 😉 "Big boy dunnit and ran away!"
-
I'm not implicating the McCanns; that happened when the PJ made them arguidos.
On flawed evidence... All parents are initially suspects in this sort of case so nothing wrong or incriminating... They are no longer arguido after it as admitted that none of the evidence used to make them arguido was confirmed
-
Well, obviously someone had to have a motive to make Maddie disappear
Going on circumstantial evidence IMO there is far more in the mcs investigation ...than CBs.
GA has not been proved wrong .....he also has far more support it seems than the mccs in his belifs.
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
You started this thread and every post you have made on it reveals your agenda. Look at the question you asked.
Did you post that question with honesty in your heart ~ or was your intent only to slur the McCanns with the botched conclusions of a disgraced cop on the investigation he messed up?
-
GA wrote a book the mccs although no doubt intentionally ...made the book a best seller.
The book is not defamatory VS
He knew more than anyone the facts of the case.....more than anyone on here.
Seems there is no book on the mccs ....or is there.
He knew little of the important facts... I know more and can prove it...
-
Well, obviously someone had to have a motive to make Maddie disappear
Going on circumstantial evidence IMO there is far more in the mcs investigation ...than CBs.
GA has not been proved wrong .....he also has far more support it seems than the mccs in his belifs.
If you think GA has more support in his beliefs... You are deluded. He has been proved wrong on the evidence he has relied on
-
GA wrote a book the mccs although no doubt intentionally ...made the book a best seller.
The book is not defamatory VS
He knew more than anyone the facts of the case.....more than anyone on here.
Seems there is no book on the mccs ....or is there.
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
Now you come to mention it ~
When looking for a motive the first question which springs to mind is "Cui Bono?" Which could well be translated as who stood to make the most money from this?
The example of money being made by detectives in Portugal from books on missing children is a given. Joana being a prime example. Therefore considering money as a motive must be a consideration.
And who made more money from Madeleine than Amaral?
-
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
In the land of Casa Pia and the land of night assaults of children in their holiday beds strange that the first port of call without supporting evidence was the parent.
I note the courage of your conviction remains staggering 😉 "Big boy dunnit and ran away!"
assaults of children in their holiday beds strange that the first port of call without supporting evidence was the parent.
Do you mean as suspects .............because generally, I would have thought parents have to be ruled out.
And then when/if they are cleared ...end of suspicion.
Soz if got wrong end of stick for your point B
-
GA wrote a book the mccs although no doubt intentionally ...made the book a best seller.
The book is not defamatory VS
He knew more than anyone the facts of the case.....more than anyone on here.
Seems there is no book on the mccs ....or is there.
Pardon?
-
assaults of children in their holiday beds strange that the first port of call without supporting evidence was the parent.
Do you mean as suspects .............because generally, I would have thought parents have to be ruled out.
And then when/if they are cleared ...end of suspicion.
Soz if got wrong end of stick for your point B
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance?"
I think you have got exactly the right end of the stick regarding my point - precisely as I have yours.
-
You tell me - you're the moderator around here. I'm thoroughly confused about what is and isn't allowed on here these days (you seem ok with the idea of me examining Murat's possible motive for example). I will say however that it's quite hard to destroy the good name of a convicted rapist, thief and child molester and further than it's already been been destroyed by his own proven actions.
Yes, yes, what a terrible man Brueckner is.
He didn't abduct & murder Maddie though, that much is obvious.
-
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
Your concern for the rights of a career criminal convicted of brutal rape and child sexual abuse does you proud on this a "Justice" Forum.
Though one struggles with the suggestion Brueckner has been "defamed" here.
What isn't OK is to defame innocent people and I regret that rather than recognising the posts on this thread and objecting to it you appear to condone as well as contribute. Strange one that.
Brueckner is innocent.
-
You tell me - you're the moderator around here. I'm thoroughly confused about what is and isn't allowed on here these days (you seem ok with the idea of me examining Murat's possible motive for example). I will say however that it's quite hard to destroy the good name of a convicted rapist, thief and child molester and further than it's already been been destroyed by his own proven actions.
He seems to have been well known in certain circles in his adopted home town Luz. People such as he were apparently priority interviewees. Nobody interviewed him despite him being on the police radar. Why not? Why did it take until 2013 and Operation Grange to locate his phone number in evidence from 2007?
Motive and Cui Bono comes into it yet again. The most obvious here being money.
-
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
Now you come to mention it ~
When looking for a motive the first question which springs to mind is "Cui Bono?" Which could well be translated as who stood to make the most money from this?
The example of money being made by detectives in Portugal from books on missing children is a given. Joana being a prime example. Therefore considering money as a motive must be a consideration.
And who made more money from Madeleine than Amaral?
Not really as at the beginning who would have thought this was going to turn out as it did.
I don't think for one minute the book would have taken off [as a best seller] if it wasn't for the mccs suing GA.
I would say most then bought the book in support of GA, I did it myself although it was in Portuguese.
IMO the reason for him writing the book was in a way to be a voice for Maddie.
He truly believes the abduction was faked....and the mccs had a motive to do that.
Answer to your other post,...
I truly believe in my heart that the mccs are involved in Maddie's disappearance....otherwise there is no way ever I would still be on here.
As for the slur, I don't believe their story...I have no sympathy at all.
There is nothing wrong with following your principles...or beliefs if you truly believe them to be right.
-
If you think GA has more support in his beliefs... You are deluded. He has been proved wrong on the evidence he has relied on
Well, he is still going strong ....even wrote another book.
Who knows he may even end up making a movie.
-
He seems to have been well known in certain circles in his adopted home town Luz. People such as he were apparently priority interviewees. Nobody interviewed him despite him being on the police radar. Why not? Why did it take until 2013 and Operation Grange to locate his phone number in evidence from 2007?
Motive and Cui Bono comes into it yet again. The most obvious here being money.
Because they didn't have any evidence, or the slightest indication that he, in particular, was in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance, perhaps?
Mind you, they didn't have any evidence Maddie was actually abducted in the first place, other than because the McCanns said so.
-
Well, he is still going strong ....even wrote another book.
Who knows he may even end up making a movie.
Can't wait to see Brueckner's movie.
-
You tell me - you're the moderator around here. I'm thoroughly confused about what is and isn't allowed on here these days (you seem ok with the idea of me examining Murat's possible motive for example). I will say however that it's quite hard to destroy the good name of a convicted rapist, thief and child molester and further than it's already been been destroyed by his own proven actions.
All it boils down to is simply did he abduct Maddie....if you don't believe Maddie was abducted in the first place
How can he be
-
Well, he is still going strong ....even wrote another book.
Who knows he may even end up making a movie.
Who knows, I rather doubt it. But he could entitle it as "Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance?"
For many documented reasons the person with an exceedingly strong motive for much of what happened in 2007 and since was the PJ office boy.
Maybe Amaral could expand on that from rags to riches theme in his movie.
-
Not really as at the beginning who would have thought this was going to turn out as it did.
I don't think for one minute the book would have taken off [as a best seller] if it wasn't for the mccs suing GA.
I would say most then bought the book in support of GA, I did it myself although it was in Portuguese.
IMO the reason for him writing the book was in a way to be a voice for Maddie.
He truly believes the abduction was faked....and the mccs had a motive to do that.
Answer to your other post,...
I truly believe in my heart that the mccs are involved in Maddie's disappearance....otherwise there is no way ever I would still be on here.
As for the slur, I don't believe their story...I have no sympathy at all.
There is nothing wrong with following your principles...or beliefs if you truly believe them to be right.
Re your claim above. Have you any idea what you are talking about I wonder? What date did Amaral publish his book? I'll tell you - it was in 2008 the day after the case was archived and it became an instant bestseller in Portugal. Now, any idea when the McCanns decided to launch a legal action against Amaral? Obviously not because if you had you'd know that what you've written is nonsense.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/17/mccanns-sue-portugese-detective-madeleine
-
What are you trying to say in your post - all it reminds me of is Roy Cropper.
Would you care B if it had been about CB or GA?
The post topic is - "Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance?" Please bear that in mind when posting. TY
-
He seems to have been well known in certain circles in his adopted home town Luz. People such as he were apparently priority interviewees. Nobody interviewed him despite him being on the police radar. Why not? Why did it take until 2013 and Operation Grange to locate his phone number in evidence from 2007?
Motive and Cui Bono comes into it yet again. The most obvious here being money.
Yet OG did nothing with the information that they acquired.
-
Please attack the post and not the poster! I will remove any posts which breach this rule.
Admin
-
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
Your concern for the rights of a career criminal convicted of brutal rape and child sexual abuse does you proud on this a "Justice" Forum.
Though one struggles with the suggestion Brueckner has been "defamed" here.
What isn't OK is to defame innocent people and I regret that rather than recognising the posts on this thread and objecting to it you appear to condone as well as contribute. Strange one that.
You seem to think that anyone with a criminal record can't be defamed.
Who are these 'innocent people' who, iyo, are being defamed here, btw?
-
You seem to think that anyone with a criminal record can't be defamed.
Who are these 'innocent people' who, iyo, are being defamed here, btw?
Is it OK to defame people without a criminal record by discussing their motives for staging an abduction and disposing of a body? You still haven't answered.
-
Is it OK to defame people without a criminal record by discussing their motives for staging an abduction and disposing of a body? You still haven't answered.
Most people can have a motive to do things without a criminal record.
What my point was who had the motive to make Maddie disappear? CB or them mccs
Simply because C B it seems by some is the abductor with no evidence to back that up.
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
As usuall posts full of attack are made defending the mccs ...when it isn't unnatural to believe the mccs had more of a motive than CB.
It's between who you believe was responsible for Maddie's disappearance...after all the mccs were the last person to c Maddie - what proof is there that CB was.
-
You seem to think that anyone with a criminal record can't be defamed.
Who are these 'innocent people' who, iyo, are being defamed here, btw?
Well she can't mean the McCanns, because they haven't proven their innocence.
-
Most people can have a motive to do things without a criminal record.
What my point was who had the motive to make Maddie disappear? CB or them mccs
Simply because C B it seems by some is the abductor with no evidence to back that up.
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
As usuall posts full of attack are made defending the mccs ...when it isn't unnatural to believe the mccs had more of a motive than CB.
It's between who you believe was responsible for Maddie's disappearance...after all the mccs were the last person to c Maddie - what proof is there that CB was.
In my opinion your posts are becoming more and more nonsensical. There is no solid evidence that backs up the theory that the McCanns disappeared their daughter is there? Because if there was they would have been charged wouldn't they? There are some people here who believe that the more time that elapses without charging a suspect the less likely they are to have committed the crime. Where does that leave the McCanns as suspects then? Even less likely to have committed the crime than Bruckner! Amazing logic huh?
-
You seem to think that anyone with a criminal record can't be defamed.
Who are these 'innocent people' who, iyo, are being defamed here, btw?
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
Remaining with the topic but not the spirit of the thread.
Who do you think had the motive to abduct Madeleine, and how do you think they got away with it up till now.
-
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
Remaining with the topic but not the spirit of the thread.
Who do you think had the motive to abduct Madeleine, and how do you think they got away with it up till now.
So it's OK to post about defamation and innocence but off-topic to answer any questions about what is said?
-
Most people can have a motive to do things without a criminal record.
What my point was who had the motive to make Maddie disappear? CB or them mccs
Simply because C B it seems by some is the abductor with no evidence to back that up.
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
As usuall posts full of attack are made defending the mccs ...when it isn't unnatural to believe the mccs had more of a motive than CB.
It's between who you believe was responsible for Maddie's disappearance...after all the mccs were the last person to c Maddie - what proof is there that CB was.
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance." is the clearly stated topic you chose for this thread title. It was most definitely not "Who had the motive to make Maddie disappear? CB or them mccs".
Thank you for clarifying by your own admission what I rather suspected was the case; that your prime intention was to cast slurs at innocent people right from the inception of this thread and as it has proved to be.
-
So it's OK to post about defamation and innocence but off-topic to answer any questions about what is said?
Please adhere to the thread topic - "Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance." - and kindly construct your posts with that topic in mind. Thankyou
-
Most people can have a motive to do things without a criminal record.
What my point was who had the motive to make Maddie disappear? CB or them mccs
Simply because C B it seems by some is the abductor with no evidence to back that up.
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
As usuall posts full of attack are made defending the mccs ...when it isn't unnatural to believe the mccs had more of a motive than CB.
It's between who you believe was responsible for Maddie's disappearance...after all the mccs were the last person to c Maddie - what proof is there that CB was.
If it was CB I don't see the motive for him committing the crime being thin on the ground at all.
He is a Paedophile he has assaulted children. He has a desire to kidnap something small and use it for days. Many photo's were found showing children being abused and CB was shown on those photo's. So the motive is obvious isn't it?
You of course would say it was thin on the ground !!!
As for the McCann's they have no motive.
-
If it was CB I don't see the motive for him committing the crime being thin on the ground at all.
He is a Paedophile he has assaulted children. He has a desire to kidnap something small and use it for days. Many photo's were found showing children being abused and CB was shown on those photo's. So the motive is obvious isn't it?
You of course would say it was thin on the ground !!!
As for the McCann's they have no motive.
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
I did mean the poster's reason for a motive - being thin on the ground
I know exactly what CB is [who wouldnt]
But to put it down to a fantasy fulfilled is ridiculous imo.
Why would he go to all that trouble of observation and risk?
I'm sure being the saddo he is he would have found an easier way.
-
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
I did mean the poster's reason for a motive - being thin on the ground
I know exactly what CB is [who wouldnt]
But to put it down to a fantasy fulfilled is ridiculous imo.
Why would he go to all that trouble of observation and risk?
I'm sure being the saddo he is he would have found an easier way.
Why does any paedo abduct a child from anywhere, whether it be from their bed while asleep or from outside their parents house with witnesses in abundance. Tell me an easier way to kidnap a three year old rather than from an unlocked downstairs apartment from which the parents are absent.
-
Why does any paedo abduct a child from anywhere, whether it be from their bed while asleep or from outside their parents house with witnesses in abundance. Tell me an easier way to kidnap a three year old rather than from an unlocked downstairs apartment from which the parents are absent.
How do you think he knew the children were going to be left on their own
-
How do you think he knew the children were going to be left on their own
Tip off? Observation? Broke in thinking the apartment was empty and found her (opportunist)? How did the bloke who stole a girl from her bath know she was in the bsth or that her mum wasn’t in the bsthroom at the time?
-
Kizzy. There was a sighting of Madeleine near Asuncion, Paraquay.
Not only that, Sadie. One of the suspects currently on trial, Christian Manfred Kruse lived in Tönning, Germany before he moved to Paraguay. Tönning is a short distance to Sylt where CB used to deal drugs etc. The two may have met here intitially.
-
How do you think he knew the children were going to be left on their own
By keeping watch on 5a. He matches the description of a man staring at 5a, he wore a leather jacket said the witness, CB was known to wear a leather jacket. Now an adult this witness has said CB was the person she saw.
-
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
I did mean the poster's reason for a motive - being thin on the ground
I know exactly what CB is [who wouldnt]
But to put it down to a fantasy fulfilled is ridiculous imo.
Why would he go to all that trouble of observation and risk?
I'm sure being the saddo he is he would have found an easier way.
He was a burglar, he bragged of all the items he had stolen, people had a nickname for him as he was so agile and experienced at what he did.
I doubt if he would have thought it a risk, he was such a risk taker he would no doubt think nothing of taking a child.
-
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance." is the clearly stated topic you chose for this thread title. It was most definitely not "Who had the motive to make Maddie disappear? CB or them mccs".
Thank you for clarifying by your own admission what I rather suspected was the case; that your prime intention was to cast slurs at innocent people right from the inception of this thread and as it has proved to be.
Thank you for clarifying by your own admission
Your posts are getting really obsessive B ..should I change the title [is that what you mean]
Well, I believe the mccs had the motive, you also have my prime intention wrong.
Others think CB had a motive.
Would you kindly adhere to forum rules... attack the post, not the poster?
How do you know I am casting a slur on innocent people...when that's not exactly the case
-
By keeping watch on 5a. He matches the description of a man staring at 5a, he wore a leather jacket said the witness, CB was known to wear a leather jacket. Now an adult this witness has said CB was the person she saw.
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
What a fantastic memory that witness must have - sees someone in passing and can graphically remember him 15 years later.
As you say @)(++(*
-
What a fantastic memory that witness must have - sees someone in passing and can graphically remember him 15 years later.
As you say @)(++(*
and yet some people have no problem with a man identifying Gerry as the guy carrying a child through town from the way he held a child coming down the airplane steps months after the event having previously claimed he never saw his face.
-
and yet some people have no problem with a man identifying Gerry as the guy carrying a child through town from the way he held a child coming down the airplane steps months after the event having previously claimed he never saw his face.
He claimed he never saw his face?
Citation required for that I think.
-
and yet some people have no problem with a man identifying Gerry as the guy carrying a child through town from the way he held a child coming down the airplane steps months after the event having previously claimed he never saw his face.
He claimed he never saw his face?
Citation required for that I think.
It was the manner of carrying the child down from the plane which jogged the memory not the facial appearance,
-
It was the manner of carrying the child down from the plane which jogged the memory not the facial appearance,
Furthermore Smith explicitly stated in his first statement:
"it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph".
-
It was the manner of carrying the child down from the plane which jogged the memory not the facial appearance,
I know.
But VS claims Martin Smith has claimed that he never saw the man's face.
I don't remember reading that in the files.
Over to you VS
-
Furthermore Smith explicitly stated in his first statement:
"it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph".
It doesn't say he didn't see his face though.
Where's that part?
-
What a fantastic memory that witness must have - sees someone in passing and can graphically remember him 15 years later.
As you say @)(++(*
She saw him twice. As a child went missing and she thought her memory of seeing this man could be of importance she told the Police. I would think something of such importance would imprint on someone's mind.
-
She saw him twice. As a child went missing and she thought her memory of seeing this man could be of importance she told the Police. I would think something of such importance would imprint on someone's mind.
Eye witness testimony, even after a few days, is notoriously unreliable. Imagine how thoroughly that image would have eroded after 10+ years?
https://theconversation.com/amp/6-eyewitnesses-misidentified-a-murderer-heres-what-went-wrong-in-the-lineup-134767
-
She saw him twice. As a child went missing and she thought her memory of seeing this man could be of importance she told the Police. I would think something of such importance would imprint on someone's mind.
Does this woman have a name? Is she documented in the files ?
-
Does this woman have a name? Is she documented in the files ?
Tasmin Silence.
According to The Sun, she saw a man who looked like CB.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5677423/portuguese-police-ignore-statement-madeleine-mccann/
Maybe Lace can expand on this by sharing an article where she positively identifies him.
-
This is the one who was 11 years old at the time ?
-
She saw him twice. As a child went missing and she thought her memory of seeing this man could be of importance she told the Police. I would think something of such importance would imprint on someone's mind.
Didn't she have to give a detailed description of the man's appearance? that probably helped cement the man in her memory. I seem to recall there were numerous similarities which I highlighted the last time this was discussed.
-
I do think a motive for CB is a bit thin on the ground judging by posts.
I did mean the poster's reason for a motive - being thin on the ground
I know exactly what CB is [who wouldnt]
But to put it down to a fantasy fulfilled is ridiculous imo.
Why would he go to all that trouble of observation and risk?
I'm sure being the saddo he is he would have found an easier way.
"Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
You claim to "know exactly what CB is [who wouldnt]" and yet you have the temerity to lump him in for comparison with the victims of the crime.
-
Didn't she have to give a detailed description of the man's appearance? that probably helped cement the man in her memory. I seem to recall there were numerous similarities which I highlighted the last time this was discussed.
From what I’ve been able to find in the press only Tasmin’s father claims she said the man she saw looked like Brueckner. There is no direct, as far as I can see, identification from Tasmin herself.
-
Thank you for clarifying by your own admission
Your posts are getting really obsessive B ..should I change the title [is that what you mean]
Well, I believe the mccs had the motive, you also have my prime intention wrong.
Others think CB had a motive.
Would you kindly adhere to forum rules... attack the post, not the poster?
How do you know I am casting a slur on innocent people...when that's not exactly the case
" Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
You are responsible for choosing the title of the post - not me. And since you have raised the issue ~ allow me to point out the personal attack you have launched on me as I bang my head against a brick wall attempting to perform my task of ensuring members "adhere to forum rules". The main one of which is posting on topic ~ which is why fora have topics ~ a rule your posts reveal you always intended to flout. Despite the fact you chose the topic of this thread.
-
From what I’ve been able to find in the press only Tasmin’s father claims she said the man she saw looked like Brueckner. There is no direct, as far as I can see, identification from Tasmin herself.
@)(++(* you do love to push my buttons don't you dear heart? I do think you rather enjoy my attention xx
-
" Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance."
You are responsible for choosing the title of the post - not me. And since you have raised the issue ~ allow me to point out the personal attack you have launched on me as I bang my head against a brick wall attempting to perform my task of ensuring members "adhere to forum rules". The main one of which is posting on topic ~ which is why fora have topics ~ a rule your posts reveal you always intended to flout. Despite the fact you chose the topic of this thread.
point out the personal attack you have launched on me as
Personal attack on you..........I think you will find it is the other way round.
Not to worry though I don't take your posts as personal. unlike how you take mine.
-
From what I’ve been able to find in the press only Tasmin’s father claims she said the man she saw looked like Brueckner. There is no direct, as far as I can see, identification from Tasmin herself.
I wonder in this case who contacted who?
-
@)(++(* you do love to push my buttons don't you dear heart? I do think you rather enjoy my attention xx
So has Miss Silence directly identified Brueckner or indeed made any further statement with regard to him or is her father simply another opportunist taking his chance to earn money from a horrific crime?
-
I wonder in this case who contacted who?
I’d put money on it being Silence.
-
So has Miss Silence directly identified Brueckner or indeed made any further statement with regard to him or is her father simply another opportunist taking his chance to earn money from a horrific crime?
For all we know Ms Sillence may be an integral part of the case against Bruckener and is not able to discuss the case because of judicial secrecy. But yeah, you carry on besmirching her dear ol’ dad, we know you get a kick out of it.
-
For all we know Ms Sillence may be an integral part of the case against Bruckener and is not able to discuss the case because of judicial secrecy. But yeah, you carry on besmirching her dear ol’ dad, we know you get a kick out of it.
If 15 year old eyewitness testimony that doesn’t particularly fit with Brueckner is an integral part of Wolter’s case against then things are even more flimsy than even I suspected.
‘Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn't Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn't sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn't see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even 'disgusting'.
The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.
Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe 'Nike' in a colour that she can't remember.
The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn't notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.
The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.’
-
For all we know Ms Sillence may be an integral part of the case against Bruckener and is not able to discuss the case because of judicial secrecy. But yeah, you carry on besmirching her dear ol’ dad, we know you get a kick out of it.
Sorry, but @)(++(*
-
If 15 year old eyewitness testimony that doesn’t particularly fit with Brueckner is an integral part of Wolter’s case against then things are even more flimsy than even I suspected.
‘Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn't Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn't sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn't see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even 'disgusting'.
The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.
Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe 'Nike' in a colour that she can't remember.
The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn't notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.
The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.’
sounds like a good match to me. I wrote this up in a check list and I think there were something like 13 points of similarity. I’ll see if I can find it.
-
From what I’ve been able to find in the press only Tasmin’s father claims she said the man she saw looked like Brueckner. There is no direct, as far as I can see, identification from Tasmin herself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393901/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-Christian-Brueckner-man-saw-near-apartment.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393901/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-Christian-Brueckner-man-saw-near-apartment.html
The nanny seems to be the ‘witness’ of the headline and she says
'I am aware of his (Brueckner's) name and face from photos I was shown but I don't think I remember having seen him in real life. I'm aware police knew of guys like this in Praia da Luz at the time.'
So she didn’t see him and there is nothing in the link that claims that Tamsin Silence identified him either.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393901/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-Christian-Brueckner-man-saw-near-apartment.html
The witness was shown a photograph of Brueckner by the police days after Madeleine disappeared and they named him.
Seems proof that they knew about him and had him on their radar early days. Yet apparently nothing was done about him.
Was there a motive behind that neglect?
-
The nanny seems to be the ‘witness’ of the headline and she says
'I am aware of his (Brueckner's) name and face from photos I was shown but I don't think I remember having seen him in real life. I'm aware police knew of guys like this in Praia da Luz at the time.'
So she didn’t see him and there is nothing in the link that claims that Tamsin Silence identified him either.
You didn't read far enough down the page.
-
If 15 year old eyewitness testimony that doesn’t particularly fit with Brueckner is an integral part of Wolter’s case against then things are even more flimsy than even I suspected.
‘Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn't Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn't sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn't see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even 'disgusting'.
The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.
Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe 'Nike' in a colour that she can't remember.
The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn't notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.
The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.’
Concerning the individual, she describes him as being:
Caucasian race ✅
light skin ✅
so he wasn't Portuguese ✅
but could be British - not right
Approximately 180 cm tall ✅
thin complexion tick ✅
30/35 years of age ✅
. Short hair ✅
like shaved with 1 cm of length - maybe
and fair tick ✅
She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour - known to wear black sunglasses
with a structure of mass, a thick frame - but no phtos of him seen in a pair like this.
He had a large forehead ✅
Nose of normal size tick ✅
a bit pointy and sharp - could be describe as such
Large ears, close against the head -similar to those shown in photofit
Mouth with thin lips ✅
Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp - could be described as sharp featured.
No beard, no moustache, a clean shave ✅
No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving - Bruckner has acne scarring
He looked ugly, even 'disgusting' - could be described as such.
-
You didn't read far enough down the page.
Perhaps you can point out where Silence identifies Brueckner?
-
Concerning the individual, she describes him as being:
Caucasian race ✅
light skin ✅
so he wasn't Portuguese ✅
but could be British - not right
Approximately 180 cm tall ✅
thin complexion tick ✅
30/35 years of age ✅
. Short hair ✅
like shaved with 1 cm of length - maybe
and fair tick ✅
She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour - known to wear black sunglasses
with a structure of mass, a thick frame - but no phtos of him seen in a pair like this.
He had a large forehead ✅
Nose of normal size tick ✅
a bit pointy and sharp - could be describe as such
Large ears, close against the head -similar to those shown in photofit
Mouth with thin lips ✅
Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp - could be described as sharp featured.
No beard, no moustache, a clean shave ✅
No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving - Bruckner has acne scarring
He looked ugly, even 'disgusting' - could be described as such.
Where does Silence herself name Brueckner as the man she saw?
-
You didn't read far enough down the page.
Still doesn't say that she identified him as Bruckner
-
Still doesn't say that she identified him as Bruckner
Of course it doesn’t.
-
Where does Silence herself name Brueckner as the man she saw?
Where did I say she did dear heart?
-
Where did I say she did dear heart?
Glad we’ve found some kind of consensus.
So daddy doing it for the money it is then.
-
Glad we’ve found some kind of consensus.
So daddy doing it for the money it is then.
Your logic is extremely twisted as per.
-
Your logic is extremely twisted as per.
What would be twisted logic would be to suppose his motive was altruistic rather than for monetary enrichment.
-
What would be twisted logic would be to suppose his motive was altruistic rather than for monetary enrichment.
Explain what is twisted about it? It’s actually the opposite of twisted, it’s un judgemental, as I don’t know the man to be able to say what motivates him, you however seem quite sure he was paid despite zero evidence to bsck up your beliefs. Now that is twisted!
-
Explain what is twisted about it? It’s actually the opposite of twisted, it’s un judgemental, as I don’t know the man to be able to say what motivates him, you however seem quite sure he was paid despite zero evidence to bsck up your beliefs. Now that is twisted!
If you think that he wasn’t paid then you are really more to be pitied than laughed at. If, as you said, his daughter may have given evidence that was under judicial secrecy why would he go running to the tabloids if not for money?
-
If you think that he wasn’t paid then you are really more to be pitied than laughed at. If, as you said, his daughter may have given evidence that was under judicial secrecy why would he go running to the tabloids if not for money?
Why on earth should I either be pitied or laughed at for refusing to make unsubstantiated claims about someone else? Do explain the logic behind this bizarre statement please.
-
Why on earth should I either be pitied or laughed at for refusing to make unsubstantiated claims about someone else? Do explain the logic behind this bizarre statement please.
You do appear rather gullible…or contrarian…I can’t decide which.
-
You do appear rather gullible…or contrarian…I can’t decide which.
Instead of insulting me, how about actually explaining what is laughable or pitiful about me not accepting your unevidenced claims about a man you don’t know or his motives? Wouldn’t it be gullible of me to lap up every word you tell me about Sillence as being true? Gullible and very stupid!
-
Concerning the individual, she describes him as being:
Caucasian race ✅
light skin ✅
so he wasn't Portuguese ✅
but could be British - not right
Approximately 180 cm tall ✅
thin complexion tick ✅
30/35 years of age ✅
. Short hair ✅
like shaved with 1 cm of length - maybe
and fair tick ✅
She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour - known to wear black sunglasses
with a structure of mass, a thick frame - but no phtos of him seen in a pair like this.
He had a large forehead ✅
Nose of normal size tick ✅
a bit pointy and sharp - could be describe as such
Large ears, close against the head -similar to those shown in photofit
Mouth with thin lips ✅
Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp - could be described as sharp featured.
No beard, no moustache, a clean shave ✅
No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving - Bruckner has acne scarring
He looked ugly, even 'disgusting' - could be described as such.
Well done VS for taking the trouble to compare the list to facts we know and sharing it.
Additionally Tasmin and the other witnesses of a watcher at Madeleines appartment was shown as a skinny individual with what could be described as a hollowed out tummy area, exactly like Brueckner. This is a very uncommon body shape. Well spotted Tasmin and Co. Tasmins official description was amazingly spot on. She or/and others must have passed this skiny hollowed out appearance on to the Madeleine investigators and/or the PJ
See the image of him from the original Cutting Edge Video
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere1.jpg
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere1.jpg)
My Cutting Edge video as shown in the library of videos has been corrupted to show a fatter man. It is the image of Brueckners body as shown in his warehouse photo. Would someone be so kind as to show that for me alongside this bonafide image. Thanks in anticipation, I am feeling very tired.[/s]
ETA. The missing image now found and showing 7 or 8 posts down. Thanks
This skinny hollowed out body shape being present in the early Cutting Edge video and then suddenly being altered to a fatter man on my (once was) bonafide video shows that it is very significant because it points towards the likelyhood of Brueckner having been there watching. Somebody seems to be trying to hide that probability
-
Where does Silence herself name Brueckner as the man she saw?
Read the article I posted from this part down, it is separate from the part about the nanny -
When shown a picture of the paedophile, one British woman who was questioned by detectives at the time of the abduction, told The Sun: 'That's the man I saw.'
-
Read the article I posted from this part down, it is separate from the part about the nanny -
When shown a picture of the paedophile, one British woman who was questioned by detectives at the time of the abduction, told The Sun: 'That's the man I saw.'
I'd tell the press I saw Jeffrey Epstein riding Shergar for £5k.
Nothing to see here, move along people.
-
Well done VS for taking the trouble to compare the list to facts we know and sharing it.
Additionally Tasmin and the other witnesses of a watcher at Madeleines appartment was shown as a skinny individual with what could be described as a hollowed out tummy area, exactly like Brueckner. This is a very uncommon body shape. Well spotted Tasmin and Co. Tasmins official description was amazingly spot on. She or/and others must have passed this skiny hollowed out appearance on to the Madeleine investigators and/or the PJ
See the image of him from the original Cutting Edge Video
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere1.jpg
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere1.jpg)
My Cutting Edge video as shown in the library of videos has been corrupted to show a fatter man. It is the image of Brueckners body as shown in his warehouse photo. Would someone be so kind as to show that for me alongside this bonafide image. Thanks in anticipation, I am feeling very tired.
This skinny hollowed out body shape being present in the early Cutting Edge video and then suddenly being altered to a fatter man on my (once was) bonafide video shows that it is very significant because it points towards the likelyhood of Brueckner having been there watching. Somebody seems to be trying to hide that probability
So iyo Brueckner looks like someone who appeared in a video commissioned by the McCanns.
-
Read the article I posted from this part down, it is separate from the part about the nanny -
When shown a picture of the paedophile, one British woman who was questioned by detectives at the time of the abduction, told The Sun: 'That's the man I saw.'
Was it Tamsin Silence who spoke to the Sun?
-
I wonder why there is SUCH a concerted effort to rubbish this woman and her father on this and other forums? Why do some people apparently feel so threatened by what they have allegedly said? It's quite extraordinary!
-
So iyo Brueckner looks like someone who appeared in a video commissioned by the McCanns.
Yep, to find that man with his special hollowed out look must have needed the input of someone giving the relevant information. The Mccanns will have interviewed Tasmin Silence and the other witnesses of this man and have got additional information about him. My bet is that it was Tasmin because her description of * The man * was so full of detail. What an observant girl.
And congratulations to David Edgar. Seems he did a good job finding such a man.
It is remarkable just how alike * This man * and Breuckners bodies are.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/02/15/15/39315326-9262497-Christian_Brueckner_has_been_pictured_inside_an_abandoned_factor-a-1_1613403791703.jpg
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/02/15/15/39315326-9262497-Christian_Brueckner_has_been_pictured_inside_an_abandoned_factor-a-1_1613403791703.jpg)
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere1.jpg
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere1.jpg)
-
So iyo Brueckner looks like someone who appeared in a video commissioned by the McCanns.
Obviously you did not bother to read Sadie's post building on VS's post quoting the description of the watcher witnessed by many outside the McCann apartment prior to May 3 2007.
At least two of whom have identified the man they witnessed as Brueckner and who knows how many others.
From what we have seen in the press it is obvious that - the Portuguese police had Brueckner's photograph in their possession five days after Madeleine's abduction.
- the Portuguese police knew his name
- the Portuguese police were actively looking for Brueckner in connection with Madeleine's abduction.
So despite Brueckner being firmly on the radar of the Portuguese police it seems he was never found or was actively looked for.
Why wasn't he? Somebody, somewhere within the Portuguese judiciary police was interested enough or knew enough about him to include him in the inquiry almost at inception.
When looking for motives I think it would be worthwhile if a thorough investigation was carried out into the early days anomalies such as this very glaring one. Particularly in relation and conjunction with the latest spate of Amaral lies which once again seeks to knock Brueckner off radar much as he was in 2007.
-
I wonder why there is SUCH a concerted effort to rubbish this woman and her father on this and other forums? Why do some people apparently feel so threatened by what they have allegedly said? It's quite extraordinary!
Tamsin told the police what she saw. No one has any dispute with her.
Her father decided to monetise his daughter’s role in the case. That’s not threatening just rather sleazy.
-
Tamsin told the police what she saw. No one has any dispute with her.
Her father decided to monetise his daughter’s role in the case. That’s not threatening just rather sleazy.
Do you know this for a fact? A yes or no answer will suffice.
-
Obviously you did not bother to read Sadie's post building on VS's post quoting the description of the watcher witnessed by many outside the McCann apartment prior to May 3 2007.
At least two of whom have identified the man they witnessed as Brueckner and who knows how many others.
From what we have seen in the press it is obvious that - the Portuguese police had Brueckner's photograph in their possession five days after Madeleine's abduction.
- the Portuguese police knew his name
- the Portuguese police were actively looking for Brueckner in connection with Madeleine's abduction.
So despite Brueckner being firmly on the radar of the Portuguese police it seems he was never found or was actively looked for.
Why wasn't he? Somebody, somewhere within the Portuguese judiciary police was interested enough or knew enough about him to include him in the inquiry almost at inception.
When looking for motives I think it would be worthwhile if a thorough investigation was carried out into the early days anomalies such as this very glaring one. Particularly in relation and conjunction with the latest spate of Amaral lies which once again seeks to knock Brueckner off radar much as he was in 2007.
By the same measures OG has had access to the same information regarding Brueckner since 2011 and did absolutely nothing with it until 2017.
-
Do you know this for a fact? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Yes.
-
Yes.
Prove it.
-
Furthmore prove he lied about his daughter’s claim.
-
Furthmore prove he lied about his daughter’s claim.
Prove his daughter identified Brueckner….anything from the horse’s mouth will do.
-
Prove his daughter identified Brueckner….anything from the horse’s mouth will do.
So you are basically lying when you claim to know for a fact that he invented the claim for cash. Thought so.
-
Prove his daughter identified Brueckner….anything from the horse’s mouth will do.
Well she didn't identify him ftom any photos shown to her when she was interviewed on 9th May.
-
So you are basically lying when you claim to know for a fact that he invented the claim for cash. Thought so.
His poor daughter. Either the evidence she gave is under judicial secrecy but was leaked to the papers by her dad for money….not good or he simply made it up for money…again not good.
What a sleaze.
-
His poor daughter. Either the evidence she gave is under judicial secrecy but was leaked to the papers by her dad for money….not good or he simply made it up for money…again not good.
What a sleaze.
You’re a bit of a sleaze for blatantly lying to this forum IMO. I think actually it’s called libel.
-
You’re a bit of a sleaze for blatantly lying to this forum IMO. I think actually it’s called libel.
Let him sue me then.
That will be tasty.
-
Let him sue me then.
That will be tasty.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but of course you have no shame as has been evidenced over the many years you’ve been posting false information (aka blatant lies) online.
-
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but of course you have no shame as has been evidenced over the many years you’ve been posting false information (aka blatant lies) online.
Says the moral vacuum.
Tidy.
-
Says the moral vacuum.
Tidy.
Projection. Ugly.
-
Obviously you did not bother to read Sadie's post building on VS's post quoting the description of the watcher witnessed by many outside the McCann apartment prior to May 3 2007.
At least two of whom have identified the man they witnessed as Brueckner and who knows how many others.
From what we have seen in the press it is obvious that - the Portuguese police had Brueckner's photograph in their possession five days after Madeleine's abduction.
- the Portuguese police knew his name
- the Portuguese police were actively looking for Brueckner in connection with Madeleine's abduction.[/b]
So despite Brueckner being firmly on the radar of the Portuguese police it seems he was never found or was actively looked for.
Why wasn't he? Somebody, somewhere within the Portuguese judiciary police was interested enough or knew enough about him to include him in the inquiry almost at inception.
When looking for motives I think it would be worthwhile if a thorough investigation was carried out into the early days anomalies such as this very glaring one. Particularly in relation and conjunction with the latest spate of Amaral lies which once again seeks to knock Brueckner off radar much as he was in 2007.
We don't know if the press reports are true though, do we?
-
We don't know if the press reports are true though, do we?
These are the same newspapers that where sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds by the parents themselves for printing false stories.
What was it Mark Rowley himself said :
“ There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.”
-
These are the same newspapers that where sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds by the parents themselves for printing false stories.
What was it Mark Rowley himself said :
“ There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.”
It's certainly not wise to rely on what they print.
-
It's certainly not wise to rely on what they print.
It’s a feature of conspiracy theorists that they tend to reject any news that appears in the “MSM” as fake, especially any news which doesn’t support their own beliefs.
-
It’s a feature of conspiracy theorists that they tend to reject any news that appears in the “MSM” as fake, especially any news which doesn’t support their own beliefs.
Are you suggesting that Mark Rowley is a conspiracy theorist?
-
Are you suggesting that Mark Rowley is a conspiracy theorist?
No, I am not. Mark Rowley is a very sensible policeman who is quite convinced that Madeleine was abducted, though you probably reject that fact because being a conspiracy theorist you probably think he’s engaging in some twisted subterfuge or deception.
-
No, I am not. Mark Rowley is a very sensible policeman who is quite convinced that Madeleine was abducted, though you probably reject that fact because being a conspiracy theorist you probably think he’s engaging in some twisted subterfuge or deception.
On newspaper stories we obviously agree. I’m sure he’ll certainly also be aware of individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases.
-
On newspaper stories we obviously agree. I’m sure he’ll certainly also be aware of individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases.
Yes, I wonder what Amaral’s total earning to date have been for all the false stories he’s given the media about CB. I don’t suppose Rowley is much impressed by his shenanigans, nor those of the leaky Portugese police who also probably made a small fortune from the press over the years the sleazy b’stards.
-
I wonder how much Colin Sutton was paid for his interview when he dissed Op Grange. Loads I bet. And probably msde it up for extra cash, the sleazeball.
This isn’t libellous btw, is it? If it’s ok to say it about Sillence then why not Sutton?
-
Yes, I wonder what Amaral’s total earning to date have been for all the false stories he’s given the media about CB. I don’t suppose Rowley is much impressed by his shenanigans, nor those of the leaky Portugese police who also probably made a small fortune from the press over the years the sleazy b’stards.
I thought you didn’t care much for ‘whataboutery’.
-
I thought you didn’t care much for ‘whataboutery’.
I simply responded to your observation about individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases. The only one we know for certain cashed in in on Madeleine’s disappearance with the media is Amaral because he proudly set his price, the self-enriching sleazeball.
-
I wonder how much Colin Sutton was paid for his interview when he dissed Op Grange. Loads I bet. And probably msde it up for extra cash, the sleazeball.
This isn’t libellous btw, is it? If it’s ok to say it about Sillence then why not Sutton?
In the business they’re called ‘talking heads’ and I’d be surprised if Sutton wasn’t paid perhaps a nominal fee for his expert opinion.
Silence, on the other hand, is just a chancer who saw a way of making some extra cash on the back of his connection to a, at the time, prominent news story. Busching, Taschi, Jensen, Cooper….this case is riddled with them.
-
I simply responded to your observation about individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases. The only one we know for certain cashed in in on Madeleine’s disappearance with the media is Amaral because he proudly set his price, the self-enriching sleazeball.
Isn’t that ‘whataboutery’? Something that you posted some time ago was simply a vehicle for deflection.
-
Well she didn't identify him ftom any photos shown to her when she was interviewed on 9th May.
Did you bother to read the link Lace provided?
Snip
A nanny who looked after Madeleine McCann in the holiday resort before she disappeared recognised a photo of Christian Brueckner when she was shown it by Portuguese police.
She was handed the photo and told his name just five days after the child disappeared.
The nanny told the Daily Mirror: 'I was shown identikits the day after they took my statement (about her time with Madeleine).
'I recognised a few people from just being about… one guy I recognised was a known paedophile who later committed suicide.
'I am aware of his (Brueckner's) name and face from photos I was shown but I don't think I remember having seen him in real life. I'm aware police knew of guys like this in Praia da Luz at the time.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393901/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-Christian-Brueckner-man-saw-near-apartment.html
Quite obviously the initial focus of investigators was the elimination of certain individuals from the inquiry.
Police had Brueckner's name. They had his photograph. As far as we know they never interviewed him. Who was responsible for overriding the initial decision to include Brueckner in the photographic line-up of potential suspects shown to witnesses? Who was responsible for allowing him to drop off the radar despite knowing who he was and his possible bolt hole most likely to be Germany.
-
In the business they’re called ‘talking heads’ and I’d be surprised if Sutton wasn’t paid perhaps a nominal fee for his expert opinion.
Silence, on the other hand, is just a chancer who saw a way of making some extra cash on the back of his connection to a, at the time, prominent news story. Busching, Taschi, Jensen, Cooper….this case is riddled with them.
Firstly you have no way of knowing who was paid what, secondly what difference is there really from receiving money for “expert” opinion on tv vs giving layman’s opinion to the press, the net benefit to the individual is the same (ie cashing in on someone else’s misery), thirdly being paid for a story does not guarantee that the information given is false.
-
Isn’t that ‘whataboutery’? Something that you posted some time ago was simply a vehicle for deflection.
No. You made a general point, I gave a specific example. Sorry it wasn’t to your taste, really.
-
Are you suggesting that Mark Rowley is a conspiracy theorist?
By you standard this is “whataboutery”, right?
-
I wonder why there is SUCH a concerted effort to rubbish this woman and her father on this and other forums? Why do some people apparently feel so threatened by what they have allegedly said? It's quite extraordinary!
Martin Smith and his daughter? I know, right.
-
Did you bother to read the link Lace provided?
Snip
A nanny who looked after Madeleine McCann in the holiday resort before she disappeared recognised a photo of Christian Brueckner when she was shown it by Portuguese police.
She was handed the photo and told his name just five days after the child disappeared.
The nanny told the Daily Mirror: 'I was shown identikits the day after they took my statement (about her time with Madeleine).
'I recognised a few people from just being about… one guy I recognised was a known paedophile who later committed suicide.
'I am aware of his (Brueckner's) name and face from photos I was shown but I don't think I remember having seen him in real life. I'm aware police knew of guys like this in Praia da Luz at the time.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393901/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-Christian-Brueckner-man-saw-near-apartment.html
Quite obviously the initial focus of investigators was the elimination of certain individuals from the inquiry.
Police had Brueckner's name. They had his photograph. As far as we know they never interviewed him. Who was responsible for overriding the initial decision to include Brueckner in the photographic line-up of potential suspects shown to witnesses? Who was responsible for allowing him to drop off the radar despite knowing who he was and his possible bolt hole most likely to be Germany.
If you want to believe that you go ahead. I'll tske it with a pinch of salt.
-
If you want to believe that you go ahead. I'll tske it with a pinch of salt.
Of course you will - discard any evidence that doesn’t fit with your mindset, just like you did when Amaral claimed thr police knocked on Brückner’s door. You just don’t want to believe it so you don’t.
-
If you want to believe that you go ahead. I'll tske it with a pinch of salt.
So Amusing the way in which you take everything but your beliefs "with a pinch of salt" while being convinced by the disproved theories of a convicted liar.
Amaral knew that Brueckner was on the Portuguese police radar. It happened on his watch. But despite knowing exactly how botched the investigation coordinated by him was (he was sacked from it because of his conduct and his failures) - he kept up his relentless and obsessive campaign with a vengeance against Kate and Gerry McCann.
Maddie case. PJ erred when he did not investigate Christian Brueckner better, admits Gonçalo Amaral
8 oct 2021
The former coordinator of the investigation of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, says that there were errors in the Portuguese investigation, but does not believe that Brueckner is the culprit or that the German authorities have evidence.
Gonçalo Amaral admits that German Christian Brueckner was also on the Judicial Police list at the time of Maddie's disappearance in 2007, but no one insisted on looking for him.
The former inspector of the Judicial Police, who coordinated the investigation at the time of the British girl's disappearance, tells the Morning Mail that they knocked on Brueckner's door - now the German police's prime suspect - but no one opened it. A report was made on the situation and no one ever looked for it again.
"I take it there is a mistake. There are several mistakes, but this is a mistake", says Gonçalo Amaral, who is then justified and to colleagues with the other investigations that had ongoing.
Despite assuming the mistake of not having investigated Christian Brueckner better, Gonçalo Amaral says the German authorities have no evidence to charge the suspect. The former inspector believes that if there was evidence, he would have been tried and convicted by now. He adds that it has not even been proven that Maddie McCann was abducted that night in May 2007.
Gonçalo Amaral has a new book "Maddie: Basta de Mentiras", from the publisher Contraponto, where he talks about the research done over the last 14 years and which he accuses of being in the same point as in 2007. The book is available from October 14.
https://observador.pt/2021/10/08/caso-maddie-pj-errou-quando-nao-investigou-melhor-christian-brueckner-admite-goncalo-amaral/
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - 'as it was in the beginning' when Amaral was involved in Madeleine's case - Brueckner was allowed to slip through the net.
And as far as Amaral is concerned it 'is now and ever shall be' - as he advocates still that Brueckner should be ignored as he was in 2007. The coordinator then who was part of a miserably failed investigation which couldn't even determine the nature of the crime against Madeleine is still advocating ignoring the evidence and ignoring Brueckner.
Against whom the evidence was strong enough to allow the Portuguese authorities to constitute him arguido in Madeleine's disappearance.
The constant here is a criminal cop and an uninvestigated criminal in 2007 who was on police radar; the same criminal cop advocating vigorously on behalf of the same criminal in 2019-2020-2021-2022 who is not only on Portuguese police radar but British and German as well.
I don't know what Amaral's motive is. But I sure as Hell would like to know.
-
So Amusing the way in which you take everything but your beliefs "with a pinch of salt" while being convinced by the disproved theories of a convicted liar.
Amaral knew that Brueckner was on the Portuguese police radar. It happened on his watch. But despite knowing exactly how botched the investigation coordinated by him was (he was sacked from it because of his conduct and his failures) - he kept up his relentless and obsessive campaign with a vengeance against Kate and Gerry McCann.
Maddie case. PJ erred when he did not investigate Christian Brueckner better, admits Gonçalo Amaral
8 oct 2021
The former coordinator of the investigation of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, says that there were errors in the Portuguese investigation, but does not believe that Brueckner is the culprit or that the German authorities have evidence.
Gonçalo Amaral admits that German Christian Brueckner was also on the Judicial Police list at the time of Maddie's disappearance in 2007, but no one insisted on looking for him.
The former inspector of the Judicial Police, who coordinated the investigation at the time of the British girl's disappearance, tells the Morning Mail that they knocked on Brueckner's door - now the German police's prime suspect - but no one opened it. A report was made on the situation and no one ever looked for it again.
"I take it there is a mistake. There are several mistakes, but this is a mistake", says Gonçalo Amaral, who is then justified and to colleagues with the other investigations that had ongoing.
Despite assuming the mistake of not having investigated Christian Brueckner better, Gonçalo Amaral says the German authorities have no evidence to charge the suspect. The former inspector believes that if there was evidence, he would have been tried and convicted by now. He adds that it has not even been proven that Maddie McCann was abducted that night in May 2007.
Gonçalo Amaral has a new book "Maddie: Basta de Mentiras", from the publisher Contraponto, where he talks about the research done over the last 14 years and which he accuses of being in the same point as in 2007. The book is available from October 14.
https://observador.pt/2021/10/08/caso-maddie-pj-errou-quando-nao-investigou-melhor-christian-brueckner-admite-goncalo-amaral/
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - 'as it was in the beginning' when Amaral was involved in Madeleine's case - Brueckner was allowed to slip through the net.
And as far as Amaral is concerned it 'is now and ever shall be' - as he advocates still that Brueckner should be ignored as he was in 2007. The coordinator then who was part of a miserably failed investigation which couldn't even determine the nature of the crime against Madeleine is still advocating ignoring the evidence and ignoring Brueckner.
Against whom the evidence was strong enough to allow the Portuguese authorities to constitute him arguido in Madeleine's disappearance.
The constant here is a criminal cop and an uninvestigated criminal in 2007 who was on police radar; the same criminal cop advocating vigorously on behalf of the same criminal in 2019-2020-2021-2022 who is not only on Portuguese police radar but British and German as well.
I don't know what Amaral's motive is. But I sure as Hell would like to know.
"Amaral says the German Authorities have no evidence to charge the suspect"
Amaral right again.
-
Of course you will - discard any evidence that doesn’t fit with your mindset, just like you did when Amaral claimed thr police knocked on Brückner’s door. You just don’t want to believe it so you don’t.
You don't solve cases by not looking for evidence and Amaral's insistence on not looking for evidence against Brueckner seems to indicate a reason for not following up on the information which had put him on the Portuguese police list in the first instance.
SY and the BKA investigated Brueckner since 2017 and have found evidence. Whether or not that evidence can be translated into proof when presented in court remains to be seen.
In the interim there is still an investigation in progress and I think it may involve more than Brueckner's and more than Madeleine's cases.
What is a puzzlement to me is why Amaral who is a civilian and not privy to what is going on in any investigation -with the exception of leaks, for which I think he has burnt his bridges since blowing his cover in 2019 on Saunokonoko's podcast - is advocating for Brueckner to the extent of publicising false information in an active police investigation.
-
You don't solve cases by not looking for evidence and Amaral's insistence on not looking for evidence against Brueckner seems to indicate a reason for not following up on the information which had put him on the Portuguese police list in the first instance.
SY and the BKA investigated Brueckner since 2017 and have found evidence. Whether or not that evidence can be translated into proof and presented in court remains to be seen.
In the interim there is still an investigation in progress and I think it may involve more than Brueckner's and more than Madeleine's cases.
What is a puzzlement to me is why Amaral who is a civilian and not privy to what is going on in any investigation -with the exception of leaks, for which I think he has burnt his bridges since blowing his cover in 2019 on Saunokonoko's podcast - is advocating for Brueckner to the extent of publicising false information in an active police investigation.
Brueckner joking to his mates that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence. That's their 'evidence', which is why Wolters can't see Brueckner being charged, ever. He won't be seeing the inside of a court room for anything relating to Maddie, you can take that to the bank.
-
Firstly you have no way of knowing who was paid what, secondly what difference is there really from receiving money for “expert” opinion on tv vs giving layman’s opinion to the press, the net benefit to the individual is the same (ie cashing in on someone else’s misery), thirdly being paid for a story does not guarantee that the information given is false.
No difference really…so Silence and Sutton are both sleazy. Glad we got that sorted.
-
By you standard this is “whataboutery”, right?
Just answer the question.
-
No difference really…so Silence and Sutton are both sleazy. Glad we got that sorted.
Rubbish. Unlike you I don't claim to know that they both received payment, nor do I consider people who receive payment for their media stories / appearances automatically "sleazy". How about you stop throwing about these groundless accusations until you actually have real evidence of sleaze?
-
Just answer the question.
I already did - reply #259
-
Rubbish. Unlike you I don't claim to know that they both received payment, nor do I consider people who receive payment for their media stories / appearances automatically "sleazy". How about you stop throwing about these groundless accusations until you actually have real evidence of sleaze?
I obviously have higher standards than you.
No surprise there then.
-
I already did - reply #259
You didn’t but life really is to short.
-
I obviously have higher standards than you.
No surprise there then.
How does lying to the forum about what you claim to know indicate higher standards, out of interest? How does name calling people on the basis of a belief rather than actual evidence mean you have higher standards?
-
You didn’t but life really is to short.
Yes, I really did, life's obviously too short for you to improve your comprehension skills, never mind.
-
How does lying to the forum about what you claim to know indicate higher standards, out of interest? How does name calling people on the basis of a belief rather than actual evidence mean you have higher standards?
You are assuming that I’m lying…you have no proof.
-
You are assuming that I’m lying…you have no proof.
And nor do you.
-
You are assuming that I’m lying…you have no proof.
You are lying because how would you know he'd been paid? You don't know him and I can't imagine he would have told you he'd been paid. I doubt the journalist would have responded to any query you may have put to them about any fee they'd made to an interviewee. You've refused to provide any evidence for your claim and you have a track record of posting opinion as fact. All this leads me to conclude you are lying. But if this is the game you want to play then let's all start playing it. I know for a fact that Martin Smith has recently told the police he no longer believes Smithman was Gerry and thinks it may have been CB instead. Now prove I'm lying.
-
And nor do you.
Shouldn’t you as a moderator be deleting accusations of lying instead of encouraging them. Isn’t it against forum rules?
Just a thought.
-
Shouldn’t you as a moderator be deleting accusations of lying instead of encouraging them. Isn’t it against forum rules?
Just a thought.
Be better if you thought a little more... How many times have you accused me of lying... Lol
-
Shouldn’t you as a moderator be deleting accusations of lying instead of encouraging them. Isn’t it against forum rules?
Just a thought.
So members should be allowed to make claims without providing any evidence to back them up? I know you're lying, now don't you dare be calling me a liar!
-
So members should be allowed to make claims without providing any evidence to back them up? I know you're lying, now don't you dare be calling me a liar!
That’s the thing…you don’t know that I’m lying…you have no idea who I have connections with. You simply assume I’m lying because it suits your agenda.
Now back to the point….did Tamsin Silence ever identify Brueckner as the man she saw supposedly hanging around the parent’s apartment….the answer to that is a categorical no.
-
Did mcc have a motive or presant suspect CB.
What is the point in looking for evidence on either? - when all the evidence is circumstantial.
It boils down to mccs Saying Maddie was abducted...no evidence
Wolt says he knows who the abductor is............no evidence.
The mccs have never been cleared it seems 15 year on 13 million spent 4 liable trials etc etc
CB will not be cleared as he isn't going to be charged it seems.
The only way forward IMO would be to go back to the beginning with fresh eyes
Starting with was that window open or shut and was the timeline possible.
The only consistent person in this for 15 years is G.A.
He says - who was there at the beginning...believes the abduction was a sham
This was a cold case when it started and a cold case now.
-
Did mcc have a motive or presant suspect CB.
What is the point in looking for evidence on either? - when all the evidence is circumstantial.
It boils down to mccs Saying Maddie was abducted...no evidence
Wolt says he knows who the abductor is............no evidence.
The mccs have never been cleared it seems 15 year on 13 million spent 4 liable trials etc etc
CB will not be cleared as he isn't going to be charged it seems.
The only way forward IMO would be to go back to the beginning with fresh eyes
Starting with was that window open or shut and was the timeline possible.
The only consistent person in this for 15 years is G.A.
He says - who was there at the beginning...believes the abduction was a sham
This was a cold case when it started and a cold case now.
Madeleine's case is not frozen in aspic. Lots of fresh evidence. At least one brand new arguido. And the information that Amaral gave us about the time the PJ did a trick with Brueckner of "now you see him ... now you don't" on his watch.
I'm rather intrigued what Amaral's motive is for that period when he was coordinator as I watch his strenuous efforts to fail the case yet again and why the "questioners" are not asking questions about that peculiar behaviour.
-
That’s the thing…you don’t know that I’m lying…you have no idea who I have connections with. You simply assume I’m lying because it suits your agenda.
Now back to the point….did Tamsin Silence ever identify Brueckner as the man she saw supposedly hanging around the parent’s apartment….the answer to that is a categorical no.
Not according to her father who you presume is lying because it suits YOUR agenda. How can you state something as categoric when you have no access to the current investigation, unless you're going to pretend that you do, just for effect?
-
Not according to her father who you presume is lying because it suits YOUR agenda. How can you state something as categoric when you have no access to the current investigation, unless you're going to pretend that you do, just for effect?
I have never pretended that I have any access to the current investigation so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. What I have said is that Tasmin’s dad was paid for his story though to be honest the story could have been written without Mr Silence’s input. NOWHERE does it say that Tamsin recognised Brueckner, the ‘claim’ is ambiguous
“Gordon Sillence, 61, said his girl Tasmin, then 11, twice saw a man who looked like Christian B lurking outside the McCanns’ flat.”
Is it the churnalist who thinks the individual described by Tamsin looked like Brueckner? We have no way of knowing.
Further did Silence really say this
“ She even saw a little girl, believed to be Madeleine, on the balcony being watched by the prowler.”
Because even Tamsin didn’t claim that.
To be honest I don’t think necessarily that Silence approached the Sun, the piece is so factually inaccurate it’s obviously been written by someone who knows little of the case. I do however think that Silence senior let his name be used to give the piece substance…but for a price.
Hope that clears things up.
You do seem to be taking this rather personally….best not, it’s only a forum.
-
Madeleine's case is not frozen in aspic. Lots of fresh evidence. At least one brand new arguido. And the information that Amaral gave us about the time the PJ did a trick with Brueckner of "now you see him ... now you don't" on his watch.
I'm rather intrigued what Amaral's motive is for that period when he was coordinator as I watch his strenuous efforts to fail the case yet again and why the "questioners" are not asking questions about that peculiar behaviour.
why the "questioners" are not asking questions about that peculiar behaviour.
I would think that question should be more directed to the mccs.
-
why the "questioners" are not asking questions about that peculiar behaviour.
I would think that question should be more directed to the mccs.
Yes ~ I know you do.
But the guys and gals who know how to conduct criminal investigations are at variance with you. They have this cute little trick of studying all the available evidence with two purposes in mind- to rule people out of investigations, saves a lot of time and repetitive ground hog daying
- to rule people into investigations allowing a relevant direction for seeking evidence and gathering enough evidence to make a case, which can be presented in court
That's what real investigators do in the belief that is how crimes are solved.
Amaral uses a different technique which has been truly quite bizarre of late. You might have no interest in mulling that over, but I am certain that I won't be alone in wondering what his motive is.
PS your chosen target which you share with Amaral - was ruled out of the equation many years ago.
-
Yes ~ I know you do.
But the guys and gals who know how to conduct criminal investigations are at variance with you. They have this cute little trick of studying all the available evidence with two purposes in mind- to rule people out of investigations, saves a lot of time and repetitive ground hog daying
- to rule people into investigations allowing a relevant direction for seeking evidence and gathering enough evidence to make a case, which can be presented in court
That's what real investigators do in the belief that is how crimes are solved.
Amaral uses a different technique which has been truly quite bizarre of late. You might have no interest in mulling that over, but I am certain that I won't be alone in wondering what his motive is.
I am certain that I won't be alone in wondering what his motive is.
Seems I wont be alone either ....wondering what the mccs motive was.
-
I have never pretended that I have any access to the current investigation so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. What I have said is that Tasmin’s dad was paid for his story though to be honest the story could have been written without Mr Silence’s input. NOWHERE does it say that Tamsin recognised Brueckner, the ‘claim’ is ambiguous
“Gordon Sillence, 61, said his girl Tasmin, then 11, twice saw a man who looked like Christian B lurking outside the McCanns’ flat.”
Is it the churnalist who thinks the individual described by Tamsin looked like Brueckner? We have no way of knowing.
Further did Silence really say this
“ She even saw a little girl, believed to be Madeleine, on the balcony being watched by the prowler.”
Because even Tamsin didn’t claim that.
To be honest I don’t think necessarily that Silence approached the Sun, the piece is so factually inaccurate it’s obviously been written by someone who knows little of the case. I do however think that Silence senior let his name be used to give the piece substance…but for a price.
Hope that clears things up.
You do seem to be taking this rather personally….best not, it’s only a forum.
Thanks for finally admitting you lied when you said you knew he’d been paid by the paper. Always best to stick to the truth (which in this case is you don’t know) if you don’t want to look like a complete eejit.
-
Thanks for finally admitting you lied when you said you knew he’d been paid by the paper. Always best to stick to the truth (which in this case is you don’t know) if you don’t want to look like a complete eejit.
It’s such a lovely autumn day outside….perhaps you should take advantage, clear your head?
-
It’s such a lovely autumn day outside….perhaps you should take advantage, clear your head?
More veiled insults, a Faithlilly speciality. Let the next thing you write be kind, reflective and insightful. Now there’s a challenge!
-
More veiled insults, a Faithlilly speciality. Let the next thing you write be kind, reflective and insightful. Now there’s a challenge!
You see malice where none was intended.
-
You see malice where none was intended.
Oh please. Run off and bother someone else for a change.
-
Oh please. Run off and bother someone else for a change.
Would it make you feel better if I put you on ignore again?
-
I have never pretended that I have any access to the current investigation so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. What I have said is that Tasmin’s dad was paid for his story though to be honest the story could have been written without Mr Silence’s input. NOWHERE does it say that Tamsin recognised Brueckner, the ‘claim’ is ambiguous
“Gordon Sillence, 61, said his girl Tasmin, then 11, twice saw a man who looked like Christian B lurking outside the McCanns’ flat.”
Is it the churnalist who thinks the individual described by Tamsin looked like Brueckner? We have no way of knowing.
Further did Silence really say this
“ She even saw a little girl, believed to be Madeleine, on the balcony being watched by the prowler.”
Because even Tamsin didn’t claim that.
To be honest I don’t think necessarily that Silence approached the Sun, the piece is so factually inaccurate it’s obviously been written by someone who knows little of the case. I do however think that Silence senior let his name be used to give the piece substance…but for a price.
Hope that clears things up.
You do seem to be taking this rather personally….best not, it’s only a forum.
Taken from the statement given by Tamsin Silence-
When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.
-
Taken from the statement given by Tamsin Silence-
When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.
Yes thank you Lace I know that Tasmin saw Madeleine but not at the same time as her sighting as claimed in the quote I posted.
-
Would it make you feel better if I put you on ignore again?
No, just give it a rest for a bit, you wear me out. @)(++(*