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 September 11, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Title: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 11, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Seeing now how CB could in fact be a scapegoat, although now because of the continued media saying he is guilty. Some could now believe he is... on just hearsay and a phone ping. Nothing to prove he was at 5a.
Nothing to prove he was the alleged abductor.
IMO a lot of things with the mccs don't add up more so the abduction - that there is still no proof of it happening.
At his office near the reconstructed medieval town centre, Mr Wolters said: "We have found nothing in the past three months to make us think we've got the wrong suspect, but the evidence we have now is the same we had when we made our first appeal on 3 June.
Mr Wolters said: "There is no forensic evidence, but it is not necessary to have forensics to charge our suspect. We just need more evidence, but I can't say what it is we are looking for though there are different possibilities. Maybe a witness, a photo or a video."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 11, 2020, 02:35:04 PM
Yes, way more evidence against the McCanns - that's why the police are not investigating them but investigating other suspects including CB. How bloody perplexing that must be for you!!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 11, 2020, 03:00:01 PM
Yes, way more evidence against the McCanns - that's why the police are not investigating them but investigating other suspects including CB. How bloody perplexing that must be for you!!
No, not perplexing Its just I think they are involved .....not CB.
How many more suspects will they investigate that will come to nothing.
It's obvious to me they are looking in the wrong place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 11, 2020, 03:01:13 PM
I think HCW so a chance to make a name for himself started the ball rolling and hoped for the best.
IMO he thought he would have enough with the phone ping and the rest would follow ...seems it has not.
yeah, just an idiot then. If only Amaral was still leading the case, well those evil b........ mcCanns might be looking at coming out of prison by round about now.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 11, 2020, 03:32:17 PM
yeah, just an idiot then. If only Amaral was still leading the case, well those evil b........ mcCanns might be looking at coming out of prison by round about now.
You can be as sarcastic as you want why... I don't know.
You think they are innocent but why do you feel a need to constantly act in there defence.
I dont believe they are innocent..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 11, 2020, 03:38:25 PM
You can be as sarcastic as you want why... I don't know.
You think they are innocent but why do you feel a need to constantly act in there defence.
I dont believe they are innocent..
Good for you, it must give you a warm glow to feel so superior, not just to me, but to the police forces of Germany and the UK, to know that you are far more perceptive and intelligent than us mere sheeple. Hurrah!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 11, 2020, 03:53:46 PM
Good for you, it must give you a warm glow to feel so superior, not just to me, but to the police forces of Germany and the UK, to know that you are far more perceptive and intelligent than us mere sheeple. Hurrah!
I dont believe the abduction ...its as simple as that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 11, 2020, 04:00:15 PM
I dont believe the abduction ...its as simple as that.
And I don't care what you think...it's as simple as that too.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 11, 2020, 04:40:00 PM
Once again on the sky interview HCW says nothing found in the cars... No clothes of Maddie.. But when he mentions the memory sticks he says... I can't tell you what we found.. Interesting
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 11, 2020, 04:48:35 PM
I believe and have done from the begining the mccs are involved....never IMO have they acted like they have thought maddie was with paedo.
According to the law professionals who were assigned to them as FLO’s their behaviour at the time gave them no grounds for suspicion. These are professionals who actually had first hand experience of dealing with parents in similar situations and more importantly specifc experience of dealing with thr M.cCanns on a one to one basis. You are Kizzy on the Internet whose views have been shaped by the tabloids, one minute long clips on the news and photoshopped pictures of the McCanns on twitter or other social media. Who is better placed to have formed a valid opinion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 11, 2020, 07:28:30 PM
According to the law professionals who were assigned to them as FLO’s their behaviour at the time gave them no grounds for suspicion. These are professionals who actually had first hand experience of dealing with parents in similar situations and more importantly specifc experience of dealing with thr M.cCanns on a one to one basis. You are Kizzy on the Internet whose views have been shaped by the tabloids, one minute long clips on the news and photoshopped pictures of the McCanns on twitter or other social media. Who is better placed to have formed a valid opinion?
I have followed this from beginning and have never changed my mind
Not like you who believ every suspect is the abductor. when there is no proof there was abductor in the first place.
I believe what to me is obvious ...not what Im told to believe.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 11, 2020, 07:47:20 PM
I have followed this from beginning and have never changed my mind
Not like you who believ every suspect is the abductor. when there is no proof there was abductor in the first place.
I believe what to me is obvious ...not what Im told to believe.
I notice you studiously avoided answering my point, preferring instead to stick your fingers in your ears going “la la la I refuse to listen to reason”. Fine, Your choice.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 11, 2020, 08:42:34 PM
I notice you studiously avoided answering my point, preferring instead to stick your fingers in your ears going “la la la I refuse to listen to reason”. Fine, Your choice.
OK it is Kizzy's choice, so drop the goading.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 11, 2020, 08:46:55 PM
kizzy is of course entitled to her view but shes not entitled to say that posters such as myself beleive things because we are told to....I believe what I do based on the evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 11, 2020, 08:57:19 PM
if i believed as many sceptics seem to that..
That the dogs proved that Maddie body had been in 5a
That the dna proved maddie died in the apartmnet and was carried in the car...but perhaps the FFs doctored it
That the McCanns lied in their statements
That the McCcanns behaviour was odd and that statemnet analysis proves they were lying
That the McCanns started the fund to make themselves rich
That gerry discussed the abuse of his daughter in front of the Gaspars
If those things were true I too would believe the mcCanns guilty and amaral right....but I dont believe any of them
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 11, 2020, 09:40:38 PM
That the dogs proved that Maddie body had been in 5a
That the dna proved maddie died in the apartmnet and was carried in the car...but perhaps the FFs doctored it
That the McCanns lied in their statements
That the McCcanns behaviour was odd and that statemnet analysis proves they were lying
That the McCanns started the fund to make themselves rich
That gerry discussed the abuse of his daughter in front of the Gaspars
If those things were true I too would believe the mcCanns guilty and amaral right....but I dont believe any of them
CB evidence. a phone ping in area he lived in - dodgy ex con friend who he told he knew what happened to Maddie.[this makes him prime suspectin abducting Maddie even though not proof of abduction]
Nothing with the mccs is straight forward every thing seems too have a twist.
DNA FIRST 100% match then it wasnt.
Two OF THE Best trained sniffer dogs in UK - both got it wrong. If Maddie had been found within a few days M G career would have been it tatters.
Car boot left open of car
Contradictions between the account of Jeremy Wilkins and the accounts of gmcc and Jane Tanner.IIRC JWdid not appear in documentry.
Metodo three it seems was only employed to dish dirt on GA. they also turned oit sleazy P.I
why did the mccs spend fund money on hiring these detectives?
I believe it has only seemed more about gagging GA than looking for Maddie.
Detectives Hired by the McCanns want to Frame Gonçalo Amaral
CB evidence. a phone ping in area he lived in - dodgy ex con friend who he told he knew what happened to Maddie.[this makes him prime suspectin abducting Maddie even though not proof of abduction]
Nothing with the mccs is straight forward every thing seems too have a twist.
DNA FIRST 100% match then it wasnt.
Two OF THE Best trained sniffer dogs in UK - both got it wrong. If Maddie had been found within a few days M G career would have been it tatters.
Car boot left open of car
Contradictions between the account of Jeremy Wilkins and the accounts of gmcc and Jane Tanner.IIRC JWdid not appear in documentry.
Metodo three it seems was only employed to dish dirt on GA. they also turned oit sleazy P.I
why did the mccs spend fund money on hiring these detectives?
I believe it has only seemed more about gagging GA than looking for Maddie.
Detectives Hired by the McCanns want to Frame Gonçalo Amaral
No I and many others think she was abducted by a paedophile... As does HCW
I think that there is little doubt that Madeleine was stranger abducted.
As for Christian B, it seems quite probable that he is involved, but at present, I sit on the wall, think about it and produce likely scenarios … which almost everyone ignores. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 12:46:38 PM
You don't know what the evidece is.if you do what is it.
So if HCW falls flat on his face so will you.
Im not just referring to the evidence HCW has...and I don't see him falling flat on his face although amaral already has. sacked from th einvstigation and convicted of purjery.
you have told us what evidence you beleive..
100% dna match....that hasnt been shown to exist
dog alerts...which are not confirmed...an open boot....no confirmation...all absolute rubbish imo
I havent seen any evidence HCW is anything other than very professional. We will see what happens in the next two months
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 01:17:32 PM
Im not just referring to the evidence HCW has...and I don't see him falling flat on his face although amaral already has. sacked from th einvstigation and convicted of purjery.
you have told us what evidence you beleive..
100% dna match....that hasnt been shown to exist
dog alerts...which are not confirmed...an open boot....no confirmation...all absolute rubbish imo
I havent seen any evidence HCW is anything other than very professional. We will see what happens in the next two months
Running an investigation through the media is considered professional is it? according to Brunt there's another investigation which is not in the public domain,is that unprofessional or more like an investigation should work?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 13, 2020, 01:42:29 PM
Im not just referring to the evidence HCW has...and I don't see him falling flat on his face although amaral already has. sacked from th einvstigation and convicted of purjery.
you have told us what evidence you beleive..
100% dna match....that hasnt been shown to exist
dog alerts...which are not confirmed...an open boot....no confirmation...all absolute rubbish imo
I havent seen any evidence HCW is anything other than very professional. We will see what happens in the next two months
although amaral already has. sacked from th einvstigation and convicted of purjery.
Oh my the lengths you go to trying to make it out GA was done for purgery after he had been removed.
GA wasnt sacked he was got rid of.imo got rid of no matter what the cost..
The mcs payed for detectives [from the fund to look for maddie] to dish the dirt on GA.
Also been spending money ever since by continually going after GA ...even now.
They just leave it to everyone else to look for Maddie...also blame everyone but themselves.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 01:45:02 PM
Running an investigation through the media is considered professional is it? according to Brunt there's another investigation which is not in the public domain,is that unprofessional or more like an investigation should work?
asking for the publics help is professional ...yes. as opposed to amaral who wrote a book...leaked lies to the press...yet you support him. You need to listen to what Brunt says again
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 13, 2020, 01:46:35 PM
asking for the publics help is professional ...yes. as opposed to amaral who wrote a book...leaked lies to the press...yet you support him. You need to listen to what Brunt says again
I'm a supporter of no one, he's yet to be proved wrong though is my stance.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 01:46:56 PM
I'm a supporter of know one, he's yet to be proved wrong though is my stance.
as is the celestial teapot.... the loch ness monster and fairies at the bottom of the garden...none of thse have been proved wrong so maral is in good company.....he may well be proven wrong very soon. you and amaral have a twisted view of justice...its for amaral to prove himself right...not for others to prove him wrong
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 13, 2020, 01:52:58 PM
as is the celestial teapot.... the loch ness monster and fairies at the bottom of the garden...none of thse have been proved wrong so maral is in good company.....he may well be proven wrong very soon. you and amaral have a twisted view of justice...its for amaral to prove himself right...not for others to prove him wrong
What makes you so certain he is wrong?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 13, 2020, 02:12:15 PM
asking for the publics help is professional ...yes. as opposed to amaral who wrote a book...leaked lies to the press...yet you support him. You need to listen to what Brunt says again
The book was written from the PJ files, not lies at all.
I f they had of been lies he mccs would have won liable trial........they didn't.. GA DID.
nice try.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 13, 2020, 02:15:06 PM
The book was written from the PJ files, not lies at all.
I f they had of been lies he mccs would have won liable trial........they didn't.. GA DID.
nice try.
Actually, what happened was that Amaral won the right to write any old bollocks in a bestselling book, because in Portugal his rights to "free speech" outweigh the rights of those not to be lied about in a bestselling book.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 02:48:10 PM
Actually, what happened was that Amaral won the right to write any old bollocks in a bestselling book, because in Portugal his rights to "free speech" outweigh the rights of those not to be lied about in a bestselling book.
Awful to any fair minded people. And, of course, in PT it seems that the more important you are, the more that you can get away with these injustices.
Self important, pumped up little people IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 02:54:32 PM
So Eddie found a body under a, paving stone in Jersey... The dogs have 100% record... Have helped solve 200 cases... Non of that is true
Have I said it was?.....What i will say is best form of deffence is attack like u always seem to do
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 13, 2020, 03:11:44 PM
IIRC a number of reports which have never been contradicted, while hundreds of people, including staff of Mark Warners and many local people, searched the area around the Ocean Club apartments for hours after Maddie went missing,
not one of the mccs friends, ’, bothered to do so. They all went to bed that night....Incuding the mccs.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 13, 2020, 03:22:20 PM
IIRC a number of reports which have never been contradicted, while hundreds of people, including staff of Mark Warners and many local people, searched the area around the Ocean Club apartments for hours after Maddie went missing,
not one of the mccs friends, ’, bothered to do so. They all went to bed that night....Incuding the mccs.
you do post some absolute tripe..imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 13, 2020, 03:47:39 PM
What you are posting is years old.... And tripe imo because none if it is supported by any real evidence... Thats what counts
IMO the real truth of what happened to maddie should go back to 13 years ago.
why do you think M3 wer employed if it wasnt to discredit GA, they were paid thousands from the fund that was suppose to be looking for Maddie.
The McCanns then went on to hire a very dubious Spanish ‘detective agency’ - Metodo 3 - at cost of several hundred thousand pounds, all for no obvious benefit or results. Once again, this firm of private investigators had no known track record in finding missing children. On the contrary, they were much better known for their expertise in the fields of money laundering and fraud.
It is reported that the final bill for Metodo 3's work could be anywhere between £300,000 and £750,000 - but what were they doing for nearly two months before the McCanns announced that they had been hired?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 14, 2020, 12:31:37 PM
Why did they need lawyers so early on ......lawyers wouldn't be looking for Maddie.
It has been widely reported - and not denied - that a ‘team of lawyers’ flew out from Leicestershire within 48 hours of Madeleine being reported missing, possibly the very next day. How several lawyers could help find an abducted child has never been explained. Nor has it been explained who asked these lawyers to fly out to Praia da Luz and who paid for them.
11 May 2007 Lawyers fly in / 'No stone unturned' mentioned for first time
Portuguese newspapers report that this is the day lawyers flew into Portugal and met with the McCanns at the Ocean Club.
Extract:
English lawyers in Lagos
However, it is known to DN, that two British lawyers arrived Friday afternoon at The Ocean Club resort, and were staying there to advise the parents of Madeleine in this process. A situation that arises hours after the last presence of the parents with the PJ in Portimão, where they were interviewed for the second time, for long hours.
Although the PJ reiterate that the relatives and friends of Madeleine "do not fall under any suspicion," the presence of lawyers is nevertheless a curious fact, at a time when there is talk of a possible return to the United Kingdom by the couple. According to the PJ, there is no legal obligation to prevent the family and friends from leaving the country at this stage, since "nobody has been made an arguido".
Why did they need lawyers so early on ......lawyers wouldn't be looking for Maddie.
It has been widely reported - and not denied - that a ‘team of lawyers’ flew out from Leicestershire within 48 hours of Madeleine being reported missing, possibly the very next day. How several lawyers could help find an abducted child has never been explained. Nor has it been explained who asked these lawyers to fly out to Praia da Luz and who paid for them.
11 May 2007 Lawyers fly in / 'No stone unturned' mentioned for first time
Portuguese newspapers report that this is the day lawyers flew into Portugal and met with the McCanns at the Ocean Club.
Extract:
English lawyers in Lagos
However, it is known to DN, that two British lawyers arrived Friday afternoon at The Ocean Club resort, and were staying there to advise the parents of Madeleine in this process. A situation that arises hours after the last presence of the parents with the PJ in Portimão, where they were interviewed for the second time, for long hours.
Although the PJ reiterate that the relatives and friends of Madeleine "do not fall under any suspicion," the presence of lawyers is nevertheless a curious fact, at a time when there is talk of a possible return to the United Kingdom by the couple. According to the PJ, there is no legal obligation to prevent the family and friends from leaving the country at this stage, since "nobody has been made an arguido".
It wasn't for an outstanding way leave or planning issue in Rothley in regard to the impingement on privacy pertaining to a neighbour's proposed garage conversion / development of the roof space, incorporating Velux windows to two elevations; but more likely it was to look at the legal implications for potential exposure to child neglect charges.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 14, 2020, 12:52:48 PM
Shortly after that, the McCanns had got sufficient funds organised to afford top lawyers in both Britain and Portugal. Again, how lawyers could help to ‘find Madeleine’ is not clear.
It seems When the McCanns were about to made suspects in the investigation of Maddies disappearance, they rushed to hire the Uk top extradition lawyer, Michael Caplan Q.C.,
IMO, as well as ohers ‘innocent’ parents would not need a team of lawyers out with them within 48 hours, nor would they need Britain’s top extradition lawyers. If they had done nothing wrong,
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 14, 2020, 01:02:59 PM
Shortly after that, the McCanns had got sufficient funds organised to afford top lawyers in both Britain and Portugal. Again, how lawyers could help to ‘find Madeleine’ is not clear.
It seems When the McCanns were about to made suspects in the investigation of Maddies disappearance, they rushed to hire the Uk top extradition lawyer, Michael Caplan Q.C.,
IMO, as well as ohers ‘innocent’ parents would not need a team of lawyers out with them within 48 hours, nor would they need Britain’s top extradition lawyers. If they had done nothing wrong,
There would appear to be a certain amount of keck cackage going on there to go to such lengths. Who knows how one would react in such a situation, but I'd like to think I'd be searching for my daughter and not an extradition lawyer - I wouldn't care much about what happened to me personally. (Besides, extradition is just a free flight home)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on September 14, 2020, 01:21:05 PM
Why did they need lawyers so early on ......lawyers wouldn't be looking for Maddie.
It has been widely reported - and not denied - that a ‘team of lawyers’ flew out from Leicestershire within 48 hours of Madeleine being reported missing, possibly the very next day. How several lawyers could help find an abducted child has never been explained. Nor has it been explained who asked these lawyers to fly out to Praia da Luz and who paid for them.
11 May 2007 Lawyers fly in / 'No stone unturned' mentioned for first time
Portuguese newspapers report that this is the day lawyers flew into Portugal and met with the McCanns at the Ocean Club.
Extract:
English lawyers in Lagos
However, it is known to DN, that two British lawyers arrived Friday afternoon at The Ocean Club resort, and were staying there to advise the parents of Madeleine in this process. A situation that arises hours after the last presence of the parents with the PJ in Portimão, where they were interviewed for the second time, for long hours.
Although the PJ reiterate that the relatives and friends of Madeleine "do not fall under any suspicion," the presence of lawyers is nevertheless a curious fact, at a time when there is talk of a possible return to the United Kingdom by the couple. According to the PJ, there is no legal obligation to prevent the family and friends from leaving the country at this stage, since "nobody has been made an arguido".
They probably had been advised to get the best British Lawyers 'cause the Consulate would know about what happened to Michael Cook (extreme torture) and to Leonor and Joao Cipriano (also extreme torture). Both parties were jailed for long periods with no actual evidence, except tortured out confessions.
Oh, Amaral and Cristavao cobbled some stuff together, but there was NO ACTUAL evidence in either case.
Very wise of the Mccanns to act so early.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on September 14, 2020, 01:46:34 PM
It wasn't for an outstanding way leave or planning issue in Rothley in regard to the impingement on privacy pertaining to a neighbour's proposed garage conversion / development of the roof space, incorporating Velux windows to two elevations; but more likely it was to look at the legal implications for potential exposure to child neglect charges.
Sorry, but what a load of BS.
No child neglect there. They were on Ocean Club premises, within sight of 5A and only 50 metres away crow flies. And 70+ metres away walking running if needed. Also checking at more regular intervals than half hourly ones. Much better than Butlins who had a cyclist ride round at intervals, listening at the window/door
It was like us being in our then back garden, chatting to our neighbours over the fence. Just like someone on a camping/caravaning site may be chatting/having a barby with their neighbours 50 metres away
Nobody, I repeat nobody, could anticipate what happened to Madeleine THEN. After Madeleine is a different scenario.
Perhaps your understanding will increase and you will mellow with age and life experience. Do hope so.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2020, 02:11:26 PM
No child neglect there. They were on Ocean Club premises, within sight of 5A and only 50 metres away crow flies. And 70+ metres away walking running if needed. Also checking at more regular intervals than half hourly ones. Much better than Butlins who had a cyclist ride round at intervals, listening at the window/door
It was like us being in our then back garden, chatting to our neighbours over the fence. Just like someone on a camping/caravaning site may be chatting/having a barby with their neighbours 50 metres away
Nobody, I repeat nobody, could anticipate what happened to Madeleine THEN. After Madeleine is a different scenario.
Perhaps your understanding will increase and you will mellow with age and life experience. Do hope so.
It doesn't matter how much you try to excuse it, who else did it, how and where they did it....IT'S STILL WRONG!!
Infants and young children 0-3 years old should never be left alone...this applies also in your car while you run into the shops. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2020, 02:21:52 PM
It doesn't matter how much you try to excuse it, who else did it, how and where they did it....IT'S STILL WRONG!!
Infants and young children 0-3 years old should never be left alone...this applies also in your car while you run into the shops. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/
thats a reccomnedation not a law
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 14, 2020, 02:28:00 PM
No child neglect there. They were on Ocean Club premises, within sight of 5A and only 50 metres away crow flies. And 70+ metres away walking running if needed. Also checking at more regular intervals than half hourly ones. Much better than Butlins who had a cyclist ride round at intervals, listening at the window/door
It was like us being in our then back garden, chatting to our neighbours over the fence. Just like someone on a camping/caravaning site may be chatting/having a barby with their neighbours 50 metres away
Nobody, I repeat nobody, could anticipate what happened to Madeleine THEN. After Madeleine is a different scenario.
Perhaps your understanding will increase and you will mellow with age and life experience. Do hope so.
No. And again, no. I would NEVER leave a child alone in a hotel room and b....r off to go and eat and drink with friends. Never. Not even with a listening service. Not even with a robust (or otherwise) checking system. NEVER. No excuse and there never will be. Nobody could anticipate? The mode of potential harm is irrelevant. Most parents would be able to come up with 30 reasons not to go out on the sauce with their mates and leave the kids to fend for themselves. It would appear that the McCann's only needed one excuse to do the opposite. Call me what you like, I don't care, but I wouldn't even lock (yes, lock) a child in a hotel room to nip down to reception to pick something up or run an errand. No chance. Not even if they were asleep. Ain't happening. 3 kids under 4? That's unthinkable for me. And as for the specific scenario, that's just child cruelty, particularly knowing that they'd been crying for their mum. Utterly pitiful. So quit with your accusations of bullshit; I call bullshit on your feeble attempts to mitigate neglectful behaviour. ....and how do you control 3 under 4's when you're not there for hours on end?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 14, 2020, 02:51:09 PM
Shortly after that, the McCanns had got sufficient funds organised to afford top lawyers in both Britain and Portugal. Again, how lawyers could help to ‘find Madeleine’ is not clear.
It seems When the McCanns were about to made suspects in the investigation of Maddies disappearance, they rushed to hire the Uk top extradition lawyer, Michael Caplan Q.C.,
IMO, as well as ohers ‘innocent’ parents would not need a team of lawyers out with them within 48 hours, nor would they need Britain’s top extradition lawyers. If they had done nothing wrong,
What are you talking about? The McCann's didn't have lawyers within 48 hours. The got a lawyer for the search fund and then to sue people who were telling lies about them, that doesn't make them guilty of anything.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 14, 2020, 02:55:23 PM
What are you talking about? The McCann's didn't have lawyers within 48 hours. The got a lawyer for the search fund and then to sue people who were telling lies about them, that doesn't make them guilty of anything.
Oh just read the post again, will you.
What am I talking about..what are you... you mean
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 14, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
No. And again, no. I would NEVER leave a child alone in a hotel room and b....r off to go and eat and drink with friends. Never. Not even with a listening service. Not even with a robust (or otherwise) checking system. NEVER. No excuse and there never will be. Nobody could anticipate? The mode of potential harm is irrelevant. Most parents would be able to come up with 30 reasons not to go out on the sauce with their mates and leave the kids to fend for themselves. It would appear that the McCann's only needed one excuse to do the opposite. Call me what you like, I don't care, but I wouldn't even lock (yes, lock) a child in a hotel room to nip down to reception to pick something up or run an errand. No chance. Not even if they were asleep. Ain't happening. 3 kids under 4? That's unthinkable for me. And as for the specific scenario, that's just child cruelty, particularly knowing that they'd been crying for their mum. Utterly pitiful. So quit with your accusations of bullshit; I call bullshit on your feeble attempts to mitigate neglectful behaviour. ....and how do you control 3 under 4's when you're not there for hours on end?
What a load of hysterical hyperbole. No child was left “for hours on end”.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 14, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
It doesn't matter how much you try to excuse it, who else did it, how and where they did it....IT'S STILL WRONG!!
Infants and young children 0-3 years old should never be left alone...this applies also in your car while you run into the shops. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/
Are you suggesting that a child has to have 24-hour supervision? This is not only impracticable, it‘s also impossible. An example: you put your child down for a nap. You take the opportunity to do some domestic chores including hanging washing on the line outside your home. A neighbour notices you and a conversation ensues. Half an hour passes. How is this negligent?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 14, 2020, 09:32:48 PM
No. And again, no. I would NEVER leave a child alone in a hotel room and b....r off to go and eat and drink with friends. Never. Not even with a listening service. Not even with a robust (or otherwise) checking system. NEVER. No excuse and there never will be. Nobody could anticipate? The mode of potential harm is irrelevant. Most parents would be able to come up with 30 reasons not to go out on the sauce with their mates and leave the kids to fend for themselves. It would appear that the McCann's only needed one excuse to do the opposite. Call me what you like, I don't care, but I wouldn't even lock (yes, lock) a child in a hotel room to nip down to reception to pick something up or run an errand. No chance. Not even if they were asleep. Ain't happening. 3 kids under 4? That's unthinkable for me. And as for the specific scenario, that's just child cruelty, particularly knowing that they'd been crying for their mum. Utterly pitiful. So quit with your accusations of bullshit; I call bullshit on your feeble attempts to mitigate neglectful behaviour. ....and how do you control 3 under 4's when you're not there for hours on end?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 14, 2020, 09:35:56 PM
No. And again, no. I would NEVER leave a child alone in a hotel room and b....r off to go and eat and drink with friends. Never. Not even with a listening service. Not even with a robust (or otherwise) checking system. NEVER. No excuse and there never will be. Nobody could anticipate? The mode of potential harm is irrelevant. Most parents would be able to come up with 30 reasons not to go out on the sauce with their mates and leave the kids to fend for themselves. It would appear that the McCann's only needed one excuse to do the opposite. Call me what you like, I don't care, but I wouldn't even lock (yes, lock) a child in a hotel room to nip down to reception to pick something up or run an errand. No chance. Not even if they were asleep. Ain't happening. 3 kids under 4? That's unthinkable for me. And as for the specific scenario, that's just child cruelty, particularly knowing that they'd been crying for their mum. Utterly pitiful. So quit with your accusations of bullshit; I call bullshit on your feeble attempts to mitigate neglectful behaviour. ....and how do you control 3 under 4's when you're not there for hours on end?
That would make you the perfect parent then ... taking into consideration that you actually are a parent. My opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 14, 2020, 10:01:05 PM
Not sure that would wash with Social Services when the kids have been drawing on the walls with their own faeces.
My daughter must have been about 3/4 years old when she got up in the night, climbed onto the bathroom stool to get a drink of water, fell off and cut her eyebrow open. Luckily she found me and her dad in our bed and was able to be comforted and given first aid.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2020, 10:28:02 PM
Are you suggesting that a child has to have 24-hour supervision? This is not only impracticable, it‘s also impossible. An example: you put your child down for a nap. You take the opportunity to do some domestic chores including hanging washing on the line outside your home. A neighbour notices you and a conversation ensues. Half an hour passes. How is this negligent?
It isn't. Going out for a meal with your mates is negligent.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 14, 2020, 10:44:05 PM
It isn't. Going out for a meal with your mates is negligent.
In my opinion there is something hideously odd that the most important resonance concerning Madeleine's disappearance for some was not that she vanished never to be seen again but the allegation of negligence which takes up most of their outrage.
At the time there was a pervert on the loose in the Algarve whose MO was to enter holiday apartments while the parents slept in most of the cases undisturbed, with the purpose to sexually assault little girls.
Who is to blame for these assaults: in my opinion quite obviously the pervert who perpetrated them. By the same token the blame for Madeleine McCann's disappearance lies fair and square with the person who absconded with her.
After over thirteen years of absence I think it is about time that blame was apportioned appropriately.
Or not as the case may be ... the people who really matter are those who are doing their level best to find out what happened to Madeleine, who is responsible for it and if there is any chance she is still alive and those include her parents.
I really feel that Madeleine has been pushed into the background by those falling over themselves in their eagerness to get the boot into her parents. Hatred as epitomised in the title of this thread ... "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB" How horribly base and revolting is it to compare bereaved parents who made the mistake of their lives over thirteen years ago and have spent those every day of those years in atonement with a creature such as Brueckner.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on September 14, 2020, 11:53:52 PM
It doesn't matter how much you try to excuse it, who else did it, how and where they did it....IT'S STILL WRONG!!
Infants and young children 0-3 years old should never be left alone...this applies also in your car while you run into the shops. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/
Butlins did it and it wasn't considered child neglect.
Very obviously The Authorities didn't think it child neglect either..
I guess we did it when caravanning, cos we used to sit out around a camp fire, but always in sight and close to our caravan. Our children were a bit older tho. It was really pitch black there, but thousands did it. Not child neglect.
We now realise, since Madeleines abduction that it was not good practice, but at the time, BEFORE Madeleine, it seemed fine to everyone, cos everyone joined in.
The Mccanns didn't have anything to warn them of the potential dangers, which we all know about since May 3rd., 2007
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 15, 2020, 08:53:37 AM
Butlins did it and it wasn't considered child neglect.
Very obviously The Authorities didn't think it child neglect either..
I guess we did it when caravanning, cos we used to sit out around a camp fire, but always in sight and close to our caravan. Our children were a bit older tho. It was really pitch black there, but thousands did it. Not child neglect.
We now realise, since Madeleines abduction that it was not good practice, but at the time, BEFORE Madeleine, it seemed fine to everyone, cos everyone joined in.
The Mccanns didn't have anything to warn them of the potential dangers, which we all know about since May 3rd., 2007
Apart from their own consciences.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 15, 2020, 10:04:50 AM
In my opinion there is something hideously odd that the most important resonance concerning Madeleine's disappearance for some was not that she vanished never to be seen again but the allegation of negligence which takes up most of their outrage.
At the time there was a pervert on the loose in the Algarve whose MO was to enter holiday apartments while the parents slept in most of the cases undisturbed, with the purpose to sexually assault little girls.
Who is to blame for these assaults: in my opinion quite obviously the pervert who perpetrated them. By the same token the blame for Madeleine McCann's disappearance lies fair and square with the person who absconded with her.
After over thirteen years of absence I think it is about time that blame was apportioned appropriately.
Or not as the case may be ... the people who really matter are those who are doing their level best to find out what happened to Madeleine, who is responsible for it and if there is any chance she is still alive and those include her parents.
I really feel that Madeleine has been pushed into the background by those falling over themselves in their eagerness to get the boot into her parents. Hatred as epitomised in the title of this thread ... "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB" How horribly base and revolting is it to compare bereaved parents who made the mistake of their lives over thirteen years ago and have spent those every day of those years in atonement with a creature such as Brueckner.
I believe the mccs are involved in what happened to Maddie.....what more can you say.
You say they ade a mistake......so you would think after that they would be overprotective of the twins.
So much so they put them in the creche next doay...not knowing if it was aninside job.
IMO they thought it was safe to do that becacse they knew it was safe to do that.
No abductor.......still today dozens of suspects that all come to nothing.
If your child had truly been ‘abducted by a stranger’ theywould be especially protective towards their other children and want to be close by their side as much as possible.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 15, 2020, 10:09:36 AM
I believe the mccs are involved in what happened to Maddie.....what more can you say.
You say they ade a mistake......so you would think after that they would be overprotective of the twins.
So much so they put them in the creche next doay...not knowing if it was aninside job.
IMO they thought it was safe to do that becacse they knew it was safe to do that.
No abductor.......still today dozens of suspects that all come to nothing.
If your child had truly been ‘abducted by a stranger’ theywould be especially protective towards their other children and want to be close by their side as much as possible.
I'm sure the mcCanns are not involved based on the evidence and am faorly sure Breukner is involved..based on the evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 15, 2020, 10:28:03 AM
I'm sure the mcCanns are not involved based on the evidence and am faorly sure Breukner is involved..based on the evidence
Surely you can see they are looking for something that isn't there.
Portuguese police fear Christian B will never go down for his suspected crimes.
It comes as Germany‘s investigation into the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, 43, has dried up.
Christian B is currently in jail for drug offences, and is appealing a seven-year sentence for raping a 73-year-old woman as Portuguese police desperately try to ensure he has no chance of being released anytime soon.
Speaking to The Sun Online, a source said: “Although officers are continuing work around the clock, leads have dried up in recent weeks.
“They know (he) will never talk. So it will be up to them to find the missing pieces of the jigsaw to lead them to finally find out what happened to Maddie.”
Back in August, Christian B's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said “you could order holy water as a long drink in hell” before his client co-operated with the investigation.
Now German police are desperate for new information as their case has hit a dead end.
DEAD END
On Thursday a source close to the case said: “The German detectives are desperate for fresh leads to help breath new life into the investigation.
“In the first few days after Christian B‘s name was released they were receiving hundreds of new leads a week.
“But in recent weeks they have dried up and there is concern that they really need to increase the amount of intelligence they have coming in
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: carlymichelle on September 15, 2020, 10:42:09 AM
the way i see it the mcanns are adults and dont need to be coddled like some coddle them on here the people who defend the mcanns forget about maddie imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 15, 2020, 10:46:07 AM
the way i see it the mcanns are adults and dont need to be coddled like some coddle them on here the people who defend the mcanns forget about maddie imo
Give it a rest, seriously IMO your observation is quite puerile.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 15, 2020, 11:06:56 AM
Surely you can see they are looking for something that isn't there.
Portuguese police fear Christian B will never go down for his suspected crimes.
It comes as Germany‘s investigation into the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, 43, has dried up.
Christian B is currently in jail for drug offences, and is appealing a seven-year sentence for raping a 73-year-old woman as Portuguese police desperately try to ensure he has no chance of being released anytime soon.
Speaking to The Sun Online, a source said: “Although officers are continuing work around the clock, leads have dried up in recent weeks.
“They know (he) will never talk. So it will be up to them to find the missing pieces of the jigsaw to lead them to finally find out what happened to Maddie.”
Back in August, Christian B's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said “you could order holy water as a long drink in hell” before his client co-operated with the investigation.
Now German police are desperate for new information as their case has hit a dead end.
DEAD END
On Thursday a source close to the case said: “The German detectives are desperate for fresh leads to help breath new life into the investigation.
“In the first few days after Christian B‘s name was released they were receiving hundreds of new leads a week.
“But in recent weeks they have dried up and there is concern that they really need to increase the amount of intelligence they have coming in
I think there is a tremendous amount of naivety and wishful thinking embodied in your post.
“In the first few days after Christian B‘s name was released they were receiving hundreds of new leads a week."
Now multiply that by three or even by 2.05 and I think that amounts to a considerable amount of information which requires assessment and following up ... who knows, even coordination.
The appropriate response is not as demonstrated by Paiva who stuck it all in files marked as being of no relevence to the inquiry ... it is to investigate and evaluate. That takes time and effort.
For example the tabloids have produced a new friend of Brueckners for us who the Germans wish to interview as a witness. Information or intelligence about that man without a name came from somewhere don't you think and has to be checked, discarded or advanced depending on relevance.
Were I you I would not place too much hope or reliance on journalists anxious for a pay cheque. I would wait until the guys who know what they are doing let us in on that.
It was the Portuguese who gave up on Madeleine back in 2007 ~ I don't think the present investigators are anxious to repeat that error. Patience they say is a virtue and the Germans et al are in this for the long game.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 15, 2020, 11:12:31 AM
the way i see it the mcanns are adults and dont need to be coddled like some coddle them on here the people who defend the mcanns forget about maddie imo
Three police forces are looking for Madeleine and neither they nor Madeleine's parents are about to downplay the significance of that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 15, 2020, 11:37:59 AM
Three police forces are looking for Madeleine and neither they nor Madeleine's parents are about to downplay the significance of that.
...or even comment on it at all in fact. Not even a 'way to go, guys', or a clenched fist salute in solidarity. Just a 'dignified' silence. Oh well, at least 3 parties are looking, according to you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 15, 2020, 11:39:18 AM
I think there is a tremendous amount of naivety and wishful thinking embodied in your post.
“In the first few days after Christian B‘s name was released they were receiving hundreds of new leads a week."
Now multiply that by three or even by 2.05 and I think that amounts to a considerable amount of information which requires assessment and following up ... who knows, even coordination.
The appropriate response is not as demonstrated by Paiva who stuck it all in files marked as being of no relevence to the inquiry ... it is to investigate and evaluate. That takes time and effort.
For example the tabloids have produced a new friend of Brueckners for us who the Germans wish to interview as a witness. Information or intelligence about that man without a name came from somewhere don't you think and has to be checked, discarded or advanced depending on relevance.
Were I you I would not place too much hope or reliance on journalists anxious for a pay cheque. I would wait until the guys who know what they are doing let us in on that.
It was the Portuguese who gave up on Madeleine back in 2007 ~ I don't think the present investigators are anxious to repeat that error. Patience they say is a virtue and the Germans et al are in this for the long game.
Not if it isn't CB in the first place.
I think this applies more to you.
I think there is a tremendous amount of naivety and wishful thinking embodied in your post.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 15, 2020, 11:43:30 AM
...or even comment on it at all in fact. Not even a 'way to go, guys', or a clenched fist salute in solidarity. Just a 'dignified' silence. Oh well, at least 3 parties are looking, according to you.
Wrong again as usual
Kate & Gerry McCann Statement: June 3rd 2020 We welcome the appeal today regarding the disappearance of our daughter, Madeleine. We would like to thank the police forces involved for their continued efforts in the search for Madeleine. All we have ever wanted is to find her, uncover the truth and bring those responsible to justice. We will never give up hope of finding Madeleine alive but whatever the outcome may be, we need to know as we need to find peace. We will be making no further comment regarding the appeal today. We would like to thank the general public for their ongoing support and encourage anyone who has information directly related to the appeal, to contact the police. Thank you. Kate and Gerry
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on September 15, 2020, 11:55:31 AM
I think there is a tremendous amount of naivety and wishful thinking embodied in your post.
No, with all due respect, it is YOU Kizzy that is naïve and in fact obsessed by The McCanns so called guilt.
You are so set in your thoughts that you refuse to acknowledge all the current and historical reports on the case, showing that The Authorities do not believe the parents to be involved ... such is your hatred of The Mccanns. Carly is the same IMO.
It is a real shame because apart from this I see a nice person underneath.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 15, 2020, 12:20:08 PM
I think there is a tremendous amount of naivety and wishful thinking embodied in your post.
The police and evidence will determine whether or not Brueckner has a case to answer as far as Madeleine is concerned.
There is no comparison with that process and the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried and quartered the parents of a missing child for over thirteen years available DESPITE evidence displaying their ignorance and naivety or even worse.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 15, 2020, 01:28:51 PM
The police and evidence will determine whether or not Brueckner has a case to answer as far as Madeleine is concerned.
There is no comparison with that process and the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried and quartered the parents of a missing child for over thirteen years available DESPITE evidence displaying their ignorance and naivety or even worse.
Until a perpetrator is convicted all theories are possible.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 15, 2020, 02:46:51 PM
The police and evidence will determine whether or not Brueckner has a case to answer as far as Madeleine is concerned.
There is no comparison with that process and the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried and quartered the parents of a missing child for over thirteen years available DESPITE evidence displaying their ignorance and naivety or even worse.
I think your post shows that in it you criticize people you don't even know and calling them ignorant and naive because of an opinion they have of the mccs.
It is not set in stone that everyone has to think the mccs are completely innocent....and you dont know that they are.
Your post reflects on your opinion of people who do not agree with your agenda -
Its not very nice to make out that people are ignorant or - even worse because of there belief..but
I have seen it over the years how nasty some mcc suporters can really be...to people they dont even know.
IMO there is more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 15, 2020, 02:54:27 PM
I think your post shows that in it you criticize people you don't even know and calling them ignorant and naive because of an opinion they have of the mccs.
It is not set in stone that everyone has to think the mccs are completely innocent....and you dont know that they are.
Your post reflects on your opinion of people who do not agree with your agenda -
Its not very nice to make out that people are ignorant or - even worse because of there belief..but
I have seen it over the years how nasty some mcc suporters can really be...to people they dont even know.
IMO there is more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
I don't agree. the evidence you have highlighted in past posts is generally worthless imo. I think the only reason you discount CB is because you are mistakenly convinced the Mccanns are guilty based on this worthless evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 15, 2020, 04:26:52 PM
I don't agree. the evidence you have highlighted in past posts is generally worthless imo. I think the only reason you discount CB is because you are mistakenly convinced the Mccanns are guilty based on this worthless evidence
You may think i worthless I dont.......how crazy was the reward money,
Not for information leading to finding her or who took her.... for Maddie's safe return.
Last Updated: Monday, 14 May 2007, 00:56 GMT 01:56 UK
A "fighting fund" to which members of the public can donate to help in the search for missing Madeleine McCann is being set up by her family's lawyers.
The legal team, which has flown out to Portugal, will reveal details of the fund within the next few days.
The lawyers will help with liaison and will not interfere with the inquiry, Madeleine's uncle John McCann has said.
Rewards of £2.5m have been offered to anyone with information leading to the four-year-old's safe return.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 15, 2020, 05:16:05 PM
You may think i worthless I dont.......how crazy was the reward money,
Not for information leading to finding her or who took her.... for Maddie's safe return.
Last Updated: Monday, 14 May 2007, 00:56 GMT 01:56 UK
A "fighting fund" to which members of the public can donate to help in the search for missing Madeleine McCann is being set up by her family's lawyers.
The legal team, which has flown out to Portugal, will reveal details of the fund within the next few days.
The lawyers will help with liaison and will not interfere with the inquiry, Madeleine's uncle John McCann has said.
Rewards of £2.5m have been offered to anyone with information leading to the four-year-old's safe return.
It seems SY and the germans think its worthless too ..thats what matters
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 15, 2020, 05:52:38 PM
I don't assume anything... I look at the evidence and see if it stacks up... Pretty well none of amarals did... Amaral is proof that the police are not always right
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 16, 2020, 09:22:01 AM
I don't assume anything... I look at the evidence and see if it stacks up... Pretty well none of amarals did... Amaral is proof that the police are not always right
I beg to differ. You repeatedly post that it's what the police think that matters. I don't think you know enough about the evidence held by the German police to be able to judge if it stacks up. Brueckner was in the area at the time and they think he received a phone call from someone. Anything else?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 16, 2020, 09:30:56 AM
I beg to differ. You repeatedly post that it's what the police think that matters. I don't think you know enough about the evidence held by the German police to be able to judge if it stacks up. Brueckner was in the area at the time and they think he received a phone call from someone. Anything else?
Yes. He has a history of breaking and entering, a penchant for abusing little girls, and has been convicted of a violent rape which occurred a very short distance from the OC, in which he broke into the victim's villa. Also, various of his erstwhile associates have claimed he has said he knows what happened to Madeleine. Also, he changed the ownership details of his car the day after Madeleine vanished. That's just the stuff in the public domain.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2020, 09:35:22 AM
I beg to differ. You repeatedly post that it's what the police think that matters. I don't think you know enough about the evidence held by the German police to be able to judge if it stacks up. Brueckner was in the area at the time and they think he received a phone call from someone. Anything else?
Yes.. According to HCW enough evidence to show CB killed Maddie... Evidence at the moment they refuse to share so to suggest it's the phone pings is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 16, 2020, 09:51:33 AM
The police and evidence will determine whether or not Brueckner has a case to answer as far as Madeleine is concerned.
There is no comparison with that process and the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried and quartered the parents of a missing child for over thirteen years available DESPITE evidence displaying their ignorance and naivety or even worse.
What about the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried (sic) and quartered a retired Portuguese detective for sharing his opinions of the case DESPITE the Supreme Court of his country ruling that he was entitled to do so?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2020, 09:55:37 AM
What about the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried (sic) and quartered a retired Portuguese detective for sharing his opinions of the case DESPITE the Supreme Court of his country ruling that he was entitled to do so?
The SC should be hung drawn and quartered and hopefully will be by the ECHR. Your post is truly hypocritical.....crticising others for expressing their opinion re Amaral. Why should I not have the right to criticise the convicted liar
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 16, 2020, 10:48:58 AM
The SC should be hung drawn and quartered and hopefully will be by the ECHR. Your post is truly hypocritical.....crticising others for expressing their opinion re Amaral. Why should I not have the right to criticise the convicted liar
I find the nastiness extremely distasteful, no matter whom the target is. In my opinion it's hypocritical to object to nastiness aimed at the McCanns while simultaneously directing nastiness at Amaral.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2020, 10:56:32 AM
I find the nastiness extremely distasteful, no matter whom the target is. In my opinion it's hypocritical to object to nastiness aimed at the McCanns while simultaneously directing nastiness at Amaral.
I have never seen you object to nastiness towards the Mccanns...you describe it as having an alternative opinion. Do you therefore agree brenda leyland directed nastiness towards the McCanns.
I dont see referring to amaral as a convicted liar as being nasty
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 16, 2020, 11:03:03 AM
I find the nastiness extremely distasteful, no matter whom the target is. In my opinion it's hypocritical to object to nastiness aimed at the McCanns while simultaneously directing nastiness at Amaral.
And yet you often use emotive, disparaging language about the McCanns and their actions when describing them - do you not find that hypocritical in light of what you have just written?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2020, 11:12:43 AM
What about the internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried (sic) and quartered a retired Portuguese detective for sharing his opinions of the case DESPITE the Supreme Court of his country ruling that he was entitled to do so?
I would be able to cite hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of internet blogs and social media outlets which have been set up specifically to abuse and incite against the parents of a missing child.
Please indicate anything which substantiates your claim that an "internet rabble which has individually and collectively hung dried (sic) and quartered a retired Portuguese detective for sharing his opinions of the case"
Is there anything remotely approaching this example of what the whole McCann family has been subjected to for over thirteen years now ... I rather think not.
FREE THE MCCANN TWINS FROM CRIMINALLY SUSPICIOUS AND NEGLECTFUL PARENTS
2017 marked the 10-year anniversary of the ‘disappearance’ of then-3-year-old Madeleine McCann. The case remains unsolved, while facts suggesting the complicity of her own parents have been dismissed due to “insufficient evidence”. _____________________________________
Today, Gerry and Kate McCann still hold custody over Sean and Amelie McCann, Madeleine’s twin siblings. They would be 13 years old now. While Gerry and Kate have not been legally convicted, we are gravely concerned about the well-being of Sean and Amelie. Even though there is insufficient evidence to legally prove the complicity of Gerry and Kate in the Madeleine investigation, we must not forget the fact that they left their toddlers home alone to have dinner with their friends—this has been alleged by the McCanns themselves. Surely that is enough to prove the McCanns as parents guilty of child neglect.
The possibility of child abuse, in this case, is something we cannot ignore. Child abuse can have lifelong psychological, mental, and physical effects on victims, especially if help and treatment are delayed. We have no time to spare. We desperately implore the British government and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to investigate this matter and to make sure that Sean and Amelie are safe. https://www.change.org/p/national-free-the-mccann-twins-from-criminally-suspicious-and-neglectful-parents
So it isn't classed as child abuse by the organisers of this nasty and spiteful petition which was never going anywhere in my opinion to attempt to disrupt the lives of a family which has already suffered and continues to suffer an already unbearable burden. What strange people to think of pasting that abuse aimed specifically at two teenage children in the run up to the tenth anniversary of their sibling's disappearance.
In the interim we on this forum are being asked ... "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB" which as far as I am concerned is nothing less than a demonstration of linking to the web of organised ordure directed against this family. They have been compared to almost every bestial serial child killer it is possible to name by an underclass who seem to derive something from doing so.
In my opinion making the comparison between them and the man strongly suspected by investigators of taking their child is just about the ultimate insult imaginable and it takes a special type of person to dream it up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 16, 2020, 11:17:13 AM
And yet you often use emotive, disparaging language about the McCanns and their actions when describing them - do you not find that hypocritical in light of what you have just written?
Do I? Have you any examples of my emotive and disparaging language?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 16, 2020, 11:23:51 AM
FROM cb LAWYER. “One of the mistakes people have made is saying there is a film of the rape of the pensioner that is not true,” he said.
“But from the German prosecutors I still have not received one single file in connection with this case.
“That is extremely unusual.
“I do not know why they have not passed anything on.
“The prosecution is only asking questions in one direction.
“I think a similar case like this will be hard to find.
"It is not comprehensible how a public prosecutor's office can repeatedly approach the media and make statements like: 'We are firmly convinced that Christian B is the right person and the perpetrator and killed this girl', but then at the same time we are told that they don't have the crucial evidence.
FROM cb LAWYER. “One of the mistakes people have made is saying there is a film of the rape of the pensioner that is not true,” he said.
“But from the German prosecutors I still have not received one single file in connection with this case.
“That is extremely unusual.
“I do not know why they have not passed anything on.
“The prosecution is only asking questions in one direction.
“I think a similar case like this will be hard to find.
"It is not comprehensible how a public prosecutor's office can repeatedly approach the media and make statements like: 'We are firmly convinced that Christian B is the right person and the perpetrator and killed this girl', but then at the same time we are told that they don't have the crucial evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 16, 2020, 04:41:53 PM
My point was that people who allegedly “deplore personal abuse whoever it may be directed to” on this forum don’t seem to have a problem with it on other forums, or if they do they keep quiet about it. That’s a double standard in my book.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 16, 2020, 04:45:01 PM
the video was never produced in court.....so you think CBs lawyer has disovered something no one else has in the files...that sounds even more barmy
I cant see any other reason why he should say this if it wasnt true.
“I clearly went more openly and attempted to make my own conclusions on the sources of information available to me – for example the Portuguese investigation files.”
He claimed he uncovered completely new information which he plans to reveal in coming weeks.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2020, 05:00:53 PM
Why would his life be in danger for looking into the MM case .... sounds like hes been talking to some crackpot...was it amaral
Your as bad as the mccs ...blame GA for everything.....but your wrong. he has pressed charges on some.
learly went more openly and attempted to make my own conclusions on the sources of information available to me – for example the Portuguese investigation files.”
He claimed he uncovered completely new information which he plans to reveal in coming weeks.
“I cannot tell you what it is - but it is big. It certainly surprised me,” he said.
Since taking on Brueckner as a client – who has been convicted of possessing vile child sex abuse images, rape and drug dealing, Fuelscher said his life had changed.
He said: “I certainly don't sleep as well as I used to.|
“I've had threats, lots of them, some of them death threats.
“Some of them have been online and some of them have been on the phone.
“I have pressed charges on some of them.
“I've also been told my life is in danger for looking into the Madeleine McCann case.”
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 16, 2020, 06:37:41 PM
Your as bad as the mccs ...blame GA for everything.....but your wrong. he has pressed charges on some.
learly went more openly and attempted to make my own conclusions on the sources of information available to me – for example the Portuguese investigation files.”
He claimed he uncovered completely new information which he plans to reveal in coming weeks.
“I cannot tell you what it is - but it is big. It certainly surprised me,” he said.
Since taking on Brueckner as a client – who has been convicted of possessing vile child sex abuse images, rape and drug dealing, Fuelscher said his life had changed.
He said: “I certainly don't sleep as well as I used to.|
“I've had threats, lots of them, some of them death threats.
“Some of them have been online and some of them have been on the phone.
“I have pressed charges on some of them.
“I've also been told my life is in danger for looking into the Madeleine McCann case.”
Yeah right.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 16, 2020, 06:46:46 PM
If Fulscher has uncovered something vitally important wrt to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann why is he deliberately witholding it? Isn’t that against the law?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2020, 06:53:10 PM
Your as bad as the mccs ...blame GA for everything.....but your wrong. he has pressed charges on some.
learly went more openly and attempted to make my own conclusions on the sources of information available to me – for example the Portuguese investigation files.”
He claimed he uncovered completely new information which he plans to reveal in coming weeks.
“I cannot tell you what it is - but it is big. It certainly surprised me,” he said.
Since taking on Brueckner as a client – who has been convicted of possessing vile child sex abuse images, rape and drug dealing, Fuelscher said his life had changed.
He said: “I certainly don't sleep as well as I used to.|
“I've had threats, lots of them, some of them death threats.
“Some of them have been online and some of them have been on the phone.
“I have pressed charges on some of them.
“I've also been told my life is in danger for looking into the Madeleine McCann case.”
Which ones has he pressed charges on... I haven't heard of anyone having their life threatened... But it's in the paper so you think it's true
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 16, 2020, 07:32:27 PM
I've got to admit to being intrigued by some of the supportive comments made in regard to Brueckner when compared to the sentiments expressed against the McCanns in almost the same breath. Perhaps bemused or even fascinated might have been a better word than intrigued.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 17, 2020, 09:16:20 AM
I've got to admit to being intrigued by some of the supportive comments made in regard to Brueckner when compared to the sentiments expressed against the McCanns in almost the same breath. Perhaps bemused or even fascinated might have been a better word than intrigued.
It's not support for CB as you well no.
In my case why would I think CB was the abductor when I don't believe Maddie was abducted in the first place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on September 17, 2020, 09:28:09 AM
I've got to admit to being intrigued by some of the supportive comments made in regard to Brueckner when compared to the sentiments expressed against the McCanns in almost the same breath. Perhaps bemused or even fascinated might have been a better word than intrigued.
It seems that anyone with a less than illustrious past who just happened to be in the Luz area the day Madeleine disappeared appear to be fair game and especially so if incarcerated. I've lost track of how many innocent men have been tarred with this particular brush.
It would also appear that some posters feel that those with varying degrees of guilt have been given a reprieve while others have been wrongly condemned on the basis of money and status.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2020, 09:41:33 AM
It seems that anyone with a less than illustrious past who just happened to be in the Luz area the day Madeleine disappeared appear to be fair game and especially so if incarcerated. I've lost track of how many innocent men have been tarred with this particular brush.
It would also appear that some posters feel that those with varying degrees of guilt have been given a reprieve while others have been wrongly condemned on the basis of money and status.
The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie....that has never happened before. With germany having such severe secrecy laws i cannot see him saying this unless he has something significant.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 17, 2020, 09:48:16 AM
The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie....that has never happened before. With germany having such severe secrecy laws i cannot see him saying this unless he has something significant.
The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
What he says he has ..and what he has are two different things.
I believe he has hoped for more credable evidence and hasn't got it.
Isnt it strange how they have known about CB for three years, yet only took interest it seems when they thought CB could get early release.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2020, 11:02:50 AM
The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
What he says he has ..and what he has are two different things.
I believe he has hoped for more credable evidence and hasn't got it.
Isnt it strange how they have known about CB for three years, yet only took interest it seems when they thought CB could get early release.
It doesn't matter how credible the evidence is it is whether or not it or all the components add up to proof. I don't think even a confession is sufficient if one considers the case of Sture Ragnar Bergwall who was known as Thomas Quick https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+the+serial+killer&rlz=1C1CHBH_en-GBGB802GB802&oq=quick+the+serial+killer&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l7.12808j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
It is going to be a long drawn out process either to eliminate or find sufficient evidence to present a case strong enough to convict Brueckner. Who I remind you has been around since 2007 but whose name arose in Germany and Britain only after the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof. In my opinion establishing the proof - or not as the case may be - is the hardest part of the job. But I think the determination to get it is evident and I wish them every good fortune in the pursuit of the truth.
They haven't yet spoken to Brueckner so obviously there is no pressure on them to do so. But when they do the result might be interesting.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2020, 11:11:08 AM
It doesn't matter how credible the evidence is it is whether or not it or all the components add up to proof. I don't think even a confession is sufficient if one considers the case of Sture Ragnar Bergwall who was known as Thomas Quick https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+the+serial+killer&rlz=1C1CHBH_en-GBGB802GB802&oq=quick+the+serial+killer&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l7.12808j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
It is going to be a long drawn out process either to eliminate or find sufficient evidence to present a case strong enough to convict Brueckner. Who I remind you has been around since 2007 but whose name arose in Germany and Britain only after the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof. In my opinion establishing the proof - or not as the case may be - is the hardest part of the job. But I think the determination to get it is evident and I wish them every good fortune in the pursuit of the truth.
They haven't yet spoken to Brueckner so obviously there is no pressure on them to do so. But when they do the result might be interesting.
The German prosecutor as Davel says, undoubtedly has the evidence but is lacking the proof
So circumstantial evidence is what HCW has.. it seems .
Well, I believe the same could be said about the mcs.....only more circumstantial with them ..they also have not been cleared of any involvement.
That was my point when doing this thread.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 17, 2020, 11:43:40 AM
How do you know HCW has enough evidence Maddie is dead......just because he said it.
Can you prove he has evidence ....if not its only your opinion he has.
i'm quite precise as to what I post...I never said he had such evidence...as i said to gunit....you need to read my post again...my post is fact...not opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 17, 2020, 12:28:47 PM
How do you know HCW has enough evidence Maddie is dead......just because he said it.
Can you prove he has evidence ....if not its only your opinion he has.
I'd say Davel is taking HCW at face value. What HCW has said, he has been reported as saying these things, and hence can be quoted as a fact that he has said it. Whether what he has said is factually true is another matter.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 17, 2020, 12:29:31 PM
i'm quite precise as to what I post...I never said he had such evidence...as i said to gunit....you need to read my post again...my post is fact...not opinion
The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
How is that factual when it has only been said by HCW
Can we count all that GA says then as factual....at least his book is from police files.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2020, 12:31:03 PM
I'd say Davel is taking HCW at face value. What HCW has said, he has been reported as saying these things, and hence can be quoted as a fact that he has said it. Whether what he has said is factually true is another matter.
Im reporting factually what he has said...I'm not taking him at face value.
My opinion is hes got something quite significant
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 17, 2020, 12:33:19 PM
The difference is that in this case HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
How is that factual when it has only been said by HCW
Can we count all that GA says then as factual....at least his book is from police files.
When talking about GA "What GA has said, he has been reported as saying these things, and hence can be quoted as a fact that he has said it. Whether what GA has said is factually true is another matter.
I tend to not believe what GA says as a rule.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 17, 2020, 12:36:49 PM
Rob admitted he was wrong....you have totally misunderstood what Ive said...even though robs explained it to you.
Ive took nothing at face value and only posted facts. I'm trying to be polite but the fact that you cant see that is your problem not mine
It depends on what we think "on face value" means. I never admitted I was wrong but only possibly wrong, I think, I'll check! http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg618431#msg618431 Actual words were "may not be".
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 18, 2020, 07:23:45 AM
It depends on what we think "on face value" means. I never admitted I was wrong but only possibly wrong, I think, I'll check! http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg618431#msg618431 Actual words were "may not be".
Thats the way I read it ....."may not be".
Seems I havent got a problem after all as D thinks
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 07:48:06 AM
It depends on what we think "on face value" means. I never admitted I was wrong but only possibly wrong, I think, I'll check! http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg618431#msg618431 Actual words were "may not be".
Accepting something on face value means accepting something without questioning it....that isnt what i did...but it makes no difference because what i poated was factually correct not my opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 18, 2020, 07:54:31 AM
Accepting something on face value means accepting something without questioning it....that isnt what i did...but it makes no difference because what i poated was factually correct not my opinion
'at' face value, not 'on'; ergo the allusion to the premise of acceptance without dwelling on it too much, and it might not be true, you're accepting that.
Excellent Phil Collins album too.
I wonder how much HCW has taken at face value?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 18, 2020, 07:56:41 AM
Seems I havent got a problem after all as D thinks
Maybe not. I would be guessing to know what he thinks. I have a thing against the excessive use of elipsis. One per post is probably OK but when there are multiple the meaning can be ambiguous.
HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killedMM..
I am posting fact...not opinion. thats what you don't understand and taht's your problem.
When "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM", that is HCW's opinion. When you post that "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM" It is a fact that HCW has that opinion, but it is not a fact that HCW has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 08:00:51 AM
Maybe not. I would be guessing to know what he thinks. I have a thing against the excessive use of elipsis. One per post is probably OK but when there are multiple the meaning can be ambiguous.
When "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM", that is HCW's opinion. When you post that "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM" It is a fact that HCW has that opinion, but it is not a fact that HCW has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM.
It may be his opinion but it is a fact that he said it..so my post is fact not opinion. Its quite simple
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 18, 2020, 08:06:32 AM
Only in that you quoted someone else's opinion correctly.
so I quoted fact...not my opinion. I may have quoted his opinion...but I didnt imply his opinion was fact. the fact I posted...HCW says....clearly shows Im posting his opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 18, 2020, 08:13:41 AM
No, all that is - it is a fact he said it .....completely different to its a fact he definitely has evidence.
Like I could say I know GA ...its a fact I said it ... but not proof that I do.
You really haven't followed anything...I've explained it to Rob and he agrees with me... See above. If you cannot see I posted fact... That's your problem
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 18, 2020, 09:28:06 AM
You really haven't followed anything...I've explained it to Rob and he agrees with me... See above. If you cannot see I posted fact... That's your problem
Kizzy hasn't got a problem either. She can see you posted fact (the fact that HCW made a claim), but unless you define what the fact is, it is meaningless saying "I posted fact".
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 18, 2020, 09:36:44 AM
Some people's opinions are worth more than others, eg: experienced professionals with full access to ALL the information on a case have opinions that are worth more than those of armchair detectives and internet trolls. Of course this is just my opinion but if you think I am wrong feel free to demonstrate why.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 09:40:49 AM
Going back to the original post;
snip/
HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
Did he actually say that? Not according to one source;
The German prosecutor leading the Madeleine McCann investigation last night said he had evidence that she was dead.
However, he warned that there was not enough evidence to charge the main suspect – 43-year-old Christian Brueckner. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8400345/Lack-evidence-preventing-Christian-Brueckner-charged-Madeleine-McCanns-murder.html
So he said he had evidence that Madeleine was dead. He also said he had a suspect. He didn't say he had evidence that the suspect committed the murder.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 09:45:08 AM
Kizzy hasn't got a problem either. She can see you posted fact (the fact that HCW made a claim), but unless you define what the fact is, it is meaningless saying "I posted fact".
Kitty accused me of posting opinion as fact.. I didn't She still thinks I did I think we all understand the difference between the two so again.. If posters don't understand what a, fact is.. Then there's a problem
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 18, 2020, 09:49:18 AM
HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
Did he actually say that? Not according to one source;
The German prosecutor leading the Madeleine McCann investigation last night said he had evidence that she was dead.
However, he warned that there was not enough evidence to charge the main suspect – 43-year-old Christian Brueckner. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8400345/Lack-evidence-preventing-Christian-Brueckner-charged-Madeleine-McCanns-murder.html
So he said he had evidence that Madeleine was dead. He also said he had a suspect. He didn't say he had evidence that the suspect committed the murder.
Looks like he's referring, quite rightly, to those wonderful dogs, as I have stated since June 3rd. Although he's German, he's not daft. He knows not to go in to bat against Malcolm Marshall without making sure you've got your box firmly attached to your jock strap.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 18, 2020, 09:52:18 AM
Looks like he's referring, quite rightly, to those wonderful dogs, as I have stated since June 3rd. Although he's German, he's not daft. He knows not to go in to bat against Malcolm Marshall without making sure you've got your box firmly attache to your jock strap.
Dear oh dear. @)(++(* If any brainbox here can explain how the dogs can be right and at the same time CB is the chief suspect kindly lay out your argument, until then I reserve the right to scoff and jeer at such nonsense.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 18, 2020, 09:54:14 AM
Kizzy hasn't got a problem either. She can see you posted fact (the fact that HCW made a claim), but unless you define what the fact is, it is meaningless saying "I posted fact".
Thanks Rob 8((()*/
IMO This is what the germans are more interested in ....the mcc case was just used for maximum publicity to CB.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the publication: "With regard to the excavations in Hanover, I would therefore only like to add that the search was not based on a current, specific indication, but rather the result of routine investigative work.
The dig at his former allotment near Hanover, Germany was sparked by an investigation into the disappearance of five-year-old Inga Gehricke, The Sun reported.
The German was convicted of possessing the images but Inga, who disappeared during a family picnic in 2015, was never found.
Looks like he's referring, quite rightly, to those wonderful dogs, as I have stated since June 3rd. Although he's German, he's not daft. He knows not to go in to bat against Malcolm Marshall without making sure you've got your box firmly attached to your jock strap.
There us a very obvious reason why the alerts cannot be the evidence he has of Maddies death
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 10:16:08 AM
HCW says he has enough evidence to show taht CB killed maddie
Did he actually say that? Not according to one source;
The German prosecutor leading the Madeleine McCann investigation last night said he had evidence that she was dead.
However, he warned that there was not enough evidence to charge the main suspect – 43-year-old Christian Brueckner. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8400345/Lack-evidence-preventing-Christian-Brueckner-charged-Madeleine-McCanns-murder.html
So he said he had evidence that Madeleine was dead. He also said he had a suspect. He didn't say he had evidence that the suspect committed the murder.
He then changed his tune. He told 60 minutes;
We have very strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her 8:52 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=640s
In my opinion Wolters' statement above is in breach of Brueckner's human rights as he is suggesting that his suspect is guilty.
Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system. Such presumptions may result in suspects who are innocent being brought before a court to face criminal charges, with a risk of improperly being found guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 18, 2020, 10:17:18 AM
A man who alleges he had been Brueckner's partner in crime when burgling homes in the Algarve describes Brueckner's expertise in climbing and gaining access to buildings.
He claims Brueckner was nicknamed 'the climber' by fellow miscreants who admired his skills.
Madeleine McCann suspect nicknamed 'The Climber' for 'ability to climb buildings' https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-nicknamed-the-22702765
Which might explain Mrs Fenn's burglar entering with ease through what I would have thought was a pretty inaccessible window in her property (now covered by a metal grille) and who would have had no problem whatsoever with the window Amaral has promoted as being 'impossible' since day one.
What is remarkable from Mrs Fenn's statement is that it is lacking entirely in any sort of description of the intruder into her property. It seems to have been a question totally ignored by whoever took her statement to the police on 20 August 2007.
Quote When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence. Pamela Fenn
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 10:20:16 AM
We have very strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her 8:52 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=640s
In my opinion Wolters' statement above is in breach of Brueckner's human rights as he is suggesting that his suspect is guilty.
Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system. Such presumptions may result in suspects who are innocent being brought before a court to face criminal charges, with a risk of improperly being found guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt
Do you feel the, same about what amaral said Re the mccanns
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 18, 2020, 10:20:35 AM
Surely he is not depending on the Portuguese investigation.
HCW says he has evidence of Maddies death which he refuses to share... The dog alerts are in the public domain and have, already been widely shared. I don't believe the general is, actually being serious... He's that wide of the mark imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 18, 2020, 10:34:24 AM
HCW says he has evidence of Maddies death which he refuses to share... The dog alerts are in the public domain and have, already been widely shared. I don't believe the general is, actually being serious... He's that wide of the mark imo
Neither do I. I'm going to resign as moderator if HCW is using the dog alerts as evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 10:40:36 AM
Did he make any similar public pronouncements before they had even been interviewed as suspects?
He wrote a book accusing the parents of drugging their child which caused her to have an accident and die... Cover up the death.. Lie to the police... Set up a fraudulent fund.. Is that ok
In view of what you have posted do you think that is an affront to the mccanns human rights
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 10:50:53 AM
We have very strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her 8:52 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=640s
In my opinion Wolters' statement above is in breach of Brueckner's human rights as he is suggesting that his suspect is guilty.
Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system. Such presumptions may result in suspects who are innocent being brought before a court to face criminal charges, with a risk of improperly being found guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt
Your post does support an assertion I have made.
I don't believe HCW, would have said this unless he has that evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 18, 2020, 10:53:08 AM
Neither do I. I'm going to resign as moderator if HCW is using the dog alerts as evidence.
I think your position is safe then, Rob. In my opinion there is absolutely no way any of that 'intelligence' could be misconstrued as evidence by professional investigators.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 10:57:10 AM
He wrote a book accusing the parents of drugging their child which caused her to have an accident and die... Cover up the death.. Lie to the police... Set up a fraudulent fund.. Is that ok
So he didn't make any public pronouncements before they had even been interviewed then?
Most of what was in the book was in the released files and in his OPINION they were culpable.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 11:01:23 AM
So he didn't make any public pronouncements before they had even been interviewed then?
Most of what was in the book was in the released files and in his OPINION they were culpable.
You need to read your post again... It doesn't mention when the statements, are made. Not all of what, was said was in the files.. It could be argued based on your post that the release if the filed breached the mccanns human rights. That's why I feel they have such a strong case, at the ECHR.
HCW has made, a, statement... If that statement is true I don't see any breach of human rights... And that's one of the reasons why I think HCW, has that evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 18, 2020, 11:12:57 AM
So he didn't make any public pronouncements before they had even been interviewed then?
Most of what was in the book was in the released files and in his OPINION they were culpable.
Last Tuesday, Alípio Ribeiro dismissed the inspector who directed the Maddie case for the constant leaks of information that the institution has been suffering throughout the process.
The last straw was the statement that Gonçalo Amaral later said he did not tell DN, in which he openly accused the British police of being manipulated by the McCanns.
The head of the PJ did not like it and did not take half measures: it only took a few hours for Alípio Ribeiro to dismiss Gonçalo Amaral from the service commission he exercised as head of the DIC of Portimão. https://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-maddie/noticias/braco-direito-de-director-da-pj-no-caso-maddie-978472.html
Amaral didn't require to make honest public statements when he had the likes of Cristovao and journalists such as Felgueiras to leak his many warped OPINIONS for him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 18, 2020, 11:55:27 AM
HCW says he has evidence of Maddies death which he refuses to share... The dog alerts are in the public domain and have, already been widely shared. I don't believe the general is, actually being serious... He's that wide of the mark imo
He refuses to share ........could be he refuses to share because he has nothing worthwhile to share.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 11:57:57 AM
He refuses to share ........could be he refuses to share because he has nothing worthwhile to share.
I think that's highly unlikely based on everything we know.. But we have to wait and see. Based on what gunit said I think he something highly significant
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 12:02:58 PM
You need to read your post again... It doesn't mention when the statements, are made. Not all of what, was said was in the files.. It could be argued based on your post that the release if the filed breached the mccanns human rights. That's why I feel they have such a strong case, at the ECHR.
HCW has made, a, statement... If that statement is true I don't see any breach of human rights... And that's one of the reasons why I think HCW, has that evidence
True or not, evidence or not, guilt is decided in a court of law.
A prosecutor has more or less announced that his suspect is guilty. That breaches the suspect's human rights as it reduces his chances of a fair trial.
The Portuguese authorities released the case files to journalists, which is normal practice, it seems. They weren't responsible for releasing the files to the general public, that was done by a journalist. The journalist is not involved in any way whatsoever in the complaint to the ECHR.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 12:25:33 PM
True or not, evidence or not, guilt is decided in a court of law.
A prosecutor has more or less announced that his suspect is guilty. That breaches the suspect's human rights as it reduces his chances of a fair trial.
The Portuguese authorities released the case files to journalists, which is normal practice, it seems. They weren't responsible for releasing the files to the general public, that was done by a journalist. The journalist is not involved in any way whatsoever in the complaint to the ECHR.
Then amaral has breached the McCans HR by your argument. Again the fact that HCW has said this means he must be sure of his facts... Perhaps he's done for precisely that reason. All CB has to do know is sue HCW. In doing that he may, well need to give evidence in court.. Perhaps this is what HCW, would like him to do
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 18, 2020, 01:25:14 PM
Then amaral has breached the McCans HR by your argument. Again the fact that HCW has said this means he must be sure of his facts... Perhaps he's done for precisely that reason. All CB has to do know is sue HCW. In doing that he may, well need to give evidence in court.. Perhaps this is what HCW, would like him to do
Just a load of .....speculation on your part.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 01:28:03 PM
Then amaral has breached the McCans HR by your argument. Again the fact that HCW has said this means he must be sure of his facts... Perhaps he's done for precisely that reason. All CB has to do know is sue HCW. In doing that he may, well need to give evidence in court.. Perhaps this is what HCW, would like him to do
The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.
It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 01:35:40 PM
The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.
It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.
He hasnt identified CB. I think HCW understands the law far better than you do. Imo it shows he s sure of what he says...ie he has evidence taht shows his suspect killed MM.
I wont bother talking about amaral its totally clear to me he breached the McCanns HR...its up to the ECHR to decide
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 01:36:49 PM
The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.
It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.
thats your opinion ...and as yous seem to be relying on wiki pedia...not well supported
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 18, 2020, 01:55:11 PM
The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.
It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.
Are you suggesting he is breaking the law?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
thats your opinion ...and as yous seem to be relying on wiki pedia...not well supported
Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=search2
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 18, 2020, 03:07:46 PM
Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=search2
Wolters hasn't named CB
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 18, 2020, 03:17:41 PM
The point I'm making is that although gunit is claiming as a fact that CB has a case against HCW... The fact is he may not.. So gunit is posting opinion as fact
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 18, 2020, 06:16:00 PM
Amaral gave sufficient evidence about the suspect's identity to an Australian podcast broadcast last year to enable journalists to work out who he was.
Snip Goncalo Amaral, the man who led the initial investigation, confirmed in April last year that 'a German paedophile currently in jail in Germany' - now named as Christian Brueckner - was identified 13 years ago as a potential suspect.
But Amaral, who was sacked after naming Kate and Jerry McCann as suspects in the disappearance and maintains they were responsible, said his detectives 'found nothing to suggest [Brueckner] took Madeleine'.
That is despite revelations today that Brueckner had a lengthy criminal record including burglary and child sex crimes, lived in a property just three miles from where Maddie went missing, and can be placed in the area on the night in question using mobile phone records. ________________________________________________
He was then brought to the attention of Amaral as he investigated Madeleine's disappearance in 2007, but was dismissed as a 'scapegoat'.
Speaking to Australian podcast Maddie in April last year, Amaral predicted that British police 'are probably going to use a German paedophile who is in jail in Germany' as their chief suspect.
He said that the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária, 'investigated him at the time but found nothing to suggest he took Madeleine.'
Amaral suggested that British police had been working up cases against two German paedophiles - one of whom died a few years ago, leaving one suspect to pursue.
In the interview, he accused British detectives of 'wanting it to be' the now-dead paedophile.
German and British police say Brueckner was not on a shortlist of 600 suspects drawn up by Portuguese officers despite his criminal record.
On Wednesday evening, British detectives from Operation Grange - a £12million, eight-year investigation into Madeleine's disappearance - announced Brueckner as their new chief suspect, though without naming him due to privacy laws. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8387585/Did-Portuguese-police-let-Madeleine-McCanns-abductor-escape-justice.html
So back in 2007 it would appear that the judicial police really did think that there was more evidence against the McCanns than there was against Brueckner who they apparently ruled out of the case while upping the ante against Madeleine's parents.
Talk about an inability to see the wood for the trees !
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 18, 2020, 06:35:36 PM
Good question,what chance a fair trial? I expect some one will blame Amaral,he never named any one.
Of course not :))
Just as he didn't publicise a faked image of Bruekner with a dread lock hairstyle when in reality Bruekner according to dateable video footage had a short hairstyle at the time in question.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 18, 2020, 10:22:02 PM
Just as he didn't publicise a faked image of Bruekner with a dread lock hairstyle when in reality Bruekner according to dateable video footage had a short hairstyle at the time in question.
Didn't happen, babes.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 18, 2020, 10:33:48 PM
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 19, 2020, 10:38:09 AM
There is no doubt whatsoever that the German investigation is confident regarding the evidence they have collected on their chief suspect Brueckner.
Having worked at it systematically to build a full picture they have eliminated any thought that there is anything comparable with Madeleine's parents and this man whose lawyer doesn't even attempt to refute that Brueckner made a living from burglary. Snip Quizzed about reports Breuckner used to live off the proceeds of burglaries he committed on the Algarve, he admitted: 'It's not something that surprises me.
'As his lawyer it wouldn't surprise me if he was convicted for these burglaries.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749531/Prosecutor-investigating-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-says-suggests-alive.html
Current circumstances and information in the public domain make a nonsense of Amaral's always ludicrous and in my opinion the verging on insanity claim that her parents killed Madeleine with an overdose of Calpol and then hid her remains. The path of the German investigation alone refutes that. But there appear to be diehards who just cannot let go of long discredited speculation as epitomised in the lower than low - in my opinion - current thread title.
Snip German authorities say there are 'many pieces' of the Madeleine McCann 'puzzle' pointing towards suspect Christian Brueckner.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters admitted there still was no 'smoking gun' evidence enabling charges to be brought against the 43-year-old paedophile over the British youngster's disappearance.
But he insisted in an interview on Portuguese state broadcaster RTP, referring to Brueckner only by his first name and initial of his surname: 'All I can say is this is like a puzzle and there are many pieces that lead us to believe Christian B is responsible. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749531/Prosecutor-investigating-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-says-suggests-alive.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 19, 2020, 11:05:34 AM
That elusive piece of the jigsaw has defeated all attempts to find it. Perhaps it's because the picture they're trying to complete is the wrong one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 19, 2020, 11:56:09 AM
Dear God, preserve me from despair. Although it isn't all that serious at the moment as it happens.
Brueckner? Who knows? He would have to be a total fool to say anything just now. But do carry on supporting his right to Innocence.
It is the fact that The McCanns have always been denied this right that might somewhat offend me. This is hypocrisy in the extreme.
The problem is that we know the evidence against that parents, we have no idea what ties Brueckner to the case and after nearly four months Wolter doesn’t appear too keen on sharing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2020, 06:09:52 PM
The problem is that we know the evidence against that parents, we have no idea what ties Brueckner to the case and after nearly four months Wolter doesn’t appear too keen on sharing.
We know there is no real evidence against the parents... We know some of the evidence against breukner
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 19, 2020, 06:20:40 PM
So the witness was not laughed out of court I expect there to be a lot more evidence against Breukner
Bruckner has already been found guilty of another crime on the strength largely of evidence from one of his dodgy mates, so clearly the idea that such a witness would be “annihilated” is nonsense.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 19, 2020, 06:53:00 PM
The problem is that we know the evidence against that parents, we have no idea what ties Brueckner to the case and after nearly four months Wolter doesn’t appear too keen on sharing.
So that makes it alright to convict The McCanns? Sheesh, and you wonder why I despair.
Who are you people?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 19, 2020, 07:16:15 PM
It's opinion that the McCanns were denied their right to the presumption of innocence, not a proven fact in any court.
Are you serious? It never went to any court. The McCanns have been deprived of their Right to Innocence on this Forum alone.
But you crack on. You have shocked me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 19, 2020, 07:25:40 PM
Why, when summarising the evidence against Bruckner, do sceptics always overlook his criminal history? His convictions for burglary and rape within PdL itself, not to mention his child abuse convictions ? It’s almost as if they think these are entirely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 19, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
I don't have any great problem with you, but I do sometimes question your common sense and Logic.
It seems it’s ok to question the McCanns innocence (though the experienced professionals aren’t), but we must not question dear old CB’s innocence (even though the experienced professionals have him as their chief suspect). That makes perfect sense I’m sure.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 19, 2020, 07:31:56 PM
Why, when summarising the evidence against Bruckner, do sceptics always overlook his criminal history? His convictions for burglary and rape within PdL itself, not to mention his child abuse convictions ? It’s almost as if they think these are entirely irrelevant.
Well, they are, aren't they. They would rather afford Brueckner rights that they wouldn't give to The McCanns.
It isn't actually important anyway. Brueckner is in prison for quite some time, while The McCanns are not.
Guess what, Y'All. The McCanns have never been convicted of anything.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2020, 07:35:38 PM
It seems it’s ok to question the McCanns innocence (though the experienced professionals aren’t), but we must not question dear old CB’s innocence (even though the experienced professionals have him as their chief suspect). That makes perfect sense I’m sure.
Don't worry about it, V. It will all come to something in the end. It's just taking a bit longer than first I thought.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2020, 07:39:29 PM
the nexy six months or so could see a result at the ECHR and the conviction of CB....what a situation that would be.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 19, 2020, 07:47:29 PM
You are still expressing your opinion, not a fact.
Oh, did it go to Court? I must have missed that. Where else in did I state any Fact?
Or was it just my opinion of you?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2020, 08:11:22 PM
A post on topic...I dont see there is any real circumstantial evidence against the McCanns ...
and when asked no poster has been able to come up with any
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 19, 2020, 08:15:28 PM
These are some extracts for information, from the Sexta9 broadcast:
In 2007 Brückner’s former girlfriend, Nicole Fehlinger had connections with rich Russians and she sold her husband's (Roman) yachts to them. Brückner bought the packaging/box factory in Germany for Euro36.000, just after the Euro100.000 robbery at Gale in Portugal and he paid in cash. Nicole Fehlinger lived with Brückner at the Hanover property in 2007, which was recently searched. A neighbour has confirmed this.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 19, 2020, 08:16:02 PM
These are some extracts for information, from the Sexta9 broadcast:
In 2007 Brückner’s former girlfriend, Nicole Fehlinger had connections with rich Russians and she sold her husband's (Roman) yachts to them. Brückner bought the packaging/box factory in Germany for Euro36.000, just after the Euro100.000 robbery at Gale in Portugal and he paid in cash. Nicole Fehlinger lived with Brückner at the Hanover property in 2007, which was recently searched. A neighbour has confirmed this.
Must be him wot dunnit then, bypass the courts, hang the fecker.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 19, 2020, 08:24:52 PM
remember...barrier is a geriatric fart...by his/her own admission. I think sometimes we have to understand who might be making posts and not take them too seriously
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 19, 2020, 08:55:55 PM
remember...barrier is a geriatric fart...by his/her own admission. I think sometimes we have to understand who might be making posts and not take them too seriously
I'll take it serious when the last sod is laid o'er me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 19, 2020, 08:59:33 PM
remember...barrier is a geriatric fart...by his/her own admission. I think sometimes we have to understand who might be making posts and not take them too seriously
Hey up,gotta go nurse is here with me ovaltine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 19, 2020, 09:10:35 PM
remember...barrier is a geriatric fart...by his/her own admission. I think sometimes we have to understand who might be making posts and not take them too seriously
Geriatric? I seriously had him down as a 14 year old.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 19, 2020, 10:58:57 PM
Perhaps you or another sceptic could tell us what they think is the circumstantial evidence against the McCanns... I don't see there is any
No well, you understanding evidence an all that jazz....not seeing any is a predicted answer.
Let's review. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is presented in a civil or criminal trial that suggests a fact is true, but may not prove it directly. There are many types of circumstantial evidence, including physical, scientific, human behavior and indirect witness testimony
McCann V Amaral: Supreme Court verdict 31 Jan 2017
In order to conclude with the unlawfulness of those behaviours, were considered the respective contents of the book, documentary and interview, and the conflict between freedom of speech and right to good name and reputation of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, in that judgement, was developed the following argumentation that we reproduce partly thereafter because it appears interesting on the point of view of the solution that will be given to the issue exposed in the minutes:
Starting the discussion in a logical and chronological order through book analysis, one immediately establishes that what is at stake is not a text with informative content.
In fact, one doesn't find in the book, reported in a stripped and simple way, the facts of the investigation that intended to clear the circumstances of the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007. No added value is brought to the partial copy of the investigation that the Attorney General's Office did distribute for Social Communication after the closure of the investigation (n°s 65 and 66 of the proven facts).
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.
The thesis is synthetically that there was no kidnapping of the minor, contrary to the initial premise of the criminal investigation which is what the child's parents maintain up to now. What happened was the accidental death of the child in flat of the tourist resort, then the cover up of this event through the concealment of her corpse and the simulation of the referred crime, carried out by the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann.
Going through the book, one is driven along the days of the investigation since the breaking news about the crime. The author underlines, at each step of the time-line, the various indices that present a match with the referred thesis - among others, the lack of bedroom break-in signs and of strange fingerprints (pp. 44 and 48), the presence of the press alerted by the group of friends of the couple (p. 48), the fact that the key witness Jane Tanner affirmed the sighting of the “pseudo-abductor" (sic) when two other protagonists, in the same place, saw nothing (p. 51), the inconsistencies of the statements and discrepancies of those elements of proof between themselves… https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 20, 2020, 01:11:53 PM
No well, you understanding evidence an all that jazz....not seeing any is a predicted answer.
Let's review. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is presented in a civil or criminal trial that suggests a fact is true, but may not prove it directly. There are many types of circumstantial evidence, including physical, scientific, human behavior and indirect witness testimony
McCann V Amaral: Supreme Court verdict 31 Jan 2017
In order to conclude with the unlawfulness of those behaviours, were considered the respective contents of the book, documentary and interview, and the conflict between freedom of speech and right to good name and reputation of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, in that judgement, was developed the following argumentation that we reproduce partly thereafter because it appears interesting on the point of view of the solution that will be given to the issue exposed in the minutes:
Starting the discussion in a logical and chronological order through book analysis, one immediately establishes that what is at stake is not a text with informative content.
In fact, one doesn't find in the book, reported in a stripped and simple way, the facts of the investigation that intended to clear the circumstances of the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007. No added value is brought to the partial copy of the investigation that the Attorney General's Office did distribute for Social Communication after the closure of the investigation (n°s 65 and 66 of the proven facts).
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.
The thesis is synthetically that there was no kidnapping of the minor, contrary to the initial premise of the criminal investigation which is what the child's parents maintain up to now. What happened was the accidental death of the child in flat of the tourist resort, then the cover up of this event through the concealment of her corpse and the simulation of the referred crime, carried out by the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann.
Going through the book, one is driven along the days of the investigation since the breaking news about the crime. The author underlines, at each step of the time-line, the various indices that present a match with the referred thesis - among others, the lack of bedroom break-in signs and of strange fingerprints (pp. 44 and 48), the presence of the press alerted by the group of friends of the couple (p. 48), the fact that the key witness Jane Tanner affirmed the sighting of the “pseudo-abductor" (sic) when two other protagonists, in the same place, saw nothing (p. 51), the inconsistencies of the statements and discrepancies of those elements of proof between themselves…
Please provide a link which will enable members to read in full the article from which you have taken that excerpt. Thankyou
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 20, 2020, 01:34:52 PM
No well, you understanding evidence an all that jazz....not seeing any is a predicted answer.
Let's review. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is presented in a civil or criminal trial that suggests a fact is true, but may not prove it directly. There are many types of circumstantial evidence, including physical, scientific, human behavior and indirect witness testimony
McCann V Amaral: Supreme Court verdict 31 Jan 2017
In order to conclude with the unlawfulness of those behaviours, were considered the respective contents of the book, documentary and interview, and the conflict between freedom of speech and right to good name and reputation of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, in that judgement, was developed the following argumentation that we reproduce partly thereafter because it appears interesting on the point of view of the solution that will be given to the issue exposed in the minutes:
Starting the discussion in a logical and chronological order through book analysis, one immediately establishes that what is at stake is not a text with informative content.
In fact, one doesn't find in the book, reported in a stripped and simple way, the facts of the investigation that intended to clear the circumstances of the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007. No added value is brought to the partial copy of the investigation that the Attorney General's Office did distribute for Social Communication after the closure of the investigation (n°s 65 and 66 of the proven facts).
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.
The thesis is synthetically that there was no kidnapping of the minor, contrary to the initial premise of the criminal investigation which is what the child's parents maintain up to now. What happened was the accidental death of the child in flat of the tourist resort, then the cover up of this event through the concealment of her corpse and the simulation of the referred crime, carried out by the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann.
Going through the book, one is driven along the days of the investigation since the breaking news about the crime. The author underlines, at each step of the time-line, the various indices that present a match with the referred thesis - among others, the lack of bedroom break-in signs and of strange fingerprints (pp. 44 and 48), the presence of the press alerted by the group of friends of the couple (p. 48), the fact that the key witness Jane Tanner affirmed the sighting of the “pseudo-abductor" (sic) when two other protagonists, in the same place, saw nothing (p. 51), the inconsistencies of the statements and discrepancies of those elements of proof between themselves…
So whats the evidence against the McCanns. There is no real evidence against them
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 20, 2020, 01:37:14 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 32 First Instance court judgement.
You do realise taht the interim report was superceded by the archiving despatch which said that none of the indications used to make the McCanns arguidos was later confirmed
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 20, 2020, 01:42:14 PM
You do realise taht the interim report was superceded by the archiving despatch which said that none of the indications used to make the McCanns arguidos was later confirmed
That's not quite true, as you well know. Your use of the word 'confirmed' is either poor choice or a ssttrreettcchh to say the least.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 01:51:59 PM
So whats the evidence against the McCanns. There is no real evidence against them
Well look this was not contested by anyone to say any different,
Why did SY who was frequently mentioned in the book not go as witnesses for the mccs if it was lies.
The reason I believe is that it wasn't lies..The reason GA won the libel trial
II - Legal basis and Reasons The following facts were proved:
From the injunction request 1 - On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, "Maddie The Truth of the Lie".
2 - In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:
1) The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007; 2) The simulation of an abduction took place; 3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's cadaver, 4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident; 5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.
Well look this was not contested by anyone to say any different,
Why did SY who was frequently mentioned in the book not go as witnesses for the mccs if it was lies.
The reason I believe is that it wasn't lies..The reason GA won the libel trial
II - Legal basis and Reasons The following facts were proved:
From the injunction request 1 - On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, "Maddie The Truth of the Lie".
2 - In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:
1) The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007; 2) The simulation of an abduction took place; 3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's cadaver, 4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident; 5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.
Well look this was not contested by anyone to say any different,
Why did SY who was frequently mentioned in the book not go as witnesses for the mccs if it was lies.
The reason I believe is that it wasn't lies..The reason GA won the libel trial
II - Legal basis and Reasons The following facts were proved:
From the injunction request 1 - On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, "Maddie The Truth of the Lie".
2 - In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:
1) The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007; 2) The simulation of an abduction took place; 3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's cadaver, 4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident; 5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.
It's impossible to have a civil discussion with you with your constant ad hom crutch. End of conversation [cue the inevitable 'I'm right, you're wrong' reciprocation]
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 02:35:25 PM
No, but the conclusion of what happened to her is..
We dont know what happened to Maddie
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 05:37:45 PM
the title of the thread is evidence...so where is the evidence against the McCanns...so much that according to amaral it proves maddie died in the apartment
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 20, 2020, 05:42:16 PM
the title of the thread is evidence...so where is the evidence against the McCanns...so much that according to amaral it proves maddie died in the apartment
As you have just said ...".we dont know what happened to Maddie"
IMO the biggest mistake investigators made was examining and reviewing the case working to the theory that Madeleine had been abducted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 05:46:38 PM
As you have just said ...".we dont know what happened to Maddie"
IMO the biggest mistake investigators made was examining and reviewing the case working to the theory that Madeleine had been abducted.
Imo .......they came to the conclusion of abduction after examining all the evidence...not before Abduction is the most likely and almost certainly what happened...as you cannot come up with any real evidence against the McCanns I'll leave it there
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on September 20, 2020, 06:23:14 PM
As you have just said ...".we dont know what happened to Maddie"
IMO the biggest mistake investigators made was examining and reviewing the case working to the theory that Madeleine had been abducted.
So many years have elapsed since Madeleine disappeared and in spite of the current Investigations by three police forces and none of them seem to have them as suspects what does keep you convinced that Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 20, 2020, 06:23:49 PM
If it was I would say SY would say they are not looking for anyone else
Do you suggest then that it is the last throw of the dice and if there is insufficient evidence to proceed OG will wrap up, it all relies on a confession imo and always as done.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 07:17:04 PM
Do you suggest then that it is the last throw of the dice and if there is insufficient evidence to proceed OG will wrap up, it all relies on a confession imo and always as done.
I don't think it relies on a confession ..but I think he's the one... And the last lead... So yes OG will wrap it up. Imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 20, 2020, 07:19:25 PM
could be an image on a memory stick. I think HCW is quite cleverly building a case on circumstantial evidence. Again...if CB disappeared off the rdar on 3 rd may...and was absent for several days....and cannot account for his movements ...thats quite powerful evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 20, 2020, 08:04:04 PM
could be an image on a memory stick. I think HCW is quite cleverly building a case on circumstantial evidence. Again...if CB disappeared off the rdar on 3 rd may...and was absent for several days....and cannot account for his movements ...thats quite powerful evidence
He's a drifter, going off radar is not a crime nor unusual,he was not seen exiting 5a with Madeleine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 20, 2020, 08:05:53 PM
He's a drifter, going off radar is not a crime nor unusual,he was not seen exiting 5a with Madeleine.
You are making assumptions. you would need to ask those around him if it was usual, if it had ever happened before....and thats exactly what HCW is doing imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 08:14:20 PM
You are making assumptions. you would need to ask those around him if it was usual, if it had ever happened before....and thats exactly what HCW is doing imo
You're making assumptions that HCW has him nailed on.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 08:18:59 PM
You're making assumptions that HCW has him nailed on.
I'm making none...
It depends on how convincing a witness his ex girlrfriend is.......if she has said he told her......I have aterrible job to do in Luz tomorrow....and you wont see me for a while. if he said this on may2...thats an amazing coincidence.
If he did disappear.....and if there are other witnesses.....more circumstantial evidence....then that might convince the Judges. Remeber...its just their opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 20, 2020, 08:24:32 PM
Here's something from the archiving dispatch that was said about Murat, but not about the McCanns;
It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 08:28:15 PM
Here's something from the archiving dispatch that was said about Murat, but not about the McCanns;
It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
But they didnt say...all the indications used to make him an arguido were later not confirmed....i wonder why.
no wonder SY decided to reinterview him
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 20, 2020, 08:30:55 PM
Here's something from the archiving dispatch that was said about Murat, but not about the McCanns;
It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
does that mean he’s a little bit more cleared than the McCanns, but still not ruled out?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 08:34:10 PM
Here's something from the archiving dispatch that was said about Murat, but not about the McCanns;
It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
this is from the archiving report too...
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 08:37:30 PM
then theres this..
, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 20, 2020, 08:38:13 PM
not true as I well know....I know you are talking absolute codswallop its very true....
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
Its your post that isnt true....and not a mention of an imo
So does that mean "nothing was confirmed". So that to me isn't really saying the initial indications were wrong, just that they weren't confirmed. Why didn't they just say their initial suspicions were wrong. They can't because a judge is involved.
So does that mean "nothing was confirmed". So that to me isn't really saying the initial indications were wrong, just that they weren't confirmed. Why didn't they just say their initial suspicions were wrong. They can't because a judge is involved.
I think we all know what not confirmed means but .......
is this a bit clearer for you rob..
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 20, 2020, 08:51:05 PM
I think we all know what not confirmed means but .......
is this a bit clearer for you rob..
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Had you used "not confirmed" from the beginning I might have not questioned your use of the word "confirmed". How much is "confirmed" when "nothing was confirmed"?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 20, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Had you used "not confirmed" from the beginning I might have not questioned your use of the word "confirmed". How much is "confirmed" when "nothing was confirmed"?
Your posts dont seem to make much sense....I quoted the archiving report from memory...and I was just about spot on....contact those who wrote it if you dont like it.
you can question all you like but imo your post is not making a lot of sense
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 20, 2020, 09:29:32 PM
From the report: "In a final synthesis, based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:
- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy - like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established - headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;
- She'd barely entered the apartment when she noticed that her daughter Kate had disappeared, not being in her bed nor in any other location inside the residence and that the bedroom's window and shutters were open;
- Then, Kate Healy ran to the restaurant, immediately alerting Gerald McCann and the other friends;
- Following that alert, the entire apartment was searched and rummaged by an indeterminate number of people, thus resulting in the contamination of traces, with irreversible and undetermined damage in terms of the acquisition of evidence;
- Immediately, intense and extensive terrestrial, maritime and aerial searches were launched, which lasted for several days, involving hundreds of people and equipment and means, as sophisticated and advanced as presently available;
- Several hundred people were heard, formally and informally, whose hearing was anticipated as being of interest for the clarification of the matter, thousands of pieces of information and suggestions were analysed, and tens of sightings and locations that seemed plausible were checked. Telephone interceptions were performed and the traffic data from thousands of telephone conversations was analysed and crossed, and many thousands of diligences of the most diverse nature were developed;
- The obliging cooperation and commitment of Police forces from many Countries, with a very special mention for the British police entities, was counted upon;
- Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions for this effect - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British lab Forensic Science Service -, whose final results did not positively value the collected residues, or corroborated the canine markings;
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a "crime" that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - "The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel" - because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the times, to logic.
Life's events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.
The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
(José de Magalhaes e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor"
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 20, 2020, 10:45:43 PM
Thanks for posting that again Rob, it reminds us that as far as the PT authorities were concerned it was a FACT that the window was found open.
based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:
- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy - like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established - headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;
- She'd barely entered the apartment when she noticed that her daughter Kate had disappeared, not being in her bed nor in any other location inside the residence and that the bedroom's window and shutters were open;
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on September 21, 2020, 03:47:22 AM
They're certainly not innocent imo. They were up to their necks in the conspiracy to undermine Amaral.
In my opinion the various conspiracies alleged by Amaral were very firmly the products of his very fertile imagination.
Not one of his allegations against Madeleine's parents withstood scrutiny in the light of day.
In stark contrast to the Amaral investigation, the Germans for example do not have to have recourse to making it up as they go along with regard to their prime suspect, much of their evidence is a matter of record and collection of the rest is a work in progress.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 21, 2020, 09:37:19 AM
So many years have elapsed since Madeleine disappeared and in spite of the current Investigations by three police forces and none of them seem to have them as suspects what does keep you convinced that Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance?
In my opinion Madeleine died in the holiday apartment.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 10:08:53 AM
In my opinion the various conspiracies alleged by Amaral were very firmly the products of his very fertile imagination.
Not one of his allegations against Madeleine's parents withstood scrutiny in the light of day.
In stark contrast to the Amaral investigation, the Germans for example do not have to have recourse to making it up as they go along with regard to their prime suspect, much of their evidence is a matter of record and collection of the rest is a work in progress.
The first investigators, led by the public prosecutor, Encarnacao, Neves, Amaral and Rebelo were unable to gather enough evidence to charge the McCanns, but they had enough to suspect them.
The German investigators are reluctant to share their evidence and media stories don't amount to reliable records imo. Very little of their evidence is known.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on September 21, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
Is tampering with my post allowed under forum rules? Why not just answer it properly. If you can!
I don't know what the rules are on this, perhaps you could raise the matter on the appropriate thread. In my opinion both posts are stating opinion as fact.
The topic of this thread is "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB"
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 10:28:08 AM
The first investigators, led by the public prosecutor, Encarnacao, Neves, Amaral and Rebelo were unable to gather enough evidence to charge the McCanns, but they had enough to suspect them.
The German investigators are reluctant to share their evidence and media stories don't amount to reliable records imo. Very little of their evidence is known.
According to the archiving report non of the evidence used to make them suspects was later confirmed or consolidated... So they didn't have evidence.
Pedro DA Carmo... No evidence
SY... Parents ruled out
Wolters. ..no perental involvement based on the evidence
That seems pretty clear..
So I will ask you directly..
What is the evidence you think implicates the parents
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on September 21, 2020, 10:31:34 AM
I don't know what the rules are on this, perhaps you could raise the matter on the appropriate thread. In my opinion both posts are stating opinion as fact.
The topic of this thread is "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB"
Opinion stated as fact is an everyday occurrence on many threads.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on September 21, 2020, 10:34:55 AM
Your final question is similar to the one I asked Kizzy. I hope you have more luck obtaining.an answer than I did.
The question needs looking at. It should be more '.....list the incongruencies derived from the investigation(s) and the facts that pertain specifically to the McCann's account(s) and that of their fellow holidaymakers - to wit the T7'
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 10:42:26 AM
The question needs looking at. It should be more '.....list the incongruencies derived from the investigation(s) and the facts that pertain specifically to the McCann's account(s) and that of their fellow holidaymakers - to wit the T7'
Well list them
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 10:48:52 AM
My concern was whether WS was allowed to tamper with my post. You said you didn't know. Perhaps in your role as a Moderator it is you who should find out the answer.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 21, 2020, 10:51:48 AM
My concern was whether WS was allowed to tamper with my post. You said you didn't know. Perhaps in your role as a Moderator it is you who should find out the answer.
There is no rule. There's an informal rule in regard to modifying / deleting, but all I can see is a font change and a strike through. Ergo your original post's content and intent has not changed. Thank you for your enquiry.*
*I am not a moderator and all information supplied above was literally made up - but it looks about right to me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 21, 2020, 11:16:44 AM
The first investigators, led by the public prosecutor, Encarnacao, Neves, Amaral and Rebelo were unable to gather enough evidence to charge the McCanns, but they had enough to suspect them.
The German investigators are reluctant to share their evidence and media stories don't amount to reliable records imo. Very little of their evidence is known.
There wasn't any evidence to sustain the decision to make Kate and Gerry McCann suspects in Madeleine's disappearance though, was there. More than enough propaganda 'leaked' to the Portuguese press ... but absolutely NO EVIDENCE.
In my opinion they hoped to frighten Kate into confessing something she hadn't done but with her lawyer in attendance and the eyes of the world on them, they miscalculated that one badly.
In contrast the present German investigation - which has gone out of its way to confirm that Kate and Gerry are in the clear - are very well aware that they do not yet have grounds to lay charges against their prime suspect who they have not yet named in accordance with German law.
Of course the Germans are not 'sharing' evidence in a very active and current case, apart from seeking information.
Why on earth do you see fit criticise their professional and ethical stance on this while harping back to mistakes made in the embarrassment that was the Amaral fiasco mystifies me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 11:57:53 AM
There wasn't any evidence to sustain the decision to make Kate and Gerry McCann suspects in Madeleine's disappearance though, was there. More than enough propaganda 'leaked' to the Portuguese press ... but absolutely NO EVIDENCE.
In my opinion they hoped to frighten Kate into confessing something she hadn't done but with her lawyer in attendance and the eyes of the world on them, they miscalculated that one badly.
In contrast the present German investigation - which has gone out of its way to confirm that Kate and Gerry are in the clear - are very well aware that they do not yet have grounds to lay charges against their prime suspect who they have not yet named in accordance with German law.
Of course the Germans are not 'sharing' evidence in a very active and current case, apart from seeking information.
Why on earth do you see fit criticise their professional and ethical stance on this while harping back to mistakes made in the embarrassment that was the Amaral fiasco mystifies me.
According to Portuguese law a person about whom there are well founded suspicions must be constituted arguido if they are to be asked to make further statements. Clearly the PJ were of the opinion that their suspicions were well founded.
In light of the fact that imo people are quoting Hans Christian Wolters as if he has all the answers, I feel it's necessary to point out that his known evidence is very weak.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 21, 2020, 12:13:19 PM
According to Portuguese law a person about whom there are well founded suspicions must be constituted arguido if they are to be asked to make further statements. Clearly the PJ were of the opinion that their suspicions were well founded.
In light of the fact that imo people are quoting Hans Christian Wolters as if he has all the answers, I feel it's necessary to point out that his known evidence is very weak.
did you think the evidence against Murat was “well founded “ when he was made arguido?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 21, 2020, 12:19:42 PM
According to Portuguese law a person about whom there are well founded suspicions must be constituted arguido if they are to be asked to make further statements. Clearly the PJ were of the opinion that their suspicions were well founded.
In light of the fact that imo people are quoting Hans Christian Wolters as if he has all the answers, I feel it's necessary to point out that his known evidence is very weak.
The McCanns were made arguidos days before a change in the law which introduced a requirement for firm evidence to enable such a step to be taken. So called "well founded suspicions" were not enough the new law required firm evidence, very likely was the reason the law was changed was abuse of the practice of "WFS".
The German investigation has acted lawfully to secure evidence against their prime suspect. In my opinion you are hardly in any position to voice opinion about the quality of the evidence the Germans are working from for the simple fact you know absolutely nothing about the evidence they hold. None of us do and that is the way it should be.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 12:22:59 PM
So no need for any evidence to be considered a suspect, OK, that makes sense as according to the final report there was none of any consequence to demonstrate that any of the original arguidos were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. So it seems that you still have a well founded (in your opinion) suspicion but cannot say that there is any evidence against the McCanns?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 12:57:59 PM
Not only Gunit. Despite the thread title no-one has been able to produce anything of substance against the McCanns not even if just more hot air.
Gufffaw. Stop. Too funny. In fairness, the thread title doesn't ask to list any, just whether there's more circumstantial evidence against the McCann's than there is CB.
....and it's a question we can't answer, as we don't know what circumstantial evidence there is, because the policeman is playing poker with a little girl's life and the feelings of two apparently bereft parents.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 01:42:13 PM
Gufffaw. Stop. Too funny. In fairness, the thread title doesn't ask to list any, just whether there's more circumstantial evidence against the McCann's than there is CB.
....and it's a question we can't answer, as we don't know what circumstantial evidence there is, because the policeman is playing poker with a little girl's life and the feelings of two apparently bereft parents.
The thread title is ... "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB" I've voiced my opinion on that ... but it is what it is.
Obviously you don't have a scooby about 'evidence' against the McCanns ... all of which is in the public domain ... because had you known you wouldn't have been backwards in coming forward with it. So no point in asking.
But it is thought provoking that those who claim to know are apparently keeping it very much to themselves when asked.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 21, 2020, 01:58:41 PM
What, of substance, has been produced against Christian B?
Please don't be silly about this ... the man is a career criminal with convictions for child abuse. Funny you didn't mind the comparison being drawn on the forum between innocence and guilt before now 😀
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 02:02:24 PM
Please don't be silly about this ... the man is a career criminal with convictions for child abuse. Funny you didn't mind the comparison being drawn on the forum between innocence and guilt before now 😀
Being a career criminal with convictions for child abuse isn't evidence that he killed Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 02:10:29 PM
Being a career criminal with convictions for child abuse isn't evidence that he killed Madeleine McCann.
Did I say that ?? I know I did not. Allow me to reiterate with regard to the thread title ... "Funny you didn't mind the comparison being drawn on the forum between innocence and guilt before now 😀"
The question has been asked about McCann evidence. You have been unable to provide an answer, nor has anyone else.
Says it all really.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 21, 2020, 02:18:34 PM
The thread title is ... "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB" I've voiced my opinion on that ... but it is what it is.
Obviously you don't have a scooby about 'evidence' against the McCanns ... all of which is in the public domain ... because had you known you wouldn't have been backwards in coming forward with it. So no point in asking.
But it is thought provoking that those who claim to know are apparently keeping it very much to themselves when asked.
At least you agree that the thread title doesn't actually ask for any evidence to be listed. Thanks for that. The rest was just detritus.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 21, 2020, 02:24:58 PM
Please don't be silly about this ... the man is a career criminal with convictions for child abuse. Funny you didn't mind the comparison being drawn on the forum between innocence and guilt before now 😀
Fgs was he the only one in the area [unique like] ..same as the unique abduction.
Brown said it was "extremely unlikely" anyone from a child sex ring would have abducted Madeleine. She said children could be illegally bought in some poor areas or "easily taken from drug addicts and prostitutes".
"Even blonde ones," she said.
'They're not going to steal a British tourist from a holiday resort because they know that will prompt a major investigation into them."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 02:28:50 PM
Its evidence of his character...and therefore part of the circumstantial evidence.
His statement that he wanted to find something small and use it for days...is evidence for motive.
The statements by his associates
the statement by his girlfriend
His phone ping in PDL placing him in the area that night.
Then we have the apparrent lack of an alibi and whatever HCW has as his concrete evidence.
as opposed to basically nothing of any substance against the McCanns
Apart from them being suspects in their childs dissapearence
Seems most of the british opinion is that they are not cleared.
The CB scenario gets sillier by the day.
Be cautious of new McCann ‘evidence’ until charges are made, Professor warns
But I should say that we need to be cautious because there is clearly no conclusive forensic scientific or DNA evidence that places Madeleine in either of his two vehicles that we've heard about, otherwise this man – Christian B – would have already been charged.
“The difference between the approach taken by Scotland Yard and the German prosecutor is striking. For the German authorities to say that they have evidence that Madeleine is dead whilst also admitting that they do not have a body and may not be able to charge the suspect, is both very curious and unusual, and so has re-awakened media interest in a case which may never be solved.”
I think thats quite ridiculous to write it all of as media gossip., but it doesnt matter becauses we will soon know exactly whats happening
OK, OK, we get the message.
....there's every chance we will hear nada / nicht. It's now what's been labelled by insiders as The Wolters Paradox; - if they don't receive any further leads, then they can't do anything but sit on it, despite his assertion to the contrary, or he'll look like a prize tit on a table and probably get the Spanish Archer. If he does get something meaningful, then it will have to be chased down like all the other 'drinking buddy', 'burglar in tandem', 'battered ex', 'erstwhile drug dealer', 'allotment owner' leads that never came to fruition - and then cast aside and rinse and repeat.
Hunker down ladies, we're in for a bleak deutscher Winter
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 21, 2020, 03:36:47 PM
I think theres a lot going on and I think we will see charges against CB
His lawyer has been to Portugal looking for evidence for the defence.... He must therefore see charges as a possibly
Quite the opposite. He stated that he had something revealed to him (oooohhh, Matron) and it was 'big news' or some such or other. Reads like a discarded Carry On film, granted, but he didn't come across (ooh errr) as a defeated man, quite the opposite, he was quite ebullient. Still reminds me of Martin Prince, Jr. off The Simpsons though. (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/4/46/Martin_Prince.png/revision/latest?cb=20140207173940)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 04:21:03 PM
Quite the opposite. He stated that he had something revealed to him (oooohhh, Matron) and it was 'big news' or some such or other. Reads like a discarded Carry On film, granted, but he didn't come across (ooh errr) as a defeated man, quite the opposite, he was quite ebullient. Still reminds me of Martin Prince, Jr. off The Simpsons though. (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/4/46/Martin_Prince.png/revision/latest?cb=20140207173940)
We simply have to wait and see
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 21, 2020, 04:31:31 PM
Brown said it was "extremely unlikely" anyone from a child sex ring would have abducted Madeleine. She said children could be illegally bought in some poor areas or "easily taken from drug addicts and prostitutes".
"Even blonde ones," she said.
'They're not going to steal a British tourist from a holiday resort because they know that will prompt a major investigation into them."
Brown? Would that be PAT Brown by any chance? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 21, 2020, 05:31:55 PM
Brown said it was "extremely unlikely" anyone from a child sex ring would have abducted Madeleine. She said children could be illegally bought in some poor areas or "easily taken from drug addicts and prostitutes".
"Even blonde ones," she said.
'They're not going to steal a British tourist from a holiday resort because they know that will prompt a major investigation into them."
Is she saying they would say no to a child if offered one for payment?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 21, 2020, 05:41:36 PM
Is she saying they would say no to a child if offered one for payment?
She is saying they would not want a high profile British girl....stolen while on holiday when there is.
Brown said it was "extremely unlikely" anyone from a child sex ring would have abducted Madeleine. She said children could be illegally bought in some poor areas or "easily taken from drug addicts and prostitutes".
"Even blonde ones," she said.
'They're not going to steal a British tourist from a holiday resort because they know that will prompt a major investigation into them."
While profiling the case, Brown developed a theory about what happened to Madeleine.
"When I do a crime scene analysis it is a theory based on evidence to then be given to police and used to look for more proof and evidence suitable for prosecution," she said.
"When I analysed [Madeleine's] case, it led me to believe evidence does not support an abduction.
"An abduction was extremely unlikely based on the amount of time, evidence at the scene, and every other shred of evidence there has ever been."
Brown said Madeleine most likely died in an accident that was "covered up".
"The evidence supports the theory of an accident occurring through neglect and possible medication," she said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 21, 2020, 06:02:21 PM
In the weeks following Madeleine McCann's disappearance anyone touching her with a bargepole would have had to be mentally challenged.
I personally think anyone carrying their dead daughter through a holiday resort in order to hide the body moments before/after the alarm was raised regarding her disappearance would have to be mentally challenged.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 21, 2020, 06:40:15 PM
Pat Brown said "An abduction was extremely unlikely based on the amount of time, evidence at the scene, and every other shred of evidence there has ever been."
Wow, compelling argument. What evidence at the scene? What other shreds of evidence have there ever been?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 21, 2020, 08:01:22 PM
I personally think anyone carrying their dead daughter through a holiday resort in order to hide the body moments before/after the alarm was raised regarding her disappearance would have to be mentally challenged.
Depends on how she died and what an autopsy would reveal! The consequences could be far worse.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 21, 2020, 08:23:55 PM
Apart from them being suspects in their childs dissapearence
Seems most of the british opinion is that they are not cleared.
The CB scenario gets sillier by the day.
Be cautious of new McCann ‘evidence’ until charges are made, Professor warns
But I should say that we need to be cautious because there is clearly no conclusive forensic scientific or DNA evidence that places Madeleine in either of his two vehicles that we've heard about, otherwise this man – Christian B – would have already been charged.
“The difference between the approach taken by Scotland Yard and the German prosecutor is striking. For the German authorities to say that they have evidence that Madeleine is dead whilst also admitting that they do not have a body and may not be able to charge the suspect, is both very curious and unusual, and so has re-awakened media interest in a case which may never be solved.”
Professor Silverman certainly does hit the nail on the head and seems to know what he's talking about as a man of great compassion and insight
Snip When asked why a conclusion is so important for the McCann family, whether or not someone is charged and convicted, Silverman said: “While it's impossible for most of us to put ourselves in the position of Kate and Gerry McCann, the not knowing aspect of this case must be absolutely appalling and every time the story resurfaces in the media it raises hope and then triggers the awful realisation that their child may be dead, so there's all sorts of emotional aspects to this.
“It's not just a journalist’s story, it’s an extraordinary human tragedy, whatever we discover in the end.”
In my opinion a very succinct and timely reminder of the real people with real lives and the very real trauma they live with every day of their lives with no choice in the matter. Worth sparing a thought for them much as the professor has.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 21, 2020, 09:09:45 PM
Professor Silverman certainly does hit the nail on the head and seems to know what he's talking about as a man of great compassion and insight
Snip When asked why a conclusion is so important for the McCann family, whether or not someone is charged and convicted, Silverman said: “While it's impossible for most of us to put ourselves in the position of Kate and Gerry McCann, the not knowing aspect of this case must be absolutely appalling and every time the story resurfaces in the media it raises hope and then triggers the awful realisation that their child may be dead, so there's all sorts of emotional aspects to this.
“It's not just a journalist’s story, it’s an extraordinary human tragedy, whatever we discover in the end.”
In my opinion a very succinct and timely reminder of the real people with real lives and the very real trauma they live with every day of their lives with no choice in the matter. Worth sparing a thought for them much as the professor has.
At the moment there us no conclusive evidence in the public arena... That may change. I think it's highly significant that HCW said he doesn't need forensic evidence... Enough circumstantial could be enough... It's becoming clearer that my prediction that CB will not be able to account for his movements... That he had no alibi.. Combined with other circumstantial evidence could be enough to convict
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 21, 2020, 10:08:11 PM
The lawyer of the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction says people will 'fall off their chair' when he reveals new evidence which allegedly clears his client's name.
Convicted paedophile Christian Brueckner, 43, was accused by German police earlier this year of kidnapping the three-year-old in Portugal in 2007.
However his lawyer, Friedrich Fulscher, insists he is innocent. Mr Fulscher claims that an anonymous source has provided 'vital information' which will make Brits 'fall off their chair'.
He told The Sun: 'I cannot go into details but it is very significant and involves someone who has provided me with vital information.
Professor Silverman certainly does hit the nail on the head and seems to know what he's talking about as a man of great compassion and insight
Snip When asked why a conclusion is so important for the McCann family, whether or not someone is charged and convicted, Silverman said: “While it's impossible for most of us to put ourselves in the position of Kate and Gerry McCann, the not knowing aspect of this case must be absolutely appalling and every time the story resurfaces in the media it raises hope and then triggers the awful realisation that their child may be dead, so there's all sorts of emotional aspects to this.
“It's not just a journalist’s story, it’s an extraordinary human tragedy, whatever we discover in the end.”
In my opinion a very succinct and timely reminder of the real people with real lives and the very real trauma they live with every day of their lives with no choice in the matter. Worth sparing a thought for them much as the professor has.
In my opinion a very succinct and timely reminder of the real people with real lives and the very real trauma they live with every day of their lives
I think you will find a lot of casualties in this case becase of the mccs actions.
Not forgetting the bggest casualty of all ...Maddie.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on September 22, 2020, 03:48:39 PM
Posters are reminded not to post opinion as fact. It is merely opinion that Madeleine McCann was abducted so please add the obligatory imo or refer to her as having disappeared.
Admin
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 22, 2020, 04:08:09 PM
Posters are reminded not to post opinion as fact. It is merely opinion that Madeleine McCann was abducted so please add the obligatory imo or refer to her as having disappeared.
Admin
why do we have to do this when the police and the media do not?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2020, 04:36:46 PM
Wonder what will happen to this forum, if abduction is proven and Amaral suddenly vanishes, withdrawing into his shell ?
I'll go back to the moderately popular Miniature Wizard Wargames Figurine Collector's forum. If Warlock Pendragon will accept me back after the incident in '03.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 22, 2020, 05:10:04 PM
Wonder what will happen to this forum, if abduction is proven and Amaral suddenly vanishes, withdrawing into his shell ?
It will still be the same old same old, it’s just the conspiracy theories will ramp up a gear or two.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2020, 05:39:09 PM
Wolters now says there is material evidence....its getting worse for his detractors
German prosecutors have claimed that there is material evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead.
Speaking to Portuguese broadcaster RTP on Tuesday, public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said investigators had evidence that the British girl who disappeared from a holiday resort in Portugal in 2007 had died.
When asked whether there was any material evidence that Madeleine, who was three years old when she disappeared, is dead, Mr Wolters replied: “Yes.”
Wolters now says there is material evidence....its getting worse for his detractors
German prosecutors have claimed that there is material evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead.
Speaking to Portuguese broadcaster RTP on Tuesday, public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said investigators had evidence that the British girl who disappeared from a holiday resort in Portugal in 2007 had died.
When asked whether there was any material evidence that Madeleine, who was three years old when she disappeared, is dead, Mr Wolters replied: “Yes.”
We know that dont we....the so called confession in a bar would be material evidence.
Whats happened to the concrete evidence.
A statement isnt material evidence...material evidence is physical....such as an image on a memory stick
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 22, 2020, 06:09:14 PM
Does anyone yearn for bygone times when the mention of Madeleine being dead resulted in a severe reprimand and a lecture on empathy ? When members were roundly criticised for not having hope and posts were removed if it was even suggested that Madeleine had died at the hands of a vicious paedophile.
Now....Madeleine has died at the hands of a vicious paedophile.......let’s find evidence to prove it.
No need to guess why.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 22, 2020, 06:16:25 PM
Forum members can yearn as much as they like, yearning does not change what has happened in the past, no matter how unpalatable.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2020, 06:18:23 PM
Does anyone yearn for bygone times when the mention of Madeleine being dead resulted in a severe reprimand and a lecture on empathy ? When members were roundly criticised for not having hope and posts were removed if it was even suggested that Madeleine had died at the hands of a vicious paedophile.
Now....Madeleine has died at the hands of a vicious paedophile.......let’s find evidence to prove it.
No need to guess why.
If there is proof Madeleine is daed then I don't see the point in your post
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 22, 2020, 06:19:37 PM
A statement isnt material evidence...material evidence is physical....such as an image on a memory stick
Is IT seems you dont understand material evidenc then?
The eye witness would have to give a statement.
A material evidence is a piece of evidence which is important to prove a case. ... For instance, an eye-witness to a criminal incident can be said to be a material witness because he can give credible and material evidence in respect of the incident.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 22, 2020, 06:56:44 PM
If there is an image of Maddie in the company of paedophiles........thats proof of abduction and almost certainly death
Such evidence used to be the case, Davel, but with photoshopping and falsified so called "evidence" such as we have witnessed on here, I am not sure that such a photograph is any longer absolute.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2020, 07:40:54 PM
Is IT seems you dont understand material evidenc then?
The eye witness would have to give a statement.
A material evidence is a piece of evidence which is important to prove a case. ... For instance, an eye-witness to a criminal incident can be said to be a material witness because he can give credible and material evidence in respect of the incident.
Does wolters have an eye witness to CB abducting maddie
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2020, 07:42:41 PM
Such evidence used to be the case, Davel, but with photoshopping and falsified so called "evidence" such as we have witnessed on here, I am not sure that such a photograph is any longer absolute.
I think you are mistaken......im fairly sure evidence of photohopping would be detectable
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2020, 07:44:19 PM
I agree, Sadie. Locations that used to have streetview on GE, no longer exist.
Glad that you have noticed it too Anthro. Seems no one else has
I have seen street view images changed too and there are areas where there is a sudden break in the street view image. It will just not go past the bit that is interesting, so you can't see that. And then there are the misted out areas - very weird ! And the designated route where the camera refuses to follow, always veering the viewer off in another direction
I have noticed that quite a few of these places are Jewish Synagogues, and with the dangers in life to Jews, I can understand that they might want their places of worship/congregation hidden. However this shows that it can be done anywhere on Google Earth.
Also I have seen birds eye images changed to do with my sleuthing in this case. Sinister, but the plus side is that I feel it confirms my suspicions about a certain place when it has been eradicated, moved or changed.
It's amazing what they can do these days - and most of the electronic alterations are seamless even when enlarged.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 08:01:37 AM
Seems HCW is really scrapping the barrel now. with ex-cons people trafficker and drunks. being credible witnesses
One of those ex-cons said he watched a video of Bruckner raping an old woman. It turns out that forensic evidence puts Bruckner at the scene of the rape. What are the chances of the ex-con making up a video to put Bruckner in the frame only for his hair to be matched to one found in the victim’s bed? Do you think he was being truthful about the video but lying about everything else or....what?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on September 23, 2020, 08:59:38 AM
Seems HCW is really scrapping the barrel now. with ex-cons people trafficker and drunks. being credible witnesses
That's the type of people CB seems to hang about with. Think he is at the bottom of the barrel with them too.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2020, 09:02:45 AM
German court opens new investigation against the man suspected in Madeleine McCann case in News · 22-09-2020 17:00:00 The German authorities have opened a new investigation against the principle suspect in the disappearance, in 2007, in Portugal, of the British child Madeleine McCann, relating to the rape of a young Irish woman in 2004.
"I can confirm that we also investigated the suspected rape and a young Irish woman in 2004 in the Algarve (region where Madeleine McCann disappeared)", prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told AFP. The inquiry was opened in June, according to Wolters.
It has been revealed that victim filed a complaint after the facts 16 years ago, after seeing in the media in early June, photos of the main suspect, the German Christian B.
In addition to the Madeleine case, Christian B. is also linked to a sexual assault investigation involving a 10-year-old girl at the time of the facts, in the Algarve, in April 2007, a few weeks before the British girl's disappearance. The suspect lived at the time a few kilometres from where the McCann family was staying, in Praia da Luz.
The Madeleine McCann case gained new momentum in June, with the identification of Christian B, a 43 year old man. The lawyer of Christian B said that his client denies all the accusations related to Madeleine McCann.
That's the type of people CB seems to hang about with. Think he is at the bottom of the barrel with them too.
I think there is a bit of denial in evidence regarding the character and lifestyle of this man who I believe in the opinion of a previous lawyer who dropped him as a client is a psychopath. Even his present lawyer who is pulling out all the stops in his defence admits that he would be happy to allow him to watch his dog but not his daughter if he had one.
Brueckner is a criminal and the allegations being made against him are by those who know him best who unsurprisingly are also criminals. So derision of the quality and character of witnesses when measured against the quality and character of the prime suspect is a bit hollow. I think it is very much a case of which criminal is to be believed and to do that there must be evidence in support of allegations.
The German prosecutor says he has that evidence and I very much think he has to be believed
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 09:47:02 AM
One of those ex-cons said he watched a video of Bruckner raping an old woman. It turns out that forensic evidence puts Bruckner at the scene of the rape. What are the chances of the ex-con making up a video to put Bruckner in the frame only for his hair to be matched to one found in the victim’s bed? Do you think he was being truthful about the video but lying about everything else or....what?
One of those ex-cons said he watched a video of Bruckner raping an old woman.
IIRC there was no film/vidio in existence acording to FF..seems your making same mistake as otheres Vs.
Quote from CB lawyer, “One of the mistakes people have made is saying there is a film of the rape of the pensioner that is not true,” he said.
“But from the German prosecutors I still have not received one single file in connection with this case.
“That is extremely unusual.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2020, 09:51:26 AM
Glad that you have noticed it too Anthro. Seems no one else has
I have seen street view images changed too and there are areas where there is a sudden break in the street view image. It will just not go past the bit that is interesting, so you can't see that. And then there are the misted out areas - very weird ! And the designated route where the camera refuses to follow, always veering the viewer off in another direction
I have noticed that quite a few of these places are Jewish Synagogues, and with the dangers in life to Jews, I can understand that they might want their places of worship/congregation hidden. However this shows that it can be done anywhere on Google Earth.
Also I have seen birds eye images changed to do with my sleuthing in this case. Sinister, but the plus side is that I feel it confirms my suspicions about a certain place when it has been eradicated, moved or changed.
It's amazing what they can do these days - and most of the electronic alterations are seamless even when enlarged.
I think it may be something to do with privacy laws, Sadie.
The approach to the back entrance and garage of my house afforded a view of the back garden and back of some houses on both sides of the road. The road used to be for access only as a service road, but in recent years many people have sold off a bit of their land and some luxury bungalows have been built which is why there is a street view I think.
The view of only one of the houses has been obscured which I thought was a bit of a mystery as it was clear on either side. On thinking about it and knowing the neighbour they had good reason for not wanting anyone to see the back of their house but the street view of the front remains uninterrupted.
I didn't ask if they had requested privacy but I think they may well have. But I'm sure it can be done and sometimes for quite mundane reasons.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 23, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
One of those ex-cons said he watched a video of Bruckner raping an old woman.
IIRC there was no film/vidio in existence acording to FF..seems your making same mistake as otheres Vs.
Quote from CB lawyer, “One of the mistakes people have made is saying there is a film of the rape of the pensioner that is not true,” he said.
“But from the German prosecutors I still have not received one single file in connection with this case.
“That is extremely unusual.
So you don't think there was a video? You think CB was set up by one of his pals do you? Someone who invented a video and planted one of his hairs in the woman's bed? Is that what you think happened?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2020, 09:55:34 AM
I think there is a bit of denial in evidence regarding the character and lifestyle of this man who I believe in the opinion of a previous lawyer who dropped him as a client is a psychopath. Even his present lawyer who is pulling out all the stops in his defence admits that he would be happy to allow him to watch his dog but not his daughter if he had one.
Brueckner is a criminal and the allegations being made against him are by those who know him best who unsurprisingly are also criminals. So derision of the quality and character of witnesses when measured against the quality and character of the prime suspect is a bit hollow. I think it is very much a case of which criminal is to be believed and to do that there must be evidence in support of allegations.
The German prosecutor says he has that evidence and I very much think he has to be believed
They lie ...do things for money...so how on earth can you make them credible.
It is strange how one's standards drop when it suits an agenda it seems.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 23, 2020, 10:16:31 AM
They lie ...do things for money...so how on earth can you make them credible.
It is strange how one's standards drop when it suits an agenda it seems.
Then would you disregard any evidence given to police if the person giving evidence has at one time had a criminal record? Consider this. The police would have questioned the ex-cons about the contents of the video. They would have wanted details that matched with the details given by the victim. How would they have been able to give matching credible evidence if no such video existed? Unless you think that they were the actual rapists themselves and are just framing poor wee innnocent Bruckner, and turned up at the rape venue with one of his hairs in their pocket to plant? What do you think?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 10:23:20 AM
Perhaps you and the other Bruckner defenders could address my previous post then, if there was never a video.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 23, 2020, 10:44:47 AM
If there was never a video and the ex-associates made them up, how did they know that the old woman and the Irish woman's rapes were both videoed? Amazing coindicence isn't it? Unless they were the actual perpetrators - is that is what is being suggested here? That Bruckner has been fitted up for rapes he never committed? And now the adduction and murder of Madeleine McCann too? Jeez, he really must have done something to upset all his erstwhile pals!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 11:06:21 AM
If there was never a video and the ex-associates made them up, how did they know that the old woman and the Irish woman's rapes were both videoed? Amazing coindicence isn't it? Unless they were the actual perpetrators - is that is what is being suggested here? That Bruckner has been fitted up for rapes he never committed? And now the adduction and murder of Madeleine McCann too? Jeez, he really must have done something to upset all his erstwhile pals!
Jeez, he really must have done something to upset all his erstwhile pals!
Not at all ...they do anything for money it seems
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 11:15:57 AM
They lie ...do things for money...so how on earth can you make them credible.
It is strange how one's standards drop when it suits an agenda it seems.
He took photographs of his girlfriend's daughter as part of his abuse of her.
The Germans are investigating if he is involved in the rape of the Irish woman who recognised the MO being used by Brueckner during the rape of the American woman. Both women were filmed.
Brueckner has an interest in collecting video and photos whether filmed first hand or downloaded as detailed in the cache found by the German police.
What details are given to the police by his fellow miscreants will be disregarded unless there is evidence which fits it into the jig saw of evidence the German police are putting together.
I think the Germans are being very thorough in their collection of evidence but as you can see they have plenty to be going on with. There is no need to rush Madeleine's case while they sort through other cases for example the ten year old accosted on the beach which should have been dealt with at the least even if not solved at the time by the Portuguese police. I don't think the Portuguese police record of dealing with offenses against women and children, mainly girls, is a particularly good one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 11:33:29 AM
He took photographs of his girlfriend's daughter as part of his abuse of her.
The Germans are investigating if he is involved in the rape of the Irish woman who recognised the MO being used by Brueckner during the rape of the American woman. Both women were filmed.
Brueckner has an interest in collecting video and photos whether filmed first hand or downloaded as detailed in the cache found by the German police.
What details are given to the police by his fellow miscreants will be disregarded unless there is evidence which fits it into the jig saw of evidence the German police are putting together.
I think the Germans are being very thorough in their collection of evidence but as you can see they have plenty to be going on with. There is no need to rush Madeleine's case while they sort through other cases for example the ten year old accosted on the beach which should have been dealt with at the least even if not solved at the time by the Portuguese police. I don't think the Portuguese police record of dealing with offenses against women and children, mainly girls, is a particularly good one.
What has any of that got to do with my post you quoted ....that HCW witnesses have no credibility.
Also, they do anything for money. B
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2020, 11:36:57 AM
Jeez, he really must have done something to upset all his erstwhile pals!
Not at all ...they do anything for money it seems
At one time I believe there was a considerable amount of reward money available for Madeleine.
Do you know of any money presently on offer which would encourage any of these guys to break cover and go public with all the ramifications they might attract from their peers as a result.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2020, 11:38:47 AM
“One of the mistakes people have made is saying there is a film of the rape of the pensioner that is not true,” he said.
The pensioner will know if she was videoed or not. Are you of the view that she lied about the video evidence then? The other rape victim says she was videoed. How the HELL does CB's lawyer know for a fact that there was no rape video? Was he actually there at the time the rape took place?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 12:07:52 PM
The pensioner will know if she was videoed or not. Are you of the view that she lied about the video evidence then? The other rape victim says she was videoed. How the HELL does CB's lawyer know for a fact that there was no rape video? Was he actually there at the time the rape took place?
Aw come on he is a lawyer...How AM I of the view the lady lied.
I didn't say it FF did ...take it up with him.
My point that you are twisting to your own advantage it seems.
Is if there isnt a film ...how can the so-called witnesses say they have seen it ..that is the question.
Its obvious FF would know if there was one he has the documentation obviously because he is his lawyer for the rape.
Common sence should prevail here.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 23, 2020, 12:10:49 PM
Aw come on he is a lawyer...How AM I of the view the lady lied.
I didn't say it FF did ...take it up with him.
My point that you are twisting to your own advantage it seems.
Is if there isnt a film ...how can the so-called witnesses say they have seen it ..that is the question.
Its obvious FF would know if there was one he has the documentation obviously because he is his lawyer for the rape.
Common sence should prevail here.
If only! If there isn't a film then the so-called witnesses made up something that by sheer coincidence contained enough supporting evidence to confirm the victim's account. Amazing!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 12:13:00 PM
If only! If there isn't a film then the so-called witnesses made up something that by sheer coincidence contained enough supporting evidence to confirm the victim's account. Amazing!
No....you are saying she made it up not me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 12:23:42 PM
“One of the mistakes people have made is saying there is a film of the rape of the pensioner that is not true,” he said.
I understand everything... I take it this is not a direct quote as he doesn't speak English... The truth and I understand is there was no film at the trial. Why did he go to portugal to try and get hold of it
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 23, 2020, 12:29:50 PM
thats not acite...so do you have a cite ...I seem to recall he wasnt
So you recalled wrong.
comes after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was told by an advisor on Thursday that Germany did not follow the correct procedures when extraditing the suspect, Christian Brueckner, from Italy.
Brueckner was extradited to Germany from Italy in 2018 under an arrest warrant that cited a drugs conviction but was subsequently convicted and sentenced for the 2005 rape of a 72-year-old American woman in Portugal.
His lawyer, Friedrich Fulscher, challenged the validity of the arrest warrant as it did not cite the 2005 rape charge. and argued it was a breach of international law to put him on trial for the rape.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 01:42:20 PM
comes after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was told by an advisor on Thursday that Germany did not follow the correct procedures when extraditing the suspect, Christian Brueckner, from Italy.
Brueckner was extradited to Germany from Italy in 2018 under an arrest warrant that cited a drugs conviction but was subsequently convicted and sentenced for the 2005 rape of a 72-year-old American woman in Portugal.
His lawyer, Friedrich Fulscher, challenged the validity of the arrest warrant as it did not cite the 2005 rape charge. and argued it was a breach of international law to put him on trial for the rape.
It doesnt say he was the lawyer for the rape trial...you need an imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 23, 2020, 01:49:52 PM
No, because going back to the original point ....he will be privy to the evidence of the rape.
He said there were no film of the rape
you an VS just seem to totally try an disrupt what points are being made at the time....now that is IMO
In fairness, if there was a video, then there'd be little need for the hair follicle / DNA analysis, apart from building a cast iron case. There may be a video, there may not, I dunno......actually who said there was a video? Does it matter? Does anyone here care? Who did say there was a video, though? Was it in the initial or subsequent trial? Does anyone care about that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 23, 2020, 02:24:42 PM
In fairness, if there was a video, then there'd be little need for the hair follicle / DNA analysis, apart from building a cast iron case. There may be a video, there may not, I dunno......actually who said there was a video? Does it matter? Does anyone here care? Who did say there was a video, though? Was it in the initial or subsequent trial? Does anyone care about that?
Perhaps the same could be said to apply to the Madeleine McCann case - they have video evidence but need to build cast iron case around it. Of course there was a video, unless the rape victim and/or police were complicit in a great deceit.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 02:33:23 PM
Jeez, he really must have done something to upset all his erstwhile pals!
Not at all ...they do anything for money it seems
It's a bit bizarre that he came up with CB abducted Madeleine though don't you think? Telling the Police CB was the person who robbed this apartment or that apartment or he trafficked drugs, but coming up with he told me he snatched Madeleine seems rather a massive thing to say unless it was true. Then you get people saying 'we mentioned Madeleine and he went crazy saying she was dead' and the girlfriend saying 'he told me he had a horrible job to do tomorrow but it will change my life' the evening before Madeleine was taken, this witness didn't know these people would come out and say these things did he? Also he wouldn't have known CB's phone would ping outside the Tapas Bar.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 04:36:12 PM
No, because going back to the original point ....he will be privy to the evidence of the rape.
He said there were no film of the rape
you an VS just seem to totally try an disrupt what points are being made at the time....now that is IMO
I think you will find we don't have a reliable source as to what he said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 23, 2020, 06:38:15 PM
I still find it interesting that none of Brückner’s former friends (the ones we know of) think that he had killed Madeleine. They state that he was capable of abducting a child and that he probably sold Madeleine. My opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 23, 2020, 06:48:23 PM
At one time I believe there was a considerable amount of reward money available for Madeleine.
Do you know of any money presently on offer which would encourage any of these guys to break cover and go public with all the ramifications they might attract from their peers as a result.
Yes 20 thousand offered by OG.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 23, 2020, 06:50:06 PM
I still find it interesting that none of Brückner’s former friends (the ones we know of) think that he had killed Madeleine. They state that he was capable of abducting a child and that he probably sold Madeleine. My opinion.
If he did it doesn’t really make sense Wolter dragging his feet....what if she’s still alive and all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 06:52:50 PM
Obviously they wont get it unless there is material/strong/concrete evidence to convict him...and if that happens they deserve every penny. That was the purpose of the reward...to encourage an informant. It was imo the only way the case would be solved and it looks like I was right
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
If he did it doesn’t really make sense Wolter dragging his feet....what if she’s still alive and all.
Wolters says shes dead...so hes in no rush
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 23, 2020, 07:03:42 PM
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I have not seen any direct words from Mr Wolters that Brückner is the person who removed Madeleine from her bed. German authorities do however insist that he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club shortly before Madeleine’s disappearance. My opinion is that he possibly took Madeleine from the person/s who actually lifted her from her bed.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 23, 2020, 07:45:07 PM
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I have not seen any direct words from Mr Wolters that Brückner is the person who removed Madeleine from her bed. German authorities do however insist that he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club shortly before Madeleine’s disappearance. My opinion is that he possibly took Madeleine from the person/s who actually lifted her from her bed.
I agree Wolters has never said he thinks his suspect lifted madeleine out of 5a, there are other possibilities.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 07:46:50 PM
I still find it interesting that none of Brückner’s former friends (the ones we know of) think that he had killed Madeleine. They state that he was capable of abducting a child and that he probably sold Madeleine. My opinion.
He added: “The result of our investigation does not point in any way to the possibility the suspect might have kept Madeleine alive.
“Everything we have points to her being dead.” https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12744071/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-material-evidence-dead-christian-b/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 07:49:42 PM
In fairness, if there was a video, then there'd be little need for the hair follicle / DNA analysis, apart from building a cast iron case. There may be a video, there may not, I dunno......actually who said there was a video? Does it matter? Does anyone here care? Who did say there was a video, though? Was it in the initial or subsequent trial? Does anyone care about that?
Seyferth, along with another pal Helge Busching, was the key witness in Christian's rape trial in Braunschweig, Germany, last December.
Christian was convicted of attacking a 72-year-old woman in her own home at Praia da Luz in 2005.
The two men nailed him after finding a horrific video in Christian's Portuguese apartment that showed him torturing and then raping the elderly American woman.
Other footage was said to show a young teenage girl tied to a wooden post as she begged for help while he sexually abused her.
We revealed last week that Busching was the key witness to the recent developments after telling cops Christian had confessed to him about taking Madeleine. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12700747/the-climber-christian-b-took-maddie/
It has now been revealed that a man named Helge Busching originally gave Christian B’s name to British police back in 2017.
Mr Busching claimed that Christian B told him in 2008 that he was involved in Madeliene’s disappearance in Praia da Luz the year prior.
British police were made aware of the claim after Mr Busching was arrested in Greece and he said that he wanted to speak to detectives.
He had been arrested in relation to smuggling of migrants between Greece and Italy. https://extra.ie/2020/09/11/news/real-life/madeleine-mccann-suspect-jail
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2020, 09:19:53 PM
Seyferth, along with another pal Helge Busching, was the key witness in Christian's rape trial in Braunschweig, Germany, last December.
Christian was convicted of attacking a 72-year-old woman in her own home at Praia da Luz in 2005.
The two men nailed him after finding a horrific video in Christian's Portuguese apartment that showed him torturing and then raping the elderly American woman.
Other footage was said to show a young teenage girl tied to a wooden post as she begged for help while he sexually abused her.
We revealed last week that Busching was the key witness to the recent developments after telling cops Christian had confessed to him about taking Madeleine. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12700747/the-climber-christian-b-took-maddie/
It has now been revealed that a man named Helge Busching originally gave Christian B’s name to British police back in 2017.
Mr Busching claimed that Christian B told him in 2008 that he was involved in Madeliene’s disappearance in Praia da Luz the year prior.
British police were made aware of the claim after Mr Busching was arrested in Greece and he said that he wanted to speak to detectives.
He had been arrested in relation to smuggling of migrants between Greece and Italy. https://extra.ie/2020/09/11/news/real-life/madeleine-mccann-suspect-jail
As I've already explained it will be the material/concrete and other circumstantial evidence will potentially convict CB.... It was always going to be an informer that helped solve the case imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 23, 2020, 11:56:44 PM
Obviously they wont get it unless there is material/strong/concrete evidence to convict him...and if that happens they deserve every penny. That was the purpose of the reward...to encourage an informant. It was imo the only way the case would be solved and it looks like I was right
The world loves a trier.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 23, 2020, 11:59:20 PM
Seyferth, along with another pal Helge Busching, was the key witness in Christian's rape trial in Braunschweig, Germany, last December.
Christian was convicted of attacking a 72-year-old woman in her own home at Praia da Luz in 2005.
The two men nailed him after finding a horrific video in Christian's Portuguese apartment that showed him torturing and then raping the elderly American woman.
Other footage was said to show a young teenage girl tied to a wooden post as she begged for help while he sexually abused her.
We revealed last week that Busching was the key witness to the recent developments after telling cops Christian had confessed to him about taking Madeleine. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12700747/the-climber-christian-b-took-maddie/
It has now been revealed that a man named Helge Busching originally gave Christian B’s name to British police back in 2017.
Mr Busching claimed that Christian B told him in 2008 that he was involved in Madeliene’s disappearance in Praia da Luz the year prior.
British police were made aware of the claim after Mr Busching was arrested in Greece and he said that he wanted to speak to detectives.
He had been arrested in relation to smuggling of migrants between Greece and Italy. https://extra.ie/2020/09/11/news/real-life/madeleine-mccann-suspect-jail
Sounds like a trade to me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 24, 2020, 06:08:44 AM
The German investigation may go full circle. My opinion. Excluding Madeleine’s parents and their vacation friends. Also my opinion.
My stance as always been,person/s unknown removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts.I've yet to see anything to change my mind,that includes the German suspect who as far as I can see is being lined up by a jail bird hardly trustworthy imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 24, 2020, 06:55:22 AM
My stance as always been,person/s unknown removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts.I've yet to see anything to change my mind,that includes the German suspect who as far as I can see is being lined up by a jail bird hardly trustworthy imo.
Just because Brückner surrounded himself with other criminals doesn’t mean they are untrustworthy. These are the people who know him the best, even lived with him and can provide valuable information. My opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 07:17:29 AM
Just because Brückner surrounded himself with other criminals doesn’t mean they are untrustworthy. These are the people who know him the best, even lived with him and can provide valuable information. My opinion.
I think most informants are fellow criminals but informants don't convict criminals... It will be the other evidence CB has thst will secure the conviction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 24, 2020, 07:31:56 AM
I find it bizarre that people here (many of whom have demanded that the police offer a reward) would be surprised that an appeal for information about this suspect would generate information from those who were closest to him and knew him best. What sort of people did you expect them to be? Lawyers, doctors and teachers? Of course they are going to be shady types.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 07:40:02 AM
I find it bizarre that people here (many of whom have demanded that the police offer a reward) would be surprised that an appeal for information about this suspect would generate information from those who were closest to him and knew him best. What sort of people did you expect them to be? Lawyers, doctors and teachers? Of course they are going to be shady types.
Precisely... Most informants are fellow criminals... But that hasn't dawned on some yet
It doesn't seem to have dawned on fulscher
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 07:56:21 AM
Between 2014 and 2019 forces across the country forked out £13,662,932 on payments to people operating in the criminal underworld in return for information.
Between 2014 and 2019 forces across the country forked out £13,662,932 on payments to people operating in the criminal underworld in return for information.
Do some posters and CBs lawyer not realise this simple reality
Seems newspapers also pay an individual informer a lot more than the police do.
Sell Story - Get Up To £10000 For Yr Story - frontpagestory.co.uk Ad· www.frontpagestory.co.uk/ We´re The No1 Story Agency We Guarantee To Get You The Best Price For Your Story. We want, Love Rats, Betrayal, Unusual Romance- All Other True Stories Considered. Call Now. Get Cash For Your Story. Sell Your Story. Sell Your Story For Cash.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 09:14:45 AM
Seems newspapers also pay an individual informer a lot more than the police do.
Sell Story - Get Up To £10000 For Yr Story - frontpagestory.co.uk Ad· www.frontpagestory.co.uk/ We´re The No1 Story Agency We Guarantee To Get You The Best Price For Your Story. We want, Love Rats, Betrayal, Unusual Romance- All Other True Stories Considered. Call Now. Get Cash For Your Story. Sell Your Story. Sell Your Story For Cash.
Yet in 13 years not one negative story from friends of the mccanns in the papers
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 10:06:25 AM
Yet in 13 years not one negative story from friends of the mccanns in the papers
You've read every paper globally over 13 years and can verify that remarkable claim? And a throwaway, catch-all statement along the lines of 'oooh, but we would have seen it, blah', won't wash. Not this time.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 10:17:09 AM
You've read every paper globally over 13 years and can verify that remarkable claim? And a throwaway, catch-all statement along the lines of 'oooh, but we would have seen it, blah', won't wash. Not this time.
papers have a central agency and share/copy stories...any such story would be in all the papers
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 10:19:20 AM
Precisely... Most informants are fellow criminals... But that hasn't dawned on some yet
It doesn't seem to have dawned on fulscher
Well lets see if it has dawned on HCW ...as its seems what he has ....is not a lot Brueckner had been living nearby at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and telephone data suggests he was near the apartment just hours before she was last seen.
But authorities say they do not have enough evidence to hold him in prison on the strength of the McCann case alone.
British police are still treating her disappearance as a missing persons case.
Yet in 13 years not one negative story from friends of the mccanns in the papers
The point was who is going to dare risk saying anything bad about them, IMO no one.
.
The Avon and Somerset cop had posted on Facebook: “I need a holiday so much, I’d be willing to go away with the McCanns at this point.”
that was an appalling comment made on social media by apolicewoman...shes lucky to keep her job imo.
Making a joke about an ongoing investigation into a child who may well have been murdered by a paedophile is totally unacteptable from a public servant shared to her FB page. You obviously know little about professional ethics
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2020, 11:43:15 AM
Oh D ...what newspaper would dare print them if they did.
Even comments on most media reports are censored.
Look how the policewoman nearly got the sack for a comment made on FB about the mccs.
Free speech is well out the window where the mccs are concerned as u know..they have well made sure of that.
IMO
I would hope that any police service worth its salt would take a very serious view of a police officer making unprofessionally flippant public comment on a social media outlet concerning an ongoing criminal process.
Sharing an ill-advised joke about the family of Madeleine McCann (who are all the victims of crime) on social media breaking the Code of Ethics and the standards which reflect public expectation on how those in policing should behave.
There are standards to be met by public servants and quite obviously the police officer breached them. She would have been in breech whoever her inappropriate levity was aimed at whether the McCann family or any other victims of crime she chose to joke about on a public platform.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 11:49:47 AM
Well lets see if it has dawned on HCW ...as its seems what he has ....is not a lot Brueckner had been living nearby at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and telephone data suggests he was near the apartment just hours before she was last seen.
But authorities say they do not have enough evidence to hold him in prison on the strength of the McCann case alone.
British police are still treating her disappearance as a missing persons case.
I would hope that any police service worth its salt would take a very serious view of a police officer making unprofessionally flippant public comment on a social media outlet concerning an ongoing criminal process.
Sharing an ill-advised joke about the family of Madeleine McCann (who are all the victims of crime) on social media breaking the Code of Ethics and the standards which reflect public expectation on how those in policing should behave.
There are standards to be met by public servants and quite obviously the police officer breached them. She would have been in breech whoever her inappropriate levity was aimed at whether the McCann family or any other victims of crime she chose to joke about on a public platform.
So as your reaction in your post is why IMO, as D said, is the reason[that was my point in the first place]
Yet in 13 years not one negative story from friends of the mccanns in the papers
Is not proof that there isn't anyone who has a bad word to say about the mccs.
Its just it seems the media would not dare print it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 12:38:36 PM
So as your reaction in your post is why IMO, as D said, is the reason[that was my point in the first place]
Yet in 13 years not one negative story from friends of the mccanns in the papers
Is not proof that there isn't anyone who has a bad word to say about the mccs.
Its just it seems the media would not dare print it.
just your opinion... Imo the media would be more than happy to print anyrthing thats true...they are protected by law. What they cannot print is gossip....like much taht is posted here
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 24, 2020, 12:47:21 PM
You are quoting a newspaer again...not HCW. IMO had CB been released he may well have been questioned and charged.
SY are treating it as a missing persons enquiry because the Germans have not shared their evidence of death...its quite simple
Not simple at all ...I believe the paper is quoting now exactly what the germans have ...nothing apart from the phone ping...[could be they are being careful now].
Why would they question him and charge him as in your opinion when the germans have said.
But authorities say they do not have enough evidence to hold him in prison on the strength of the McCann case alone.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 12:49:35 PM
Not simple at all ...I believe the paper is quoting now exactly what the germans have ...nothing apart from the phone ping...[could be they are being careful now].
Why would they question him and charge him as in your opinion when the germans have said.
But authorities say they do not have enough evidence to hold him in prison on the strength of the McCann case alone.
what authorities...you are quoting a newspaper...total bull...imo.
without a name and a direct quote its meaningless
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 01:17:23 PM
that was an appalling comment made on social media by apolicewoman...shes lucky to keep her job imo.
Making a joke about an ongoing investigation into a child who may well have been murdered by a paedophile is totally unacteptable from a public servant shared to her FB page. You obviously know little about professional ethics
Yours,
Disgruntled, Wolverhampton.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 01:21:03 PM
what authorities...you are quoting a newspaper...total bull...imo.
without a name and a direct quote its meaningless
Well if it was bull ...why not just ignor the post instead of constantly defending your opinion when that is all your posts are
HCW who it seems in your posts word has to gospel.
Yet is very selective what he says.and contradictive. he says he has material evidence but then says he cannot comment what thing they have....so best not comment on both.
Wolters is asked: "Do you have any material evidence that Madeleine is dead?" To which the prosecutor replies with "yes". The interviewer wants to go further and asks: “What evidence do you have of your death? Do you have a video? ”But Wolters weighs in, says:“ I can't comment on the things we have. ”
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 01:31:09 PM
Whats all this about wolverhampton that several posters have referred to
You referred to yourself as a 'mediocre dentist from Wolverhampton', IIRCAWASAC Nuthin wrrung with bein frum Wulvuramtun, Davel. Don't diss your roots. Keep it real. REPREZENT the Wulveramtun Massive......rezpec
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 01:36:44 PM
Well if it was bull ...why not just ignor the post instead of constantly defending your opinion when that is all your posts are
HCW who it seems in your posts word has to gospel.
Yet is very selective what he says.and contradictive. he says he has material evidence but then says he cannot comment what thing they have....so best not comment on both.
Wolters is asked: "Do you have any material evidence that Madeleine is dead?" To which the prosecutor replies with "yes". The interviewer wants to go further and asks: “What evidence do you have of your death? Do you have a video? ”But Wolters weighs in, says:“ I can't comment on the things we have. ”
he has actually commneted quite alot about what they have. Hes been asked about quite afew things and he s answerred directly......
re dna in the car re clothes re forensics re body etc
to all these he answers no...to ...are there images of maddie on the memory stick...he says he cannot answer.
Thats what makes me and others think the memory stick is the material piece of evidence and a crucial piece of evidence. So crucial taht you may have herad further memory sticks is one of the things they were looking for on the allotmnet dig. I think i'm pretty good at analysing evidence ...its one of the things I was taught at university and at post grad level since
We obviously dont agree....so best you believe what you want and i will beleive what I want,,...IMO we will know fairly soon
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 01:38:31 PM
You referred to yourself as a 'mediocre dentist from Wolverhampton', IIRCAWASAC Nuthin wrrung with bein frum Wulvuramtun, Davel. Don't diss your roots. Keep it real. REPREZENT the Wulveramtun Massive......rezpec
I never did and I'm not...but you've made me smile. Absolutely nothing mediocre about me
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 24, 2020, 01:42:58 PM
that was an appalling comment made on social media by apolicewoman...shes lucky to keep her job imo.
Making a joke about an ongoing investigation into a child who may well have been murdered by a paedophile is totally unacteptable from a public servant shared to her FB page. You obviously know little about professional ethics
Policepersons, in common with armed forces, fire, ambulance, healthcare etc persons have dark senses of humour. It's common for them to make non pc jokes, so her colleagues wouldn't have been surprised or horrified by what she said, imo. Her crime wasn't the comment, it was the fact that it was made publicly. I find her comment interesting as it demonstrates that at least one police person isn't keen on the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 01:46:32 PM
Policepersons, in common with armed forces, fire, ambulance, healthcare etc persons have dark senses of humour. It's common for them to make non pc jokes, so her colleagues wouldn't have been surprised or horrified by what she said, imo. Her crime wasn't the comment, it was the fact that it was made publicly. I find her comment interesting as it demonstrates that at least one police person isn't keen on the McCanns.
Of course its that she was so stupid as to make it public that was important. I find your commnet quite naieve...what makes you think only one police person isnt keen on the mcCanns. They are a cross section of the public...some of them pretty stupid...i dont see it as being of any significance at all
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 24, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
You've read every paper globally over 13 years and can verify that remarkable claim? And a throwaway, catch-all statement along the lines of 'oooh, but we would have seen it, blah', won't wash. Not this time.
you cannot be serious?! If someone had dished the dirt on the McCanns anywhere in the world their ardent critics would have been on it like bonnets and spread it to the four corners of the World Wide Web. You obviously don’t know how this thing works.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 01:57:12 PM
you cannot be serious?! If someone had dished the dirt on the McCanns anywhere in the world their ardent critics would have been on it like bonnets and spread it to the four corners of the World Wide Web. You obviously don’t know how this thing works.
Obviously Clarence's control of the press is world-wide... Like some Bond villain
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 24, 2020, 02:34:16 PM
just your opinion... Imo the media would be more than happy to print anyrthing thats true...they are protected by law. What they cannot print is gossip....like much taht is posted here
Imo the media would be more than happy to print anything thats true
IMO that's not quite true they also pay for people to tell lies.
Anyone, I believe who watched the Honour of CJ -
Will have seen where RM wife was offered a massive amount by a journalist to say he was Pedo and had a lair.
Just the same as what is happening it seems with CB
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 03:04:12 PM
The game of Dummes Deutsches Poker is coming to fruition. One of these brain donors will have to go all in at some point and show their hand. It may be that they're both bluffing, but only one can win.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 03:40:51 PM
The game of Dummes Deutsches Poker is coming to fruition. One of these brain donors will have to go all in at some point and show their hand. It may be that they're both bluffing, but only one can win.
Was it one or two months ago I said.. Interesting times ahead"...talking of cards.. I remember playing blackjack at a casino in Cambodia... One if the very few Europeans there. I started to win then it became a little scary. Some locals were impressed, and started betting money on my cards... I was now playing not just with my money but there's too.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 03:54:06 PM
Was it one or two months ago I said.. Interesting times ahead"...talking of cards.. I remember playing blackjack at a casino in Cambodia... One if the very few Europeans there. I started to win then it became a little scary. Some locals were impressed, and started betting money on my cards... I was now playing not just with my money but there's too.
Having popped in and out of Phnom Penh a few times, ex-pats and O&G workers go to Nagaworld. Phnom Penh is one of those places where when you go out you wear trainers and hope you can run faster than they can.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 24, 2020, 05:07:21 PM
Just because Brückner surrounded himself with other criminals doesn’t mean they are untrustworthy. These are the people who know him the best, even lived with him and can provide valuable information. My opinion.
One of them is a people trafficker.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 05:11:44 PM
it seems the vast majority of informants are criminals...havent heard any complaints before.....but CB wont be convicted on the informants evidence...there will need to be far more and if hes innocent that evidence wont exist
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 24, 2020, 05:21:16 PM
it seems the vast majority of informants are criminals...havent heard any complaints before.....but CB wont be convicted on the informants evidence...there will need to be far more and if hes innocent that evidence wont exist
Always a double-edged sword using snitches; they've got decent information, but when it gets to court it can look tainted. The ones that subsequently give interviews to anyone with a pen or a camera, well, they're rendered useless, as not only is the information 'tainted', the informant is pursuing a commercial decision.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 24, 2020, 05:33:46 PM
Has it escaped certain people’s notice that if Brueckner wanted to get into people trafficking he need look no further than his old mate for connections and advice ?
Secondly if the parents performed the one off criminal act of ‘disappearing’ their daughter’s body after a terrible accident what terrible stories would acquaintances have ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 05:42:44 PM
Always a double-edged sword using snitches; they've got decent information, but when it gets to court it can look tainted. The ones that subsequently give interviews to anyone with a pen or a camera, well, they're rendered useless, as not only is the information 'tainted', the informant is pursuing a commercial decision.
I see snitches as intelligence... Telling investigators where to look for evidence and who to look at. As you say Fulscher claims proof of innocence Wolters claims enough evidence to show CB killed MM... They can't both be right and we will soon know who is. I feel sceptics reject the evidence because it contradicts their conviction of the mccanns guilt.. Wheras for supporters it's a perfect fit
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 24, 2020, 05:53:10 PM
Has it escaped certain people’s notice that if Brueckner wanted to get into people trafficking he need look no further than his old mate for connections and advice ?
Secondly if the parents performed the one off criminal act of ‘disappearing’ their daughter’s body after a terrible accident what terrible stories would acquaintances have ?
I think there is little comparison between transporting illegal immigrants which is what Seyferth did, and human trafficking per se.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 24, 2020, 07:40:58 PM
Always a double-edged sword using snitches; they've got decent information, but when it gets to court it can look tainted. The ones that subsequently give interviews to anyone with a pen or a camera, well, they're rendered useless, as not only is the information 'tainted', the informant is pursuing a commercial decision.
Lest we forget, the reason for coming forward at this point in time. why not the day after she disappeared? There as a huge reard n offer fr some time... what would mak someone miss out on that opportunity at that time? hmm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 07:50:29 PM
Lest we forget, the reason for coming forward at this point in time. why not the day after she disappeared? There as a huge reard n offer fr some time... what would mak someone miss out on that opportunity at that time? hmm
not sure if you have followed recent developments...wolters says he has enogh evidence...material evidnce...concrete evidence ...to show CB killed Maddie . If thats the case ti informant deserves the reward.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 24, 2020, 07:59:19 PM
not sure if you have followed recent developments...wolters says he has enogh evidence...material evidnce...concrete evidence ...to show CB killed Maddie . If thats the case ti informant deserves the reward.
The informant deserves to be tazered anally every day he withheld the 'information' IMO.
I suppose he is keeping the charge sheet a secret? If, and this is a big IF, CB told the informant rat is is possible the rat was a co opted member of the 'secret' therefore withheld evidence and possibly was involved in some way, and trying to pin all the blame on his 'fiend' (yes should be friend) but fiend is also appropriate.IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 24, 2020, 08:07:09 PM
The informant deserves to be tazered anally every day he withheld the 'information' IMO.
I suppose he is keeping the charge sheet a secret? If, and this is a big IF, CB told the informant rat is is possible the rat was a co opted member of the 'secret' therefore withheld evidence and possibly was involved in some way, and trying to pin all the blame on his 'fiend' (yes should be friend) but fiend is also appropriate.IMO
sorry but your post is sounding more than a little crazy
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 08:12:40 PM
so amongst all these people you think gerry discussed the sexual abuse of his daughter..
Only in YOUR opinion=worth nothing in big scheme of things.
Why would anyone make that up about friends?
... and if you read the newspapers you would know that parents do murder their children- many in the MSM these past few months have been highlighted. Some people still suspect the parents are involved in some way.
I personally suspect them of faking an abduction from the bedroom of a live child based on evidence of statements by the Tapas group. Other than that ,I do not claim to know anything concrete.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 08:53:38 PM
Only in YOUR opinion=worth nothing in big scheme of things.
Why would anyone make that up about friends?
... and if you read the newspapers you would know that parents do murder their children- many in the MSM these past few months have been highlighted. Some people still suspect the parents are involved in some way.
I personally suspect them of faking an abduction from the bedroom of a live child based on evidence of statements by the Tapas group. Other than that ,I do not claim to know anything concrete.
I would also say I know exactly why dr gaspar made that statemnet...and why her husband disagreed with her
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 24, 2020, 08:54:30 PM
Friend rat who grassed up CB could have been complicit in the activity he accuses CB of. OR he may have been the prep himself.
He withheld information for a long period of time which does not show him in a good light IMO
The media seem confused as to why he came forward, too. Did he respond to a German TV programme as early reports speculated suggested or was it done in an attempt to save his own skin after being arrested in Italy for people smuggling?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 24, 2020, 08:57:23 PM
Dr Gaspar is well respected, she has no reason to make things up.
Whereas the McCanns go on holiday with 3 children and come back with two. And you think Dr Gaspar is the baddie here? O k a y.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 08:58:38 PM
The media seem confused as to why he came forward, too. Did he respond to a German TV programme as early reports speculated suggested or was it done in an attempt to save his own skin after being arrested in Italy for people smuggling?
he will be charged or cleared on the concrete evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 24, 2020, 09:01:58 PM
The media seem confused as to why he came forward, too. Did he respond to a German TV programme as early reports speculated suggested or was it done in an attempt to save his own skin after being arrested in Italy for people smuggling?
I hear the sund of...nail on head being hit! Ow!
That selfless, caring individual.
people smuggling has been changed to assisting illegal immigrants apparently OR( look away the soft hearted)- slave workers for EU companies.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 24, 2020, 09:05:02 PM
he will be charged or cleared on the concrete evidence
Oh well *falls over laughing* if they have concrete evidence why would they NOT charge him? perhaps it isn't hard set concrete just that soft goey watery mix that keeps spinning and never sets. in other words USELESS.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 09:12:17 PM
Oh well *falls over laughing* if they have concrete evidence why would they NOT charge him? perhaps it isn't hard set concrete just that soft goey watery mix that keeps spinning and never sets. in other words USELESS.
There, are very good reasons why they have not yet charged him.. That doesn't make the evidence useless
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 24, 2020, 09:19:45 PM
Exactly what Jim Gamble, amongst others, inferred to re. alliances changing.
He only 'changed' when he wanted immunity for his own crimes he was caught up in. And how do we know he was not the prep and is pinning the blame on CB?
Jim Gamble isn't god -no need to hang onto his every word.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2020, 09:34:40 PM
He only 'changed' when he wanted immunity for his own crimes he was caught up in. And how do we know he was not the prep and is pinning the blame on CB?
Jim Gamble isn't god -no need to hang onto his every word.
Anyone ... would, realise that if the German police, were happy to rely on informants, as, proof they could charge and convict CB now
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 24, 2020, 11:01:10 PM
You do not know why the Gaspars made statements, the male did not disagree, he said he didn't notice anything.
Not quite. He noticed the gesture and said in his statement “I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine”. He also said he had never distrusted DP. It’s funny that Arul’s statement is nearly always overlooked or misremembered by those quick to draw reference to the Gaspar statements.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 24, 2020, 11:06:25 PM
In any case I find it hard to believe that after 13 years and the revelation of a prime suspect for the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann we are still even having a discussion about the Gaspar Statements. I mean on the one hand you have two Doctors, still practicing, no criminal records, one of whom made a (possibly) lewd gesture, and on the other you have a burglar who carried out numerous crimes in and around PdL for many years, including crimes of child abuse and rape, yet some people think the lewd gesture is the more significant. It’s completely nuts IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 24, 2020, 11:24:47 PM
In any case I find it hard to believe that after 13 years and the revelation of a prime suspect for the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann we are still even having a discussion about the Gaspar Statements. I mean on the one hand you have two Doctors, still practicing, no criminal records, one of whom made a (possibly) lewd gesture, and on the other you have a burglar who carried out numerous crimes in and around PdL for many years, including crimes of child abuse and rape, yet some people think the lewd gesture is the more significant. It’s completely nuts IMO.
A suspect isn't a perpetrator. Are both McCanns practicing doctors?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 24, 2020, 11:37:29 PM
In any case I find it hard to believe that after 13 years and the revelation of a prime suspect for the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann we are still even having a discussion about the Gaspar Statements. I mean on the one hand you have two Doctors, still practicing, no criminal records, one of whom made a (possibly) lewd gesture, and on the other you have a burglar who carried out numerous crimes in and around PdL for many years, including crimes of child abuse and rape, yet some people think the lewd gesture is the more significant. It’s completely nuts IMO.
Maybe we should consign historical facts to the dustbin and only concentrate on recent speculation?
Does having a medical degree enhance ones character above that of the common criminal? I don't believe the victims of Dr Harold Shipman would agree.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 25, 2020, 07:15:27 AM
Maybe we should consign historical facts to the dustbin and only concentrate on recent speculation?
Does having a medical degree enhance ones character above that of the common criminal? I don't believe the victims of Dr Harold Shipman would agree.
Ah that old chestnut. I take it you still view the Gaspar statement as highly significant then, despite the otherwise unblemished reputation of the “nipple twiddler”, whilst preferring not to mention at all the crimes of the current chief suspect? Yes, that figures and amply demonstrates my point, thank you. PS: in an emergency who would you turn to for help if the only choice was between DP or CB?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 07:20:19 AM
Based on that we, should not dismiss the informants, and yes... Might be better to focus on recent and more relevant developments
Quite. So if the argument is that the chosen profession and career of someone is no indication of their character or likelihood of committing a deed, then it follows that just because someone is a people trafficker or career burglar it doesn’t mean they aren’t a reliable and honest witness.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 25, 2020, 08:59:05 AM
Quite. So if the argument is that the chosen profession and career of someone is no indication of their character or likelihood of committing a deed, then it follows that just because someone is a people trafficker or career burglar it doesn’t mean they aren’t a reliable and honest witness.
Well, thats about right for you VS and D believe a convict, career criminal who would do anything for money.
Yet not the findings of the PJ officer career... police officer on the case..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 09:02:55 AM
Ah that old chestnut. I take it you still view the Gaspar statement as highly significant then, despite the otherwise unblemished reputation of the “nipple twiddler”, whilst preferring not to mention at all the crimes of the current chief suspect? Yes, that figures and amply demonstrates my point, thank you. PS: in an emergency who would you turn to for help if the only choice was between DP or CB?
Brueckner, every time.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 25, 2020, 09:48:39 AM
A statement from the prosecutor said: "We are glad that the European Court shared our opinion. Now he wont be released from prison early, even if he gets his parole approved."
So IMO that could mean Job Done.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 09:56:02 AM
A statement from the prosecutor said: "We are glad that the European Court shared our opinion. Now he wont be released from prison early, even if he gets his parole approved."
So IMO that could mean Job Done.
We will see if Wolters loses interest now as you have predicted ...we will see if you are right or wrong... I think it's clear you are, wrong
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 10:06:16 AM
Just to make it clear.. As Evidence... On it's own.. The statement by the convicted criminal has little evidential value for all the reasons sceptics have stated. It is intelligence and that's all it really is. Hope that doesn't come as a shock to sceptics here
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 25, 2020, 11:04:25 AM
So anyway the reason Mrs Gaspar went to the police and told them that was because...?
She thought it was best to report what she 'thought'. Though strangely it was only DP she was concerned about even though it was GM he was talking to, wouldn't you be concerned about both? In my opinion Mrs Gasper didn't have a clue what they were talking about, she just jumped to conclusions when she saw what DP did. Do you honestly believe they would be talking about anything sexual whilst she was sat between them? Nothing has come of it. Amaral has a way of stirring the pot.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 12:21:06 PM
First Dr Gaspar may have simply been mistaken in her interpretation... That's the most likely scenario imo. Secondly she may have recently been on a, safeguarding course where the mantra is to report anything however small or unlikely... By not reporting she would be in breach of her of her professional standards
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 25, 2020, 12:38:36 PM
First Dr Gaspar may have simply been mistaken in her interpretation... That's the most likely scenario imo. Secondly she may have recently been on a, safeguarding course where the mantra is to report anything however small or unlikely... By not reporting she would be in breach of her of her professional standards
Thirdly she was disturbed enough to report it ...but it seemed to fall on deaf ears as usual IMO.
She obviously knew them so why would she get the wrong end of the stick...when she was sat there.
She probably knew what the conversation was about......whatever it disturbed her enough to report it.
Also doctors. ...Payne was the last indepenant witness also....disturbing imo.
The accusations were brought by a couple of friends that spent their holidays with part of the group in the summer of 2005 – themselves also English doctors.
Thirdly she was disturbed enough to report it ...but it seemed to fall on deaf ears as usual IMO.
She obviously knew them so why would she get the wrong end of the stick...when she was sat there.
She probably knew what the conversation was about......whatever it disturbed her enough to report it.
Also doctors. ...Payne was the last indepenant witness also....disturbing imo.
The accusations were brought by a couple of friends that spent their holidays with part of the group in the summer of 2005 – themselves also English doctors.
Thirdly she was disturbed enough to report it ...but it seemed to fall on deaf ears as usual IMO.
She obviously knew them so why would she get the wrong end of the stick...when she was sat there.
She probably knew what the conversation was about......whatever it disturbed her enough to report it.
Also doctors. ...Payne was the last indepenant witness also....disturbing imo.
The accusations were brought by a couple of friends that spent their holidays with part of the group in the summer of 2005 – themselves also English doctors.
You need a babysitter at the last minute. You have a choice between a guy who once made a rude gesture in front of a child or a guy who has a criminal record for child abuse and rape. You pick the latter. Of course you would.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 25, 2020, 01:23:54 PM
I think we need to change topic. Get back on topic please.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 25, 2020, 01:42:06 PM
You need a babysitter at the last minute. You have a choice between a guy who once made a rude gesture in front of a child or a guy who has a criminal record for child abuse and rape. You pick the latter. Of course you would.
Yep. I would. Same as I'd rather my entire family die of heart disease than be treated by Gerry.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 01:43:26 PM
It's a general remark aimed at anyone who thinks Gerry was discussing the abuse of his own daughter openly for all to hear
Well, you wouldnt know ...you wasn't there ...she was.
I didnt mention Maddie but seems KG did.,seeing you mentioned it. Katherina made a statement that was eight pages long. She reported holidays in Mallorca with several English [people], including the McCanns and the Paynes. Two incidents left her with serious doubts about the friends’ behaviour and lead her to create suspicions that were never confirmed.
The first one happened on a night when Gerry and Dave were talking about Maddie. Katherina does not know what they were saying but she remembers that Dave sucked on his fingers, pushing them into the mouth and pulling them out again, while his other hand traced a circle around the nipple, with a circular movement over the clothes. “That was done in a provocative manner”, recalls Katherina, who says that it stuck to her memory.
Days later, the scene repeated itself. The doctor saw Dave making the same gestures again, while he talked about his own daughter. Scared, Katherina said nothing about the incident. But she took special caution, asking her husband never to let the doctor come close to the bathroom when her daughter was having a bath.
Arul went to the police to tell the same story. Katherina’s companion confirmed the gestures that were made by Dave during the conversation with Gerry but asserted that he wasn’t aware that they were talking about Maddie. He did find the behaviour in extremely bad taste, but didn’t see it being repeated.
The incident ended up forgotten in his memory and it was only the disappearance of Madeleine, who had also been with them on the Mallorca vacation, that revived it.
During the deposition, Katherina went even further and said she had associated the gestures to someone who likes to watch child pornography. “I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different manner”, she concluded.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 25, 2020, 02:13:35 PM
Well, you wouldnt know ...you wasn't there ...she was.
I didnt mention Maddie but seems KG did.,seeing you mentioned it. Katherina made a statement that was eight pages long. She reported holidays in Mallorca with several English [people], including the McCanns and the Paynes. Two incidents left her with serious doubts about the friends’ behaviour and lead her to create suspicions that were never confirmed.
The first one happened on a night when Gerry and Dave were talking about Maddie. Katherina does not know what they were saying but she remembers that Dave sucked on his fingers, pushing them into the mouth and pulling them out again, while his other hand traced a circle around the nipple, with a circular movement over the clothes. “That was done in a provocative manner”, recalls Katherina, who says that it stuck to her memory.
Days later, the scene repeated itself. The doctor saw Dave making the same gestures again, while he talked about his own daughter. Scared, Katherina said nothing about the incident. But she took special caution, asking her husband never to let the doctor come close to the bathroom when her daughter was having a bath.
Arul went to the police to tell the same story. Katherina’s companion confirmed the gestures that were made by Dave during the conversation with Gerry but asserted that he wasn’t aware that they were talking about Maddie. He did find the behaviour in extremely bad taste, but didn’t see it being repeated.
The incident ended up forgotten in his memory and it was only the disappearance of Madeleine, who had also been with them on the Mallorca vacation, that revived it.
During the deposition, Katherina went even further and said she had associated the gestures to someone who likes to watch child pornography. “I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different manner”, she concluded.
I think it's ridiculous to think GM would openly discuss the sexual abuse of his own daughter
Way off topic too
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 25, 2020, 02:26:07 PM
I think it's ridiculous to think GM would openly discuss the sexual abuse of his own daughter
Way off topic too
Well thats you KG was their.. friend.. also a doctor..and was there why should she lie if it wasn't true.
Why is it of topic its about the mccs ...a statement concerning the mccs/payne.
What seems imo could have been classed as circumstational evidece. Friends from school days Arul and Kate were friends from their school days. They have known each other for approximately 20 years and that was the motive that led the couple to accompany the McCanns on their holidays to Mallorca
Well lets hope your family have a say in how they are treated and by whom and not you.
Let Spam (and his family if they're anything like him) demonstrate Darwin's theory. A bit like people who refuse life-saving treatment because of their religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 25, 2020, 05:45:23 PM
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne." but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne." but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne." but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
The fact is strange how DP never sued the gaspers ....or did a thing about insinuating he was a pedo it seems.
Especially when he was the last independent witness to see Maddie....all happy and looking the perfect family.
Another point, Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine, not that they weren’t. He was much further away from the protagonists than his wife so wasn’t in the best position to hear them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 01:49:03 PM
Another point, Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine, not that they weren’t. He was much further away from the protagonists than his wife so wasn’t in the best position to hear them.
You are making things up...I suggest you the check the statement
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 01:49:14 PM
“I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine”.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 27, 2020, 01:52:15 PM
You are making things up...I suggest you the check the statement
Impressao...impression.
Impression...an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence
I did not have the impression ( impressao ) that the gesture was referring to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 02:17:31 PM
Spot the difference:
"Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine"
“I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine”.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 02:23:57 PM
Impression...an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence
you posted
Another point, Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine, not that they weren’t.
so you are either not familair with the stateemnt or it was an intentional attempt to deceive...ie...a lie
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 02:29:14 PM
Does that go for, the evidence against CB as well?
you tell me. Is it a maxim by which you process all the information you gather or isn't it? Personally I think witness statements should always be taken with a pinch of salt, no matter who the witness is. Human memory is deeply flawed and suggestible. On the other hand if a Public prosecutor, a person in a highly serious and responsible position says that they have strong evidence against an individual I am inclined to take that at face value. The reason for that is - their credibility is on the line and if they are lying or talking bollocks the truth will out and and their credibility (and possibly their career) will be shot. That's what I think, what about you though?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
I wasn't there just going by what KG said ...who was close enough to see and hear what was done and said.
The thing is that Katerina would have to be lying, and lying in a missing child case, if what she claimed isn’t true. What kind of person would intentionally mislead the police when a child’s welfare is at stake ? Is that what supporters are accusing the doctor of because it certainly seems like that ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 03:34:19 PM
Some people are just so black and white that they don't seem able to process the possibility that witnesses put their own interpretation on events, with the possibility that things are misheard or misunderstood or misconstrued. It doesn't mean that they are lying, just mistaken or unconsciously biased.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 27, 2020, 05:15:49 PM
The thing is that Katerina would have to be lying, and lying in a missing child case, if what she claimed isn’t true. What kind of person would intentionally mislead the police when a child’s welfare is at stake ? Is that what supporters are accusing the doctor of because it certainly seems like that ?
Yes, it does seem like that
Always selective IMO who and who not to believe like in.
Gaspers friends of kmc from uni Doctor ...but not believable,yet imo would know mccs best
Tapas 7 acquaintances IIRC apart from DP. yet what they say is gospel even though I believe there are inconsistencies in what they said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 05:24:48 PM
I think she was mistaken... And I don't see how what she perceived to what was being referred to could possibly be true.
Do you really think they were referring to the sexual abuse of Maddie.... And.. We have not seen their actual signed statements
It took LP 5 months to share the Gasper statements with the PJ. It makes one wonder how many other statements didn't make it to the lead investigators.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 05:59:52 PM
It took LP 5 months to share the Gasper statements with the PJ. It makes one wonder how many other statements didn't make it to the lead investigators.
Do you think it possible that Gery McCann was discussing the sexual abuse of his daughter in front of the Gaspars..
I think its impossible....I doubt you can answer the question...so
Do you think it possible that Gery McCann was discussing the sexual abuse of his daughter in front of the Gaspars..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 06:08:09 PM
Always selective IMO who and who not to believe like in.
Gaspers friends of kmc from uni Doctor ...but not believable,yet imo would know mccs best
Tapas 7 acquaintances IIRC apart from DP. yet what they say is gospel even though I believe there are inconsistencies in what they said.
Katerina as a doctor would know the potential outcome of her actions. I’m sure if she wasn’t sure or felt she may have misconstrued the conversation then she wouldn’t have given a statement.
I’ve always found it strange that two professionals unknown to each other both reported doubts about DP.
I also find it surprising that while Katerina’s statement, a professional woman, is doubted the statements of Brueckner’s criminal accomplices are taken as gospel.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 06:09:44 PM
I think she was mistaken... And I don't see how what she perceived to what was being referred to could possibly be true.
Do you really think they were referring to the sexual abuse of Maddie.... And.. We have not seen their actual signed statements
I prefer to not read into what was a very bald statement.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 06:14:24 PM
So if these two men were talking about the sexual abuse of Madeleine how does that fit into the “accidental overdose and fall off the balcony” theory? Because if the Gaspar statement is relevant to solving this case then it would mean something very sinister was going on, something like a paedophile ring on their holidays that turned to murder. And they say we’re the sickos to believe that CB had something to do with it!!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 06:15:35 PM
Katerina as a doctor would know the potential outcome of her actions. I’m sure if she wasn’t sure or felt she may have misconstrued the conversation then she wouldn’t have given a statement.
I’ve always found it strange that two professionals unknown to each other both reported doubts about DP.
I also find it surprising that while Katerina’s statement, a professional woman, is doubted the statements of Brueckner’s criminal accomplices are taken as gospel.
I think you totally misunderstand...as a professional katrina would have felt forced to mention it however unlikely the possibility
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 06:20:26 PM
it isnt nons3ense obviously you dont understand professional ethics. She would actually b eguilty of professional misconduct for not reporting it..
They didnt both agree
They allowed their daughter to be bathed by the alleged paedophile
They didnt once discuss the point together....if i thought afriend was apossible paedophile I would certainly discuss it with my wife
we havent seen their actual statement
It is also a complete nonsense to say that McCann supporters take the word of CB’s associates as gospel. In fact I’d say that was another blatant propagandist’s lie.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 06:39:39 PM
it isnt nons3ense obviously you dont understand professional ethics. She would actually b eguilty of professional misconduct for not reporting it..
They didnt both agree
They allowed their daughter to be bathed by the alleged paedophile
They didnt once discuss the point together....if i thought afriend was apossible paedophile I would certainly discuss it with my wife
we havent seen their actual statement
How would that work then ? If Katerina hadn’t given a statement about DP’s lewd behaviour who else would have told authorities? I believe if the statement she gave had been proved to been made up she would have been in a damn sight more trouble professionally.
Yvonne Martin and Katerina Gaspar, both professional women, both had their doubts about DP.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 06:42:21 PM
out of interest what aspect of DP’s words or deeds led YM to believe he was a paedophile?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 27, 2020, 06:52:29 PM
How would that work then ? If Katerina hadn’t given a statement about DP’s lewd behaviour who else would have told authorities? I believe if the statement she gave had been proved to been made up she would have been in a damn sight more trouble professionally.
Yvonne Martin and Katerina Gaspar, both professional women, both had their doubts about DP.
Both of whom it's their professional responsibility to raise an issue however unlikely.. Thats what they have in common
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 27, 2020, 07:16:26 PM
Strange though that two professionals unknown to each other both had doubts about DP.
I noticed that Gerry McCann mentioned him as having checked the McCann children on Wednesday 2nd, even though everyone else said he did no checks at all.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
He also said;
During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 07:25:03 PM
Katerina was a friend of the parents and Yvonne Martin was a Social Services and Protection of Minors Manager so hardly nutters.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 07:25:27 PM
Nice to see our sceptic members on more comfortable territory - casting aspersions at the McCanns and their friends while the experienced professionals get on with the more serious, grown-up work of investigating Madeleine’s abduction by a stranger.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 07:28:42 PM
I noticed that Gerry McCann mentioned him as having checked the McCann children on Wednesday 2nd, even though everyone else said he did no checks at all.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
He also said;
During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I’d bet my house that DP knew nothing about his alleged check and visit to Kate until much, much later.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 07:32:30 PM
Katerina was a friend of the parents and Yvonne Martin was a Social Services and Protection of Minors Manager so hardly nutters.
Anonymous Letter? That doesn't sound very professional on the part of Yvonne Martin.
Katerina Gaspar was sitting between Gerry McCann and David Payne and she seriously thought they were talking about the sexual abuse of one of their daughters?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 27, 2020, 07:36:06 PM
I’d bet my house that DP knew nothing about his alleged check and visit to Kate until much, much later.
4th May;
In answer to our question, the interviewee states that during all the meals, he never went to his apartment or to any of the group's apartments, because he has an, "intercom," and the signal carries from the apartment to the restaurant. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 07:52:33 PM
Anonymous Letter? That doesn't sound very professional on the part of Yvonne Martin.
Katerina Gaspar was sitting between Gerry McCann and David Payne and she seriously thought they were talking about the sexual abuse of one of their daughters?
That’s exactly what she thought...and she was there.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 07:54:28 PM
In answer to our question, the interviewee states that during all the meals, he never went to his apartment or to any of the group's apartments, because he has an, "intercom," and the signal carries from the apartment to the restaurant. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE.htm
Makes you wonder why Gerry claimed that DP had checked ? To implicate him more deeply perhaps ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 07:54:56 PM
In answer to our question, the interviewee states that during all the meals, he never went to his apartment or to any of the group's apartments, because he has an, "intercom," and the signal carries from the apartment to the restaurant. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE.htm
I don't think... In fact I'm sure... Those statements are not reliable. Fortunately the McCanns made new ones and gave them to the PJ
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 08:05:48 PM
Because two male Doctors simply do not talk across a female doctor in the process of discussing the sexual abuse of one of their daughters, especially when she has a young daughter of her own.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 08:51:09 PM
Because two male Doctors simply do not talk across a female doctor in the process of discussing the sexual abuse of one of their daughters, especially when she has a young daughter of her own.
And if they did and she heard it why did she not immediately inform the authorities? As a GP she should have been deeply concerned for the interests of Madeleine and DP’s children. Why wasn’t she?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on September 27, 2020, 08:51:14 PM
In your opinion. You really have no idea what two doctors might talk about.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 08:52:58 PM
In your opinion. You really have no idea what two doctors might talk about.
We do. We have KG’s statement. What did these two doctors actually say that was so damning and why did she not go straight to the police or social services about it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 09:05:35 PM
In your opinion. You really have no idea what two doctors might talk about.
Sexual Abuse of a young girl is a serious criminal offence, which leads me to wonder why she didn't report it immediately, making her an accessory, which is also a criminal offence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 09:21:09 PM
Has anyone here seen the original Gaspar statement in english...without that there is no real debate
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 09:28:02 PM
Has anyone here seen the original Gaspar statement in english...without that there is no real debate
What little I remember of the statement I saw, it was a ramble of if, buts and maybes. But was this not one of the statements taken in English, translated into Portuguese and then back into English?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 27, 2020, 09:31:52 PM
What little I remember of the statement I saw, it was a ramble of if, buts and maybes. But was this not one of the statements taken in English, translated into Portuguese and then back into English?
it was given in the UK so would have been in english..then translated by the PJ. i dont think anyone ha sseen the original english statement...only the PJ version. So...how accurate is it...no one knows
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
Sexual Abuse of a young girl is a serious criminal offence, which leads me to wonder why she didn't report it immediately, making her an accessory, which is also a criminal offence.
No one can explain this, so they willl just ignore it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 10:07:24 PM
"The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave." KG
So she thought he was a paedo but did nothimg to stop him gaining access to little children including his own? Why did her thoughts not go straight to Gerry who was allegedly chatting merrily to DP about the abuse of his own daughter?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 10:28:37 PM
So she thought he was a paedo but did nothimg to stop him gaining access to little children including his own? Why did her thoughts not go straight to Gerry who was allegedly chatting merrily to DP about the abuse of his own daughter?
Mayhap she didn't care so long as it wasn't her daughter.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 27, 2020, 10:32:59 PM
Hopefully she was genuinely confused and spent two years worrying about it.
When you google “Dr David Payne” the first two results link him to paedophilia. She has a lot to answer for IMO yet no one here who supports CB’s right not to be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance on the basis of his past misdemeanours hesitate for one second to return again and again to the Gaspar Statement. By their own rationale (let us not forget) - just because CB abused children (“hardly the crime of the century” as one of them commented) doesn’t mean he had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance . As far as the sceptics on here go it would seem making a suggestive gesture is far more damning than masturbating in front of a child or violently raping an old woman.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 27, 2020, 10:59:00 PM
When you google “Dr David Payne” the first two results link him to paedophilia. She has a lot to answer for IMO yet no one here who supports CB’s right not to be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance on the basis of his past misdemeanours hesitate for one second to return again and again to the Gaspar Statement. By their own rationale (let us not forget) - just because CB abused children (“hardly the crime of the century” as one of them commented) doesn’t mean he had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance . As far as the sceptics on here go it would seem making a suggestive gesture is far more damning than masturbating in front of a child or raping an old woman.
To be as fair as is possible, I don't think Katerina Gaspar expected her statement to be made public. And it wouldn't have been, but for The Portuguese Investigation.
However, the allegation was investigated and dismissed, which wasn't all that surprising under the circumstances.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 27, 2020, 11:15:36 PM
Nearly two years later. What must she have thought was happening in the meantime?
You would have to ask her that. The point still stands that she knew she would be questioned on why she hadn’t reported the incident sooner but reported it anyway.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 28, 2020, 12:17:36 AM
You would have to ask her that. The point still stands that she knew she would be questioned on why she hadn’t reported the incident sooner but reported it anyway.
But she wouldn't have reported it at all if Madeleine hadn't disappeared. All a bit too late by then, don't you think?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 28, 2020, 12:28:30 AM
Because two male Doctors simply do not talk across a female doctor in the process of discussing the sexual abuse of one of their daughters, especially when she has a young daughter of her own.
It just doesn't work though does it when visualising the scene.
They were sat at a large round table with Katarina sitting in the middle between David and Gerry. The men were having a conversation. A conversation which Katerina was unable to hear what either man was saying to the other, despite the fact they must have been speaking over her since she was seated in the middle between them. But the men managed to hear each other well enough to have their conversation which was inaudible to the woman seated between them.
Katerina then had to be turned looking at David to see him making a gesture in the course of having a conversation with Gerry which was inaudible to her. She then had to swivel around to see Gerry making a gesture in the course of the conversation which she couldn't hear despite being sat slap bang in the middle between them.
NO-ONE HERE HAS EVER SEEN THE ORIGINAL GASPAR STATEMENTS. IN MY OPINION LEVY STRIKES AGAIN.
But Katerina's statement has certainly served it's purpose on this thread for defaming David Payne yet again ~ in other words LIBELLING him which is probably why this topic was removed from the public boards quite some time ago. All the while deflecting from the thought that Brueckner ... who is a real criminal and convicted paedophile whose 'reputation' apparently must remain unsullied while we sling Off Topic filth at an innocent man.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 28, 2020, 01:02:01 AM
It just doesn't work though does it when visualising the scene.
They were sat at a large round table with Katarina sitting in the middle between David and Gerry. The men were having a conversation. A conversation which Katerina was unable to hear what either man was saying to the other, despite the fact they must have been speaking over her since she was seated in the middle between them. But the men managed to hear each other well enough to have their conversation which was inaudible to the woman seated between them.
Katerina then had to be turned looking at David to see him making a gesture in the course of having a conversation with Gerry which was inaudible to her. She then had to swivel around to see Gerry making a gesture in the course of the conversation which she couldn't hear despite being sat slap bang in the middle between them.
NO-ONE HERE HAS EVER SEEN THE ORIGINAL GASPAR STATEMENTS. IN MY OPINION LEVY STRIKES AGAIN.
But Katerina's statement has certainly served it's purpose on this thread for defaming David Payne yet again ~ in other words LIBELLING him which is probably why this topic was removed from the public boards quite some time ago. All the while deflecting from the thought that Brueckner ... who is a real criminal and convicted paedophile whose 'reputation' apparently must remain unsullied while we sling Off Topic filth at an innocent man.
Brueckner is a filthy paedophile, no one is arguing with that and he should certainly get the jail time he deserves. At this point however there is not one piece of evidence in the public domain that connects him directly to Madeleine’s disappearance. Are you saying that we should ignore the suspicions of a doctor who put her professional standing on the line to report a potential crime just because there are other criminals committing similar crimes ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on September 28, 2020, 01:10:49 AM
In which way does this relate to the thread topic.
Perhaps you need to take that up with the member who started the discussion...remembering of course that you yourself contributed not two minutes ago to it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 28, 2020, 01:14:50 AM
Brueckner is a filthy paedophile, no one is arguing with that and he should certainly get the jail time he deserves. At this point however there is not one piece of evidence in the public domain that connects him directly to Madeleine’s disappearance. Are you saying that we should ignore the suspicions of a doctor who put her professional standing on the line to report a potential crime just because there are other criminals committing similar crimes ?
I am saying ... the topic of this thread is not libelling a named individual, it is "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB"
Please abide by forum rules and stick to the designated topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 28, 2020, 07:10:05 AM
I am saying ... the topic of this thread is not libelling a named individual, it is "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB"
Please abide by forum rules and stick to the designated topic of the thread.
I don't see the difference between discussing the evidence in the files mentioning Robert Murat and the evidence mentioning David Payne. Off topic yes, but libelous? I think not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 28, 2020, 07:15:37 AM
I don't see the difference between discussing the evidence in the files mentioning Robert Murat and the evidence mentioning David Payne. Off topic yes, but libelous? I think not.
You mean like the evidence that Murat was fond of cats? Would it be ok to discuss that, perhaps in a new thread regarding the evidence against Murat?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 28, 2020, 08:02:16 AM
Has any sceptic here or anywhere else ever said “just because DP made a “suggestive gesture” once a couple of years before Madeleine disappeared doesn’t mean he’s involved in Madeleine’s disappearance “? because I have heard quite a few say something like “just because Bruckner is a burglar, a child abuser and a violent rapist doesn’t mean he’s involved in Madeleine’s disappearance “. Which sceptics will now step forward and defend DP’s reputation in this way? Anyone?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 28, 2020, 08:19:37 AM
Has any sceptic here or anywhere else ever said “just because DP made a “suggestive gesture” once a couple of years before Madeleine disappeared doesn’t mean he’s involved in Madeleine’s disappearance “? because I have heard quite a few say something like “just because Bruckner is a burglar, a child abuser and a violent rapist doesn’t mean he’s involved in Madeleine’s disappearance “. Which sceptics will now step forward and defend DP’s reputation in this way? Anyone?
Pointing out and discussing the evidence in the files isn't an attack on DP's reputation.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 28, 2020, 08:25:03 AM
As a vet I believe it is anatomically impossible to have sex with a cat.
Depends on the anatomy. Ever heard of a micro-penis? Anyway, let's open a thread to discuss the issue in depth and see if we can't cast a few more groundless smears at one of the ex-arguidos. I mean if we can do it for DP who was never even an arguido then why the hell not?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 28, 2020, 10:34:14 AM
When you google “Dr David Payne” the first two results link him to paedophilia. She has a lot to answer for IMO yet no one here who supports CB’s right not to be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance on the basis of his past misdemeanours hesitate for one second to return again and again to the Gaspar Statement. By their own rationale (let us not forget) - just because CB abused children (“hardly the crime of the century” as one of them commented) doesn’t mean he had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance . As far as the sceptics on here go it would seem making a suggestive gesture is far more damning than masturbating in front of a child or violently raping an old woman.
There's a person on twitter who only the other week called DP and GM paedo's. He should be prosecuted it's disgraceful.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 28, 2020, 10:35:53 AM
I don't see the difference between discussing the evidence in the files mentioning Robert Murat and the evidence mentioning David Payne. Off topic yes, but libelous? I think not.
Then in my opinion you have very little idea regarding libel laws. In particular innuendo. Allow me to refer you to:- Summary: Defamation - Meaning – Natural and Ordinary Meaning – Innuendo – Repetition Rule - Social Media
Now wouldn't it be a good idea to exercise a little discipline and lead by example just for today and encourage members to stay on the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 28, 2020, 10:41:34 AM
Depends on the anatomy. Ever heard of a micro-penis? Anyway, let's open a thread to discuss the issue in depth and see if we can't cast a few more groundless smears at one of the ex-arguidos. I mean if we can do it for DP who was never even an arguido then why the hell not?
I'm not sure why you're annoyed.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 28, 2020, 11:01:00 AM
Then in my opinion you have very little idea regarding libel laws. In particular innuendo. Allow me to refer you to:- Summary: Defamation - Meaning – Natural and Ordinary Meaning – Innuendo – Repetition Rule - Social Media
Now wouldn't it be a good idea to exercise a little discipline and lead by example just for today and encourage members to stay on the topic of the thread.
I will check on whether discussing documented evidence amounts to innuendo. As for staying on topic, I'm happy to insist that everyone does that at all times.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 28, 2020, 11:14:50 AM
I will check on whether discussing documented evidence amounts to innuendo. As for staying on topic, I'm happy to insist that everyone does that at all times.
Please do. You really should know about these things. In my opinion not just the legality but the morality of repeating allegations which were long since discarded by investigators as having no foundation.
'm not sure why you think I'm annoyed? I'm simply exposing what I perceive to be the blatant hypocrisy and double standards *some* people on here are exhibiting IMO. Personally, I would never start a thread to discuss an ex-arguido's alleged bestiality because I think to do so would be a really nasty (not to mention libellous) thing to do. I am also pretty sure it would never be sanctioned by the forum owner despite your claim that I could start one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 28, 2020, 11:18:35 AM
Then in my opinion you have very little idea regarding libel laws. In particular innuendo. Allow me to refer you to:- Summary: Defamation - Meaning – Natural and Ordinary Meaning – Innuendo – Repetition Rule - Social Media
Now wouldn't it be a good idea to exercise a little discipline and lead by example just for today and encourage members to stay on the topic of the thread.
Is 'exercising discipline' and 'leading by example' something which all moderators except me practice in your opinion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 28, 2020, 11:19:06 AM
'm not sure why you think I'm annoyed? I'm simply exposing what I perceive to be the blatant hypocrisy and double standards *some* people on here are exhibiting IMO. Personally, I would never start a thread to discuss an ex-arguido's alleged bestiality because I think to do so would be a really nasty (not to mention libellous) thing to do. I am also pretty sure it would never be sanctioned by the forum owner despite your claim that I could start one.
I think the two examples are quite different.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 28, 2020, 11:47:14 AM
No they're not. Both are unsubstantiated, highly damaging insinuations / allegations, the only difference is: one of them is a subject of endless fascination to sceptics, the other one isn't.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 28, 2020, 11:50:06 AM
Please do. You really should know about these things. In my opinion not just the legality but the morality of repeating allegations which were long since discarded by investigators as having no foundation.
Please do. You really should know about these things. In my opinion not just the legality but the morality of repeating allegations which were long since discarded by investigators as having no foundation.
Not all the evidence in the files we have seen are accurate. For example no-one here has seen the original Gasper statements. But Levy has.
Not all of the information has been accurate it seems .....Why was information sat on for 5 years.
The E fit of the man carrying maddie.....one seemed to strongly resemble gmcc it seems but not now shown. Why were Maddie suspect E-fits kept SECRET for five years? Images and evidence of sighting uncovered by private detectives were suppressed
The E-fits of a ‘new’ suspect for Madeleine McCann’s disappearance were drawn up five years ago – and suppressed.
Images of a man seen carrying a child through Praia da Luz at 10pm on the night the then three-year-old vanished were unveiled on BBC1’s Crimewatch two weeks ago.
Not all of the information has been accurate it seems .....Why was information sat on for 5 years.
The E fit of the man carrying maddie.....one seemed to strongly resemble gmcc it seems but not now shown. Why were Maddie suspect E-fits kept SECRET for five years? Images and evidence of sighting uncovered by private detectives were suppressed
The E-fits of a ‘new’ suspect for Madeleine McCann’s disappearance were drawn up five years ago – and suppressed.
Images of a man seen carrying a child through Praia da Luz at 10pm on the night the then three-year-old vanished were unveiled on BBC1’s Crimewatch two weeks ago.
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 28, 2020, 04:34:11 PM
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
I would like to read your link if you don't mind L
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 28, 2020, 06:18:34 PM
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
So in October 27th what year not saying anything is underhanded here but. if it was 2009 where had they been as they was classed as crucial evidence .....till 2013.
Not CB it seems.
Madeleine McCann search: E-fit man 'was seen carrying child' 14 October 2013
The witnesses said the man was white, 20 to 40 years old and of medium build. He had short brown hair, was clean-shaven and of medium height, they added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513267
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 28, 2020, 06:31:36 PM
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
So in October 27th what year not saying anything is underhanded here but. if it was 2009 where had they been as they was classed as crucial evidence .....till 2013.
Not CB it seems.
Madeleine McCann search: E-fit man 'was seen carrying child' 14 October 2013
The witnesses said the man was white, 20 to 40 years old and of medium build. He had short brown hair, was clean-shaven and of medium height, they added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513267
CB isn't smithman
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 28, 2020, 08:03:54 PM
I just thought that he looked like him. If you want my honest opinion. Which you probably don't.
I find it really hard to take you seriously because you are actually a quite nice person.
But Yes, I do think that a serving PJ Officer could have helped to abduct Madeleine.
Cristovao is a convicted criminal already.
And on a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest, how likely do you think it is that Cristovao, or any other police officer, abducted Madeleine ? Of course they’d have to been in cahoots with Brueckner if Wolter is to be believed, so yet another layer of unlikely right there.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on September 29, 2020, 01:41:23 AM
And on a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest, how likely do you think it is that Cristovao, or any other police officer, abducted Madeleine ? Of course they’d have to been in cahoots with Brueckner if Wolter is to be believed, so yet another layer of unlikely right there.
Are you interested in discussing this academically? Or are you just trying to wind me up into saying something that you think that you can later denounce?
If you want to play my game then you are going to have to be very good at it. A teensy bit better than you are at the moment, although I am sure that you can be if you understand what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on September 29, 2020, 03:25:35 AM
And on a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest, how likely do you think it is that Cristovao, or any other police officer, abducted Madeleine ? Of course they’d have to been in cahoots with Brueckner if Wolter is to be believed, so yet another layer of unlikely right there.
I agree with Elli, Cristovao is very like the one image of Smithman, but not like the other.
It could easily be a senior Police Officer involved, because so many of them are criminals and some of the ones we know are linked to each other by blood ties, or birthplace district ties
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 29, 2020, 11:40:54 AM
Are you interested in discussing this academically? Or are you just trying to wind me up into saying something that you think that you can later denounce?
If you want to play my game then you are going to have to be very good at it. A teensy bit better than you are at the moment, although I am sure that you can be if you understand what I am talking about.
No game just a straightforward question.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 29, 2020, 12:22:15 PM
Why is it always there reputation that is first and foremost?
They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.
OH KIZZY!
Please be realistic! The harm done to them their children and all the family is immense. They are to be admired for having shouldered it all without suing some of you.
I wonder if that will come when the case is wound up ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on September 29, 2020, 01:11:53 PM
Please be realistic! The harm done to them their children and all the family is immense. They are to be admired for having shouldered it all without suing some of you.
I wonder if that will come when the case is wound up ?
I think their suing days are over after the monumental smackdown delivered last time out. Arrogance and other people's money will only get you so far. (Another German phrase I just made up)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 29, 2020, 01:31:46 PM
Please be realistic! The harm done to them their children and all the family is immense. They are to be admired for having shouldered it all without suing some of you.
I wonder if that will come when the case is wound up ?
Sadie with all due respect. I believe the mccs are involved in in covering up what happened to maddie. They have also not been cleared of that.IMO
So how in any way could I admire them ...for what I believe they have done.
That is my opinion.
Do you honestly think this case will ever be wound up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 29, 2020, 01:42:55 PM
you said they have not been cleared....the SC never said that
P D Carmo said not suspects and no evidence against them
I didn't mention SC in my post ...but now you have mentioned them twice so Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance.
I didn't mention SC in my post ...but now you have mentioned them twice so Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance.
That's the paper..it's an inaccurate claim ...that isn't what the SC said. Even they aren't that stupid
Read what the SC said and you will understand
Ihave read it.
Page 03 ...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).
A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).
The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;
Page 03 ...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).
A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).
The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 29, 2020, 04:44:58 PM
Page 03 ...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).
A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).
The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;
Page 03 ...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).
A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).
The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;
You do realise the SC are not saying Maddie died in tha apartment
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 29, 2020, 05:12:22 PM
They aren't saying either..that wasn't what they were asked to do
To be exact they were addressing the claim by the McCann's lawyer that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. The SC decided they weren't. The MSM printed stories such as the one quoted because they had previously claimed the McCanns had been cleared. They were correcting their previous misunderstanding;
Kate and Gerry McCann are "relieved" to be cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine but there is "no degree of celebration", their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said. https://themaddiecasefiles.com/mccanns-cleared-as-maddie-case-is-closed-metro-21--t12066.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 29, 2020, 06:23:38 PM
To be exact they were addressing the claim by the McCann's lawyer that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. The SC decided they weren't. The MSM printed stories such as the one quoted because they had previously claimed the McCanns had been cleared. They were correcting their previous misunderstanding;
Kate and Gerry McCann are "relieved" to be cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine but there is "no degree of celebration", their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said. https://themaddiecasefiles.com/mccanns-cleared-as-maddie-case-is-closed-metro-21--t12066.html
The point is the SC have not said the McCanns have not been cleared and they have not said they have not been proven innocent. These are untrue claims believed by some sceptics.
I think its fair to say they have been cleared since they were suspects and are no longer suspects. In reality the term cleared dosnt really have any precise legal definition. It seems its Ok by sceptics to consider the three burglars and Murta cleared but in reality neither have...because there is no process of being cleared. Even a not guilty verdict in court is not a declaration or proof of innocence.
IMO its just sceptic mudslinging. The McCanns are not suspects in the Portuguese...UK or German investigation.
thats not proof of innocence...that may well come soon if CB is convicted. ..but it is evidence of innocence.
the only contention is did the SC use the term no proof or no evidence of innocence re the archiving despatch.
I think the ECHR will have a lot to say about the handling of the appeal by the SC and as a previous post by you showed the SC have a poor record at the ECHR when it come to their respect of human rights...we will see
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 29, 2020, 07:46:02 PM
The point is the SC have not said the McCanns have not been cleared and they have not said they have not been proven innocent. These are untrue claims believed by some sceptics.
I think its fair to say they have been cleared since they were suspects and are no longer suspects. In reality the term cleared dosnt really have any precise legal definition. It seems its Ok by sceptics to consider the three burglars and Murta cleared but in reality neither have...because there is no process of being cleared. Even a not guilty verdict in court is not a declaration or proof of innocence.
IMO its just sceptic mudslinging. The McCanns are not suspects in the Portuguese...UK or German investigation.
thats not proof of innocence...that may well come soon if CB is convicted. ..but it is evidence of innocence.
the only contention is did the SC use the term no proof or no evidence of innocence re the archiving despatch.
I think the ECHR will have a lot to say about the handling of the appeal by the SC and as a previous post by you showed the SC have a poor record at the ECHR when it come to their respect of human rights...we will see
I think it's the McCanns, their representatives and the MSM who you need to address, because it was them who claimed they were cleared in 2008. All that money spent on lawyers who seemed to misunderstand the law!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 29, 2020, 07:55:49 PM
I think it's the McCanns, their representatives and the MSM who you need to address, because it was them who claimed they were cleared in 2008. All that money spent on lawyers who seemed to misunderstand the law!
No its sceptics who misquote the SC who I wish to address. I think its the SC who misunderstand the law. I think claiming to have been cleared when the suspect is told there is no evidence of any crime is quite reasonable...but the SC decided to rewrite the despatch
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on September 29, 2020, 08:34:15 PM
No its sceptics who misquote the SC who I wish to address. I think its the SC who misunderstand the law. I think claiming to have been cleared when the suspect is told there is no evidence of any crime is quite reasonable...but the SC decided to rewrite the despatch
To return to the topic, it seems that the phone call to CB's alleged number doesn't tell the investigators much at all. What other evidence there is we don't know.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 30, 2020, 11:24:19 AM
To return to the topic, it seems that the phone call to CB's alleged number doesn't tell the investigators much at all. What other evidence there is we don't know.
Are you in a strong position to judge?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 30, 2020, 11:33:05 AM
I know where the phone information the Germans consulted came from and what it showed. As they appealed for the caller to come forward I know that they needed confirmation that CB answered the phone that they think he was using. I also know that even then they will need to show that the phone call was significant in some way. Proving that he was within range of the Luz Vodaphone mast is not evidence of criminal activity.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 30, 2020, 11:39:06 AM
I know where the phone information the Germans consulted came from and what it showed. As they appealed for the caller to come forward I know that they needed confirmation that CB answered the phone that they think he was using. I also know that even then they will need to show that the phone call was significant in some way. Proving that he was within range of the Luz Vodaphone mast is not evidence of criminal activity.
Being in close proximity to PdL in itself is not evidence of criminal activity. But burglary, child abuse and rape is. Put them together and you have means, motive and opportunity.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 30, 2020, 11:48:38 AM
Being in close proximity to PdL in itself is not evidence of criminal activity. But burglary, child abuse and rape is. Put them together and you have means, motive and opportunity.
Well in my opinion a tragic accident that could ruin the mccs I believe.carreer/family etc.
Could also be Put them together and you have means, motive and opportunity.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 30, 2020, 12:01:28 PM
Being in close proximity to PdL in itself is not evidence of criminal activity. But burglary, child abuse and rape is. Put them together and you have means, motive and opportunity.
It's not evidence that he was doing anything wrong on 3rd May though.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 30, 2020, 12:35:20 PM
Being in close proximity to PdL in itself is not evidence of criminal activity. But burglary, child abuse and rape is. Put them together and you have means, motive and opportunity.
Christian B is many things but I have never seen anyone (outside Maddie case) claim that he is a killer. IMO he is nothing more than yet another patsy. Had he been a free man the German authorities would never have dared reveal his name.
I don't believe for a second that Brueckner ever saw Maddie let alone abducted her.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 30, 2020, 02:59:04 PM
Christian B is many things but I have never seen anyone (outside Maddie case) claim that he is a killer. IMO he is nothing more than yet another patsy. Had he been a free man the German authorities would never have dared reveal his name.
I don't believe for a second that Brueckner ever saw Maddie let alone abducted her.
Brueckner holds a unique position in the eyes of serious investigators in the three national police forces who have been following the evidence in Madeleine's case.
"THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE POLICE HAVE MADE FORMAL SUSPICIONS IN THE MADDIE CASE"
The Judiciary Police, Metropolitan Police in London and the German police, who have been secretly liaising in recent years, came to a formal suspect in the abduction and death of Madeleine McCann, an English child who disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos, when he was just three years old.
Henrique Machado, TVI's justice editor, recalled that over the past 13 years the police have never assumed formal suspicions about any suspect.
Brueckner holds a unique position in the eyes of serious investigators in the three national police forces who have been following the evidence in Madeleine's case.
"THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE POLICE HAVE MADE FORMAL SUSPICIONS IN THE MADDIE CASE"
The Judiciary Police, Metropolitan Police in London and the German police, who have been secretly liaising in recent years, came to a formal suspect in the abduction and death of Madeleine McCann, an English child who disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos, when he was just three years old.
Henrique Machado, TVI's justice editor, recalled that over the past 13 years the police have never assumed formal suspicions about any suspect.
He's forgotten the four arguidos instigated by OG in July 2014, six years ago, it seems.
I do not think he has. They were questioned as arguidos for their own protection as dictated by Portuguese law which we have discussed ad nauseam. Brueckner has not been questioned at all, yet he is a formal suspect. Entirely different.
Of course we might be able to make a more informed decision if the currently available spate of video clips from Portuguese TV was being translated for us by the usual translators. But they are not. What I have noticed are clips of a dog barking its head off and a dearth of the weel kent faces we usually see as pundits on these shows. Not much now from Amaral and certainly nothing from Cristovao: I think some bubbles may well have been burst :(
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 30, 2020, 03:45:55 PM
I do not think he has. They were questioned as arguidos for their own protection as dictated by Portuguese law which we have discussed ad nauseam. Brueckner has not been questioned at all, yet he is a formal suspect. Entirely different.
Of course we might be able to make a more informed decision if the currently available spate of video clips from Portuguese TV was being translated for us by the usual translators. But they are not. What I have noticed are clips of a dog barking its head off and a dearth of the weel kent faces we usually see as pundits on these shows. Not much now from Amaral and certainly nothing from Cristovao: I think some bubbles may well have been burst :(
I think some bubbles may well have been burst :(
Not much now from HCW. either.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on September 30, 2020, 04:33:49 PM
Is this the start of the crumbling circumstantial evidence.
‘CAN’T PIN IT ON HIM’ Madeleine McCann suspect Christian B could be cleared of Irish woman’s rape as DNA doesn’t match crime scene
Christian B is many things but I have never seen anyone (outside Maddie case) claim that he is a killer. IMO he is nothing more than yet another patsy. Had he been a free man the German authorities would never have dared reveal his name.
I don't believe for a second that Brueckner ever saw Maddie let alone abducted her.
If he’s a poor wee patsy then what sort of a person do you think made off with Madeleine or her body? The British authorities released Shipmans name to the press before he was ever charged, how do you account for that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 30, 2020, 05:49:44 PM
Christian B is many things but I have never seen anyone (outside Maddie case) claim that he is a killer. IMO he is nothing more than yet another patsy. Had he been a free man the German authorities would never have dared reveal his name.
I don't believe for a second that Brueckner ever saw Maddie let alone abducted her.
He beat a woman before raping her, he beat his girlfriend, how can you say it wouldn't escalate to murder?
Your last sentence is ridiculous, you don't know if he saw Madeleine or not so cannot claim that he didn't.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 30, 2020, 05:54:26 PM
Well in my opinion a tragic accident that could ruin the mccs I believe.carreer/family etc.
Could also be Put them together and you have means, motive and opportunity.
Don't you think an abduction would have given the McCann's more publicity? Far worse than an accident I would say, with abduction you don't know what the hell is happening to her.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on September 30, 2020, 06:23:55 PM
Don't you think an abduction would have given the McCann's more publicity? Far worse than an accident I would say, with abduction you don't know what the hell is happening to her.
It would appear that it did. World-wide fame and misfortune
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on September 30, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
I do not think he has. They were questioned as arguidos for their own protection as dictated by Portuguese law which we have discussed ad nauseam. Brueckner has not been questioned at all, yet he is a formal suspect. Entirely different.
Of course we might be able to make a more informed decision if the currently available spate of video clips from Portuguese TV was being translated for us by the usual translators. But they are not. What I have noticed are clips of a dog barking its head off and a dearth of the weel kent faces we usually see as pundits on these shows. Not much now from Amaral and certainly nothing from Cristovao: I think some bubbles may well have been burst :(
He is a prime suspect in Germany, not Portugal imo. (arguido = prime suspect)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on September 30, 2020, 07:27:09 PM
He beat a woman before raping her, he beat his girlfriend, how can you say it wouldn't escalate to murder?
Your last sentence is ridiculous, you don't know if he saw Madeleine or not so cannot claim that he didn't.
I am entitled to my belief just as the German investigator is. No mention by the Germans of the illegal conduct perpetrated by the McCanns and their Kennedy pals in their failed crusade against Amaral though. IMO it is only a matter of time before this particular issue rises to the surface.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on September 30, 2020, 07:55:00 PM
Christian B is many things but I have never seen anyone (outside Maddie case) claim that he is a killer. IMO he is nothing more than yet another patsy. Had he been a free man the German authorities would never have dared reveal his name.
I don't believe for a second that Brueckner ever saw Maddie let alone abducted her.
I agree, Brückner does not come across as a killer but in my opinion he definitely is not being framed for Madeleine’s disappearance. German authorities never revealed his true identity and I doubt that they would make these bold statements re. what they have on Brückner.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 30, 2020, 08:01:36 PM
I was under the impression the 4 ‘arguidos’ were called as witnesses in 2014?
The status of arguidos in the Portuguese judicial system refers to individuals whom police may reasonably suspect are linked to a crime. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28101400
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on September 30, 2020, 08:09:05 PM
I was under the impression the 4 ‘arguidos’ were called as witnesses in 2014?
Mark Rowley 2017:Q: You’ve talked about 600 people. You at one point had four suspects. Can you tell me the story about how they came into the frame? MR: So, one of the lines of enquiry, one of the hypotheses was could this be a burglary gone wrong? Someone is doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child, which leads to Madeleine going missing. Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese beginning of July 2014? MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other parts of the investigation
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 30, 2020, 08:11:55 PM
I was under the impression the 4 ‘arguidos’ were called as witnesses in 2014?
If I remember correctly there was some discussion on the forum about who had made the request on Robert Murat's behalf ~ Scotland Yard or Murat himself. Given that arguido status allowed him to be accompanied by his lawyer when questioned.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on September 30, 2020, 08:15:16 PM
Mark Rowley 2017:Q: You’ve talked about 600 people. You at one point had four suspects. Can you tell me the story about how they came into the frame? MR: So, one of the lines of enquiry, one of the hypotheses was could this be a burglary gone wrong? Someone is doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child, which leads to Madeleine going missing. Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese beginning of July 2014? MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other parts of the investigation
So they were questioned and the police moved on. Must happen all the time I would imagine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on September 30, 2020, 08:17:16 PM
He is a prime suspect in Germany, not Portugal imo. (arguido = prime suspect)
At risk of repeating myself "THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE POLICE HAVE MADE FORMAL SUSPICIONS IN THE MADDIE CASE" 2020-06-03 The Judiciary Police, Metropolitan Police in London and the German police, who have been secretly liaising in recent years, came to a formal suspect in the abduction and death of Madeleine McCann, an English child who disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos, when he was just three years old.
Henrique Machado, TVI's justice editor, recalled that over the past 13 years the police have never assumed formal suspicions about any suspect.
The status of arguidos in the Portuguese judicial system refers to individuals whom police may reasonably suspect are linked to a crime. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28101400
I am aware of that. What was the outcome of this exercise?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on September 30, 2020, 08:24:14 PM
At risk of repeating myself "THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE POLICE HAVE MADE FORMAL SUSPICIONS IN THE MADDIE CASE" 2020-06-03 The Judiciary Police, Metropolitan Police in London and the German police, who have been secretly liaising in recent years, came to a formal suspect in the abduction and death of Madeleine McCann, an English child who disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos, when he was just three years old.
Henrique Machado, TVI's justice editor, recalled that over the past 13 years the police have never assumed formal suspicions about any suspect.
At risk of repeating myself "THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE POLICE HAVE MADE FORMAL SUSPICIONS IN THE MADDIE CASE" 2020-06-03 The Judiciary Police, Metropolitan Police in London and the German police, who have been secretly liaising in recent years, came to a formal suspect in the abduction and death of Madeleine McCann, an English child who disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos, when he was just three years old.
Henrique Machado, TVI's justice editor, recalled that over the past 13 years the police have never assumed formal suspicions about any suspect.
Not forgetting the tattoo that CB doesn't have,it'll be the same in the Madeleine case imo,no DNA match.
You seem very eager to believe this latest tabloid report unquestioningly. What about the fact that there is no DNA in the rape case because it was all allegedly destroyed by the PJ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 01, 2020, 08:52:05 AM
Not forgetting the tattoo that CB doesn't have,it'll be the same in the Madeleine case imo,no DNA match.
Perhaps it means that there were two or more camera and long sharp blade carrying predators preying on innocent women in the Algarve in the years prior to Madeleine being abducted using exactly the same modus operandi.
Quite a chilling thought.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 01, 2020, 09:00:58 AM
Perhaps it means that there were two or more camera and long sharp blade carrying predators preying on innocent women in the Algarve in the years prior to Madeleine *being abducted* using exactly the same modus operandi.
Quite a chilling thought.
You spelt died in the holiday apartment wrong.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 01, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Probably because there was absolutely no substantiation of any of the 'evidence' Amaral used to illustrate his nonsensical theories regarding what he decided was 'proof'.
On the other hand, the same weaver of tall tales tells us that the child predator Brueckner was visited by the police in 2007 and ruled out.
I know that won't impinge on your prejudice, but it is certainly food for thought for me and no doubt a few others too.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 01, 2020, 09:52:16 AM
So, Madeleine falls off the sofa and dies, Kate arrives for her check finds Madeleine dead and decides to fake an abduction without even telling Gerry. She fakes an abduction and hides Madeleine's body, where? It's ridiculous and you know it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 01, 2020, 09:54:08 AM
You seem very eager to believe this latest tabloid report unquestioningly. What about the fact that there is no DNA in the rape case because it was all allegedly destroyed by the PJ?
This is what the media said;
But today it emerged the DNA evidence collected from the crime scene was destroyed around two months before Madeleine's disappearance, meaning the chance of making any solid link between the two cases if the same offender was responsible could now prove impossible. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
This is what was actually destroyed;
'On March 15 2007 when the judge decides to archive the investigation, the Public Ministry decide any biological material should be destroyed.
They add: 'As they are in a bad condition it is improbable that if this re-investigation was reopened the material could be subjected to counterproof analysis.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
They did find DNA;
The documents make it clear DNA was obtained but no match.
So did they destroy this DNA? No, they destroyed the source of the DNA. The DNA profile(s) they obtained would have been recorded in reports and those reports were not destroyed.
It's normal to destroy the samples; the FSS were suggesting they were going to destroy the biological samples in the McCann case very early on, but they kept the results.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 01, 2020, 10:01:24 AM
So, Madeleine falls off the sofa and dies, Kate arrives for her check finds Madeleine dead and decides to fake an abduction without even telling Gerry. She fakes an abduction and hides Madeleine's body, where? It's ridiculous and you know it.
I've never suggested that is what happened.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 01, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
So, Madeleine falls off the sofa and dies, Kate arrives for her check finds Madeleine dead and decides to fake an abduction without even telling Gerry. She fakes an abduction and hides Madeleine's body, where? It's ridiculous and you know it.
Who suggested that scenario?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 01, 2020, 10:53:06 AM
I really don't know why you insist on revisiting flawed calumnies of the past in apparent defence of supposed infringement of the rights of a convicted rapist and paedophile. But there can be no doubt that what Amaral has had to say over thirteen years based on what amounts to no evidence at all is ably reflected in what Lace has said in her posts. I think your response is disingenuous.
We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Q - The girl falls from the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.
A - The mother. It is the mother who finds the girl dead.
Q - But I am trying to think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter dead on the floor decides to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can't find it?
A – This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case Translated by Mercedes
Gonçalo Amaral, the visible head of an investigation that had thousands of people in suspense, tells why he remains insistent that it was Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, who were responsible for her disappearance.
Question – You defend the theory that the parents are guilty of what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Answer – No. That is not in the book.
Q - However that is the theory that one can understand from reading it.
A - From the synopsis you also obtain the same conclusions of the book.
Q - What are the reasons that make you believe that imply the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter?
I really don't know why you insist on revisiting flawed calumnies of the past in apparent defence of supposed infringement of the rights of a convicted rapist and paedophile. But there can be no doubt that what Amaral has had to say over thirteen years based on what amounts to no evidence at all is ably reflected in what Lace has said in her posts. I think your response is disingenuous.
We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Q - The girl falls from the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.
A - The mother. It is the mother who finds the girl dead.
Q - But I am trying to think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter dead on the floor decides to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can't find it?
A – This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case Translated by Mercedes
Gonçalo Amaral, the visible head of an investigation that had thousands of people in suspense, tells why he remains insistent that it was Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, who were responsible for her disappearance.
Question – You defend the theory that the parents are guilty of what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Answer – No. That is not in the book.
Q - However that is the theory that one can understand from reading it.
A - From the synopsis you also obtain the same conclusions of the book.
Q - What are the reasons that make you believe that imply the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter?
I really don't know why you insist on revisiting flawed calumnies of the past in apparent defence of supposed infringement of the rights of a convicted rapist and paedophile.
Goodness! I ask a question and get an accusation. I think it was the one who posted the theory who was revisiting it, not me. That the theory was a flawed calumny is your opinion, although I see no acknowledgement of that. How you see asking a question as defending anyone escapes me I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 01, 2020, 12:01:20 PM
So, Madeleine falls off the sofa and dies, Kate arrives for her check finds Madeleine dead and decides to fake an abduction without even telling Gerry. She fakes an abduction and hides Madeleine's body, where? It's ridiculous and you know it.
No wonder you believe in abduction ....if that's how YOU think it happened.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 01, 2020, 12:14:58 PM
I really don't know why you insist on revisiting flawed calumnies of the past in apparent defence of supposed infringement of the rights of a convicted rapist and paedophile. But there can be no doubt that what Amaral has had to say over thirteen years based on what amounts to no evidence at all is ably reflected in what Lace has said in her posts. I think your response is disingenuous.
We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Q - The girl falls from the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.
A - The mother. It is the mother who finds the girl dead.
Q - But I am trying to think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter dead on the floor decides to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can't find it?
A – This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case Translated by Mercedes
Gonçalo Amaral, the visible head of an investigation that had thousands of people in suspense, tells why he remains insistent that it was Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, who were responsible for her disappearance.
Question – You defend the theory that the parents are guilty of what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Answer – No. That is not in the book.
Q - However that is the theory that one can understand from reading it.
A - From the synopsis you also obtain the same conclusions of the book.
Q - What are the reasons that make you believe that imply the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter?
Q - But I am trying to think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter dead on the floor decides to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can't find it?
A – This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case
I doubt very much he meant the 10 o'clock check. interesting though he never got the chance to work it out.
Because they wanted him gone ...I believe because he was on the right track.
Imo the DNA on this case was not exactly conclusive enough to rule out completely. as no DNA match.
British DNA analysis Hair and other fibres were collected from areas in the car and apartment 5A where Keela and Eddie had given alerts, and were sent to the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham for DNA profiling, arriving around 8 August 2007.[154] At this point, according to the Sunday Times, the PJ "abandoned the abduction theory".[53] On 8 August, without waiting for the results from Birmingham, the Portuguese police called the McCanns to a meeting in Portimão, where Guilhermino Encarnação, PJ regional director, and Luis Neves, coordinator of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo in Lisbon, told them the case was now a murder inquiry.[155] When Encarnação died of stomach cancer in 2010, The Daily Telegraph identified him as a major source of the leaks against the McCanns.[156] Both the McCanns were interrogated that day; the officers suggested that Kate's memory was faulty.[155]
The FSS used a technique known as low copy number (LCN) testing. Used when only a few cells are available, the test is controversial because it is vulnerable to contamination and misinterpretation.[157] On 3 September John Lowe of the FSS emailed Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior of the Leicestershire police, the liaison officer between the British and Portuguese police. Lowe told Prior that a sample from the car boot contained 15 out of 19 of Madeleine's DNA components, and that the result was "too complex for meaningful interpretation":
A complex LCN [low copy number] DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section ... Within the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. ... Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion. ... [W]e cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine, or is it a chance match.[c]
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 01, 2020, 12:30:00 PM
But today it emerged the DNA evidence collected from the crime scene was destroyed around two months before Madeleine's disappearance, meaning the chance of making any solid link between the two cases if the same offender was responsible could now prove impossible. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
This is what was actually destroyed;
'On March 15 2007 when the judge decides to archive the investigation, the Public Ministry decide any biological material should be destroyed.
They add: 'As they are in a bad condition it is improbable that if this re-investigation was reopened the material could be subjected to counterproof analysis.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
They did find DNA;
The documents make it clear DNA was obtained but no match.
So did they destroy this DNA? No, they destroyed the source of the DNA. The DNA profile(s) they obtained would have been recorded in reports and those reports were not destroyed.
It's normal to destroy the samples; the FSS were suggesting they were going to destroy the biological samples in the McCann case very early on, but they kept the results.
“But today it emerged the DNA evidence collected from the crime scene was destroyed around two months before Madeleine's disappearance, meaning the chance of making any solid link between the two cases if the same offender was responsible could now prove impossible”. Suddenly now it’s possible to rule him out?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 01, 2020, 12:50:57 PM
It appears that the DNA results were kept, not the material from which the results were obtained.. Presumably DNA results from a crime scene could be kept in perpetuity - subject to the law of the land.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 01, 2020, 12:51:26 PM
Amaral's theory is that Madeleine fell of the sofa and hit her head which caused her death. Amaral says Kate's finger prints were on the window, suggesting she opened it. Amaral was accusing Kate of hiding Madeleine's body, the Police suggested to her that she must have had a black out.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 01, 2020, 12:52:54 PM
Amaral's theory is that Madeleine fell of the sofa and hit her head which caused her death. Amaral says Kate's finger prints were on the window, suggesting she opened it. Amaral was accusing Kate of hiding Madeleine's body, the Police suggested to her that she must have had a black out.
Who had the Blackout? I never heard of that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 01, 2020, 12:55:03 PM
Why should her book be any more believable than the GA book?
We know for definite that some of the things written in Amaral's book are not true. Such as Calpol helping children to sleep, the dog alerts and DNA proving there had been a body in 5a, Gerry being a Surgeon, Kate having marked the page in the Bible, Kate's Dad saying they give Calpol to the children to help them sleep. I'm sure there are more.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 01, 2020, 02:22:29 PM
Why should her book be any more believable than the GA book?
Why do you think Kate's lawyer advised her not to answer the questions? It was because they were accusing her of staging an abduction. Kate was the one who found her missing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 01, 2020, 02:33:20 PM
Why do you think Kate's lawyer advised her not to answer the questions? It was because they were accusing her of staging an abduction. Kate was the one who found her missing.
Both posts IMO ....only your version of things...OR IYO.
You don't know why kmc didn't answer those questions.
Or if her book was any different to GAs.
They I believe had the nerve to say it stopped people looking for maddie. GA book. and some on here.
Yet they have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead, so who do they think is looking for her now.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 01, 2020, 02:40:19 PM
Both posts IMO ....only your version of things...OR IYO.
You don't know why kmc didn't answer those questions.
Or if her book was any different to GAs.
They I believe had the nerve to say it stopped people looking for maddie. GA book. and some on here.
Yet they have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead, so who do they think is looking for her now.
The British police ~ the German police ~ the Portuguese police. None of whom are investigating any evidence relating to any other than Brueckner who is their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 01, 2020, 02:51:54 PM
The British police ~ the German police ~ the Portuguese police. None of whom are investigating any evidence relating to any other than Brueckner who is their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.
And how exactly do you know that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 01, 2020, 03:50:52 PM
The British police ~ the German police ~ the Portuguese police. None of whom are investigating any evidence relating to any other than Brueckner who is their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.
So that's IYO as well or what the media are saying.
I cant see how they can even possibly think they can charge CB without a body or DNA.
Yet in the mccs case.
It is thought that the McCanns' high-powered lawyers have told them that without a body it will be extremely difficult for the authorities to press charges.
A close friend said: "The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: 'Where is the body? Where is the evidence that Madeleine is dead? We have got no idea'."
The change in the family's tone – just days after the McCanns were still pleading for the search for Madeleine to continue – surprised sources close to the investigation.
"It seems remarkable that just days after the McCanns were saying they thought Madeleine was still alive and missing, now they're talking about a body," a source said. "I don’t know if this is really the McCanns speaking or just one of the people working on their publicity campaign but it is not the kind of comment to impress a team of detectives who think you’re guilty."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 01, 2020, 04:13:29 PM
It appears that the DNA results were kept, not the material from which the results were obtained.. Presumably DNA results from a crime scene could be kept in perpetuity - subject to the law of the land
Just how competent were the Portuguese at collecting and analysing DNA found at scenes of crimes in 2004? Didn’t they have to outsource analysisof this in the McCann case?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 01, 2020, 05:54:37 PM
Both posts IMO ....only your version of things...OR IYO.
You don't know why kmc didn't answer those questions.
Or if her book was any different to GAs.
They I believe had the nerve to say it stopped people looking for maddie. GA book. and some on here.
Yet they have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead, so who do they think is looking for her now.
If people thought Madeleine was dead of course they wouldn't keep an eye out for her.
It's obvious why Kate didn't answer the questions they were trying to fit her up for Madeleine's disappearance.
How do you know they have no problem with HCW saying Madeleine is dead? OG is still treating it as a missing persons investigation.
Of course Kate's book was different to Amaral's what Kate told was her account of what happened to her and Gerry, Amaral's was an account of what he thought happened and none of it was proven.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 01, 2020, 06:36:23 PM
It's in Kate's book Rob. When the Police were interrogating her they suggested she could have had a black out and couldn't remember what she did.
Why would Kate mention what the PJ claim? If someone did blackout what responsibility do they have. In NZ a blackout would be like having a heart attack, like classed as a medical emergency. Minutes later she seems in full control alerting the others. I still don't remember Kate making that claim.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 10:53:15 PM
If people thought Madeleine was dead of course they wouldn't keep an eye out for her.
It's obvious why Kate didn't answer the questions they were trying to fit her up for Madeleine's disappearance.
How do you know they have no problem with HCW saying Madeleine is dead? OG is still treating it as a missing persons investigation.
Of course Kate's book was different to Amaral's what Kate told was her account of what happened to her and Gerry, Amaral's was an account of what he thought happened and none of it was proven.
If people thought Madeleine was dead of course they wouldn't keep an eye out for her.
That was one of my points.
So its wrong for GA to say ...[Maddie is dead.]
Yet ok when HCW says ...... [Maddie is dead.]
Double standards or what. L
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 02, 2020, 10:57:51 AM
They I believe had the nerve to say it stopped people looking for maddie. GA book. and some on here.
Yet they have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead, so who do they think is looking for her now.
No, I didn't think so.
It seems quite clear that the opinion you expressed in your post is exactly that. Opinion ... and only yours which is entirely nothing at all to do with Kate McCann.
You have attributed a sentiment to her which she has NEVER expressed; please have more care about that sort of thing in future posts.
Kate & Gerry McCann Statement: June 16th, 2020 Since the recent police appeals regarding Madeleine’s disappearance there have been many inaccurate stories reported in the media. The widely reported news that we have a received a letter from the German authorities that states there is evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead is FALSE. Like many unsubstantiated stories in the media, this has caused unnecessary anxiety to friends and family and once again disrupted our lives.
As we have stated many times before, we will not give a running commentary on the investigation- that is the job of the law enforcement agencies and we will support them in any way requested. Furthermore, we do not have a family spokesperson nor are we actively paying any lawyers. Any recent comments attributed in the media have not come from us unless they have been posted on our website. If there are important developments that can be made public, they will be issued through official police channels.
Kate and Gerry
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 02, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
It seems quite clear that the opinion you expressed in your post is exactly that. Opinion ... and only yours which is entirely nothing at all to do with Kate McCann.
You have attributed a sentiment to her which she has NEVER expressed; please have more care about that sort of thing in future posts.
Kate & Gerry McCann Statement: June 16th, 2020 Since the recent police appeals regarding Madeleine’s disappearance there have been many inaccurate stories reported in the media. The widely reported news that we have a received a letter from the German authorities that states there is evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead is FALSE. Like many unsubstantiated stories in the media, this has caused unnecessary anxiety to friends and family and once again disrupted our lives.
As we have stated many times before, we will not give a running commentary on the investigation- that is the job of the law enforcement agencies and we will support them in any way requested. Furthermore, we do not have a family spokesperson nor are we actively paying any lawyers. Any recent comments attributed in the media have not come from us unless they have been posted on our website. If there are important developments that can be made public, they will be issued through official police channels.
Kate and Gerry
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.html
I think you are wrong and having the nerve to challenge my post with your opinion of me..
1...The mccs was at a libel trial in what I believe one of the reasons was GA saying maddie was dead .
2 a quote from one on here L "If people thought Madeleine was dead of course they wouldn't keep an eye out for her".
my point again was ..is it ok for CWH to say Maddie is dead - but not GA to say M addie is dead.
6 Gerry McCann lashed out at Portuguese police today, as a former senior detective dismissed the McCanns' challenge to claims that Madeleine was dead as "pathetic".
In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was "absolutely no evidence" to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.
As Madeleine's parents returned for a second day of the libel trial over claims about their daughter's disappearance, Gerry McCann appeared rattled as he argued with Portuguese journalists about the claims of officials involved in the investigation. "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance," he said.
Advertisement This morning the court heard fresh evidence questioning the disappearance of Madeleine. Former senior police officer and criminologist Francisco Moita Flores told the hearing that the McCanns' legal challenge to permanently ban a book by Gonçalo Amaral, the officer who initially led the Madeleine inquiry for Portugal's CID, the polícia judiciária (PJ), was "pathetic".
I think you are wrong and having the nerve to challenge my post with your opinion of me..
1...The mccs was at a libel trial in what I believe one of the reasons was GA saying maddie was dead .
2 a quote from one on here L "If people thought Madeleine was dead of course they wouldn't keep an eye out for her".
my point again was ..is it ok for CWH to say Maddie is dead - but not GA to say M addie is dead.
6 Gerry McCann lashed out at Portuguese police today, as a former senior detective dismissed the McCanns' challenge to claims that Madeleine was dead as "pathetic".
In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was "absolutely no evidence" to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.
As Madeleine's parents returned for a second day of the libel trial over claims about their daughter's disappearance, Gerry McCann appeared rattled as he argued with Portuguese journalists about the claims of officials involved in the investigation. "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance," he said.
Advertisement This morning the court heard fresh evidence questioning the disappearance of Madeleine. Former senior police officer and criminologist Francisco Moita Flores told the hearing that the McCanns' legal challenge to permanently ban a book by Gonçalo Amaral, the officer who initially led the Madeleine inquiry for Portugal's CID, the polícia judiciária (PJ), was "pathetic".
You are losing me just a little here as your posts become more and more mired in past events which mean nothing to the topic of this thread or every other thread which rapidly degenerates into a general blackguarding of innocent people.
Just a reminder of who the prime suspect in Madeleine's abduction is ... the rapist and paedophile whose name appears in the thread title.
In my opinion a mention of him now and again might go some way to restoring a balance to what seems to be a McCann hatefest.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 02, 2020, 01:06:05 PM
You are losing me just a little here as your posts become more and more mired in past events which mean nothing to the topic of this thread or every other thread which rapidly degenerates into a general blackguarding of innocent people.
Just a reminder of who the prime suspect in Madeleine's abduction is ... the rapist and paedophile whose name appears in the thread title.
In my opinion a mention of him now and again might go some way to restoring a balance to what seems to be a McCann hatefest.
the rapist and paedophile whose name appears in the thread title.
Yes well so are the mccs
Yes well the hatefest is your words not mine.
I just believe the are responsible for Maddie not being here today. nothing to do with a hatefest as u put it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 02, 2020, 01:23:08 PM
They I believe had the nerve to say it stopped people looking for maddie. GA book. and some on here.
Yet they have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead, so who do they think is looking for her now.
No, I didn't think so.
You made a claim "The McCanhs have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead" - it wasn't your opinion, you wrote it as a factual statement hence you need a cite or withdraw the claim. Them's the rules, ask G-Unit!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 02, 2020, 01:26:43 PM
the rapist and paedophile whose name appears in the thread title.
Yes well so are the mccs
Yes well the hatefest is your words not mine.
I just believe the are responsible for Maddie not being here today. nothing to do with a hatefest as u put it.
I am sorry kizzy, but Brietta is right, your posts do come over as a hatefest
One after another the posts keep coming, with a refusal to accept anything that The Mccanns and their supporters say. Refusal to accept that both the leads in the Policein the UK and Germany have said that the Mccanns were not involved … and excluding Amaral and few of his buddies, senior members of the PJ have also indicated that they do not think The Mccanns involved either.
…. and just look at your signature; that indicates your hate, doesn't it ?
IMO, it is time that you looked at the reality of the situation and backed off. I wouldn't like you to get into big trouble, because apart from your stance on The Mccanns, I see a lot of nice in you
Take care.
Sadie (the odd one (&^& )
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 02, 2020, 02:02:30 PM
I am sorry kizzy, but Brietta is right, your posts do come over as a hatefest
One after another the posts keep coming, with a refusal to accept anything that The Mccanns and their supporters say. Refusal to accept that both the leads in the Police/ Judicary in the UK and Germany have said that the Mccanns were not involved … and excluding Amaral and few of his buddies, senior members of the PJ have also indicated that they do not think The Mccanns involved either.
…. and just look at your signature; that indicates your hate, doesn't it ?
IMO, it is time that you looked at the reality of the situation and backed off. I wouldn't like you to get into big trouble, because apart from your stance on The Mccanns, I see a lot of nice in you
Take care.
Sadie (the odd one (&^& )
Ah, but is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 02, 2020, 03:20:55 PM
I am sorry kizzy, but Brietta is right, your posts do come over as a hatefest
One after another the posts keep coming, with a refusal to accept anything that The Mccanns and their supporters say. Refusal to accept that both the leads in the Police/ Judicary in the UK and Germany have said that the Mccanns were not involved … and excluding Amaral and few of his buddies, senior members of the PJ have also indicated that they do not think The Mccanns involved either.
…. and just look at your signature; that indicates your hate, doesn't it ?
IMO, it is time that you looked at the reality of the situation and backed off. I wouldn't like you to get into big trouble, because apart from your stance on The Mccanns, I see a lot of nice in you
Take care.
Sadie (the odd one (&^& )
I am nice sadie and I have principles and stand by what I believe to be true, just the same as you really but different beliefs.
It is my prerogative to believe what "I" want to believe, not what I am told I should believe.
Why should I accept what I don't believe to be true.
Also judged as a person for what I post on a forum for what I believed happened.
You can agree with B as much as you like, but I dont.
I have took the same stance since nearly the beginning tat I do not believe in the abduction or the mccs.
If it does upset you what I post or others, please feel free to put me on block not treat me as some sort of threat.
take care and keep safe Sadie. x
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 02, 2020, 03:34:50 PM
You made a claim "The McCanhs have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead" - it wasn't your opinion, you wrote it as a factual statement hence you need a cite or withdraw the claim. Them's the rules, ask G-Unit!
The McCanhs have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead
What are you talking about ...you show me where I said that.
Bit childish as well it seems to bring G-Unit into it.Vs
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 02, 2020, 03:50:58 PM
The McCanhs have no problem with HCW saying Maddie is dead
What are you talking about ...you show me where I said that.
Bit childish as well it seems to bring G-Unit into it.Vs
I have re-read your original post and concede that because it was undoubtedly badly worded that you probably meant that it was McCann SUPPORTERS that have no problem with HCW saying "Maddie" is dead - if that was your meaning then I withdraw my request and apologise for my misunderstanding. For the record I take no pleasure in accepting that Madeleine is almost certainly dead. If HCW has strong evidence that she is, then I accept that and assume he has good grounds for saying so. Yours humbly, and with love and contrition.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2020, 04:34:40 PM
I have re-read your original post and concede that because it was undoubtedly badly worded that you probably meant that it was McCann SUPPORTERS that have no problem with HCW saying "Maddie" is dead - if that was your meaning then I withdraw my request and apologise for my misunderstanding. For the record I take no pleasure in accepting that Madeleine is almost certainly dead. If HCW has strong evidence that she is, then I accept that and assume he has good grounds for saying so. Yours humbly, and with love and contrition.
Thank you.it was... [think its my northern accent]
I don't like to think of Maddie as dead but imo she has been since may 2007.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 02, 2020, 05:29:05 PM
The window, in my opinion, could be the key to all this as in if it was not open everything after that is false.imo
Why would she look out of it and yet not close it when it was blowing the curtains about.
If she looked out of the window why did she not look out of the front door nearest to Maddies bed.
That front door led to a car park locked, but could be opened from the inside.
This is an important point to me especially the window as the only way to back up abduction imo
The open door could have meant just woke and wandered. ten minutes she searched and did not close that window.
I also believe the bedroom door would have slamed shut when kmc opened the patio door if the window had been open.
Not that it wasnt in the same position ...how would she know it was the check after gmcc that he handt moved it .
Madeleine was missing and the priority in my opinion was to find her. They had no idea how long ago she went. It could have been very recently. Therefore searching the immediate vicinity and then working outwards was vital as she could be close.
The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside? It didn't matter! What mattered was getting loads of people out there searching for his daughter.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 02, 2020, 06:18:44 PM
Madeleine was missing and the priority in my opinion was to find her. They had no idea how long ago she went. It could have been very recently. Therefore searching the immediate vicinity and then working outwards was vital as she could be close.
The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside? It didn't matter! What mattered was getting loads of people out there searching for his daughter.
And, according to statements many people did indeed search for Madeleine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 02, 2020, 06:24:21 PM
Madeleine was missing and the priority in my opinion was to find her. They had no idea how long ago she went. It could have been very recently. Therefore searching the immediate vicinity and then working outwards was vital as she could be close.
The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside? It didn't matter! What mattered was getting loads of people out there searching for his daughter.
Do we know if this hasn’t in fact been done?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 02, 2020, 06:31:46 PM
Ah, but is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB?
The public simply do not know the extent of evidence that German authorities have on Brückner, albeit circumstantial and/or tangible. My opinion. This surely is different to so-called evidence against Madeleine’s parents, as contained in the PJ files?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 02, 2020, 06:52:05 PM
The public simply do not know the extent of evidence that German authorities have on Brückner, albeit circumstantial and/or tangible. My opinion. This surely is different to so-called evidence against Madeleine’s parents, as contained in the PJ files?
Mc's were made arguidoes by Portuguese authorities. CB made scapegoat by tabloids.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 02, 2020, 07:00:40 PM
The Mcs were made arguida by the initial investigation who didnt understand the evidence....fact...Almeida who wrote the interim report stated in court...according to the guardian...the main evidence against teh McCanns was the dog alerts...what codswallop.
CB is not named as a prime suspect by the tabloids...but by the german prosecutor.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 02, 2020, 08:49:08 PM
This is what is so so wrong with this forum and why posters such as myself are leaving. This post by a moderator is total ...total rubbish.The Mcs were made arguida by the initial investigation who didnt understand the evidence....fact...Almeida who wrote the interim report stated in court...according to the guardian...the main evidence against teh McCanns was the dog alerts...what codswallop.
CB is not named as a prime suspect by the tabloids...but by the german prosecutor. Your post is so innaccurate its laughable...no doubt you will have lots of support
The German prosecutor has not named CB.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 02, 2020, 09:06:00 PM
This is what is so so wrong with this forum and why posters such as myself are leaving. This post by a moderator is total ...total rubbish.The Mcs were made arguida by the initial investigation who didnt understand the evidence....fact...Almeida who wrote the interim report stated in court...according to the guardian...the main evidence against teh McCanns was the dog alerts...what codswallop.
CB is not named as a prime suspect by the tabloids...but by the german prosecutor. Your post is so innaccurate its laughable...no doubt you will have lots of support
Davel have you considered prosecutors' opening speech at trials? They puff out their chests and beat the drum hard about how the jury will learn the defendent is guilty as charged but in most cases defendents walk. Its what prosecutor's are paid to do. Listen to FF for the defence and you hear a completely different story.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 02, 2020, 09:13:41 PM
Davel have you considered prosecutors' opening speech at trials? They puff out their chests and beat the drum hard about how the jury will learn the defendent is guilty as charged but in most cases defendents walk. Its what prosecutor's are paid to do. Listen to FF for the defence and you hear a completely different story.
your post is complete and utter BS...imo...are you aware his original lawyers disowned him in June this year..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 02, 2020, 09:14:40 PM
hes made it clear who he is talking about...as has his lawyer...as has amaral...perahps you need to familiarise yourself with whats been going on...you seem to be in total denial...like alot of popelle
You said the prosecutor named CB but he hasn't because it's against the law to do so. The tabloids outed CB and I understand wil be paying dearly in the same way they did with Mc's and RM.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 02, 2020, 09:16:34 PM
You said the prosecutor named CB but he hasn't because it's against the law to do so. The tabloids outed CB and I understand wil be paying dearly in the same way they did with Mc's and RM.
you understand nothing...his own lawyer has outed him ,,,as has amaral...is he going to sue them too...ypur post is laughable
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 02, 2020, 09:18:21 PM
You said the prosecutor named CB but he hasn't because it's against the law to do so. The tabloids outed CB and I understand wil be paying dearly in the same way they did with Mc's and RM.
are you suddenly an expert in german law...LOL...as i said ...laughable
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 02, 2020, 09:20:52 PM
You said the prosecutor named CB but he hasn't because it's against the law to do so. The tabloids outed CB and I understand wil be paying dearly in the same way they did with Mc's and RM.
this is why some people doing jury duty isnt practical with jury duty you cant just say this person or that person did this so they are guilty you have to have proof and theres no proof CB abducted maddie
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 02, 2020, 09:23:26 PM
Nothing unusual about that. The MM accusation is an entirely different matter.
Funny ho wthey stopped representing him in june whe he became prime suspect in the MM case....and his sentence for rape has been upheld...which you refused to accept
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 02, 2020, 09:31:11 PM
Funny ho wthey stopped representing him in june whe he became prime suspect in the MM case....and his sentence for rape has been upheld...which you refused to accept
Nothing remotely unusual about multiple lawyers representing the same client over different matters.
I seem to recall you refuse to accept LC's guilt over JC.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 02, 2020, 09:41:01 PM
and that is where you are shown to be wrong... you dont know what the germans have on CB...yet you claim you do ..you dont
And you are in exactly the boat. The only difference it seems between you and Holly is that she requires proof of a connection between Brueckner and the McCann case, you proceed on blind faith. Wolter says he has concrete evidence so it must be so even though four months down the line and several appeals for information later Brueckner hasn’t even been questioned. Have you ever heard of a suspect not being questioned....I certainly haven’t.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 03, 2020, 09:10:05 AM
What's the delay in bringing charges if evidence exists?
It sometimes takes months to bring charges - look at the Shipman case. First identified as a potential killer months prior to being charged, plus his full name and back history was in all the tabs before charges were brought.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 03, 2020, 09:22:52 AM
It sometimes takes months to bring charges - look at the Shipman case. First identified as a potential killer months prior to being charged, plus his full name and back history was in all the tabs before charges were brought.
Do you have cites for that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 09:26:19 AM
What's the delay in bringing charges if evidence exists?
It really is quite simple..and its painful having to repeatedly expalin as I have several times
Evidence doesnt always equal proof
Germany has a similar justice sysstem to Portugal. If CB is questioned he has to be shown all the evidence against him...as the McCanns were. HCW has said he doesnt want to reveal all his evidence to CB at the moment.....and no I dont have acite it was said right at the start of the press releaes in June.
HCW has now said he doesnt need a body to take the case to court. Afaiac he is building a strong circumstantial and if he is it will show what a brilliant Prosecutor he is....we need to wait and see. Your claim that he has nothing....is based on nothing. Follow the evidence. The very fact he came out with facts that identified CB shows he has agood case imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 09:29:11 AM
It really is quite simple..and its painful having to repeatedly expalin as I have several times
Evidence doesnt always equal proof
Germany has a similar justice sysstem to Portugal. If CB is questioned he has to be shown all the evidence against him...as the McCanns were. HCW has said he doesnt want to reveal all his evidence to CB at the moment.....and no I dont have acite it was said right at the start of the press releaes in June.
HCW has now said he doesnt need a body to take the case to court. Afaiac he is building a strong circumstantial and if he is it will show what a brilliant Prosecutor he is....we need to wait and see. Your claim that he has nothing....is based on nothing. Follow the evidence. The very fact he came out with facts that identified CB shows he has agood case imo
Did he,thought CB's bestest mate gave SY the name and they (SY) passed it on.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 03, 2020, 10:52:52 AM
It sometimes takes months to bring charges - look at the Shipman case. First identified as a potential killer months prior to being charged, plus his full name and back history was in all the tabs before charges were brought.
But in this instance its years! According to DCI Mark Cranwell CB first entered the inquiry in 2017!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 10:57:47 AM
I believe in 2007 there were a lot of abandoned and derelict areas around Luz which might have been worth a good look. But I think the areas searched in 2014 had a lot more pointing to the involvement of an itinerant like Brueckner who knew the area like the back of his hand.
I can see nothing at all linking these search areas with strangers who had been in Luz for less than a week.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 03, 2020, 12:04:19 PM
You do understand that sometimes it takes years to build a case against a suspect don't you?
Unless you're a doctor with a good head and then it only takes four weeks at the most.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 01:15:43 PM
This is no ordinary case it's 13 years old with no forensic evidence it seems. Mostly circumstantial...HCW has confirmed he doesn't need a body...that's a clue. I think he's contacting every known asociate of CB and a big part will be his lack of alibi and no explanation for where he was on the day and days after the disappearance too
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on October 03, 2020, 02:37:22 PM
This is no ordinary case it's 13 years old with no forensic evidence it seems. Mostly circumstantial...HCW has confirmed he doesn't need a body...that's a clue. I think he's contacting every known asociate of CB and a big part will be his lack of alibi and no explanation for where he was on the day and days after the disappearance too
Can anyone here present recall exactly where they were that day in May 13 years on and give an explanation.for where they were days after ? . I would say not .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 02:40:46 PM
Can anyone here present recall exactly where they were that day in May 13 years on and give an explanation.for where they were days after ? . I would say not .
You didn't live in Luz in 2007....I don't need any confirmation from anyone here...I know exactly what I'm talking about
His girlfriend knows exactly where she an he were the day before the disappearance..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 03, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
Can anyone here present recall exactly where they were that day in May 13 years on and give an explanation.for where they were days after ? . I would say not .
The day on which Madeleine disappeared somewhere near you? And then changed the name on your car registration? I would remember.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 03:12:52 PM
The moderation on this forum has reached an all time low. It appears john has just given me a warning for using bad laguage...which plainly isnt true. If john doesnt want an opposing point of view expressed thats up to him
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 03, 2020, 03:20:09 PM
Problem,I alluded to here or in another thread,Police: suspect no1,on Channel 5 this week,they had a suspect whose phone alerted on certain mast's,the police said they can't use it as evidence,all their suspect would need to say his brother or some other has the phone,then how do they prove otherwise? forensics or a confession is what it will take,the first is not there imo nor will the 2nd part be forthcoming from anyone imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 03, 2020, 03:29:20 PM
You didn't live in Luz in 2007....I don't need any confirmation from anyone here...I know exactly what I'm talking about
His girlfriend knows exactly where she an he were the day before the disappearance..
You're making assumptions, that's all, because you have no way of knowing what other people remember. As to the 'girlfriend' she is alleged to have told a friend what Brueckner said and he (the friend) told The Sun. If that's the kind of gossip you're quoting as fact you are clutching at straws imo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11823591/madeleine-mccann-suspect-horrible-job/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 03, 2020, 03:30:04 PM
Problem,I alluded to here or in another thread,Police: suspect no1,on Channel 5 this week,they had a suspect whose phone alerted on certain mast's,the police said they can't use it as evidence,all their suspect would need to say his brother or some other has the phone,then how do they prove otherwise? forensics or a confession is what it will take,the first is not there imo nor will the 2nd part be forthcoming from anyone imo.
Balance of probabilities. He hasn't got a brother. Why would someone else be using his phone?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 03, 2020, 03:31:17 PM
You're making assumptions, that's all, because you have no way of knowing what other people remember. As to the 'girlfriend' she is alleged to have told a friend what Brueckner said and he (the friend) told The Sun. If that's the kind of gossip you're quoting as fact you are clutching at straws imo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11823591/madeleine-mccann-suspect-horrible-job/
wait and see who is right
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 03, 2020, 03:44:15 PM
Circumstantial Evidence is acceptable in a Court of Law. And if it wasn't him then he can always say who it was who had his phone if it wasn't him.
For what its worth as I doubt ill be posting much more.......on its own this might not be much...but HCW is compiling a mountain of circumstantial evience...he doesnt have a body but he doesnt need one
some posters are assessing each individual piece of evidence on its own...that isnt how it works...its the totality that counts
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 03, 2020, 03:51:28 PM
The moderation on this forum has reached an all time low. It appears john has just given me a warning for using bad laguage...which plainly isnt true. If john doesnt want an opposing point of view expressed thats up to him
Did you see the nasty post the General wrote to Sadie - no warning issued, nothing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 03, 2020, 03:54:23 PM
For what its worth as I doubt ill be posting much more.......on its own this might not be much...but HCW is compiling a mountain of circumstantial evience...he doesnt have a body but he doesnt need one
some posters are assessing each individual piece of evidence on its own...that isnt how it works...its the totality that counts
Sorry. Just answering ridiculous questions.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 03, 2020, 03:55:47 PM
It's a fair assumption IMO - unless CB could prove he was in the habit of lending his phone out to friends and associates.
I think any prosecution would need to prove that the phone was his, not for him to prove it belonged to someone else. Perhaps they can do this, perhaps they can't.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 04:08:24 PM
I think any prosecution would need to prove that the phone was his, not for him to prove it belonged to someone else. Perhaps they can do this, perhaps they can't.
Again it will be the totality of the evidence...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 03, 2020, 04:10:17 PM
I think any prosecution would need to prove that the phone was his, not for him to prove it belonged to someone else. Perhaps they can do this, perhaps they can't.
I thought it had been established that the phone was his? I thought your argument was that the prosecution would have to prove he hadn't lent it to a friend that night (or some other tall story his lawyers might cook up).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 03, 2020, 04:22:03 PM
You're making assumptions, that's all, because you have no way of knowing what other people remember. As to the 'girlfriend' she is alleged to have told a friend what Brueckner said and he (the friend) told The Sun. If that's the kind of gossip you're quoting as fact you are clutching at straws imo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11823591/madeleine-mccann-suspect-horrible-job/
Christian B disappeared at the same time as Madeleine — resurfacing three years later working in a bar in Lagos, around six miles from Praia da Luz.
G-Unit can you point out where in the article it says the ex girlfriend told a friend and the friend told the Sun please.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 03, 2020, 04:23:48 PM
I thought it had been established that the phone was his? I thought your argument was that the prosecution would have to prove he hadn't lent it to a friend that night (or some other tall story his lawyers might cook up).
Has it? You have a cite for this ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 04:26:07 PM
You probably will reject this as a cite, so here goes nothing
Quote
German police believe a key piece of evidence proves prime suspect Christian Brueckner was outside the Ocean Club minutes before Madeleine McCann was snatched.
Brueckner had made a 30-minute call to a phone registered to a man named Diogo Silva just an hour before McCann disappeared.
Prosecutors have since traced the phone used by Brueckner, claiming it connected to the mast owned by the resort complex where the McCanns were staying.
The phone call has been a central part of the renewed police probe since the twice-convicted paedophile was named as a key suspect earlier this month.
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise with NZME. Police are currently probing the call, but admit the content of the call is yet unclear.
Christian Brueckner's secret lair uncovered more than 8000 videos and files of his offending. Photo / Police Christian Brueckner's secret lair uncovered more than 8000 videos and files of his offending. Photo / Police Brueckner is believed to have started the call at 7.32pm and ending at 8.02pm on May 3, 2007.
About an hour after the call ended, McCann was taken from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
She vanished between 9.10pm and 10pm.
Appearing on 60 Minutes, Prosecutor Hans Wolters said they feel they are close to locating the final pieces of evidence.
"We know that the phone number which was used by our suspect on May 3, 2007, was connecting to the mast which belongs to the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz," he said.
The room where Madeleine McCann was snatched from. Photo / Portuguese Police The room where Madeleine McCann was snatched from. Photo / Portuguese Police TV host Liz Hayes then presses the prosecutor on if they can place Brueckner at the scene.
He replies: "Yes, we think so."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 03, 2020, 05:10:29 PM
I accept you have provided a cite, which is more than some do. It is difficult to tell how reliable it is until tested in a court of law.
I think as the info came from the German Prosecutor then it should be reliable, unless you have evidence that the German Prosecutor is a liar who makes stuff up for fun.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 06:01:44 PM
You're making assumptions, that's all, because you have no way of knowing what other people remember. As to the 'girlfriend' she is alleged to have told a friend what Brueckner said and he (the friend) told The Sun. If that's the kind of gossip you're quoting as fact you are clutching at straws imo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11823591/madeleine-mccann-suspect-horrible-job/
looks like youve misread the article...there were friends present at the time as wel as his girlfriend it seems.....he is reported to have said...
The then 30-year-old drifter told her: “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow. It’s a horrible job but it’s something I have to do and it will change my life. You won’t be seeing me for a while.”
if he did disappear off the scene after may 2 taht validates the girlfriends statement. i would say thse are the sort of things Wolters is checking out....hes far fromthe fool some want to beleive he is.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 03, 2020, 06:04:59 PM
Christian B disappeared at the same time as Madeleine — resurfacing three years later working in a bar in Lagos, around six miles from Praia da Luz.
G-Unit can you point out where in the article it says the ex girlfriend told a friend and the friend told the Sun please.
The article begins;
A BRITISH ex-girlfriend of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian B claims the night before the toddler’s abduction he told her: “I have a horrible job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow.”
She also told how she asked him if he snatched Madeleine McCann — and he warned: “Just don’t go there.”
But wait! It seems there are two ex-girlfriends, not one;
One has told of a chilling conversation she had with Christian B over dinner on May 2, 2007 and the other one said;
It was in the bar in 2010 that his other British girlfriend suggested he was a dead ringer for some of the photofits of the Madeleine suspects — and jokingly asked: “You did it Christian, didn’t you?”
A friend of the girls said today: “He blanked the question and shrugged — then added, ‘Just don’t go there’.”
You might have noticed now that it was the friend who told The Sun about this girlfriend's words. Most of the comments which followed were attributed to the friend also. At no point is there a claim that The Sun spoke directly to either woman. In fact there's a clear suggestion that one of them definitely didn't;
The ex-husband of one of the women, a businessman who still lives in Lagos, was also spoken to by Interpol last year as police pieced together Christian B's history.
He has refused to say what police asked or how he knew Christian B.
The husband said: “We’ve decided not to talk. The police have been in touch and we’ve spoken to them. I spoke to Interpol last year.
“I’m speaking on behalf of my ex too. We don’t want to be involved.”
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 03, 2020, 06:07:31 PM
I think as the info came from the German Prosecutor then it should be reliable, unless you have evidence that the German Prosecutor is a liar who makes stuff up for fun.
The difficulty is determining what is reported and what has actually been said. Lying doesn't enter into it - IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 06:25:13 PM
A BRITISH ex-girlfriend of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian B claims the night before the toddler’s abduction he told her: “I have a horrible job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow.”
She also told how she asked him if he snatched Madeleine McCann — and he warned: “Just don’t go there.”
But wait! It seems there are two ex-girlfriends, not one;
One has told of a chilling conversation she had with Christian B over dinner on May 2, 2007 and the other one said;
It was in the bar in 2010 that his other British girlfriend suggested he was a dead ringer for some of the photofits of the Madeleine suspects — and jokingly asked: “You did it Christian, didn’t you?”
A friend of the girls said today: “He blanked the question and shrugged — then added, ‘Just don’t go there’.”
You might have noticed now that it was the friend who told The Sun about this girlfriend's words. Most of the comments which followed were attributed to the friend also. At no point is there a claim that The Sun spoke directly to either woman. In fact there's a clear suggestion that one of them definitely didn't;
The ex-husband of one of the women, a businessman who still lives in Lagos, was also spoken to by Interpol last year as police pieced together Christian B's history.
He has refused to say what police asked or how he knew Christian B.
The husband said: “We’ve decided not to talk. The police have been in touch and we’ve spoken to them. I spoke to Interpol last year.
“I’m speaking on behalf of my ex too. We don’t want to be involved.”
the article also says..
Then Christian went off the radar the day after the abduction. Both his exes became more suspicious when he didn’t return to the area for around three years.
So according to the article he went off the radar the day after the abduction...someone seems to remember those days well. looks like my theory could be spot on
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 03, 2020, 06:31:45 PM
The difficulty is determining what is reported and what has actually been said. Lying doesn't enter into it - IMO.
Wolters has been videoed discussing the phone call putting CB in close proximity to the OC, have you not been following these developments that closely?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 03, 2020, 06:37:19 PM
Wolters has been videoed discussing the phone call putting CB in close proximity to the OC, have you not been following these developments that closely?
No. Have yiu got a link to that in English ?
He also says that Breckner killed Madeleine but hasn't proved it to be true.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 03, 2020, 06:49:11 PM
Circumstantial Evidence is acceptable in a Court of Law. And if it wasn't him then he can always say who it was who had his phone if it wasn't him.
It may well be,but any prosecution ( highly unlikely) will have to prove it was him on the dog and bone, interestingly or not there is nothing on the OG web pertaining to it now.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 03, 2020, 06:56:42 PM
Then Christian went off the radar the day after the abduction. Both his exes became more suspicious when he didn’t return to the area for around three years.
So according to the article he went off the radar the day after the abduction...someone seems to remember those days well. looks like my theory could be spot on
What abduction?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 03, 2020, 07:07:20 PM
I thought it had been established that the phone was his? I thought your argument was that the prosecution would have to prove he hadn't lent it to a friend that night (or some other tall story his lawyers might cook up).
They can do that if the person being called admits (sworn statement) to getting a call that time from Christian B and it was Christian B they spoke to.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 03, 2020, 07:34:35 PM
Then Christian went off the radar the day after the abduction. Both his exes became more suspicious when he didn’t return to the area for around three years.
So according to the article he went off the radar the day after the abduction...someone seems to remember those days well. looks like my theory could be spot on
If you want to believe what The Sun says that's your prerogative, but I prefer facts.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 03, 2020, 07:39:18 PM
They can do that if the person being called admits (sworn statement) to getting a call that time from Christian B and it was Christian B they spoke to.
Brueckner received the call.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 03, 2020, 07:44:10 PM
If you want to believe what The Sun says that's your prerogative, but I prefer facts.
If you read my post you would understand I'm not totally accepting anything. If you want facts don't comment for a couple of months when we may well know more. The whole board is full of speculation.
You don't seem to have a problem with posters saying wolters has nothing...perhaps you think it's s fact
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 03, 2020, 07:58:04 PM
Shipman may not have been charged in the early weeks of the case but he was certainly arrested and questioned. Has Brueckner been arrested and questioned yet ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 03, 2020, 09:14:53 PM
Shipman may not have been charged in the early weeks of the case but he was certainly arrested and questioned. Has Brueckner been arrested and questioned yet ?
He is neither going anywhere nor is he going to find it easy to commit more crimes where he is ~ I am sure the Germans will do whatever it is they will do in their own good time.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 03, 2020, 10:03:49 PM
Shipman was not arrested until months after police first started investigating his victims deaths. Fact. In the meantime his name was linked to those deaths in the media PRIOR to his arrest.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 03, 2020, 11:32:07 PM
He is neither going anywhere nor is he going to find it easy to commit more crimes where he is ~ I am sure the Germans will do whatever it is they will do in their own good time.
You obviously think that the German police have elastic budgets. Wolter said that they have concrete evidence...why is Brueckner not being questioned about it ? That standard behaviour in every police case...why not this one ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 12:43:03 AM
You obviously think that the German police have elastic budgets. Wolter said that they have concrete evidence...why is Brueckner not being questioned about it ? That standard behaviour in every police case...why not this one ?
Please do not presume to tell me what I think.
It is my opinion that in Britain we only know how much justice costs in Madeleine's case because a highly vociferous group of individuals have insisted on their right to use - I would say abuse - FOI as one tool amongst many to do their best to impede any investigation at all so enmeshed are they in spite and attacking Madeleine's family.
I don't know what it is costing the German taxpayer to clean up Portugal's legal mess ~ I am just appalled that it is obvious that if the Germans weren't doing it no-one else would and were I a woman living in Portugal I would be seriously concerned about that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 04, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
It is my opinion that in Britain we only know how much justice costs in Madeleine's case because a highly vociferous group of individuals have insisted on their right to use - I would say abuse - FOI as one tool amongst many to do their best to impede any investigation at all so enmeshed are they in spite and attacking Madeleine's family.
I don't know what it is costing the German taxpayer to clean up Portugal's legal mess ~ I am just appalled that it is obvious that if the Germans weren't doing it no-one else would and were I a woman living in Portugal I would be seriously concerned about that.
I don’t need to presume what you think, you hammer it home in every one of your posts. There is no member of this forum who is more transparent in their views than your good self.
As to the money spent by the U.K. taxpayer on the McCann case, there is no need for FOI requests when the media tell the public both the amount awarded and the running total whenever a request is made by OG.
As to your last sentence, I know quite a few woman living in Portugal and I have not heard one of them raise concerns about their treatment at the hands of their police. Unfortunately when it comes to rape the same can’t be said for U.K. victims.... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/30/convictions-fall-record-low-england-wales-prosecutions. “ The crime is becoming decriminalised”....how utterly shameful.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 02:02:07 AM
I don’t need to presume what you think, you hammer it home in every one of your posts. There is no member of this forum who is more transparent in their views than your good self.
As to the money spent by the U.K. taxpayer on the McCann case, there is no need for FOI requests when the media tell the public both the amount awarded and the running total whenever a request is made by OG.
As to your last sentence, I know quite a few woman living in Portugal and I have not heard one of them raise concerns about their treatment at the hands of their police. Unfortunately when it comes to rape the same can’t be said for U.K. victims.... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/30/convictions-fall-record-low-england-wales-prosecutions. “ The crime is becoming decriminalised”....how utterly shameful.
I doubt that the women of Portugal were fully aware of the nature of the beast allowed to walk amongst them and their children until the news broke earlier this year about Bruekner.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 04, 2020, 07:02:00 AM
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on October 04, 2020, 09:47:11 AM
A reminder to everyone to stay within the bounds of each topic and not to stray too far from the discussions at hand. I also take this opportunity to remind members that the forum rules are there for a reason. Please respect each others point of view and conduct responses in a civil manner at all times.
Admin
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 10:07:30 AM
A Polícia Federal Alemã pediu à PJ que investigasse Brueckner e descobriram que ele pegou um telefone enquanto ele estava na Praia da Luz, pouco antes do jovem desaparecer. The German Federal Police asked the PJ to investigate Brueckner and found that he picked up a phone while he was in Praia da Luz, just before the young girl disappeared. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=558056180990876&story_fbid=2749212878541851
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 04, 2020, 10:19:10 AM
A Polícia Federal Alemã pediu à PJ que investigasse Brueckner e descobriram que ele pegou um telefone enquanto ele estava na Praia da Luz, pouco antes do jovem desaparecer. The German Federal Police asked the PJ to investigate Brueckner and found that he picked up a phone while he was in Praia da Luz, just before the young girl disappeared. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=558056180990876&story_fbid=2749212878541851
Where it says "he picked up a phone" to me just says he used a phone. It is a translation issue to me: Picked up a call or picked up a phone to make a call.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 10:19:58 AM
If you want to believe what The Sun says that's your prerogative, but I prefer facts.
First I don't take everything the sun says as true and I'm sure you understand that probably no one on this forum does. I've been trained to look at and assess evidence.
Everything I read and hear about the case is evidence...even the Sun's articles are evidence. The art is knowing how to sort the wheat from the chaffe and its not an exact science.
What I aim to do is look at every piece of evidence and judge how reliable it seems.
This article in the sun is quite interesting as the statements arent the simple...he told me he did it...but something diiferent and not the sort of thing...imo ...someone would invent...but who knows .
So how valuable are these statements..at this stage we don't know, but if statemnts have been taken from these ladies and they have said what's reported then that would be highly, highly significant. Perhaps they have and perhaps they both appear to be good witnesses...we dont know. Your reaction is simply to discard them as unreliable...that is not a fact so to claim you only deal in facts is untrue.
Whats interesting to me is that they supprt my idea that HCW is building a strong circumstantial case and if these ladies are prepared to go into court and repeat these allegations that would be very very significant. We dont know if that will happen...but I think we will know soon.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 12:45:03 PM
Where it says "he picked up a phone" to me just says he used a phone. It is a translation issue to me: Picked up a call or picked up a phone to make a call.
Detectives também estão tentando encontrar a pessoa que ligou para ele uma hora antes de Madeleine desaparecer, pouco antes de seu quarto aniversário. A polícia diz que Brueckner recebeu a ligação perto do apartamento dos McCann no complexo Ocean Club. Detectives are also trying to find the person who called him an hour before Madeleine disappeared, just before his fourth birthday. Police say Brueckner got the call near the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club complex. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=558056180990876&story_fbid=2749212878541851
I think Google translate is good enough to get the gist of things when it doesn't really matter too much eg for our purposes as a discussion forum. I think it is pretty clear that what is being said largely mirrors the reports from some media at the time which stated in effect that someone phoned Brueckner's cell phone and it was (picked up) or answered according to Luz phone masts the nearest of which was in the environs of the holiday complex where Madeleine was sleeping.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 04, 2020, 12:57:18 PM
The question of this Phone Call could be easily solved. Either Brueckner admits that he was in possession of the phone at the time, possibly about his innocent business. Or he tells The Police who did have the phone.
A refusal to do either of these things will only ramp up suspicion and add to the Circumstantial Evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 04, 2020, 12:59:11 PM
The question of this Phone Call could be easily solved. Either Brueckner admits that he was in possession of the phone at the time, possibly about his innocent business. Or he tells The Police who did have the phone.
A refusal to do either of these things will only ramp up suspicion and add to the Circumstantial Evidence.
Perhaps if the police asked, he might give an answer.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 04, 2020, 01:10:48 PM
CB doesn't have to satisfy the suspicious on this forum or for any other in fact.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 01:16:09 PM
The question of this Phone Call could be easily solved. Either Brueckner admits that he was in possession of the phone at the time, possibly about his innocent business. Or he tells The Police who did have the phone.
A refusal to do either of these things will only ramp up suspicion and add to the Circumstantial Evidence.
Or he says he can't remember, which is perfectly understandable imo as I can't remember what phone number I had in 2007.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 04, 2020, 02:06:43 PM
its quite legitimite to refer to the fact thathis lawyer has said he will not answer questions.
Which is common practice apparently.
"Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said: "Mr B is remaining silent on the allegation at this time on the advice of his defence counsel. This is quite common in criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the state to prove that a suspect committed a crime. No accused person has to prove his innocence to the investigating authorities." https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-refuse-22193377
I understand that to mean that no response will be forthcoming if the police go on a fishing expedition.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 04, 2020, 02:08:48 PM
A reminder to everyone to stay within the bounds of each topic and not to stray too far from the discussions at hand. I also take this opportunity to remind members that the forum rules are there for a reason. Please respect each others point of view and conduct responses in a civil manner at all times.
Admin
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 04, 2020, 02:15:47 PM
"Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said: "Mr B is remaining silent on the allegation at this time on the advice of his defence counsel. This is quite common in criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the state to prove that a suspect committed a crime. No accused person has to prove his innocence to the investigating authorities." https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-refuse-22193377
I understand that to mean that no response will be forthcoming if the police go on a fishing expedition.
So does that mean you fully understand why Kate McCann refused to answer the PJ's questions and thoroughly support her decision not to take part in a "fishing expedition"?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 04, 2020, 02:16:08 PM
"Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said: "Mr B is remaining silent on the allegation at this time on the advice of his defence counsel. This is quite common in criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the state to prove that a suspect committed a crime. No accused person has to prove his innocence to the investigating authorities." https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-refuse-22193377
I understand that to mean that no response will be forthcoming if the police go on a fishing expedition.
you might make taht interpretation but it isnt what he said....I go by the facts.
No one has to prove innoce...contrary to what the portuguse seem to think...but his failure to answer questions can be use dby the prosecution to infer guilt. particularly refusing to account for his movements at the time of teh alleged crime...this adds to the circumstantial evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 04, 2020, 02:35:44 PM
So does that mean you fully understand why Kate McCann refused to answer the PJ's questions and thoroughly support her decision not to take part in a "fishing expedition"?
The statuses of Kate McCann and Brueckner are not the same.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 04, 2020, 02:35:50 PM
you might make taht interpretation but it isnt what he said....I go by the facts.
No one has to prove innoce...contrary to what the portuguse seem to think...but his failure to answer questions can be use dby the prosecution to infer guilt. particularly refusing to account for his movements at the time of teh alleged crime...this adds to the circumstantial evidence
Where were you on the night of the crime? Not telling ya, so there. That would go down a bundle with The Jury.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 04, 2020, 02:39:24 PM
I don't see what difference it makes where Brueckner was on the night Maddie wasn't abducted imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 04, 2020, 02:44:14 PM
you might make taht interpretation but it isnt what he said....I go by the facts.
No one has to prove innoce...contrary to what the portuguse seem to think...but his failure to answer questions can be use dby the prosecution to infer guilt. particularly refusing to account for his movements at the time of teh alleged crime...this adds to the circumstantial evidence
In the same way Kate McCann refused to answer the Portuguese police when questioned even agreeing that in refusing to do so she was impeding the search for her own daughter. Bloody charming but then my views on their parenting skills are well known.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 04, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
In the same way Kate McCann refused to answer the Portuguese police when questioned even agreeing that in refusing to do so she was impeding the search for her own daughter. Bloody charming but then my views on their parenting skills are well known.
No not in the same way.......as ive said on another thread each case is taken on its merits and th ecourt decides how valid the refusal is. Certainly failing to account for where you were on the night of the incidenct is extremely important......so the answer is No...not in the same way
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 02:49:02 PM
The statuses of Kate McCann and Brueckner are not the same.
Not currently no, because one is not a suspect. But when Kate WAS a suspect she refused to take part in a fishing expedition by the PJ. You seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for Bruckner to do, but it seems you are not so understanding when it comes to Kate McCann. Kindly explain why not?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 04, 2020, 02:55:06 PM
Not currently no, because one is not a suspect. But when Kate WAS a suspect she refused to take part in a fishing expedition by the PJ. You seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for Bruckner to do, but it seems you are not so understanding when it comes to Kate McCann. Kindly explain why not?
More double standards.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 03:01:02 PM
The statuses of Kate McCann and Brueckner are not the same.
When breukner is questioned he will be questioned as a suspect and read his rights. he ha severy right to silence but at his trial inferences can be drawn from his silence...particularly not accounting for where he was at the time of the incident
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 04, 2020, 03:05:50 PM
Not currently no, because one is not a suspect. But when Kate WAS a suspect she refused to take part in a fishing expedition by the PJ. You seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for Bruckner to do, but it seems you are not so understanding when it comes to Kate McCann. Kindly explain why not?
Have I condemned Kate McCann for availing herself of the right to silence?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 04, 2020, 03:07:31 PM
Have I condemned Kate McCann for availing herself of the right to silence?
It would seem so by your refusal to give my question a straight answer and by attempting to deflect by quibbling about different statuses, when it was the principle not the status under discussion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 04, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
It would seem so by your refusal to give my question a straight answer and by attempting to deflect by quibbling about different statuses, when it was the principle not the status under discussion.
Please don't make accusations unless you can support them with evidence rather than opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 04, 2020, 03:16:18 PM
I doubt that the women of Portugal were fully aware of the nature of the beast allowed to walk amongst them and their children until the news broke earlier this year about Bruekner.
And I doubt that the general public knew that the British police had lost sight of hundreds of paedophiles who had changed their name by deed poll...paedophiles who are now living in every community in our country...until a newspaper broke the story several months ago.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 03:37:04 PM
Please don't make accusations unless you can support them with evidence rather than opinion.
Let’s try again shall we?
do you fully understand why Kate McCann refused to answer the PJ's questions and thoroughly support her decision not to take part in a "fishing expedition"? If not, why not when you seem to be quite sympathetic towards CB’s decision to remain silent?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 04, 2020, 04:38:33 PM
If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom. In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 04, 2020, 05:11:21 PM
If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom. In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.
And if he had nothing to do with it ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 04, 2020, 05:22:26 PM
If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom. In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.
He needs to be charged with such first.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 05:51:20 PM
I believe Wolters has assured we will know what route he will take as soon as possible, even putting a time scale o it.
So there really isn't much to be done for the present until he decides his course of action which in my opinion at the moment does not impinge on Brueckner in the slightest as it makes no difference to his current status. I think he will know the outcome of how the evidence gathered against him will be used when we do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 04, 2020, 05:52:03 PM
If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom. In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.
Trouble is that if the someone else is a drug baron or slave (etc) trafficking boss, then Brueckner will know that if he twigs on them, he will almost certainly be tortured or killed. Maybe both.
Perhaps Brueckner would prefer Jail to having his testicles cut off and his legs broken before being assassinated?
Just a suggestion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 04, 2020, 05:53:20 PM
Then you must believe Bruckener has something to hide...and Kate McCann as well! How does thst work?
Brueckner is anti police for obvious reasons but why was Kate McCann? The old "right to silence" excuse doesn't hold water with innocent people. We know that the guilty use it at every opportunity.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 04, 2020, 05:55:24 PM
Trouble is that if the someone else is a drug baron or slave (etc) trafficking boss, then Brueckner will know that if he twigs on them, he will almost certainly be tortured or killed. Maybe both.
Perhaps Brueckner would prefer Jail to having his testicles cut off and his legs broken before being assassinated?
Just a suggestion
I think you've been watching too many horror movies Sadie 😂
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 04, 2020, 05:58:55 PM
I wonder why his first Lawyer dropped him?
Will we ever be told?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 04, 2020, 06:01:03 PM
Brueckner is anti police for obvious reasons but why was Kate McCann? The old "right to silence" excuse doesn't hold water with innocent people. We know that the guilty use it at every opportunity.
more opinion as fact do you still not undersand the rules. weve been over this many times...might be a good idea to use the search facility if you want the answer
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 04, 2020, 06:05:01 PM
Brueckner is anti police for obvious reasons but why was Kate McCann? The old "right to silence" excuse doesn't hold water with innocent people. We know that the guilty use it at every opportunity.
Then you must believe Bruckener has something to hide...and Kate McCann as well! How does that work? This time actually address the question.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 06:08:10 PM
I have no qualms in stating I do. Her attitude to the police was appalling imo.
I think the police conduct was appalling...I think their investiagtion was pathetic...then we have amaral convicted for lying and almeida convicted for torture...quite laughable how anyone can defend them imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 04, 2020, 06:12:29 PM
Brueckner is anti police for obvious reasons but why was Kate McCann?
Brueckner is a career criminal, a rapist and a paedophile. In my opinion he is being investigated by a very efficient group of investigators. I don't really think his name is fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Kate McCann's under any circumstances.
Kate is a victim of crime and the mother of a missing child who came to the realisation that her missing daughter was not being looked for because the police were intent on investigating her and pinning Madeleine's disappearance on her. Which would have had the result of officially closing down any hope Madeleine had of rescue. madeleine Kate McCann The police had formed their opinion on inept misinterpretation of the only 'evidence' they had which was the dog evidence.
Kate McCann cooperated with the police and continues to do so in their efforts to find out what happened to the daughter she still hopes has managed to survive through all this. In my opinion only an idiot would have cooperated with police who had fallen hook line and sinker for entirely the wrong thesis.
I would still like to know why Amaral's assertion came about that Brueckner was cleared by the same police who were grilling Kate McCann.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 04, 2020, 06:26:59 PM
Brueckner is a career criminal, a rapist and a paedophile. In my opinion he is being investigated by a very efficient group of investigators. I don't really think his name is fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Kate McCann's under any circumstances.
Kate is a victim of crime and the mother of a missing child who came to the realisation that her missing daughter was not being looked for because the police were intent on investigating her and pinning Madeleine's disappearance on her. Which would have had the result of officially closing down any hope Madeleine had of rescue. madeleine Kate McCann The police had formed their opinion on inept misinterpretation of the only 'evidence' they had which was the dog evidence.
Kate McCann cooperated with the police and continues to do so in their efforts to find out what happened to the daughter she still hopes has managed to survive through all this. In my opinion only an idiot would have cooperated with police who had fallen hook line and sinker for entirely the wrong thesis.
I would still like to know why Amaral's assertion came about that Brueckner was cleared by the same police who were grilling Kate McCann.
Additionally Kate would have been warned by the British Consul about what happened to Leonor Cipriano and Michael Cook. How they were tortured and had their interactions with the PJ (Amaral and others) thoroughly abused to change and ignore facts.
Kate was very wisely advised not to answer entrapment questions.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 04, 2020, 06:57:44 PM
Brueckner is a career criminal, a rapist and a paedophile. In my opinion he is being investigated by a very efficient group of investigators. I don't really think his name is fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Kate McCann's under any circumstances.
Kate is a victim of crime and the mother of a missing child who came to the realisation that her missing daughter was not being looked for because the police were intent on investigating her and pinning Madeleine's disappearance on her. Which would have had the result of officially closing down any hope Madeleine had of rescue. madeleine Kate McCann The police had formed their opinion on inept misinterpretation of the only 'evidence' they had which was the dog evidence.
Kate McCann cooperated with the police and continues to do so in their efforts to find out what happened to the daughter she still hopes has managed to survive through all this. In my opinion only an idiot would have cooperated with police who had fallen hook line and sinker for entirely the wrong thesis.
I would still like to know why Amaral's assertion came about that Brueckner was cleared by the same police who were grilling Kate McCann.
Also this: “a senior Portuguese police source called the German evidence against "Christian B" both "very important" and "significant." https://www.ibtimes.com/madeleine-mccann-update-significant-evidence-against-christian-bruckner-discussed-2994134
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 04, 2020, 06:59:44 PM
Additionally Kate would have been warned by the British Consul about what happened to Leonor Cipriano and Michael Cook. How they were tortured and had their interactions with the PJ (Amaral and others) thoroughly abused to change and ignore facts.
Kate was very wisely advised not to answer entrapment questions.
No reason therefore CB's lawyer would not advise the same,if ever he is questioned.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 07:08:44 PM
Trouble is that if the someone else is a drug baron or slave (etc) trafficking boss, then Brueckner will know that if he twigs on them, he will almost certainly be tortured or killed. Maybe both.
Perhaps Brueckner would prefer Jail to having his testicles cut off and his legs broken before being assassinated?
Just a suggestion
Hi Sadie, I also think it’s possible authorities are targeting the likes of Brückner first, as part of a much bigger investigation, possibly involving high profile persons. Brückner may well be proved to be the first link in a much bigger chain. My opinion. That might explain more funding towards the investigation (?)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 08:08:09 PM
Hi Sadie, I also think it’s possible authorities are targeting the likes of Brückner first, as part of a much bigger investigation, possibly involving high profile persons. Brückner may well be proved to be the first link in a much bigger chain. My opinion. That might explain more funding towards the investigation (?)
Would also explain why CB is not yet being questioned
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 04, 2020, 08:33:59 PM
Not sure how that follows. Don’t the police go after the minnows to get to Mr Big ?
It explains it very well if you understand the situation. If CB is questioned he has to be told ALL the evidence against him..that might prejudice an investigation
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 04, 2020, 08:48:35 PM
It explains it very well if you understand the situation. If CB is questioned he has to be told ALL the evidence against him..that might prejudice an investigation
And given that the only evidence against him is some pathetic fairytale by another loser they would be laughed out of court.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 08:49:29 PM
This goes on everywhere Sadie, you'd be knifed in London for nicking a kebab. Portugal is by no means unique...in fact I would say Portugal is one of the safest places in Europe these days.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 04, 2020, 08:53:51 PM
Brueckner is a career criminal, a rapist and a paedophile. In my opinion he is being investigated by a very efficient group of investigators. I don't really think his name is fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Kate McCann's under any circumstances.
Kate is a victim of crime and the mother of a missing child who came to the realisation that her missing daughter was not being looked for because the police were intent on investigating her and pinning Madeleine's disappearance on her. Which would have had the result of officially closing down any hope Madeleine had of rescue. madeleine Kate McCann The police had formed their opinion on inept misinterpretation of the only 'evidence' they had which was the dog evidence.
Kate McCann cooperated with the police and continues to do so in their efforts to find out what happened to the daughter she still hopes has managed to survive through all this. In my opinion only an idiot would have cooperated with police who had fallen hook line and sinker for entirely the wrong thesis.
I would still like to know why Amaral's assertion came about that Brueckner was cleared by the same police who were grilling Kate McCann.
The Smith sighting aside taken with Kate McCann's refusal to cooperate, the Portuguese police were perfectly within their rights to investigate the McCanns given the information provided about them and their suspicious activities post disappearance. No competent detective would rule out the parents so early on in any case involving the possible death of an infant.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 09:09:19 PM
The Smith sighting aside, the Portuguese police were perfectly within their rights to investigate the McCanns given the information provided about them and their suspicious activities post disappearance.
Didn't find anything though did they
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 04, 2020, 09:16:18 PM
And given that the only evidence against him is some pathetic fairytale by another loser they would be laughed out of court.
Often these ‘losers’ you are referring to, bring perspective and truth. A credible witness does not have to be above the law. My opinion. In Brückner’s case, his ‘loser’ friends coming forward may well indicate that they have valuable information to offer.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 09:27:59 PM
The Smith sighting aside taken with Kate McCann's refusal to cooperate, the Portuguese police were perfectly within their rights to investigate the McCanns given the information provided about them and their suspicious activities post disappearance. No competent detective would rule out the parents so early on in any case involving the possible death of an infant.
I agree with you, Angelo. But is it not logical that after 13 years, we need to accept that Madeleine’s parents are not suspects in her disappearance? Also, Madeleine was not an infant at the time. She was a toddler.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 04, 2020, 09:54:34 PM
Often these ‘losers’ you are referring to, bring perspective and truth. A credible witness does not have to be above the law. My opinion. In Brückner’s case, his ‘loser’ friends coming forward may well indicate that they have valuable information to offer.
It’s a pity most juries disagree. The defence will crucify them on the stand.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on October 04, 2020, 10:00:30 PM
I agree with you, Angelo. But is it not logical that after 13 years, we need to accept that Madeleine’s parents are not suspects in her disappearance? Also, Madeleine was not an infant at the time. She was a toddler.
I agree as to the parents non culpability in Madeleine's disappearance even though they contributed to it by their recklessness. The post disappearance events however are another matter as was pointed out previously.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 04, 2020, 10:01:47 PM
I agree as to the parents non culpability in Madeleine's disappearance even though they contributed to it by their recklessness. The post disappearance events however are another matter as was pointed out previously.
its amatter of opinion and I havent seen any relaible evidence to support anything. All just seems to be manufactured by morais and lawyers for amaral and the discredited PJ officers involved in the torture trial
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 04, 2020, 11:11:01 PM
Hi Sadie, I also think it’s possible authorities are targeting the likes of Brückner first, as part of a much bigger investigation, possibly involving high profile persons. Brückner may well be proved to be the first link in a much bigger chain. My opinion. That might explain more funding towards the investigation (?)
I think that you might be right, Anthro. Unhappily, I also think that some are probably untouchable
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 04, 2020, 11:17:14 PM
This goes on everywhere Sadie, you'd be knifed in London for nicking a kebab. Portugal is by no means unique...in fact I would say Portugal is one of the safest places in Europe these days.
Orly ?
I hadn't noticed ?>)()<
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 08:00:14 AM
HCW has said he has concrete evidence maddie is dead and CB killed her. He said he will not share this evidence with the PJ or SY at the moment. The phone pings and the informants testimony have all been shared so he must have something apart from these
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 05, 2020, 08:06:33 AM
HCW has said he has concrete evidence maddie is dead and CB killed her. He said he will not share this evidence with the PJ or SY at the moment. The phone pings and the informants testimony have all been shared so he must have something apart from these
It could literally be concrete; a piece of actual concrete.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 05, 2020, 09:34:31 AM
Hi Sadie, I also think it’s possible authorities are targeting the likes of Brückner first, as part of a much bigger investigation, possibly involving high profile persons. Brückner may well be proved to be the first link in a much bigger chain. My opinion. That might explain more funding towards the investigation (?)
Is there any evidence to support this theory?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 05, 2020, 11:48:27 AM
It sometimes takes months to bring charges - look at the Shipman case. First identified as a potential killer months prior to being charged, plus his full name and back history was in all the tabs before charges were brought.
Must be a doctor thing, then why they are careful or I believe give them kid-glove treatment.
Mind you that could be because doctors are there to save peoples life keep them safe ...not kill them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 05, 2020, 11:50:19 AM
HCW has said he has concrete evidence maddie is dead and CB killed her. He said he will not share this evidence with the PJ or SY at the moment. The phone pings and the informants testimony have all been shared so he must have something apart from these
Prosecutor's are paid to prosecute regardless of how strong or weak they think a case is against defendents. Listen to opening arguments at any trial and you will hear prosecuting counsel tell jurors he/she is guilty as charged and the evidence against is compelling blah, blah. A significant number of trials result in an acquital. CB hasn't even been questioned let alone charged. The fact HCW said x, y, z means squat imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 05, 2020, 11:53:46 AM
Prosecutor's are paid to prosecute regardless of how strong or weak they think a case is against defendents. Listen to opening arguments at any trial and you will hear prosecuting counsel tell jurors he/she is guilty as charged and the evidence against is compelling blah, blah. A significant number of trials result in an acquital. CB hasn't even been questioned let alone charged. The fact HCW said x, y, z means squat imo.
what percentage, out of interest?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 05, 2020, 11:58:10 AM
Prosecutor's are paid to prosecute regardless of how strong or weak they think a case is against defendents. Listen to opening arguments at any trial and you will hear prosecuting counsel tell jurors he/she is guilty as charged and the evidence against is compelling blah, blah. A significant number of trials result in an acquital. CB hasn't even been questioned let alone charged. The fact HCW said x, y, z means squat imo.
As you may know anything said in court is under privilege...Wolters isn't. The fact that he has made such statements in a country with strict privacy laws is therefore significant
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 12:00:12 PM
As you may know anything said in court is under privilege...Wolters isn't. The fact that he has made such statements in a country with strict privacy laws is therefore significant
Not if what he said cant be backed up it isn't. seems to me he is a chancer.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 05, 2020, 12:04:14 PM
As you may know anything said in court is under privilege...Wolters isn't. The fact that he has made such statements in a country with strict privacy laws is therefore significant
HCW hasn't broken any privacy laws as he hasnt named CB only referred to him as Christian B.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 05, 2020, 12:05:18 PM
Not if what he said cant be backed up it isn't. seems to me he is a chancer.
Not forgetting he contradicts MET and Mc's re MM deceased.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 05, 2020, 12:10:13 PM
Who seriously believes that prosecutors are paid to prosecute no matter how weak the evidence? If that were the case CB would have been put on trial by now wouldn't he Holly? And it's about three-quarters of all trials that end in a conviction btw, could be higher in Germany of course....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 12:10:26 PM
Not forgetting he contradicts MET and Mc's re MM deceased.
He doesn't contradict anyone. Any sceptic will need to rubbish HCW because they cannot believe they could possibly be wrong
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 12:16:28 PM
Mark Saunokonoko summed up the sceptic position..he said he could not take CB seriously as a suspect because of the extensive evidence against the McCanns...such s the dogs...LOL
No sceptic can look at CB with an open mind because they would need to dismiss so much evidence they have accept ed as being significant.
I can see CB being convicted.. certainly not a certainty but who knows..
What will sceptics say then
Miscarriage of justice?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 05, 2020, 12:20:43 PM
Mark Saunokonoko summed up the sceptic position..he said he could not take CB seriously as a suspect because of the extensive evidence against the McCanns...such s the dogs...LOL
No sceptic can look at CB with an open mind because they would need to dismiss so much evidence they have accept ed as being significant.
I can see CB being convicted.. certainly not a certainty but who knows..
What will sceptics say then
Miscarriage of justice?
Much worse than that, I bet.
This one is going to run and run for many a long year no matter what.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 05, 2020, 12:23:24 PM
Mark Saunokonoko summed up the sceptic position..he said he could not take CB seriously as a suspect because of the extensive evidence against the McCanns...such s the dogs...LOL
No sceptic can look at CB with an open mind because they would need to dismiss so much evidence they have accept ed as being significant.
I can see CB being convicted.. certainly not a certainty but who knows..
What will sceptics say then
Miscarriage of justice?
YEs, becasue no matter what DOGS DON'T LIE. It's the sceptic mantra that cannot ever be forgotten or revised no matter what.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 12:24:28 PM
YEs, becasue no matter what DOGS DON'T LIE. It's the sceptic mantra that cannot ever be forgotten or revised no matter what.
Some dogs perhaps DON'T LIE but it is absolutely a fact that some humans do, particularly when it comes to lying about forensic results which have now reached cult status.
Snip Among the files is an email dated September 3 2007 written by senior British forensic scientist John Lowe to Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, head of the UK side of the investigation.
Mr Lowe, from the major incidents team at the Birmingham-based Forensic Science Service (FSS), said it was impossible to conclude whether a sample from the McCanns’ hire car came from their daughter Madeleine.
Four days later Portuguese detectives named Mr and Mrs McCann as “arguidos”, or formal suspects, in the child’s disappearance, citing forensic evidence as grounds for their suspicions.
And they categorically told Mr McCann in interview that his daughter’s DNA had been found in the family’s Renault Scenic hire car. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/madeleine-mccann-police-accused-lying-3477989
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 05, 2020, 01:21:34 PM
Mark Saunokonoko summed up the sceptic position..he said he could not take CB seriously as a suspect because of the extensive evidence against the McCanns...such s the dogs...LOL
No sceptic can look at CB with an open mind because they would need to dismiss so much evidence they have accept ed as being significant.
I can see CB being convicted.. certainly not a certainty but who knows..
What will sceptics say then
Miscarriage of justice?
You seem to want to put everyone in boxes! I don't believe CB or Mc's responsible.
Martin Brunt tells us a.n.other has recently been under surveillance. Friedrich Fulscher tells us he has received some anonymous info that will make Brits fall off their chairs!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 03:13:34 PM
You seem to want to put everyone in boxes! I don't believe CB or Mc's responsible.
Martin Brunt tells us a.n.other has recently been under surveillance. Friedrich Fulscher tells us he has received some anonymous info that will make Brits fall off their chairs!
The point I'm making and I think it's a perfectly valid point is that some posters cannot accept there is evidence against CB because even though it's highlY likely he is the perp they cannot let go of the beliefs they have adopted already...is totally closed mind. Mark S clearly confirmed this. All my opinion
Posters can insist CB is an idiot and s chancer with no evidence to support it... doesn't matter...we will soon know who the real idiot is....HCW or the person who has accused him
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 05, 2020, 03:15:46 PM
You seem to want to put everyone in boxes! I don't believe CB or Mc's responsible.
Martin Brunt tells us a.n.other has recently been under surveillance. Friedrich Fulscher tells us he has received some anonymous info that will make Brits fall off their chairs!
Shouldn't be long now - in the meantime I'm steering clear of chairs.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 05, 2020, 03:16:54 PM
You seem to want to put everyone in boxes! I don't believe CB or Mc's responsible.
Martin Brunt tells us a.n.other has recently been under surveillance. Friedrich Fulscher tells us he has received some anonymous info that will make Brits fall off their chairs!
Fall off their chairs laughing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 05, 2020, 03:25:02 PM
The point I'm making and I think it's a perfectly valid point is that some posters cannot accept there is evidence against CB because even though it's highlY likely he is the perp they cannot let go of the beliefs they have adopted already...is totally closed mind. Mark S clearly confirmed this. All my opinion
Posters can insist CB is an idiot and s chancer with no evidence to support it... doesn't matter...we will soon know who the real idiot is....HCW or the person who has accused him
But I don't see any evidence against CB. No one even knows for sure the motive.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 03:31:10 PM
But I don't see any evidence against CB. No one even knows for sure the motive.
The fact you don't see it may be because you are blinded by your beliefs...one of his posts on the dark web is reported as...I want to find something small and use it for days.... evidence and motive
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 05, 2020, 04:34:06 PM
Interesting point comparing HCW and FF
In a court case the defence can lie its head off...theres no penalty .... The prosecution cannot
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 05, 2020, 04:36:30 PM
But I don't see any evidence against CB. No one even knows for sure the motive.
You may see no evidence against Brueckner but that is not as the professional investigators have seen it. I think it has been a long hard haul for them and I certainly think that there is bound to be far more evidence against him than ever was against Kate and Gerry since the prejudices of Amaral's investigation just did not translate to any evidence at all against them.
Snip
Suspect was known from investigation
Metropolitan Police Deputy Deputy Commissioner Stuart Cundy said on Wednesday that the suspect became of interest to investigators following a public appeal in 2017, as part of the 10th anniversary of the disappearance. “This man's name was known from our investigation. I will not give details about how it was known, but it was already known before we received new information in 2017. Since then, we have continued to work very closely with colleagues in Portugal and Germany ”, he said.
This man is the current line of investigation by the British police, which came to identify 600 "people of interest" and four other suspects, who were discarded after being interrogated and searches carried out on land in Portugal.
“We have good relations with colleagues in both countries. And I know that we are all determined to find out what happened and see if this man was involved in Madeleine's disappearance or not, ”he said.
Not at all, it is just so obvious to some that there is no way CB is the alleged abductor
Nothing has changed for me from the first post I put on here [don't hold your breath] 4 months ago,
You are proving nothing D apart from taking everything HCW says as gospel.
The fact they have known about him 3 years proves the last 4 months was there best shot at getting something.
All they have hit is a dead end.
I dont take anything as gospel...you are simply so entrenched in your beleifs you cannot consider anything that contradicts it...however compelling...cognitive dissonance almost.
Dont assume you know anything about how my mind and reasoning works. logically CB is a perefct candidate for an abduction...the only reason you wont accept the evidence as being possibly correct is because you simply cannot accept an abduction is possible. Thats where all your reasoning and logic falls apart.
I'm looking forward to how you react when all your beliefs start to fall apart...should be very interesting and now is just the start. its caused a lot of toxocity on the forum already...again....IMO.
Whether CB is convicted or not I think we will see that there is concrete evidence against him....i think conviction is highly probable...looking at all that HCW has said
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 05, 2020, 07:08:20 PM
Not at all, it is just so obvious to some that there is no way CB is the alleged abductor
Nothing has changed for me from the first post I put on here [don't hold your breath] 4 months ago,
You are proving nothing D apart from taking everything HCW says as gospel.
The fact they have known about him 3 years proves the last 4 months was there best shot at getting something.
All they have hit is a dead end.
can you expalin how he can be 100% ruled out...of course you can't. therefore it is not obvious he is not an abdcuctor
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on October 06, 2020, 12:14:13 AM
WARNING RE FORUM DISRUPTION:
It has been brought to my attention that some members are engaged in an activity which can only be viewed as a malicious disruption of the forum. This will not be allowed to continue!
Let me be very clear. If this conduct does not cease immediately I will delete the accounts of the offenders.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 06, 2020, 10:47:33 AM
I dont take anything as gospel...you are simply so entrenched in your beleifs you cannot consider anything that contradicts it...however compelling...cognitive dissonance almost.
Dont assume you know anything about how my mind and reasoning works. logically CB is a perefct candidate for an abduction...the only reason you wont accept the evidence as being possibly correct is because you simply cannot accept an abduction is possible. Thats where all your reasoning and logic falls apart.
I'm looking forward to how you react when all your beliefs start to fall apart...should be very interesting and now is just the start. its caused a lot of toxocity on the forum already...again....IMO.
Whether CB is convicted or not I think we will see that there is concrete evidence against him....i think conviction is highly probable...looking at all that HCW has said
I have thought there was no abduction from the bed way back in May 2007, of course, I stand by my belief do you think I would be on here if I didn't.
If I thought the mccs truly innocent ...I would not see a reason at all to be on here constantly protesting there innocence.
As for how your mind works D you mention it often enough about how you understand, everything..even to the point you portray yourself as a SA in your posts.
Why do you think my belief will fall apart ...it could be yours...you could go before me so I don't no why you think there is toxicity, just because I don't belive a word the mccs say.
It should be understood also my lack of empathy for the mccs if I believe they were involved. imo
I don't assume anything about you or how your mind works ...because I only know you as a poster on a forum and go by that.[not you as a person]
As for me saying you take every word as gospel IMO that is how your posts come across. again the below says it all
.i think conviction is highly probable...looking at all that HCW has said
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 06, 2020, 10:49:47 AM
A part from a ping in the area were he lived and hearsay
There is much more than the ping. First of all many people rang in with his name when the appeal went out during the programme Crime Watch. Then they got the very good friend telling them what he had said. Then the ping. Then the remark to the girlfriend of the horrible job he had to do, surprisingly the eve before Madeleine disappeared. Then he registers his car to someone else leaves Portugal, then turns out with a massive campervan that must have cost thousands. Plus he lived near to the Ocean Club and he is a child molester.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 06, 2020, 01:46:58 PM
There is much more than the ping. First of all many people rang in with his name when the appeal went out during the programme Crime Watch. Then they got the very good friend telling them what he had said. Then the ping. Then the remark to the girlfriend of the horrible job he had to do, surprisingly the eve before Madeleine disappeared. Then he registers his car to someone else leaves Portugal, then turns out with a massive campervan that must have cost thousands. Plus he lived near to the Ocean Club and he is a child molester.
I know all that ...I read the same papers too.
Its evidence I am talking about.
The crime watch the mccs did receive hundreds of calls ...but that all fizzled out as well...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 06, 2020, 02:15:34 PM
There is much more than the ping. First of all many people rang in with his name when the appeal went out during the programme Crime Watch. Then they got the very good friend telling them what he had said. Then the ping. Then the remark to the girlfriend of the horrible job he had to do, surprisingly the eve before Madeleine disappeared. Then he registers his car to someone else leaves Portugal, then turns out with a massive campervan that must have cost thousands. Plus he lived near to the Ocean Club and he is a child molester.
1. Unverified, bunk science 2. Cite for the 'many people'. 3. Hearsay - 2nd hand, tainted witness. 4. Unverified, bunk science. 5. Hearsay - 2nd hand, tainted witness. 6. Normal, but could be a flag. 7. Did he sell Maddie after he killed her now? 8. He lived a lot of places, one was the town. 9. Agreed, the filthy piece of ****
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 06, 2020, 02:45:14 PM
1. Unverified, bunk science 2. Cite for the 'many people'. 3. Hearsay - 2nd hand, tainted witness. 4. Unverified, bunk science. 5. Hearsay - 2nd hand, tainted witness. 6. Normal, but could be a flag. 7. Did he sell Maddie after he killed her now? 8. He lived a lot of places, one was the town. 9. Agreed, the filthy piece of ****
It would be the trained Police putting two and two together of course. They seem to think they have their man..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 06, 2020, 02:54:35 PM
It would be the trained Police putting two and two together of course. They seem to think they have their man..
Are you putting much store in this supposed purchase of the Winnebago then? Did he sell Maddie or kill her, which is it? It can't be both. If it's the former, then it sort of blows this theory apart.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 06, 2020, 03:02:38 PM
The crime watch the mccs did receive hundreds of calls ...but that all fizzled out as well...
It wasn't the McCann's who received the calls it was the Police. Fizzled out how do you know that? They had a name that was repeated many times so the calls were helpful.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 06, 2020, 03:03:19 PM
Are you putting much store in this supposed purchase of the Winnebago then? Did he sell Maddie or kill her, which is it? It can't be both. If it's the former, then it sort of blows this theory apart.
He could have taken Madeleine to sell it is possible.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 06, 2020, 03:04:10 PM
You may see no evidence against Brueckner but that is not as the professional investigators have seen it. I think it has been a long hard haul for them and I certainly think that there is bound to be far more evidence against him than ever was against Kate and Gerry since the prejudices of Amaral's investigation just did not translate to any evidence at all against them.
Snip
Suspect was known from investigation
Metropolitan Police Deputy Deputy Commissioner Stuart Cundy said on Wednesday that the suspect became of interest to investigators following a public appeal in 2017, as part of the 10th anniversary of the disappearance. “This man's name was known from our investigation. I will not give details about how it was known, but it was already known before we received new information in 2017. Since then, we have continued to work very closely with colleagues in Portugal and Germany ”, he said.
This man is the current line of investigation by the British police, which came to identify 600 "people of interest" and four other suspects, who were discarded after being interrogated and searches carried out on land in Portugal.
“We have good relations with colleagues in both countries. And I know that we are all determined to find out what happened and see if this man was involved in Madeleine's disappearance or not, ”he said.
Professional investigators ie MET invested a lot of resources pursing the entirely innocent Colin Stagg over the murder of Rachel Nickell and we all know how that ended!
I'm not sure why you are so critical of GA/PJ when MET have appalling track record?
DCI Mark Cranwell is on record as saying MET have an open mind about CB's involvement.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 06, 2020, 04:09:53 PM
It wasn't the McCann's who received the calls it was the Police. Fizzled out how do you know that? They had a name that was repeated many times so the calls were helpful.
Who said it was the mccs who received the calls...I didn't you have assumed again I did.
How do I know it fizzled out ...imo nothing came of it.
The name they had repeated many times was when they finally showed the two photo phits ...
Where do you think HCW gained his intelligence from?
The disappearance of Inga Gehricke has triggered the German investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. In my opinion. Upon searching Brückner’s property at the time, possibly date-stamped footage of Madeleine were discovered.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 06, 2020, 10:33:34 PM
The disappearance of Inga Gehricke has triggered the German investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. In my opinion. Upon searching Brückner’s property at the time, possibly date-stamped footage of Madeleine were discovered.
Then he would have been arrested.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 07, 2020, 12:50:22 AM
May I just point out that Madeleine being 'special' is an opinion.
Seems that millions of people find her a very special little girl. Apart from other things she had an amazing zest for life and a good deal of charm. Seems she spread happiness.
And her bloodline is extra ordinarily special, it seems.
Cant see why you should deny her specialness, unless you have a special reason. *%6^
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 07, 2020, 02:47:51 PM
Seems that millions of people find her a very special little girl. Apart from other things she had an amazing zest for life and a good deal of charm. Seems she spread happiness.
And her bloodline is extra ordinarily special, it seems.
Cant see why you should deny her specialness, unless you have a special reason. *%6^
I said it was an opinion, and you have offered nothing which proves otherwise.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 07, 2020, 02:52:43 PM
She's always struck me as an average child, particularly if you look at the Donegal photos, rather than the studio ones.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 07, 2020, 03:08:02 PM
She's always struck me as an average child, particularly if you look at the Donegal photos, rather than the studio ones.
She was just an ordinary little girl as far as I can see.
Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA.htm
As regards Madeleine, she did not spent much time with her because she was not in her group; she did not know her well, but Madeleine appeared to be somewhat shy, this was noticeable the first days. Since she met her, she noticed nothing abnormal in any aspect that would point to Madeleine being a child that was out of the ordinary. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 07, 2020, 05:08:54 PM
The disappearance of Inga Gehricke has triggered the German investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. In my opinion. Upon searching Brückner’s property at the time, possibly date-stamped footage of Madeleine were discovered.
Upon searching Brückner’s property at the time, possibly date-stamped footage of Madeleine were discovered.
Or probably nothing at all, it just seems he used Maddie for maximum publicity.
Hoping for a breakthrough that never came. there is no proof Maddie was taken from her bed or that CB is an abductor IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 07, 2020, 05:12:46 PM
She's always struck me as an average child, particularly if you look at the Donegal photos, rather than the studio ones.
Exactly, Maddie is a pretty little girl the same as all 3-year-old little girls are, some more prettier than others but Maddie was average as you have said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 07, 2020, 05:28:32 PM
Upon searching Brückner’s property at the time, possibly date-stamped footage of Madeleine were discovered.
Or probably nothing at all, it just seems he used Maddie for maximum publicity.
Hoping for a breakthrough that never came. there is no proof Maddie was taken from her bed or that CB is an abductor IMO.
Wolters also stated that according to their investigation, Madeleine was killed shortly after her disappearance. How do you think he came to this conclusion!?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 07, 2020, 05:38:40 PM
Wolters also stated that according to their investigation, Madeleine was killed shortly after her disappearance. How do you think he came to this conclusion!?
I would suggest he got it from the informer who claimed CB told him about it in a pub - or some such. There are so many stories. it's difficult to keep up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 07, 2020, 05:40:21 PM
Wolters also stated that according to their investigation, Madeleine was killed shortly after her disappearance. How do you think he came to this conclusion!?
How do you think he did ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 07, 2020, 05:58:07 PM
Wolters also stated that according to their investigation, Madeleine was killed shortly after her disappearance. How do you think he came to this conclusion!?
Maybe from the DNA [grimes dogs] IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 07, 2020, 06:14:34 PM
I don’t know what ‘one tape’ you are referring to. German officials are in possession of 8000 images/recordings discovered buried with his dog. What do you make of the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 07, 2020, 09:06:08 PM
I would suggest he got it from the informer who claimed CB told him about it in a pub - or some such. There are so many stories. it's difficult to keep up.
I agree.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 07, 2020, 11:36:49 PM
I don’t know what ‘one tape’ you are referring to. German officials are in possession of 8000 images/recordings discovered buried with his dog. What do you make of the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine?
Tell you what Anthro I’ll answer your questions if you provide the cite already ask for regarding Brueckner’s criminal friends not being given money for their stories. Deal ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 08, 2020, 01:40:01 AM
Tell you what Anthro I’ll answer your questions if you provide the cite already ask for regarding Brueckner’s criminal friends not being given money for their stories. Deal ?
Bit of disingenuous deflection going on there I think.
It really doesn't disguise the fact that you have no answers to give to Anthro's post, in my opinion it merely emphasises that fact.
Anthro posted "I don’t know what ‘one tape’ you are referring to. German officials are in possession of 8000 images/recordings discovered buried with his dog. What do you make of the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 08, 2020, 11:05:18 AM
Bit of disingenuous deflection going on there I think.
It really doesn't disguise the fact that you have no answers to give to Anthro's post, in my opinion it merely emphasises that fact.
Anthro posted "I don’t know what ‘one tape’ you are referring to. German officials are in possession of 8000 images/recordings discovered buried with his dog. What do you make of the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine?
They are only words no one knows exactly what they have, they are all the same how they can deflect from the truth, or exaggerate the real truth.
If HCW had all what he says ...hasn't he had three years to take it o court.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 08, 2020, 11:17:36 AM
Bit of disingenuous deflection going on there I think.
It really doesn't disguise the fact that you have no answers to give to Anthro's post, in my opinion it merely emphasises that fact.
Anthro posted "I don’t know what ‘one tape’ you are referring to. German officials are in possession of 8000 images/recordings discovered buried with his dog. What do you make of the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine?
I would like to see a cite for "the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine". All I can find is a different statement;
Senior Portuguese police official claims German 'prime suspect' Christian Brueckner is INNOCENT of Maddie McCann murder, and was thoroughly investigated four years ago https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8397265/German-prime-suspect-Maddie-McCann-case-Christian-Brueckner-INNOCENT-says-Portuguese-police.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 08, 2020, 02:55:01 PM
Bit of disingenuous deflection going on there I think.
It really doesn't disguise the fact that you have no answers to give to Anthro's post, in my opinion it merely emphasises that fact.
Anthro posted "I don’t know what ‘one tape’ you are referring to. German officials are in possession of 8000 images/recordings discovered buried with his dog. What do you make of the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine?
Perhaps your time would be better spent soliciting a cite from Anthro regarding her claim about Brueckner’s friends not being paid by the media ? Once again I refer you, and Anthro, to my previous post.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 08, 2020, 03:23:44 PM
I would like to see a cite for "the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine". All I can find is a different statement;
Senior Portuguese police official claims German 'prime suspect' Christian Brueckner is INNOCENT of Maddie McCann murder, and was thoroughly investigated four years ago https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8397265/German-prime-suspect-Maddie-McCann-case-Christian-Brueckner-INNOCENT-says-Portuguese-police.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53043818
A senior Portuguese police source, who has seen the German evidence against Christian B, has told the BBC it is "very important" and "significant".
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 08, 2020, 03:40:22 PM
I would like to see a cite for "the statement by a ‘senior official’ in Portugal that the Germans have significant and important information relating to Madeleine". All I can find is a different statement;
Senior Portuguese police official claims German 'prime suspect' Christian Brueckner is INNOCENT of Maddie McCann murder, and was thoroughly investigated four years ago https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8397265/German-prime-suspect-Maddie-McCann-case-Christian-Brueckner-INNOCENT-says-Portuguese-police.html
I don't think your post bears any relation to the post you appear to be answering. Kindly elucidate.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 09, 2020, 08:09:22 AM
Why I state it because four months ago all hell broke loose it was on every media out let possible.
Nothing has moved since, HCW certainly made a name for himself but seems it has backed fired.
They have known about CB for 3 years so surely you would think after the massive publicity in the case if they had what they said charges would have been made.
What we know is hearsay a phone ping and trial by media.
HCW I believe had an ulterior motive to keep CW in jail Maddie was used for maximum publicity. IMO.
Now he has gone deathly quiet, so has D it seems.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on October 09, 2020, 10:49:12 AM
Why I state it because four months ago all hell broke loose it was on every media out let possible.
Nothing has moved since, HCW certainly made a name for himself but seems it has backed fired.
They have known about CB for 3 years so surely you would think after the massive publicity in the case if they had what they said charges would have been made.
What we know is hearsay a phone ping and trial by media.
HCW I believe had an ulterior motive to keep CW in jail Maddie was used for maximum publicity. IMO.
Now he has gone deathly quiet, so has D it seems.
Who is D?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 09, 2020, 11:01:31 AM
Davel He said he was taking a break. Which is rather good TBH.
I do wish posters would not shorten user names to one initial. .Really doesn't take much more effort to type the full name. Why do you think it is rather good?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 09, 2020, 11:14:08 AM
I do wish posters would not shorten user names to one initial. .Really doesn't take much more effort to type the full name. Why do you think it is rather good?
Best stay on topic.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on October 09, 2020, 11:15:06 AM
Whats your problem ..it was a comment in with my on-topic post ..so best u stay in topic.
Seems the circumstantial evidence is running very thin against CB though.
I didn't know who D was. Why you felt the need to make any reference to D in your post is rather puzzling. So you went.off topic. Busy at the moment. Will leave you to continue speculating about what or may not be happening with CB.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 09, 2020, 12:28:43 PM
I didn't know who D was. Why you felt the need to make any reference to D in your post is rather puzzling. So you went.off topic. Busy at the moment. Will leave you to continue speculating about what or may not be happening with CB.
No, what is puzzling is why you think I have to explain my posts to you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 09, 2020, 12:47:44 PM
Why I state it because four months ago all hell broke loose it was on every media out let possible.
Nothing has moved since, HCW certainly made a name for himself but seems it has backed fired.
They have known about CB for 3 years so surely you would think after the massive publicity in the case if they had what they said charges would have been made.
What we know is hearsay a phone ping and trial by media.
HCW I believe had an ulterior motive to keep CW in jail Maddie was used for maximum publicity. IMO.
Now he has gone deathly quiet, so has D it seems.
The information about the supposed phone call is no longer being sought by SY,Wolters says his man acted alone,so the phone call by that can be ruled out,next. (&^&
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 09, 2020, 02:34:01 PM
The information about the supposed phone call is no longer being sought by SY,Wolters says his man acted alone,so the phone call by that can be ruled out,next. (&^&
I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of what is going on. It is my experience that once the police have made an appeal and received the information requested they just get on with the job of building their case.
Why repeat requests for information they may already have. That would not only be silly it would be inefficient.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 09, 2020, 02:53:54 PM
More efficient still would be to inform the public so that they don't waste valuable police time.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 09, 2020, 07:49:14 PM
I didn't know who D was. Why you felt the need to make any reference to D in your post is rather puzzling. So you went.off topic. Busy at the moment. Will leave you to continue speculating about what or may not be happening with CB.
Using initials CB or D same difference to me. Just a mission to keep up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 09, 2020, 07:54:01 PM
The information about the supposed phone call is no longer being sought by SY,Wolters says his man acted alone,so the phone call by that can be ruled out,next. (&^&
But is the phonecall the one thing that establishes him in the area that night? It was several hours before MM went missing, so it possible to suggest CB could be at least 2 hours driving distance beyond PdL at 9:48 PM.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 09, 2020, 09:01:22 PM
But is the phonecall the one thing that establishes him in the area that night? It was several hours before MM went missing, so it possible to suggest CB could be at least 2 hours driving distance beyond PdL at 9:48 PM.
That is something the police do when conducting an investigation. They join up the evidential links which either direct them to a suspect or lead them to discard that individual and move on directed by the evidence.
Three police forces consider there is sufficient evidence to suggest they already have the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction under lock and key for other criminal offences.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 09, 2020, 09:33:32 PM
But is the phonecall the one thing that establishes him in the area that night? It was several hours before MM went missing, so it possible to suggest CB could be at least 2 hours driving distance beyond PdL at 9:48 PM.
The phone call as described is a very tenuous link in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 09, 2020, 10:22:07 PM
The phone call as described is a very tenuous link in my opinion.
That may be the case, however, considering Wolters’ statement that they are piecing together all the evidence, as if a puzzle. He said he’ll be silent until the end of the year.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 09, 2020, 11:05:24 PM
That may be the case, however, considering Wolters’ statement that they are piecing together all the evidence, as if a puzzle. He said he’ll be silent until the end of the year.
Did he? Something else I seem to have missed.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 10, 2020, 09:02:35 AM
But is the phonecall the one thing that establishes him in the area that night? It was several hours before MM went missing, so it possible to suggest CB could be at least 2 hours driving distance beyond PdL at 9:48 PM.
Exactly he could have been anywhere. There's no one who suggest's he was there,Tannerman looks nothing like him,Mr Smith has according to press reports claimed he's nothing like the guy who was carrying a girl (fitting a description to that of Madeleine),last bit attributed to Redwood.One child and one man unaccounted for,Smithman and Madeleine,find the first imo and it'll lead to the second.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 10, 2020, 09:16:10 AM
That may be the case, however, considering Wolters’ statement that they are piecing together all the evidence, as if a puzzle. He said he’ll be silent until the end of the year.
. He said he’ll be silent until the end of the year.
Well, good get out as any I suppose...imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 10, 2020, 09:21:20 AM
. He said he’ll be silent until the end of the year.
Well, good get out as any I suppose...imo
After the interviews of the 3 amigos back in 2014 it wasn't really known that they were ruled out by end of that year until Rowley gave an update in 2017,it'll be the same here imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 10, 2020, 09:23:16 AM
A Spanish language show is not the sort of viewing one would normally associate with someone living in South Africa, I would suggest. So obviously you have very esoteric viewing habits.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 10, 2020, 11:24:46 AM
A Spanish language show is not the sort of viewing one would normally associate with someone living in South Africa, I would suggest. So obviously you have very esoteric viewing habits.
Not only do I find your comment directed at me, presumptuous and ignorant but hugely offensive as well.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 10, 2020, 11:26:53 AM
Exactly he could have been anywhere. There's no one who suggest's he was there,Tannerman looks nothing like him,Mr Smith has according to press reports claimed he's nothing like the guy who was carrying a girl (fitting a description to that of Madeleine),last bit attributed to Redwood.One child and one man unaccounted for,Smithman and Madeleine,find the first imo and it'll lead to the second.
There are eye witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they became aware of a man or two men who attracted their attention because of the intensity with which they appeared to be surveilling the McCann apartment. It would only take one or two of these to have identified Brueckner with a certainty of 99% for that fact to become evidence.
Before you scoff ~ please take time to consider that the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc.
Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators. Consider the unrelenting feeding frenzy sceptics have had over McCann phones and phone traffic from the length and breadth of internet sceptic fora.
Only yesterday a member of this forum raised the issue of McCann phones being cleared after Madeleine disappeared. Of course they were cleared 💥 Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received. It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
There are eye witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they became aware of a man or two men who attracted their attention because of the intensity with which they appeared to be surveilling the McCann apartment. It would only take one or two of these to have identified Brueckner with a certainty of 99% for that fact to become evidence.
Before you scoff ~ please take time to consider that the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc.
Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators. Consider the unrelenting feeding frenzy sceptics have had over McCann phones and phone traffic from the length and breadth of internet sceptic fora.
Only yesterday a member of this forum raised the issue of McCann phones being cleared after Madeleine disappeared. Of course they were cleared 💥 Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received. It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that.
"the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc."
The McCusky sighting was indeed proved wrong, but not the Smith one, otherwise OG wouldn't have been investigating it years later.
"Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received. It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that."
I don't think your 'simple explanation' addresses deleting call records.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 10, 2020, 11:53:20 AM
There are eye witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they became aware of a man or two men who attracted their attention because of the intensity with which they appeared to be surveilling the McCann apartment. It would only take one or two of these to have identified Brueckner with a certainty of 99% for that fact to become evidence.
Before you scoff ~ please take time to consider that the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc.
Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators. Consider the unrelenting feeding frenzy sceptics have had over McCann phones and phone traffic from the length and breadth of internet sceptic fora.
Only yesterday a member of this forum raised the issue of McCann phones being cleared after Madeleine disappeared. Of course they were cleared 💥 Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received. It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that.
Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.
If that had been the case - wouldn't you think the so called abduction would have been done after the mccs left at 8. 30 knowing no one would be checking anytime soon.
Rather than a time hanging about for over an hour and then going in when everyone was backwards and forwards
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 10, 2020, 11:54:54 AM
"the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc."
The McCusky sighting was indeed proved wrong, but not the Smith one, otherwise OG wouldn't have been investigating it years later.
"Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received. It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that."
I don't think your 'simple explanation' addresses deleting call records.
What a disingenuous use of words. Mr Smith's misidentification of of Gerry McCann was proved wrong by the Judicial police beyond question based on many witnesses who place him elsewhere at the time of Mr Smith's sighting.
Interesting your denial of that.
Interesting also your refusal to give up on inconsequential McCann phone calls. I think it is a problem when individuals find it impossible to move on from mistakes of the past and resist all new information because of their ingrained prejudices as a result.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 11:56:07 AM
Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.
If that had been the case - wouldn't you think the so called abduction would have been done after the mccs left at 8. 30 knowing no one would be checking anytime soon.
Rather than a time hanging about for over an hour and then going in when everyone was backwards and forwards
I am quite sure the police will be checking all that out before coming to a conclusion.
In the meantime I must admit to more than a little amusement watching the twists and turns of those who are defending the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance from the slings and arrows while still meting that treatment to the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 10, 2020, 12:10:58 PM
As you are clearly fluent in Spanish, could you provide a translation for those of us who are not ?
I've been waiting (in vain) for a translation via sceptic blogs on many issues. Google Translate is good enough to give the gist of printed media but without subtitled translation of video I must confess to be at a loss for interviews and news.
Those who seek out obscure nuances which are unfriendly and biased towards the McCanns and hasten to translate and publish them in the interests of 'free speech' have not been providing translations in the way they do.
Interesting that free speech only seems to work when it is one version which is promoted.
In my opinion what we are witnessing at the moment are demonstrations of mindsets which cannot progress with the times. Exactly the same 'evidence' used by Amaral is still being promoted by him and by his supporters whatever the actual evidence really is. There is no evidence against the McCanns EVERYTHING concerning them has been checked to the nth degree .
The police now have a prime suspect under investigation who they have apparently been investigating for years. We shall just have to wait and see about him.
In the interim I think it has to be acknowledged that three national police forces have been following the evidence which is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger whether Brueckner or another. And I think that is hard for some to take in.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 01:15:46 PM
What a disingenuous use of words. Mr Smith's misidentification of of Gerry McCann was proved wrong by the Judicial police beyond question based on many witnesses who place him elsewhere at the time of Mr Smith's sighting.
Interesting your denial of that.
Interesting also your refusal to give up on inconsequential McCann phone calls. I think it is a problem when individuals find it impossible to move on from mistakes of the past and resist all new information because of their ingrained prejudices as a result.
The final word on the Smith sighting;
This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
So the 'many witnesses' were in reality his seven hoiday companions and no-one contradicted them. Did you know they were the only witnesses Brietta?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 10, 2020, 01:16:59 PM
I am quite sure the police will be checking all that out before coming to a conclusion.
In the meantime I must admit to more than a little amusement watching the twists and turns of those who are defending the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance from the slings and arrows while still meting that treatment to the McCanns.
How can the police check all that out , if maddie had of been abducted at 8 30 she would not have been there for the 9 15 proud moment of gmcc when he checked.
I fail to see how not believing CB is the abductor is defending him.
Suppose it is your prerogative as to what you find amusing.
amusing though how you still class CB as prime suspect although just your presumption he still is.
How presumptuous also is D new signature,
Signature: It must upset posters that it now looks as though I was right all along
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 10, 2020, 01:25:13 PM
How can the police check all that out , if maddie had of been abducted at 8 30 she would not have been there for the 9 15 proud moment of gmcc when he checked.
I fail to see how not believing CB is the abductor is defending him.
Suppose it is your prerogative as to what you find amusing.
amusing though how you still class CB as prime suspect although just your presumption he still is.
How presumptuous also is D new signature,
Signature: It must upset posters that it now looks as though I was right all along
To be honest, does anyone care ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 10, 2020, 01:32:55 PM
I've been waiting (in vain) for a translation via sceptic blogs on many issues. Google Translate is good enough to give the gist of printed media but without subtitled translation of video I must confess to be at a loss for interviews and news.
Those who seek out obscure nuances which are unfriendly and biased towards the McCanns and hasten to translate and publish them in the interests of 'free speech' have not been providing translations in the way they do.
Interesting that free speech only seems to work when it is one version which is promoted.
In my opinion what we are witnessing at the moment are demonstrations of mindsets which cannot progress with the times. Exactly the same 'evidence' used by Amaral is still being promoted by him and by his supporters whatever the actual evidence really is. There is no evidence against the McCanns EVERYTHING concerning them has been checked to the nth degree .
The police now have a prime suspect under investigation who they have apparently been investigating for years. We shall just have to wait and see about him.
In the interim I think it has to be acknowledged that three national police forces have been following the evidence which is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger whether Brueckner or another. And I think that is hard for some to take in.
Hi Brietta, here is a short summary of the last Sexta9 episode: Sexta às 9 Episódio 29 - de 25 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP: - according to the investigation of Sexta9, a group of German Russians is involved - N Fehlinger was at the centre of this group; she was the one who maintained contacts between the members of the group - as far as Wolters and his team knows, Brückner acted alone, but Sexta9 has found documents that show otherwise - M Seyferth was interrogated in Frankfurt by German LE (after H Busching’s release from Greek prison) about two Russian brothers regarding a homocide. - N Fehlinger was a dancer at the casino of Vilamoura. (Reference: Chiatos, Websleuths).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 02:11:35 PM
Hi Brietta, here is a short summary of the last Sexta9 episode: Sexta às 9 Episódio 29 - de 25 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP: - according to the investigation of Sexta9, a group of German Russians is involved - N Fehlinger was at the centre of this group; she was the one who maintained contacts between the members of the group - as far as Wolters and his team knows, Brückner acted alone, but Sexta9 has found documents that show otherwise - M Seyferth was interrogated in Frankfurt by German LE (after H Busching’s release from Greek prison) about two Russian brothers regarding a homocide. - N Fehlinger was a dancer at the casino of Vilamoura. (Reference: Chiatos, Websleuths).
At which point in the video did Wolters say he was going to be silent until next year?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 10, 2020, 02:12:58 PM
A Spanish language show is not the sort of viewing one would normally associate with someone living in South Africa, I would suggest. So obviously you have very esoteric viewing habits.
“What obscure viewing you must engage in. A Spanish language show is not the sort of viewing one would normally associate with someone living in South Africa, I would suggest. So obviously you have very esoteric viewing habits. As you are clearly fluent in Spanish, could you provide a translation for those of us who are not?“ Jassi, the above comments were directed at me by you in response to me providing a cite re. Wolters. Since you are not prepared to review your inaccuracies, innuendos, sarcasm and overall ignorance, the following: - Sexta9 is a current affairs show on RTP, Portuguese television. Sandra Felgueiras is the anchor. Sexta 9 - English translation = Friday at 9. - Therefore, nothing Spanish about it, let alone ‘obscure’ material or ‘esoteric viewing’ as you prefer to label me as a South African citizen.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 10, 2020, 02:20:26 PM
Might be vital viewing for you but sounds pretty obscure to me. Not the sort of thing available in UK on Freeview
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 10, 2020, 02:44:22 PM
Well it obviously does... to someone. waiting for a breakthrough that I very much doubt is going to come after all this time.
Seems the Germans have now hit a brick wall with CB. A source close to the investigation said: “The probe into Christian B has hit a brick wall.
“If they are resorting to sending people into prison to try and get him to confess then it is a bit of a worrying sign.
“The Portuguese have long said that Christian B isn’t linked to Maddie's disappearance but the Germans remain convinced he is. And they seem determined to prove it.”
A report last week said an inmate was recruited when Christian B was in Wolfenbuettel jail before being transferred to Kiel, where he is now in solitary confinement.
Christian B was named as the prime suspect after phone records placed him in Praia da Luz in Portugal on the night Madeleine vanished.
Alexander Stevens, an expert on German criminal law, said investigators' chances of finding any new evidence was now low.
“The only remaining possibility to convict Christian B would be to obtain information about fellow prisoners.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 10, 2020, 03:08:36 PM
As there hasn't been a trace of Madeleine since 2007, it must be a well guarded secret, so I doubt anyone will be telling tales, not reliable ones anyway.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 04:02:36 PM
As there hasn't been a trace of Madeleine since 2007, it must be a well guarded secret, so I doubt anyone will be telling tales, not reliable ones anyway.
Don't forget Malta and Morocco and some train journey in Portugal and some girl with a coloboma speaking German and wasn't she seen in 2012? She's very well travelled according to some.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 10, 2020, 04:06:38 PM
Don't forget Malta and Morocco and some train journey in Portugal and some girl with a coloboma speaking German and wasn't she seen in 2012? She's very well travelled according to some.
Ah yes, the 'sightings'. Strange how none of them amounted to anything.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 10, 2020, 04:26:51 PM
Another source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8757067/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-lawyer-says-evidence-clears-client.html
He isn't reported as saying he was going to be silent, though, did he?
However it was revealed last week that the German prosecutor, Hans Christian Wolters, isn't expecting any new developments on the case until next year at the earliest.
He added that he was sure they have the right man during an interview with Portugese TV show Sexta as 9 on Friday,
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 10, 2020, 08:55:35 PM
He isn't reported as saying he was going to be silent, though, did he?
However it was revealed last week that the German prosecutor, Hans Christian Wolters, isn't expecting any new developments on the case until next year at the earliest.
He added that he was sure they have the right man during an interview with Portugese TV show Sexta as 9 on Friday,
By implication Mr Wolters alluded to the fact that nothing will be forthcoming from his office until end of the year/next year.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 10, 2020, 09:50:22 PM
He isn't reported as saying he was going to be silent, though, did he?
However it was revealed last week that the German prosecutor, Hans Christian Wolters, isn't expecting any new developments on the case until next year at the earliest.
He added that he was sure they have the right man during an interview with Portugese TV show Sexta as 9 on Friday,
So just using basic intelligence and logic..if he says there won't be any developments until the new year..what would you expect to be reported in the meantime
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 10:17:45 PM
By implication Mr Wolters alluded to the fact that nothing will be forthcoming from his office until end of the year/next year.
I didn't ask for your interpretation of what he said, I asked what he actually said. It seems it wasn't what you claimed. That's why cites are important.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 10, 2020, 10:47:23 PM
I didn't ask for your interpretation of what he said, I asked what he actually said. It seems it wasn't what you claimed. That's why cites are important.
You prefer to be pedantic. I don’t.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 10, 2020, 11:24:18 PM
This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
So the 'many witnesses' were in reality his seven hoiday companions and no-one contradicted them. Did you know they were the only witnesses Brietta?
The only witnesses to the Smith sighting were members of the Smith family. Did you know that Gunit?
Neither is there a single independent witness who saw the Smiths in the location where they claimed to be. Did you know that Gunit?
I think your prejudiced opinion as reflected in your post has blinded you to the fact that there was corroboration to the fact that there were indeed more witnesses who agreed with the friends you are libelling. Read your cite properly.
💦At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.💦
Which in effect says that the restaurant employees when asked did not contradict the testimony of Gerry's friends.
Do you think the Policia Judiciaria are so stupid they wouldn't check out everyone who was in the public dining area to corroborate statements.
They obviously did do the checks which in my opinion is elementary procedure ~ remember this is Rebello's team we are talking about here not Amaral's ~ and the restaurant employees backed up what the McCann friends said.
The PJ took the evidence - they checked the evidence - they corroborated the evidence. Which all confirmed that Gerry McCann was seated at the table in the tapas restaurant when the Smith family were wending their way home.
Now you know that Gunit. Whether or not you decide to take it on board is entirely for you to determine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2020, 12:06:44 AM
How can the police check all that out , if maddie had of been abducted at 8 30 she would not have been there for the 9 15 proud moment of gmcc when he checked.
I fail to see how not believing CB is the abductor is defending him.
Suppose it is your prerogative as to what you find amusing.
amusing though how you still class CB as prime suspect although just your presumption he still is.
How presumptuous also is D new signature,
Signature: It must upset posters that it now looks as though I was right all along
It is called evidence. The police check evidence. It's what they do to identify the bad guys. So I don't think they'll have a problem.
And who on earth said Madeleine was abducted at 8.30. No-one but the abductor knows when she was taken but the one thing we can be sure of is that it was not the time you have intimated. But I think you know that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2020, 12:15:10 AM
Hi Brietta, here is a short summary of the last Sexta9 episode: Sexta às 9 Episódio 29 - de 25 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP: - according to the investigation of Sexta9, a group of German Russians is involved - N Fehlinger was at the centre of this group; she was the one who maintained contacts between the members of the group - as far as Wolters and his team knows, Brückner acted alone, but Sexta9 has found documents that show otherwise - M Seyferth was interrogated in Frankfurt by German LE (after H Busching’s release from Greek prison) about two Russian brothers regarding a homocide. - N Fehlinger was a dancer at the casino of Vilamoura. (Reference: Chiatos, Websleuths).
Thanks Anthro. One wonders exactly how many wheels within wheels might be involved in Madeleine's case.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 11, 2020, 01:13:12 AM
The only witnesses to the Smith sighting were members of the Smith family. Did you know that Gunit?
Neither is there a single independent witness who saw the Smiths in the location where they claimed to be. Did you know that Gunit?
I think your prejudiced opinion as reflected in your post has blinded you to the fact that there was corroboration to the fact that there were indeed more witnesses who agreed with the friends you are libelling. Read your cite properly.
💦At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.💦
Which in effect says that the restaurant employees when asked did not contradict the testimony of Gerry's friends.
Do you think the Policia Judiciaria are so stupid they wouldn't check out everyone who was in the public dining area to corroborate statements.
They obviously did do the checks which in my opinion is elementary procedure ~ remember this is Rebello's team we are talking about here not Amaral's ~ and the restaurant employees backed up what the McCann friends said.
The PJ took the evidence - they checked the evidence - they corroborated the evidence. Which all confirmed that Gerry McCann was seated at the table in the tapas restaurant when the Smith family were wending their way home.
Now you know that Gunit. Whether or not you decide to take it on board is entirely for you to determine.
Have you read the Tapas restaurant employee's statements? Not one of them appeared to know which one of the group Gerry McCann was. Neither did they really back up what the McCann friends said.
I don't appreciate being accused of libelling people, by the way. Pointing out that the 'many witnesses' you referred to were in reality their 7 companions isn't libelous, it's the truth.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 07:46:21 AM
Have you read the Tapas restaurant employee's statements? Not one of them appeared to know which one of the group Gerry McCann was. Neither did they really back up what the McCann friends said.
I don't appreciate being accused of libelling people, by the way. Pointing out that the 'many witnesses' you referred to were in reality their 7 companions isn't libelous, it's the truth.
Just as everything I have seen in the media re CB is the truth yet sceptics seem to think he has grounds to sue
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 11, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
Have you read the Tapas restaurant employee's statements? Not one of them appeared to know which one of the group Gerry McCann was. Neither did they really back up what the McCann friends said.
I don't appreciate being accused of libelling people, by the way. Pointing out that the 'many witnesses' you referred to were in reality their 7 companions isn't libelous, it's the truth.
It is if you actually think about what you’re implying.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2020, 09:40:28 AM
Have you read the Tapas restaurant employee's statements? Not one of them appeared to know which one of the group Gerry McCann was. Neither did they really back up what the McCann friends said.
I don't appreciate being accused of libelling people, by the way. Pointing out that the 'many witnesses' you referred to were in reality their 7 companions isn't libelous, it's the truth.
Innuendo or insinuation is considered libel ... ask Sally Bercow {"innocent face" } and read the judgement,
BBC reaches settlement with Lord McAlpine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978 ""We will now be continuing to seek settlements from other organisations that have published defamatory remarks and individuals who have used Twitter to defame me."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 09:46:05 AM
This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
So the 'many witnesses' were in reality his seven hoiday companions and no-one contradicted them. Did you know they were the only witnesses Brietta?
I think it's ridiculous to claim you can identify anyone to any degree of certainty based on their posture.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2020, 09:53:09 AM
Have you read the Tapas restaurant employee's statements? Not one of them appeared to know which one of the group Gerry McCann was. Neither did they really back up what the McCann friends said.
I don't appreciate being accused of libelling people, by the way. Pointing out that the 'many witnesses' you referred to were in reality their 7 companions isn't libelous, it's the truth.
💦At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.💦
I remain astounded by your inability regarding English interpretation. I have absolutely no idea why you fail to understand what the Policia Judiciaria are saying here, in the cite you posted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 11, 2020, 10:14:05 AM
Innuendo or insinuation is considered libel ... ask Sally Bercow {"innocent face" } and read the judgement,
BBC reaches settlement with Lord McAlpine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978 ""We will now be continuing to seek settlements from other organisations that have published defamatory remarks and individuals who have used Twitter to defame me."
I have no idea what you imagine I'm insinuating. Please explain.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 11, 2020, 10:16:34 AM
As i recall the exact word he used was "killed"...live on TV ...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 11:27:39 AM
“We don’t have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann,” German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters revealed to Australian TV show 60 Minutes.
What the evidence is remains unclear, however, Wolters also told the program detectives dug up 8,000 items, including files on hard drives and USB sticks, buried next to Bruckner’s dead dog at the property in Neuwegersleben, Germany.
Asked if any of the uncovered images were of the toddler, Wolters said, “At the moment, I am not allowed to comment on that, so I am not able to say if there are pictures or there are no pictures of Madeleine.”
It is called evidence. The police check evidence. It's what they do to identify the bad guys. So I don't think they'll have a problem.
And who on earth said Madeleine was abducted at 8.30. No-one but the abductor knows when she was taken but the one thing we can be sure of is that it was not the time you have intimated. But I think you know that.
Since when did it become acceptable to state abduction as fact?
I don't recall seeing that rule change.
I think it's great news though, because in the interests of fairness & balance it means I'm free to state that Maddie died in the holiday apartment.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 11:35:43 AM
A little reminder Brietta. There is nothing to connect Brueckner with Madeleine and there is no evidence Madeleine was even abducted so please bear this in mind.
As for Amaral, it is without doubt that he was made a scapegoat, whether he is right or not is still to be determined.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 11, 2020, 12:26:56 PM
John wrote this back in August seems to be largely ignored.
It's quite ignorable IMO because there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted. Of course some people prefer to ignore the evidence as is their prerogative but IMO either they shouldn't seek to impose their opinion as a fact on the rest of us or they should simply accept that we all have differing view points, and not get their knickers in a twist if one of us claims Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2020, 01:04:02 PM
Since when did it become acceptable to state abduction as fact?
I don't recall seeing that rule change.
I think it's great news though, because in the interests of fairness & balance it means I'm free to state that Maddie died in the holiday apartment.
No rule change was required. It is a fact that the Brits the Germans and the Portuguese investigators are investigating Madeleine's abduction. If you think they've got it wrong perhaps you should complain to them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2020, 01:11:44 PM
No rule change was required. It is a fact that the Brits the Germans and the Portuguese investigators are investigating Madeleine's abduction. If you think they've got it wrong perhaps you should complain to them.
They could investigate her abduction indefinitely, that doesn't mean she was abducted.
Indeed, they've squandered £12 million investigating abduction & where has it got them?
They still haven't proven the McCanns didn't do it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 11, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
I have already explained. I'm afraid I cannot rectify your lack of comprehension regarding what I have posted.
In my opinion your postings have not explained anything, but there we are. I'll just have to accept that your mysterious insinuations concerning my supposed insinuations will remain unexplained to me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2020, 01:41:12 PM
In my opinion your postings have not explained anything, but there we are. I'll just have to accept that your mysterious insinuations concerning my supposed insinuations will remain unexplained to me.
I think you got the message ;)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 11, 2020, 01:43:36 PM
In my opinion your postings have not explained anything, but there we are. I'll just have to accept that your mysterious insinuations concerning my supposed insinuations will remain unexplained to me.
Brietta's posts are crystal clear to me. The fact that you have ignored my request to explain why it is significant in your view that the witnesses to Gerry's whereabouts at the time the alarm was raised were all members of the McCanns holiday group also speaks volumes.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on October 11, 2020, 08:17:30 PM
It's quite ignorable IMO because there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted. Of course some people prefer to ignore the evidence as is their prerogative but IMO either they shouldn't seek to impose their opinion as a fact on the rest of us or they should simply accept that we all have differing view points, and not get their knickers in a twist if one of us claims Madeleine was abducted.
If I read the evidence correctly then abducted should be followed immediately by the words "from the street outside".
As far as the police investigations are concerned, none of us are privy to what is or is not being investigated. The correct phraseology would be, "The police are investigating Madeleine's disappearance".
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on October 11, 2020, 08:24:01 PM
“We don’t have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann,” German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters revealed to Australian TV show 60 Minutes.
What the evidence is remains unclear, however, Wolters also told the program detectives dug up 8,000 items, including files on hard drives and USB sticks, buried next to Bruckner’s dead dog at the property in Neuwegersleben, Germany.
Asked if any of the uncovered images were of the toddler, Wolters said, “At the moment, I am not allowed to comment on that, so I am not able to say if there are pictures or there are no pictures of Madeleine.”
Clearly Wolters has NO pictures of Madeleine or any other tangible evidence connected Christian Brueckner to her disappearance. As time passes, his credibility begins to evaporate.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 08:24:20 PM
If I read the evidence correctly then abducted should be followed immediately by the words "from the street outside".
As far as the police investigations are concerned, none of us are privy to what is or is not being investigated. The correct phraseology would be, "The police are investigating Madeleine's disappearance".
I think those who think that pay far to much reliance on the tracking dog evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 08:27:21 PM
Clearly Wolters has NO pictures of Madeleine or any other tangible evidence connected Christian Brueckner to her disappearance. As time passes, his credibility begins to evaporate.
I think you are posting opinion as fact...wolters may well have images...we dont know. I don't see his credibility evaporating at all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2020, 08:33:08 PM
If I read the evidence correctly then abducted should be followed immediately by the words "from the street outside".
As far as the police investigations are concerned, none of us are privy to what is or is not being investigated. The correct phraseology would be, "The police are investigating Madeleine's disappearance".
Surely as CB is now the prime suspect police are investigating MM's abduction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 11, 2020, 08:40:57 PM
I think its quite obvious. Going by CB's history its unlikely he killed Maddie in the apt more likely sbducted for abuse
Of course, I would never think CB killed Madeleine in the apartment. In my theory, opinion or whatever you want to call it, Madeleine escaped the apartment and tried to get into the Tapas Restaurant. If the door at the entrance to the Tapas area was closed how would Madeleine open it? In a recent documentary I see the door handle to this door has been changed to a lever type, compared to the large round knob door handle that was there in 2007.
Of course, I would never think CB killed Madeleine in the apartment. In my theory, opinion or whatever you want to call it, Madeleine escaped the apartment and tried to get into the Tapas Restaurant. If the door at the entrance to the Tapas area was closed how would Madeleine open it? In a recent documentary I see the door handle to this door has been changed to a lever type, compared to the large round knob door handle that was there in 2007.
But surely a charge of murder would be sufficient (IMO).
No, it wouldn't be. He could be found guilty of Abduction but not Murder.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 11, 2020, 09:12:55 PM
Look it is a fact that the door haNDLE HAS BEEN CHANGED. "If the door at the entrance to the Tapas area was closed how would Madeleine open it?" How was that handled on the night. Kate had told Madeleine where they were dining (according to Fiona), but could she (Kate) guarantee that the Tapas entrance door was going to be open and accessible to a 3-4 year old kid at all times? Imagine how the opportunity of a kid locked out on the street could be exploited by a person with the intentions of abducting a child. In a situation like that a child would possibly approach an adult for assistance, in other words even more opportunity, she may have come to him for help to open the door.
No, it wouldn't be. He could be found guilty of Abduction but not Murder.
How can he be charged with abduction unless someone saw him do it? Is there evidence in the vehicle used in the crime? I doubt it somehow after all these years.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 11, 2020, 09:17:23 PM
Look it is a fact that the door haNDLE HAS BEEN CHANGED. "If the door at the entrance to the Tapas area was closed how would Madeleine open it?" How was that handled on the night. Kate had told Madeleine where they were dining (according to Fiona), but could she (Kate) guarantee that the Tapas entrance door was going to be open and accessible to a 3-4 year old kid at all times? Imagine how the opportunity of a kid locked out on the street could be exploited by a person with the intentions of abducting a child. In a situation like that a child would possibly approach an adult for assistance, in other words even more opportunity, she may have came to him.
How can he be charged with abduction unless someone saw him do it? Is there evidence in the vehicle used in the crime? I doubt it somehow after all these years.
How can anyone be charged with anything if no one saw them do it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 12, 2020, 03:54:09 AM
It is called evidence. The police check evidence. It's what they do to identify the bad guys. So I don't think they'll have a problem.
And who on earth said Madeleine was abducted at 8.30. No-one but the abductor knows when she was taken but the one thing we can be sure of is that it was not the time you have intimated. But I think you know that.
And who on earth said Madeleine was abducted at 8.30
Where did I say that someone said maddie was abducted at 8,30 I wish you would get things right when replying.
It was a point I made that you would think if there was an abductor around at 8 pm on a mobile why did he hang around for another hour and a half.
Why did he not just go in at 8.30 when the mccs left were he would have known he had plenty of time before checking started.
Why would he hang around then decide to go in right in the middle of all the checking?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2020, 01:23:18 PM
So as I suspected no rational explanation...that's if there "was" an abductor of course. which imo there wasnt.
You suspected wrong. I have a rational explanation for everything you think is compelling evidence..the dogs... inconsistent statements... everything. That's why the police are investigating CB and not the McCanns
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 12, 2020, 05:23:16 PM
You suspected wrong. I have a rational explanation for everything you think is compelling evidence..the dogs... inconsistent statements... everything. That's why the police are investigating CB and not the McCanns
Everything you don't know if they are still investigating him or if they have hit that break wall which would no surprise IMO.
Then that would only leave he mccs.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 12, 2020, 05:26:42 PM
Of course, I would never think CB killed Madeleine in the apartment. In my theory, opinion or whatever you want to call it, Madeleine escaped the apartment and tried to get into the Tapas Restaurant. If the door at the entrance to the Tapas area was closed how would Madeleine open it? In a recent documentary I see the door handle to this door has been changed to a lever type, compared to the large round knob door handle that was there in 2007.
But surely a charge of murder would be sufficient (IMO).
That is a good point, Rob. But when we ate there, the door was wide open.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 13, 2020, 12:52:28 AM
And who on earth said Madeleine was abducted at 8.30
Where did I say that someone said maddie was abducted at 8,30 I wish you would get things right when replying.
It was a point I made that you would think if there was an abductor around at 8 pm on a mobile why did he hang around for another hour and a half.
Why did he not just go in at 8.30 when the mccs left were he would have known he had plenty of time before checking started.
Why would he hang around then decide to go in right in the middle of all the checking?
Simples Kizzy
1) We all know about the watchers as seen by several witnesses. The abduction group were aware that 4 groups of friends had to travel from their apartments to the Tapas restaurant. None of the abduction group would want to be seen by any of the friends, so they would keep clear until every one had left and reached the restaurant. IIRC The Paynes were very late and then Matt, who had set out to try and chivvy up The Paynes, saw them en route. Seems he decided that he was almost there, so he went to check his daughters' and Madeleines windows for noise (Like they used to do at Butlins). By the time Matt got back to the restaurant it was almost time to do the 9pm checks
2) Darkness was coming, but at 8.30 pm it would have been far too light to risk showing themselves.
All IMO, but it all fits.
Simples, Kizzy, when you think about it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 13, 2020, 07:03:52 AM
That is a good point, Rob. But when we ate there, the door was wide open.
Exactly and that is how I think Kate imagined it would be on the night too, but once the Executive Chef Arlindo ... turned up I imagine he shut that door to keep the locals out. He talks of a "COMMOTION" out on the road and cars parked up there. Maybe he had some concerns and shut the door, not knowing that the McCann kids could be coming through there unattended by the adults. When Russell returned just prior to Kate doing her check he might have reopened it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 13, 2020, 01:27:26 PM
Well seeing your post gave you the right to judgement to ridicule my post twice.
To me your post shows a weakness and lack of confidence that you felt a need toridicule me as a poster.
The mccs have not been ruled out. the abduction of Maddie from her bed has not been proven or any proof.
My advice to your posting is if you believe the mccs are not involved and CB is have a bit moe confidence in that.
I have confidence in what I post. if you don't like them put me on block not act as if Im some sort of threat with your insults.
Another ridiculous post. why on earth should I feel threatened by your posts...its laughable. You posted that if CB is not charged that leaves the Mccanns....it doesnt only leave the mcCanns if CB isnt prosecuted. he may well be guilty and not prosecuted.
the SC didnt say the McCanns are not ruled out by the way...they obviously are imo.
I have every confidence in the mccanns innocence because I understand the evidence.....and i think its highly likeley CB is involved...again based on the evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 13, 2020, 02:46:47 PM
Another ridiculous post. why on earth should I feel threatened by your posts...its laughable. You posted that if CB is not charged that leaves the Mccanns....it doesnt only leave the mcCanns if CB isnt prosecuted. he may well be guilty and not prosecuted.
the SC didnt say the McCanns are not ruled out by the way...they obviously are imo.
I have every confidence in the mccanns innocence because I understand the evidence.....and i think its highly likeley CB is involved...again based on the evidence
I thought we were all trying to get along now?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 13, 2020, 02:57:08 PM
I have as much right to believe the mccs are involved ...as you have thinking they are not.
Just take my posts with a pinch of salt ..like I do yours.
If as you believe the mccs are innocent ....why should it bother you what I post.
It's a discussion forum...if I want to give my opinion on your posts that's up to me. If someone said the earth was flat I would consider that ridiculous..that's how I see your posts
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 14, 2020, 02:30:32 PM
It's a discussion forum...if I want to give my opinion on your posts that's up to me. If someone said the earth was flat I would consider that ridiculous..that's how I see your posts
Well I'm not saying the earth is flat ...I'm saying I believe the mccs are involved in what happened to Maddie.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 02:32:29 PM
Well I'm not saying the earth is flat ...I'm saying I believe the mccs are involved in what happened to Maddie.
One of those statements could be described as ridiculous because we have evidence which proves it's false. The other isn't ridiculous because there's not evidence which proves it's false. Unlike the flat earth idea it's a belief shared by many other perfectly sensible people.
The constant attempts by some to suggest that you and others like you are lacking in some way suggests, in my opinion, that they are unable to find any evidence which proves you are wrong.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 14, 2020, 03:02:04 PM
What is happening on this Forum at the moment is quite ridiculous.
The McCanns, against whom no real evidence has ever been found, are Guilty, while Brueckner who is an absolute s..m bag and convicted Paedophile and Rapist is Innocent.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 03:04:19 PM
One of those statements could be described as ridiculous because we have evidence which proves it's false. The other isn't ridiculous because there's not evidence which proves it's false. Unlike the flat earth idea it's a belief shared by many other perfectly sensible people.
The constant attempts by some to suggest that you and others like you are lacking in some way suggests, in my opinion, that they are unable to find any evidence which proves you are wrong.
if you had followed the posts you would understand that what I said was ridiculous was Kizzys post taht if CB was cleared...that would leave the McCanns....I think that is a ridiculous post...perhaps you agree with it.
Theres lots of evidence to show amarals theory is wrong but its basically impossible to prove anything on a discussion forum.
First amaral based his theory on flawed evidence...he clearly did not understand the basics
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 03:05:33 PM
What is happening on this Forum at the moment is quite ridiculous.
The McCanns, against whom no real evidence has ever been found, are Guilty, while Brueckner who is an absolute s..m bag and convicted Paedophile and Rapist is Innocent.
thats basically the sceptic position....as barmy as it might sound
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 14, 2020, 03:07:24 PM
What is happening on this Forum at the moment is quite ridiculous.
The McCanns, against whom no real evidence has ever been found, are Guilty, while Brueckner who is an absolute s..m bag and convicted Paedophile and Rapist is Innocent.
They are both innocent and thats that, suspicions remain depending on your point of view.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 14, 2020, 03:08:09 PM
What is happening on this Forum at the moment is quite ridiculous.
The McCanns, against whom no real evidence has ever been found, are Guilty, while Brueckner who is an absolute s..m bag and convicted Paedophile and Rapist is Innocent.
Such is life.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 14, 2020, 03:10:47 PM
What is happening on this Forum at the moment is quite ridiculous.
The McCanns, against whom no real evidence has ever been found, are Guilty, while Brueckner who is an absolute s..m bag and convicted Paedophile and Rapist is Innocent.
I don't think it is as straight forward as that.
If you dont believe as the mccs say that Maddie was abducted from her bed.
How can I think that CB abducted Maddie ...regardless of what he is - although I do agree on your description of him.
That doesn't make him an abducter.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 03:31:38 PM
What is happening on this Forum at the moment is quite ridiculous.
The McCanns, against whom no real evidence has ever been found, are Guilty, while Brueckner who is an absolute s..m bag and convicted Paedophile and Rapist is Innocent.
Think what you like of CB until due process of law as been undertaken, what is your view on his innocence in the McCann case.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 03:33:30 PM
No it isn't...most sceptics believe the McCanns guilty and CB innocent
Prove this extraordinary statement and I'll give you a hat fashioned from Lego, a petrified dog egg and a signed paperback copy of The Pelican Brief. Conduct a straw poll in the streets of Dudley.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 14, 2020, 03:38:34 PM
If you dont believe as the mccs say that Maddie was abducted from her bed.
How can I think that CB abducted Maddie ...regardless of what he is - although I do agree on your description of him.
That doesn't make him an abducter.
I do believe that Madeleine was abducted from her bed. I don't know if Brueckner was involved, unlike you who is convinced that The McCanns are responsible when you and no one else has been able to prove this in thirteen years.
This is why your thinking is flawed.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 14, 2020, 03:39:08 PM
Think what you like of CB until due process of law as been undertaken, what is your view on his innocence in the McCann case.
I don't think anything about Brueckner's Guilt or Innocence in The McCann Case. I thought I had made that quite clear. I simply don't know. But I do know that he is a Convicted Rapist and Paedophile.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 14, 2020, 03:44:44 PM
I do believe that Madeleine was abducted from her bed. I don't know if Brueckner was involved, unlike you who is convinced that The McCanns are responsible when you and no one else has been able to prove this in thirteen years.
This is why your thinking is flawed.
This is why your thinking is flawed.
Only in your opinion.
Not in mine, you believe the mccs ....I dont believe the mccs. its just boils down to a difference of opinion that's all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 03:48:39 PM
Not in mine, you believe the mccs ....I dont believe the mccs. its just boils down to a difference of opinion that's all.
I remember Kate McCann being upset by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire Police;
He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most griefstricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [madeleine]
Surprisingly, Kate offers no evidence which could eliminate them. She seems to think that it's enough to see their grief. Demonstrating grief is one thing, and many have done it. Convincing people that it's related to innocence is something else altogether.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 14, 2020, 04:16:07 PM
I remember Kate McCann being upset by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire Police;
He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most griefstricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [madeleine]
Surprisingly, Kate offers no evidence which could eliminate them. She seems to think that it's enough to see their grief. Demonstrating grief is one thing, and many have done it. Convincing people that it's related to innocence is something else altogether.
You think. The McCanns never did have to prove their Innocence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 14, 2020, 04:20:25 PM
Prove this extraordinary statement and I'll give you a hat fashioned from Lego, a petrified dog egg and a signed paperback copy of The Pelican Brief. Conduct a straw poll in the streets of Dudley.
Do you even know why sceptics are called sceptics? It's because they are sceptical about the McCanns' version of events. That means they believe they are liars, and therefore guilty at the very least of a cover up. No need for any straw polls, and you can keep your dog egg. Ta.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 14, 2020, 04:28:14 PM
Because the still doesn't understand the basics...he still thinks calpol is a sedative for instance
Yet after everything he has seen and heard also privy to inside info it seems he still thinks the mccs are responsable it seems.
He was there a senior detective at the time...wrote a book ...and the book is still there for all to read today.
To me its obvious they needed to get rid of him as imo he was on the right track.
The constitution of Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, Madeleine's parents, as “arguidos" should have marked a turnaround in the relationship among the police forces and the couple. If, on the Portuguese police side, the break occurred, it seems that the same cannot be said of the English police. There was an agreement between the two police forces to move forward in an investigation that was seriously considering the possibility that the child died in the apartment, but suddenly the English police veered without consistent technical explanation - as we shall see further. We have always found it odd the way the couple were treated, even after they got their arguido status, and their eventual access to police information.
I agree with you. If errors were made in this investigation, the delay in changing the status of the McCanns is one of them. There was too much politics and not enough police.
– Well, I wouldn't go that far. The error was to treat the couple "with tweezers". Remember how very soon we saw that many things did not fit and that the McCanns were entitled to privileges. That is not normal !
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 14, 2020, 04:29:02 PM
I remember Kate McCann being upset by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire Police;
He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most griefstricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [madeleine]
Surprisingly, Kate offers no evidence which could eliminate them. She seems to think that it's enough to see their grief. Demonstrating grief is one thing, and many have done it. Convincing people that it's related to innocence is something else altogether.
Are you for real? What evidence do you think she could have offered to eliminate them? Crazy talk, IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 14, 2020, 04:30:10 PM
Yet after everything he has seen and heard also privy to inside info it seems he still thinks the mccs are responsable it seems.
He was there a senior detective at the time...wrote a book ...and the book is still there for all to read today.
To me its obvious they needed to get rid of him as imo he was on the right track.
The constitution of Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, Madeleine's parents, as “arguidos" should have marked a turnaround in the relationship among the police forces and the couple. If, on the Portuguese police side, the break occurred, it seems that the same cannot be said of the English police. There was an agreement between the two police forces to move forward in an investigation that was seriously considering the possibility that the child died in the apartment, but suddenly the English police veered without consistent technical explanation - as we shall see further. We have always found it odd the way the couple were treated, even after they got their arguido status, and their eventual access to police information.
I agree with you. If errors were made in this investigation, the delay in changing the status of the McCanns is one of them. There was too much politics and not enough police.
– Well, I wouldn't go that far. The error was to treat the couple "with tweezers". Remember how very soon we saw that many things did not fit and that the McCanns were entitled to privileges. That is not normal !
you may be impressed with amarals version of events .. To me he was a bent cop who didnt understand the evidence...both those statemnts being factual not opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 04:55:15 PM
I remember Kate McCann being upset by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire Police;
He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most griefstricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [madeleine]
Surprisingly, Kate offers no evidence which could eliminate them. She seems to think that it's enough to see their grief. Demonstrating grief is one thing, and many have done it. Convincing people that it's related to innocence is something else altogether.
do you feel CB should have to prove his innocence or does that only apply to the McCanns....thats quite hypocritical if thats what you think
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 14, 2020, 04:59:50 PM
he is important in as much that he is still spouting his tripe...IMO....and people still believe him
Spout tripe. Get paid. Rinse. Repeat. And I'll tell you this much, triple it if CB is discounted. It's a numbers game; a game of two halves; jumpers for goalposts.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 05:09:56 PM
Spout tripe. Get paid. Rinse. Repeat. And I'll tell you this much, triple it if CB is discounted. It's a numbers game; a game of two halves; jumpers for goalposts.
But his tripe will be mere offal if CB is charged....as I think he may well be. What will that do for amarals ....portugals....and the SCs reputation
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 14, 2020, 05:14:30 PM
But his tripe will be mere offal if CB is charged....as I think he may well be. What will that do for amarals ....portugals....and the SCs reputation
That's the game. He pushed all in 13 years ago, Dav, I don't think he's bothered. Who knows, given the perverse nature of social media and the gutter press, he may even find himself even more in demand.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 05:29:30 PM
That's the game. He pushed all in 13 years ago, Dav, I don't think he's bothered. Who knows, given the perverse nature of social media and the gutter press, he may even find himself even more in demand.
the thing is we don't know...and when we don'y know its like a vacuum...you can put any old rubbish in there
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 14, 2020, 06:08:37 PM
you may be impressed with amarals version of events .. To me he was a bent cop who didnt understand the evidence...both those statemnts being factual not opinion
No you dont need GA to tell you were the mccs were concerned - something wasn't right IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 14, 2020, 06:37:49 PM
So why does anyone get worked up about him ? Is it all because he defeated the McCann in the Portuguese Courts ?
It’s because he’s a loathesome prick IMO. How else would you describe someone who deliberately faked pictures of the chief suspect and gave them to the media to make out the German prosecutor had got it all wrong?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 14, 2020, 07:28:16 PM
It’s because he’s a loathesome prick IMO. How else would you describe someone who deliberately faked pictures of the chief suspect and gave them to the media to make out the German prosecutor had got it all wrong?
He might well be. Many people are . So what ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 14, 2020, 07:35:53 PM
I do believe that Madeleine was abducted from her bed. I don't know if Brueckner was involved, unlike you who is convinced that The McCanns are responsible when you and no one else has been able to prove this in thirteen years.
This is why your thinking is flawed.
So you don't allow for the possibility that Madeleine was on her way over to find her Mum when she was abducted?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 07:56:49 PM
Do you think Diane's been hiding Maddie for the past 13 years...
"Hiding Maddie", in what way? Sitting on facts possibly. What reason did she have to go and play with the raised shutters and then for her fingerprints not to be found on them the day after? That was suspicious in my books.
So tragic in real life when someone removes evidence from a crimescene, for whatever purpose or even innocently. Had her fingerprints and palm prints been found there maybe I wouldn't be so angry about the situation.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 14, 2020, 08:22:43 PM
Look, I know you’re keen to shut down any discussion about the man but that ain’t going to happen. If he does something devious and evil like he did recently people will comment on it and him. If it doesn’t interest you, look away.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 14, 2020, 08:28:12 PM
It’s because he’s a loathesome prick IMO. How else would you describe someone who deliberately faked pictures of the chief suspect and gave them to the media to make out the German prosecutor had got it all wrong?
I know that is how it seems but can you prove that beyond a doubt?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 14, 2020, 08:29:26 PM
It wasn’t so much that they were fakes (which they were), it was the fact that he claimed Bruckner had long dreadlocks at the time of the disappearance which was a complete lie, as thr video of Bruckner in his van(which was not plastered in graffiti images as Amara, had also claimed) made shortly beforehand proves.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2020, 09:02:52 PM
No you dont need GA to tell you were the mccs were concerned - something wasn't right IMO
Myster posted a link today which shows precisely some of what disastrously "wasn't right" about the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c Chief amongst which was the squandering of the golden hours which determine whether or not a child is found sometimes alive, sometimes not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 14, 2020, 11:19:17 PM
As I recall Amaral admitted they were photo shopped
It is like so many of the other factoids Amaral has responsibility for generating I think it would have ended up as the Gospel truth for many if the Daily Mail hadn't published its then exclusive of the video of Brueckner sporting a short haircut at the time in question.
Why was he so desperate to make the attempt to derail the German investigation with such an obvious lie.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 14, 2020, 11:41:00 PM
Myster posted a link today which shows precisely some of what disastrously "wasn't right" about the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c Chief amongst which was the squandering of the golden hours which determine whether or not a child is found sometimes alive, sometimes not.
Golden hours...don’t you mean hour ?
“The first hour after any crime is critical because this is the ‘golden hour’ of any investigation,” says Paul Bourne, a former Detective Superintendent who served for 30 years in the Metropolitan Police.
“The forensic evidence is uninterrupted, witnesses may still be in proximity and the CCTV footage will be current, so you need to act quickly because if the footage is recorded on a loop you must make sure you can seize it before it’s automatically erased.”
It is worth pointing out that by the time the police were informed of Madeleine’s disappearance the ‘golden hour’ had elapsed and it was almost two hours since Madeleine had been seen. IMO the half hourly checking regime hampered the search much more than anything that came afterwards.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 15, 2020, 12:38:42 AM
You think. The McCanns never did have to prove their Innocence.
They know they are innocent and their friends know that too.
Senior Officers of the various Police Forces say there was an abduction. That and other pointers proved that they are innocent IMO.
But as Elli says, they don't have to prove their innocence. They are though.
I really cannot imagine what causes some of you to keep putting the boot in. Maybe it makes you feel superior, maybe you are a tadge sadistic, maybe you are unable to see the light, maybe you know someone involved or …… maybe you are enjoying your five minutes of 'fame'?
Dunno. It is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 15, 2020, 01:01:15 AM
“The first hour after any crime is critical because this is the ‘golden hour’ of any investigation,” says Paul Bourne, a former Detective Superintendent who served for 30 years in the Metropolitan Police.
“The forensic evidence is uninterrupted, witnesses may still be in proximity and the CCTV footage will be current, so you need to act quickly because if the footage is recorded on a loop you must make sure you can seize it before it’s automatically erased.”
It is worth pointing out that by the time the police were informed of Madeleine’s disappearance the ‘golden hour’ had elapsed and it was almost two hours since Madeleine had been seen. IMO the half hourly checking regime hampered the search much more than anything that came afterwards.
With reference to the link provided in my post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c
6:08 if it is not solved within the first two or three days it is very likely this is going to be a cold case forever
6:26 the first forty eight hours after a murder abduction these are the golden hours for the police or law enforcement to solve this crime
In the years since Madeleine’s disappearance, I have also raised my concerns as to whether agencies across Europe are still any better prepared for these types of investigations. When an investigation team doesn’t gather information or act in a timely and systematic fashion, the investigation gets away from them and this dramatically reduces the chances of the crime being solved.
My experience then, and even more so now having studied the behaviour of non-familial child abductors and murderers in-depth as a criminologist, is that the first 24 to 48 hours of a child abduction investigation – often referred to as the “golden hours” – are critical to its successful outcome. It requires strong, dynamic leadership supported by clear defensible decision making.
This must be backed up by systems and structures designed to collect and evaluate information quickly. At the same time, information must be retained in a manner so that it can be revisited at appropriate times as the investigation moves forward and alternative lines of enquiry are considered.
Non-familial child abduction attracts vast amounts of media attention. High-profile cases often attract national media coverage and cases where the child is murdered become, what is called in criminology, “mega-homicides”. These cases can attract worldwide attention and generate vast amounts of information.
The potential for this information to overwhelm even the best-prepared investigation agency during the early hours or days of an inquiry is considerable. For this reason, there is a need for a systematic approach to core policing functions to deal with the complexity. And it is vital to have a thorough, well documented investigation strategy.
These investigations also require highly skilled and experienced investigators who have the ability to make defensible decisions based upon reliable information and create investigative strategy and policy that can stand the test of hindsight. A failure to do so can have serious consequences.
Three years after Madeleine’s disappearance, in 2010, I conducted and wrote CEOP’s internal review of the Portuguese investigation, which was subsequently passed to the Home Office. The review contained observations and recommendations that, after repeated requests from the McCanns, https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/209174/McCanns-seek-joint-Madeleine-review led to the Met being tasked to establish their own investigation, Operation Grange.
The information timeline, when fully known, may offer clarity and explanations to many of the questions that have been swirling around this case since 2007. But these explanations may also raise more uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of the initial police inquiry and the competence of the people who led it. I only hope this new information leads to some form of closure for the McCanns. Jim Gamble
They know they are innocent and their friends know that too.
Senior Officers of the various Police Forces say there was an abduction. That and other pointers proved that they are innocent IMO.
But as Elli says, they don't have to prove their innocence. They are though.
I really cannot imagine what causes some of you to keep putting the boot in. Maybe it makes you feel superior, maybe you are a tadge sadistic, maybe you are unable to see the light, maybe you know someone involved or …… maybe you are enjoying your five minutes of 'fame'?
Dunno. It is a mystery to me.
Nobody said they had to prove their innocence. Kate McCann thought the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police was treating them as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ when he said;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
He wasn't, he was merely speaking the truth. It was true in July 2008 when he said it and it's still true today imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2020, 01:38:39 AM
In the years since Madeleine’s disappearance, I have also raised my concerns as to whether agencies across Europe are still any better prepared for these types of investigations. When an investigation team doesn’t gather information or act in a timely and systematic fashion, the investigation gets away from them and this dramatically reduces the chances of the crime being solved.
My experience then, and even more so now having studied the behaviour of non-familial child abductors and murderers in-depth as a criminologist, is that the first 24 to 48 hours of a child abduction investigation – often referred to as the “golden hours” – are critical to its successful outcome. It requires strong, dynamic leadership supported by clear defensible decision making.
This must be backed up by systems and structures designed to collect and evaluate information quickly. At the same time, information must be retained in a manner so that it can be revisited at appropriate times as the investigation moves forward and alternative lines of enquiry are considered.
Non-familial child abduction attracts vast amounts of media attention. High-profile cases often attract national media coverage and cases where the child is murdered become, what is called in criminology, “mega-homicides”. These cases can attract worldwide attention and generate vast amounts of information.
The potential for this information to overwhelm even the best-prepared investigation agency during the early hours or days of an inquiry is considerable. For this reason, there is a need for a systematic approach to core policing functions to deal with the complexity. And it is vital to have a thorough, well documented investigation strategy.
These investigations also require highly skilled and experienced investigators who have the ability to make defensible decisions based upon reliable information and create investigative strategy and policy that can stand the test of hindsight. A failure to do so can have serious consequences.
Three years after Madeleine’s disappearance, in 2010, I conducted and wrote CEOP’s internal review of the Portuguese investigation, which was subsequently passed to the Home Office. The review contained observations and recommendations that, after repeated requests from the McCanns, https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/209174/McCanns-seek-joint-Madeleine-review led to the Met being tasked to establish their own investigation, Operation Grange.
The information timeline, when fully known, may offer clarity and explanations to many of the questions that have been swirling around this case since 2007. But these explanations may also raise more uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of the initial police inquiry and the competence of the people who led it. I only hope this new information leads to some form of closure for the McCanns. Jim Gamble
“The first hour after any crime is critical because this is the ‘golden hour’ of any investigation,” says Paul Bourne, a former Detective Superintendent who served for 30 years in the Metropolitan Police.‘
And this.
‘ An Hour to Catch A Killer takes viewers to the heart of the all-important window of time that can make or break a murder investigation – the ‘Golden Hour’. A principle outlined in British Police’s Murder Investigation Manual, it describes how the decisions detectives make during that first hour impact on whether or not they catch the killer.
DS Greenwood, who worked in the Criminal Investigation Department at the time of filming, said one of the toughest parts of her investigation was when it briefly came to a “stalemate” through a lack of physical evidence.
The 48-year-old, who joined the force in 1996 after a stint in the RAF, said when that happens officers just have to continue with their inquiries until a breakthrough and in such crimes offenders chance their luck again.
She said: “There is a golden hour after a crime is committed where it is vital for us to gather as much information and evidence as possible and secure the scene.‘
Nobody said they had to prove their innocence. Kate McCann thought the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police was treating them as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ when he said;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
He wasn't, he was merely speaking the truth. It was true in July 2008 when he said it and it's still true today imo.
With the greatest respect in my opinion you are talking nonsense by totally ignoring the Archiving despatch which says
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 15, 2020, 09:09:18 AM
With the greatest respect in my opinion you are talking nonsense by totally ignoring the Archiving despatch which says
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
There's no mention there of 'clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance', so what the ACC said was correct.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on October 15, 2020, 09:36:57 AM
With the greatest respect in my opinion you are talking nonsense by totally ignoring the Archiving despatch which says
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
I have always found that claim somewhat bizarre. Nobody except possibly the culprit(s) could possibly know when she disappeared as she was not seen in public after the family left the restaurant at teatime.
If the parents are innocent then the above is a correct statement but the opposite is also true. In essence, this statement infers without a shred of proof that the parents are innocent and then attempts to justify the claim.
As for the 'normal behaviour' they supposedly exhibited afterwards, I think this is an extremely blinkered claim.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 09:41:42 AM
There's no mention there of 'clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance', so what the ACC said was correct.
clear evidence eliminating them is neither here nor there...its a slur used by sceptics imo. Thers no clear evidence eliminating the Needham family...Nor barry George.
theres no clear evidence eliminating CB
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on October 15, 2020, 09:46:38 AM
clear evidence eliminating them is neither here nor there...its a slur used by sceptics imo. Thers no clear evidence eliminating the Needham family...Nor barry George.
theres no clear evidence eliminating CB
Actually, in the case of the Needhams and Barry George, there is NO evidence implicating them. The same can't be said of the McCann case imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 15, 2020, 10:34:36 AM
I have always found that claim somewhat bizarre. Nobody except possibly the culprit(s) could possibly know when she disappeared as she was not seen in public after the family left the restaurant at teatime.
If the parents are innocent then the above is a correct statement but the opposite is also true. In essence, this statement infers without a shred of proof that the parents are innocent and then attempts to justify the claim.
As for the 'normal behaviour' they supposedly exhibited afterwards, I think this is an extremely blinkered claim.
Have you watched the "60 Minute" Video?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 15, 2020, 10:40:06 AM
Watch it yourself. You aren't interested in my opinion. So please don't pretend that you are.
I have watched it. I'm interested in why you mentioned it as you seem to think it says something significant. It seems that whatever that is won't be explained, so it's probably not important.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 15, 2020, 11:34:22 AM
I have watched it. I'm interested in why you mentioned it as you seem to think it says something significant. It seems that whatever that is won't be explained, so it's probably not important.
What did you learn from it, Gunit?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 15, 2020, 12:13:39 PM
I have watched it. I'm interested in why you mentioned it as you seem to think it says something significant. It seems that whatever that is won't be explained, so it's probably not important.
Do you not think the German prosecutor saying he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM is significant
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 15, 2020, 12:23:25 PM
Actually, in the case of the Needhams and Barry George, there is NO evidence implicating them. The same can't be said of the McCann case imo.
In my opinion there is nothing which Amaral used as evidence which implicates them from "The Badly Told Story" to Calpol being a sedative to the dogs to the misinterpreted forensic results.
But the prosecutors hit the nail bang on the head when they continued ...
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
Unsurprisingly Amaral could not come up with an answer to that one. And over the past thirteen+ years neither could anyone else for the simple reason there is no evidence against Gerry and Kate whatsoever.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 12:27:45 PM
I don't. It's a useless, futile concept without further corroboration.
So if the Portuguese Prosecutor said he had enough evidence to show MM died in the apartment and the parents his the body you wouldnt think that to be significant..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 15, 2020, 12:50:46 PM
So if the Portuguese Prosecutor said he had enough evidence to show MM died in the apartment and the parents his the body you wouldnt think that to be significant..
The PP had further corroboration. Your opinion of that corroboration is irrelevant until they decided to use it or not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 12:52:17 PM
In my opinion there is nothing which Amaral used as evidence which implicates them from "The Badly Told Story" to Calpol being a sedative to the dogs to the misinterpreted forensic results.
But the prosecutors hit the nail bang on the head when they continued ...
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
Unsurprisingly Amaral could not come up with an answer to that one. And over the past thirteen+ years neither could anyone else for the simple reason there is no evidence against Gerry and Kate whatsoever.
Well that last bit is untrue as they were provided with additional mobile phones by friends outside the village.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 15, 2020, 12:53:51 PM
Enough being the operative word. I'm glad for once you agree they had some evidence.👍
Ive expalined taht many times. The evidence the PJ had showed nothing it was so weak. The Smith sighting is evidence ...is it enough to show Gerry carried MMs body...no
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 15, 2020, 01:05:21 PM
Ive expalined taht many times. The evidence the PJ had showed nothing it was so weak. The Smith sighting is evidence ...is it enough to show Gerry carried MMs body...no
So what Wolters is saying is no more significant than that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 01:16:47 PM
How many Serial Child Sex Abusers and Rapists could there have been wandering around Praia da Luz on the 3rd of May 2007?
They live amongst us.
Rowley 2017:Q&A:Q: The theory of a sex predator responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is something the Portuguese police have focussed on. How big a part of your investigation has that been, because there were a series of sex attack on sleeping, mainly British children in nearby resorts. So how important has that been to your investigation? MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been doing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 15, 2020, 03:44:14 PM
Rowley 2017:Q&A:Q: The theory of a sex predator responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is something the Portuguese police have focussed on. How big a part of your investigation has that been, because there were a series of sex attack on sleeping, mainly British children in nearby resorts. So how important has that been to your investigation? MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been doing.
Such a pity Amaral didn't do that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 15, 2020, 04:26:43 PM
Ive expalined taht many times. The evidence the PJ had showed nothing it was so weak. The Smith sighting is evidence ...is it enough to show Gerry carried MMs body...no
Is it even strong enough to prove the Smith sighting conclusively ?
In my opinion it is proven that there is not a scintilla of evidence pointing towards the McCanns.
We do not know what evidence there is against Brueckner ... but the Germans do and they appear to be quite convinced by it and have put that opinion into the public domain.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 15, 2020, 04:42:30 PM
How many Serial Child Sex Abusers and Rapists could there have been wandering around Praia da Luz on the 3rd of May 2007?
Members appear to be of the opinion the place was crawling with them. Even to the extent that a three year old child was unable to walk a few yards down a road without encountering one or if not that a drunken driver mounting the pavement to get her.
It certainly is true that the area did seem to attract them like flies but I wonder if they were all checked out and eliminated from the inquiry. Was Brueckner?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 15, 2020, 04:48:43 PM
Is it even strong enough to prove the Smith sighting conclusively ?
In my opinion it is proven that there is not a scintilla of evidence pointing towards the McCanns.
We do not know what evidence there is against Brueckner ... but the Germans do and they appear to be quite convinced by it and have put that opinion into the public domain.
but the Germans do and they appear to be quite convinced by it and have put that opinion into the public domain.
What exactly does that prove.
GA is convinced mccs involved he did the same but in your post you say there wasn't a scintilla of evidence.
So why should it prove anything or the germans be any different. .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 15, 2020, 05:04:30 PM
I thought one of the criticism's of your nemesis was he'd ruled CB out,so he must have done so. Still must have been all of 24hrs you'd manage to hold off dragging him in,you sure the bonus isn't in play.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 15, 2020, 05:22:00 PM
but the Germans do and they appear to be quite convinced by it and have put that opinion into the public domain.
What exactly does that prove.
GA is convinced mccs involved he did the same but in your post you say there wasn't a scintilla of evidence.
So why should it prove anything or the germans be any different. .
I find your posts becoming more and more of an irrelevance. They really do seem to be stuck well in the mistakes of the past. Didn't you notice the world has turned (nope, it isn't flat after all) and current happenings have left you and your opinions far behind while most other people have moved on.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2020, 05:29:33 PM
I find your posts becoming more and more of an irrelevance. They really do seem to be stuck well in the mistakes of the past. Didn't you notice the world has turned (nope, it isn't flat after all) and current happenings have left you and your opinions far behind while most other people have moved on.
Perhaps it would be add to the smooth running of the forum if you were a tad more respectful to fellow members, even if you don’t agree with them ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 15, 2020, 05:33:24 PM
I find your posts becoming more and more of an irrelevance. They really do seem to be stuck well in the mistakes of the past. Didn't you notice the world has turned (nope, it isn't flat after all) and current happenings have left you and your opinions far behind while most other people have moved on.
This sadly is true. Nothing of any content other than an outdated opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 05:35:54 PM
I find your posts becoming more and more of an irrelevance. They really do seem to be stuck well in the mistakes of the past. Didn't you notice the world has turned (nope, it isn't flat after all) and current happenings have left you and your opinions far behind while most other people have moved on.
IMO nothing has really moved from 13 year ago - apart from a dozen suspects to accommodate the abduction that has come to nothing.
Seems you put your faith in any suspect till the next one come along is that what you call moving forward.
The mistakes of the past was treating this as an abduction in the first place.
Believe what you want but the fact is Maddie is classed as missing [not abducted] and the mccs are still not cleared of any involve ment .
I think you will find that goes right back to the 3 may 2007.
You may be a mod B but get off your pedestal because that doesn't give you the right to tell me what my opinions should be.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 06:03:50 PM
Members appear to be of the opinion the place was crawling with them. Even to the extent that a three year old child was unable to walk a few yards down a road without encountering one or if not that a drunken driver mounting the pavement to get her.
It certainly is true that the area did seem to attract them like flies but I wonder if they were all checked out and eliminated from the inquiry. Was Brueckner?
Those types prowl around during the day when the kiddies are out. Few come out in the dark.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2020, 06:10:46 PM
Out and about ? I believe that they were sitting on their balcony but will be happy to be corrected.
As I said ... "Mr and Mrs Moyes were out and about in the immediate area and at a relevant time, but no-one saw them either."
Snip REPORTER Can you take us back to that night and what you were doing and when you first heard there was a problem?
SUSAN MOYES Sure. We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town.
We walked back about nine o’clock,
round past, erm, the church,
round past the supermarket,
back to the apartment.
Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine.
Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely. We then went to bed.
We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say a little girl had been abducted.
Those were the words she used. So we got dressed and joined in the search. We were out till about four in the morning with, oooh, about I dont know, thirty people, thirty other people maybe. The Mark Warner team were out with other guests at the Ocean Club.
As I said ... "Mr and Mrs Moyes were out and about in the immediate area and at a relevant time, but no-one saw them either."
Snip REPORTER Can you take us back to that night and what you were doing and when you first heard there was a problem?
SUSAN MOYES Sure. We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town.
We walked back about nine o’clock,
round past, erm, the church,
round past the supermarket,
back to the apartment.
Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine.
Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely. We then went to bed.
We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say a little girl had been abducted.
Those were the words she used. So we got dressed and joined in the search. We were out till about four in the morning with, oooh, about I dont know, thirty people, thirty other people maybe. The Mark Warner team were out with other guests at the Ocean Club.
As I said ... "Mr and Mrs Moyes were out and about in the immediate area and at a relevant time, but no-one saw them either."
Snip REPORTER Can you take us back to that night and what you were doing and when you first heard there was a problem?
SUSAN MOYES Sure. We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town.
We walked back about nine o’clock,
round past, erm, the church,
round past the supermarket,
back to the apartment.
Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine.
Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely. We then went to bed.
We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say a little girl had been abducted.
Those were the words she used. So we got dressed and joined in the search. We were out till about four in the morning with, oooh, about I dont know, thirty people, thirty other people maybe. The Mark Warner team were out with other guests at the Ocean Club.
Jane Tanner saw Tannerman, who may or may not be a paedo.
The Smiths saw Smithman who possibly might be the same man as Tannerman. Same man or not, he may , or may not be a pa*do.
So how do you KNOW that nobody saw one that night ?
Pa*dos do not walk around with the words PA*DO blazoned across their chests, you know Angelo.
Some do... https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/sick-paedophile-celebratory-tattoo-chest-12540727 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/sick-paedophile-celebratory-tattoo-chest-12540727)
... and another could be a lanky, Jag-driving German burglar fortunate enough to knock down a three-year old wandering around in the dark, then whisk her off never to be seen again.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2020, 07:03:58 AM
There is way far less evidence against The McCanns than were is against Brueckner.
Can anyone refute this?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on October 16, 2020, 07:20:50 AM
There is way far less evidence against The McCanns than were is against Brueckner.
Can anyone refute this?
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 16, 2020, 07:32:28 AM
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
Its now full of bull that Charlie boy wot dunnit.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2020, 07:32:49 AM
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
That is funny. My Septic Tank will now forever remain a Sceptic Tank.
Meanwhile, if The Germans remain unable to prove that Brueckner dunnit I hope they have got enough obscene pornography to keep him locked up way beyond 2024. This man is effluent in itself.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2020, 07:36:07 AM
Some do... https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/sick-paedophile-celebratory-tattoo-chest-12540727 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/sick-paedophile-celebratory-tattoo-chest-12540727)
... and another could be a lanky, Jag-driving German burglar fortunate enough to knock down a three-year old wandering around in the dark, then whisk her off never to be seen again.
Changing his car registaration coiuld be because he did not want to be picked up by the police on automatic number recognition...now why would he suddenly be concerned about this the day after MM disappeared
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2020, 07:40:07 AM
Changing his car registaration coiuld be because he did not want to be picked up by the police on automatic number recognition...now why would he suddenly be concerned about this the day after MM disappeared
Perhaps he didn't know which car he would be driving on that day and only thought about on the next morning.
Very, very fishy.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 16, 2020, 11:00:36 AM
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
IMO
What if this competent german police force have gone as far as they can go - were the so-called abduction is concerned of Maddie.
Seems then it will be back to square one - right back to 5a 2007.
Unless OG comes up with another prime suspect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 16, 2020, 11:35:49 AM
we will know in the coming two months according to HCW
He said at the start it wouldn't carry on after a couple months, four months ago,not as slam dunk as he thought.I'd imagine many thought the same back in 2007,look how that turned out.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2020, 11:46:54 AM
You thought that two month ago nothing seems to be movinng though does it.
No further on than CWH speaking to sky.
I have said several times it seems to me CHW is using the maddie case for maximum publicity to solve other cases.
12 mins in .Madeleine McCann: In The Frame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_TCXe6AFYQ
Dont misrepresent what I have said...HCW made it clear he was talking about the end of the year....the rest of your post is just sceptic specualtion. Sceptics are so convinced of the McCanns guilt they cannot accept that CB even may be involved. as another poster posted...
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 16, 2020, 12:04:21 PM
Dont misrepresent what I have said...HCW made it clear he was talking about the end of the year....the rest of your post is just sceptic specualtion. Sceptics are so convinced of the McCanns guilt they cannot accept that CB even may be involved. as another poster posted...
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
Competence will only be proved once Wolters reveals how the two came together for his suspect to have done for Madeleine,previous reports had him admitting no forensics,no body,one hell of a tea leave reader.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2020, 12:07:52 PM
Competence will only be proved once Wolters reveals how the two came together for his suspect to have done for Madeleine,previous reports had him admitting no forensics,no body,one hell of a tea leave reader.
Gilroy...no body...no forensics...no proof of death...guilty
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 16, 2020, 12:20:14 PM
Dont misrepresent what I have said...HCW made it clear he was talking about the end of the year....the rest of your post is just sceptic specualtion. Sceptics are so convinced of the McCanns guilt they cannot accept that CB even may be involved. as another poster posted...
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
Ridicule as much as you like if all else fails turn to insults lol, that's what usually happens imo.
You havent a clue what HCW will come up with ...in which clue is all he has it seems.
Whereas a book was written with factual evidence gathered from the investigation way back in 2008.
Although the mccs pulled out all the stops to have it banned they failed.
Everything else since has come to nothing.
ImO either CWH is trying to buy more time with the end of the year bit ...or you are imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 16, 2020, 12:29:45 PM
The sceptic tank installed in 2007 is now overflowing with effluent and needs a good clearout and cleansing to bring it up to date with current investigations by a competent German police force.
I'm so envious I didn't think of that one, Myster, you've summed it up in one sentence.
We don't yet know what the Germans have on Brueckner but I don't think we are going to have to wait for much longer until we find out. But even without it there is already enough proven fact in the public domain to spend a lot of time thinking about what he is capable of and what he may be capable of and the danger he represents to women of all ages and to innocent children.
Yet we are being asked to make comparison between this creature and the parents of a missing child. Such a comparison really does represent a cess pit in my opinion and I think I like your description so much because it conjures up the mental image I get when I read some of the ordure put about to get the boot into people who must really be in bits at the moment.
Imagine how anyone would feel if their missing child was mentioned in the same breath as Brueckner.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 16, 2020, 12:39:46 PM
I'm so envious I didn't think of that one, Myster, you've summed it up in one sentence.
We don't yet know what the Germans have on Brueckner but I don't think we are going to have to wait for much longer until we find out. But even without it there is already enough proven fact in the public domain to spend a lot of time thinking about what he is capable of and what he may be capable of and the danger he represents to women of all ages and to innocent children.
Yet we are being asked to make comparison between this creature and the parents of a missing child. Such a comparison really does represent a cess pit in my opinion and I think I like your description so much because it conjures up the mental image I get when I read some of the ordure put about to get the boot into people who must really be in bits at the moment.
Imagine how anyone would feel if their missing child was mentioned in the same breath as Brueckner.
We don't yet know what the Germans have on Brueckner but I don't think we are going to have to wait for much longer until we find out. But even without it there is already enough proven fact in the public domain to spend a lot of time thinking about what he is capable of and what he may be capable of and the danger he represents to women of all ages and to innocent children.
Its not about what he has done or how vile he is.
Its about was he the so called abductor of Maddie........nothing else IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 16, 2020, 12:46:55 PM
We don't yet know what the Germans have on Brueckner but I don't think we are going to have to wait for much longer until we find out. But even without it there is already enough proven fact in the public domain to spend a lot of time thinking about what he is capable of and what he may be capable of and the danger he represents to women of all ages and to innocent children.
Its not about what he has done or how vile he is.
Its about was he the so called abductor of Maddie........nothing else IMO
We are discussing Brueckner in the context you chose to discuss him in - Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
So I am afraid it is about what he is capable of based on information about what he has done.
It is about how vile (your word) he is.
There is absolutely no comparison between two distraught parents who have performed superhumanly in their efforts and a "vile" person like Brueckner.
But you chose to make the comparison. I wonder what prompted you to do that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 16, 2020, 03:57:52 PM
whatever crimes he has commited has nothing to do with the so-called abduction of maddie.
Wasn't there 600 IIRC on a list more than probable equally as vile as CB.
All there seems to me in this case of CB is a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself ...a chancer.
What CB has done all though repulsive there are a lot of them around some even worse than him probably.
But seems he was the nearest one with to try and fit the crime with the phone pink...that has come to nothing in nearly five months.
I will pass on the distraught parents bit.
Vile........ has surrondeed this case from day one imo.
It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.
But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.
You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.
What is your justification for doing that? Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2020, 04:43:42 PM
I remember in the beginning when someone said that there were loads of Paedophiles wandering around Praia da Luz. I thought that this was really funny and decidedly not possible. It now seems that it could have been correct.
Who will ever know?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 16, 2020, 05:01:28 PM
It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.
But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.
You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.
What is your justification for doing that? Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?
I haven't seen any proof they didn't.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 16, 2020, 05:11:01 PM
It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.
But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.
You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.
What is your justification for doing that? Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?
Why IMO are your posts so dramatic and seeing things what are not there.
I have no interest in CB humane rights whatsoever or defending him in any way ..they are your words not mine......
I do not believe the mccs abduction senario so why would I believe CB is the abducter.
As for Justification B, the day I have to explaine myself to you is the day I will give up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 16, 2020, 05:38:30 PM
It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.
But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.
You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.
What is your justification for doing that? Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?
Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?
People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.
Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 16, 2020, 05:48:57 PM
Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?
People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.
Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.
Oh what supreeeeeeme irony your last sentence is. How about telling that to every person on here who has slated the McCanns including yourself? Nah, didn’t think that would appeal to you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2020, 05:51:49 PM
Why IMO are your posts so dramatic and seeing things what are not there.
I have no interest in CB humane rights whatsoever or defending him in any way ..they are your words not mine......
I do not believe the mccs abduction senario so why would I believe CB is the abducter.
As for Justification B, the day I have to explaine myself to you is the day I will give up.
So you are confirming you can't consider CB as a suspect because your mind is totally convinced the parents are guilty....even though there is no real evidence they are
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 16, 2020, 05:57:49 PM
Oh what supreeeeeeme irony your last sentence is. How about telling that to every person on here who has slated the McCanns including yourself? Nah, didn’t think that would appeal to you.
Is not believing the McCanns 'slating' them?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 16, 2020, 06:00:03 PM
I remember in the beginning when someone said that there were loads of Paedophiles wandering around Praia da Luz. I thought that this was really funny and decidedly not possible. It now seems that it could have been correct.
Who will ever know?
There'll be one every 100 meters or so.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 16, 2020, 07:09:26 PM
Why IMO are your posts so dramatic and seeing things what are not there.
I have no interest in CB humane rights whatsoever or defending him in any way ..they are your words not mine......
I do not believe the mccs abduction senario so why would I believe CB is the abducter.
As for Justification B, the day I have to explaine myself to you is the day I will give up.
You've actually got it quite wrong as post after post proves.
The Policia Judiciaria in their final report found no evidence against the McCanns.
The Portuguese Prosecutors have detailed in their archiving document that the 'evidence' which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was not evidence at all.
Apparently you seem to think you know better than British, Portuguese and German police who after many years of investigation now have Brueckner as their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.
Please note ... Madeleine's parents have no locus in deciding what investigative strategy the police choose to follow or who the police have evidence enough to make suspects in a crime. So don't you think it is time to give up on this absolute nonsense of "the mccs abduction senario (sic)". Which is nothing at all to do with the McCanns.
In reality it is the German police scenario - the British police scenario - the Portuguese police scenario.
Which answers the question you have posed.
There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise regarding Madeleine's parents ~ but there is sufficient evidence to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 16, 2020, 07:18:09 PM
Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?
People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.
Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.
Yes, by Mark Warner. Isn’t that exactly what the McCanns and their friends did in Praia da Luz re. your comment ‘protection measures taken at home‘? In my opinion, they trusted their checking on their children as opposed to the children being minded by someone else.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 16, 2020, 07:26:56 PM
I do recall that in societies where it was permissible to show the location of known pedophiles, it was surprising that sex offenders were so frequent, and my gut feeling was that they could be as frequent as 100 meters apart.
I can't recall the exact article, but it was most likely a YouTube video as I don't like reading newspaper articles online.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 16, 2020, 07:33:48 PM
Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?
People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.
Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.
I think it is way beyond time you took it on board that the McCanns are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance but that Brueckner is.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 16, 2020, 08:01:34 PM
well yes, because it means you think they are liars, but it’s not just that is it? They are judged by you and others to be terrible parents, remember?
I know that Kate McCann wasn't sure that leaving the patio doors of 5A open was a good idea because she asked her friends for their opinions on 3rd May. I also know that she said later;
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleines-parents-we-were-wrong-to-believe-she-was-safe-alone-6610698.html
So not only did she neglect to mention that she did think about it and discuss it, she was still, despite the evidence, denying that it was risky.
Do good parents ignore all the advice about the risks attached to leaving small children unsupervised? As doctors, had these two never faced upset parents explaining how they were only momentarily in another room but still their child managed to have an accident? Were they completely unaware that the home is one of the most dangerous places for small children?
The parents were keen on quoting US information about child abduction, but more children die there from accidents ar home;
Accidents at home claim the lives of six children in the U.S. each day (that's more than 2,200 a year) and send thousands of other children to the emergency room regularly, according to Safe Kids Worldwide. The only category of accidents that causes more fatal injuries? Motor vehicle crashes. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home/renovation/a33636/home-hazards-for-children/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2020, 08:05:04 PM
I know that Kate McCann wasn't sure that leaving the patio doors of 5A open was a good idea because she asked her friends for their opinions on 3rd May. I also know that she said later;
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleines-parents-we-were-wrong-to-believe-she-was-safe-alone-6610698.html
So not only did she neglect to mention that she did think about it and discuss it, she was still, despite the evidence, denying that it was risky.
Do good parents ignore all the advice about the risks attached to leaving small children unsupervised? As doctors, had these two never faced upset parents explaining how they were only momentarily in another room but still their child managed to have an accident? Were they completely unaware that the home is one of the most dangerous places for small children?
The parents were keen on quoting US information about child abduction, but more children die there from accidents ar home;
Accidents at home claim the lives of six children in the U.S. each day (that's more than 2,200 a year) and send thousands of other children to the emergency room regularly, according to Safe Kids Worldwide. The only category of accidents that causes more fatal injuries? Motor vehicle crashes. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home/renovation/a33636/home-hazards-for-children/
This has all been discussed ad nauseam ..it's about time you realised there is a new prime suspect
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 16, 2020, 08:18:57 PM
Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?
People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.
Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.
They most certainly did not promote Luz as a haven which harboured six hundred paedophiles.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 16, 2020, 08:30:45 PM
Yes, by Mark Warner. Isn’t that exactly what the McCanns and their friends did in Praia da Luz re. your comment ‘protection measures taken at home‘? In my opinion, they trusted their checking on their children as opposed to the children being minded by someone else.
I don't know how Mark Warner advertised their holidays. I imagine child friendly described their packages rather than specific destinations.
If you trust someone to keep your child safe all day when swimming and sailing why on earth would you hesitate to trust them in the evening when the child's safely sleeping?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 16, 2020, 08:36:10 PM
I know that Kate McCann wasn't sure that leaving the patio doors of 5A open was a good idea because she asked her friends for their opinions on 3rd May. I also know that she said later;
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleines-parents-we-were-wrong-to-believe-she-was-safe-alone-6610698.html
So not only did she neglect to mention that she did think about it and discuss it, she was still, despite the evidence, denying that it was risky.
Do good parents ignore all the advice about the risks attached to leaving small children unsupervised? As doctors, had these two never faced upset parents explaining how they were only momentarily in another room but still their child managed to have an accident? Were they completely unaware that the home is one of the most dangerous places for small children?
The parents were keen on quoting US information about child abduction, but more children die there from accidents ar home;
Accidents at home claim the lives of six children in the U.S. each day (that's more than 2,200 a year) and send thousands of other children to the emergency room regularly, according to Safe Kids Worldwide. The only category of accidents that causes more fatal injuries? Motor vehicle crashes. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home/renovation/a33636/home-hazards-for-children/
Thanks for proving my point.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2020, 08:39:31 PM
I don't know how Mark Warner advertised their holidays. I imagine child friendly described their packages rather than specific destinations.
If you trust someone to keep your child safe all day when swimming and sailing why on earth would you hesitate to trust them in the evening when the child's safely sleeping?
Because you are leaving your children alone in the care of one person... children are regularly abused by babysitters
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 16, 2020, 08:42:55 PM
I don't really much care what happens to my hypothetical children.
They've gone to live with their hypothetical mother on account of them being annoying brats & quite frankly I am glad to be rid of them.
Thanks for your non-answer. It seems to me that as DBS checks mean nothing according to you, anyone hiring a babysitter at a holiday resort would basically be risking exposing their child to a paedophile and would therefore be committing an act of gross neglect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 16, 2020, 10:27:14 PM
"uCheck is recognised by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Record Bureau) as a top Responsible Organisation for Basic Checks and a Registered Umbrella Body for Standard and Enhanced Checks.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: Anthro on October 16, 2020, 10:44:38 PM
I don't know how Mark Warner advertised their holidays. I imagine child friendly described their packages rather than specific destinations.
If you trust someone to keep your child safe all day when swimming and sailing why on earth would you hesitate to trust them in the evening when the child's safely sleeping?
The caretakers/nannies were working shifts. Whoever was on duty during the day, would not be doing night-shift. Madeleine’s parents took it upon themselves to care for their children and frequently checking on them. I would have done exactly the same, given the scenario.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 16, 2020, 10:47:22 PM
The caretakers/nannies were working shifts. Whoever was on duty during the day, would not be doing night-shift. Madeleine’s parents took it upon themselves to care for their children and frequently checking on them. I would have done exactly the same, given the scenario.
You would have left three children under 5 years of age in an unlocked apartment, checking them every 30 minutes?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2020, 11:26:55 PM
Do we have to do this again? I did it in the past and so did a lot of people.
When I was young (about 6 years old) I was out all day in the school holidays and no adult knew where I was because my Mother had to work so I had a key safety-pinned into my pocket to get into our house. That was then. Anyone doing that now would be in trouble imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2020, 11:57:17 PM
When I was young (about 6 years old) I was out all day in the school holidays and no adult knew where I was because my Mother had to work so I had a key safety-pinned into my pocket to get into our house. That was then. Anyone doing that now would be in trouble imo.
Everything changed when Madeleine was abducted from her bed. We all became afraid and a lot of children lost their freedom to roam and the sense of adventure that went with that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2020, 12:07:43 AM
Everything changed when Madeleine was abducted from her bed. We all became afraid and a lot of children lost their freedom to roam and the sense of adventure that went with that.
Perhaps people who left their children sleeping and went out on the lash may have changed their behaviour but few other parents.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: Brietta on October 17, 2020, 12:11:42 AM
Everything changed when Madeleine was abducted from her bed. We all became afraid and a lot of children lost their freedom to roam and the sense of adventure that went with that.
My children were never allowed the freedoms I was allowed and enjoyed as a child as a direct result of the moors murderers Hindley and Brady.
Going from swallows and amazons to lockdown and surveillance in one fell swoop. Madeleine's disappearance was another landmark in reinforcing the destruction of freedoms for our children.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2020, 12:44:59 AM
My children were never allowed the freedoms I was allowed and enjoyed as a child as a direct result of the moors murderers Hindley and Brady.
Going from swallows and amazons to lockdown and surveillance in one fell swoop. Madeleine's disappearance was another landmark in reinforcing the destruction of freedoms for our children.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Few parents would ever have considered their children safe if left alone at night in an adult free house...and I’m sure few do now. I’m sure though that the Moors murders and the murders of Holly, Jessica and Sarah Payne did make parents more wary when letting their children out to play during the day, not not Madeleine’s disappearance.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: G-Unit on October 17, 2020, 08:35:40 AM
Everything changed when Madeleine was abducted from her bed. We all became afraid and a lot of children lost their freedom to roam and the sense of adventure that went with that.
That happened long before 2007.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CBm
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 17, 2020, 08:44:43 AM
You've actually got it quite wrong as post after post proves.
The Policia Judiciaria in their final report found no evidence against the McCanns.
The Portuguese Prosecutors have detailed in their archiving document that the 'evidence' which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was not evidence at all.
Apparently you seem to think you know better than British, Portuguese and German police who after many years of investigation now have Brueckner as their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.
Please note ... Madeleine's parents have no locus in deciding what investigative strategy the police choose to follow or who the police have evidence enough to make suspects in a crime. So don't you think it is time to give up on this absolute nonsense of "the mccs abduction senario (sic)". Which is nothing at all to do with the McCanns.
In reality it is the German police scenario - the British police scenario - the Portuguese police scenario.
Which answers the question you have posed.
There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise regarding Madeleine's parents ~ but there is sufficient evidence to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise regarding Madeleine's parents ~ but there is sufficient evidence to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Really ...so what is it .
DO OR DIE Madeleine McCann cops need massive breakthrough in next 10 weeks or case against suspect Christian B could ‘evaporate’
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2020, 09:42:57 AM
There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise regarding Madeleine's parents ~ but there is sufficient evidence to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Really ...so what is it .
DO OR DIE Madeleine McCann cops need massive breakthrough in next 10 weeks or case against suspect Christian B could ‘evaporate’
You are quoting the Sun who are quoting a source close to the investigation in PDL....the investigation is centred in Germany. Its important to check the source of your information
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 17, 2020, 10:44:41 AM
You are quoting the Sun who are quoting a source close to the investigation in PDL....the investigation is centred in Germany. Its important to check the source of your information
Well seems IMO they are not working altogether like some seem to think.
''It is no secret that the Portuguese have a different theory of what happened to the German BKA (federal police),” he said.
IMO also you don't need a source to tell you they have nothing - you just need common sense.
They give it their best shot nearly 5 months ago....you can't find what isnt there.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2020, 10:49:49 AM
You've actually got it quite wrong as post after post proves.
The Policia Judiciaria in their final report found no evidence against the McCanns.
The Portuguese Prosecutors have detailed in their archiving document that the 'evidence' which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was not evidence at all.
Apparently you seem to think you know better than British, Portuguese and German police who after many years of investigation now have Brueckner as their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.
Please note ... Madeleine's parents have no locus in deciding what investigative strategy the police choose to follow or who the police have evidence enough to make suspects in a crime. So don't you think it is time to give up on this absolute nonsense of "the mccs abduction senario (sic)". Which is nothing at all to do with the McCanns.
In reality it is the German police scenario - the British police scenario - the Portuguese police scenario.
Which answers the question you have posed.
There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise regarding Madeleine's parents ~ but there is sufficient evidence to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Yes that's correct. When you ignore the evidence against the McCanns then there isn't any evidence against the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 17, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
I don't think he is. To me everything he has said makes perfect sense. Imo you can't accept it because it contradicts everything you have believed in the last 13 years.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 17, 2020, 11:23:13 AM
I don't think he is. To me everything he has said makes perfect sense. Imo you can't accept it because it contradicts everything you have believed in the last 13 years.
If If I believed that Maddie had been abducted from her bed ...I would not have been on here at all..... let alone 13 years.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2020, 11:26:40 AM
I think Brueckner will say nothing, produce no alibi thereby making himself look guilty and then be convicted.
Pretty much what I am thinking Elli.
In my case, however, I believe that if he was commissioned to abduct Madeleine and became involved, which admittedly does look likely, that he will be too frightened to let on who commissioned him, cos he doesn't want to be tortured. To probably lose his testicles, fingers, toes, ears etc. and further tortured, maybe to death, as has happened to others who have 'crossed' these people. I think he will prefer jail to that.
And then the case will be "solved" and the bad guys still free, their ancient benevolent appearing organisations unblemished and they will be able to carry on raking The Mega Bucks in ad infinitum. Some of the Organisations I have looked at have a history of helping underpriviledged and sick people in a very well publicized way as a cover for their black side. Their black side, meanwhile, rakes the mega lolly in from such things as gun running, human slavery including sex trafficking and blackmail, extortion etc, drug trafficking and so on …..
The world at the same time, thinks they are wonderful people. This scenario they have assisted by awarding different parts of their diverse organisations with the highest honours. They each award the others with these honours, so over the centuries they build up an impressive array of the highest level of "do gooders" and along with their wealth and power become untouchables. They operate in "Plain Sight", because the ordinary man, (us), only sees the good side and holds them in such high esteem that they are never connected to the baddies. It's the "MagicK" of the Untouchables.
As I have said, it is my opinion that Breuckner could be at the receiving end of this terrifying group.
The above are just my thoughts but based upon a great deal of information from the internet. And, I could be wrong; I know that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 17, 2020, 01:07:33 PM
In my case, however, I believe that if he was commissioned to abduct Madeleine and became involved, which admittedly does look likely, that he will be too frightened to let on who commissioned him, cos he doesn't want to be tortured. To probably lose his testicles, fingers, toes, ears etc. and further tortured, maybe to death, as has happened to others who have 'crossed' these people. I think he will prefer jail to that.
And then the case will be "solved" and the bad guys still free, their ancient benevolent appearing organisations unblemished and they will be able to carry on raking The Mega Bucks in ad infinitum. Some of the Organisations I have looked at have a history of helping underpriviledged and sick people in a very well publicized way as a cover for their black side. Their black side, meanwhile, rakes the mega lolly in from such things as gun running, human slavery including sex trafficking and blackmail, extortion etc, drug trafficking and so on …..
The world at the same time, thinks they are wonderful people. This scenario they have assisted by awarding different parts of their diverse organisations with the highest honours. They each award the others with these honours, so over the centuries they build up an impressive array of the highest level of "do gooders" and along with their wealth and power become untouchables. They operate in "Plain Sight", because the ordinary man, (us), only sees the good side and holds them in such high esteem that they are never connected to the baddies. It's the "MagicK" of the Untouchables.
As I have said, it is my opinion that Breuckner could be at the receiving end of this terrifying group.
The above are just my thoughts but based upon a great deal of information from the internet. And, I could be wrong; I know that.
Bolded bit,refreshingly honest.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2020, 01:11:52 PM
The judge can't judge until the prosecutor feels he has enough to charge his suspect. At the moment he doesn't think he has.
Thats an assumption by you......we dont know what evidence HCW now has. Again I think its ajudge who decides if a suspect is charged...not the prosecutor
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2020, 08:05:17 PM
The first phase of a German criminal prosecution is pre-trial investigation to determine if there are grounds for a formal indictment. If a prosecutor determines that there is, the case is transferred to the appropriate German court, where the presiding judge decides if the evidence warrants a trial.
So HCW cannot simply charge CB and carry on collecting evidence for the trial. He must present his evidnece to a judge who decides if a trial takes place
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 17, 2020, 08:06:51 PM
The first phase of a German criminal prosecution is pre-trial investigation to determine if there are grounds for a formal indictment. If a prosecutor determines that there is, the case is transferred to the appropriate German court, where the presiding judge decides if the evidence warrants a trial.
So HCW cannot simply charge CB and carry on collecting evidence for the trial. He must present his evidnece to a judge who decides if a trial takes place
The Inquisitorial System in Europe.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2020, 08:07:57 PM
Thats an assumption by you......we dont know what evidence HCW now has. Again I think its ajudge who decides if a suspect is charged...not the prosecutor
There will be the equivalent of the DPP in Germany and they will decide if there is enough evidence for charges to be laid.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 17, 2020, 08:11:14 PM
That would be up to the Judge I think you will find......enough circumstantial to support it and he may well be able to.
The circumstantional it seem is just the phone ping.
“Detectives know the case is hanging by a thread and that the next 10 weeks between now and the end of the year are absolutely vital if they are going to be able to solve the case and find answers.
CW tells the world maddie is dead and he has the proof CB killed her, would you not call that evidence to charge CB
With the clock ticking in the case there have been reports suggesting a fellow an inmate in Kiel Prison may have been recruited by detectives to get the jailed sex-offender to talk.
That prompted Christian B to insist he won’t all for “dirty tricks” he believes German cops have been using to try and get him to confess to taking Madeleine.
Seems the link what barrier provided shows they are not abouve board, to get what they want.IMO
The circumstantional it seem is just the phone ping.
“Detectives know the case is hanging by a thread and that the next 10 weeks between now and the end of the year are absolutely vital if they are going to be able to solve the case and find answers.
CW tells the world maddie is dead and he has the proof CB killed her, would you not call that evidence to charge CB
With the clock ticking in the case there have been reports suggesting a fellow an inmate in Kiel Prison may have been recruited by detectives to get the jailed sex-offender to talk.
That prompted Christian B to insist he won’t all for “dirty tricks” he believes German cops have been using to try and get him to confess to taking Madeleine.
Seems the link what barrier provided shows they are not abouve board, to get what they want.IMO
Sceptics may just keep on hoping to their hearts' content but I don't think things are ever going to be quite the same for them in the future.
Whatever happens regarding Brueckner I am sure his mere existence is a game changer. Making the unfounded and unsubstantiated nonsense which has been spouted about innocents for the past thirteen+ years even more untenable than it always was.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2020, 12:45:57 PM
The circumstantional it seem is just the phone ping.
“Detectives know the case is hanging by a thread and that the next 10 weeks between now and the end of the year are absolutely vital if they are going to be able to solve the case and find answers.
CW tells the world maddie is dead and he has the proof CB killed her, would you not call that evidence to charge CB
With the clock ticking in the case there have been reports suggesting a fellow an inmate in Kiel Prison may have been recruited by detectives to get the jailed sex-offender to talk.
That prompted Christian B to insist he won’t all for “dirty tricks” he believes German cops have been using to try and get him to confess to taking Madeleine.
Seems the link what barrier provided shows they are not abouve board, to get what they want.IMO
The Germans may have images of an abducted Maddie...
If,buts and maybe's, you're better than that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 18, 2020, 02:14:41 PM
Early June.
Mr Wolters told Sky News: “At the moment we also don’t have enough proof for a trial at court, but we have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed.
“That’s why we need more information from people, especially places he has lived so we can target these places especially and search there for Madeleine.”
Which he clearly struggles with when: A day or two days ago.
DO OR DIE Madeleine McCann cops need massive breakthrough in next 10 weeks or case against suspect Christian B could ‘evaporate’
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 18, 2020, 02:22:56 PM
Mr Wolters told Sky News: “At the moment we also don’t have enough proof for a trial at court, but we have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed.
“That’s why we need more information from people, especially places he has lived so we can target these places especially and search there for Madeleine.”
Which he clearly struggles with when: A day or two days ago.
DO OR DIE Madeleine McCann cops need massive breakthrough in next 10 weeks or case against suspect Christian B could ‘evaporate’
did that news come from HCW? If not who said it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2020, 02:46:15 PM
Mr Wolters told Sky News: “At the moment we also don’t have enough proof for a trial at court, but we have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed.
“That’s why we need more information from people, especially places he has lived so we can target these places especially and search there for Madeleine.”
Which he clearly struggles with when: A day or two days ago.
DO OR DIE Madeleine McCann cops need massive breakthrough in next 10 weeks or case against suspect Christian B could ‘evaporate’
[/b]
I think thats complete tripe...did you read what the source was...a source close to the investigation in PDL...utter tripe
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2020, 02:48:45 PM
Just because you think it is tripe doesn't mean it is.
You rubbish everything that goes against abduction anyway.
You should start thinking maybe you have been taken in by what CW has tried to convince the public with.
Afterall as I have said before that is what prosecutors are trained to do ..convince public/jury or whoever the audience is.
An article in the Sun.....with a source that calims to be close to the investigation in PDL...and you cant see taht is tripe. FF himself has said from his FB page that ther eare no UK lawyers....just more tripe from the rags.
Im not easily fooled......see HCW as areliable source of information
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 18, 2020, 05:54:49 PM
They would have to be ones of the poor child dead as Wolter has said that Madeleine was killed. If he has images like that connected to Brueckner then it’s a slam dunk so why isn’t he charging him ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2020, 05:58:16 PM
They would have to be ones of the poor child dead as Wolter has said that Madeleine was killed. If he has images like that connected to Brueckner then it’s a slam dunk so why isn’t he charging him ?
I think.....because he ha sthe images found at CBs property .....but no definite link to XCB in the images. So proof of abduction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 18, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
They would have to be ones of the poor child dead as Wolter has said that Madeleine was killed. If he has images like that connected to Brueckner then it’s a slam dunk so why isn’t he charging him ?
What could be a sleeping child could be hard to define as dead, in a photograph some short hours after.
I seriously don't want to think about this. And I very much doubt that The Public at large will ever be shown any photos.
Either a Judge or a Jury would have to decide.
This is just an observation and not an opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 18, 2020, 06:20:23 PM
What could be a sleeping child could be hard to define as dead, in a photograph some short hours after.
I seriously don't want to think about this. And I very much doubt that The Public at large will ever be shown any photos.
Either a Judge or a Jury would have to decide.
This is just an observation and not an opinion.
I can’t disagree with any of that but it would be that Brueckner had a photograph of Madeleine that would be important and if that is the evidence Wolter had Brueckner would have been questioned, and possibly charged, by now....and anyone who thinks that’s not the way things would have unfolded has no understanding of the judicial process.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 18, 2020, 06:34:20 PM
I can’t disagree with any of that but it would be that Brueckner had a photograph of Madeleine that would be important and if that is the evidence Wolter had Brueckner would have been questioned, and possibly charged, by now....and anyone who thinks that’s not the way things would have unfolded has no understanding of the judicial process.
There could be two charges here. Abduction and then Murder. Wolters might be able to prove Abduction but not Murder, at this point.
I don't know. But it is you who has no real understanding of The Judicial Process. Why would Wolters just go for Abduction if he thinks he can get Brueckner on both.
Brueckner is now locked up until 2024 so what would be the hurry?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 18, 2020, 06:44:26 PM
There could be two charges here. Abduction and then Murder. Wolters might be able to prove Abduction but not Murder, at this point.
I don't know. But it is you who has no real understanding of The Judicial Process. Why would Wolters just go for Abduction if he thinks he can get Brueckner on both.
Brueckner is now locked up until 2024 so what would be the hurry?
Why the appeal for information now then ?
So you don’t think Wolter has enough evidence to say Madeleine was murdered by Brueckner ? Why do you think he’s saying he has then ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 18, 2020, 06:46:31 PM
Say the evidence was 1) a picture of Madeleine being abused by an unidentifiable person found in CB’s stash 2) dark web internet chat from CB to another bragging about abducting and abusing and murdering an unnamed child
would members here consider that that was enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that CB did the crime?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2020, 07:04:51 PM
Say the evidence was 1) a picture of Madeleine being abused by an unidentifiable person found in CB’s stash 2) dark web internet chat from CB to another bragging about abducting and abusing and murdering an unnamed child
would members here consider that that was enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that CB did the crime?
Probably not...it would prove an abduction and show sceptics have been wrong for all these years...but needs a bit more to prove the link
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 18, 2020, 07:07:52 PM
Say the evidence was 1) a picture of Madeleine being abused by an unidentifiable person found in CB’s stash 2) dark web internet chat from CB to another bragging about abducting and abusing and murdering an unnamed child
would members here consider that that was enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that CB did the crime?
No.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 18, 2020, 07:19:14 PM
I thought the very nature of the Dark Web was that it ensured anonymity
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 18, 2020, 07:24:04 PM
Probably not...it would prove an abduction and show sceptics have been wrong for all these years...but needs a bit more to prove the link
Exactly. It would be compelling evidence but would not be enough to secure a conviction. It would be interesting to read the “just because” arguments put forward by his defenders to explain how “just because he has a picture of Madeleine being abused” and “just because he bragged about abducting and killing a child” and just because he was in PdL the night Madeleine went missing” doesn’t mean he committed the crime.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 18, 2020, 07:24:25 PM
So you don’t think Wolter has enough evidence to say Madeleine was murdered by Brueckner ? Why do you think he’s saying he has then ?
You are not listening to me. I Don't Know. I am just offering suggestions, since you asked.
My mind goes blank on this one, so if you believe in Psycho whatever then something could be telling me that he didn't do it.
I don't understand why I am unable to have any thoughts on this. You know me by now. I don't have a problem with opinions. But the minute I try to think about this I get nothing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 18, 2020, 07:25:53 PM
You are not listening to me. I Don't Know. I am just offering suggestions, since you asked.
My mind goes blank on this one, so if you believe in Psycho whatever then something could be telling me that he didn't do it.
I don't understand why I am unable to have any thoughts on this. You know me by now. I don't have a problem with opinions. But the minute I try to think about this I get nothing.
Thank you for your honesty.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 18, 2020, 08:02:02 PM
Did you expect anything else? I have seen some of your recent comments about me. But you are on a hiding to nothing. Been there and done all of this many moons ago. It makes no impression on me these days.
I actually like you. You can please yourself about me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2020, 08:20:33 PM
On 1 September 1998, 13 police forces raided alleged members of an international child pornography ring known as the Wonderland Club. The operation was code-named Operation Cathedral and resulted in the confiscation of 750,000 images and videos depicting 1,263 different children. Mendonça was among the few children (16 only) that could be identified.[3] However, his whereabouts remain unknown and police suspect that he was murdered by his abductors after being abused on camera for other members of the paedophile ring.[12][13]
This is from wiki re Rui Pedro...abducted in Portugal. I dont particularly like posting it...but there are just too many similarities.. So proof of abduction...no absolute proof of death but death most likely...just what HCW is saying
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 18, 2020, 08:25:29 PM
On 1 September 1998, 13 police forces raided alleged members of an international child pornography ring known as the Wonderland Club. The operation was code-named Operation Cathedral and resulted in the confiscation of 750,000 images and videos depicting 1,263 different children. Mendonça was among the few children (16 only) that could be identified.[3] However, his whereabouts remain unknown and police suspect that he was murdered by his abductors after being abused on camera for other members of the paedophile ring.[12][13]
This is from wiki re Rui Pedro...abducted in Portugal. I dont particularly like posting it...but there are just too many similarities.. So proof of abduction...no absolute proof of death but death most likely...just what HCW is saying
So it is probably much worse than we thought.
No wonder Brueckner has nothing to say.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 18, 2020, 08:32:14 PM
Oh My God. Sadie could be right.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 18, 2020, 09:29:04 PM
Did you expect anything else? I have seen some of your recent comments about me. But you are on a hiding to nothing. Been there and done all of this many moons ago. It makes no impression on me these days.
I actually like you. You can please yourself about me.
No I didn’t expect anything else but credit where it’s due.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 19, 2020, 06:06:19 AM
Yep ways and means,all sports are live streamed,by someone, which is unabled to be stopped,all the latest films, tv series across all platforms are out there.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 19, 2020, 07:12:07 AM
Yep ways and means,all sports are live streamed,by someone, which is unabled to be stopped,all the latest films, tv series across all platforms are out there.
There are ways and means of tracking down and identifying users of the dark web, proxy or no proxy, do you dispute this?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 19, 2020, 11:29:52 AM
Silly really ...when you don't even know what it is Wolters has.
Indeed and it is also a fact that most men caught during police investigations into paedophile rings are caught because they have have been stupid enough to use their bank details.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 19, 2020, 12:12:07 PM
Indeed and it is also a fact that most men caught during police investigations into paedophile rings are caught because they have have been stupid enough to use their bank details.
In the case of lowlife Myles Bradbury it was the Canadian police who discovered his name and address in a list of customers belonging to someone selling child porn. He used his position as a doctor to overule Hospital requirements for chaperones so he could abuse sick children he was supposed to be helping. At times there was just a curtain between him and their parents.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 19, 2020, 12:39:08 PM
In the case of lowlife Myles Bradbury it was the Canadian police who discovered his name and address in a list of customers belonging to someone selling child porn. He used his position as a doctor to overule Hospital requirements for chaperones so he could abuse sick children he was supposed to be helping. At times there was just a curtain between him and their parents.
Appalling.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 19, 2020, 01:53:49 PM
In the case of lowlife Myles Bradbury it was the Canadian police who discovered his name and address in a list of customers belonging to someone selling child porn. He used his position as a doctor to overule Hospital requirements for chaperones so he could abuse sick children he was supposed to be helping. At times there was just a curtain between him and their parents.
interesting choice of cases to highlight, I wonder why you picked that one, out of the many, many examples of paedos brought to justice. Now let me think....it couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that he was a doctor, could it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 19, 2020, 03:33:19 PM
Absolutely but what is his relevance to either the McCanns or Brueckner?
If you read back you will see that it was part of a discussion about tracing people who use the dark web, so relevant to Brueckner being traced. Although in my opinion a lot of what has been said about him can be traced to his former 'friends', particularly Michael Tatschl. https://nationalcybersecuritynews.today/i-know-he-did-it-christian-brueckners-friend-says-the-german-is-guilty-of-taking-madeline-mccann-deepweb-darkweb-hacker/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 19, 2020, 05:10:13 PM
If you read back you will see that it was part of a discussion about tracing people who use the dark web, so relevant to Brueckner being traced. Although in my opinion a lot of what has been said about him can be traced to his former 'friends', particularly Michael Tatschl. https://nationalcybersecuritynews.today/i-know-he-did-it-christian-brueckners-friend-says-the-german-is-guilty-of-taking-madeline-mccann-deepweb-darkweb-hacker/
We do know that Brueckner has been active on the dark web in connection with his activities along with other perverts, many of whom have been tracked down. And in my opinion that is relevant.
Dark web child abuse: Hundreds arrested across 38 countries Published16 October 2019 More than 300 people have been arrested following the take-down of one of the world's "largest dark web child porn marketplaces", investigators said.
The site had more than 200,000 videos which had collectively been downloaded more than a million times.
It was shut down last year after a UK investigation into a child sex offender uncovered its existence.
But on Wednesday, officials revealed that 337 suspected users had been arrested across 38 countries. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-50073092
I am intrigued that it was found necessary to highlight any of these perverts in general but that you specifically chose to highlight the case of the perpetrator you did.
I thought it might have been a subliminal nod at comparing doctors and the paedophile. It couldn't possibly be that though, could it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 19, 2020, 05:14:57 PM
We do know that Brueckner has been active on the dark web in connection with his activities along with other perverts, many of whom have been tracked down. And in my opinion that is relevant.
Dark web child abuse: Hundreds arrested across 38 countries Published16 October 2019 More than 300 people have been arrested following the take-down of one of the world's "largest dark web child porn marketplaces", investigators said.
The site had more than 200,000 videos which had collectively been downloaded more than a million times.
It was shut down last year after a UK investigation into a child sex offender uncovered its existence.
But on Wednesday, officials revealed that 337 suspected users had been arrested across 38 countries. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-50073092
I am intrigued that it was found necessary to highlight any of these perverts in general but that you specifically chose to highlight the case of the perpetrator you did.
I thought it might have been a subliminal nod at comparing doctors and the paedophile. It couldn't possibly be that though, could it?
His criminal friend said Brueckner used the dark web. There is no other evidence that he did....so no, we don’t know that Brueckner was active on the dark web.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 19, 2020, 05:25:30 PM
We do know that Brueckner has been active on the dark web in connection with his activities along with other perverts, many of whom have been tracked down. And in my opinion that is relevant.
Dark web child abuse: Hundreds arrested across 38 countries Published16 October 2019 More than 300 people have been arrested following the take-down of one of the world's "largest dark web child porn marketplaces", investigators said.
The site had more than 200,000 videos which had collectively been downloaded more than a million times.
It was shut down last year after a UK investigation into a child sex offender uncovered its existence.
But on Wednesday, officials revealed that 337 suspected users had been arrested across 38 countries. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-50073092
I am intrigued that it was found necessary to highlight any of these perverts in general but that you specifically chose to highlight the case of the perpetrator you did.
I thought it might have been a subliminal nod at comparing doctors and the paedophile. It couldn't possibly be that though, could it?
of course it was.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on October 19, 2020, 07:15:23 PM
His criminal friend said Brueckner used the dark web. There is no other evidence that he did....so no, we don’t know that Brueckner was active on the dark web.
Bury your head in the sand but according to police records (the BKA apparently) he did!... https://youtu.be/IXsXXxRek2Q?t=131 (https://youtu.be/IXsXXxRek2Q?t=131)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 19, 2020, 11:00:21 PM
Bury your head in the sand but according to police records (the BKA apparently) he did!... https://youtu.be/IXsXXxRek2Q?t=131 (https://youtu.be/IXsXXxRek2Q?t=131)
Didn’t you hear the words ‘alleged chat room ‘ ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 19, 2020, 11:24:14 PM
Of course if a witness had described Gerry’s penchant for the dark web, well then we’d never have heard the end of it but because it’s dear old CB we must of course give him the benefit of the doubt and assume anyone speaking out about him is lying for financial gain.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 21, 2020, 11:03:38 AM
Of course if a witness had described Gerry’s penchant for the dark web, well then we’d never have heard the end of it but because it’s dear old CB we must of course give him the benefit of the doubt and assume anyone speaking out about him is lying for financial gain.
Although the lie detector test is a bit controversial on here I could never understand why they didn't take one.
The way they hounded GA as harming the search bla bla.
Wouldnt taking the test have been so much simpler.
They wanted to do everything they could to find her...yet didn't do that.
The one thing IMO that would have cleared them of any involvement as to what happened to Maddie.
y Martin Fricker 21/09/2007
Kate and Gerry McCann are willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.
The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.
A source said: "They're happy to do anything that will clear them.
"If they were asked to take a lie test by police, they'd agree.
"They've said all along they want to co-operate." Kate and Gerry, both 39, were named suspects two weeks ago. Police believe they may have accidentally overdosed Madeleine and hidden her body.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 21, 2020, 12:36:00 PM
Although the lie detector test is a bit controversial on here I could never understand why they didn't take one.
The way they hounded GA as harming the search bla bla.
Wouldnt taking the test have been so much simpler.
They wanted to do everything they could to find her...yet didn't do that.
The one thing IMO that would have cleared them of any involvement as to what happened to Maddie.
y Martin Fricker 21/09/2007
Kate and Gerry McCann are willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.
The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.
A source said: "They're happy to do anything that will clear them.
"If they were asked to take a lie test by police, they'd agree.
"They've said all along they want to co-operate." Kate and Gerry, both 39, were named suspects two weeks ago. Police believe they may have accidentally overdosed Madeleine and hidden her body.
What has this got to do with my post?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 02:03:13 PM
Although the lie detector test is a bit controversial on here I could never understand why they didn't take one.
The way they hounded GA as harming the search bla bla.
Wouldnt taking the test have been so much simpler.
They wanted to do everything they could to find her...yet didn't do that.
The one thing IMO that would have cleared them of any involvement as to what happened to Maddie.
y Martin Fricker 21/09/2007
Kate and Gerry McCann are willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.
The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.
A source said: "They're happy to do anything that will clear them.
"If they were asked to take a lie test by police, they'd agree.
"They've said all along they want to co-operate." Kate and Gerry, both 39, were named suspects two weeks ago. Police believe they may have accidentally overdosed Madeleine and hidden her body.
Do you not understand that lie detector tests are unreliable so your claim it would have cleared them is false. I can perfectly understand why they wouldn't take one but in your mind it's evidence of complicity...it isnt
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 21, 2020, 02:15:13 PM
Do you not understand that lie detector tests are unreliable so your claim it would have cleared them is false. I can perfectly understand why they wouldn't take one but in your mind it's evidence of complicity...it isnt
Just an excuse IMO for the mccs not doing one.
If they were telling the truth why would you think it wouldn't clear them.
Surely it would have been an easier thing to do than spend years and years of going after GA to have his book banned.
I
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 21, 2020, 02:15:52 PM
If they were telling the truth why would you think it wouldn't clear them.
Surely it would have been an easier thing to do than spend years and years of going after GA to have his book banned.
I
They are unreliable so a pass would not clear them...you are just plain wrong. Why do you think we have courts and trials...why not simply use lie detectors...it's a stupid idea
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 21, 2020, 02:57:44 PM
They are unreliable so a pass would not clear them...you are just plain wrong. Why do you think we have courts and trials...why not simply use lie detectors...it's a stupid idea
it's a stupid idea
Well, it would be to you ...not everyone thinks the same.
Camilla Tominey Sunday November 18,2007
KATE McCann has done a U-turn over plans to take a lie detector test about daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
She and husband Gerry offered to undergo a polygraph examination in September to clear their names. They hoped it would help to clear up any doubts about their involvement.
Sources close to the couple made it known they were willing to be questioned after Kate was officially declared an "arguido" or official suspect in the case in Portugal.
But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 03:01:07 PM
Well, it would be to you ...not everyone thinks the same.
Camilla Tominey Sunday November 18,2007
KATE McCann has done a U-turn over plans to take a lie detector test about daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
She and husband Gerry offered to undergo a polygraph examination in September to clear their names. They hoped it would help to clear up any doubts about their involvement.
Sources close to the couple made it known they were willing to be questioned after Kate was officially declared an "arguido" or official suspect in the case in Portugal.
But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.
Everything I've said is 100% fact...then you produce a tabloid article
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 21, 2020, 03:10:31 PM
Well, it would be to you ...not everyone thinks the same.
Camilla Tominey Sunday November 18,2007
KATE McCann has done a U-turn over plans to take a lie detector test about daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
She and husband Gerry offered to undergo a polygraph examination in September to clear their names. They hoped it would help to clear up any doubts about their involvement.
Sources close to the couple made it known they were willing to be questioned after Kate was officially declared an "arguido" or official suspect in the case in Portugal.
But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.
I don't know if you watch True Crime it's an American programme with real cases. They use the polygraph test, one man they were sure was the person they wanted failed the test, they thought they had their man, it wasn't him though as it turned out. They are not reliable.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 03:57:44 PM
In an interview, both Kate and Gerry agree to take a test.
do you have a link....or is it a newspaper report.
CBs lawyer has aid there are no UK lawyers involved....a direct stateemnt from his FB account. Yet UK papers claim there were...shows how much you can trust newspapers
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 05:54:45 PM
do you have a link....or is it a newspaper report.
CBs lawyer has aid there are no UK lawyers involved....a direct stateemnt from his FB account. Yet UK papers claim there were...shows how much you can trust newspapers
Do you have a cite for Brueckner’s lawyer’s statement?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 05:56:04 PM
That has nothing to do with me but don’t worry I’m not disappointed I knew you didn’t have one.
You continually get things wrong...I do have s cite and will produce it when I'm ready. His FB page is at least 4 years old so I think that suggests it's genuine. He also says he never spoke to the press about phone calls
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 06:38:58 PM
You continually get things wrong...I do have s cite and will produce it when I'm ready. His FB page is at least 4 years old so I think that suggests it's genuine. He also says he never spoke to the press about phone calls
Whatever Davel. I’ll spare you your blushes by insisting.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 06:47:44 PM
Whatever Davel. I’ll spare you your blushes by insisting.
I will cause yours when I get round to posting it
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2020, 07:12:33 PM
It seems sceptics view Madeleine's disappearance as tawdry reality television opportunities for them. Only to be expected I suppose particularly as they seem to be in denial that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
Unless any member here can indicate any ???? and the opinion of those who know is that there is sufficient to be going on with Brueckner to make him the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Lie detectors at war (but who's telling the truth?) It's not just Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard who are rivals: the polygraph experts on the two shows are engaged in a bitter defamation battle. Jerome Taylor reports • Wednesday 3 December 2008 01:00
It is the kind of argument that could probably have been settled by the tools of their trade, but bosses at two of Britain's major polygraph companies are choosing to deal with their differences in the High Court rather than opting for lie detectors.
On one side is Bruce Burgess, a 64-year-old polygraph expert whose company is used to identify love rats and maintenance shirkers for ITV's The Jeremy Kyle Show. On the other side is Don Cargill, who conducts polygraphs for The Trisha Goddard Show, Five's rival show to Kyle's.
According to a writ filed in the High Court, Mr Burgess is suing his opposite number over a letter Mr Cargill allegedly wrote to the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom in which he reportedly said Mr Burgess had been sacked for incompetence from a government pilot to test sex offenders. Mr Burgess claims he was never even hired for the government programme and has alleged that Mr Cargill was trying to discredit him because he obtained different results on a lie detector test they both conducted on the same person. Mr Burgess has now filed a defamation case for £50,000 against Mr Cargill in the High Court.
The spat between Mr Burgess's Distress Services and Mr Cargill's company, Nadac Group, began last year following an episode of The Trisha Goddard Show in which a woman was accused by her family of stealing a £38,000 Rolex watch.
Betty Hipson, a 57-year-old grandmother from Leatherhead, contacted the producers at Trisha Goddard because her family had accused her of stealing the watch. She wanted to take a lie detector test to prove her innocence. The polygraph test was conducted by Mr Cargill's company and found Mrs Hipson was lying.
Undeterred, Mrs Hipson went to Mr Burgess's company for a second test, which, unlike the previous polygraph, found her innocent of stealing the watch.
Mrs Hipson then complained to Ofcom about the Trisha show and it was during correspondence between the show's producers and the Nadac Group that, according to the writ, Mr Cargill accused his rival of being fired from a government-backed programme.
The pilot programme is run by Don Grubin, a professor of forensic psychology at Newcastle University, who is testing sex offenders across the country for the Home Office to see whether polygraphs can be used to determine whether offenders seeking parole still pose a threat to the public. According to a statement filed with the writ Professor Grubin stated that he has never hired or met Mr Burgess in any professional capacity. Speaking to The Independent yesterday Mr Burgess said he felt compelled to clear his name in court. "In the industry I'm in, the truth is everything," he said. "I've never worked for this government programme and despite asking for an apology I have yet to receive one." Mr Cargill, who also runs the British and European Polygraph Association (Bepa), said he had been instructed by his lawyers not to talk to the media.
The High Court has yet to set a date for the hearing but if it comes to court it will shed fascinating light into the polygraph industry within Britain.
Buoyed by the success of chat shows such as those hosted by Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard, both of which routinely ask guests to undergo lie detector tests, the number of companies specialising in polygraph tests is growing year on year.
Before the early 2000s there were barely three polygraph companies operating in Britain. Bepa currently has 10 UK-based polygraphers on its books and a further 49 listed abroad, although polygraphers are under no obligation to sign up to umbrella or trade bodies.
Jeremy Barrett, the managing director of Polygraph Security Services, one of the oldest companies in Britain to offer lie detector services, said more and more companies are opening up in Britain. "I qualified in polygraphy in 1982 and for 20-odd years we were the only people operating a lie detecting company," he said. "In recent years the number of companies offering similar services has increased dramatically." Polygraph tests cannot be used as evidence in British criminal courts but they can be used in civil or tribunal cases. They are usually used by defence teams hoping to prove that clients are not lying rather than catching out those who do lie and are usually only taken voluntarily. In the United States it is not uncommon for prospective employees to be asked to take polygraphs during job interviews.
In recent years the Home Office has increasingly toyed with the idea of rolling out nationwide polygraph tests for sex offenders after studies found up to 85 per cent of them were re-offending or breaching parole. Critics say the tests are not as accurate or empirical as their supporters suggest and point to numerous scientific studies that have questioned how accurate polygraphs are.
But polygraphers like Mr Barrett defend the use of lie detectors as long as the right questions are asked. "The thing with lie detector tests is that there has to be an element of gain for them to work, you have to have an important reason to lie," he said. "If I asked you whether your father's name was Henry, for instance, and you said yes, it probably wouldn't register as a lie. You would then be able to say you'd beaten a lie detector test. But say you needed your father to be called Henry because you wanted to con him out of £2.3m in inheritance, then suddenly there's something to lose and we can tell if you are lying."
No sweat: How to cheat a lie detector test
Modern polygraphers use a variety of analogue and digital machinery to measure several physiological responses that often happen when we lie. Polygraph machines measure blood pressure increases, pulse, respiration rates, iris contraction and skin conductivity as subjects are asked a series of probing questions. During a test, polygraphers ask their subjects questions that fit into three categories and then compare the responses. The first are a set of "control questions" such as "Have you ever stolen anything?" or "Have you ever lied to your spouse?" These are questions which almost everyone should answer yes to but which may be uncomfortable. Then there are the "irrelevant questions," such as "Have you had pizza today?". They have no relevance to the interrogation but they can help distract the subject from the "relevant" questions. These are specific questions such as "Did you leak that memo to the media" that should reveal whether you are telling the truth or not.
The problem is that polygraphs only really work with those who become stressed when they lie – pathological liars can breeze through a test.
Although proponents usually say polygraphs are 90 per cent accurate, a number of scientific studies conducted in the US suggest their accuracy could be as low as 65 per cent. It is also possible to train people to pass polygraph tests, although this has to be very carefully done as abnormal physiological responses would lead a polygrapher to the conclusion that you were lying anyway. Some people resort to placing deodorant on their fingertips to stop sweating, others are able to control their heartbeat and blood pressure. Online advice for American jobseekers who might be polygraphed by prospective employers also recommend pain techniques such as biting one's tongue during answering in order to fool the machine. Another technique often used is to contract the sphincter muscle when answering questions in order to briefly raise one's blood pressure.
It seems sceptics view Madeleine's disappearance as tawdry reality television opportunities for them. Only to be expected I suppose particularly as they seem to be in denial that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
Unless any member here can indicate any ???? and the opinion of those who know is that there is sufficient to be going on with Brueckner to make him the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Lie detectors at war (but who's telling the truth?) It's not just Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard who are rivals: the polygraph experts on the two shows are engaged in a bitter defamation battle. Jerome Taylor reports • Wednesday 3 December 2008 01:00
It is the kind of argument that could probably have been settled by the tools of their trade, but bosses at two of Britain's major polygraph companies are choosing to deal with their differences in the High Court rather than opting for lie detectors.
On one side is Bruce Burgess, a 64-year-old polygraph expert whose company is used to identify love rats and maintenance shirkers for ITV's The Jeremy Kyle Show. On the other side is Don Cargill, who conducts polygraphs for The Trisha Goddard Show, Five's rival show to Kyle's.
According to a writ filed in the High Court, Mr Burgess is suing his opposite number over a letter Mr Cargill allegedly wrote to the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom in which he reportedly said Mr Burgess had been sacked for incompetence from a government pilot to test sex offenders. Mr Burgess claims he was never even hired for the government programme and has alleged that Mr Cargill was trying to discredit him because he obtained different results on a lie detector test they both conducted on the same person. Mr Burgess has now filed a defamation case for £50,000 against Mr Cargill in the High Court.
The spat between Mr Burgess's Distress Services and Mr Cargill's company, Nadac Group, began last year following an episode of The Trisha Goddard Show in which a woman was accused by her family of stealing a £38,000 Rolex watch.
Betty Hipson, a 57-year-old grandmother from Leatherhead, contacted the producers at Trisha Goddard because her family had accused her of stealing the watch. She wanted to take a lie detector test to prove her innocence. The polygraph test was conducted by Mr Cargill's company and found Mrs Hipson was lying.
Undeterred, Mrs Hipson went to Mr Burgess's company for a second test, which, unlike the previous polygraph, found her innocent of stealing the watch.
Mrs Hipson then complained to Ofcom about the Trisha show and it was during correspondence between the show's producers and the Nadac Group that, according to the writ, Mr Cargill accused his rival of being fired from a government-backed programme.
The pilot programme is run by Don Grubin, a professor of forensic psychology at Newcastle University, who is testing sex offenders across the country for the Home Office to see whether polygraphs can be used to determine whether offenders seeking parole still pose a threat to the public. According to a statement filed with the writ Professor Grubin stated that he has never hired or met Mr Burgess in any professional capacity. Speaking to The Independent yesterday Mr Burgess said he felt compelled to clear his name in court. "In the industry I'm in, the truth is everything," he said. "I've never worked for this government programme and despite asking for an apology I have yet to receive one." Mr Cargill, who also runs the British and European Polygraph Association (Bepa), said he had been instructed by his lawyers not to talk to the media.
The High Court has yet to set a date for the hearing but if it comes to court it will shed fascinating light into the polygraph industry within Britain.
Buoyed by the success of chat shows such as those hosted by Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard, both of which routinely ask guests to undergo lie detector tests, the number of companies specialising in polygraph tests is growing year on year.
Before the early 2000s there were barely three polygraph companies operating in Britain. Bepa currently has 10 UK-based polygraphers on its books and a further 49 listed abroad, although polygraphers are under no obligation to sign up to umbrella or trade bodies.
Jeremy Barrett, the managing director of Polygraph Security Services, one of the oldest companies in Britain to offer lie detector services, said more and more companies are opening up in Britain. "I qualified in polygraphy in 1982 and for 20-odd years we were the only people operating a lie detecting company," he said. "In recent years the number of companies offering similar services has increased dramatically." Polygraph tests cannot be used as evidence in British criminal courts but they can be used in civil or tribunal cases. They are usually used by defence teams hoping to prove that clients are not lying rather than catching out those who do lie and are usually only taken voluntarily. In the United States it is not uncommon for prospective employees to be asked to take polygraphs during job interviews.
In recent years the Home Office has increasingly toyed with the idea of rolling out nationwide polygraph tests for sex offenders after studies found up to 85 per cent of them were re-offending or breaching parole. Critics say the tests are not as accurate or empirical as their supporters suggest and point to numerous scientific studies that have questioned how accurate polygraphs are.
But polygraphers like Mr Barrett defend the use of lie detectors as long as the right questions are asked. "The thing with lie detector tests is that there has to be an element of gain for them to work, you have to have an important reason to lie," he said. "If I asked you whether your father's name was Henry, for instance, and you said yes, it probably wouldn't register as a lie. You would then be able to say you'd beaten a lie detector test. But say you needed your father to be called Henry because you wanted to con him out of £2.3m in inheritance, then suddenly there's something to lose and we can tell if you are lying."
No sweat: How to cheat a lie detector test
Modern polygraphers use a variety of analogue and digital machinery to measure several physiological responses that often happen when we lie. Polygraph machines measure blood pressure increases, pulse, respiration rates, iris contraction and skin conductivity as subjects are asked a series of probing questions. During a test, polygraphers ask their subjects questions that fit into three categories and then compare the responses. The first are a set of "control questions" such as "Have you ever stolen anything?" or "Have you ever lied to your spouse?" These are questions which almost everyone should answer yes to but which may be uncomfortable. Then there are the "irrelevant questions," such as "Have you had pizza today?". They have no relevance to the interrogation but they can help distract the subject from the "relevant" questions. These are specific questions such as "Did you leak that memo to the media" that should reveal whether you are telling the truth or not.
The problem is that polygraphs only really work with those who become stressed when they lie – pathological liars can breeze through a test.
Although proponents usually say polygraphs are 90 per cent accurate, a number of scientific studies conducted in the US suggest their accuracy could be as low as 65 per cent. It is also possible to train people to pass polygraph tests, although this has to be very carefully done as abnormal physiological responses would lead a polygrapher to the conclusion that you were lying anyway. Some people resort to placing deodorant on their fingertips to stop sweating, others are able to control their heartbeat and blood pressure. Online advice for American jobseekers who might be polygraphed by prospective employers also recommend pain techniques such as biting one's tongue during answering in order to fool the machine. Another technique often used is to contract the sphincter muscle when answering questions in order to briefly raise one's blood pressure.
if the mcCanns took a polygraph and passed ...sceptics would say they are not accurate and are proof of nothing...and would be absolutely correct. It would not prove the mccanns innocent...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 08:15:01 PM
It seems sceptics view Madeleine's disappearance as tawdry reality television opportunities for them. Only to be expected I suppose particularly as they seem to be in denial that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
Unless any member here can indicate any ???? and the opinion of those who know is that there is sufficient to be going on with Brueckner to make him the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Lie detectors at war (but who's telling the truth?) It's not just Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard who are rivals: the polygraph experts on the two shows are engaged in a bitter defamation battle. Jerome Taylor reports • Wednesday 3 December 2008 01:00
It is the kind of argument that could probably have been settled by the tools of their trade, but bosses at two of Britain's major polygraph companies are choosing to deal with their differences in the High Court rather than opting for lie detectors.
On one side is Bruce Burgess, a 64-year-old polygraph expert whose company is used to identify love rats and maintenance shirkers for ITV's The Jeremy Kyle Show. On the other side is Don Cargill, who conducts polygraphs for The Trisha Goddard Show, Five's rival show to Kyle's.
According to a writ filed in the High Court, Mr Burgess is suing his opposite number over a letter Mr Cargill allegedly wrote to the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom in which he reportedly said Mr Burgess had been sacked for incompetence from a government pilot to test sex offenders. Mr Burgess claims he was never even hired for the government programme and has alleged that Mr Cargill was trying to discredit him because he obtained different results on a lie detector test they both conducted on the same person. Mr Burgess has now filed a defamation case for £50,000 against Mr Cargill in the High Court.
The spat between Mr Burgess's Distress Services and Mr Cargill's company, Nadac Group, began last year following an episode of The Trisha Goddard Show in which a woman was accused by her family of stealing a £38,000 Rolex watch.
Betty Hipson, a 57-year-old grandmother from Leatherhead, contacted the producers at Trisha Goddard because her family had accused her of stealing the watch. She wanted to take a lie detector test to prove her innocence. The polygraph test was conducted by Mr Cargill's company and found Mrs Hipson was lying.
Undeterred, Mrs Hipson went to Mr Burgess's company for a second test, which, unlike the previous polygraph, found her innocent of stealing the watch.
Mrs Hipson then complained to Ofcom about the Trisha show and it was during correspondence between the show's producers and the Nadac Group that, according to the writ, Mr Cargill accused his rival of being fired from a government-backed programme.
The pilot programme is run by Don Grubin, a professor of forensic psychology at Newcastle University, who is testing sex offenders across the country for the Home Office to see whether polygraphs can be used to determine whether offenders seeking parole still pose a threat to the public. According to a statement filed with the writ Professor Grubin stated that he has never hired or met Mr Burgess in any professional capacity. Speaking to The Independent yesterday Mr Burgess said he felt compelled to clear his name in court. "In the industry I'm in, the truth is everything," he said. "I've never worked for this government programme and despite asking for an apology I have yet to receive one." Mr Cargill, who also runs the British and European Polygraph Association (Bepa), said he had been instructed by his lawyers not to talk to the media.
The High Court has yet to set a date for the hearing but if it comes to court it will shed fascinating light into the polygraph industry within Britain.
Buoyed by the success of chat shows such as those hosted by Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard, both of which routinely ask guests to undergo lie detector tests, the number of companies specialising in polygraph tests is growing year on year.
Before the early 2000s there were barely three polygraph companies operating in Britain. Bepa currently has 10 UK-based polygraphers on its books and a further 49 listed abroad, although polygraphers are under no obligation to sign up to umbrella or trade bodies.
Jeremy Barrett, the managing director of Polygraph Security Services, one of the oldest companies in Britain to offer lie detector services, said more and more companies are opening up in Britain. "I qualified in polygraphy in 1982 and for 20-odd years we were the only people operating a lie detecting company," he said. "In recent years the number of companies offering similar services has increased dramatically." Polygraph tests cannot be used as evidence in British criminal courts but they can be used in civil or tribunal cases. They are usually used by defence teams hoping to prove that clients are not lying rather than catching out those who do lie and are usually only taken voluntarily. In the United States it is not uncommon for prospective employees to be asked to take polygraphs during job interviews.
In recent years the Home Office has increasingly toyed with the idea of rolling out nationwide polygraph tests for sex offenders after studies found up to 85 per cent of them were re-offending or breaching parole. Critics say the tests are not as accurate or empirical as their supporters suggest and point to numerous scientific studies that have questioned how accurate polygraphs are.
But polygraphers like Mr Barrett defend the use of lie detectors as long as the right questions are asked. "The thing with lie detector tests is that there has to be an element of gain for them to work, you have to have an important reason to lie," he said. "If I asked you whether your father's name was Henry, for instance, and you said yes, it probably wouldn't register as a lie. You would then be able to say you'd beaten a lie detector test. But say you needed your father to be called Henry because you wanted to con him out of £2.3m in inheritance, then suddenly there's something to lose and we can tell if you are lying."
No sweat: How to cheat a lie detector test
Modern polygraphers use a variety of analogue and digital machinery to measure several physiological responses that often happen when we lie. Polygraph machines measure blood pressure increases, pulse, respiration rates, iris contraction and skin conductivity as subjects are asked a series of probing questions. During a test, polygraphers ask their subjects questions that fit into three categories and then compare the responses. The first are a set of "control questions" such as "Have you ever stolen anything?" or "Have you ever lied to your spouse?" These are questions which almost everyone should answer yes to but which may be uncomfortable. Then there are the "irrelevant questions," such as "Have you had pizza today?". They have no relevance to the interrogation but they can help distract the subject from the "relevant" questions. These are specific questions such as "Did you leak that memo to the media" that should reveal whether you are telling the truth or not.
The problem is that polygraphs only really work with those who become stressed when they lie – pathological liars can breeze through a test.
Although proponents usually say polygraphs are 90 per cent accurate, a number of scientific studies conducted in the US suggest their accuracy could be as low as 65 per cent. It is also possible to train people to pass polygraph tests, although this has to be very carefully done as abnormal physiological responses would lead a polygrapher to the conclusion that you were lying anyway. Some people resort to placing deodorant on their fingertips to stop sweating, others are able to control their heartbeat and blood pressure. Online advice for American jobseekers who might be polygraphed by prospective employers also recommend pain techniques such as biting one's tongue during answering in order to fool the machine. Another technique often used is to contract the sphincter muscle when answering questions in order to briefly raise one's blood pressure.
Are you able to provide a cite with provenance the McCanns agreed as you intimate - in their own words - or are you relying on tabloids for your information?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 09:00:30 PM
Are you able to provide a cite with provenance the McCanns agreed as you intimate - in their own words - or are you relying on tabloids for your information?
Please if you are not willing to accept tabloid articles as cites have the courtesy not to use them yourself.
I reiterate ... Are you able to provide a cite with provenance the McCanns agreed as you intimate - in their own words - or are you relying on tabloids for your information?
Quite obviously you are unable to do so.
It would therefore be appropriate if you desisted from deflecting from your inability to back up your allegations. Which in that circumstance can only be described as false allegations.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 21, 2020, 09:13:43 PM
do you have a link....or is it a newspaper report.
CBs lawyer has aid there are no UK lawyers involved....a direct statement from his FB account. Yet UK papers claim there were...shows how much you can trust newspapers
It is definitely a spoken interview because Kate says she will take a "lie detector test" (second after Gerry's offer) and just about chokes on the words. Surely someone knows the interview. I'll see if I can find it but no guarantees as I don't know how to search for videos. Google might help. My apologies I was having a memory fade - it was Patsy Ramsey who offered to do the lie detector test.
PS: Yet I was somewhat supported by this article, but I wasn't aware of that situation. I was just getting the two cases a little confused. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494765/Now-Kate-McCann-refuses-lie-detector-test-clear-name.html)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 09:21:17 PM
I reiterate ... Are you able to provide a cite with provenance the McCanns agreed as you intimate - in their own words - or are you relying on tabloids for your information?
Quite obviously you are unable to do so.
It would therefore be appropriate if you desisted from deflecting from your inability to back up your allegations. Which in that circumstance can only be described as false allegations.
Any reasonable member will be happy that I have backed up my claim in the same manner as other members. If you are not can I suggest that you take it to John.
I now consider the matter closed.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 09:26:20 PM
I think we have all realised just how unreliable tabloid articles are
I agree but spoken interviews are few and far between and if you use tabloid articles relentlessly to illustrate a point you cannot chastise others for doing the same.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 09:32:51 PM
I agree but spoken interviews are few and far between and if you use tabloid articles relentlessly to illustrate a point you cannot chastise others for doing the same.
I dont use tabloid articles to prove a point...they dont. if you have agood memeory you might remember me saying the SUN once claimed to be quoting me....when I had never said the statement
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 09:35:55 PM
I dont use tabloid articles to prove a point...they dont. if you have agood memeory you might remember me saying the SUN once claimed to be quoting me....when I had never said the statement
I do and, yes, they are notoriously unreliable but they are, mostly, all we’ve got.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 09:39:45 PM
I do and, yes, they are notoriously unreliable but they are, mostly, all we’ve got.
Then you have to accept the McCanns may never have agreed to a polygraph
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2020, 09:43:54 PM
False Claim and Misquote.Neither Kate nor Gerry McCann made any such public statement.
Summary of Verifiable Facts
The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying that the McCanns would take a lie detector (polygraph) test if the Portuguese Police asked them to - NOT one sponsored for the media and administered by a polygrapher who works in the entertainment industry.
The Portuguese Police did not ask the McCanns to take a lie detector test.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in Portuguese courts, nor in British courts.
The McCanns declined a lie detector test administered by Don Cargill who is a polygrapher on daytime entertainment programme "Trisha".
This is London - 21 September 2007 Quote:
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said that it was "extremely unlikely" the couple would be asked to take a lie detector test by police. He said: "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used. However, it is my understanding that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the information from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question marks over their reliability. Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through."
Sky News - 21 September 2007 Quote:
McCann are unlikely to face a lie detector test in connection with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, the family's spokesman has said. The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.
"If a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used."
But he said he understood that such machines were not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor was the information from them admissible in court.
"Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through," he added.
The McCanns' declaration that they would be happy to take a lie detector test is just the latest stage of a public fightback to show they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance.
The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared suspects by detectives after DNA traces were found in a car hired after Madeleine's disappearance.
The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again.
Report that the McCanns would not take a media sponsored lie detector
This following report was published two months later and headlined to suggest that the McCanns had "changed their minds" about taking a lie detector. However, a comparison with the above reports which quote the McCanns' Official Spokesman, proves that there is no retraction and no change of mind,.
In the original 21 September statement, the McCann's spokesman made it clear that they would only be willing to take lie detector tests at the request of the Portuguese Police and if they were 100% accurate and admissible in Portuguese courts.
Daily Mail - 19 November 2007 Don Cargill is the polygrapher in the UK daytime magazine show "Trisha". The British police do not use lie detector tests.
Quote:
Don Cargill, chairman of the British and European Polygraph Association, said the McCanns told him they would only take the test if it was 100 per cent accurate and admissible in a Portuguese court. He told the Sunday Express: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. "I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth. "I don't think it was the McCanns' fault. I was left with the impression the whole thing was a PR exercise to get sympathy at a time when Kate was under increasing scrutiny." Lie detectors work by measuring physiological responses such as blood pressure levels, pulse rate, breathing and sweat gland activity in the skin during questioning. Any significant difference in these rates may indicate the subject is lying. The process has been criticised but the American Polygraph Association claims the current computerised technology is 98 per cent accurate. They are not admissible in British or Portuguese courts. McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."
Conclusion There are no contradictions in those statements which came directly from the McCanns' official spokesman. The McCanns said all along that they would have no issue with lie detectors requested by the Portuguese Police. However no such request was received as indeed lie detectors are inadmissible in both Portuguese and British courts. The lie detector test which the McCanns declined was not an official one, but rather one sponsored by a newspaper at the height of the media frenzy surrounding the case and which would have been administered by a polygrapher best recognised for his participation in a daytime entertainment programme specialising in sensational human interest stories.
False Claim and Misquote.Neither Kate nor Gerry McCann made any such public statement.
Summary of Verifiable Facts
The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying that the McCanns would take a lie detector (polygraph) test if the Portuguese Police asked them to - NOT one sponsored for the media and administered by a polygrapher who works in the entertainment industry.
The Portuguese Police did not ask the McCanns to take a lie detector test.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in Portuguese courts, nor in British courts.
The McCanns declined a lie detector test administered by Don Cargill who is a polygrapher on daytime entertainment programme "Trisha".
This is London - 21 September 2007 Quote:
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said that it was "extremely unlikely" the couple would be asked to take a lie detector test by police. He said: "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used. However, it is my understanding that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the information from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question marks over their reliability. Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through."
Sky News - 21 September 2007 Quote:
McCann are unlikely to face a lie detector test in connection with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, the family's spokesman has said. The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.
"If a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used."
But he said he understood that such machines were not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor was the information from them admissible in court.
"Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through," he added.
The McCanns' declaration that they would be happy to take a lie detector test is just the latest stage of a public fightback to show they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance.
The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared suspects by detectives after DNA traces were found in a car hired after Madeleine's disappearance.
The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again.
Report that the McCanns would not take a media sponsored lie detector
This following report was published two months later and headlined to suggest that the McCanns had "changed their minds" about taking a lie detector. However, a comparison with the above reports which quote the McCanns' Official Spokesman, proves that there is no retraction and no change of mind,.
In the original 21 September statement, the McCann's spokesman made it clear that they would only be willing to take lie detector tests at the request of the Portuguese Police and if they were 100% accurate and admissible in Portuguese courts.
Daily Mail - 19 November 2007 Don Cargill is the polygrapher in the UK daytime magazine show "Trisha". The British police do not use lie detector tests.
Quote:
Don Cargill, chairman of the British and European Polygraph Association, said the McCanns told him they would only take the test if it was 100 per cent accurate and admissible in a Portuguese court. He told the Sunday Express: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. "I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth. "I don't think it was the McCanns' fault. I was left with the impression the whole thing was a PR exercise to get sympathy at a time when Kate was under increasing scrutiny." Lie detectors work by measuring physiological responses such as blood pressure levels, pulse rate, breathing and sweat gland activity in the skin during questioning. Any significant difference in these rates may indicate the subject is lying. The process has been criticised but the American Polygraph Association claims the current computerised technology is 98 per cent accurate. They are not admissible in British or Portuguese courts. McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."
Conclusion There are no contradictions in those statements which came directly from the McCanns' official spokesman. The McCanns said all along that they would have no issue with lie detectors requested by the Portuguese Police. However no such request was received as indeed lie detectors are inadmissible in both Portuguese and British courts. The lie detector test which the McCanns declined was not an official one, but rather one sponsored by a newspaper at the height of the media frenzy surrounding the case and which would have been administered by a polygrapher best recognised for his participation in a daytime entertainment programme specialising in sensational human interest stories.
False Claim and Misquote.Neither Kate nor Gerry McCann made any such public statement.
Summary of Verifiable Facts
The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying that the McCanns would take a lie detector (polygraph) test if the Portuguese Police asked them to - NOT one sponsored for the media and administered by a polygrapher who works in the entertainment industry.
The Portuguese Police did not ask the McCanns to take a lie detector test.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in Portuguese courts, nor in British courts.
The McCanns declined a lie detector test administered by Don Cargill who is a polygrapher on daytime entertainment programme "Trisha".
This is London - 21 September 2007 Quote:
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said that it was "extremely unlikely" the couple would be asked to take a lie detector test by police. He said: "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used. However, it is my understanding that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the information from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question marks over their reliability. Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through."
Sky News - 21 September 2007 Quote:
McCann are unlikely to face a lie detector test in connection with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, the family's spokesman has said. The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.
"If a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used."
But he said he understood that such machines were not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor was the information from them admissible in court.
"Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through," he added.
The McCanns' declaration that they would be happy to take a lie detector test is just the latest stage of a public fightback to show they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance.
The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared suspects by detectives after DNA traces were found in a car hired after Madeleine's disappearance.
The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again.
Report that the McCanns would not take a media sponsored lie detector
This following report was published two months later and headlined to suggest that the McCanns had "changed their minds" about taking a lie detector. However, a comparison with the above reports which quote the McCanns' Official Spokesman, proves that there is no retraction and no change of mind,.
In the original 21 September statement, the McCann's spokesman made it clear that they would only be willing to take lie detector tests at the request of the Portuguese Police and if they were 100% accurate and admissible in Portuguese courts.
Daily Mail - 19 November 2007 Don Cargill is the polygrapher in the UK daytime magazine show "Trisha". The British police do not use lie detector tests.
Quote:
Don Cargill, chairman of the British and European Polygraph Association, said the McCanns told him they would only take the test if it was 100 per cent accurate and admissible in a Portuguese court. He told the Sunday Express: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. "I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth. "I don't think it was the McCanns' fault. I was left with the impression the whole thing was a PR exercise to get sympathy at a time when Kate was under increasing scrutiny." Lie detectors work by measuring physiological responses such as blood pressure levels, pulse rate, breathing and sweat gland activity in the skin during questioning. Any significant difference in these rates may indicate the subject is lying. The process has been criticised but the American Polygraph Association claims the current computerised technology is 98 per cent accurate. They are not admissible in British or Portuguese courts. McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."
Conclusion There are no contradictions in those statements which came directly from the McCanns' official spokesman. The McCanns said all along that they would have no issue with lie detectors requested by the Portuguese Police. However no such request was received as indeed lie detectors are inadmissible in both Portuguese and British courts. The lie detector test which the McCanns declined was not an official one, but rather one sponsored by a newspaper at the height of the media frenzy surrounding the case and which would have been administered by a polygrapher best recognised for his participation in a daytime entertainment programme specialising in sensational human interest stories.
‘The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.’
Then
‘ McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth.’
So they agreed to a test then demurred....just as I posted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2020, 10:14:02 PM
‘The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.’
Then
‘ McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth.’
So they agreed to a test then demurred....just as I posted.
Oh dearie me ... none so blind etc etc
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 21, 2020, 10:27:26 PM
‘The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.’
Then
‘ McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth.’
So they agreed to a test then demurred....just as I posted.
I think that post proves beyond all doubt that sceptic logic does not hold up to scrutiny
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 21, 2020, 10:36:31 PM
I think that post proves beyond all doubt that sceptic logic does not hold up to scrutiny
You do realise that the quotes in Brietta’s post are from media reports, albeit selectively quoted to give a rather dishonest angle to the material that they are reporting, but media reports nonetheless.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 21, 2020, 11:04:31 PM
I think she was reading "the fine print" "between the lines"
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 21, 2020, 11:10:07 PM
Sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that it’s 2020 not 2007, and a burglar/rapist/paedophile is the chief suspect not the McCanns. The way some people carry on, it’s like time stood still for them 13 years ago.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2020, 11:37:23 PM
Sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that it’s 2020 not 2007, and a burglar/rapist/paedophile is the chief suspect not the McCanns. The way some people carry on, it’s like time stood still for them 13 years ago.
I think time has indeed stood still for some people. If not, why keep repeating exactly the same redundent arguments in vogue back then whatever changes are taking place in the real world where everyone else has moved on.
The existence of burglars has been studiously ignored. The existence of a man entering holiday properties and assaulting little girls has been denied.
Policia Judiciaria alleged prime suspect 2013 Euclides Monterio was derided. Scotland Yard activity in 2014 was derided. Now that we can see with the emergence of Brueckner exactly where those police investigations were heading ~ that too is being derided.
I find it interesting but also incredibly sad.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 21, 2020, 11:43:27 PM
I think time has indeed stood still for some people. If not, why keep repeating exactly the same redundent arguments in vogue back then whatever changes are taking place in the real world where everyone else has moved on.
The existence of burglars has been studiously ignored. The existence of a man entering holiday properties and assaulting little girls has been denied.
Policia Judiciaria alleged prime suspect 2013 Euclides Monterio was derided. Scotland Yard activity in 2014 was derided. Now that we can see with the emergence of Brueckner exactly where those police investigations were heading ~ that too is being derided.
I find it interesting but also incredibly sad.
Yet Wolter says that the Portuguese police still have the parents in their sights...and lest we forget, they have primacy in this case..not the UK or indeed Germany.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 22, 2020, 12:05:15 AM
If the Portuguese still have the McCanns in their sights, it seems they are quite content to gaze upon their beauty from afar forevermore without lifting a finger to bring them to justice. Lazy articles!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 22, 2020, 07:42:21 AM
You don't have to answer if you don't want to ... what sort of grades in English did you achieve in education ... I'm curious because I've not really met anyone who evidences such an inability in English comprehension before.
I can overlook the ironically poor grammar, but let's keep it on topic guys.
The General.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 08:02:18 AM
‘The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.’
Then
‘ McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth.’
So they agreed to a test then demurred....just as I posted.
this is an example of taking statements out of context which totally changes their meaning and imo is a constant tactic of sceptics to implicate the Mccanns.
If the McCanns were asked...would you take a lie detector they may have replied..
If we were asked by the PJ,..if they were admissable...if they were reliable...then yes we would take one.
In reality this is an expalnanation of why they wouldnt take a test but faith has twisted it into an offer to take
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 08:03:22 AM
Yet Wolter says that the Portuguese police still have the parents in their sights...and lest we forget, they have primacy in this case..not the UK or indeed Germany.
Do you have a cite of wolters saying this or is it just more tabloid gossip taken out of context
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 22, 2020, 10:22:58 AM
To take a li detector surely would have been in the best interest of the mccs to prove to the world they were innocent in any wrongdoing. Also for there reputation.IMO
Yet they chose to go the long way round causing damage suing people/media promoting GA book in their legal battle with him.
When a simple lie detector test could show you were not involved ...or what could possibly go wrong.IMO.
Why only take one if admissible in court when IMO they knew they wouldn't be going to court.
Two simple things were rejected lie detector reconstruction. IMO.
gmcc was adamant they had no involvement in any wrongdoing to Maddie ..yet the one thing that could have proved that was refused.
The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.
But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 10:31:42 AM
To take a li detector surely would have been in the best interest of the mccs to prove to the world they were innocent in any wrongdoing. Also for there reputation.IMO
Yet they chose to go the long way round causing damage suing people/media promoting GA book in their legal battle with him.
When a simple lie detector test could show you were not involved ...or what could possibly go wrong.IMO.
Why only take one if admissible in court when IMO they knew they wouldn't be going to court.
Two simple things were rejected lie detector reconstruction. IMO.
gmcc was adamant they had no involvement in any wrongdoing to Maddie ..yet the one thing that could have proved that was refused.
The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.
But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.
Do you still not understand... polygraphs are unreliable and would prove nothing. That is an absolute fact. Not opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 10:35:33 AM
Can't you all see the reaction.
McCanns pass Lie Detector Test.
Lie Detector Tests aren't reliable and inadmissible anyway.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 10:37:41 AM
Lie Detector Tests aren't reliable and inadmissible anyway.
Agreed, I don’t think it would have changed anything but it does look bad when parents of a missing child say that they will take a lie detector test to prove their innocence and don’t. IMO it’s beyond stupid to suggest they’d do it in the first place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 11:50:13 AM
Agreed, I don’t think it would have changed anything but it does look bad when parents of a missing child say that they will take a lie detector test to prove their innocence and don’t. IMO it’s beyond stupid to suggest they’d do it in the first place.
Only if required to do so, By Law. Which it isn't, for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 11:54:26 AM
Agreed, I don’t think it would have changed anything but it does look bad when parents of a missing child say that they will take a lie detector test to prove their innocence and don’t. IMO it’s beyond stupid to suggest they’d do it in the first place.
im sure they never said they would take one
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 11:59:30 AM
They are neither Reliable or legal In Law. So what would be the point?
Well, they hoped GA would have a miserable life etc etc, and started the trail of the libel trial and still doing it by way of ECHR ....what easier way than LDT to shut GA up once an for all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 12:06:35 PM
Well, they hoped GA would have a miserable life etc etc, and started the trail of the libel trial and still doing it by way of ECHR ....what easier way than LDT to shut GA up once an for all.
if it would have proved anything Im sure they would have done it...but you cant seem to grasp it wouldnt prove anything
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:07:16 PM
Well, they hoped GA would have a miserable life etc etc, and started the trail of the libel trial and still doing it by way of ECHR ....what easier way than LDT to shut GA up once an for all.
You honestly believe that Sceptics in general would have accepted a Pass on this Test?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:10:08 PM
Kizzy has claimed it would prove something...she's wrong..it wouldn't..it's intelligence. I haven't even bothered to read your link...I'm sure it will prove what I have just said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 12:24:26 PM
I would as to me it would be the natural thing to do if you knew you were not involved in anything.
Especially the situation they found themselves in. I would be appalled to think I was a suspect in what happened to my daughter.
The so-called abduction would also be credible IMO.
Just out of curiosity how many on here would refuse to do one if they were in the mccs position.
According to the Sun the question arose because;
"Thousands of Sun readers wanted to know why they had not taken a polygraph test over missing daughter Madeleine, four." https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
There's no explanation of how the Sun were contacted by these thousands of readers, and I can find nothing in previous editions which mentions the subject. Armed with this 'fact', however the Sun managed to get a quote from an unnamed source;
“If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, they would.
“They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police but, as of today, they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities. Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.” https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
The source immediately restricts the circumstances under which they would agree to take a test; only if the police were involved. As neither the UK nor Portuguese police used the tests because they were inadmissible in court, that wasn't going to happen.
Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 22, 2020, 12:26:59 PM
Kizzy has claimed it would prove something...she's wrong..it wouldn't..it's intelligence. I haven't even bothered to read your link...I'm sure it will prove what I have just said.
Well, I couldn't agree more with this.
WASHINGTON — Police departments investigating reports of missing or abducted children should assume foul play and quickly ask parents to submit to polygraph tests, according to a new Justice Department report.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:28:31 PM
Kizzy has claimed it would prove something...she's wrong..it wouldn't..it's intelligence. I haven't even bothered to read your link...I'm sure it will prove what I have just said.
In my opinion it doesn’t...in fact quite the opposite.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:29:17 PM
"Thousands of Sun readers wanted to know why they had not taken a polygraph test over missing daughter Madeleine, four." https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
There's no explanation of how the Sun were contacted by these thousands of readers, and I can find nothing in previous editions which mentions the subject. Armed with this 'fact', however the Sun managed to get a quote from an unnamed source;
“If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, they would.
“They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police but, as of today, they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities. Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.” https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
The source immediately restricts the circumstances under which they would agree to take a test; only if the police were involved. As neither the UK nor Portuguese police used the tests because they were inadmissible in court, that wasn't going to happen.
Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story.
quoting the sun again...no credibility.
the way I see it they were asked if the would take a polygraph....gerry answered..
if the PJ asked us to If they were admissable if they were reliable
Some have taken this as an agreemnet to take atest.
IMO it absolutely isnt. Its expalining why they wouldnt take the test. Its all about context. IMO the McCans never agreed to a test and therefore never changed their mind. Unless aposter can come up with proof they agreed to take a test everything is specualtion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 12:33:31 PM
"Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story."
This statement is bordering on Libellous Innuendo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:36:59 PM
"Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story."
This statement is bordering on Libellous Innuendo.
Libellous innuendo ? That’s a new one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 12:41:54 PM
Then you need to read it again...It says they may help. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence will understand that these twsts are not reliable and prove nothing. Why do you think they are not used
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on October 22, 2020, 12:43:55 PM
Then you need to read it again...It says they may help. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence will understand that these twsts are not reliable and prove nothing. Why do you think they are not used
So of what actual use are they?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
as they are not used by UK police or courts...then no use. Jeremy Kyle seems to like them. In reality they can provide intelligence...i beleive some insurance companies use them..but not proof as Kizzy repeatedly claims
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 12:47:16 PM
the way I see it they were asked if the would take a polygraph....gerry answered..
if the PJ asked us to If they were admissable if they were reliable
Some have taken this as an agreemnet to take atest.
IMO it absolutely isnt. Its expalining why they wouldnt take the test. Its all about context. IMO the McCans never agreed to a test and therefore never changed their mind. Unless aposter can come up with proof they agreed to take a test everything is specualtion
IMO the McCans never agreed to a test and therefore never changed their mind.
Well, it's just the obvious thing to do if you are telling the truth IMO.
Look well if CB takes one and passes ...how would you react to that.
I have already said if mccs had done one and passed I would believe them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:57:51 PM
Then you need to read it again...It says they may help. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence will understand that these twsts are not reliable and prove nothing. Why do you think they are not used
Yes, it may help.....and if you asked almost all parents that would be enough.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 12:58:43 PM
"Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story."
This statement is bordering on Libellous Innuendo.
The source said, "Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.” https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
"Anything" didn't include a lie detector test unless it was requested and run by police, however. Therefore they wouldn't just do "anything", would they? That isn't innuendo nor libel, it's a factual account of what was reported.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 01:03:17 PM
The source said, "Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.” https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
"Anything" didn't include a lie detector test unless it was requested and run by police, however. Therefore they wouldn't just do "anything", would they? That isn't innuendo nor libel, it's a factual account of what was reported.
thats your opinion and wrong...a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable...you are quoting opinin as fact contrary to forum rules
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 01:21:01 PM
You can’t produce the cite, can you ? That’s okay, we’re used to it from you.
And I'm used to it from you ...gunit and others. I've provide one but Im not going to spend time finding the other. I know its true...thats good enough for me. If I happen to come across it again I'll post it
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 02:20:35 PM
And I'm used to it from you ...gunit and others. I've provide one but Im not going to spend time finding the other. I know its true...thats good enough for me. If I happen to come across it again I'll post it
Like the parents and their lie detector offer....say you’ll do it then baulk when you know you’re asked to.
Chilly this time of year with no clothes.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 02:29:52 PM
Ask the police forces who use them for that purpose.
You would also need to ask the police forces who dont...which their are obviously considerably more. I can see that they may well cause more problems for the investigation
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 22, 2020, 02:34:56 PM
thats your opinion and wrong...a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable...you are quoting opinin as fact contrary to forum rules
I'm talking about what was reportedly said, not why it was said, which is what you are referring to. "a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable" is your opinion, not said by the McCanns and not a fact.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 22, 2020, 02:35:48 PM
I'm talking about what was reportedly said, not why it was said, which is what you are referring to. "a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable" is your opinion, not said by the McCanns and not a fact.
A lie detector would not help clear their names is not opinion...its fact
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Your failure is seen by the whole forum not just me.....yeh, I guess you’re used to the disdain of ours.
again I'm not in the slightest bothered....your and other sceptics opinion of me is of no importance ..only a fool would think it is...you obviously do
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 22, 2020, 03:03:47 PM
what makes you think it would not clear their name "if" they passed it.
They are not reliable....if they passed it would not mean they were innocent.....they could have simply beaten the test. I practice meditaion....Im sure I could beat it eassily
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 03:22:49 PM
They are not reliable....if they passed it would not mean they were innocent.....they could have simply beaten the test. I practice meditaion....Im sure I could beat it eassily
In my opinion it would have been enough to redirect the police’s focus...that’s the point.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 03:35:48 PM
thats your opinion and wrong...a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable...you are quoting opinin as fact contrary to forum rules
I have to agree. The polygraph is based on sound reasoning but the technology has not advanced far enough yet for it to be foolproof.
At the moment the polygraph is used to scare people into making admissions, on its own it can prove nothing one way or another. If the McCanns are completely innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance the result of such a test could come back positive or negative depending on the physiological responses apparent on the day. The same would happen if guilty. These tests have the ability to condemn the innocent so if the McCanns did agree to take one it was a rather foolish thing to do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on October 22, 2020, 04:27:56 PM
I just happen to be watching a recent Belgian tv series . Last night it showed a person ,a suspect taking the LDT . The person conducting it afterwards when asked about the result said “ he lied just once ....did you kill X ? “ So why if the findings are not admissible are these tests conducted ? I don’t think it’s to make suspects fearful ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 04:43:07 PM
I just happen to be watching a recent Belgian tv series . Last night it showed a person ,a suspect taking the LDT . The person conducting it afterwards when asked about the result said “ he lied just once ....did you kill X ? “ So why if the findings are not admissible are these tests conducted ? I don’t think it’s to make suspects fearful ?
I think John's absolutely right...but it's pointless debating it...people will believe whatt they wish. What we know as a fact is they do not prove innocence or guilt
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 04:54:42 PM
I have to agree. The polygraph is based on sound reasoning but the technology has not advanced far enough yet for it to be foolproof.
At the moment the polygraph is used to scare people into making admissions, on its own it can prove nothing one way or another. If the McCanns are completely innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance the result of such a test could come back positive or negative depending on the physiological responses apparent on the day. The same would happen if guilty. These tests have the ability to condemn the innocent so if the McCanns did agree to take one it was a rather foolish thing to do.
It would have been which makes it odd that they suggested it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 05:16:40 PM
I'm talking about what was reportedly said, not why it was said, which is what you are referring to. "a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable" is your opinion, not said by the McCanns and not a fact.
If lie detectors were reliable there would never be a need for a crime to go to court. Just submit to the test and if you fail, then off you trot to prison.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on October 22, 2020, 06:09:02 PM
I think John's absolutely right...but it's pointless debating it...people will believe whatt they wish. What we know as a fact is they do not prove innocence or guilt
Yes I’m sure John’s right too but my logical thinking still asks why use them if they’re useless ? When you see people being tested the lie shows as a big spike ? That’s showing an emotional reaction involved in telling of the lie ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 06:12:54 PM
Yes I’m sure John’s right too but my logical thinking still asks why use them if they’re useless ? When you see people being tested the lie shows as a big spike ? That’s showing an emotional reaction involved in telling of the lie ?
they have their uses but are not reliable enough to prove guilt or innocence....those are the facts
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 06:13:19 PM
Yes I’m sure John’s right too but my logical thinking still asks why use them if they’re useless ? When you see people being tested the lie shows as a big spike ? That’s showing an emotional reaction involved in telling of the lie ?
Not always the telling of the lie. That's the problem.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 06:13:54 PM
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 22, 2020, 06:17:59 PM
How is it that people on here can be so obtuse? The McCanns agreed to submit to a lie detector test but only if requested to do so by Portuguese police. They PJ did not ask them to do a test. Any other requests for them to do a lie detector test by other non-police agencies were turned down as the McCanns had made it clear the conditions under which they would participate. The end.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 22, 2020, 06:22:03 PM
How is it that people on here can be so obtuse? The McCanns agreed to submit to a lie detector test but only if requested to do so by Portuguese police. They PJ did not ask them to do a test. Any other requests for them to do a lie detector test by other non-police agencies were turned down as the McCanns had made it clear the conditions under which they would participate. The end.
That's it really.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 06:25:22 PM
How is it that people on here can be so obtuse? The McCanns agreed to submit to a lie detector test but only if requested to do so by Portuguese police. They PJ did not ask them to do a test. Any other requests for them to do a lie detector test by other non-police agencies were turned down as the McCanns had made it clear the conditions under which they would participate. The end.
I dont think they ever agreed to a test.....IMO they were asked by a jornalist if they would...they then outlined the hypothetical situation where they would take the test....that isnt agreeing to take the test. a bit like CB agreeing to answer questions....when its possible to order holy water as a long drink in hell...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 22, 2020, 07:08:21 PM
I dont think they ever agreed to a test.....IMO they were asked by a jornalist if they would...they then outlined the hypothetical situation where they would take the test....that isnt agreeing to take the test. a bit like CB agreeing to answer questions....when its possible to order holy water as a long drink in hell...
yeah, you’re probably right actually. In fact I think the journo asked their spokesman, not them directly anyway.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 22, 2020, 07:54:30 PM
"Thousands of Sun readers wanted to know why they had not taken a polygraph test over missing daughter Madeleine, four." https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
There's no explanation of how the Sun were contacted by these thousands of readers, and I can find nothing in previous editions which mentions the subject. Armed with this 'fact', however the Sun managed to get a quote from an unnamed source;
“If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, they would.
“They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police but, as of today, they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities. Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.” https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html
The source immediately restricts the circumstances under which they would agree to take a test; only if the police were involved. As neither the UK nor Portuguese police used the tests because they were inadmissible in court, that wasn't going to happen.
Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story.
What difficulty do you experience in adding "In My Opinion" when expressing it in your posts?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 22, 2020, 08:17:27 PM
I'm talking about what was reportedly said, not why it was said, which is what you are referring to. "a lie detector would not help clear their names as they are not reliable" is your opinion, not said by the McCanns and not a fact.
And why are you bothering with old lies told by tabloids. Aren't you a stickler for dismissing unattributed statements made by tabloids when it suits? Or have you decided that if it is in the papers it must be true?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 22, 2020, 08:19:16 PM
IMO it's like not answering the questions ....there was something not right with finding Maddie gone from her bed.
Also the lead up to it.Again IMO.
Of course "there was something not right with finding Maddie gone from her bed." Nobody had the right to do lift her from it.
In the absence of any evidence that her parents were involved, that leaves plenty of evidence that Madeleine was the victim of a stranger abduction; starting with the fact that Madeleine was missing and ending with the evidence trail which has led to Brueckner.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2020, 08:37:05 PM
Which bit of my post is, in your opinion, my opinion?
Doesn't really matter what the Sun says because there is no proof the McCanns ever agreed to take a polygraph...and it could not have proved their innocence in any event
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 22, 2020, 08:50:42 PM
Which bit of my post is, in your opinion, my opinion?
That which is not a statement of fact backed up with a cite is an opinion.
I suggest you reread your posts. In this instance the last two sentence of your post starting "Those thousands of ..." and ending with " ... of story." might benefit from your scrutiny.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 22, 2020, 10:14:56 PM
Doesn't really matter what the Sun says because there is no proof the McCanns ever agreed to take a polygraph...and it could not have proved their innocence in any event
Is that supposed to be an answer to my post?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 22, 2020, 11:44:47 PM
That which is not a statement of fact backed up with a cite is an opinion.
I suggest you reread your posts. In this instance the last two sentence of your post starting "Those thousands of ..." and ending with " ... of story." might benefit from your scrutiny.
Do you mean " They had conditions. End of story."?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 23, 2020, 09:17:46 AM
Yeh, but mate, it's the Daily Star, which is probably half a notch above that other rag, The s..m. Plus I note all of the quotes are 'a family pal', or 'a source close to', or 'a man outside the bookies'; which is all code for 'we made this sh** up'. Having said that.....£48 per person for CB being charged. Not to be sniffed at.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 23, 2020, 10:21:34 AM
I have just read somewhere, "but only on agreement with both parties, in The US.
Some people are arrogant enough to think they can defeat the machine. Chris Watts had a pop at it and the polygraph technician had to pack it all in half way through as the only questions he didn't fail were the control questions. Actually, in that case, the polygraph worked in law enforcement's favour, as he failed so badly that he ended up coming clean under the pressure.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 23, 2020, 12:23:30 PM
Some people are arrogant enough to think they can defeat the machine. Chris Watts had a pop at it and the polygraph technician had to pack it all in half way through as the only questions he didn't fail were the control questions. Actually, in that case, the polygraph worked in law enforcement's favour, as he failed so badly that he ended up coming clean under the pressure.
I think Adrian Prout confessed after failing a test also.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 23, 2020, 12:28:32 PM
I think Adrian Prout confessed after failing a test also.
Exactly. If it's permitted in that jurisdiction, then use it if all agree. It may be useless when it gets to court, but it's another string to the prosecutorial bow. The polygraph has been tested since the 20's and it's deemed to be pretty accurate with the latest iterations, with the prevailing opinion being 'better than not having it'. The problem has always been, in the US, that it was criminally, routinely abused by law enforcement, which tarnished any value it may have held.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 23, 2020, 12:36:02 PM
All this deflection into polygraphs is really really interesting.
But with a nod to the thread topic who is going to start the ball rolling by coming up with just one teensy weensy post giving details of evidence against the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 23, 2020, 12:41:56 PM
All this deflection into polygraphs is really really interesting.
But with a nod to the thread topic who is going to start the ball rolling by coming up with just one teensy weensy post giving details of evidence against the McCanns.
Martin Smiths witness statement.
That's evidence against the McCanns.
You're welcome.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2020, 12:53:18 PM
Exactly. If it's permitted in that jurisdiction, then use it if all agree. It may be useless when it gets to court, but it's another string to the prosecutorial bow. The polygraph has been tested since the 20's and it's deemed to be pretty accurate with the latest iterations, with the prevailing opinion being 'better than not having it'. The problem has always been, in the US, that it was criminally, routinely abused by law enforcement, which tarnished any value it may have held.
It has not been established that the McCanns offered to take a polygraph
It has been established it would not have proved their innocence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 01:49:45 PM
Perhaps you could explain why Martin Smith's recall of a fleeting glimpse of a stranger passing him in the street weeks earlier, should be any more reliable than the anecdotal evidence of people who were close to CB? I look forward to your rationale.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 23, 2020, 03:20:45 PM
Perhaps you could explain why Martin Smith's recall of a fleeting glimpse of a stranger passing him in the street weeks earlier, should be any more reliable than the anecdotal evidence of people who were close to CB? I look forward to your rationale.
Perhaps you could explain why Martin Smith's recall of a fleeting glimpse of a stranger passing him in the street
You do realise that the e-fits were created well after Gerry McCann had become world famous don't you? And that if Mr Smith was absolutely certain he'd seen Gerry he could have just told the e-fit artist to copy a picture of Gerry's face?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on October 23, 2020, 04:03:20 PM
You do realise that the e-fits were created well after Gerry McCann had become world famous don't you? And that if Mr Smith was absolutely certain he'd seen Gerry he could have just told the e-fit artist to copy a picture of Gerry's face?
Don't you think the police would have been aware of that when they showed it on crime watch years later?
Yet still showed it as a possible suspect.
Seems it definitely wasn't CB that he saw...at least you admit it does look like gmcc to compare it to a picture of gmcs face..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 23, 2020, 04:24:14 PM
You do realise that the e-fits were created well after Gerry McCann had become world famous don't you? And that if Mr Smith was absolutely certain he'd seen Gerry he could have just told the e-fit artist to copy a picture of Gerry's face?
Your post, not my imagination.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 23, 2020, 05:27:04 PM
Not once have SY said
a) That there's no evidence against the McCanns
& b) That they didn't do it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 05:59:49 PM
You do realise that the e-fits were created well after Gerry McCann had become world famous don't you? And that if Mr Smith was absolutely certain he'd seen Gerry he could have just told the e-fit artist to copy a picture of Gerry's face?
Your post, not my imagination.
I know what I wrote. Where do I admit anything at all?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 06:00:41 PM
Could be the reason he was only 60/80% sure rather than 100% imo
He obviously could see to describe the colour of clothing.
Not at all what I meant. Also, when our kids were small, my husband would carry them off a plane in the exact same way as Madeleine’s father.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 23, 2020, 06:34:34 PM
This was the important point in Martin Smith's statement
It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 07:02:36 PM
Imagine you were out in town a few months ago around 10pm and you passed a guy carrying a child who looked down as you passed them. You didn’t see their face clearly, it was quite dark and the whole encounter took less than 10 seconds. How confident would you be in you ability to accurately describe theit facial features to detectives?
How many different ways are there for a human being to tilt their head down and is it such a unique movement that you would be able to id someone from that head tilt months after seeing it happen?
IMo the evidence of the Smith sighting is utterly fantastical. I accept it happened but I don’t accept it’s possible to create an accurate artist impression or to id anyone by a head movement, especially not months after the event. It’s utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 23, 2020, 07:04:33 PM
Imagine you were out in town a few months ago around 10pm and you passed a guy carrying a child who looked down as you passed them. You didn’t see their face clearly, it was quite dark and the whole encounter took less than 10 seconds. How confident would you be in you ability to accurately describe theit facial features to detectives?
How many different ways are there for a human being to tilt their head down and is it such a unique movement that you would be able to id someone from that head tilt months after seeing it happen?
IMo the evidence of the Smith sighting is utter fantastical. I accept it happened but I don’t accept it’s possible to create an accurate artist impression or to id anyone by a head movement, especially not months after the event. It’s utter nonsense.
This is all very well but it still doesn't mean it wasn't Gerry.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 07:04:59 PM
His phone was, someone must have been using it. How often do you lend your mobile to others to take away and use? I have never done so in 20 years of using one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 23, 2020, 08:33:05 PM
His phone was, someone must have been using it. How often do you lend your mobile to others to take away and use? I have never done so in 20 years of using one.
His alleged phone.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 08:42:03 PM
His phone was, someone must have been using it. How often do you lend your mobile to others to take away and use? I have never done so in 20 years of using one.
You know who else had a phone that they used there that night?
Gerry.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 08:57:43 PM
Alleged by the German prosecutor - do you think he decided it was on a whim?
He came upon an unregistered phone number which he believed was connected to CB. The phone received a call through the Vodaphone mast in PdL from another unregistered phone number. The actual location of the receiving phone cannot be pinpointed because the mast didn't just pick up calls made and received within PdL.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 23, 2020, 09:36:44 PM
He came upon an unregistered phone number which he believed was connected to CB. The phone received a call through the Vodaphone mast in PdL from another unregistered phone number. The actual location of the receiving phone cannot be pinpointed because the mast didn't just pick up calls made and received within PdL.
So you’re saying completely on a whim and with absolutely no evidence to link the phone to CB, the German Prosecutor just decided it was his?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 23, 2020, 09:45:08 PM
He came upon an unregistered phone number which he believed was connected to CB. The phone received a call through the Vodaphone mast in PdL from another unregistered phone number. The actual location of the receiving phone cannot be pinpointed because the mast didn't just pick up calls made and received within PdL.
Your reasoning why the call "cannot be pinpointed" as you say "because the mast didn't just pick up calls made and received within PdL". Most cellphone masts today don't "just pick up calls made and received within an area" yet they can pinpoint a phone in the area.
The science of it seems to be explained insufficiently.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2020, 09:57:01 PM
Your reasoning why the call "cannot be pinpointed" as you say "because the mast didn't just pick up calls made and received within PdL". Most cellphone masts today don't "just pick up calls made and received within an area" yet they can pinpoint a phone in the area.
The science of it seems to be explained insufficiently.
It depends if they have the in and out ping data which will tell them how far from the mast the phone was
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 23, 2020, 10:00:42 PM
It depends if they have the in and out ping data which will tell them how far from the mast the phone was
So how long is this "ping data" kept? I was aware the PJ had a list of all the phone numbers of phones called and used for the call. But did they keep the ping data?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 23, 2020, 10:02:14 PM
So how long is this "ping data" kept? I was aware the PJ had a list of all the phone numbers of phones called and used for the call. But did they keep the ping data?
Ive no idea...does anyone know
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 24, 2020, 07:54:53 AM
So how long is this "ping data" kept? I was aware the PJ had a list of all the phone numbers of phones called and used for the call. But did they keep the ping data?
They never had it imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 08:02:11 AM
His phone was, someone must have been using it. How often do you lend your mobile to others to take away and use? I have never done so in 20 years of using one.
IIRC wasn't the phone number found in a phonebook connecting it to CB.
The phone could have been sold on IMO
seems those addicted to substances sell their soul for a few euro. not as if it was contracted to him
He maybe wasn't the one who made the call.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 09:26:22 AM
Your reasoning why the call "cannot be pinpointed" as you say "because the mast didn't just pick up calls made and received within PdL". Most cellphone masts today don't "just pick up calls made and received within an area" yet they can pinpoint a phone in the area.
The science of it seems to be explained insufficiently.
Not sure that pinpoint is the correct term to use in this context. The phone can be placed within the reception area of the mast, nothing more.
IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 24, 2020, 09:33:45 AM
The important point is he has nothing but backtracking and words. nothing else
I'm I am not allowed to discuss. when MS asks about the dogs.
he said the strong evidence is not the phone or witness words...he said the evidence is so strong that maddie is dead and CB murdered her....I dont see that as back tracking...I see as moving forward. Could have similar evidence as in the RUI Pedro case
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 24, 2020, 09:58:34 AM
he said the strong evidence is not the phone or witness words...he said the evidence is so strong that maddie is dead and CB murdered her....I dont see that as back tracking...I see as moving forward. Could have similar evidence as in the RUI Pedro case
...he said the evidence is so strong that maddie is dead and CB murdered her....
Oh how ridiculous...so why doesn't he charge him then what is he waiting for.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 10:01:19 AM
Not sure that pinpoint is the correct term to use in this context. The phone can be placed within the reception area of the mast, nothing more.
IMO
I'm thinking more in the terms of multiple masts, and how they triangulate where the call originates. Very technical methods are used. But you are right if there is just one mast one of the phones had to be within the reception area.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 10:04:55 AM
if you look at the RUi Pedro case the answers quite obvious.
Do I have to remind you again evidence is not proof
It sounds as if he went straight in for the kill ..big mistake as he was expecting more.
Now it seems his non-evidence then is nothing more than he thinks CB did it.
Not really any even circumstantial evidence IMO.e has well over-egged what he has ...he backs down on the interview when asked how strong the evidence is ....
What is quite obvious his silence speaks volumes
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 24, 2020, 10:37:29 AM
he said the strong evidence is not the phone or witness words...he said the evidence is so strong that maddie is dead and CB murdered her....I dont see that as back tracking...I see as moving forward. Could have similar evidence as in the RUI Pedro case
If there indeed is something tangible to tie Brueckner to Madeleine then he would have been arrested and questioned....that is an inalienable fact.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 11:09:02 AM
It sounds as if he went straight in for the kill ..big mistake as he was expecting more.
Now it seems his non-evidence then is nothing more than he thinks CB did it.
Not really any even circumstantial evidence IMO.e has well over-egged what he has ...he backs down on the interview when asked how strong the evidence is ....
What is quite obvious his silence speaks volumes
I think he has proof of abduction..a major step forward
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 11:10:55 AM
I think he has proof of abduction..a major step forward
You ...dont know that though.
just like me saying he hasnt.
The thing is though if he is not charged as I doubt very much he will be. It's back to square one. If only this could be looked at with fresh eyes the leading up to Maddie not being in her bed at last check
1 DP going to 5a to check that all was ok and saw the beautiful scene he described...[close family freind]
2 gmcc visual check proud father moment. sees door moved but doesn't mention it to kmcc.
3 kmcc check door blowing shut curtains blowing but leaves the window open.gmcc wondering where she was
4 not searching but examining shutters and phoning as many as they could to get the abduction story in time for the media news.
A lot more things but IMO it all sound s a bit too convenient even though it took a couple of attempts with statements to get there.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 12:12:07 PM
The thing is though if he is not charged as I doubt very much he will be. It's back to square one. If only this could be looked at with fresh eyes the leading up to Maddie not being in her bed at last check
1 DP going to 5a to check that all was ok and saw the beautiful scene he described...[close family freind]
2 gmcc visual check proud father moment. sees door moved but doesn't mention it to kmcc.
3 kmcc check door blowing shut curtains blowing but leaves the window open.gmcc wondering where she was
4 not searching but examining shutters and phoning as many as they could to get the abduction story in time for the media news.
A lot more things but IMO it all sound s a bit too convenient even though it took a couple of attempts with statements to get there.
It depends what HCW has...if it proves stranger abduction none of that matters and it's certainly not back to square one. It would prove the parents innocence
Remember his very strong evidence may not be enough to convict CB ...it might be...but it will be very strong evidence...if not proof...of stranger abduction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2020, 12:40:52 PM
If there indeed is something tangible to tie Brueckner to Madeleine then he would have been arrested and questioned....that is an inalienable fact.
Brueckner is already arrested and is going nowhere anytime soon. I am sure he will be questioned if or when it suits the Germans to do so. In the interim I believe many wide ranging investigations concerning criminal cases are being conducted with this man at the core.
They have been investigating this man against the clock for years. It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.
The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/former-portuguese-police-chief-goncalo-amaral-says-madeleine-mccann-suspect-is-in-german-prison/news-story/13992e3c9cc61ef835a2d95a7f5a7025 And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side https://zap.aeiou.pt/amaral-arrasa-investigacao-alema-331219 And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html
The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 24, 2020, 01:03:52 PM
Brueckner is already arrested and is going nowhere anytime soon. I am sure he will be questioned if or when it suits the Germans to do so. In the interim I believe many wide ranging investigations concerning criminal cases are being conducted with this man at the core.
They have been investigating this man against the clock for years. It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.
The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/former-portuguese-police-chief-goncalo-amaral-says-madeleine-mccann-suspect-is-in-german-prison/news-story/13992e3c9cc61ef835a2d95a7f5a7025 And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side https://zap.aeiou.pt/amaral-arrasa-investigacao-alema-331219 And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html
The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.
Brueckner cannot be questioned until he's arrested, and there's not enough evidence to arrest him. At the moment he's in prison for drug offences. As to his rape conviction, it isn't clear to me if that decision is final;
"he was sentenced to seven years in prison by the Braunschweig Regional Court for raping a 72-year-old girl in the Algarve in 2005. This penalty is currently being examined by the Federal Court of Justice and is not final." https://www.fnp.de/deutschland/maddie-mccann-anwalt-christian-b-kritik-medien-vermisst-tot-verdacht-zr-13810982.html
If that conviction were quashed he may not be sitting in jail when and if they decide to arrest him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 24, 2020, 01:05:33 PM
Brueckner is already arrested and is going nowhere anytime soon. I am sure he will be questioned if or when it suits the Germans to do so. In the interim I believe many wide ranging investigations concerning criminal cases are being conducted with this man at the core.
They have been investigating this man against the clock for years. It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.
The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/former-portuguese-police-chief-goncalo-amaral-says-madeleine-mccann-suspect-is-in-german-prison/news-story/13992e3c9cc61ef835a2d95a7f5a7025 And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side https://zap.aeiou.pt/amaral-arrasa-investigacao-alema-331219 And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html
The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.
Scotland Yard’s attitude to Wolter and his ‘evidence’ tells us everything we need to know. Have you listened to the MS’s podcast yet ?
Amaral is old news I’m afraid and you really do need to move on.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2020, 01:12:38 PM
Brueckner cannot be questioned until he's arrested, and there's not enough evidence to arrest him. At the moment he's in prison for drug offences. As to his rape conviction, it isn't clear to me if that decision is final;
"he was sentenced to seven years in prison by the Braunschweig Regional Court for raping a 72-year-old girl in the Algarve in 2005. This penalty is currently being examined by the Federal Court of Justice and is not final." https://www.fnp.de/deutschland/maddie-mccann-anwalt-christian-b-kritik-medien-vermisst-tot-verdacht-zr-13810982.html
If that conviction were quashed he may not be sitting in jail when and if they decide to arrest him.
I know why Brueckner is in jail and I am quite content that the Germans will handle the situation to best advantage when it suits them to do so.
I did however address other observations about evidence and the introduction of false evidence into this case in my post.
Did you miss them?
Or can I expect you to formulate some kind of answer in the very near future :)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2020, 01:13:13 PM
Brueckner cannot be questioned until he's arrested, and there's not enough evidence to arrest him. At the moment he's in prison for drug offences. As to his rape conviction, it isn't clear to me if that decision is final;
"he was sentenced to seven years in prison by the Braunschweig Regional Court for raping a 72-year-old girl in the Algarve in 2005. This penalty is currently being examined by the Federal Court of Justice and is not final." https://www.fnp.de/deutschland/maddie-mccann-anwalt-christian-b-kritik-medien-vermisst-tot-verdacht-zr-13810982.html
If that conviction were quashed he may not be sitting in jail when and if they decide to arrest him.
The Germans will find something to hang on to him. The Pornography they found could well be enough.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 24, 2020, 01:18:24 PM
He seems to have served a sentence only for Abusing a Child and not for possessing Pornography.
Clutching at straws. It's quite clear that the memory sticks and cards were raised during the trial as a major part of the evidence - "The camera and its contents became the main evidence against Brueckner, 42, during two trials in which he was accused of sexually abusing the girl and possessing child pornography. "
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 01:58:29 PM
Clutching at straws. It's quite clear that the memory sticks and cards were raised during the trial as a major part of the evidence - "The camera and its contents became the main evidence against Brueckner, 42, during two trials in which he was accused of sexually abusing the girl and possessing child pornography. "
You seem to be confusing two different incidents...there is one involving a camera and another re the buried memory sticks
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
Clutching at straws. It's quite clear that the memory sticks and cards were raised during the trial as a major part of the evidence - "The camera and its contents became the main evidence against Brueckner, 42, during two trials in which he was accused of sexually abusing the girl and possessing child pornography. "
So you think he should go free?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 24, 2020, 02:30:56 PM
As far as I can see it was just images of the child he was convicted of abusing.
That's because that's what you want to see. My opinion is that the child abuse and the porno pictures were all part of the same charges. Not that it matters, for having been part of the evidence at that trial, they cannot be used again in a different trial.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2020, 03:04:36 PM
That's because that's what you want to see. My opinion is that the child abuse and the porno pictures were all part of the same charges. Not that it matters, for having been part of the evidence at that trial, they cannot be used again in a different trial.
I think you could be wrong about this.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 24, 2020, 03:05:37 PM
That's because that's what you want to see. My opinion is that the child abuse and the porno pictures were all part of the same charges. Not that it matters, for having been part of the evidence at that trial, they cannot be used again in a different trial.
The memory cards founf under his dead dog haven't been used as part of any trial.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 24, 2020, 03:39:44 PM
Scotland Yard’s attitude to Wolter and his ‘evidence’ tells us everything we need to know. Have you listened to the MS’s podcast yet ?
Amaral is old news I’m afraid and you really do need to move on.
"Amaral is old news I’m afraid and you really do need to move on."faithlilly
You are mistaken.
Amaral of his own volition has chosen to interject what is definitely FALSE evidence into an active police investigation as well as ensuring that what I assume to be highly confidential information regarding the identity of the German police prime suspect was released into the public domain.
Until Amaral chose to do that there was a general consensus that Ney was that person of interest. Amaral ensured that further speculation revealed Brueckner to the world.
In my opinion sceptics simply do not wish to discuss any information which reveals the bizarre and obsessive nature of this man; who not content with presiding over the flawed and botched investigation into Madeleine's disappearance appears to be interfering with the present German investigation.
Snip Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has revealed a German paedophile suspected over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is not Martin Ney.
The ex-cop sparked speculation Ney was the prime suspect after saying in an interview earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison. ________________________________________________________________
In his interview with an Australian podcast, he mentioned the possibility of a German paedophile being responsible - but he didn’t mention 49-year-old Hamburg-born child strangler Ney by name.
Instead he described the suspect only as someone who had been ruled out of the investigation into the missing British youngster in 2008 but later jailed in his home country.
Now Mr Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has now said the suspect isn’t Ney, who was jailed for life in 2012 for abducting and murdering three children, and sexually abusing dozens more.
When he was shown a photo of him on Spanish TV, Amaral responded: “It can’t be him.”
“A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about,” he told a show about missing adults and children.
“What I know is that the suspect is not him, it’s another man. He’s also in prison in Germany. He’s also a paedophile.”
In a bizarre twist, Mr Amaral said the suspect looks similar to Madeleine’s dad Gerry before saying that Ney bears no resemblance to him.
As a matter of courtesy ~ please do not suggest either to me or any other member what or who is a topic for discussion just because in my opinion it embarrasses you as a sceptic; Amaral is current news and he took considerable pains to ensure that
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 04:03:46 PM
"Amaral is old news I’m afraid and you really do need to move on."faithlilly
You are mistaken.
Amaral of his own volition has chosen to interject what is definitely FALSE evidence into an active police investigation as well as ensuring that what I assume to be highly confidential information regarding the identity of the German police prime suspect was released into the public domain.
Until Amaral chose to do that there was a general consensus that Ney was that person of interest. Amaral ensured that further speculation revealed Brueckner to the world.
In my opinion sceptics simply do not wish to discuss any information which reveals the bizarre and obsessive nature of this man; who not content with presiding over the flawed and botched investigation into Madeleine's disappearance appears to be interfering with the present German investigation.
Snip Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has revealed a German paedophile suspected over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is not Martin Ney.
The ex-cop sparked speculation Ney was the prime suspect after saying in an interview earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison. ________________________________________________________________
In his interview with an Australian podcast, he mentioned the possibility of a German paedophile being responsible - but he didn’t mention 49-year-old Hamburg-born child strangler Ney by name.
Instead he described the suspect only as someone who had been ruled out of the investigation into the missing British youngster in 2008 but later jailed in his home country.
Now Mr Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has now said the suspect isn’t Ney, who was jailed for life in 2012 for abducting and murdering three children, and sexually abusing dozens more.
When he was shown a photo of him on Spanish TV, Amaral responded: “It can’t be him.”
“A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about,” he told a show about missing adults and children.
“What I know is that the suspect is not him, it’s another man. He’s also in prison in Germany. He’s also a paedophile.”
In a bizarre twist, Mr Amaral said the suspect looks similar to Madeleine’s dad Gerry before saying that Ney bears no resemblance to him.
As a matter of courtesy ~ please do not suggest either to me or any other member what or who is a topic for discussion just because in my opinion it embarrasses you as a sceptic; Amaral is current news and he took considerable pains to ensure that
Nah, you are just an Amaral obsessive. Nothing he says will have any influence on this case. Neither will anything you say about him. IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2020, 04:34:13 PM
Nah, you are just an Amaral obsessive. Nothing he says will have any influence on this case. Neither will anything you say about him. IMO
It certainly won't be for the want of him trying and what interests me is the why of it.
And I will thank you in future to desist from dropping goading ad homs into your posts ... it is definitely against forum rules as well as being horrifically impolite.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 24, 2020, 05:40:58 PM
If Brietta is an Amaral obsessive what does that make those on here that go on and on about the McCanns and their behaviour, their statements, etc?
The McCanns are principal players so must remain centre stage, whereas Amaral is merely a bit player with a walk on/walk off part in the early scenes of this drama.
If as much effort had been put into seeking Madeleine as was put into vilifying Amaral, then we might have a result by now.
All IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 06:22:11 PM
The McCanns are principal players so must remain centre stage, whereas Amaral is merely a bit player with a walk on/walk off part in the early scenes of this drama.
If as much effort had been put into seeking Madeleine as was put into vilifying Amaral, then we might have a result by now.
All IMO.
if amaral had done his job properly CB may have already been thoroughly investigated...all my opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 24, 2020, 06:25:51 PM
The McCanns are principal players so must remain centre stage, whereas Amaral is merely a bit player with a walk on/walk off part in the early scenes of this drama.
If as much effort had been put into seeking Madeleine as was put into vilifying Amaral, then we might have a result by now.
All IMO.
Well just consider all the effort put into “Justice 4 Maddie” by the sceptic keyboard warriors over the last 13 years. That really paid off didn’t it?!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 24, 2020, 06:36:57 PM
Well just consider all the effort put into “Justice 4 Maddie” by the sceptic keyboard warriors over the last 13 years. That really paid off didn’t it?!
Not a site I'm familiar with so I'm afraid I can't. I stick with this site
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 24, 2020, 06:46:46 PM
Not a site I'm familiar with so I'm afraid I can't. I stick with this site
I wasn’t quoting a site, I was quoting the concept, as described by many a sceptic in the last 13 years. Perhaps you are completely unaware of the hundreds on keyboard warriors who have seemingly dedicated their every waking moment to achieving this (but only if it means banging up the parents).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 24, 2020, 06:48:20 PM
I wasn’t quoting a site, I was quoting the concept, as described by many a sceptic in the last 13 years. Perhaps you are completely unaware of the hundreds on keyboard warriors who have seemingly dedicated their every waking moment to achieving this (but only if it means banging up the parents).
I only see the ones on here and funnily enough, they seem to be mainly supporters, judging by their posting rate.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 06:53:31 PM
"Amaral is old news I’m afraid and you really do need to move on."faithlilly
You are mistaken.
Amaral of his own volition has chosen to interject what is definitely FALSE evidence into an active police investigation as well as ensuring that what I assume to be highly confidential information regarding the identity of the German police prime suspect was released into the public domain.
Until Amaral chose to do that there was a general consensus that Ney was that person of interest. Amaral ensured that further speculation revealed Brueckner to the world.
In my opinion sceptics simply do not wish to discuss any information which reveals the bizarre and obsessive nature of this man; who not content with presiding over the flawed and botched investigation into Madeleine's disappearance appears to be interfering with the present German investigation.
Snip Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has revealed a German paedophile suspected over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is not Martin Ney.
The ex-cop sparked speculation Ney was the prime suspect after saying in an interview earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison. ________________________________________________________________
In his interview with an Australian podcast, he mentioned the possibility of a German paedophile being responsible - but he didn’t mention 49-year-old Hamburg-born child strangler Ney by name.
Instead he described the suspect only as someone who had been ruled out of the investigation into the missing British youngster in 2008 but later jailed in his home country.
Now Mr Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has now said the suspect isn’t Ney, who was jailed for life in 2012 for abducting and murdering three children, and sexually abusing dozens more.
When he was shown a photo of him on Spanish TV, Amaral responded: “It can’t be him.”
“A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about,” he told a show about missing adults and children.
“What I know is that the suspect is not him, it’s another man. He’s also in prison in Germany. He’s also a paedophile.”
In a bizarre twist, Mr Amaral said the suspect looks similar to Madeleine’s dad Gerry before saying that Ney bears no resemblance to him.
As a matter of courtesy ~ please do not suggest either to me or any other member what or who is a topic for discussion just because in my opinion it embarrasses you as a sceptic; Amaral is current news and he took considerable pains to ensure that
Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally.
As to the meat of your post....Amaral had no part in naming Bruckner. Firstly Wolter all but identified him while seeking further information....that had absolutely nothing to do with Amaral. After that the media named him...that again had nothing to do with Amaral.
To be clear it was Wolter’s appeal for information that eventually lead to Bruckner to be identified by the media....not Amaral’s mention of a German scapegoat more than a year before.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 24, 2020, 07:02:37 PM
It certainly won't be for the want of him trying and what interests me is the why of it.
And I will thank you in future to desist from dropping goading ad homs into your posts ... it is definitely against forum rules as well as being horrifically impolite.
As you learned to your cost.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 07:20:45 PM
Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally.
As to the meat of your post....Amaral had no part in naming Bruckner. Firstly Wolter all but identified him while seeking further information....that had absolutely nothing to do with Amaral. After that the media named him...that again had nothing to do with Amaral.
To be clear it was Wolter’s appeal for information that eventually lead to Bruckner to be identified by the media....not Amaral’s mention of a German scapegoat more than a year before.
I have seen no evidence that criticising Amara for being a poor cop is detrimental to mental health...however I have seen a safe where obsessive criticism of the McCanns resulted in suicide.. Just be nice
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 07:40:58 PM
Do you understand what..all my opinion ..means Particularly when combined with the word ..may
"May" is the speculation and opinion is just opinion. I was objecting to the way you trashed someone's beliefs as being "insecure". I didn't delete it but thinking that is the limit to "ad hom" posts. I will allow comments on insecure beliefs.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
I have seen no evidence that criticising Amara for being a poor cop is detrimental to mental health...however I have seen a safe where obsessive criticism of the McCanns resulted in suicide.. Just be nice
I didn't think that was "nice" at all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 08:08:14 PM
So how long is this "ping data" kept? I was aware the PJ had a list of all the phone numbers of phones called and used for the call. But did they keep the ping data?
Wolters said in the MS interview CB's phone pinged the cell site at Ocean Club. That was a ping, not another phone call.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 24, 2020, 08:11:21 PM
"May" is the speculation and opinion is just opinion. I was objecting to the way you trashed someone's beliefs as being "insecure". I didn't delete it but thinking that is the limit to "ad hom" posts. I will allow comments on insecure beliefs.
The poster you are referring to continually posts opinion as fact .have you not noticed
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 24, 2020, 08:18:47 PM
I have seen no evidence that criticising Amara for being a poor cop is detrimental to mental health...however I have seen a safe where obsessive criticism of the McCanns resulted in suicide.. Just be nice
Poor you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2020, 10:58:01 PM
Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally.
As to the meat of your post....Amaral had no part in naming Bruckner. Firstly Wolter all but identified him while seeking further information....that had absolutely nothing to do with Amaral. After that the media named him...that again had nothing to do with Amaral.
To be clear it was Wolter’s appeal for information that eventually lead to Bruckner to be identified by the media....not Amaral’s mention of a German scapegoat more than a year before.
"Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally." faithlilly
What an unnecessarily disagreeable post.
With Amaral’s incompetence and his subsequent vindictiveness taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that Madeleine’s case would have been viewed entirely differently both during the investigation and after.
Amaral wrote a libellous book exonerating himself. He has spent thirteen years+ appearing on television to denigrate her parents. His latest effort being twofold. Promoting false information about the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case while also promoting in the same interview false information about Madeleine’s father.
I doubt very much if any of the 'evidence' he has made a career of promoting is worth any more than the dreadlocks he photoshopped onto Brueckner's photograph for the edification of any who would listen and be fooled by him.
Believe it or not ... there are those who hang onto his every word as though it were gospel truth ... glad that doesn't embarrass you or them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2020, 11:00:10 PM
Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally.
As to the meat of your post....Amaral had no part in naming Bruckner. Firstly Wolter all but identified him while seeking further information....that had absolutely nothing to do with Amaral. After that the media named him...that again had nothing to do with Amaral.
To be clear it was Wolter’s appeal for information that eventually lead to Bruckner to be identified by the media....not Amaral’s mention of a German scapegoat more than a year before.
You may wish to ignore or deny (and it certainly appears as if you do) but there is absolutely no doubt that Amaral broke the news on an Australian podcast that the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case was not Ney but another German paedophile presently detained in a German prison.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on October 24, 2020, 11:03:22 PM
You may wish to ignore or deny (and it certainly appears as if you do) but there is absolutely no doubt that Amaral broke the news on an Australian podcast that the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case was not Ney but another German paedophile presently detained in a German prison.
Yes, that is exactly what he said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2020, 11:09:47 PM
Amaral did not name Brueckner. But he didn't have to. Even a cub reporter would have taken minutes to put a name to him given the information Amaral supplied and that was undoubtedly his intent.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 24, 2020, 11:59:02 PM
"Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally." faithlilly
What an unnecessarily disagreeable post.
With Amaral’s incompetence and his subsequent vindictiveness taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that Madeleine’s case would have been viewed entirely differently both during the investigation and after.
Amaral wrote a libellous book exonerating himself. He has spent thirteen years+ appearing on television to denigrate her parents. His latest effort being twofold. Promoting false information about the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case while also promoting in the same interview false information about Madeleine’s father.
I doubt very much if any of the 'evidence' he has made a career of promoting is worth any more than the dreadlocks he photoshopped onto Brueckner's photograph for the edification of any who would listen and be fooled by him.
Believe it or not ... there are those who hang onto his every word as though it were gospel truth ... glad that doesn't embarrass you or them.
I’m glad that you’re glad.
I often wonder why you don’t just cut and paste your posts....it would certainly save you time repeating the same old tropes again and again.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 12:02:08 AM
Amaral did not name Brueckner. But he didn't have to. Even a cub reporter would have taken minutes to put a name to him given the information Amaral supplied and that was undoubtedly his intent.
The reporters, cub or not, took 15 months to name Brueckner. Why do you think that was ? 15 months sitting on a scoop like that. Amazing !!!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on October 25, 2020, 12:08:42 AM
The reporters, cub or not, took 15 months to name Brueckner. Why do you think that was ? 15 months sitting on a scoop like that. Amazing !!!
However. Nothing, not even a whisper in any current investigation to suggest that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance. But you do still believe that to be true.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 12:19:52 AM
However. Nothing, not even a whisper in any current investigation to suggest that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance. But you do still believe that to be true.
Wolter said the Portuguese were still looking at the parents...so somewhat more of a whisper according to Wolter.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 25, 2020, 12:26:37 AM
I often wonder why you don’t just cut and paste your posts....it would certainly save you time repeating the same old tropes again and again.
In my opinion your rudeness merely emphasises your chagrin about having no valid argument but it is generally off topic and disruptive as above. Please desist as both break forum protocols
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 25, 2020, 12:40:17 AM
The reporters, cub or not, took 15 months to name Brueckner. Why do you think that was ? 15 months sitting on a scoop like that. Amazing !!!
Which is perhaps why (apart from his fee) Amaral had to make an appearance on Spanish Television to rectify the situation.
In my opinion ;)
That seems to have rectified the situation. The cub reporter finally worked it out but unfortunately Amaral had to leave his fingerprints all over it before achieving the desired effect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 25, 2020, 12:51:02 AM
Which is perhaps why (apart from his fee) Amaral had to make an appearance on Spanish Television to rectify the situation.
In my opinion ;)
That seems to have rectified the situation. The cub reporter finally worked it out but unfortunately Amaral had to leave his fingerprints all over it before achieving the desired effect.
Rectify what ? He had nothing to rectify.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 01:15:12 AM
Brueckner is already arrested and is going nowhere anytime soon. I am sure he will be questioned if or when it suits the Germans to do so. In the interim I believe many wide ranging investigations concerning criminal cases are being conducted with this man at the core.
They have been investigating this man against the clock for years. It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.
The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/former-portuguese-police-chief-goncalo-amaral-says-madeleine-mccann-suspect-is-in-german-prison/news-story/13992e3c9cc61ef835a2d95a7f5a7025 And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side https://zap.aeiou.pt/amaral-arrasa-investigacao-alema-331219 And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html
[b]The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.[/b][/size]
Very odd. I wonder too. I think that Briettas very well researched post deserves another viewing, with perhaps some thoughtful responses
- They have been investigating this man against the clock for years. It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.
The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that
- And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side
- And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut
- The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.
Briettas observations deserve a second viewing IMO
They are very pertinent. Just why is Amaral interfering with a case that he no longer has any part of? ...and why is he IMO publicizing falsehoods ?
Is it just to have a dig at Operation Grange and The Mccanns? .... or is there something else ... something deeper?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 25, 2020, 08:03:47 AM
It is looking more and more like CB was, in fact, a scapegoat there seems to be no evidence he is the so-called abductor of Maddie.
We can also reveal how cops on Praia Da Luz where Maddie vanished 13 years ago are privately seething the investigation into Bruckener has carried on so long.
They insist he was ruled out as a suspect soon after the four-year-old went missing.
And the Portugese believe vital time has been wasted by focusing on the jailed German sex offender.
“The game is almost up for the officers investigating Christian B,” a source close to the investigation said yesterday.
“They’ve been struggling now for many weeks to find new clues[/u]. Leads have dried up catastrophically and there are now hardly any new lines of enquiry at all.
“None of this has come as a surprise to the Portuguese team who worked on the original investigation. They have believed for a long time that the investigation into B is effectively a wild goose chase.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 08:17:17 AM
We can also reveal how cops on Praia Da Luz where Maddie vanished 13 years ago are privately seething the investigation into Bruckener has carried on so long.
They insist he was ruled out as a suspect soon after the four-year-old went missing.
And the Portugese believe vital time has been wasted by focusing on the jailed German sex offender.
“The game is almost up for the officers investigating Christian B,” a source close to the investigation said yesterday.
“They’ve been struggling now for many weeks to find new clues[/u]. Leads have dried up catastrophically and there are now hardly any new lines of enquiry at all.
“None of this has come as a surprise to the Portuguese team who worked on the original investigation. They have believed for a long time that the investigation into B is effectively a wild goose chase.
This is from a Portuguese source who know nothing about the German evidence. It will not be easy to build s case against CB after all this time but Wolters has strong evidence Maddie was murdered. This in itself is progress and may well prove stranger abduction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 25, 2020, 08:35:15 AM
We can also reveal how cops on Praia Da Luz where Maddie vanished 13 years ago are privately seething the investigation into Bruckener has carried on so long.
They insist he was ruled out as a suspect soon after the four-year-old went missing.
And the Portugese believe vital time has been wasted by focusing on the jailed German sex offender.
“The game is almost up for the officers investigating Christian B,” a source close to the investigation said yesterday.
“They’ve been struggling now for many weeks to find new clues[/u]. Leads have dried up catastrophically and there are now hardly any new lines of enquiry at all.
“None of this has come as a surprise to the Portuguese team who worked on the original investigation. They have believed for a long time that the investigation into B is effectively a wild goose chase.
They would say that wouldn’t they. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if “a source close to the investigation “ wasn’t a certain “doctor” of the dark arts of policing himself.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 08:45:38 AM
It seems the Sun and the Star with their Portuguese sources have now become the sceptic go to source for reliable information on the case
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 25, 2020, 09:19:24 AM
This is from a Portuguese source who know nothing about the German evidence. It will not be easy to build s case against CB after all this time but Wolters has strong evidence Maddie was murdered. This in itself is progress and may well prove stranger abduction
Thought they were all working together just shows they are not.
SY seems to be still treating it as a missing case or why else would they need another year's funding.
More or less what we have been saying
It’s an about-turn from the prosecutor who has previously claimed police have “concrete” evidence Madeleine is dead.
Now he’s told podcast They’ve Taken Her: “Maybe we need more witnesses or photos or video.”
He added: "Maybe we need one witness who can tell us the things we don’t know.”
A friend of the McCann family said: “It feels like he is trying to lower expectations after coming out all guns blazing.
"It’s heartbreaking for Kate and Gerry.”
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 10:24:46 AM
I think you will find its obvious to a lot more people than me.
Imo judging by your posts its some sort of game, not you want the truth. ..more you just want to be proved right.
Think you would be wise to change your signature.
Why do you and others feel the need to constantly ctiticise me...its pathetic imo....and I certainly dont need any advice from you....I think I have afar better undersatnding of the case
Again.....I think its clear Wolters has proof of abduction but the evidence providing this does not FULLY implicate CB. Proof of abduction is agood start
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 25, 2020, 11:52:41 AM
Why do you and others feel the need to constantly ctiticise me...its pathetic imo....and I certainly dont need any advice from you....I think I have afar better undersatnding of the case
Again.....I think its clear Wolters has proof of abduction but the evidence providing this does not FULLY implicate CB. Proof of abduction is agood start
Probably the arrogance of your posts. when at the end of the day you're a poster with opinions the same as us all.
CB seems he is going to be the latest abduction suspect nothing more ...wether u understand the evidence or not doesnt mean your opinion makes it right.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 12:23:50 PM
Probably the arrogance of your posts. when at the end of the day you're a poster with opinions the same as us all.
CB seems he is going to be the latest abduction suspect nothing more ...wether u understand the evidence or not doesnt mean your opinion makes it right.
So you admit you constantly criticise me because you perceive me as arrogant....LOL
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 25, 2020, 12:29:37 PM
A photograph wouldn't really be evidence of death, unless it showed injuries incompatible with life
A photo or video of abuse would be evidence of death...as in the RUI Pedro case because most abuse is followed by death....but it wouldnt be absolute proof. That ties in a exactly with waht Wolters has said
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 25, 2020, 01:46:54 PM
Certainly not the best expressed soundbite from the 'family pal'
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 01:53:17 PM
Do you mean camera clock ? Might never have been set, like mine, or set wrongly like the McCann one
If there is a photo of Madeleine on this man's Camera then the time wouldn't matter all that much.
I have already told you that I have no thoughts on the involvement of Brueckner, not even to the extent of what Wolters has had to say. I have only ever wanted to see Evidence, or better still Proof.
I am tired of arguing about what is evidence and thoroughly fed up with anyone trying to implicate The McCanns who logistically cannot have done that of which they have been accused. Presuming that some of you actually understand Logistics. Or even half decent English. Let alone Portuguese or German, or the legal system of either.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 03:13:38 PM
If there is a photo of Madeleine on this man's Camera then the time wouldn't matter all that much.
I have already told you that I have no thoughts on the involvement of Brueckner, not even to the extent of what Wolters has had to say. I have only ever wanted to see Evidence, or better still Proof.
I am tired of arguing about what is evidence and thoroughly fed up with anyone trying to implicate The McCanns who logistically cannot have done that of which they have been accused. Presuming that some of you actually understand Logistics. Or even half decent English. Let alone Portuguese or German, or the legal system of either.
Logistically the parents absolutely could have done it. In my opinion over-reliance on their timeline is the problem.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 04:07:46 PM
If there is a photo of Madeleine on this man's Camera then the time wouldn't matter all that much.
I have already told you that I have no thoughts on the involvement of Brueckner, not even to the extent of what Wolters has had to say. I have only ever wanted to see Evidence, or better still Proof.
I am tired of arguing about what is evidence and thoroughly fed up with anyone trying to implicate The McCanns who logistically cannot have done that of which they have been accused. Presuming that some of you actually understand Logistics. Or even half decent English. Let alone Portuguese or German, or the legal system of either.
If incriminating photos were found on the removeable SD cards of Brueckner's camera(s), information (which would include camera make, focal lengths, aperture & time values, and also crucial dates when they were taken) known as EXIF data is easily displayed by right clicking on any saved photo file, then on the Properties tab, if using Windows OS for example. The attached photograph was taken on a camera which doesn't have a user date-stamping facility; nevertheless, the date and time when it was taken is still available as EXIF data stored on its SD card. So it's possible Brueckner's photos could be shown to have been taken anytime in the days shortly after the disappearance of MM (unless he was crafty enough and had the foresight to set the camera so that this data wouldn't be recorded).
[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 04:45:38 PM
Absolute nonsense. You actually believe that they dumped Madeleine's body in a bin? And then went out to dinner?
You must be as daft as Amaral.
No I think it was possible that Gerry checked at 9.30 and found Madeleine dead. Matt had only ever checked on the McCann children by listening at the shutters. Why would he enter the apartment without being asked...and, conveniently not see Madeleine ? I think Gerry did that check.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 25, 2020, 04:51:14 PM
If incriminating photos were found on the removeable SD cards of Brueckner's camera(s), information (which would include camera make, focal lengths, aperture & time values, and also crucial dates when they were taken) known as EXIF data is easily displayed by right clicking on any saved photo file, then on the Properties tab, if using Windows OS for example. The attached photograph was taken on a camera which doesn't have a user date-stamping facility; nevertheless, the date and time when it was taken is still available as EXIF data stored on its SD card. So it's possible Brueckner's photos could be shown to have been taken anytime in the days shortly after the disappearance of MM (unless he was crafty enough and had the foresight to set the camera so that this data wouldn't be recorded).
As far as I'm aware, the time & date will only be relevant if it has been set in the first place, otherwise it will refer back to the factory settings.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 04:52:49 PM
If incriminating photos were found on the removeable SD cards of Brueckner's camera(s), information (which would include camera make, focal lengths, aperture & time values, and also crucial dates when they were taken) known as EXIF data is easily displayed by right clicking on any saved photo file, then on the Properties tab, if using Windows OS for example. The attached photograph was taken on a camera which doesn't have a user date-stamping facility; nevertheless, the date and time when it was taken is still available as EXIF data stored on its SD card. So it's possible Brueckner's photos could be shown to have been taken anytime in the days shortly after the disappearance of MM (unless he was crafty enough and had the foresight to set the camera so that this data wouldn't be recorded).
that sounds sensible.....one of the few posts taht have today
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 04:54:05 PM
As far as I'm aware, the time & date will only be relevant if it has been set in the first place, otherwise it will refer back to the factory settings.
Any photo of Madeleine on his camera would be enough.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 25, 2020, 04:55:38 PM
If incriminating photos were found on the removeable SD cards of Brueckner's camera(s), information (which would include camera make, focal lengths, aperture & time values, and also crucial dates when they were taken) known as EXIF data is easily displayed by right clicking on any saved photo file, then on the Properties tab, if using Windows OS for example. The attached photograph was taken on a camera which doesn't have a user date-stamping facility; nevertheless, the date and time when it was taken is still available as EXIF data stored on its SD card. So it's possible Brueckner's photos could be shown to have been taken anytime in the days shortly after the disappearance of MM (unless he was crafty enough and had the foresight to set the camera so that this data wouldn't be recorded).
there could be other photos on the same memory card taken with the same camera taht could also provide evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 05:09:43 PM
No I think it was possible that Gerry checked at 9.30 and found Madeleine dead. Matt had only ever checked on the McCann children by listening at the shutters. Why would he enter the apartment without being asked...and, conveniently not see Madeleine ? I think Gerry did that check.
Conspiracy theory alert ^^^
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 25, 2020, 05:26:00 PM
Yes, try it for yourself. Any photo taken on your camera & downloaded to your computer with show details of the camera etc as described previously. A picture downloaded from the internet will not have this data, though it may show other data
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 05:29:47 PM
Yes, try it for yourself. Any photo taken on your camera & downloaded to your computer with show details of the camera etc as described previously. A picture downloaded from the internet will not have this data, though it may show other data
Why would I want to do that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 05:32:40 PM
Yes, try it for yourself. Any photo taken on your camera & downloaded to your computer with show details of the camera etc as described previously. A picture downloaded from the internet will not have this data, though it may show other data
so if the photo has the data it was downloaded from a camera ...not the net
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 25, 2020, 05:32:59 PM
so if the photo has the data it was downloaded from a camera ...not the net
The date created will be the date/time downloaded to computer/ memory stick, but if downloaded from internet, will not have information pertaining to Brueckner's camera. That only appears if the image was originally generated by him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 05:46:13 PM
Yes, try it for yourself. Any photo taken on your camera & downloaded to your computer with show details of the camera etc as described previously. A picture downloaded from the internet will not have this data, though it may show other data
Perfectly correct. In fact, you can go into photo properties on your computer and make most photo data unreadable if you really want or even render it readable only by using a password.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 25, 2020, 06:33:29 PM
Logistically the parents absolutely could have done it. In my opinion over-reliance on their timeline is the problem.
Given that the last time she was seen in public was around 6pm and her disappearance wasn't announced until after 10pm then a lot can happen in four hours. We know that Kate McCann's version of David Payne's visit to the apartment doesn't tally with his and in fact were so different that Amaral rightly thought it extremely suspicious.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 06:43:01 PM
Given that the last time she was seen in public was around 6pm and her disappearance wasn't announced until after 10pm then a lot can happen in four hours. We know that Kate McCann's version of David Payne's visit to the apartment doesn't tally with his and in fact were so different that Amaral rightly thought it extremely suspicious.
And the visit didn’t appear to rather late on the proceedings. The questionnaires filled in by DP doesn’t appear to have the visit.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 25, 2020, 06:52:17 PM
Given that the last time she was seen in public was around 6pm and her disappearance wasn't announced until after 10pm then a lot can happen in four hours. We know that Kate McCann's version of David Payne's visit to the apartment doesn't tally with his and in fact were so different that Amaral rightly thought it extremely suspicious.
How does this fit with your belief that Madeleine woke and wandered?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 25, 2020, 06:59:37 PM
And the visit didn’t appear to rather late on the proceedings. The questionnaires filled in by DP doesn’t appear to have the visit.
5pm in the questionnaire. Amazing how they can remember things entirely different only hours before a crime happened. You should be thinking straight after the disappearance what can I remember about that day that may help find her. Instead we got contradictions and err's.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2020, 07:02:24 PM
Given that the last time she was seen in public was around 6pm and her disappearance wasn't announced until after 10pm then a lot can happen in four hours. We know that Kate McCann's version of David Payne's visit to the apartment doesn't tally with his and in fact were so different that Amaral rightly thought it extremely suspicious.
Don't you think that master criminals as sceptics think they are would have put their heads together and made sure they were all word perfect.
In my opinion that would have been cause for suspicion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2020, 07:07:49 PM
This was a developing story..collaboration wasn’t always possible.
Was it you who posted only yesterday I believe, precisely that slur in relation to the timeline ... or was it A N Other sceptic?
In my opinion nefarious collaboration is a sceptic shibboleth ~ which in my opinion is just a nonsense for the simple reason they would have made a much better job of it if they had.
For example why not set the ball rolling at 7.00am ??? in my opinion that could have been made to address quite a few of the "inconsistencies" which have caused sceptics such angst over the years.
I think their priority was to get Madeleine back and only the truth was going to do that but the evidence is that an incompetent in charge of the investigation didn't take the time to work that one out.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 07:49:25 PM
Was it you who posted only yesterday I believe, precisely that slur in relation to the timeline ... or was it A N Other sceptic?
In my opinion nefarious collaboration is a sceptic shibboleth ~ which in my opinion is just a nonsense for the simple reason they would have made a much better job of it if they had.
For example why not set the ball rolling at 7.00am ??? in my opinion that could have been made to address quite a few of the "inconsistencies" which have caused sceptics such angst over the years.
I think their priority was to get Madeleine back and only the truth was going to do that but the evidence is that an incompetent in charge of the investigation didn't take the time to work that one out.
Collaboration is a slur ? We have empirical evidence of it with the timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May. If they had collaborated they would have made a better job of it ? They did collaborate on the 10th of May timeline and Gerry still managed to be on a different side of the road to that claimed later.
As I said a fast moving story.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 25, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Collaboration is a slur ? We have empirical evidence of it with the timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May. If they had collaborated they would have made a better job of it ? They did collaborate on the 10th of May timeline and Gerry still managed to be on a different side of the road to that claimed later.
As I said a fast moving story.
The important point is that Gerry was on the road. Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son. As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.
Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 25, 2020, 11:25:39 PM
The important point is that Gerry was on the road. Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son. As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.
Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.
What is important about Gerry McCann being on the road?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2020, 11:33:10 PM
The important point is that Gerry was on the road. Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son. As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.
Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.
Glad you didn’t try to argue the collaboration point.
The important point is that two witnesses put Gerry and Jez directly outside 5a while Gerry put himself on the other side of the road, a position that he didn’t seem to hold on the 10th of May timeline. I just wonder what was said to Gerry by the police in that interview to make him change his position and undermine his credibility?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 25, 2020, 11:52:30 PM
Perhaps you would be better asking faithlilly that ~ she seemed to think it of import or she wouldn't have raised it.
Imagine your little girl is missing, feared abducted. You decide to film a reconstruction to jog people’s memories but your recollection is different from two other witnesses. Would you a) accept that your memory is wrong and go along with the similar recollection of the other two witnesses or b) dig your heels in, insist that you are right and undermine the memory and credibility of the only witness who, perhaps, saw the abductor ?
It was certainly important to Gerry were he stood as he was so insistent that he was right, no matter what the consequences. IMO by the time he got to the police station on the 10th he knew that the PJ weren’t convinced that Tanner could have passed, unseen, by Jez and himself and had to change position. Pity he couldn’t get the other witnesses to agree. Poor Jane, her tears said it all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 26, 2020, 01:11:18 AM
Imagine your little girl is missing, feared abducted. You decide to film a reconstruction to jog people’s memories but your recollection is different from two other witnesses. Would you a) accept that your memory is wrong and go along with the similar recollection of the other two witnesses or b) dig your heels in, insist that you are right and undermine the memory and credibility of the only witness who, perhaps, saw the abductor ?
It was certainly important to Gerry were he stood as he was so insistent that he was right, no matter what the consequences. IMO by the time he got to the police station on the 10th he knew that the PJ weren’t convinced that Tanner could have passed, unseen, by Jez and himself and had to change position. Pity he couldn’t get the other witnesses to agree. Poor Jane, her tears said it all.
Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.
Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.
You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing. It was where Jane was walking that was important. It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.
We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous. We know the whereabouts of the other seven. What we don't know is where Brueckner was. I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 26, 2020, 03:51:39 AM
Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.
Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.
You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing. It was where Jane was walking that was important. It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.
We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous. We know the whereabouts of the other seven. What we don't know is where Brueckner was. I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.
Amaral insists that Tanner never passed the men which would fit in with what they have said about the incident. Neither saw her.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 26, 2020, 05:54:19 AM
The important point is that Gerry was on the road. Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son. As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.
Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.
Who? determined the sex of the child being carried by Tannerman.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 26, 2020, 06:05:17 AM
Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.
Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.
You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing. It was where Jane was walking that was important. It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.
We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous. We know the whereabouts of the other seven. What we don't know is where Brueckner was. I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.
Absolutely... there's no mistaking why Jane Tanner was so upset.
The full "Madeleine was here" programme has been deleted from YouTube and elsewhere (copyright reasons), but I managed to upload a saved copy from my computer. Better save it to your own before it disappears again because MediaFire will probably only store it for 14 days. The relevant JT part begins at around 11:00 minutes in...
Absolutely... there's no mistaking why Jane Tanner was so upset.
The full "Madeleine was here" programme has been deleted from YouTube and elsewhere (copyright reasons), but I managed to upload a saved copy from my computer. Better save it to your own before it disappears again because MediaFire will probably only store it for 14 days. The relevant JT part begins at around 11:00 minutes in...
Amaral insists that Tanner never passed the men which would fit in with what they have said about the incident. Neither saw her.
In my opinion just another fallacy from Amaral in an investigation he littered with them.
If they didn't see Jane she certainly saw them and of paramount importance was the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block from which it was later discovered a child had gone missing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 26, 2020, 11:12:11 AM
I think Jane was upset because she was being browbeaten by Gerry on camera and she disagreed.
No wonder. She's standing at the entrance to the path between block 5 and the Tapas complex. On 4th May the cross on her diagram showing the position of the two men was north of that spot. Her contribution to the team timeline before 10th May placed the men north of the gate to 5A. In her rogatory interview she contradicts the team timeline and places them south of the gate, but not specifically at the entrance to the path. In my opinion she has either no idea where the men were or she has changed her account for reasons unknown.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 26, 2020, 01:02:23 PM
No wonder. She's standing at the entrance to the path between block 5 and the Tapas complex. On 4th May the cross on her diagram showing the position of the two men was north of that spot. Her contribution to the team timeline before 10th May placed the men north of the gate to 5A. In her rogatory interview she contradicts the team timeline and places them south of the gate, but not specifically at the entrance to the path. In my opinion she has either no idea where the men were or she has changed her account for reasons unknown.
You think it is all so simple but I think you really underestimate the trauma this principal witness was undergoing.
She was being asked to relive on location an event which she firmly believed was the abduction of a child. What a pity you appear to be intent on denigrating she and her evidence even further than she and it has been.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 26, 2020, 01:09:25 PM
No wonder. She's standing at the entrance to the path between block 5 and the Tapas complex. On 4th May the cross on her diagram showing the position of the two men was north of that spot. Her contribution to the team timeline before 10th May placed the men north of the gate to 5A. In her rogatory interview she contradicts the team timeline and places them south of the gate, but not specifically at the entrance to the path. In my opinion she has either no idea where the men were or she has changed her account for reasons unknown.
Here's a true story for you. Believe it or not, I don't really care, I know it's the truth and that's all that matters. I was verbally assaulted on my walk home by two lads on bicycles, on two separate occasions, on the same stretch of road. Turns out these kids were intimidating other pedestrians over the course of several weeks and when I found out I reported my experience to the police. They asked me where the incidents had taken place. I gave a rough approximation of the two locations ( a few dozen yards apart) that the attacks had occurred. There was CCTV footage available for one of the locations, and whilst it caught me walking past, it did not capture any incident, only the boys on bicycles passing by a few minutes later. I couldn't be precise in my recall, even though the incidents were only a week part, the most recent reported the same evening. Does that mean the incident was a figment of my imagination?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 26, 2020, 01:36:12 PM
You think it is all so simple but I think you really underestimate the trauma this principal witness was undergoing.
She was being asked to relive on location an event which she firmly believed was the abduction of a child. What a pity you appear to be intent on denigrating she and her evidence even further than she and it has been.
It clearly wasn't simple. Jane Tanner thought she knew what she had seen on 3rd May, but for some reason she found herself saying she saw the men talking 16 metres away from the location she had testified to in 2007.
Then she found herself being overruled and being told that she was still mistaken. The men, she was now told, were 9 metres away from where she thought they were and on the other side of the road.
I expect that must that have been traumatising, it also added to the already existing doubts that she was a reliable witness. I'm not denigrating her evidence, merely pointing out who did.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 26, 2020, 02:14:59 PM
Here's a true story for you. Believe it or not, I don't really care, I know it's the truth and that's all that matters. I was verbally assaulted on my walk home by two lads on bicycles, on two separate occasions, on the same stretch of road. Turns out these kids were intimidating other pedestrians over the course of several weeks and when I found out I reported my experience to the police. They asked me where the incidents had taken place. I gave a rough approximation of the two locations ( a few dozen yards apart) that the attacks had occurred. There was CCTV footage available for one of the locations, and whilst it caught me walking past, it did not capture any incident, only the boys on bicycles passing by a few minutes later. I couldn't be precise in my recall, even though the incidents were only a week part, the most recent reported the same evening. Does that mean the incident was a figment of my imagination?
Oh sorry to hear of your ordeal,
No, it wasn't a figment of your imagination you remember it happening clearly...but
it just shows you you can't be precise with times like we are supposed to be expected to do for the timeline.
Like you say rough approximation.
When 5 mins here or there could make alll the difference, instead as it being punctual on the dot.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on October 26, 2020, 02:55:30 PM
It clearly wasn't simple. Jane Tanner thought she knew what she had seen on 3rd May, but for some reason she found herself saying she saw the men talking 16 metres away from the location she had testified to in 2007.
Then she found herself being overruled and being told that she was still mistaken. The men, she was now told, were 9 metres away from where she thought they were and on the other side of the road.
I expect that must that have been traumatising, it also added to the already existing doubts that she was a reliable witness. I'm not denigrating her evidence, merely pointing out who did.
This has been gone over time and time again, as you well know Gunit. It has been thoroughly analysed with the consensus being that Gerry and Jez were chatting , with Jez and baby standing in the road and Gerry half in the road. They were positioned adjacent to the walkway leading to the back of the apartments. As The carpenters, IIRC, talked about a number of vehicles uphill of the tapas reception, they must have been standing between parked vehicles.
Cant think why you are trying to change what has now become a fact, thanks to the analyses of different statements, videos and maps, which overwhelmingly place it the edge of the pavement and into the road beyond, right by the alleyway.
Even Amaral is clear about where Jane passed Gerry and Jez. He is shown on video actually at the spot demonstrating where Gerry and Jez stood.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 26, 2020, 03:12:38 PM
No, it wasn't a figment of your imagination you remember it happening clearly...but
it just shows you you can't be precise with times like we are supposed to be expected to do for the timeline.
Like you say rough approximation.
When 5 mins here or there could make alll the difference, instead as it being punctual on the dot.
This is exactly my point. Expecting witnesses to have perfect recall is unfair on them. It doesn't mean they are lying when their witness statments contradict others, just that their recall is imperfect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 26, 2020, 03:17:11 PM
So Gerry could have been mistaken over where he was standing.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 26, 2020, 03:27:38 PM
So Gerry could have been mistaken over where he was standing.
Of course he could - and why would this be significant? Faithlilly won't have it that he's mistaken however, she believes he deliberately places himself a few feet away from the actual spot he was standing, for reasons which are so convoluted as to be quite absurd.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 26, 2020, 05:00:44 PM
Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.
Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.
You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing. It was where Jane was walking that was important. It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.
We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous. We know the whereabouts of the other seven. What we don't know is where Brueckner was. I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.
It appeared that Jane was weeping at the memory of seeing the abduction but it is obvious that the scene was cut that way to make it appear like that. If I’d been humiliated on nation television like Jane was by Gerry I’d have cried too.
In the end though it didn’t matter where any of them was standing because in all likelihood Tannerman wasn’t the abductor....but of course Gerry didn’t see that complication coming. I wish I could feel sorry for Edgar...the detective who wasn’t allowed access to the full files...but I don’t.
And yes there was four people in the street that night, unfortunately not all at the same time but, thank goodness all have been identified.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 26, 2020, 05:51:40 PM
This has been gone over time and time again, as you well know Gunit. It has been thoroughly analysed with the consensus being that Gerry and Jez were chatting , with Jez and baby standing in the road and Gerry half in the road. They were positioned adjacent to the walkway leading to the back of the apartments. As The carpenters, IIRC, talked about a number of vehicles uphill of the tapas reception, they must have been standing between parked vehicles.
Cant think why you are trying to change what has now become a fact, thanks to the analyses of different statements, videos and maps, which overwhelmingly place it the edge of the pavement and into the road beyond, right by the alleyway.
Even Amaral is clear about where Jane passed Gerry and Jez. He is shown on video actually at the spot demonstrating where Gerry and Jez stood.
What concensus? What fact? That's all your opinion, and one with which Gerry McCann disagrees.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 26, 2020, 06:44:28 PM
To say that Jane was humiliated by Gerry on national TVis complete fantasy IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 26, 2020, 11:36:46 PM
It appeared that Jane was weeping at the memory of seeing the abduction but it is obvious that the scene was cut that way to make it appear like that. If I’d been humiliated on nation television like Jane was by Gerry I’d have cried too.
In the end though it didn’t matter where any of them was standing because in all likelihood Tannerman wasn’t the abductor....but of course Gerry didn’t see that complication coming. I wish I could feel sorry for Edgar...the detective who wasn’t allowed access to the full files...but I don’t.
And yes there was four people in the street that night, unfortunately not all at the same time but, thank goodness all have been identified.
In believe your opinion piece to be so far removed from reality that it is less than an irrelevance. But I wouldn't worry about it. You weren't there. But even people who were there sometimes got things wrong with the best will in the world.
Much as the member of staff at the Millennium who remembered Madeleine and the charming family with which she had such rapport, breakfasting there every morning. But she was wrong. The McCann family had breakfast there only on the first morning.
You see ~ just because a witness remembers something in a certain way doesn't mean it is correct. And just because the error is recorded in the files doesn't make it true. I'm not sure if you have grasped that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 27, 2020, 12:08:28 AM
In believe your opinion piece to be so far removed from reality that it is less than an irrelevance. But I wouldn't worry about it. You weren't there. But even people who were there sometimes got things wrong with the best will in the world.
Much as the member of staff at the Millennium who remembered Madeleine and the charming family with which she had such rapport, breakfasting there every morning. But she was wrong. The McCann family had breakfast there only on the first morning.
You see ~ just because a witness remembers something in a certain way doesn't mean it is correct. And just because the error is recorded in the files doesn't make it true. I'm not sure if you have grasped that.
Of course I wasn’t there and that’s why I’m relying on the witness statements of people who were.
I’m not sure how one busy waitress, mistaking another family for the McCanns in any way has the same evidential value as two focused witnesses having identical recollections. Perhaps you can explain it to me ?
I’m sure you, like myself, can see the logic of putting faith in the recollection of two witnesses saying the same thing rather than the witness who differs. The mockumentary made it clear that Gerry had misremembered his position during the chat and equally as clear that he was going to double down on that recollection. Makes you wonder why when all the evidence was against him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 27, 2020, 02:08:09 AM
Of course I wasn’t there and that’s why I’m relying on the witness statements of people who were.
I’m not sure how one busy waitress, mistaking another family for the McCanns in any way has the same evidential value as two focused witnesses having identical recollections. Perhaps you can explain it to me ?
I’m sure you, like myself, can see the logic of putting faith in the recollection of two witnesses saying the same thing rather than the witness who differs. The mockumentary made it clear that Gerry had misremembered his position during the chat and equally as clear that he was going to double down on that recollection. Makes you wonder why when all the evidence was against him.
The word is "documentary".
And as far as I am concerned your post merely confirms my opinion that you probably didn't grasp the concept that witnesses can be mistaken.
If I remember correctly ~ Jes didn't take part in the filming and if so what his opinion might have been when in situ during a reconstruction as Jane and Gerry were can only be speculation.
I think your comment regarding Gerry is risible and in my opinion is palpable in its antipathy for a person that you don't even know. I find that most odd and quite mystifying.
We know that Jes and Gerry met and stopped to have a conversation. Where in the street? does it really matter?
The important witness was Jane and the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block. A scenario which immediately she heard of Madeleine's disappearance she associated with seeing Madeleine being kidnapped and she lived with that for a long, long time
Snip Jane Tanner became the first of the McCanns' friends among the Tapas Seven to speak out publicly last night.
She told how she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm near the family's apartment on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.
Jane, 38, said: "He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark.
"I just didn't see it properly. I wish to God I had.
"I wake up to that image every day. Every day I see him striding away, carrying Madeleine away.
"I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over.
"It's horrible. I didn't get a clear look at him. I registered his hair and clothes because that's what I could see.
"I have gone over and over that moment to try to remember more about him but I can't." _________________________________________________________________________
She said: "My attention was drawn to the man because the child in his arms had bare feet.
"It was cold and I thought I would have had something on the child's feet, like a blanket.
"All I could see of the child was its legs and feet dangling. The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly.
"I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine."
An hour later, Jane was caring for her younger daughter, who had been sick in their apartment, when Kate McCann discovered Madeleine was missing.
Jane said: "I opened the door and saw all the commotion.
"I saw all our friends outside. One shouted at me 'Madeleine's gone.'
"The image of that man carrying the child came into my head and a feeling of complete horror washed over me.
"It seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding somewhere because they were all searching and shouting her name. I thought Kate believed that too. I knew if I told her about the man it would make her panic more.
"So I told another friend Fiona Payne. Fi was in such a panic shock I don't know if she took it in properly. _________________________________________________________________________
"At around 11.15pm two local policemen arrived and I told them immediately what I had seen.
"I described the man and the direction he was coming from and where he was going to.
Later I went to the police HQ to give a formal statement. It was then that I remembered the child's pyjamas were pink and white.
"I didn't know it then but they were what Madeleine was wearing. When I did find out I was totally stricken by guilt.
"I felt I could have stopped it all happening.
"Kate and Gerry have told me I shouldn't feel like that but the guilt will never go away." _________________________________________________________________________
Jane explained why she decided to speak out. She said: "There have been so many lies printed about us, that we are 'covering up' for Kate and Gerry or that we keep wanting to change our statements.
"Now I feel it has got to the point that these untruths are jeopardising the hunt for Madeleine
"People might think that it was all made up. That's why I am speaking now, for Madeleine's sake.
"I did see a man that night carrying away Madeleine, she WAS abducted. _________________________________________________________________________
"Kate and Gerry are doting parents. To make them suspects is horrific.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine going.
"We were there. There was no opportunity for them to hide a body, as has been suggested, or any of the other ridiculous accusations.
"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine.
"All the lies and the slating have been totally unbearable for us. I can't even begin to imagine what it has been like for Kate and Gerry.
"I marvel at how they keep going. What does it, I think, is their total, unshakeable belief that they will get Madeleine back." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-pals-guilt-522326
Yet here we are thirteen+ years down the line and still I think there are those who have missed the point Jane made so forcibly all those year ago "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."
And I think it is only adding insult to injury to assert that Jane was distraught for any other reason than reliving the trauma of witnessing a child being carried away.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 27, 2020, 07:30:28 AM
Isn’t the so-called “mocumentary” called that because it presents facts supporting the abduction and the McCanns? If that is the case why would it include footage of Gerry supposedly bullying a witness to tears? It’s utter nonsense to suggest it would, but that is what some have chosen to believe (and promote) for many, many years. Some people really could do with a dose of smelling salts imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 27, 2020, 08:19:44 AM
And as far as I am concerned your post merely confirms my opinion that you probably didn't grasp the concept that witnesses can be mistaken.
If I remember correctly ~ Jes didn't take part in the filming and if so what his opinion might have been when in situ during a reconstruction as Jane and Gerry were can only be speculation.
I think your comment regarding Gerry is risible and in my opinion is palpable in its antipathy for a person that you don't even know. I find that most odd and quite mystifying.
We know that Jes and Gerry met and stopped to have a conversation. Where in the street? does it really matter?
The important witness was Jane and the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block. A scenario which immediately she heard of Madeleine's disappearance she associated with seeing Madeleine being kidnapped and she lived with that for a long, long time
Snip Jane Tanner became the first of the McCanns' friends among the Tapas Seven to speak out publicly last night.
She told how she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm near the family's apartment on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.
Jane, 38, said: "He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark.
"I just didn't see it properly. I wish to God I had.
"I wake up to that image every day. Every day I see him striding away, carrying Madeleine away.
"I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over.
"It's horrible. I didn't get a clear look at him. I registered his hair and clothes because that's what I could see.
"I have gone over and over that moment to try to remember more about him but I can't." _________________________________________________________________________
She said: "My attention was drawn to the man because the child in his arms had bare feet.
"It was cold and I thought I would have had something on the child's feet, like a blanket.
"All I could see of the child was its legs and feet dangling. The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly.
"I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine."
An hour later, Jane was caring for her younger daughter, who had been sick in their apartment, when Kate McCann discovered Madeleine was missing.
Jane said: "I opened the door and saw all the commotion.
"I saw all our friends outside. One shouted at me 'Madeleine's gone.'
"The image of that man carrying the child came into my head and a feeling of complete horror washed over me.
"It seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding somewhere because they were all searching and shouting her name. I thought Kate believed that too. I knew if I told her about the man it would make her panic more.
"So I told another friend Fiona Payne. Fi was in such a panic shock I don't know if she took it in properly. _________________________________________________________________________
"At around 11.15pm two local policemen arrived and I told them immediately what I had seen.
"I described the man and the direction he was coming from and where he was going to.
Later I went to the police HQ to give a formal statement. It was then that I remembered the child's pyjamas were pink and white.
"I didn't know it then but they were what Madeleine was wearing. When I did find out I was totally stricken by guilt.
"I felt I could have stopped it all happening.
"Kate and Gerry have told me I shouldn't feel like that but the guilt will never go away." _________________________________________________________________________
Jane explained why she decided to speak out. She said: "There have been so many lies printed about us, that we are 'covering up' for Kate and Gerry or that we keep wanting to change our statements.
"Now I feel it has got to the point that these untruths are jeopardising the hunt for Madeleine
"People might think that it was all made up. That's why I am speaking now, for Madeleine's sake.
"I did see a man that night carrying away Madeleine, she WAS abducted. _________________________________________________________________________
"Kate and Gerry are doting parents. To make them suspects is horrific.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine going.
"We were there. There was no opportunity for them to hide a body, as has been suggested, or any of the other ridiculous accusations.
"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine.
"All the lies and the slating have been totally unbearable for us. I can't even begin to imagine what it has been like for Kate and Gerry.
"I marvel at how they keep going. What does it, I think, is their total, unshakeable belief that they will get Madeleine back." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-pals-guilt-522326
Yet here we are thirteen+ years down the line and still I think there are those who have missed the point Jane made so forcibly all those year ago "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."
And I think it is only adding insult to injury to assert that Jane was distraught for any other reason than reliving the trauma of witnessing a child being carried away.
Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 08:23:22 AM
Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?
Perhaps she's lying to cover up the occultation of a child's body...or two.. if Robs onto something
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 27, 2020, 08:57:03 AM
Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?
“Conspiracy theories exhibit a strong obsession with detail, often taking the form of highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion, buttressing their claims with a display of pseudo-scholarship. When they examine the real evidence, conspiracy theorists do not accept that minor inconsistencies come from mistakes in reporting.” Sir Richard J Evans, author and historian
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 27, 2020, 09:50:14 AM
“Conspiracy theories exhibit a strong obsession with detail, often taking the form of highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion, buttressing their claims with a display of pseudo-scholarship. When they examine the real evidence, conspiracy theorists do not accept that minor inconsistencies come from mistakes in reporting.” Sir Richard J Evans, author and historian
Is that supposed to be relevant? The real evidence shows that a witness changed her story, but not why.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 27, 2020, 10:06:12 AM
Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?
Did she actually use the word "North"? Some people have a terrible sense of direction.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 27, 2020, 10:08:43 AM
Did she actually use the word "North"? Some people have a terrible sense of direction.
No she didn't, but there's no doubt what she was saying;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 27, 2020, 10:59:17 AM
Is that supposed to be relevant? The real evidence shows that a witness changed her story, but not why.
In my opinion, yes, because it explains exactly what is going on here. To put it simply "making something out of nothing, in order to promulgate a conspiracy theory (in this case that Jane lied to help Gerry mcCann evade justice).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 27, 2020, 11:02:40 AM
No she didn't, but there's no doubt what she was saying;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
"Just up the hill" - anyone should be able to tell whether they are walking uphill or not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 11:18:33 AM
In my opinion, yes, because it explains exactly what is going on here. To put it simply "making something out of nothing, in order to promulgate a conspiracy theory (in this case that Jane lied to help Gerry mcCann evade justice).
And of course are being helped evade justice by powerful people...another essential part of conspiracy theory
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 27, 2020, 11:38:44 AM
In my opinion, yes, because it explains exactly what is going on here. To put it simply "making something out of nothing, in order to promulgate a conspiracy theory (in this case that Jane lied to help Gerry mcCann evade justice).
It isn't nothing when a witness changes their story. Nor can it be assumed that the witness lied for some reason. A witness could simply change their story because they are convinced that their recall was wrong. Perhaps another witness convinced her of this?
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Not Jes Wilkins then. His statement agrees mostly with Jane's. The odd one out is Gerry McCann;
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction... https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Gerry insisted that his version was correct and the other two witnesses were mistaken when making 'his' documentary. In my opinion it was Gerry who was wrong.
No conspiracy, just one man convinced that his version was right and two others were wrong.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 27, 2020, 11:53:58 AM
Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.
No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.
Let’s see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah, “HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT, I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”
All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview:
She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children.
This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 12:15:32 PM
As I recall Wolters was asked by SF...Do you have any evidence that CB was inside 5a..
Wolters response..
I'm not going to answer that....because that would lead to 100 other questions..
A simple ..no...would have resulted in no further questions...so was his answer ..Yes
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 27, 2020, 12:33:25 PM
As I recall Wolters was asked by SF...Do you have any evidence that CB was inside 5a..
Wolters response..
I'm not going to answer that....because that would lead to 100 other questions..
A simple ..no...would have resulted in no further questions...so was his answer ..Yes
...or, that would be way more than just routine circumstantial evidence, that's confirmation and I'm sure they would have gone to the prosecutor with that. Besides, if you apply logic, that simply cannot be the case. It was great when he showed his hand, because what he doesn't say is often more telling than what he does. Simply put, if he had a video of him in 5a, then he wouldn't need to trace the mystery phone caller, as it would just be icing sugar. IMMHOO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 27, 2020, 12:37:52 PM
As I recall Wolters was asked by SF...Do you have any evidence that CB was inside 5a..
Wolters response..
I'm not going to answer that....because that would lead to 100 other questions..
A simple ..no...would have resulted in no further questions...so was his answer ..Yes
I think by declining to answer he spoke volumes. In my opinion it means there was an answer which he could have given if he had wanted to but which would have led to a supplementary question and answer session which he didn't want,
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 01:00:47 PM
...or, that would be way more than just routine circumstantial evidence, that's confirmation and I'm sure they would have gone to the prosecutor with that. Besides, if you apply logic, that simply cannot be the case. It was great when he showed his hand, because what he doesn't say is often more telling than what he does. Simply put, if he had a video of him in 5a, then he wouldn't need to trace the mystery phone caller, as it would just be icing sugar. IMMHOO
I didnt say video of CB in 5a ...that would be proof. ...so your logic goeas out the window. CB likes to film his exploits. in his chatroom chat he said he would document his crime.
i'm explaining to those who doubt him how Wolters may have very strong evidence...if not proof...of abduction and death...but not enough to link to CB.
As I said months ago they would seek to trace his movements the day and the days after the crime. According to the latest article in the Sun..I know we cant trust it....this is exactly what the latest trip to prtugal may be for. Looks like Im right on the money
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 27, 2020, 01:05:24 PM
I didnt say video of CB in 5a ...that would be proof. ...so your logic goeas out the window. CB likes to film his exploits. in his chatroom chat he said he would document his crime
No, video is just video unless there's something definitively incriminating, doesn't matter where it is. So the logic stands. IMOOOOHHHWW
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
And as far as I am concerned your post merely confirms my opinion that you probably didn't grasp the concept that witnesses can be mistaken.
If I remember correctly ~ Jes didn't take part in the filming and if so what his opinion might have been when in situ during a reconstruction as Jane and Gerry were can only be speculation.
I think your comment regarding Gerry is risible and in my opinion is palpable in its antipathy for a person that you don't even know. I find that most odd and quite mystifying.
We know that Jes and Gerry met and stopped to have a conversation. Where in the street? does it really matter?
The important witness was Jane and the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block. A scenario which immediately she heard of Madeleine's disappearance she associated with seeing Madeleine being kidnapped and she lived with that for a long, long time
Snip Jane Tanner became the first of the McCanns' friends among the Tapas Seven to speak out publicly last night.
She told how she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm near the family's apartment on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.
Jane, 38, said: "He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark.
"I just didn't see it properly. I wish to God I had.
"I wake up to that image every day. Every day I see him striding away, carrying Madeleine away.
"I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over.
"It's horrible. I didn't get a clear look at him. I registered his hair and clothes because that's what I could see.
"I have gone over and over that moment to try to remember more about him but I can't." _________________________________________________________________________
She said: "My attention was drawn to the man because the child in his arms had bare feet.
"It was cold and I thought I would have had something on the child's feet, like a blanket.
"All I could see of the child was its legs and feet dangling. The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly.
"I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine."
An hour later, Jane was caring for her younger daughter, who had been sick in their apartment, when Kate McCann discovered Madeleine was missing.
Jane said: "I opened the door and saw all the commotion.
"I saw all our friends outside. One shouted at me 'Madeleine's gone.'
"The image of that man carrying the child came into my head and a feeling of complete horror washed over me.
"It seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding somewhere because they were all searching and shouting her name. I thought Kate believed that too. I knew if I told her about the man it would make her panic more.
"So I told another friend Fiona Payne. Fi was in such a panic shock I don't know if she took it in properly. _________________________________________________________________________
"At around 11.15pm two local policemen arrived and I told them immediately what I had seen.
"I described the man and the direction he was coming from and where he was going to.
Later I went to the police HQ to give a formal statement. It was then that I remembered the child's pyjamas were pink and white.
"I didn't know it then but they were what Madeleine was wearing. When I did find out I was totally stricken by guilt.
"I felt I could have stopped it all happening.
"Kate and Gerry have told me I shouldn't feel like that but the guilt will never go away." _________________________________________________________________________
Jane explained why she decided to speak out. She said: "There have been so many lies printed about us, that we are 'covering up' for Kate and Gerry or that we keep wanting to change our statements.
"Now I feel it has got to the point that these untruths are jeopardising the hunt for Madeleine
"People might think that it was all made up. That's why I am speaking now, for Madeleine's sake.
"I did see a man that night carrying away Madeleine, she WAS abducted. _________________________________________________________________________
"Kate and Gerry are doting parents. To make them suspects is horrific.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine going.
"We were there. There was no opportunity for them to hide a body, as has been suggested, or any of the other ridiculous accusations.
"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine.
"All the lies and the slating have been totally unbearable for us. I can't even begin to imagine what it has been like for Kate and Gerry.
"I marvel at how they keep going. What does it, I think, is their total, unshakeable belief that they will get Madeleine back." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-pals-guilt-522326
Yet here we are thirteen+ years down the line and still I think there are those who have missed the point Jane made so forcibly all those year ago "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."
And I think it is only adding insult to injury to assert that Jane was distraught for any other reason than reliving the trauma of witnessing a child being carried away.
As long as we have freedom of speech I’ll call the mockumentary what I please.
And while yes it does matter where Gerry said he stood, for all the details I have laid out above, 12 years ago the parent’s own detectives said in their report that they didn’t believe that the Tanner sighting was important, a sentiment mirrored by OG five years later when they identified Tannerman and ruled him out of their investigation. Inexplicably you still find the sighting important. Why ?
Further I’m afraid I cannot take seriously someone who reprimands members for not focusing on finding Madeleine while also trying to convince them that the child has been the victim of a vicious paedophile.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 01:20:25 PM
Added to which, it was reported that all the videos had been downloaded from the internet.
I think you are referring to the ones used at his trial...not the ones found under his dead dog. the ones that Wolyers refused to discuss as to what was on them
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 27, 2020, 01:24:11 PM
I think you are referring to the ones used at his trial...not the ones found under his dead dog. the ones that Wolyers refused to discuss as to what was on them
Have you a cite to show that they are different stash of memory sticks/cards ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 01:27:36 PM
My post does say I think...so no post required.....but i will look later. The memory sticks found under his dog were found not to long ago when he was alraedy in prison as I recall but would need to check.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 27, 2020, 01:30:21 PM
As I mentioned earlier, it barely matters, as clearly neither are enough to inculcate CB. It would be very interesting if a jury were involved though, as the bar may be a wee bit more flexible when considering beyond reasonable doubt, and then we would see if HCW had the town halls to place his appendage on the proverbial. There's every chance that he's presented his 'evidence' at least once, maybe more, but has been told he hasn't reached the threshold to even charge. That would mean that this evidence is super thin and all circumstantial. AIMHOAA
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 27, 2020, 01:34:23 PM
My post does say I think...so no post required.....but i will look later. The memory sticks found under his dog were found not to long ago when he was alraedy in prison as I recall but would need to check.
You have to state IMHO, or AYOMBA, or somesuch.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 27, 2020, 01:36:00 PM
Memory sticks found under dog 2016 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394855/Christian-Brueckner-linked-FOURTH-unsolved-case.html
"More than 100 officers descended on the old box factory in February 2016, digging holes looking for Inga's body.
The little girl wasn't found but Brueckner's USB stash of child sex abuse images was found on a USB stick hidden under 'animal bones' with police now set to return, according to German tabloid Bild."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 27, 2020, 01:38:21 PM
Memory sticks found under dog 2016 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394855/Christian-Brueckner-linked-FOURTH-unsolved-case.html
"More than 100 officers descended on the old box factory in February 2016, digging holes looking for Inga's body.
The little girl wasn't found but Brueckner's USB stash of child sex abuse images was found on a USB stick hidden under 'animal bones' with police now set to return, according to German tabloid Bild."
Slightly longer than 'not too long ago' then. The Master becomes the pupil. Again.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 27, 2020, 01:43:47 PM
As long as we have freedom of speech I’ll call the mockumentary what I please.
And while yes it does matter where Gerry said he stood, for all the details I have laid out above, 12 years ago the parent’s own detectives said in their report that they didn’t believe that the Tanner sighting was important, a sentiment mirrored by OG five years later when they identified Tannerman and ruled him out of their investigation. Inexplicably you still find the sighting important. Why ?
Further I’m afraid I cannot take seriously someone who reprimands members for not focusing on finding Madeleine while also trying to convince them that the child has been the victim of a vicious paedophile.
Sigh ... feel free to hang a label on yourself if you so desire if that is how you wish to define yourself absolutely no skin off my nose.
If as you say "that the child has been the victim of a vicious paedophile" don't you think the German police are pulling out all the stops to find evidence which might bring the "vicious paedophile" to justice?
In my opinion ~ if the forum was running a '.........t and most inaccurate (your ad hom directed at me) post of the week' yours above would be well in the running ~ as well as not even giving a nod to the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 01:46:10 PM
Sigh ... feel free to hang a label on yourself if you so desire if that is how you wish to define yourself absolutely no skin off my nose.
If as you say "that the child has been the victim of a vicious paedophile" don't you think the German police are pulling out all the stops to find evidence which might bring the "vicious paedophile" to justice?
In my opinion ~ if the forum was running a '.........t and most inaccurate (your ad hom directed at me) post of the week' yours above would be well in the running ~ as well as not even giving a nod to the topic of the thread.
You say....’ shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.... yet think the German police are pulling out all the stops to convict the paedophile who...did what ? Took her to a lovely, childless couple ? How do you square that circle ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 27, 2020, 03:10:32 PM
I didnt say video of CB in 5a ...that would be proof. ...so your logic goeas out the window. CB likes to film his exploits. in his chatroom chat he said he would document his crime.
i'm explaining to those who doubt him how Wolters may have very strong evidence...if not proof...of abduction and death...but not enough to link to CB.
As I said months ago they would seek to trace his movements the day and the days after the crime. According to the latest article in the Sun..I know we cant trust it....this is exactly what the latest trip to prtugal may be for. Looks like Im right on the money
I don't know about that looks like they need stronger evidence before they can go.
So doesn't say much for the strong evidence Wolters already has it seems.
Despite the high profile nature of the probe into Christian B the case has hit a brick wall in recent weeks.
And German police have only been in the Algarve a couple of times since the probe into Christian B was announced back over the Summer.
It is likely the detectives will need to present strong evidence of leads to follow up in order to be given permission to fly in and investigate the case.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 03:14:47 PM
I don't know about that looks like they need stronger evidence before they can go.
So doesn't say much for the strong evidence Wolters already has it seems.
Despite the high profile nature of the probe into Christian B the case has hit a brick wall in recent weeks.
And German police have only been in the Algarve a couple of times since the probe into Christian B was announced back over the Summer.
It is likely the detectives will need to present strong evidence of leads to follow up in order to be given permission to fly in and investigate the case.
I wouldnt believe everything you read in the papers
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 27, 2020, 03:33:19 PM
I wouldnt believe everything you read in the papers
Ah lol ...just the bits that suit you eh D.
As I said months ago they would seek to trace his movements the day and the days after the crime. According to the latest article in the Sun..I know we cant trust it....this is exactly what the latest trip to prtugal may be for. Looks like Im right on the money
But it looks like they haven't got what it takes to go ...proof CB was the so-called abducter or are going to get it .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 27, 2020, 03:37:57 PM
You say....’ shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.... yet think the German police are pulling out all the stops to convict the paedophile who...did what ? Took her to a lovely, childless couple ? How do you square that circle ?
I think that you may be making it up as you go along yet again ~ unless you can cite where you allege I said 'shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.
I quoted Jane Tanner who as a result of the nastiness and abuse directed at Kate and Gerry said, "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."
I await your cite. Thank you
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 27, 2020, 03:43:12 PM
You say....’ shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.... yet think the German police are pulling out all the stops to convict the paedophile who...did what ? Took her to a lovely, childless couple ? How do you square that circle ?
The could depend on how much money Brueckner might have got for Madeleine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 03:46:59 PM
As I said months ago they would seek to trace his movements the day and the days after the crime. According to the latest article in the Sun..I know we cant trust it....this is exactly what the latest trip to prtugal may be for. Looks like Im right on the money
But it looks like they haven't got what it takes to go ...proof CB was the so-called abducter or are going to get it .
Thats why i sqaid i know we cant trust the SUn...but..
If its a portuguese source they may well know that a request has been made to come to portugal and to a certain extent why. what we also know is taht the portuguese dont know what evidence the Germans have....so we can take it with a pinch of salt when they claim they do. All we are seeeing here is sour grapes from the PJ because they are totally embarrassed at being made to look stupid by the Germans.
Just think how they will feel if the Germas solve it
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 27, 2020, 04:48:58 PM
It isn't nothing when a witness changes their story. Nor can it be assumed that the witness lied for some reason. A witness could simply change their story because they are convinced that their recall was wrong. Perhaps another witness convinced her of this?
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Not Jes Wilkins then. His statement agrees mostly with Jane's. The odd one out is Gerry McCann;
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction... https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Gerry insisted that his version was correct and the other two witnesses were mistaken when making 'his' documentary. In my opinion it was Gerry who was wrong.
No conspiracy, just one man convinced that his version was right and two others were wrong.
Great, glad that's sorted then, so no conspiracy, no deception, just a pig-headed typical male who always thinks he's right, so why are we even discussing this 13 years later?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 27, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.
No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.
Let’s see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah, “HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT, I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”
All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview:
She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children.
This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview.
You didn't write that - who did?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 27, 2020, 05:01:45 PM
Great, glad that's sorted then, so no conspiracy, no deception, just a pig-headed typical male who always thinks he's right, so why are we even discussing this 13 years later?
No, Gerry admitted twice that he was wrong. He was wrong when he said he used the front door for his check, and he was wrong when he said David Payne went off from the tennis courts for 30 minutes.
If he had used the front door, then not only could he have bumped into Jes before he drew level with the gate, it might explain why both the other witnesses thought he was returning from his check.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 08:01:36 PM
No, Gerry admitted twice that he was wrong. He was wrong when he said he used the front door for his check, and he was wrong when he said David Payne went off from the tennis courts for 30 minutes.
If he had used the front door, then not only could he have bumped into Jes before he drew level with the gate, it might explain why both the other witnesses thought he was returning from his check.
im aware of the first one and from what i read Gerry never admitted he was wrong. He pointed out a mistake in the statement imo...that may well have been made by the translator
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 27, 2020, 08:03:02 PM
I think that you may be making it up as you go along yet again ~ unless you can cite where you allege I said 'shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.
I quoted Jane Tanner who as a result of the nastiness and abuse directed at Kate and Gerry said, "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."
I await your cite. Thank you
I was paraphrasing of course but it would probably be quicker to list the posts of yours that don’t contain the sentiment detailed in my post.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 27, 2020, 08:06:56 PM
im aware of the first one and from what i reda Gerry never admitte dhe was wrong. He pointed out amistake in teh staeemnt imo...that may well have been made by tyhe translator
Read his second statement, it is obvious that was admitting a mistake.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 08:18:31 PM
No, Gerry admitted twice that he was wrong. He was wrong when he said he used the front door for his check, and he was wrong when he said David Payne went off from the tennis courts for 30 minutes.
If he had used the front door, then not only could he have bumped into Jes before he drew level with the gate, it might explain why both the other witnesses thought he was returning from his check.
Why have you shifted the discussion to something else? We were talking about his position in the road, about which you have suggested he was wrong, and stubbornly refused to accept it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 27, 2020, 08:46:47 PM
Second statement made on the tenth...do you have a link to so called mistake
‘ Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside’
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 27, 2020, 08:57:26 PM
‘ Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside’
Those aren't Gerry's words they are the translators
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 27, 2020, 09:08:25 PM
Why have you shifted the discussion to something else? We were talking about his position in the road, about which you have suggested he was wrong, and stubbornly refused to accept it.
The other two witnesses testified that the men were talking on the block 5 side of the road. In my opinion they were right and Gerry was wrong. The ex-detective said it didn't matter where they were standing, but it seemed to matter to Gerry.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 27, 2020, 09:10:22 PM
The other two witnesses testified that the men were talking on the block 5 side of the road. In my opinion they were right and Gerry was wrong. The ex-detective said it didn't matter where they were standing, but it seemed to matter to Gerry.
So what? Really? Tell me why this matters so much.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 27, 2020, 09:20:30 PM
I'm not really bothered...it's absolutely impossible that the translations were 100% accurate...we just don't know how many mistakes there were
For someone who’s ‘not really bothered’ you spend a relentless amount of time being’ not really bothered’. In fact you’re so ‘ not really bothered ‘ you’ve deliberately hidden your online status just to prove it.
Genius.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 27, 2020, 10:48:40 PM
Are you saying that sceptics take the McCanns and their friends at their words?
Difficult to do when they contradict each other like Jane and Gerry, or Gerry contradicts himself. Then it becomes 'unimportant' or a 'translator error' IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 27, 2020, 11:07:09 PM
Difficult to do when they contradict each other like Jane and Gerry, or Gerry contradicts himself. Then it becomes 'unimportant' or a 'translator error' IMO.
It is possible to take them at their word and to also make allowances for imperfect recall, or inaccurate statement recording and/or translation. I know this hugely unreasonable behaviour but there we are. Do you think “highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion” is a good game to play?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 12:03:37 AM
It is possible to take them at their word and to also make allowances for imperfect recall, or inaccurate statement recording and/or translation. I know this hugely unreasonable behaviour but there we are. Do you think “highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion” is a good game to play?
I think it proves the inadvisability of allowing the untrained eye access to police files which can only be made sense of when viewed as a whole.
Cherry picking one of the component parts in isolation from the whole and exaggerating its significance is entirely meaningless.
It is all a jigsaw with no one piece being the answer until it is slotted into its place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 12:26:22 AM
I was paraphrasing of course but it would probably be quicker to list the posts of yours that don’t contain the sentiment detailed in my post.
You were not paraphrasing.
You fabricated a statement and attributed it to me within quotation marks in the full knowledge it was nothing but a falsehood made up in its entirety by you and never by me.
How untrustworthy is that. Not only is it against forum rules it proves that absolutely nothing posted or alleged by you in future posts can be trusted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 28, 2020, 02:29:26 AM
Difficult to do when they contradict each other like Jane and Gerry, or Gerry contradicts himself. Then it becomes 'unimportant' or a 'translator error' IMO.
Their statements are full of contradictions which to any professional investigator can only be seen as suspicious. The rogatory statements are full of hums and hahs and all sorts of delaying mechanisms. All very damning imo considering that the people beng interviewed were educated professionals including medical doctors.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 07:14:24 AM
Their statements are full of contradictions which to any professional investigator can only be seen as suspicious. The rogatory statements are full of hums and hahs and all sorts of delaying mechanisms. All very damning imo considering that the people beng interviewed were educated professionals including medical doctors.
“we have carried out a very serious investigation and there is no indication whatsoever Madeleine McCann's parents are linked to her disappearance” - Hans Christian Wolters, German Prosecutor (a professional investigator).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 08:16:23 AM
Their statements are full of contradictions which to any professional investigator can only be seen as suspicious. The rogatory statements are full of hums and hahs and all sorts of delaying mechanisms. All very damning imo considering that the people beng interviewed were educated professionals including medical doctors.
Do you understand why there are uhms and ahs in the rogs but not in the PJ statements....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 08:22:13 AM
In a study of how people talk in English, the linguist Mark Liberman analyzed a massive database of spoken language and found that one in every sixty words people pronounce is either um or uh. Depending on how fast you talk, this means you are producing two to three of these ‘fillers’ per minute
Perhaps a sceptic would now like to analyse the rogs by individual and see whether these statements buck the trend. That should give them something to foorensically examine for a while.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 08:28:11 AM
In a study of how people talk in English, the linguist Mark Liberman analyzed a massive database of spoken language and found that one in every sixty words people pronounce is either um or uh. Depending on how fast you talk, this means you are producing two to three of these ‘fillers’ per minute
Perhaps a sceptic would now like to analyse the rogs by individual and see whether these statements buck the trend. That should give them something to foorensically examine for a while.
The uhms and ahs are quite normal. The interview s have been transcribed verbatim. Anyone not realising they are not normal simply has no experience of transcribed verbatim statements
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 08:30:28 AM
The uhms and ahs are quite normal. The interview s have been transcribed verbatim. Anyone not realising they are not normal simply has no experience of transcribed verbatim statements
I’m listening to Radio 4 right now and the interviewee is Nico Rosberg talking about his team mate Lewis Hamilton and a race he is doing through the Amazon and every other word was um or err. Maybe he dunnit.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 28, 2020, 09:22:36 AM
“we have carried out a very serious investigation and there is no indication whatsoever Madeleine McCann's parents are linked to her disappearance” - Hans Christian Wolters, German Prosecutor (a professional investigator).
When did the investigation into the McCann begin?
When were they interviewed/questioned?
Where were the interviews held?
Did the McCanns travel to Germany or did the Germans interview them here?
Why the need for such secrecy?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 09:26:11 AM
The uhms and ahs are quite normal. The interview s have been transcribed verbatim. Anyone not realising they are not normal simply has no experience of transcribed verbatim statements
Not only transcribed verbatim but recorded in audio and video.
Kate describes in her book the actual process involved in her Portuguese interviews.
questions were put in Portuguese
an interpreter relayed them to her in English
answers were translated into Portuguese
and typed up by the police officer as translated to him by the interpreter
there was neither audio nor video recording of the laborious time consuming process
And members use the result in confirmation of their notion of so called 'inaccuracies' or 'inconsistences' in statements.
In my opinion it would have been impossible were there none using that process. All it would take to introduce some would be for subsequent interviews to be interpreted by a different translator and transcribed by a different officer to introduce a poolside/carpark side ~ front door/back door misunderstood situation.
But it has all been said before many times and in many locations and it will definitely all be said again and then again in deference to Groundhog Day.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 28, 2020, 09:33:05 AM
“we have carried out a very serious investigation and there is no indication whatsoever Madeleine McCann's parents are linked to her disappearance” - Hans Christian Wolters, German Prosecutor (a professional investigator).
Why do you think that had to be said in the first place...IMO it has to be for legal reasons.
How will they have seriously investigated the mccs.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 09:35:53 AM
Thats why i sqaid i know we cant trust the SUn...but..
If its a portuguese source they may well know that a request has been made to come to portugal and to a certain extent why. what we also know is taht the portuguese dont know what evidence the Germans have....so we can take it with a pinch of salt when they claim they do. All we are seeeing here is sour grapes from the PJ because they are totally embarrassed at being made to look stupid by the Germans.
Just think how they will feel if the Germas solve it
All we are seeeing here is sour grapes from the PJ because they are totally embarrassed at being made to look stupid by the Germans.
Not as embarrassed as some ...when they don't.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 09:39:37 AM
Did the McCanns travel to Germany or did the Germans interview them here?
Why the need for such secrecy?
I think Brueckner was brought to German police attention as a direct result of a tenth anniversary television appeal made by her parents on Madeleine's behalf.
There has been a very big window between then and now for the Germans to have investigated suspects and interviewed witnesses and it appears they did just that.
Nobody gave a thought to Brueckner or even wondered why the Germans tried him for a rape carried out in Praia da Luz until Amaral's Australian podcast 'revelation' which rather put the kibosh on anyone continuing with discrete inquiries into Madeleine's case.
But up until then the Germans were playing their hand very close to their chest. Maybe you could drop them a FOI request?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 28, 2020, 09:56:30 AM
I think Brueckner was brought to German police attention as a direct result of a tenth anniversary television appeal made by her parents on Madeleine's behalf.
There has been a very big window between then and now for the Germans to have investigated suspects and interviewed witnesses and it appears they did just that.
Nobody gave a thought to Brueckner or even wondered why the Germans tried him for a rape carried out in Praia da Luz until Amaral's Australian podcast 'revelation' which rather put the kibosh on anyone continuing with discrete inquiries into Madeleine's case.
But up until then the Germans were playing their hand very close to their chest. Maybe you could drop them a FOI request?
Wasnt it the germans who named him ...not GA.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 28, 2020, 09:59:20 AM
Mark Saunokonoko @saunokonoko 14 months ago, in April 2019, Goncalo Amaral told me British police were "preparing the end of the investigation, with a German paedophile who is in prison right now" and the prisoner "is probably going to be the scapegoat for the case." https://9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-german-paedophile-took-maddie-uk-police-amaral-claim-podcast/cc225ca6-7123-4182-985c-89888224bd09 #McCann
Stephen H @StephenH88 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Yes that was my first thought when the news broke. Excellent podcast series Mark.
Replying to @saunokonoko First thing I thought when I heard this tonight after listening to pod last year, strange
Suzanna Matos @ubeeelha · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Of course they need a scapegoat! Care to explain all the conflicting statements, lack of holiday photos of Maddie, cadaver dogs, etc... oh yes, the German did it all!
Rob Barber @robbarber1 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko As soon as I read this news today, I remembered you discussing this on the podcast Mark!
NessWine glassWine glassRed heartWinking face with tongueHibiscusRosePeacockTropical drink @JustNessie4971 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko I remember that on your podcast, Amaral saying that and he was bang on the money weren't he ? We know exactly where the cops should be looking but obviously they'd rather pin it on this guy.
Sharon Lawrence @5haronl · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Well they are trying very hard to get a scapegoat for the McCann case. It won’t work, everyone knows there was no sign of an intransigent the dogs alerted to human blood and cadaver. What they don’t realise is that Madeleine died 4 days earlier than reported.
Juliemcr @JulieHarrigan4 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Dogs don’t lie !
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 28, 2020, 10:23:34 AM
Mark Saunokonoko @saunokonoko 14 months ago, in April 2019, Goncalo Amaral told me British police were "preparing the end of the investigation, with a German paedophile who is in prison right now" and the prisoner "is probably going to be the scapegoat for the case." https://9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-german-paedophile-took-maddie-uk-police-amaral-claim-podcast/cc225ca6-7123-4182-985c-89888224bd09 #McCann
Stephen H @StephenH88 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Yes that was my first thought when the news broke. Excellent podcast series Mark.
Replying to @saunokonoko First thing I thought when I heard this tonight after listening to pod last year, strange
Suzanna Matos @ubeeelha · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Of course they need a scapegoat! Care to explain all the conflicting statements, lack of holiday photos of Maddie, cadaver dogs, etc... oh yes, the German did it all!
Rob Barber @robbarber1 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko As soon as I read this news today, I remembered you discussing this on the podcast Mark!
NessWine glassWine glassRed heartWinking face with tongueHibiscusRosePeacockTropical drink @JustNessie4971 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko I remember that on your podcast, Amaral saying that and he was bang on the money weren't he ? We know exactly where the cops should be looking but obviously they'd rather pin it on this guy.
Sharon Lawrence @5haronl · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Well they are trying very hard to get a scapegoat for the McCann case. It won’t work, everyone knows there was no sign of an intransigent the dogs alerted to human blood and cadaver. What they don’t realise is that Madeleine died 4 days earlier than reported.
Juliemcr @JulieHarrigan4 · Jun 3 Replying to @saunokonoko Dogs don’t lie !
ofgs Where does he mention CB or his name.
He said a german scapegoat, yes but he didn't name who it was.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 28, 2020, 10:38:38 AM
It is possible to take them at their word and to also make allowances for imperfect recall, or inaccurate statement recording and/or translation. I know this hugely unreasonable behaviour but there we are. Do you think “highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion” is a good game to play?
The devil is in the detail. It's there that changes, inconsistences and glossed over facts are found. Explaining them by blaming imperfect recall, trauma or inadequate statement taking is speculation, not fact.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 10:51:07 AM
The devil is in the detail. It's there that changes, inconsistences and glossed over facts are found. Explaining them by blaming imperfect recall, trauma or inadequate statement taking is speculation, not fact.
Assuming the statements are accurate is speculation not fact. None of us know why the inconsistencies are there...to assume a reason is speculation....To assume they were recorded and read back accurately is speculation...you are as guilty of speculation as anyone
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 28, 2020, 10:59:55 AM
Did the McCanns travel to Germany or did the Germans interview them here?
Why the need for such secrecy?
just to piss you off I expect. When did your investigation into the McCanns begin? When did you interview them? Where did you hold the interviews? Did you travel to Rothley? Obviously you wouldn't have been able to draw any conclusions about their involvement without conducting a throrugh investigation, so do tell.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 11:49:07 AM
Assuming the statements are accurate is speculation not fact. None of us know why the inconsistencies are there...to assume a reason is speculation....To assume they were recorded and read back accurately is speculation...you are as guilty of speculation as anyone
exactly.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 28, 2020, 11:49:17 AM
Assuming the statements are accurate is speculation not fact. None of us know why the inconsistencies are there...to assume a reason is speculation....To assume they were recorded and read back accurately is speculation...you are as guilty of speculation as anyone
Why would anyone even think that inconsistencies in statements given to the police were the result of police/translator errors? In my opinion the only people who would do that would be those who didn't want to accept that there were inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 11:52:27 AM
He said a german scapegoat, yes but he didn't name who it was.
It seems Saunokonoko's following are right On Message or are you another who thinks the media weren't helped by the podcast made by Amaral and another little nudge from Amaral in his Spanish TV interview a few month later (Nov/Dec 2019 I believe) to work out and name the individual he was pointing to for all he was worth?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 11:53:00 AM
Why would anyone even think that inconsistencies in statements given to the police were the result of police/translator errors? In my opinion the only people who would do that would be those who didn't want to accept that there were inconsistencies.
I accept that there are inconsistencies, in fact it's one of the consistencies of most police investigations is that there are inconsistencies in and between witness statements. They are investigated by the professionals who make a judgement call about whether or not they are significant or relevant. 13 years later three police forces are engaged in an investigation into where on the Algarve CB may have disposed of Madeleine's remains. You may find it hard to believe but they haven't held secret meetings to discuss where on the pavement Gerry was standing when JT alleges she saw him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 11:58:18 AM
Why would anyone even think that inconsistencies in statements given to the police were the result of police/translator errors? In my opinion the only people who would do that would be those who didn't want to accept that there were inconsistencies.
Colin Sutton for one...and as I recall the investigion under Rebelo. You really are totally wrong on this imo....and the belief that they are accurate bis only your opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 12:00:43 PM
Why would anyone even think that inconsistencies in statements given to the police were the result of police/translator errors? In my opinion the only people who would do that would be those who didn't want to accept that there were inconsistencies.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 28, 2020, 12:19:33 PM
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
He was recommending that officers from Grange should conduct their own interviews;
Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton has recently called for fresh interviews be undertaken with all the key British witnesses involved in the Madeleine McCann case.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been formally interviewed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’. Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9079.msg443594#msg443594
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 12:27:17 PM
He was recommending that officers from Grange should conduct their own interviews;
Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton has recently called for fresh interviews be undertaken with all the key British witnesses involved in the Madeleine McCann case.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been formally interviewed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’. Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9079.msg443594#msg443594
Sorry ... who conducted the Rogatory interviews?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 12:49:55 PM
He was recommending that officers from Grange should conduct their own interviews;
Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton has recently called for fresh interviews be undertaken with all the key British witnesses involved in the Madeleine McCann case.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been formally interviewed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’. Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9079.msg443594#msg443594
Why do you think he was reccomending Grange conduct their own interviews...becasue the original translations had a massive room for error....but you insist that the translations you have worked from are accurate...can you not see Sutton disagrees
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 28, 2020, 01:12:51 PM
just to piss you off I expect. When did your investigation into the McCanns begin? When did you interview them? Where did you hold the interviews? Did you travel to Rothley? Obviously you wouldn't have been able to draw any conclusions about their involvement without conducting a throrugh investigation, so do tell.
If anyone is being Kentish around here it's you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 28, 2020, 01:26:33 PM
You fabricated a statement and attributed it to me within quotation marks in the full knowledge it was nothing but a falsehood made up in its entirety by you and never by me.
How untrustworthy is that. Not only is it against forum rules it proves that absolutely nothing posted or alleged by you in future posts can be trusted.
I think we’ll let the reader decide who is untrustworthy.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 02:10:12 PM
I am Kentish as it happens, and proud of it but in what way am I “being Kentish”? What characteristics are you referring to? Do explain, or are you trying to be funny?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 02:11:58 PM
It seems Saunokonoko's following are right On Message or are you another who thinks the media weren't helped by the podcast made by Amaral and another little nudge from Amaral in his Spanish TV interview a few month later (Nov/Dec 2019 I believe) to work out and name the individual he was pointing to for all he was worth?
Bit OTT IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
I think you are right; Amaral's conduct was not only very OTT it was unprofessional (not that he is a professional now ~ if he ever was); but to go on and compound it by his television appearances to push misinformation takes it all into a different league.
Isn't there a law in Portugal about interfering in an active police investigation? I would say promoting a photograph of what in reality was a short haired man as one with dreadlocks you have photoshopped in certainly amounts to interference if not downright deceit.
I don't know why he behaved like that but I am wondering. Aren't you the least bit curious?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 28, 2020, 04:08:38 PM
Why do you think he was reccomending Grange conduct their own interviews...becasue the original translations had a massive room for error....but you insist that the translations you have worked from are accurate...can you not see Sutton disagrees
In my opinion he wanted to explain why he thought OG should have carried out the first task necessary when a child disappears; elimination or implication of those closest to her. Asking the questions themselves and in English would have been necessary, in his opinion, to achieve that.
"I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs. That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded. To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense. Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not." http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 04:23:38 PM
In my opinion he wanted to explain why he thought OG should have carried out the first task necessary when a child disappears; elimination or implication of those closest to her. Asking the questions themselves and in English would have been necessary, in his opinion, to achieve that.
"I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs. That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded. To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense. Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not." http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/
He was quite clear in his words...The room for error is enormous. You have your opinion but that's all it is. It's quite clear to me that he thought the statements might not be accurate. I don't see how you can possibly deny that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 28, 2020, 04:31:32 PM
In my opinion he wanted to explain why he thought OG should have carried out the first task necessary when a child disappears; elimination or implication of those closest to her. Asking the questions themselves and in English would have been necessary, in his opinion, to achieve that.
"I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs. That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded. To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense. Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not." http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/
He explained it by pointing out that the margin for error in the original statements was huge. Those are what were being discussed . Wriggling to try and get out of it is not a good look. You said “Why would anyone even think that inconsistencies in statements given to the police were the result of police/translator errors? In my opinion the only people who would do that would be those who didn't want to accept that there were inconsistencies”. Would you include Colin Sutton in your generalisation?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 04:37:22 PM
In my opinion he wanted to explain why he thought OG should have carried out the first task necessary when a child disappears; elimination or implication of those closest to her. Asking the questions themselves and in English would have been necessary, in his opinion, to achieve that.
"I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs. That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded. To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense. Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not." http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/
In my opinion that was a task for the Policia Judiciaria to carry out initially. In the intervening period the McCanns had been made suspects and had been thoroughly investigated as was Robert Murat and nothing could be found to link any of them to Amaral's theories. Amaral's theories which formed the basis of suspicion against the McCanns were all categorically disproved by the PJ.
It isn't possible to wind back time and erase all that happened since Madeleine's disappearance until the opening of the English investigation as though that was the starting point.
It wasn't the starting point or anything like it and neither Sutton or anyone else knows what happened between witnesses and the Scotland Yard investigators.
For example no-one heard of Dr Totman until the media found out who he was ... but he was interviewed. People who had suffered sexual assault by an intruder as children were also interviewed.
Quite simply we do not know who else was and I for one would be astounded if it started and stopped with Dr Totman and those assaulted as children.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 28, 2020, 05:47:37 PM
In my opinion that was a task for the Policia Judiciaria to carry out initially. In the intervening period the McCanns had been made suspects and had been thoroughly investigated as was Robert Murat and nothing could be found to link any of them to Amaral's theories. Amaral's theories which formed the basis of suspicion against the McCanns were all categorically disproved by the PJ.
It isn't possible to wind back time and erase all that happened since Madeleine's disappearance until the opening of the English investigation as though that was the starting point.
It wasn't the starting point or anything like it and neither Sutton or anyone else knows what happened between witnesses and the Scotland Yard investigators.
For example no-one heard of Dr Totman until the media found out who he was ... but he was interviewed. People who had suffered sexual assault by an intruder as children were also interviewed.
Quite simply we do not know who else was and I for one would be astounded if it started and stopped with Dr Totman and those assaulted as children.
It may well have been a task for the PJ, but it wasn't done. Neither was it achieved at any point in time prior to the case being archived. Murat was thoroughly investigated, but the McCanns were not. His medical records were examined, but theirs weren't, for example. His phones were tapped and he was followed, but the McCanns left Portugal immediately after being made arguidos, so they weren't subjected to those efforts.
So the PJ did not deal with the question of Madeleine's parents involvement and eliminate them from involvement, despite Rowley claiming that they had. If OG believed that the PJ had dealt with it, then if follows that they didn't repeat it. Why would they?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 06:04:14 PM
It may well have been a task for the PJ, but it wasn't done. Neither was it achieved at any point in time prior to the case being archived. Murat was thoroughly investigated, but the McCanns were not. His medical records were examined, but theirs weren't, for example. His phones were tapped and he was followed, but the McCanns left Portugal immediately after being made arguidos, so they weren't subjected to those efforts.
So the PJ did not deal with the question of Madeleine's parents involvement and eliminate them from involvement, despite Rowley claiming that they had. If OG believed that the PJ had dealt with it, then if follows that they didn't repeat it. Why would they?
The case was shelved with no charges against the McCanns.. Rowley was happy their involvement had been dealt with and he's the one who counts...not you.
Rowley said they looked at everything so in effect they did repeat it...they didn't simply take the PJs word
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 28, 2020, 07:14:32 PM
He was quite clear in his words...The room for error is enormous. You have your opinion but that's all it is. It's quite clear to me that he thought the statements might not be accurate. I don't see how you can possibly deny that.
So if there was enormous room for error it makes it all the more difficult to understand why OG didn’t carry out interviews of their own.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 28, 2020, 08:27:08 PM
It may well have been a task for the PJ, but it wasn't done. Neither was it achieved at any point in time prior to the case being archived. Murat was thoroughly investigated, but the McCanns were not. His medical records were examined, but theirs weren't, for example. His phones were tapped and he was followed, but the McCanns left Portugal immediately after being made arguidos, so they weren't subjected to those efforts.
So the PJ did not deal with the question of Madeleine's parents involvement and eliminate them from involvement, despite Rowley claiming that they had. If OG believed that the PJ had dealt with it, then if follows that they didn't repeat it. Why would they?
The point of my post was that it WAS DONE albeit not when it should have been. Amaral's ineptitude and inability to understand forensics and to understand the actual significance of the dogs and everything else he was incapable of understanding made in depth investigation imperative.
Do you really think the PJ were so inept they didn't do that.
Do you have a cite for Murat's medical records being examined?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 28, 2020, 09:13:43 PM
The point of my post was that it WAS DONE albeit not when it should have been. Amaral's ineptitude and inability to understand forensics and to understand the actual significance of the dogs and everything else he was incapable of understanding made in depth investigation imperative.
Do you really think the PJ were so inept they didn't do that.
Do you have a cite for Murat's medical records being examined?
In my opinion it WAS NOT DONE.
certain medical records were received and are attached. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 28, 2020, 09:20:15 PM
certain medical records were received and are attached. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
If you are wondering what should/n't have been done: "OG should have carried out the first task necessary when a child disappears; elimination or implication of those closest to her."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 28, 2020, 09:29:23 PM
If you are wondering what should/n't have been done: "OG should have carried out the first task necessary when a child disappears; elimination or implication of those closest to her."
As what happens in the UK regardless of the parents, colour, religion, employment status, by the social work.
we have moved away from hands off approach of years gone by interfering with 'cultural diversity'. THANK Goodness.
SY task was initially to run over what was done to see if there was anything wrong with what was done- IF they found something wrong they should have gone back to the night MB disappeared and started with the parents. giving them a real grilling. pointing out the inaccuracies in statements if only to rule out the accusations of language barrier/translations.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 29, 2020, 01:13:14 AM
certain medical records were received and are attached. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Fax re: questions to ask Robert Murat
Urgent fax to the President of the Board of the ARS in Algarve dated 16 July 2007 [Actual date was 16 May].
This is a request to the equivalent of the UK NHS asking for details about the family doctor, the clinic, the services rendered, the prescription medication and at which pharmacies any script had been filled.
Answers to any of the questions should be faxed to DIC Portimao as soon as possible.
05-Processo Vol V pages 1365 to 1366 'Service information Jennifer and Robert Murat and their doctors Not content with the fax sent per page 1361, an officer was assigned the task of telephoning the ARS and this is his report, which I summarise as follows: - the ARS does not keep records beyond two months; - other persons were suggested as possible sources; - it was confirmed that J.A.Murat had worked in the District Hospital in Lagos; - the name Robert Murat was not recorded at any of the services contacted; - certain medical records were received and are attached. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
As far as I can see the Judicial Police didn't do too well in being able to access Robert Murat's medical records. They did try apparently just as I believe they did try to access the McCann's and they were unsuccessful in both instances.
Which in my opinion is just as well or these would have become public property just as - with apology to Ms Anna Gabriela for invading her privacy - hers was the only medical record recovered by the PJ.
Therefore I think you are mistaken to say the PJ accessed Murat's medical records ~ it seems they did not and the cite you have given refers not to Robert but to Anna Gabriela.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 29, 2020, 10:11:34 AM
I think you are right; Amaral's conduct was not only very OTT it was unprofessional (not that he is a professional now ~ if he ever was); but to go on and compound it by his television appearances to push misinformation takes it all into a different league.
Isn't there a law in Portugal about interfering in an active police investigation? I would say promoting a photograph of what in reality was a short haired man as one with dreadlocks you have photoshopped in certainly amounts to interference if not downright deceit.
I don't know why he behaved like that but I am wondering. Aren't you the least bit curious?
IMO it shows incompetence to continually blame GA.
Maybe he was right to say the Germans were going to use a scapegoat - to stop them in their tracks.
I doubt any more evidence would have been found - just they would have had more time to set him up IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 29, 2020, 10:18:38 AM
Urgent fax to the President of the Board of the ARS in Algarve dated 16 July 2007 [Actual date was 16 May].
This is a request to the equivalent of the UK NHS asking for details about the family doctor, the clinic, the services rendered, the prescription medication and at which pharmacies any script had been filled.
Answers to any of the questions should be faxed to DIC Portimao as soon as possible.
05-Processo Vol V pages 1365 to 1366 'Service information Jennifer and Robert Murat and their doctors Not content with the fax sent per page 1361, an officer was assigned the task of telephoning the ARS and this is his report, which I summarise as follows: - the ARS does not keep records beyond two months; - other persons were suggested as possible sources; - it was confirmed that J.A.Murat had worked in the District Hospital in Lagos; - the name Robert Murat was not recorded at any of the services contacted; - certain medical records were received and are attached. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
As far as I can see the Judicial Police didn't do too well in being able to access Robert Murat's medical records. They did try apparently just as I believe they did try to access the McCann's and they were unsuccessful in both instances.
Which in my opinion is just as well or these would have become public property just as - with apology to Ms Anna Gabriela for invading her privacy - hers was the only medical record recovered by the PJ.
Therefore I think you are mistaken to say the PJ accessed Murat's medical records ~ it seems they did not and the cite you have given refers not to Robert but to Anna Gabriela.
No UK doctor would release any of these details without a court order which would be difficult to obtain. it would be totally against GMC guidelines.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 29, 2020, 12:35:11 PM
I don't know why so many people think they have right to know what The German Police are up to. Brueckner is well locked up for at least another five years so no great rush.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 29, 2020, 12:53:07 PM
I don't know why so many people think they have right to know what The German Police are up to. Brueckner is well locked up for at least another five years so no great rush.
Surely for the sake of the McCanns, if nothing else, you wouldn't want this to drag on a for a few more years just because Brueckner is locked up & isn't going anywhere ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 29, 2020, 01:05:41 PM
Surely for the sake of the McCanns, if nothing else, you wouldn't want this to drag on a for a few more years just because Brueckner is locked up & isn't going anywhere ?
There is nothing that I can do about it and having him locked up seems like a good idea to me.
If Madeleine is dead then she has been dead for a very long time which The McCanns have always had to consider.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 29, 2020, 01:58:33 PM
IMO it shows incompetence to continually blame GA.
Maybe he was right to say the Germans were going to use a scapegoat - to stop them in their tracks.
I doubt any more evidence would have been found - just they would have had more time to set him up IMO.
I think the Germans were working efficiently at the pace they had set and were doing so until Amaral saw fit to adopt the tactic he did.
Without the spoiler of which I think they would have been working discretely still instead of in my opinion making the best of things by seeking information from the public.
Like you, I think he did want to stop the German investigation into Madeleine's disappearance in its tracks and I think Brueckner was the least of his concern in doing that. Quite simply I think he knew the Germans were following a valid line of inquiry and for some reason he wanted to put the kibosh on that by becoming the champion of rapists and paedophiles while interfering in Madeleine McCanns case, which I may remind you remains a missing question inquiry.
If that extraordinary behaviour doesn't concern you ~ it certainly raises at least one of my eyebrows.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 29, 2020, 02:15:02 PM
No UK doctor would release any of these details without a court order which would be difficult to obtain. it would be totally against GMC guidelines.
Which is why I find it so distasteful that I have used private medical information such as this as a debating point. Particularly as it belongs to a person with absolutely nothing to do with anything but which someone saw fit to release into the public domain.
That the PJ were unable to gain access to the McCann medical record (what evidence they expected to find there I have no idea) is not pejorative to Kate and Gerry as it seems to be thought. In my opinion it reveals a really panicked and floundering investigation clutching at straws.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on October 29, 2020, 02:32:56 PM
Which is why I find it so distasteful that I have used private medical information such as this as a debating point. Particularly as it belongs to a person with absolutely nothing to do with anything but which someone saw fit to release into the public domain.
That the PJ were unable to gain access to the McCann medical record (what evidence they expected to find there I have no idea) is not pejorative to Kate and Gerry as it seems to be thought. In my opinion it reveals a really panicked and floundering investigation clutching at straws.
Alternatively it could be viewed as trying to cover all angles and possibilites.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on October 29, 2020, 02:49:02 PM
Which is why I find it so distasteful that I have used private medical information such as this as a debating point. Particularly as it belongs to a person with absolutely nothing to do with anything but which someone saw fit to release into the public domain.
That the PJ were unable to gain access to the McCann medical record (what evidence they expected to find there I have no idea) is not pejorative to Kate and Gerry as it seems to be thought. In my opinion it reveals a really panicked and floundering investigation clutching at straws.
That's not the only thing the PJ were denied by the English police in this case. It all stinks of a conspiracy imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 29, 2020, 07:45:48 PM
That's not the only thing the PJ were denied by the English police in this case. It all stinks of a conspiracy imo.
I disagree. In my opinion Amaral displayed a great deal of paranoia in all directions. I believe he was nearly as disenchanted with the hierarchy of the Policia Judiciaria as much as he was with everything else; don't forget, they too besmirched his honour when they had the temerity to sack him from the McCann investigation.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 29, 2020, 09:39:10 PM
I disagree. In my opinion Amaral displayed a great deal of paranoia in all directions. I believe he was nearly as disenchanted with the hierarchy of the Policia Judiciaria as much as he was with everything else; don't forget, they too besmirched his honour when they had the temerity to sack him from the McCann investigation.
Oh what I won’t give for a yawn emoji right about now.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 29, 2020, 10:04:13 PM
If only they had been just useless. Criminally Negligent more like.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 29, 2020, 11:10:56 PM
An interesting snippet in the recent CdM report that appears to have been overlooked...
“Case reopened After being archived, the case was reopened and the case was sent to the Porto’s PJ who became in charge of reading all the documents. The objective was to try to find new lines of investigation. It was only then that the hypothesis of the girl's abduction and death gained strength”.
For the full translated report you will have to seek it out on a sceptic’s blog (name begins with a T).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 29, 2020, 11:40:57 PM
An interesting snippet in the recent CdM report that appears to have been overlooked...
“Case reopened After being archived, the case was reopened and the case was sent to the Porto’s PJ who became in charge of reading all the documents. The objective was to try to find new lines of investigation. It was only then that the hypothesis of the girl's abduction and death gained strength”.
For the full translated report you will have to seek it out on a sceptic’s blog (name begins with a T).
Well there's half an hour I am never going to get back.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 30, 2020, 12:04:41 AM
I disagree. In my opinion Amaral displayed a great deal of paranoia in all directions. I believe he was nearly as disenchanted with the hierarchy of the Policia Judiciaria as much as he was with everything else; don't forget, they too besmirched his honour when they had the temerity to sack him from the McCann investigation.
I believe he effectively sacked himself by speaking out about the useless English police.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Angelo222 on October 30, 2020, 12:07:10 AM
Oh what I won’t give for a yawn emoji right about now.
Put them on ignore,the flotsam and jetsam just floats on by.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 07:14:30 AM
It certainly seems some people are keen to put this on ignore - I wonder why?
Case reopened After being archived, the case was reopened and the case was sent to the Porto’s PJ who became in charge of reading all the documents. The objective was to try to find new lines of investigation. It was only then that the hypothesis of the girl's abduction and death gained strength”.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 30, 2020, 07:21:43 AM
It certainly seems some people are keen to put this on ignore - I wonder why?
Case reopened After being archived, the case was reopened and the case was sent to the Porto’s PJ who became in charge of reading all the documents. The objective was to try to find new lines of investigation. It was only then that the hypothesis of the girl's abduction and death gained strength”.
Where did you get that text from?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 07:28:06 AM
It certainly seems some people are keen to put this on ignore - I wonder why?
Case reopened After being archived, the case was reopened and the case was sent to the Porto’s PJ who became in charge of reading all the documents. The objective was to try to find new lines of investigation. It was only then that the hypothesis of the girl's abduction and death gained strength”.
I have often wondered how that can be done. How much time have they got to read the file? Do you have a team of people doing that task, How do they break up sections and hand them out? You'd think it could like the forum and if we all worked together we'd resolve the case, but we don't, we seem to be arguing and discussing stuff that was being discussed 13 years ago.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 08:33:41 AM
I have often wondered how that can be done. How much time have they got to read the file? Do you have a team of people doing that task, How do they break up sections and hand them out? You'd think it could like the forum and if we all worked together we'd resolve the case, but we don't, we seem to be arguing and discussing stuff that was being discussed 13 years ago.
Do you really think this case could have been resolved by this forum...when two posters you seem to admire think the dog alerts are important and evidential. It isn't a matter of arguing...it's a matter of understanding the evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 30, 2020, 08:59:26 AM
Do you really think this case could have been resolved by this forum...when two posters you seem to admire think the dog alerts are important and evidential. It isn't a matter of arguing...it's a matter of understanding the evidence
The point I was making was whether the same division would occur within the PJ if they were reading through the file.
If the forum members all started from a position of not being for or against, maybe we could have resolved some part of the case.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 09:04:10 AM
What makes people for and against is their view of the evidence....and respite discussion that hasn't changed ....and probably never will
Especially if some comments are On Ignore. I will never be able to understand this. How can you have a discussion and sift facts if you can't see what some people are saying?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 30, 2020, 10:44:58 AM
Especially if some comments are On Ignore. I will never be able to understand this. How can you have a discussion and sift facts if you can't see what some people are saying?
You can see their posts if you want to, but the real benefit is they can't private message you if you have them on ignore.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on October 30, 2020, 10:52:29 AM
Why would I want to stop them PMing me? My experiences on that one have always been good.
If I was to get a nasty or just an annoying PM and I click reply and spend a few minutes typing up a reply, and try and send it. If they've blocked me my reply doesn't get through. If I block them they can't send anything in the first instance. Anyone who that I find has blocked me, I'll block them back.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
I believe he effectively sacked himself by speaking out about the useless English police.
That amongst a lot of other issues.
If memory serves me well he was furiously denouncing a communication which had been forwarded I would imagine via the proper channels from Prince Charles's office.
An email concerning the investigation had been received suggesting that a disgruntled former Ocean Club employee had kidnapped Madeleine in revenge for being sacked. So instead of doing what would be the norm of passing that information to an underling to be looked into Amaral was enraged and mouthed off about it to a journalist over a late night dinner.
Very unprofessional of him to say the least. Nobody put a foot wrong in this episode with the exception of Amaral.
the Prince's office passed on information received to the appropriate investigative authorities concerning a crime
instead of investigating it Amaral gossiped negatively and I believe furiously about it to a journalist
the journalist did what journalists do and wrote it up
Amaral's bosses sacked him and in my opinion that was just a reaction to the last straw in one embarrassment after another in a botched investigation
I wonder if the information sent from Britain was ever properly investigated at the time or did it take until the reopening of Madeleine's case by the Portuguese for it to be looked at?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 30, 2020, 11:17:08 AM
Especially if some comments are On Ignore. I will never be able to understand this. How can you have a discussion and sift facts if you can't see what some people are saying?
I think the important thing for some is to get their message out there and nothing else interests them. I read concerning another issue " ... their rhetoric, like the mindset that informs it ..." and I think it is a bit like that for some.
They made up their minds long ago which is why we have recurring discussions on Calpol ~ forensics ~ and dogs.
Thank goodness proper investigators don't operate like that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 12:12:14 PM
If memory serves me well he was furiously denouncing a communication which had been forwarded I would imagine via the proper channels from Prince Charles's office.
An email concerning the investigation had been received suggesting that a disgruntled former Ocean Club employee had kidnapped Madeleine in revenge for being sacked. So instead of doing what would be the norm of passing that information to an underling to be looked into Amaral was enraged and mouthed off about it to a journalist over a late night dinner.
Very unprofessional of him to say the least. Nobody put a foot wrong in this episode with the exception of Amaral.
the Prince's office passed on information received to the appropriate investigative authorities concerning a crime
instead of investigating it Amaral gossiped negatively and I believe furiously about it to a journalist
the journalist did what journalists do and wrote it up
Amaral's bosses sacked him and in my opinion that was just a reaction to the last straw in one embarrassment after another in a botched investigation
I wonder if the information sent from Britain was ever properly investigated at the time or did it take until the reopening of Madeleine's case by the Portuguese for it to be looked at?
Apparently the Met were on it, but as we know they don't move all that quickly.
Royal aides have passed the email on to Scotland Yard, which is now trying to trace the author. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/NEWS_AU_01_10_2007.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 30, 2020, 12:14:31 PM
Apparently the Met were on it, but as we know they don't move all that quickly.
Royal aides have passed the email on to Scotland Yard, which is now trying to trace the author. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/NEWS_AU_01_10_2007.htm
It was a Portuguese investigation so I think to say "the Met were on it" is wide of the mark. The Met passed the information to the appropriate investigative authority in whose jurisdiction it was. The Met had no jurisdiction.
In my opinion the reception it was given by Amaral verges on the unbalanced and his sacking as a result was long overdue.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 12:54:44 PM
Medical records, not an interview with a GP at the request of the suspects.
Group 6 (Professionals who can confirm that there was no abnormality in the way Kate and Gerry treated their children): Dr. Phil Hussey, with address at ...> (Leics) (0,116,260 ####) Dr Ian Schofield, with address at ...> (Mountsorrel) (0,116,230 ####) https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS-WANTED.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 01:01:12 PM
It was a Portuguese investigation so I think to say "the Met were on it" is wide of the mark. The Met passed the information to the appropriate investigative authority in whose jurisdiction it was. The Met had no jurisdiction.
In my opinion the reception it was given by Amaral verges on the unbalanced and his sacking as a result was long overdue.
It's clear from the PJ files that UK police investigated matters on their own initiative without being requested to do so by the appropriate authorities.
At the time this email was recieved the appropriate authorities were not chasing vague leads suggesting abduction.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 01:34:01 PM
Medical records, not an interview with a GP at the request of the suspects.
Group 6 (Professionals who can confirm that there was no abnormality in the way Kate and Gerry treated their children): Dr. Phil Hussey, with address at ...> (Leics) (0,116,260 ####) Dr Ian Schofield, with address at ...> (Mountsorrel) (0,116,230 ####) https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS-WANTED.htm
Perhaps the Portuguese didn't understand that they cannot simply ask a doctor to supply complete medical records...and that at the initial stage the patients consent is required. Perhaps you think the UK should ignore all their rules and laws at the request of the Portuguese
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 01:40:00 PM
It's clear from the PJ files that UK police investigated matters on their own initiative without being requested to do so by the appropriate authorities.
At the time this email was recieved the appropriate authorities were not chasing vague leads suggesting abduction.
The Portuguese should have been investigating an abduction as it was a reasonable possibility..it seem the UK police simply had a better understanding of the evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 02:18:30 PM
The Portuguese should have been investigating an abduction as it was a reasonable possibility..it seem the UK police simply had a better understanding of the evidence
I didn't say the PJ weren't investigating an abduction, I said they weren't investigating vague leads, and if ever I saw a vague lead that was it.
Whoever wrote it could have contacted the PJ, Leicestershire Police, Crimestoppers, Metodo 3 or the Find Madeleine website. For some reason the informant ignored all those options and decided to send an anonymous email to Prince Charles' Website.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 30, 2020, 02:23:36 PM
It's clear from the PJ files that UK police investigated matters on their own initiative without being requested to do so by the appropriate authorities.
At the time this email was recieved the appropriate authorities were not chasing vague leads suggesting abduction.
Indeed. Amaral was investigating Kate and Gerry McCann. Having totally given up on Madeleine and whatever had happened to her. Which is why he was so incensed when information arrived with allegations of a kidnap.
Later competent investigation proved beyond a doubt that his notions were totally invalid and the reopening of the Policia Judiciaria investigation into madeleine's case in 2013 which centred on her abduction proves that things had progressed way beyond his botched betrayal of Madeleine back in the dark days of 2007.
Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 30, 2020, 02:42:29 PM
Indeed. Amaral was investigating Kate and Gerry McCann. Having totally given up on Madeleine and whatever had happened to her. Which is why he was so incensed when information arrived with allegations of a kidnap.
Later competent investigation proved beyond a doubt that his notions were totally invalid and the reopening of the Policia Judiciaria investigation into madeleine's case in 2013 which centred on her abduction proves that things had progressed way beyond his botched betrayal of Madeleine back in the dark days of 2007.
Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.
Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria
If that was the case ....why didn't the mccs sue the PJ.
They did everyone else
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 30, 2020, 02:48:33 PM
Actually they didn't. So your opinion that they did is rather off the mark.
Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.
So in other words that is only IYO...that could also be way off the mark
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 04:58:28 PM
Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.
So in other words that is only IYO...that could also be way off the mark
everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. It would depend what the poster means by 'evidence' and 'proved' in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 05:09:16 PM
Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.
So in other words that is only IYO...that could also be way off the mark
It is not my opinion it is the opinion of the Policia Judiciaria ... haven't you read the policia Judicairia's Final Report?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 30, 2020, 05:30:09 PM
everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. It would depend what the poster means by 'evidence' and 'proved' in my opinion.
It depends very much on what the Policia Judiciaria "mean by evidence". So now's your chance to tell us what evidence you think they missed that incriminates the McCanns.
I await your response with interest.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 05:37:55 PM
It depends very much on what the Policia Judiciaria "mean by evidence". So now's your chance to tell us what evidence you think they missed that incriminates the McCanns.
I await your response with interest.
I disagree. You claimed that "everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise", so it's you who needs to explain. If you know it was 'proved otherwise' you must know what it was and how it was 'proved otherwise'. Unless that was an opinion, of course.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 06:16:43 PM
I disagree. You claimed that "everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise", so it's you who needs to explain. If you know it was 'proved otherwise' you must know what it was and how it was 'proved otherwise'. Unless that was an opinion, of course.
indication is a synonym for evidence... according to the Guardian Almeida testified at the libel trial that the main evince against the McCanns was the alerts. The archiving despatch also mentions the alerts as one of the indications(evidence)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 30, 2020, 07:04:42 PM
I disagree. You claimed that "everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise", so it's you who needs to explain. If you know it was 'proved otherwise' you must know what it was and how it was 'proved otherwise'. Unless that was an opinion, of course.
Quite simply ~ it is obvious that you are unable to come up with any evidence against the McCanns ~ the reason I am posting that as a fact is if there was any there would be nothing to prevent you posting it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 07:29:39 PM
Quite simply ~ it is obvious that you are unable to come up with any evidence against the McCanns ~ the reason I am posting that as a fact is if there was any there would be nothing to prevent you posting it.
It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.
In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 07:50:46 PM
It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.
In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.
If the police accusations are not supported by evidence then by definition they are groundless
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 08:30:41 PM
It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.
In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.
Does that go for the German investigation and CB too then?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 08:46:32 PM
Does that go for the German investigation and CB too then?
Naturally. Whatever has triggered their suspicions they need more. If they don't get it it doesn't mean they have disproved whatever they have, it means it's not enough to charge their suspect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 30, 2020, 09:01:00 PM
It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.
In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.
Much the same position as with Bruckner now.
If, as seems likely, the investigation of Brueckner is dropped, it will exactly mirror that of the parents.....indications but no proof.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 09:02:02 PM
Naturally. Whatever has triggered their suspicions they need more. If they don't get it it doesn't mean they have disproved whatever they have, it means it's not enough to charge their suspect.
Well the PJ and the Germans can’t both be right, and as we now know the PJ have been working on the abduction thesis since reviewing the files so....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 30, 2020, 09:05:22 PM
No more useless than the parents - the ones responsible for their daughters fate what ever that was/is.
Having a meal with your children isn't a bad thing you know.
you know what i dont understand didnt the mcanns have a nanny at home?? why didnt they take her to watch the children while they went out for dinner with their friends??
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 09:16:11 PM
It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.
In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.
Your opinion really doesn't matter.
It is the evidence that matters.
The Policia Judiciaria didn't come up with any and that is on record in their Final Report.
Ignoring that fact won't make it go away and I cannot fathom why you find yourself still unable to accept the facts as they very obviously stand ~ that there is NO evidence against the McCanns ~ and the investigation is into Madeleine's abduction by a stranger.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 30, 2020, 09:27:45 PM
whereas the investigation into parental involvement was...?
whereas the investigation into parental involvement was...? never investigated properly due to media blocking and shifting timelines and refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Just because they were never charged due to lack of physical evidence/and eye witness- does no mean they have no case to answer
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 30, 2020, 09:31:02 PM
whereas the investigation into parental involvement was...? never investigated properly due to media blocking and shifting timelines and refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Just because they were never charged due to lack of physical evidence/and eye witness- does no mean they have no case to answer
They have no case to answer because no case has ever been made against them
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 09:31:48 PM
Yes, trying to catch up now and then- very busy due to Covid.
Wolters=disappointing. may well have proof? I may well have a lottery win next month. I am not convinced of his narrative.
However I do believe MBM was killed on that night.
Doesn't matter what you think as you've said you haven't kept up...I doubt...based on the evidence that Maddie was killed that night...and it's highly likely imo ...again based on lots of things...that Wolters does have proof of death and abduction...it's unlikely you will win the lottery
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 09:32:49 PM
whereas the investigation into parental involvement was...?never investigated properly due to media blocking and shifting timelines and refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Just because they were never charged due to lack of physical evidence/and eye witness- does no mean they have no case to answer
that sounds like a truly pathetic excuse to me - just how weak do you think the PJ are / were and why do you suppose they have now conceded abduction is a theory worth investigating?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 30, 2020, 09:53:24 PM
that sounds like a truly pathetic excuse to me - just how weak do you think the PJ are / were and why do you suppose they have now conceded abduction is a theory worth investigating?
I am of the opinion that they were encouraged to revisit the abduction theory we don't know if they believe MBM was abducted which is more to the point.
and it is worth mentioning- they have not got any evidence of abduction from the bedroom to show, and didn't have enough evidence to charge kate/Gerry. Just as they have not enough evidence to charge CB. it is all still balls in the air at the moment.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
I am of the opinion that they were encouraged to revisit the abduction theory we don't know if they believe MBM was abducted which is more to the point.
and it is worth mentioning- they have not got any evidence of abduction from the bedroom to show, and didn't have enough evidence to charge kate/Gerry. Just as they have not enough evidence to charge CB. it is all still balls in the air at the moment.
You haven't got a clue what evidence Wolters has and as you've said you are not up to speed with developments. From what Wolters has said it's highly likely he strong evidence if not proof of abduction and death
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 30, 2020, 10:09:06 PM
Well the PJ and the Germans can’t both be right, and as we now know the PJ have been working on the abduction thesis since reviewing the files so....
The Porto team, you mean? That was in 2013 and in 2017 do Carmo said he didn't know what happened to Madeleine, so I wouldn't get too excited if I were you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 30, 2020, 10:11:55 PM
The Porto team, you mean? That was in 2013 and in 2017 do Carmo said he didn't know what happened to Madeleine, so I wouldn't get too excited if I were you.
PDC said no evidence..no suspect s..but don't get too upset
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 30, 2020, 10:32:20 PM
whereas the investigation into parental involvement was...? never investigated properly due to media blocking and shifting timelines and refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Just because they were never charged due to lack of physical evidence/and eye witness- does no mean they have no case to answer
It is a falsehood that they refused to take part in a reconstruction ... why on earth did you post it - you must know it is not true?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 30, 2020, 10:41:33 PM
The Porto team, you mean? That was in 2013 and in 2017 do Carmo said he didn't know what happened to Madeleine, so I wouldn't get too excited if I were you.
What makes you think I’m excited? That is certainly not the appropriate word.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 31, 2020, 12:58:49 AM
It is a falsehood that they refused to take part in a reconstruction ... why on earth did you post it - you must know it is not true?
Oh come, come now....while technically that’s true the situation was a little more nuanced. lMO, the parents used their friends refusal to participate to scupper the reconstition.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 31, 2020, 07:13:06 AM
^^^ still spreading propaganda 13 years later^^^
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2020, 08:12:59 AM
Oh come, come now....while technically that’s true the situation was a little more nuanced. lMO, the parents used their friends refusal to participate to scupper the reconstition.
Can't beat s bit of opinion based as fact to spread disinformation.....when the truth isn't good enough...make something up seems to be some posters MO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 31, 2020, 08:42:48 AM
Can't beat s bit of opinion based as fact to spread disinformation.....when the truth isn't good enough...make something up seems to be some posters MO
Like Madeleine was abducted you mean.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on October 31, 2020, 08:44:55 AM
The Policia Judiciaria didn't come up with any and that is on record in their Final Report.
Ignoring that fact won't make it go away and I cannot fathom why you find yourself still unable to accept the facts as they very obviously stand ~ that there is NO evidence against the McCanns ~ and the investigation is into Madeleine's abduction by a stranger.
There is more circumstantial evidence IMO for the mccs - than CB being a so-called abductor.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on October 31, 2020, 02:03:52 PM
The only concrete evidence IMO is Maddie was removed from that room.
Who removed her is the question.
We know the mcs were definitely in the apartment ....what you don't know is was CB.
HCW says he has a lot more. He is not speaking for himself but a team of detectives. I have seen no one officially questioning what hes saying. Even CBs lawyer is asking to see the evidence...rather than saying HCW doesnt have any.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 31, 2020, 03:27:45 PM
HCW says he has a lot more. He is not speaking for himself but a team of detectives. I have seen no one officially questioning what hes saying. Even CBs lawyer is asking to see the evidence...rather than saying HCW doesnt have any.
Ha asking to see the evidence it seems shows he believes HCW hasn't got any to show.
Surely you must know if it was as strong as what you think ...it wouldn't matter whether FF knew or didn't know what it was.
Seems very weak if Wolters is going to wait til Disclosure to show what he has..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2020, 03:46:51 PM
Ha asking to see the evidence it seems shows he believes HCW hasn't got any to show.
Surely you must know if it was as strong as what you think ...it wouldn't matter whether FF knew or didn't know what it was.
Seems very weak if Wolters is going to wait til Disclosure to show what he has..
I dont think any of that makes any sense...there are seevral possibilities why HCW is waiting. he was aked in the podcast if CB was working alone...he declined to answer. ther may be others being investigated and to speak now would japordise the investigation.
I note you cannot come up with any evidence against the McCanns. The dog alerts are not circumstantial evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 31, 2020, 04:13:31 PM
I'd cross the Smith's out. One said the person had light brown hair!! Not a tourist!! Martin Smith said he looked like Gerry by the way he carried his son off the plane, he carried his son off the plane the same as millions of parents have.
Silly Kate, open the window to stage an abduction and didn't wipe her finger prints off the glass [she's not that stupid]
The last one 'shifty parents' is just the way you portray them, all the people who lived around the McCann's said they were lovely people, you don't know them they do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on October 31, 2020, 04:15:18 PM
I'd cross the Smith's out. One said the person had light brown hair!! Not a tourist!! Martin Smith said he looked like Gerry by the way he carried his son off the plane, he carried his son off the plane the same as millions of parents have.
Silly Kate, open the window to stage an abduction and didn't wipe her finger prints off the glass [she's not that stupid]
The last one 'shifty parents' is just the way you portray them, all the people who lived around the McCann's said they were lovely people, you don't know them they do.
Evidence can be open to interpretation. IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 31, 2020, 05:13:36 PM
No abductor has been found in the Ben Needham case either so I guess that means it’s evidence his family dunnit too by your (completely twisted) logic.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on October 31, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
I'd cross the Smith's out. One said the person had light brown hair!! Not a tourist!! Martin Smith said he looked like Gerry by the way he carried his son off the plane, he carried his son off the plane the same as millions of parents have.
Silly Kate, open the window to stage an abduction and didn't wipe her finger prints off the glass [she's not that stupid]
The last one 'shifty parents' is just the way you portray them, all the people who lived around the McCann's said they were lovely people, you don't know them they do.
Weren't most of those who spoke about the McCanns family or friends?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 31, 2020, 05:20:18 PM
No abductor has been found in the Ben Needham case either so I guess that means it’s evidence his family dunnit too by your (completely twisted) logic.
His disappearance is a little suspicious.
Why would an abductor steal Ben's wet shorts from the washing line?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 31, 2020, 05:21:33 PM
Weren't most of those who spoke about the McCanns family or friends?
It is usual for character references to be requested from individuals who know the people concerned.
The fact that for thirteen+ years individuals who know nothing at all about this family have seen fit to traduce them might be rather clouding your judgement on that.
Who knows you best ~ your family and friends or some stranger on the internet? It's a no brainer IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on October 31, 2020, 05:47:46 PM
Well, I don't see how we can rule it out since Ben hasn't been found.
I see. So if a child disappears and is never found and nobody ever charged with an abduction, then it’s fine to assume the parents did it, great logic.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2020, 06:05:02 PM
I see. So if a child disappears and is never found and nobody ever charged with an abduction, then it’s fine to assume the parents did it, great logic.
I don't see why not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 31, 2020, 07:13:53 PM
Oh come, come now....while technically that’s true the situation was a little more nuanced. lMO, the parents used their friends refusal to participate to scupper the reconstition.
I agree. Had they really wanted to assist the PJ in the investigation of their daughter's mysterious disappearance they would have prevailed upon their friends to take part. But in the event not a sound.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 31, 2020, 11:41:33 PM
I agree. Had they really wanted to assist the PJ in the investigation of their daughter's mysterious disappearance they would have prevailed upon their friends to take part. But in the event not a sound.
Do you expect the McCanns to broadcast all communications between themselves and their friends to the world out of interest?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on October 31, 2020, 11:49:30 PM
I agree. Had they really wanted to assist the PJ in the investigation of their daughter's mysterious disappearance they would have prevailed upon their friends to take part. But in the event not a sound.
The fact that Kate remained very good friends with Fiona Payne says it all. If any of my friends had refused to take part in any part of a police enquiry that was looking for my daughter they’d no longer be friends.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on October 31, 2020, 11:58:57 PM
If only one of you sceptiics could actually explain in what way you think the reconstitution might have helped the McCanns to find their daughter I would sincerely love to hear it, but the silence as always will be deafening.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 01, 2020, 12:07:25 AM
The fact that Kate remained very good friends with Fiona Payne says it all. If any of my friends had refused to take part in any part of a police enquiry that was looking for my daughter they’d no longer be friends.
Did they refuse?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 01, 2020, 12:54:20 AM
I agree. Had they really wanted to assist the PJ in the investigation of their daughter's mysterious disappearance they would have prevailed upon their friends to take part. But in the event not a sound.
The point is though that the PJ were no longer interested in investigating what had happened to Madeleine McCann and hadn't been for quite some time. They had given up on Madeleine, it was her parents they wanted.
The McCanns had been made arguidos and were the prime suspects. The investigation was all about prosecuting Madeleine's parents and nothing to do with finding her.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 01, 2020, 01:00:00 AM
The fact that Kate remained very good friends with Fiona Payne says it all. If any of my friends had refused to take part in any part of a police enquiry that was looking for my daughter they’d no longer be friends.
The PJ were not looking for Madeleine. They were looking to prosecute her parents instead.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2020, 05:53:05 AM
If only one of you sceptiics could actually explain in what way you think the reconstitution might have helped the McCanns to find their daughter I would sincerely love to hear it, but the silence as always will be deafening.
I think you know that the aim was not to help the McCanns find their daughter, it was to give them and their friends an opportunity to demonstrate (or not) that their account of their movements on 3rd May was correct.
At the time there was speculation in the UK press that some of the group may be made arguidos, although there's no mention of that intention in the PJ files. It was, however, one of the reasons given for refusing to attend, along with their opinion that it wouldn't help to find Madeleine.
It was reported that the group met secretly in Rothley in November. https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id379.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 01, 2020, 08:28:45 AM
I think you know that the aim was not to help the McCanns find their daughter, it was to give them and their friends an opportunity to demonstrate (or not) that their account of their movements on 3rd May was correct.
At the time there was speculation in the UK press that some of the group may be made arguidos, although there's no mention of that intention in the PJ files. It was, however, one of the reasons given for refusing to attend, along with their opinion that it wouldn't help to find Madeleine.
It was reported that the group met secretly in Rothley in November. https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id379.htm
And yet you all berate them for not helping the police to find Madeleine which as you admit above is patent ballcocks. Why, KNOWING they were not complicit in hiding Madeleine’s body, would they all agree to take part in a farcical reconstruction which would 100% fail to prove their innocence?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2020, 08:50:04 AM
The friends simply didn't trust the PJ who had already demonstrated their ignorance. If the group thought this was a genuine attempt to progress the search I'm sure they would have attended.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 01, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
The friends simply didn't trust the PJ who had already demonstrated their ignorance. If the group thought this was a genuine attempt to progress the search I'm sure they would have attended.
It was the statements and behaviour of this group which aroused the PJ's suspicions. Why refuse the opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in their story when it was offered? They could have dispelled those suspicions and moved on. Perhaps once they were back in the moment the position of Gerry and Jez's conversation would have been recalled and the reason why neither of them saw or heard anything would have become obvious to all, for example.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 01, 2020, 10:11:11 AM
It was the statements and behaviour of this group which aroused the PJ's suspicions. Why refuse the opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in their story when it was offered? They could have dispelled those suspicions and moved on. Perhaps once they were back in the moment the position of Gerry and Jez's conversation would have been recalled and the reason why neither of them saw or heard anything would have become obvious to all, for example.
And if it didn’t? Then what? Jez is in on the plot too is he? Whose recollection would the reconstitution have been based on and could it have cleared the McCanns or their friends of involvement? Do you think the exact location of Gerry and Jes when passing has a bearing on JT’s possible involvement? Why should suspects have to take part in any exercise designed to gather more evidence against them? What if the reconstitution failed to establish their possible involvement, then what? Cleared of suspicion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 01, 2020, 10:21:44 AM
And if it didn’t? Then what? Jez is in on the plot too is he? Whose recollection would the reconstitution have been based on and could it have cleared the McCanns or their friends of involvement? Do you think the exact location of Gerry and Jes when passing has a bearing on JT’s possible involvement? Why should suspects have to take part in any exercise designed to gather more evidence against them? What if the reconstitution failed to establish their possible involvement, then what? Cleared of suspicion?
As they refused to have their stories examined we'll never know, will we? Jes could never confirm the time he met Gerry anyway, it was Jane who did that. She also said she had Gerry and the 'abductor' in sight at the same time. Unfortunately for her, neither man was able to confirm her sighting of the 'abductor'.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 01, 2020, 10:54:29 AM
As they refused to have their stories examined we'll never know, will we? Jes could never confirm the time he met Gerry anyway, it was Jane who did that. She also said she had Gerry and the 'abductor' in sight at the same time. Unfortunately for her, neither man was able to confirm her sighting of the 'abductor'.
And you think a reconstitution would have achieved this?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2020, 11:14:13 AM
It was the statements and behaviour of this group which aroused the PJ's suspicions. Why refuse the opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in their story when it was offered? They could have dispelled those suspicions and moved on. Perhaps once they were back in the moment the position of Gerry and Jez's conversation would have been recalled and the reason why neither of them saw or heard anything would have become obvious to all, for example.
The PJ didn't understand the evidence...not opinion..fact. Once you truly understand that you will understand why they did not wish to return.
Amaral claimed at his trial that the official PJ investigation agreed with him...ie ...death in the apartment and a cover up by the parents could be proved..what was the point of the reconstruction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2020, 11:19:27 AM
The PJ didn't understand the evidence...not opinion..fact. Once you truly understand that you will understand why they did not wish to return.
Amaral claimed at his trial that the official PJ investigation agreed with him...ie ...death in the apartment and a cover up by the parents could be proved..what was the point of the reconstruction
Why did Amaral refuse to do a reconstruction in the beginning when it might have been of some use?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 01, 2020, 12:22:26 PM
It’s not up to suspects to dictate the direction of the investigation.
Or to name the crime which has been committed, or to spread the news far and wide using relatives and friends to contact the media. Unless, of course, the police are foreign and your name is McCann.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2020, 05:15:45 PM
Or to name the crime which has been committed, or to spread the news far and wide using relatives and friends to contact the media. Unless, of course, the police are foreign and your name is McCann.
Usually in the Uk its the police who involve the media...are you not aware of that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 01, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
Or to name the crime which has been committed, or to spread the news far and wide using relatives and friends to contact the media. Unless, of course, the police are foreign and your name is McCann.
Why shouldn’t they? In any case sceptics believe the McCanns had the power to order the PJ to re-open the investigation so...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2020, 05:20:58 PM
Does no one find it appalling that two PJ officers in the Mccann case... Amaral and Almeida ...ended up with criminal convictions for trying to cover up torture and for torture itself
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 01, 2020, 05:22:51 PM
Does no one find it appalling that two PJ officers in the Mccann case... Amaral and Almeida ...ended up with criminal convictions for trying to cover up torture and for torture itself
I do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2020, 05:31:31 PM
It’s not up to suspects to dictate the direction of the investigation.
Do you mean in your opinion that the Policia Judiciaria were incapable of conducting an investigation? Think about it. That in effect is what your statement suggests.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 01, 2020, 05:52:57 PM
Sorry, I don't remember it. But it was a good one, as I don't use "j"s very often. "G"s and "J" confuse me TBH. It could be a form of dyslexia.
I didnt realise until I posted on forums such as this the I'm dyslexic to a certain extent. I'm fascinated by psychology... neural physiology. My son studied neuro transnsmitters in the hypothalamus at Bsc before transferring to medicine. He said no one at leeds understood his dissertation so they had to give him a first.
we argue about who is the most intelligent but I think he realises the truth
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2020, 06:07:06 PM
I didnt realise until I posted on forums such as this the I'm dyslexic to a certain extent. I'm fascinated by psychology... neural physiology. My son studied neuro transnsmitters in the hypothalamus at Bsc before transferring to medicine. He said no one at leeds understood his dissertation so they had to give him a first.
we argue about who is the most intelligent but I think he realises the truth
Of course....meanwhile back in the real world.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 01, 2020, 06:10:58 PM
Usually in the Uk its the police who involve the media...are you not aware of that.
Well seems HCW has spoken to the sun. Tu Tut Tut
MADELEINE McCann's parents face fresh heartache after prosecutors revealed they would not be charging the prime suspect until next year at the earliest.
Convicted rapist and paedophile Christian B, 43, was identified as the man responsible for the three-year old's kidnap and murder by the German authorities in June.
Kate and Gerry hoped it would mark the end of their 13 year agony at not knowing what had happened to their beloved daughter but now their hopes have been dashed.
Speaking exclusively to The Sun, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters admitted leads had dried up and there would be no developments this year, with charges unlikely before the Spring and only if they find more evidence.
He said: ''I cannot say how long our investigation will go on for but I know there will be no developments this year, in 2020. We had hoped to charge him but that has not been possible.
''Maybe we hope to have something by the Spring of 2021, maybe it could take longer but certainly nothing this year.
''We have some evidence against our suspect but it is not strong enough. We have proof that he was involved and that he killed Madeleine but it's not strong enough to charge him.
MADELEINE McCann's parents face fresh heartache after prosecutors revealed they would not be charging the prime suspect until next year at the earliest.
Convicted rapist and paedophile Christian B, 43, was identified as the man responsible for the three-year old's kidnap and murder by the German authorities in June.
Kate and Gerry hoped it would mark the end of their 13 year agony at not knowing what had happened to their beloved daughter but now their hopes have been dashed.
Speaking exclusively to The Sun, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters admitted leads had dried up and there would be no developments this year, with charges unlikely before the Spring and only if they find more evidence.
He said: ''I cannot say how long our investigation will go on for but I know there will be no developments this year, in 2020. We had hoped to charge him but that has not been possible.
''Maybe we hope to have something by the Spring of 2021, maybe it could take longer but certainly nothing this year.
''We have some evidence against our suspect but it is not strong enough. We have proof that he was involved and that he killed Madeleine but it's not strong enough to charge him.
MADELEINE McCann's parents face fresh heartache after prosecutors revealed they would not be charging the prime suspect until next year at the earliest.
Convicted rapist and paedophile Christian B, 43, was identified as the man responsible for the three-year old's kidnap and murder by the German authorities in June.
Kate and Gerry hoped it would mark the end of their 13 year agony at not knowing what had happened to their beloved daughter but now their hopes have been dashed.
Speaking exclusively to The Sun, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters admitted leads had dried up and there would be no developments this year, with charges unlikely before the Spring and only if they find more evidence.
He said: ''I cannot say how long our investigation will go on for but I know there will be no developments this year, in 2020. We had hoped to charge him but that has not been possible.
''Maybe we hope to have something by the Spring of 2021, maybe it could take longer but certainly nothing this year.
''We have some evidence against our suspect but it is not strong enough. We have proof that he was involved and that he killed Madeleine but it's not strong enough to charge him.
How can he be certain nothing will happen this year? They could theoretically get a phone call tomorrow.
How can we be certain he recently spoke to the sun.. How can we be certain the Sun have quoted him correctly
You seem to think every word is true...LOL
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 03, 2020, 12:38:23 PM
Good to see the media is still running scared of this story and trembling in their boots about the impending legal action. When are we due to fall off our chairs btw?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on November 03, 2020, 12:43:40 PM
Reminds me of gmcc planning concerts in advance when Maddie could have been found that day.
Forward thinking and planning, excellent
Remember Madeleine most probably would not be found so soon, and she was not.
It was necessary to keep the impetus going and produce income for the search. Remember, nobody was searching for Madeleine except them (and a few followers). Goncalo Amaral and the PJ had given up.
I do hope that if one of your children was snatched, God forbid, that you would work as diligently as The Mccanns to keep the search going.
I wouldn't like to think your little one was abandoned.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 03, 2020, 12:58:04 PM
There is no second chance when charging someone with murder so waiting till all the evidence is in is the most sensible option IMO. "Wondering about" what evidence they do have. Even I'm doing that.
Double jeapordy
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 03, 2020, 06:56:44 PM
It looks like their appeal was the last throw of the dice to get the evidence they need and it has failed to appear so far.
As I recall the last throw of the dice was around 2016....I wouldnt beleive everything you read in the sun. this interview may have been weeks ago. There is a thread that runs through everything proof/strong evidence of death...which imo will prove abduction
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 03, 2020, 10:52:37 PM
As I recall the last throw of the dice was around 2016....I wouldnt beleive everything you read in the sun. this interview may have been weeks ago. There is a thread that runs through everything proof/strong evidence of death...which imo will prove abduction
Thread as in the line of thought, not a thread on the forum.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 04, 2020, 08:47:07 AM
Reminds me of gmcc planning concerts in advance when Maddie could have been found that day.
Then he would have cancelled it. This has been taken out of all proportion. Gerry was planning something, but obviously if Madeleine was found it would be cancelled. How easy is that to understand?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 04, 2020, 10:42:30 AM
Then he would have cancelled it. This has been taken out of all proportion. Gerry was planning something, but obviously if Madeleine was found it would be cancelled. How easy is that to understand?
Concerts - must have missed that show!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2020, 04:56:05 PM
this is part of what sceptics seem to think is evidence against the McCanns...the fact that the dogs alerted only in 5a and not the other four apartments...but looking at the times from the files the dgs only spent 3 miniutes in three apartments...5 in another...but 50 in 5a. Did they only alert in 5a because they spent longer and were repeatedly called back to places they originally ignored.
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.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 05, 2020, 05:25:29 PM
Then he would have cancelled it. This has been taken out of all proportion. Gerry was planning something, but obviously if Madeleine was found it would be cancelled. How easy is that to understand?
The point is most parents wouldn’t even admit to themselves that they wouldn’t have found their child days, weeks or months ahead let alone organising concerts.
I think that’s what made people rather suspicious of Gerry, he appeared to like the limelight a tad too much.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 05, 2020, 06:17:18 PM
The point is most parents wouldn’t even admit to themselves that they wouldn’t have found their child days, weeks or months ahead let alone organising concerts.
I think that’s what made people rather suspicious of Gerry, he appeared to like the limelight a tad too much.
Could you provide a cite (remind me) about Gerry organising concerts, please?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 05, 2020, 06:17:59 PM
The point is most parents wouldn’t even admit to themselves that they wouldn’t have found their child days, weeks or months ahead let alone organising concerts.
I think that’s what made people rather suspicious of Gerry, he appeared to like the limelight a tad too much.
Fearing the media might "go off" the story at any time, the police organised a variety of headline-grabbing events - and in return, the public and the media displayed great willingness to help.
As the investigation entered its third week, the problem for the family and the police was how to keep it in the media spotlight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/831699.stm
The McCanns received no assistance from the police to publicise Madeleine's disappearance and to seek help from the public so they had to do it themselves.
Did they do wrong? Do you think it is inappropriate to publicise a missing child? The questions are rhetorical ~ I already know what your answer is.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 05, 2020, 06:51:40 PM
Shame on Gerry for trying to come up with innovative ways to keep his child’s disappearance high profile. He should of course have kept his trap shut, kept his head down and hoped the whole thing blew over quickly so he and his remaining family could get on with enjoying their lives and soending all that lovely donation money on speedboats and diamond earrings.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 05, 2020, 07:50:23 PM
Fearing the media might "go off" the story at any time, the police organised a variety of headline-grabbing events - and in return, the public and the media displayed great willingness to help.
As the investigation entered its third week, the problem for the family and the police was how to keep it in the media spotlight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/831699.stm
The McCanns received no assistance from the police to publicise Madeleine's disappearance and to seek help from the public so they had to do it themselves.
Did they do wrong? Do you think it is inappropriate to publicise a missing child? The questions are rhetorical ~ I already know what your answer is.
I think it’s odd that as grieving parents they were able to contemplate that days, weeks or months ahead that they wouldn’t have their daughter back. Most parents wouldn’t be able to even go there, mentally.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 05, 2020, 07:55:01 PM
I think it’s odd that as grieving parents they were able to contemplate that days, weeks or months ahead that they wouldn’t have their daughter back. Most parents wouldn’t be able to even go there, mentally.
Worst Case Scenario.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 05, 2020, 07:59:11 PM
I think it’s odd that as grieving parents they were able to contemplate that days, weeks or months ahead that they wouldn’t have their daughter back. Most parents wouldn’t be able to even go there, mentally.
Sara Payne did it.
I think the lesson to be learned from these two cases is take a pro-active stance on behalf of your missing child and all too soon for Sara your murdered child ~ expect to be viciously trolled.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 05, 2020, 08:15:36 PM
What does Faithlilly know about what “most parents “ wouldn’t be able to do? Has she conducted a survey?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 05, 2020, 08:25:26 PM
I think the lesson to be learned from these two cases is take a pro-active stance on behalf of your missing child and all too soon for Sara your murdered child ~ expect to be viciously trolled.
In my opinion it's difficult to define trolling. Often, imo, people are accused of trolling if they express an opinion which someone else disagrees with. Only if a law is broken can action be taken, as the McCann supporter dossier compilers discovered.
I see no point in complaining about trolling, because often the ones who complain are those it offends imo, and what offends one person might not offend others.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 05, 2020, 08:35:36 PM
In my opinion it's difficult to define trolling. Often, imo, people are accused of trolling if they express an opinion which someone else disagrees with. Only if a law is broken can action be taken, as the McCann supporter dossier compilers discovered.
I see no point in complaining about trolling, because often the ones who complain are those it offends imo, and what offends one person might not offend others.
What a bizarre post. Most right minded people would be offended by sick and gratuitous abuse directed at the mother of a murdered child.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 05, 2020, 08:43:32 PM
In my opinion it's difficult to define trolling. Often, imo, people are accused of trolling if they express an opinion which someone else disagrees with. Only if a law is broken can action be taken, as the McCann supporter dossier compilers discovered.
I see no point in complaining about trolling, because often the ones who complain are those it offends imo, and what offends one person might not offend others.
I am offended by the title of this thread.
Particularly by the fact not one individual is able to describe one single instance of evidence against the McCanns.
Yet the comparison is made with them and a vicious torturer, rapist and paedophile career criminal who is the prime suspect in their daughter's disappearance.
Is that trolling? because although I may be offended it is certain there are others who are not and indeed appear to revel in it all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 05, 2020, 09:33:00 PM
It isn't really difficult; the mechanism is already in place ~ it just seems there is a reluctance to use it. It isn't about a name ~ it is about a behaviour and morality, in my opinion. Communications Act 2003 - Sending a malicious communication using social media was made a criminal offence. - It was declared an offence to "persistently make use of a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety". Malicious communications On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking - Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The term stalking is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology, as well as in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.(such as aggressive Internet trolling - In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 05, 2020, 11:03:24 PM
I think the lesson to be learned from these two cases is take a pro-active stance on behalf of your missing child and all too soon for Sara your murdered child ~ expect to be viciously trolled.
Sara Payne did what ? Organised concerts months in advance ? Do you have a cite as per forum rules ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 05, 2020, 11:27:49 PM
Sara Payne did what ? Organised concerts months in advance ? Do you have a cite as per forum rules ?
Really . . . providing a cite is as per forum rules? I must remember to mention that to Gunit ~ she doesn't seem to have heard about that one.
I do have a cite ~ please see here ~ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11772.msg625317#msg625317
But weirdly enough you have already replied to ~ "Fearing the media might "go off" the story at any time, the police organised a variety of headline-grabbing events - and in return, the public and the media displayed great willingness to help.
As the investigation entered its third week, the problem for the family and the police was how to keep it in the media spotlight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/831699.stm http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625346#msg625346
Quite obviously Sara Payne would never have given up on Sarah no matter how long it would have taken. She suffered not knowing for three weeks and did everything she could for Sarah during that period. The McCanns have suffered for thirteen+ years.
You're being a bit mischievous I think regarding your posts to me. I'm finding it tedious yet again. So please don't expect a direct response from me to your posts for some time ~ that way you won't be disappointed when I don't respond :)
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 05, 2020, 11:41:58 PM
Really . . . providing a cite is as per forum rules? I must remember to mention that to Gunit ~ she doesn't seem to have heard about that one.
I do have a cite ~ please see here ~ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11772.msg625317#msg625317
But weirdly enough you have already replied to ~ "Fearing the media might "go off" the story at any time, the police organised a variety of headline-grabbing events - and in return, the public and the media displayed great willingness to help.
As the investigation entered its third week, the problem for the family and the police was how to keep it in the media spotlight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/831699.stm http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625346#msg625346
Quite obviously Sara Payne would never have given up on Sarah no matter how long it would have taken. She suffered not knowing for three weeks and did everything she could for Sarah during that period. The McCanns have suffered for thirteen+ years.
You're being a bit mischievous I think regarding your posts to me. I'm finding it tedious yet again. So please don't expect a direct response from me to your posts for some time ~ that way you won't be disappointed when I don't respond :)
"Really . . . providing a cite is as per forum rules? I must remember to mention that to Gunit ~ she doesn't seem to have heard about that one."
Are snide remarks acceptable Brietta?
Perhaps you should provide cites when asked then you will have earned the right to criticise others imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 05, 2020, 11:52:29 PM
"Really . . . providing a cite is as per forum rules? I must remember to mention that to Gunit ~ she doesn't seem to have heard about that one."
Are snide remarks acceptable Brietta?
Perhaps you should provide cites when asked then you will have earned the right to criticise others imo.
Any reason you never bother to provide cites requested including today? Might be an idea to take it to the mods room and give the reason there. I have never knowingly ignored ignored a request for a cite. Maybe you can back up your statement with ~ Lol ~ a cite ???
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 02:24:08 AM
This debate between the moderators needs to stop.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 06, 2020, 07:28:39 AM
"After a series of interviews on Thursday, they will fly back to the Algarve in time for a jazz concert in Lagos, organised independently in their daughter's name as an act of 'solidarity'.
Who organised the jazz concert
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2020, 09:46:29 AM
"After a series of interviews on Thursday, they will fly back to the Algarve in time for a jazz concert in Lagos, organised independently in their daughter's name as an act of 'solidarity'.
Who organised the jazz concert
In what way is that of any significance whatsoever.. Is it in any way connected to the title of the thread
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 06, 2020, 09:56:59 AM
Come on!! Anyone who attends a Portuguese Jazz Festival has got to be a little bit suspect surely?
It's totally laughable...they want to dismiss what the German prosecutor says ....as hes just making things up ..but are interested in who organised the jazz festival... LOL
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 06, 2020, 11:55:34 AM
It's totally laughable...they want to dismiss what the German prosecutor says ....as hes just making things up ..but are interested in who organised the jazz festival... LOL
Yes, highly suspicious behaviour all this arranging a concert for your missing daughter, whereas when it comes to a suspect with a penchant for rape, paedophilia, burglary, pffft, nothing to see here, move along move along.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 06, 2020, 11:55:57 AM
Nope....grieving parents just don’t allow themselves to go there.
IMO it was a coping mechanism for Gerry, rather than just sit and do nothing he had to be out there organising planning, hoping something would help to find his daughter.
Not everyone is the same obviously, some just can't bring themselves to even get up in the morning. Gerry had that fight in him and it helped himself and Kate to focus.
No one can say how they would act if something like this happened to them. The McCann's were in a foreign country and believed Madeleine could have been whisked away to another country. The helplessness they must have felt, I can't even try to imagine it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 12:10:35 PM
Yes, highly suspicious behaviour all this arranging a concert for your missing daughter, whereas when it comes to a suspect with a penchant for rape, paedophilia, burglary, pffft, nothing to see here, move along move along.
It is all to do with circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 12:22:38 PM
In what way is that of any significance whatsoever.. Is it in any way connected to the title of the thread
It was Faithlilly who raised the issue of concerts and then ignored my requests for a cite. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625367#msg625367 onward.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2020, 12:48:21 PM
Really..is that how obscure sceptics have to be...does that rate as evidence implicating the McCanns. In what way does it implicate them
I suppose the PJ could consider the disappearance was done for monetary gain. I don't know. Maybe Faithlilly could explain why she raised the issue of organising concerts in this thread.
It is not clear who organised the jazz concert.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 06, 2020, 01:05:16 PM
I suppose the PJ could consider the disappearance was done for monetary gain. I don't know. Maybe Faithlilly could explain why she raised the issue of organising concerts in this thread.
It is not clear who organised the jazz concert.
Was there a Jazz Concert?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
I suppose the PJ could consider the disappearance was done for monetary gain. I don't know. Maybe Faithlilly could explain why she raised the issue of organising concerts in this thread.
It is not clear who organised the jazz concert.
So the accident was planned for monetary gain?
It's totally ridiculous
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 06, 2020, 01:22:42 PM
Really . . . providing a cite is as per forum rules? I must remember to mention that to Gunit ~ she doesn't seem to have heard about that one.
I do have a cite ~ please see here ~ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11772.msg625317#msg625317
But weirdly enough you have already replied to ~ "Fearing the media might "go off" the story at any time, the police organised a variety of headline-grabbing events - and in return, the public and the media displayed great willingness to help.
As the investigation entered its third week, the problem for the family and the police was how to keep it in the media spotlight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/831699.stm http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625346#msg625346
Quite obviously Sara Payne would never have given up on Sarah no matter how long it would have taken. She suffered not knowing for three weeks and did everything she could for Sarah during that period. The McCanns have suffered for thirteen+ years.
You're being a bit mischievous I think regarding your posts to me. I'm finding it tedious yet again. So please don't expect a direct response from me to your posts for some time ~ that way you won't be disappointed when I don't respond :)
Your cite doesn’t say that the Paynes organised concerts months in advance.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 06, 2020, 05:53:09 PM
this is part of what sceptics seem to think is evidence against the McCanns...the fact that the dogs alerted only in 5a and not the other four apartments...but looking at the times from the files the dgs only spent 3 miniutes in three apartments...5 in another...but 50 in 5a. Did they only alert in 5a because they spent longer and were repeatedly called back to places they originally ignored.
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.
Your point would be valid if Eddie spent 50 minutes searching 5a before he gave his first alert and the other apartments were only afforded sub 5 minute searches without any alerts. If Eddie gave an alert in 5a after let’s say 4 minutes after entering then that would fit the parameters of all the searches and render them all equitable. So please inform us of your understanding of how long it took Eddie from the time of entry of 5a to the time of his first alert.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2020, 06:06:31 PM
Your point would be valid if Eddie spent 50 minutes searching 5a before he gave his first alert and the other apartments were only afforded sub 5 minute searches without any alerts. If Eddie gave an alert in 5a after let’s say 4 minutes after entering then that would fit the parameters of all the searches and render them all equitable. So please inform us of your understanding of how long it took Eddie from the time of entry of 5a to the time of his first alert.
it is still a valid point as you dont know the answer either. We know from the PJ files that eddie did not a;lert immediately to sites that initially he completely ignored..sometimes more than once...whic gave tthe PJ obsevers some doubts. It certainly is apossible expalnation as to why eddie did not alert in the other apartments
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 06, 2020, 06:11:03 PM
it is still a valid point as you dont know the answer either. We know from the PJ files that eddie did not a;lert immediately to sites that initially he completely ignored..sometimes more than once...whic gave tthe PJ obsevers some doubts. It certainly is apossible expalnation as to why eddie did not alert in the other apartments
Eddie's search started at 20.16 and his first alert was at 20.20, his second was at 20.22 and Eddie’s search of 5a terminated at 20.30. So 4 minutes from entry to first alert.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2020, 06:16:58 PM
Eddie's search started at 20.16 and his first alert was at 20.20, his second was at 20.22 and Eddie’s search of 5a terminated at 20.30. So 4 minutes from entry to first alert.
Cite please IF your figures are correct you have to concede in three out of four other apartments Eddie was only in there for three minutes. You also have to concede that in watching the dogs some doubts arose in the opinion of the pj
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 06, 2020, 06:27:39 PM
Cite please IF your figures are correct you have to concede in three out of four other apartments Eddie was only in there for three minutes. You also have to concede that in watching the dogs some doubts arose in the opinion of the pj
I thought you had read the official PJ files. The problem you may have is the reference you used originally is a blog by Anna Andress that was translated from French to English from a Belgian website that translated the original Portuguese to French. The timings are all wrong. Read the original PJ document it’s all there.
I thought you had read the official PJ files. The problem you may have is the reference you used originally is a blog by Anna Andress that was translated from French to English from a Belgian website that translated the original Portuguese to French. The timings are all wrong. Read the original PJ document it’s all there.
In apartment 5A: * between 20h16 (typing error in the report shows 21h16) and 20h30 the "cadaver" dog alerted: - at 20h20 in the area of the wardrobe of the main bedroom - at 20h22 in the lounge, specifically behind the sofa next to the window that overlooks the street.
That doesnt say what time the dog entered the apartment.....then we still have the fact that the PJ had some doubts about the alerts...then we have eddie repeatedly being called back to the Renault...then we have grime saying he didnt know it was the mccanns car when its plastered with posters of Maddie...that is a lorra lorra doubt
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2020, 06:50:17 PM
In apartment 5A: * between 20h16 (typing error in the report shows 21h16) and 20h30 the "cadaver" dog alerted: - at 20h20 in the area of the wardrobe of the main bedroom - at 20h22 in the lounge, specifically behind the sofa next to the window that overlooks the street.
That doesnt say what time the dog entered the apartment.....then we still have the fact that the PJ had some doubts about the alerts...then we have eddie repeatedly being called back to the Renault...then we have grime saying he didnt know it was the mccanns car when its plastered with posters of Maddie...that is a lorra lorra doubt
Look at the structure of the original PJ document, all the searches (including the other apartments) are documented the same way, with an entry time and a termination time.
Martin Grime’s video is probably the most famous dog search video in the world. The only other qualified dog handler that has expressed a negative qualified opinion on the searches is Mick Swindles where he states his doubt on cuddlecats alert and only that alert. If you can find testimony from any other qualified dog handler on Martin Grimes procedures in either 5a or the scenic please share it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 06, 2020, 06:59:15 PM
I think its a stupid idea....and cant see even the PJ considering such a stupid idea...and again it wa syou that suggested it not me.
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared? I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 07:02:45 PM
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared? I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.
It isn't what's possible it's what's probable...are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 06, 2020, 07:05:06 PM
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared? I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.
Rob, purlease. Doctors don't sell there children for financial gain.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 07:05:43 PM
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared? I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.
Look at this example will you "Mother Tries To Sell Her Kids On eBay" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mother-tries-to-sell-her-_n_902106
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 07:07:50 PM
It isn't what's possible it's what's probable...are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie
Just look at what you wrote you first say "It isn't what's possible it's what's probable", but then ask me "are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie?" You are contradicting yourself. You should have asked me "are you suggesting it's remotely possiblePROBABLE the McCanns sold maddie?"
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 07:15:39 PM
Just look at what you wrote you first say "It isn't what's possible it's what's probable", but then ask me "are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie?" You are contradicting yourself. You should have asked me "are you suggesting it's remotely possiblePROBABLE the McCanns sold maddie?"
The recognised expression is, "Remotely Possible." "Remotely Probable" is a contradiction.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 07:21:37 PM
Rob, purlease. Doctors don't sell there children for financial gain.
Look at this example. "China doctor jailed for selling babies to traffickers" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-25723863#:~:text=A%20Chinese%20obstetrician%20has%20been,province%2C%20the%20sentencing%20court%20said.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 06, 2020, 07:30:58 PM
Eddie's search started at 20.16 and his first alert was at 20.20, his second was at 20.22 and Eddie’s search of 5a terminated at 20.30. So 4 minutes from entry to first alert.
However in other searches Eddie was given 3 minutes for the WHOLE flat. So he was given 45 seconds per room = a rush into each room and then out again.
With 5A, he was given 14 minutes, almost 5 times the allocated time for the other flats. Not a very well balanced comparison, is it?
And as mentioned before, he tended to pass by things he should (possibly?) have alerted to the first time, but upon his return he then alerted. When did he have the time to do this in the other flats ?
Given different conditions, you cant make such a comparison, can you?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2020, 08:56:59 AM
However in other searches Eddie was given 3 minutes for the WHOLE flat. So he was given 45 seconds per room = a rush into each room and then out again.
With 5A, he was given 14 minutes, almost 5 times the allocated time for the other flats. Not a very well balanced comparison, is it?
And as mentioned before, he tended to pass by things he should (possibly?) have alerted to the first time, but upon his return he then alerted. When did he have the time to do this in the other flats ?
Given different conditions, you cant make such a comparison, can you?
Your criticisms are only valid if you know enough about the training and handling of this type of dog for your opinion to carry weight. Afaik you don't have any expertise in the subject so your opinion is valueless imo.
The dog's trainer and handler, who has considerable expertise and experience, reported that the dog Eddie showed interest immediately on entering 5A;
"I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
For me, that explains why the 5A search which followed was thorough. Had the same behaviour been seen on entering another of the apartments I expect the time spent there would have been longer too.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 09:05:27 AM
Your criticisms are only valid if you know enough about the training and handling of this type of dog for your opinion to carry weight. Afaik you don't have any expertise in the subject so your opinion is valueless imo.
The dog's trainer and handler, who has considerable expertise and experience, reported that the dog Eddie showed interest immediately on entering 5A;
"I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
For me, that explains why the 5A search which followed was thorough. Had the same behaviour been seen on entering another of the apartments I expect the time spent there would have been longer too.
I suspect that Eddie had calmed down a bit by then. He was a very excitable dog at the best of times.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 09:32:47 AM
Your criticisms are only valid if you know enough about the training and handling of this type of dog for your opinion to carry weight. Afaik you don't have any expertise in the subject so your opinion is valueless imo.
The dog's trainer and handler, who has considerable expertise and experience, reported that the dog Eddie showed interest immediately on entering 5A;
"I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
For me, that explains why the 5A search which followed was thorough. Had the same behaviour been seen on entering another of the apartments I expect the time spent there would have been longer too.
Point in red...this is just your opinion and is therefore valuless imo. It's quite raesonable for lay people to question the actions of professionals...even those considered experts....and the lay person may well be correct.
5a may well have the scent of other forennsic materials...such as luminol...which excited Eddie.
First we are supposed to have belief in the alerts...now its dog's body language. I dont see how that can be relied on.
The Pj had doubts about the alerts by the dogs and they were there. I think most would see the so called alert to CC is totally ridiculous...the PJ highlighted this.
No one can deny the difference in the time spent on the car before an alert was produced. The other cars were examined for less tahn 30 secs but the Renaullt several minutes. The dog ran off at least three times before being called back.
No one can deny that Grime claimed he was not aware it was the McCanns car even though there were several posters of maddie attached to it. What is his expalnation for this statement.
all very odd.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 09:36:07 AM
Why did the handler need to go in the apartment at all? Couldn’t he have just let Eddie go in by himself and waited at the door for the dog to either return to him or to alert? What function did the handler perform inside the apartment (s)?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 09:42:39 AM
The fact that CB is now the prime suspect shows all thre police forces are prepared to accept that Eddie did not alert to MM. As no other person died in that apartment what does taht say for the alerts and Grimes claim re Eddies body language
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 09:54:34 AM
This is the introduction to Grimes White Paper..
In 2005 it was realised that detection canines may be of assistance to the law enforcement investigation of homicide and allegations of abduction where the pace of investigations is of paramount importance. Innovative method and ‘out of the box thinking by the UK National Search Manager introduced Human Scent Trailing, Human Blood Detection and Victim Recovery Dogs (now collectively designated as Forensic Canines) within critical case investigations to ascertain whether or not they could provide case intelligence.
So in 2005 Grime began to work with Harrison. Did they together come up with the idea of "remnant scent" as useful intelligence. Had it been used before this date?
Based on this it may well be that the idea of "remnant scent" was developed by Grime and Harrison. Could this be why Grime was so keen to promote its usefulness and the basis for his subsequent business ventures.
I have wondered why the FBI were interested in Grime's tecniques when they had their own dog handlers.
Could this be the reason?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 09:55:55 AM
The fact that CB is now the prime suspect shows all three police forces are prepared to accept that Eddie did not alert to MM. As no other person died in that apartment what does that say for the alerts and Grimes claim re Eddies body language
Where did you get that fact from? As no other person died in that apartment or As no other person "dead" in that apartment or As no other dead person had been in that apartment Can you be sure of that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 10:06:49 AM
Where did you get that fact from? As no other person died in that apartment or As no other person "dead" in that apartment or As no other dead person had been in that apartment Can you be sure of that?
It's what Amaral claimed and what sceptics believe There seems to be no record of any previous death Are you suggesting your double death theory has some validity
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on November 07, 2020, 10:16:44 AM
It's what Amaral claimed and what sceptics believe There seems to be no record of any previous death Are you suggesting your double death theory has some validity
Supporter's claim the dogs never alerted to what they were traind for, but can't tell what they did alert to.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 10:23:00 AM
It's what Amaral claimed and what sceptics believe There seems to be no record of any previous death Are you suggesting your double death theory has some validity
What I'm suggesting is that if you say there were no deceased persons in the apartment prior to the 3rd May 2007, that does not include any claim for what happens on or after the 3rd.
Amaral might say Madeleine was deceased in the apartment. I could theorise that it wasn't Madeleine but someone else. For I say Madeleine was possibly abducted from the road or the car park opposite the Tapas Restaurant entrance. No double death theory.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 10:27:47 AM
Grime was hell bent on promoting his Dogs for his own Business Venture. Not that I blame him for that, but Eddie was not a good example of a Cadaver Dog because he had learned too many old tricks in the process of fulfilling his original purpose.
So even Grime can't have been sure of what Eddie was alerting to. Although he did say that Forensic Evidence was necessary.
Some people just bought what they wanted to see.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on November 07, 2020, 10:43:47 AM
Grime was hell bent on promoting his Dogs for his own Business Venture. Not that I blame him for that, but Eddie was not a good example of a Cadaver Dog because he had learned too many old tricks in the process of fulfilling his original purpose.
So even Grime can't have been sure of what Eddie was alerting to. Although he did say that Forensic Evidence was necessary.
Some people just bought what they wanted to see.
Which will never be fulfilled imo Madeleine was long gone.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 10:45:58 AM
What I'm suggesting is that if you say there were no deceased persons in the apartment prior to the 3rd May 2007, that does not include any claim for what happens on or after the 3rd.
Amaral might say Madeleine was deceased in the apartment. I could theorise that it wasn't Madeleine but someone else. For I say Madeleine was possibly abducted from the road or the car park opposite the Tapas Restaurant entrance. No double death theory.
The GNR sniffer dogs seem to track Madeleine to the car park. There were a lot of cadaver dog alerts associated with the McCanns, but no forensic evidence confirming it was Madeleine's DNA.
as Barrier says "Which will never be fulfilled imo Madeleine was long gone." Long gone.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2020, 11:09:51 AM
Supporter's claim the dogs never alerted to what they were traind for, but can't tell what they did alert to.
That just is not true Barrier. There are instances where alerts were backed up by forensics which proved exactly what the dogs alerted to. For example ~ the Renault key fob.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:14:11 AM
Supporter's claim the dogs never alerted to what they were traind for, but can't tell what they did alert to.
As Grime cannot tell us what the alerts were to that is not a surprise. Both dogs were trained to alert to minute quantities of blood...so could be that ..but who knows
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 11:15:23 AM
Supporter's claim the dogs never alerted to what they were traind for, but can't tell what they did alert to.
Those who support the abduction theory have nothing but praise for Operation Grange and one person in particular is prepared to believe in the German prosecutor Wolters despite knowing nothing about his abilities or track record.
When it comes to a UK police officer who was the best in his area of expertise, (an opinion ratified by the FBI), he receives uninformed but extensive criticism.
In my opinion that's because his findings cast doubt on the abduction theory. Had his dogs alerted to someone else's property and clothing I suspect that they would not have criticised him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 11:28:03 AM
Those who support the abduction theory have nothing but praise for Operation Grange and one person in particular is prepared to believe in the German prosecutor Wolters despite knowing nothing about his abilities or track record.
When it comes to a UK police officer who was the best in his area of expertise, (an opinion ratified by the FBI), he receives uninformed but extensive criticism.
In my opinion that's because his findings cast doubt on the abduction theory. Had his dogs alerted to someone else's property and clothing I suspect that they would not have criticised him.
Good point G-Unit. Last night I was going to open a thread saying that for all “supporters” imagine the dogs were never summoned in 2007 but instead in 2020 and alerted to Christian Bs house, car, and clothing where he lived in 2007. What would be the opinions not just on these alerts but on all dog alerts, It may be different. But then I thought what’s the point.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:29:26 AM
Those who support the abduction theory have nothing but praise for Operation Grange and one person in particular is prepared to believe in the German prosecutor Wolters despite knowing nothing about his abilities or track record.
When it comes to a UK police officer who was the best in his area of expertise, (an opinion ratified by the FBI), he receives uninformed but extensive criticism.
In my opinion that's because his findings cast doubt on the abduction theory. Had his dogs alerted to someone else's property and clothing I suspect that they would not have criticised him.
I see you simply disagree with what I have said without adressing any of the issues I've raise..perhaps that's because you can't.
i have provided evidence as to why i challenge the validity of the alertas...what evidence do you have to doubt Wolters.
Do you have s cite that Grime was best in his area of expertise...both a UK one and one from the FBI
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:39:59 AM
Good point G-Unit. Last night I was going to open a thread saying that for all “supporters” imagine the dogs were never summoned in 2007 but instead in 2020 and alerted to Christian Bs house, car, and clothing where he lived in 2007. What would be the opinions not just on these alerts but on all dog alerts, It may be different. But then I thought what’s the point.
you cant assume it would be different...just more sceptic speculation
Perhaps if wolters was implicating the MCCanns then sceptics would be saying how brilliant he is.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:45:22 AM
Those who support the abduction theory have nothing but praise for Operation Grange and one person in particular is prepared to believe in the German prosecutor Wolters despite knowing nothing about his abilities or track record.
When it comes to a UK police officer who was the best in his area of expertise, (an opinion ratified by the FBI), he receives uninformed but extensive criticism.
In my opinion that's because his findings cast doubt on the abduction theory. Had his dogs alerted to someone else's property and clothing I suspect that they would not have criticised him.
I believe...on the balance of probabiliteis.. HCW has strong evidence that MM is dead and his suspect murdered her. that isnt just blind beleif its based on several points which ive already expalined. I believe pretty well everything that Grime has said......so whats the difference.
the difference is grime has not said what many sceptics think he has. Perhaps im just better at statement anlysis than some others.
As I remeber...You once posted Grime had said it was his opinion the dog had alerted to cadaver odour...you were wrong and I corrected you
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 11:49:42 AM
you cant assume it would be different...just more sceptic speculation
Perhaps if wolters was implicating the MCCanns then sceptics would be saying how brilliant he is.
Look deep into your psyche Davel and tell me you would not find these hypothetical alerts on Christian B to be manna from heaven to your beliefs. Or would you dismiss them as being worthless. Hypothesize please.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:50:00 AM
Can anyone answer....why did Grime spend so much longer with the dog in examining the renault...calling him back several times before he alerted.
why did Grime say he didnt realise it was the McCanns car when he could clearly see the posters in its windows.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:51:38 AM
Look deep into your psyche Davel and tell me you would not find these hypothetical alerts on Christian B to be manna from heaven to your beliefs. Or would you dismiss them as being worthless. Hypothesize please.
stop making personal observations re hypothetical situations....its a sign to me you have lost the argument. Stick to discussing the evidence
Dont judge me by your own standards....the answer is I judge any evidence on its merits
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 11:53:54 AM
Can anyone answer....why did Grime spend so much longer with the dog in examining the renault...calling him back several times before he alerted.
why did Grime say he didnt realise it was the McCanns car when he could clearly see the posters in its windows.
So with all this talk about the apartment searches not being equitable and Grime spending more time on the scenic than the other cars what do you conclude from this, that he was bad at his job or he was trying to frame 2 innocent parents for the death of their child.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 11:55:02 AM
Look deep into your psyche Davel and tell me you would not find these hypothetical alerts on Christian B to be manna from heaven to your beliefs. Or would you dismiss them as being worthless. Hypothesize please.
whats the point of me hypothesising...you wouldnt believe my answer if it didnt suit yoiur beleifs...its a pathetic question
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 11:57:29 AM
So with all this talk about the apartment searches not being equitable and Grime spending more time on the scenic than the other cars what do you conclude from this, that he was bad at his job or he was trying to frame 2 innocent parents for the death of their child.
its quite telling you can only see two scenarios....I see another..
Grime was looking for evidence.....wherever it led....thats his and the dogs' job...nothing wrong with that. He spent more time on things McCann because thats where he was likely to find evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:00:45 PM
its quite telling you can only see two scenarios....I see another..
Grime was looking for evidence.....wherever it led....thats his and the dogs' job...nothing wrong with that. He spent more time on things McCann because thats where he was likely to find evidence.
So doing his job correctly. As I have always maintained.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 12:05:11 PM
Those who support the abduction theory have nothing but praise for Operation Grange and one person in particular is prepared to believe in the German prosecutor Wolters despite knowing nothing about his abilities or track record.
When it comes to a UK police officer who was the best in his area of expertise, (an opinion ratified by the FBI), he receives uninformed but extensive criticism.
In my opinion that's because his findings cast doubt on the abduction theory. Had his dogs alerted to someone else's property and clothing I suspect that they would not have criticised him.
What? "Best in his area of expertise?" What price other UK Dog Handlers?
Wherein do The FBI come in to this? American Dog Handlers aren't stupid, so why does the opinion of The FBI matter? Some Smart Alec British Constable with a British Accent knows better, does he? And perhaps more likely to get a conviction.
Grime wasn't even the only handler of these two dogs. The South Yorkshire Police gave these dogs to Grime because they were of no use anymore.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:07:45 PM
Those who support the abduction theory have nothing but praise for Operation Grange and one person in particular is prepared to believe in the German prosecutor Wolters despite knowing nothing about his abilities or track record.
When it comes to a UK police officer who was the best in his area of expertise, (an opinion ratified by the FBI), he receives uninformed but extensive criticism.
In my opinion that's because his findings cast doubt on the abduction theory. Had his dogs alerted to someone else's property and clothing I suspect that they would not have criticised him.
cite....I think youve made this up
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 12:10:59 PM
Good point G-Unit. Last night I was going to open a thread saying that for all “supporters” imagine the dogs were never summoned in 2007 but instead in 2020 and alerted to Christian Bs house, car, and clothing where he lived in 2007. What would be the opinions not just on these alerts but on all dog alerts, It may be different. But then I thought what’s the point.
So let's get this straight. If the dogs had alerted to Christian B's camper van, house, clothing etc, then you would accept he was Madeleine's abductor and killer would you? No, didn't think so....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 12:11:25 PM
Good point G-Unit. Last night I was going to open a thread saying that for all “supporters” imagine the dogs were never summoned in 2007 but instead in 2020 and alerted to Christian Bs house, car, and clothing where he lived in 2007. What would be the opinions not just on these alerts but on all dog alerts, It may be different. But then I thought what’s the point.
Never think, "What's the point." This is a discussion Forum which supports all views, providing they aren't Libellous.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:20:17 PM
So let's get this straight. If the dogs had alerted to Christian B's camper van, house, clothing etc, then you would accept he was Madeleine's abductor and killer would you? No, didn't think so....
You have jumped to a conclusion. I am not one of the Mccanns did it no matter what people. I believe that is the first time I have typed the parents name on this forum, As I can imagine and hypothesize, I think if the dogs hadn’t alerted in 2007 but did so in Christian Bs locations in 2020 I would regard it as another piece of evidence against him and would in no way dismiss it. I would definitely be leaning to his involvement What about you? Can you imagine and hypothesize the other way?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 12:24:11 PM
You have jumped to a conclusion. I am not one of the Mccanns did it no matter what people. I believe that is the first time I have typed the parents name on this forum, As I can imagine and hypothesize, I think if the dogs hadn’t alerted in 2007 but did so in Christian Bs locations in 2020 I would regard it as another piece of evidence against him and would in no way dismiss it. I would definitely be leaning to his involvement What about you? Can you imagine and hypothesize the other way?
Firstly, tell me what conclusion I have jumped to? I asked you if you would see the dog alerts as confirmation that Bruckener abducted and killed Madeleine. I see that you would not. Secondly, yes I am able to imagine and hypothesise the other way, and would take the dog alerts for what they were - interesting but ultimately worthless as they wouldn't tell us if they were linked to Madeleine's disappearance without forensic supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:28:04 PM
Never think, "What's the point." This is a discussion Forum which supports all views, providing they aren't Libellous.
Well yes when I joined I saw it as a discussion forum but over time since I joined, to me it has taken the appearance of a 13 year long argument where no point can be conceded. BTW not trying to butter you up but you are still my favourite moderator very reasoned and fair. I appreciate the difficult work you do here.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 12:30:06 PM
Well yes when I joined I saw it as a discussion forum but over time since I joined, to me it has taken the appearance of a 13 year long argument where no point can be conceded. BTW not trying to butter you up but you are still my favourite moderator very reasoned and fair. I appreciate the difficult work you do here.
what have you ever concede...or is it only others who should
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:32:46 PM
Firstly, tell me what conclusion I have jumped to? I asked you if you would see the dog alerts as confirmation that Bruckener abducted and killed Madeleine. I see that you would not. Secondly, yes I am able to imagine and hypothesise the other way, and would take the dog alerts for what they were - interesting but ultimately worthless as they wouldn't tell us if they were linked to Madeleine's disappearance without forensic supporting evidence.
You jumped to the conclusion that if the dogs alerted to Christian Bs locations I wouldn’t accept he was Madeleines abductor and killer. That is a conclusion you jumped to. Its all in your post. Read it back.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:34:23 PM
You jumped to the conclusion that if the dogs alerted to Christian Bs locations I wouldn’t accept he was Madeleines abductor and killer. That is a conclusion you jumped to. Its all in your post. Read it back.
OK I jumped to that conclusion- now you’ve put me straight. Happy Days! Now what?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:48:54 PM
Well yes when I joined I saw it as a discussion forum but over time since I joined, to me it has taken the appearance of a 13 year long argument where no point can be conceded. BTW not trying to butter you up but you are still my favourite moderator very reasoned and fair. I appreciate the difficult work you do here.
Gosh. Thank You. I do try.
Of course it is a thirteen year long argument. That is why we are still discussing it. But this is still the only McCann Forum that allows opposing views. So don't imagine that your views aren't important.
But sometimes you have to be made of stern stuff.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2020, 12:50:22 PM
I see you simply disagree with what I have said without adressing any of the issues I've raise..perhaps that's because you can't.
i have provided evidence as to why i challenge the validity of the alertas...what evidence do you have to doubt Wolters.
Do you have s cite that Grime was best in his area of expertise...both a UK one and one from the FBI
Grime was "a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide Search Advisor, Mark Harrison" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
As such his advice would be diseminated to ACPO, and thence to their forces. Although he worked for Yorkshire Police, he and his dogs were also used by other forces.
The dog handler that deployed the victim recovery dogs, Martin Grime, is a world-wide renowned expert in the field of cadaver dogs. Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program. https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/152001/06202019---Virginia-Court-of-Appeals-Affirmed-the-Convictions-Against-Braulio-Castillo?bidId=
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
Good point G-Unit. Last night I was going to open a thread saying that for all “supporters” imagine the dogs were never summoned in 2007 but instead in 2020 and alerted to Christian Bs house, car, and clothing where he lived in 2007. What would be the opinions not just on these alerts but on all dog alerts, It may be different. But then I thought what’s the point.
Jumping to the conclusion that there would be no point because...?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:52:19 PM
Well you asked me a question and then ignored my reply, preferring it seems to prolong an argument about jumping to conclusions. I thought my reply might lead to a more on topic reply but it seems not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 12:54:06 PM
Well you asked me a question and then ignored my reply, preferring it seems to prolong an argument about jumping to conclusions. I thought my reply might lead to a more on topic reply but it seems not.
Which reply did I ignore?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 12:58:26 PM
Grime was "a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide Search Advisor, Mark Harrison" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
As such his advice would be diseminated to ACPO, and thence to their forces. Although he worked for Yorkshire Police, he and his dogs were also used by other forces.
The dog handler that deployed the victim recovery dogs, Martin Grime, is a world-wide renowned expert in the field of cadaver dogs. Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program. https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/152001/06202019---Virginia-Court-of-Appeals-Affirmed-the-Convictions-Against-Braulio-Castillo?bidId=
Excuse me. America already had a Cadaver Dog Programme. Grime didn't invent it. What a laugh to suggest he did.
However, American Courts were a bit more honest about the possible failings of Cadaver Dogs.
No person should ever be Convicted on the dubious evidence of such a dog.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 12:59:44 PM
Grime was "a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide Search Advisor, Mark Harrison" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
where does it say in the above he was the best in the area of his expertise...it says he is A sub[Name removed]ect amtter expert not the best in his field
As such his advice would be diseminated to ACPO, and thence to their forces. Although he worked for Yorkshire Police, he and his dogs were also used by other forces.
The dog handler that deployed the victim recovery dogs, Martin Grime, is a world-wide renowned expert in the field of cadaver dogs. Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program. https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/152001/06202019---Virginia-Court-of-Appeals-Affirmed-the-Convictions-Against-Braulio-Castillo?bidId=
this is not from the FBI and it doesnt say hes the best in his field
you have not provided a cite that supports your claim
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 01:00:50 PM
Grime was "a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide Search Advisor, Mark Harrison" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
As such his advice would be diseminated to ACPO, and thence to their forces. Although he worked for Yorkshire Police, he and his dogs were also used by other forces.
The dog handler that deployed the victim recovery dogs, Martin Grime, is a world-wide renowned expert in the field of cadaver dogs. Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program. https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/152001/06202019---Virginia-Court-of-Appeals-Affirmed-the-Convictions-Against-Braulio-Castillo?bidId=
Cite for...Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program.
The FBI alraedy had one...who is the author of this claim
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 01:05:50 PM
Grime was "a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide Search Advisor, Mark Harrison" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
As such his advice would be diseminated to ACPO, and thence to their forces. Although he worked for Yorkshire Police, he and his dogs were also used by other forces.
The dog handler that deployed the victim recovery dogs, Martin Grime, is a world-wide renowned expert in the field of cadaver dogs. Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program. https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/152001/06202019---Virginia-Court-of-Appeals-Affirmed-the-Convictions-Against-Braulio-Castillo?bidId=
This Comment has just about turned my Tripes.
America needed Martin Grime. Who'd a thought it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 01:06:16 PM
That doesn’t mean I ignored it. I read it and accepted it as your point of view.
OK, but I think it would have been courteous to have received an acknowledgement especially as you appear to be under the misapprehension that "supporters" aren't able to apply their imagination or to see things from a different point of view, or indeed of conceding a point. But hey ho, let's move on now....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
OK, but I think it would have been courteous to have received an acknowledgement especially as you appear to be under the misapprehension that "supporters" aren't able to apply their imagination or to see things from a different point of view, or indeed of conceding a point. But hey ho, let's move on now....
I am under no misapprehension. Please point out where I state that “supporters” aren't able to apply their imagination. Anyone is able to apply their imagination. Where do I say “supporters” aren’t able to see a different point of view. Where do I say “supporters aren’t able to concede a point. I made no distinction on who can concede a point. But heyho, lets move on
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 01:31:52 PM
I am under no misapprehension. Please point out where I state that “supporters” aren't able to apply their imagination. Anyone is able to apply their imagination. Where do I say “supporters” aren’t able to see a different point of view. Where do I say “supporters aren’t able to concede a point. I made no distinction on who can concede a point. But heyho, lets move on
perhaps you could answer the question...why did Grime say he ddint know the renault belonged to the McCanns when it was plastered with posters of MM. Was he just not very observant
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 01:32:05 PM
I am under no misapprehension. Please point out where I state that “supporters” aren't able to apply their imagination. Anyone is able to apply their imagination. Where do I say “supporters” aren’t able to see a different point of view. Where do I say “supporters aren’t able to concede a point. I made no distinction on who can concede a point. But heyho, lets move on
Go on then.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 01:37:28 PM
perhaps you could answer the question...why did Grime say he ddint know the renault belonged to the McCanns when it was plastered with posters of MM. Was he just not very observant
perhaps he really didn't know it was the McCanns car. If the car had a poster saying "this is the McCanns car" he would be naïve to state he didn't know it was said car. Why would he lie? He doesn't have to mention if he knows whose car it is or not. Don't forget they weren't the Mccanns car and random other cars. All the cars that were searched were linked to the case.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
perhaps he really didn't know it was the McCanns car. If the car had a poster saying "this is the McCanns car" he would be naïve to state he didn't know it was said car. Why would he lie? He doesn't have to mention if he knows whose car it is or not. Don't forget they weren't the Mccanns car and random other cars. All the cars that were searched were linked to the case.
He stated he wasnt aware at the time that it was the McCanns car even though it had several large posters of MM in the windows. ...
At least you confirm your claim that posters wont concede anything....I concede you were right on that
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
Well, Grime fibbed, didn't he. What an idiot. That was his credibility down the pan.
And then the next time we saw the car all of the posters had been removed.
No wonder Grime bogged off to America.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 01:52:15 PM
He stated he wasnt aware at the time that it was the McCanns car even though it had several large posters of MM in the windows. ...
At least you confirm your claim that posters wont concede anything....I concede you were right on that
But they could be uncle “John” or Friend “Rogers” posters in their own car that they rented. Why do think Martin Grime lied then? For what gain? You do understand the meaning of the word concede. It means to have once held an opposite opinion and then agree that you were incorrect and agree with a contrary opinion
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 02:00:56 PM
But they could be uncle “John” or Friend “Rogers” posters in their own car that they rented. Why do think Martin Grime lied then? For what gain? You do understand the meaning of the word concede. It means to have once held an opposite opinion and then agree that you were incorrect and agree with a contrary opinion
I understand what concedes mean but it appears you dont understand what irony means
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Icanhandlethetruth on November 07, 2020, 02:02:43 PM
I understand what concedes mean but it appears you dont understand what irony means
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect Not sure how that fits but Hey Ho lets move on.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 02:24:53 PM
The idea that in a garage full of cars (which included a car that the McCanns were seen driving around in on news reports and inPdL itself, and that was plastered with posters of Madeleine) Grime would not have been able to have had a reasonable idea which was the McCanns is beyond laughable.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on November 07, 2020, 03:07:27 PM
So for how long do you think Madeleine's dead body was lying around in 5A?
How long does a body have to lie before cadaver is produced? truth is no one knows, controlled experiments show X,real terms?
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
How long does a body have to lie before cadaver is produced? truth is no one knows, controlled experiments show X,real terms?
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
Not even the most ardent cadaver dog champion has ever claimed that a dog would be able to detect the presence of a corpse that had been dead for 4 minutes in a location a month earlier so not sure what your red coloured quote adds to the discussion...?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on November 07, 2020, 03:20:04 PM
Not even the most ardent cadaver dog champion has ever claimed that a dog would be able to detect the presence of a corpse that had been dead for 4 minutes in a location a month earlier so not sure what your red coloured quote adds to the discussion...?
Best not join in then.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 03:25:47 PM
How long does a body have to lie before cadaver is produced? truth is no one knows, controlled experiments show X,real terms?
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
What? Nearly three months later? And after the appartment had been occupied several times and supposedly cleaned several times.
You might as well say that Block Five was built on an old graveyard.
And who's to say that 50,000 years earlier a neanderthal didn't club his missus to death on that exact same spot and left her body in situ for 4 minutes before chucking her in a bin down the road? Eddie might have been alerting to that. These dogs are amazing you know.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
And who's to say that 50,000 years earlier a neanderthal didn't club his missus to death on that exact same spot and left her body in situ for 4 minutes before chucking her in a bin down the road? Eddie might have been alerting to that. These dogs are amazing you know.
These dogs always were better at scenting prehistoric remains. The longer the better.
Now, My O'Conner wouldn't be fooled. He can find anything Dead in about two minutes. And tell you who dunit. Actually, most dogs can. You don't need a Cadaver Dog to do this.
No, I don't have a lot of faith in the superior qualities of Cadaver Dogs. Most corpses are found by ordinary people walking their very ordinary dogs.
I remain appalled by the damage done by Martin Grime.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2020, 04:55:35 PM
Excuse me. America already had a Cadaver Dog Programme. Grime didn't invent it. What a laugh to suggest he did.
However, American Courts were a bit more honest about the possible failings of Cadaver Dogs.
No person should ever be Convicted on the dubious evidence of such a dog.
It was the FBI, not America.
Timesonline December 2005
Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela's remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. "The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don't have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit," Mr Ellis said.https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
America had no national standards for training and handling cadaver dogs, which is why the FBI decided to set up their own programme.
14/09/2007 "The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement specialty of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed." https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 05:07:44 PM
Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela's remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. "The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don't have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit," Mr Ellis said.https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
America had no national standards for training and handling cadaver dogs, which is why the FBI decided to set up their own programme.
14/09/2007 "The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement specialty of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed." https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
From what I can see the americans were interested in keela...the blood dog as your quote shows.
rex stockham had alerady set up the programme for cadaver dogs before grime went to the US. Stckham wanted to give the alerts some scientific basis...he never managed them.
Quoting some obscure news report as two of the best in the business does not substantialte your claim re the FBI
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 07, 2020, 05:31:15 PM
Point in red...this is just your opinion and is therefore valuless imo. It's quite raesonable for lay people to question the actions of professionals...even those considered experts....and the lay person may well be correct.
5a may well have the scent of other forennsic materials...such as luminol...which excited Eddie.
First we are supposed to have belief in the alerts...now its dog's body language. I dont see how that can be relied on.
The Pj had doubts about the alerts by the dogs and they were there. I think most would see the so called alert to CC is totally ridiculous...the PJ highlighted this.
No one can deny the difference in the time spent on the car before an alert was produced. The other cars were examined for less tahn 30 secs but the Renaullt several minutes. The dog ran off at least three times before being called back.
No one can deny that Grime claimed he was not aware it was the McCanns car even though there were several posters of maddie attached to it. What is his expalnation for this statement.
all very odd.
A bit like Trump’s tantrum, the truth is still the truth.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 05:50:20 PM
I believe...on the balance of probabiliteis.. HCW has strong evidence that MM is dead and his suspect murdered her. that isnt just blind beleif its based on several points which ive already expalined. I believe pretty well everything that Grime has said......so whats the difference.
the difference is grime has not said what many sceptics think he has. Perhaps im just better at statement anlysis than some others.
As I remeber...You once posted Grime had said it was his opinion the dog had alerted to cadaver odour...you were wrong and I corrected you
When was that? A year or two ago.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 05:59:40 PM
perhaps you could answer the question...why did Grime say he ddint know the renault belonged to the McCanns when it was plastered with posters of MM. Was he just not very observant
Maybe the stickers aren't proof it belonged to the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 06:08:39 PM
How long does a body have to lie before cadaver is produced? truth is no one knows, controlled experiments show X,real terms?
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.
Grime has never said the alerts in the apt have 95% confidence so you are spreading misinformation too
95% was mentioned somewhere down the line. "Suggestive" was based on Eddie's training confidence achievement IMO. His training record showed he was 95% correct overall (according to Grime IIRC).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2020, 06:29:11 PM
From what I can see the americans were interested in keela...the blood dog as your quote shows.
rex stockham had alerady set up the programme for cadaver dogs before grime went to the US. Stckham wanted to give the alerts some scientific basis...he never managed them.
Quoting some obscure news report as two of the best in the business does not substantialte your claim re the FBI
When did the FBI/Stockham set up their programme?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 07, 2020, 06:34:14 PM
Stockham testified that he developed a cadaver dog program for the FBI starting in 2005.15 While developing this program, he met Martin Grime, a National Homicide Search Advisor in the United Kingdom who worked with cadaver dogs. In 2010 or 2011, Grime started to work with the FBI to help develop its program.
so why does Grime claim in 2007
I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
when stockham says it was 2010
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 06:47:27 PM
95% was mentioned somewhere down the line. "Suggestive" was based on Eddie's training confidence achievement IMO. His training record showed he was 95% correct overall (according to Grime IIRC).
Grime has never said the alerts in the apt have 95% confidence so you are spreading misinformation too
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2020, 06:58:18 PM
Stockham testified that he developed a cadaver dog program for the FBI starting in 2005.15 While developing this program, he met Martin Grime, a National Homicide Search Advisor in the United Kingdom who worked with cadaver dogs. In 2010 or 2011, Grime started to work with the FBI to help develop its program.
so why does Grime claim in 2007
I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
when stockham says it was 2010
I see there are no links provided. Could you rectify that oversight please?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 06:59:26 PM
Stockham testified that the odor of human decomposition can be transferred from a cadaver to clothing or to a person handling a body. He acknowledged that he wrote in his incident report from the search that human decomposition odor may be present in or on items associated with daily living, and as such, the dog’s positive final responses may or may not have significance. When asked whether it was possible that Morse’s alert at the foot of the victim’s bed “came from activities of daily living,” Stockham stated, “I don’t know what the alert was from.” He later clarified on re-direct that he did not know what combination of chemicals the dog was relying on to give the alert, but that the dog was trained to find the odor of human decomposition.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 07:35:57 PM
Davel is welcome to define what he means by "Most probable stranger abduction".
Davel is the one using word games. He can't define what Grimes means by "suggestive", yet he uses that as part of his argument.
Quite unfair and illogical...how can I know what level of suggestion Grime meant..
Be fair..I've made it plain what I think many times.. Stranger abduction..very high ..in the nineties..woke and wandered around one per cent...accident an parental involvement..tiny... approaching zero
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2020, 07:50:36 PM
To be honest I don't know what anyone believes. At times past I did ask for everyone to put their theories forward but it never happened.
For the purposes of this thread it doesn't really matter. The thread is about evidence and there is none against the McCanns confirmed by the fact no-one has been able to post any.
In the context of the thread who does that leave? Of course bearing in mind Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence there appears to be some reticence about including him in the discussion.
Why aren't the McCanns afforded the same level of respect as that given to them by dint of three national police forces who are investigating Brueckner?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 07:56:14 PM
Quite unfair and illogical...how can I know what level of suggestion Grime meant..
Be fair..I've made it plain what I think many times.. Stranger abduction..very high ..in the nineties..woke and wandered around one per cent...accident an parental involvement..tiny... approaching zero
Well at least you haven't ruled out woke and wandered. Davel: "woke and wandered around one per cent" Thanks for the support of my theory.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 08:05:37 PM
For the purposes of this thread it doesn't really matter. The thread is about evidence and there is none against the McCanns confirmed by the fact no-one has been able to post any.
In the context of the thread who does that leave? Of course bearing in mind Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence there appears to be some reticence about including him in the discussion.
Why aren't the McCanns afforded the same level of respect as that given to them by dint of three national police forces who are investigating Brueckner?
I can't agree with you that there is no evidence against the McCanns. There are multiple things that have been done and said that makes many of us question what is going on. What the evidence points to is the question in my mind. Just because I say evidence, I don't mean that the McCanns hid Madeleine themselves, but I still feel there is a story they are not sharing with us.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 08:13:34 PM
Grime said "Suggestive." Ask Grime. He must have known what he meant.
And Davel said "Most probable stranger abduction", but all your criticism is directed at me, or at least I think it is.
Davel used "suggestive" and "most probable" as parts of his arguments. I don't have a problem with that if he is able to define the level of suggestion and degree probability.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 08:17:17 PM
And Davel said "Most probable stranger abduction", but all your criticism is directed at me, or at least I think it is.
Davel used "suggestive" and "most probable" as parts of his arguments. I don't have a problem with that if he is able to define the level of suggestion and degree probability.
I've defined mine but Grime hasn't. I can't say what Grime meant by suggestive...but we know that suggestive has a degree of uncertainty
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2020, 08:32:32 PM
I can't agree with you that there is no evidence against the McCanns. There are multiple things that have been done and said that makes many of us question what is going on. What the evidence points to is the question in my mind. Just because I say evidence, I don't mean that the McCanns hid Madeleine themselves, but I still feel there is a story they are not sharing with us.
Your opinion isn't evidence, Rob.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2020, 08:54:39 PM
Stockham testified that he developed a cadaver dog program for the FBI starting in 2005.15 While developing this program, he met Martin Grime, a National Homicide Search Advisor in the United Kingdom who worked with cadaver dogs. In 2010 or 2011, Grime started to work with the FBI to help develop its program.
so why does Grime claim in 2007
I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
when stockham says it was 2010
As a UK police officer he advised the FBI and Stockham in setting up their programme. He was certainly in the US as Eddie's training was enhanced by expanding his training to include actual cadavers before attending PdL.
In 2010 he was contracted to work for them to provide Subject Matter Expert consultancy to the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Evidence Response Team in respect of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.
"In 2010 or 2011, Grime started to work with the FBI to help develop its program. The program started seeing improved results after Grime’s involvement. " http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 08:59:11 PM
As a UK police officer he advised the FBI and Stockham in setting up their programme. He was certainly in the US as Eddie's training was enhanced by expanding his training to include actual cadavers before attending PdL.
In 2010 he was contracted to work for them to provide Subject Matter Expert consultancy to the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Evidence Response Team in respect of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.
"In 2010 or 2011, Grime started to work with the FBI to help develop its program. The program started seeing improved results after Grime’s involvement. " http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf
Where's your cite for your claim he advised the FBI in setting up the programme...which started in ,2005...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 09:13:36 PM
I don't think this is just my opinion but observation by many people: "There are multiple things that have been done and said that makes many of us question what is going on."
Let's list them: One of the most disturbing for me was Gerry seen laughing in that video. Also troubling for me was Kate not answering the 48 questions.
There are so many things truthfully worrying to the majority.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Erngath on November 07, 2020, 09:26:48 PM
I don't think this is just my opinion but observation by many people: "There are multiple things that have been done and said that makes many of us question what is going on."
Let's list them: One of the most disturbing for me was Gerry seen laughing in that video. Also troubling for me was Kate not answering the 48 questions.
There are so many things truthfully worrying to the majority.
Which "majority" are you referencing?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 09:31:20 PM
I don't think this is just my opinion but observation by many people: "There are multiple things that have been done and said that makes many of us question what is going on."
Let's list them: One of the most disturbing for me was Gerry seen laughing in that video. Also troubling for me was Kate not answering the 48 questions.
There are so many things truthfully worrying to the majority.
I see no.problem with the laughter...nor with the 48 questions
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 09:38:53 PM
Absolutely not with the prime suspect being CB. I've posted a photograph of a young lady arriving at her murdered parents and siblings funeral...she only survived by playing dead...and guess what...she's got a big smile on her face
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 09:45:24 PM
Absolutely not with the prime suspect being CB. I've posted a photograph of a young lady arriving at her murdered parents and siblings funeral...she only survived by playing dead...and guess what...she's got a big smile on her face
Where was that photo posted Davel?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 09:46:00 PM
Absolutely not with the prime suspect being CB. I've posted a photograph of a young lady arriving at her murdered parents and siblings funeral...she only survived by playing dead...and guess what...she's got a big smile on her face
I guess she did have something to smile about. I don't recall that one, sorry.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 09:48:40 PM
Your criticisms are only valid if you know enough about the training and handling of this type of dog for your opinion to carry weight. Afaik you don't have any expertise in the subject so your opinion is valueless imo.
The dog's trainer and handler, who has considerable expertise and experience, reported that the dog Eddie showed interest immediately on entering 5A;
"I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises" https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
For me, that explains why the 5A search which followed was thorough. Had the same behaviour been seen on entering another of the apartments I expect the time spent there would have been longer too.
We know that Eddie alerts to blood as well as Cadaver, don't we ? Keela alerted to blood in there and Madeleine had grazed her knee on the plane steps, also we understand that one of the children had a nose bleed.
Eddie is/was an exciteable dog, and it was his first apartment, it seems. He wanted his reward; was it a tennis ball? So he could have alerted to this blood, or to any remnant scent from the ashes/watch/ hospital pyjamas of Tasmin Silences Grandpa, who died whilst resident in that flat.
BTW, since when have you become an expert about the training and handling of this type of dog. Do you have any worthwhile experience in the matter? If you don't then your opinion is valueless imo. especially as you are so biased as to only allow for the one scenario.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 10:00:42 PM
Got the case: "The sole survivor was 15-year-old Cassidy Stay,[7] a student at Klein Collins High School,[27] who was able to phone police and inform them that Haskell was planning to attack her grandparents next.[12][17][28] She was released from the hospital on July 11.[21][29][30][31]
Cassidy Stay's survival of the shooting and her participation in Haskell's apprehension have earned her praise from the public.[32] An online fundraiser campaign for her on Gofundme received more than 16,000 participants and over $406,000 in donations.[33]" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Harris_County_shooting#Victims
You find it OK for her to smile? Survival and bringing the perp to justice was something to smile about. What did Gerry have to smile about?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2020, 10:16:38 PM
Got the case: "The sole survivor was 15-year-old Cassidy Stay,[7] a student at Klein Collins High School,[27] who was able to phone police and inform them that Haskell was planning to attack her grandparents next.[12][17][28] She was released from the hospital on July 11.[21][29][30][31]
Cassidy Stay's survival of the shooting and her participation in Haskell's apprehension have earned her praise from the public.[32] An online fundraiser campaign for her on Gofundme received more than 16,000 participants and over $406,000 in donations.[33]" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Harris_County_shooting#Victims
You find it OK for her to smile? Survival and bring the perp to justice was something to smile about. What did Gerry have to smile about?
Your posts and observations are absolute nonsense
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 10:21:59 PM
We know that Eddie alerts to blood as well as Cadaver, don't we ? Keela alerted to blood in there and Madeleine had grazed her knee on the plane steps, also we understand that one of the children had a nose bleed.
Eddie is/was an exciteable dog, and it was his first apartment, it seems. He wanted his reward; was it a tennis ball? So he could have alerted to this blood, or to any remnant scent from the ashes/watch/ hospital pyjamas of Tasmin Silences Grandpa, who died whilst resident in that flat.
BTW, since when have you become an expert about the training and handling of this type of dog. Do you have any worthwhile experience in the matter? If you don't then your opinion is valueless imo. especially as you are so biased as to only allow for the one scenario.
Are you suggesting that Madeleine grazed her knee in the UK and then waited until she reached 5A to squash herself behind a sofa to bleed? That sounds likely (not).
I'm pretty sure you don't have any evidence that TS's grandfather lived in 5A.
I'm not an expert on the training and handling of those dogs, which is why, unlike some, I refrain from criticising the actions of those who are experts.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on November 07, 2020, 10:53:12 PM
As a UK police officer he advised the FBI and Stockham in setting up their programme. He was certainly in the US as Eddie's training was enhanced by expanding his training to include actual cadavers before attending PdL.
In 2010 he was contracted to work for them to provide Subject Matter Expert consultancy to the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Evidence Response Team in respect of the Forensic Canine Program, Victim Recovery Team.
"In 2010 or 2011, Grime started to work with the FBI to help develop its program. The program started seeing improved results after Grime’s involvement. " http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf
The enhanced part. And the cadaver part.
It is my understanding that at the time that Eddie was deployed on the Madeleine case, the only cadavers that Eddie had come across were animal, non human ones, young pigs. It was against The Law to use Human cadavers in the UK for such training work. Because he was trained on pigs carcases he was (artificially, IMO) given the status of 'Enhanced'. This made Eddie sound important IMO and helped sell his services.
In the USA, human carcases were used and some time after Eddies time on the Madeleine case, this so called enhanced dog went to the States. There he was trained on human carcases. But it is my belief that it was after 'The Madeleine case', not before.
So now we have the well trained Eddie who will alert to
1) dessicated human blood odour from a living person 2) Cadaver odour from a human corpse, and 3) Cadaver odour from a piglet
Does this mean that now that he is trained for human cadaver odour, so recognises 3 different odours, he will need a third dog to sort out between pig cadaver odour and human cadaver odour?
He only needed one (keela) before *%6^
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on November 07, 2020, 11:14:29 PM
Are you suggesting that Madeleine grazed her knee in the UK and then waited until she reached 5A to squash herself behind a sofa to bleed? That sounds likely (not).
I'm pretty sure you don't have any evidence that TS's grandfather lived in 5A.
I'm not an expert on the training and handling of those dogs, which is why, unlike some, I refrain from criticising the actions of those who are experts.
I am suggesting that Madeleines knee 1) may well have had to wait until arrival at 5A to be cleaned and dressed, or if she is anything like me 2) she would have picked the newly formed scab off. I always did and it bled. But we don't know. The first thing that children would be likely to do after a quick look at all the rooms and a bounce on the beds is to look out of all the windows.
Btw, do you KNOW that the settee was pushed right back under the window when they arrived? No, you DONT
3) Additionally, we understand that one of the children had a nose bleed in 5A.
There are reports, which have been on here several times and you must have seen that Tasmins grandparents lived in 5A. It is probably in Tasmins statement or the PJ statements; it is definitely in some of the videos that you have seen as well.
You will have seen it and I am not falling for that deliberate timewaster again.
So three possible sources of blood, apart from previous tenants
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on November 07, 2020, 11:44:27 PM
Well at least you haven't ruled out woke and wandered. Davel: "woke and wandered around one per cent" Thanks for the support of my theory.
I have ruled it out Rob.
No anxious child of 3/4 y.o. would close all the doors behind her, if she left via the patio window exit - and that is, if she could open them in the first case. Three doors/gates opened and closed in all. Patio, Child safety gate, and garden gate.
No child of 3/4 would dare to go along a high walled passageway in near darkness had she somehow managed to leave via the front door, which was in pitch blackness. Most especially so, as the winds were gusting and the fonds on the surrounding trees would be moving causing what little light in the passageway to throw frightening shadows.
I don't believe she exited via the window, cos no finger prints nor fibres and I doubt that she would be strong enough to lift the shutters. Also no sign of skin or blood where she would have landed.
And she left her beloved comforter Cuddle cat behind.
She was taken. It was planned. She was taken with a purpose. And she still lives IMO from the evidence that I have found.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2020, 11:46:11 PM
Are you suggesting that Madeleine grazed her knee in the UK and then waited until she reached 5A to squash herself behind a sofa to bleed? That sounds likely (not).
I'm pretty sure you don't have any evidence that TS's grandfather lived in 5A.
I'm not an expert on the training and handling of those dogs, which is why, unlike some, I refrain from criticising the actions of those who are experts.
I believe the only people who bled behind that sofa were the officers tasked with lifting the floor tiles. Madeleine most certainly did not. Nor did she bleed anywhere else in the apartment.
The expert dog handler in Madeleine's case has been consistently misrepresented by the "dogs don't lie" brigade. Martin Grime has stated unequivocally that dog alerts must be substantiated by forensic evidence.
This is the iconic picture which is used to misrepresent and promote the idea that Eddie is alerting to that which he was trained to ~ and so he is as the forensics have proved. But you and I and anyone who knows anything about it knows his alert was absolutely nothing to do with a dead body absent or present and all to do with residue on the key fob left by a living, breathing person because Eddie alerts to a lot of things.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 11:56:18 PM
No anxious child of 3/4 y.o. would close all the doors behind her, if she left via the patio window exit - and that is, if she could open them in the first case. Three doors/gates opened and closed in all. Patio, Child safety gate, and garden gate.
No child of 3/4 would dare to go along a high walled passageway in near darkness had she somehow managed to leave via the front door, which was in pitch blackness. Most especially so, as the winds were gusting and the fonds on the surrounding trees would be moving causing what little light in the passageway to throw frightening shadows.
I don't believe she exited via the window, cos no finger prints nor fibres and I doubt that she would be strong enough to lift the shutters. Also no sign of skin or blood where she would have landed.
And she left her beloved comforter Cuddle cat behind.
She was taken. It was planned. She was taken with a purpose. And she still lives IMO from the evidence that I have found.
What you have forgotten is that the front door can be opened from inside, and can be closed by someone else.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 07, 2020, 11:58:49 PM
I haven't seen enough posts from you to draw any conclusions as yet. But if you agree with Davel there isn't much hope for your posts to impress me.
I'm quite content with both the sentiments expressed in your post. I don't post very often especially in the last few months and yes I certainly agree with the content of Davel's posts. So I doubt there is any hope of my impressing you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 04:42:50 AM
I'm quite content with both the sentiments expressed in your post. I don't post very often especially in the last few months and yes I certainly agree with the content of Davel's posts. So I doubt there is any hope of my impressing you.
Your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7066.msg310194#msg310194 Prompted me to look up who Katie Hopkins is and I found this speech by her:
(you can listen to it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgTBU8Mqjzg ) "Katie Hopkins: Madeleine McCann Will Never Come Home 26 February 2017, 11:31
On her Sunday morning LBC show Katie Hopkins had something to get off her chest about missing Madeleine McCann.
She told her listeners: "You know it seems to me, it's one of those subjects you've never been allowed to speak about, we're not really allowed, in my personal view, to speak about Maddie McCann.
"When I used to write for a different newspaper, I often asked to speak about Maddie, write about Maddie, and I was never allowed. I was told I wouldn't be taking the story forwards. And finally after campaigning at the Mail, I was allowed to write about Maddie and my belief that...Maddie is never coming home.
"In my opinion, Maddie will never be found. You know for me, I believe, no amount of money and no amount of libel action will ever cancel out the damage that the McCanns have brought and inflicted upon themselves.
"I've always said, you know, I don't believe we should have spent £11 million pounds, for example, to look for Maddie. And I do not believe we've seen an equal treatment.
"A man was charged for leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes while he raced into a chemist to get Calpol for her and he was charged with that offence.
"And I do believe if the McCanns had come from a council estate, you know we would have seen them treated very differently to the way that they have been treated over this.
"I still see Kate McCann's face being used to front up, you know, campaigns to help find children when they're lost, which of course is something we'd all support, but I find it very difficult to offer support when it's Kate McCann's face that's standing up as the concerned mother looking for missing children.
"It seems to me that she's the very opposite person to use. I believe that was one of the least successful campaigns of all times. It strikes me the BBC, for example, were in on it as well.
"You know they have the Crimewatch programme for the McCanns where they release new photofit. Photofits that the McCanns have been sitting on for five years because they didn't want to release them at the time.
"It strikes me, speaking very openly here on national radio, live on the radio, that the McCanns were the ones that put their children in harm's way, they were the ones that went out for dinner and left their children without a babysitter.
"For me I've always said the blame must sit with Kate and Gerry McCann. I have no problem with saying that either.
"You know I think when we give birth to children, when I gave birth to my first daughter, I remember waking up that morning, looking over, seeing this tiny little thing in this little cot next to me and thinking oh my gosh A. 'That's mine', you know, B. 'How did that happen? I'm not old enough or sensible enough to have a baby'.
"You are born that day, you are born yourself, reborn with something called 'The Fear'. You know it's a fear and it's with you every day, every minute, right now as I sit here.
"The fear. Are my children safe? Are they well? Telling them, reminding them to be careful how you cross the road when we just go to the spar, look left and right at this zebra crossing because the drivers won't stop.
"It's the fear, it's that time in the supermarket where they're out of your sight for one second, I can feel it now. There's a prickle that comes on your palm, the thought that something bad might happen to your children. That's a feeling every parent knows.
"My three children still have their little bunnies, you know their little cuddle bunnies, and those bunnies on their beds now, I can see them, I know they're just rags really. But I know if one of my children were ever taken from me for health or whatever.
"I don't know if I'd go on, but I know I would sleep with that under my pillow every night, every night until I went, or my daughter was found. You know and I think this is the truth of millions of parents out there across Great Britain.
"This is the truth that is not spoken about Maddie McCann, and this is why we must all remain and stand strong for Maddie McCann.
"You know it strikes me that in this instance, Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found. So thank you for letting me share that."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 04:53:46 AM
How does that work exactly "Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found." So someone found her? Who worried about Madeleine before she was lost? Did anyone take concern for the McCann children because they had been "left to be found"?
I believe there were some that did.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 08:13:05 AM
Rob, just in case you didn’t know it - Katie Hopkins is one of the most hateful and hated public figures in Britain. Her above diatribe (whilst much admired by sceptics) is just one example of her hatefulness. I brlieve she has been denied most media platforms now so is less able to spread her hate.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 08:21:49 AM
How does that work exactly "Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found." So someone found her? Who worried about Madeleine before she was lost? Did anyone take concern for the McCann children because they had been "left to be found"?
I believe there were some that did.
It seems there is enough evidence that the person is CB
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
Are you suggesting that Madeleine grazed her knee in the UK and then waited until she reached 5A to squash herself behind a sofa to bleed? That sounds likely (not).
I'm pretty sure you don't have any evidence that TS's grandfather lived in 5A.
I'm not an expert on the training and handling of those dogs, which is why, unlike some, I refrain from criticising the actions of those who are experts.
I think you are quite misguided to suggest lay people cannot question experts. Pretty well all the experts say smoking causes cancer but you disagree. You are quite happy to criticise experts when it suits you. In actual fact I believe just about everything Grime has said...so your criticism of me is mistaken
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 08, 2020, 09:27:23 AM
It is my understanding that at the time that Eddie was deployed on the Madeleine case, the only cadavers that Eddie had come across were animal, non human ones, young pigs. It was against The Law to use Human cadavers in the UK for such training work. Because he was trained on pigs carcases he was (artificially, IMO) given the status of 'Enhanced'. This made Eddie sound important IMO and helped sell his services.
In the USA, human carcases were used and some time after Eddies time on the Madeleine case, this so called enhanced dog went to the States. There he was trained on human carcases. But it is my belief that it was after 'The Madeleine case', not before.
So now we have the well trained Eddie who will alert to
1) dessicated human blood odour from a living person 2) Cadaver odour from a human corpse, and 3) Cadaver odour from a piglet
Does this mean that now that he is trained for human cadaver odour, so recognises 3 different odours, he will need a third dog to sort out between pig cadaver odour and human cadaver odour?
He only needed one (keela) before *%6^
You seem to be accusing Martin Grime of telling lies. Isn't that what Brietta refers to as 'implied libel'? There's absolutely no reason to suppose Grime lied about his experience and knowledge. It would have been very foolish to risk destroying his own credibility at a time when he was retiring from the police and setting up his own business.
Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains detecting training for dogs...
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 09:30:54 AM
You seem to be accusing Martin Grime of telling lies. Isn't that what Brietta refers to as 'implied libel'? There's absolutely no reason to suppose Grime lied about his experience and knowledge. It would have been very foolish to risk destroying his own credibility at a time when he was retiring from the police and setting up his own business.
Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains detecting training for dogs...
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It's not about telling lies...it's about stretching the truth. Many professionals do it in their CVs
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 09:37:22 AM
It's not about telling lies...it's about stretching the truth. Many professionals do it in their CVs
It’s actually called marketing, most businesses do it, and when they do they tend to overstate rather than understate their experience, abilities and efficiency, IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 09:40:54 AM
It’s actually called marketing, most businesses do it, and when they do they tend to overstate rather than understate their experience, abilities and efficiency, IMO.
I think most people understand that..and zGrime was launching his commercial business
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 08, 2020, 09:45:42 AM
You seem to be accusing Martin Grime of telling lies. Isn't that what Brietta refers to as 'implied libel'? There's absolutely no reason to suppose Grime lied about his experience and knowledge. It would have been very foolish to risk destroying his own credibility at a time when he was retiring from the police and setting up his own business.
Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains detecting training for dogs...
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You are mistaken in your opinion.
I would not class Sadie's post as being "implied libel" or libellous innuendo for the simple reason I am capable of recognising and differentiating between insidious intent as opposed to what I say is the intent. If you feel it is the remedy is in your hands.
However although I thank you for recognising my expertise in this field it is worth noting it really is nothing at all to do with me ~ it is actually covered by the courts and libel laws.
The Policia Judiciaria discarded the dog evidence used to make the McCanns arguidos back in 2007 and verified that conclusion back in 2008. Maybe my Christmas pressie this year will be when members finally catch up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 09:47:55 AM
It’s actually called marketing, most businesses do it, and when they do they tend to overstate rather than understate their experience, abilities and efficiency, IMO.
It's when those statements get taken into the legal arena that problems start. In the recently posted US court case..Stockham testified that the alerts ..to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty,....they don't...could that be construed as a lie. ”
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 08, 2020, 09:51:53 AM
How does that work exactly "Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found." So someone found her? Who worried about Madeleine before she was lost? Did anyone take concern for the McCann children because they had been "left to be found"?
I believe there were some that did.
In other words, it's your fault if a paedophile steals your child while it is left unattended as you encouraged the paedophile to do this.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 08, 2020, 09:56:34 AM
How long does a body have to lie before cadaver is produced? truth is no one knows, controlled experiments show X,real terms?
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
Millions of people have died some longer than four minutes, they have been resuscitated, are you saying that a cadaver dog would alert to the body? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 08, 2020, 09:59:00 AM
It's not about telling lies...it's about stretching the truth. Many professionals do it in their CVs
An accusation of lying;
"some time after Eddies time on the Madeleine case, this so called enhanced dog went to the States. There he was trained on human carcases. But it is my belief that it was after 'The Madeleine case', not before." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625589#msg625589
Grime quite clearly said he had been to America BEFORE he was called to PdL.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on November 08, 2020, 10:01:44 AM
Rob, just in case you didn’t know it - Katie Hopkins is one of the most hateful and hated public figures in Britain. Her above diatribe (whilst much admired by sceptics) is just one example of her hatefulness. I brlieve she has been denied most media platforms now so is less able to spread her hate.
Katie Hopkins may not be popular, but she was right in the above cite. Leaving children home alone is not acceptable and people have been prosecuted for less.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 08, 2020, 10:03:59 AM
"some time after Eddies time on the Madeleine case, this so called enhanced dog went to the States. There he was trained on human carcases. But it is my belief that it was after 'The Madeleine case', not before." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625589#msg625589
Grime quite clearly said he had been to America BEFORE he was called to PdL.
But I don't think he took Eddie with him. Surely The South Yorkshire Police wouldn't have allowed this. And Eddie did belong to them after all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 10:06:38 AM
"some time after Eddies time on the Madeleine case, this so called enhanced dog went to the States. There he was trained on human carcases. But it is my belief that it was after 'The Madeleine case', not before." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625589#msg625589
Grime quite clearly said he had been to America BEFORE he was called to PdL.
He had been to america...but one what basis. An informal discussion is not advising the FBI.
We dont need Ady to analyse Grimes statements...i'm quite capable of doing it myself.
It says in the court report that both grime and stockham opined that the dog alert was ..to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty
that is an untrue stateemnt
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 10:14:42 AM
"some time after Eddies time on the Madeleine case, this so called enhanced dog went to the States. There he was trained on human carcases. But it is my belief that it was after 'The Madeleine case', not before." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625589#msg625589
Grime quite clearly said he had been to America BEFORE he was called to PdL.
And yet the forum is littered with similar accusations about the Tapas Group not being straight about the times they did their checks and you don’t seem to have a problem with that!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 10:15:59 AM
Katie Hopkins may not be popular, but she was right in the above cite. Leaving children home alone is not acceptable and people have been prosecuted for less.
Gosh, you don’t say?! Well thanks to you and Katie Hopkins for pointing out the bleeding obvious for the eight millionth time in 13 years.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 10:21:06 AM
Katie Hopkins may not be popular, but she was right in the above cite. Leaving children home alone is not acceptable and people have been prosecuted for less.
cite for...prosecuted for less
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 10:28:10 AM
In other words, it's your fault if a paedophile steals your child while it is left unattended as you encouraged the paedophile to do this.
I suppose that could be the case if everyone gets to know that you are leaving your kids alone. It's the difference between it being kept a secret and broadcasting it.
Kate became aware there was a note on the appointment book that was found in the file given to her. So she must have thought it secret, but it was potentially broadcast, unbeknown to her at the time.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 08, 2020, 10:28:48 AM
You seem to be accusing Martin Grime of telling lies. Isn't that what Brietta refers to as 'implied libel'? There's absolutely no reason to suppose Grime lied about his experience and knowledge. It would have been very foolish to risk destroying his own credibility at a time when he was retiring from the police and setting up his own business.
Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains detecting training for dogs...
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I read that at a certain state of decomposition there is a gas that the pig emits that smells the same as a human but it certainly isn't in the 'fresh stage' of decomposition. It is only in the second stage that the body emits gases. Grime wouldn't have had fresh decomposing piglets to train his dog on. They wouldn't be experimenting to see when a cadaver dog would be able to smell the scent of death in America, all they would want is for a cadaver dog to alert to a dead body. If the pig is so similar why are they still using human remains to train cadaver dogs and why are trainers bemoaning the fact that they can't train their dogs on cadavers in Britain?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 08, 2020, 10:32:01 AM
Katie Hopkins may not be popular, but she was right in the above cite. Leaving children home alone is not acceptable and people have been prosecuted for less.
I think that the fact they were checking on them regularly was a factor in this case. Social Services visited the McCann's and they were happy that they were responsible parents, so are you saying our Social Services should be questioned?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 08, 2020, 10:32:46 AM
I read that at a certain state of decomposition there is a gas that the pig emits that smells the same as a human but it certainly isn't in the 'fresh stage' of decomposition. It is only in the second stage that the body emits gases. Grime wouldn't have had fresh decomposing piglets to train his dog on. They wouldn't be experimenting to see when a cadaver dog would be able to smell the scent of death in America, all they would want is for a cadaver dog to alert to a dead body. If the pig is so similar why are they still using human remains to train cadaver dogs and why are trainers bemoaning the fact that they can't train their dogs on cadavers in Britain?
No were to put a Body Farm, perhaps. And who in Britain would stand for that anyway?
The Bodies have to be Donated in the first instance. Anybody up for that?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 10:42:48 AM
I read that at a certain state of decomposition there is a gas that the pig emits that smells the same as a human but it certainly isn't in the 'fresh stage' of decomposition. It is only in the second stage that the body emits gases. Grime wouldn't have had fresh decomposing piglets to train his dog on. They wouldn't be experimenting to see when a cadaver dog would be able to smell the scent of death in America, all they would want is for a cadaver dog to alert to a dead body. If the pig is so similar why are they still using human remains to train cadaver dogs and why are trainers bemoaning the fact that they can't train their dogs on cadavers in Britain?
I wonder how many times Eddie was trained on detecting a cadaver thst had been dead for less than 90 minutes and in situ months previously. Zero I would imagine.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on November 08, 2020, 10:52:35 AM
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2020, 11:16:00 AM
While I don't have a firm view on body farms, if other countries already have them for research purposes, why would UK bother with establishing another? Why not just use the reseach findings of other countries ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 08, 2020, 11:22:11 AM
While I don't have a firm view on body farms, if other countries already have them for research purposes, why would UK bother with establishing another? Why not just use the reseach findings of other countries ?
A very sensible suggestion. It isn't all about training Cadaver Dogs. Very little in fact.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 11:59:45 AM
As you will see from Spam's signature line his sympathies very much lie with the filthy pervert and not the parents, so you have called that correctly.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 08, 2020, 12:15:46 PM
As you will see from Spam's signature line his sympathies very much lie with the filthy pervert and not the parents, so you have called that correctly.
I do believe MM was abducted but where's the evidence the abductor was a 'filthy pervert'?
Could it be the abductor came to learn MM was left alone night after night in the unlocked apartment and thought she was being neglected? And of course there was the crying incident too: "Daddy, daddy" and 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I were crying last night'?
Could it be rather than a filthy pervert the abductor was a misguided individual, or part of a couple, with altruistic intent?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on November 08, 2020, 12:33:51 PM
In other words, it's your fault if a paedophile steals your child while it is left unattended as you encouraged the paedophile to do this.
Don't think it's a matter of encouraging a paedophile to do such a dreadful thing but a matter of not taking all necessary precautions to protect your children from all danger. Had a fire broken out in the apartment and all three children succumbed to smoke inhalation, would the parents be seen as culpable?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 12:39:40 PM
I don't see why not. If parents were more responsible there wouldn't be any abductions.
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 12:42:10 PM
I do believe MM was abducted but where's the evidence the abductor was a 'filthy pervert'?
Could it be the abductor came to learn MM was left alone night after night in the unlocked apartment and thought she was being neglected? And of course there was the crying incident too: "Daddy, daddy" and 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I were crying last night'?
Could it be rather than a filthy pervert the abductor was a misguided individual, or part of a couple, with altruistic intent?
It's a nice thought, but highly unlikely IMO. Where is Madeleine now? How did she manage to make it to 17 without anyone noticing this altruistic couple suddenly had Madeleine McCann (the most famous missing child on the planet) living with them?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on November 08, 2020, 01:01:51 PM
I do believe MM was abducted but where's the evidence the abductor was a 'filthy pervert'?
Could it be the abductor came to learn MM was left alone night after night in the unlocked apartment and thought she was being neglected? And of course there was the crying incident too: "Daddy, daddy" and 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I were crying last night'?
Could it be rather than a filthy pervert the abductor was a misguided individual, or part of a couple, with altruistic intent?
More likely the child got out and was taken from outside the apartment imho.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 01:03:48 PM
I do believe MM was abducted but where's the evidence the abductor was a 'filthy pervert'?
Could it be the abductor came to learn MM was left alone night after night in the unlocked apartment and thought she was being neglected? And of course there was the crying incident too: "Daddy, daddy" and 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I were crying last night'?
Could it be rather than a filthy pervert the abductor was a misguided individual, or part of a couple, with altruistic intent?
From what we have heard the German police have the evidence of murder
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Admin on November 08, 2020, 01:15:06 PM
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
That's a different debate. Leaving small children home alone is never, ever, a good idea.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 01:44:06 PM
That's a different debate. Leaving small children home alone is never, ever, a good idea.
Do you mind? It is not a different debate at all. The parents cannot be hung on the basis that they both murdered one of them (as Spam believes) AND neglected them to their fate at the hands of a paedophile. On second thoughts Spam probably can (and will) do both, illogical though it is. Also, it's worth pointing out that despite your apparent belief that the children were abandoned to their fate you also believe that there was scarcely a window of opportunity for an abductor to strike as members of the Tapas Group were in such close proximity to the apartment for most of the evening that it made abduction "virtually impossible" - so were the kids left to the mercy of an abductor or not?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 08, 2020, 03:48:35 PM
There's always a first time... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01436-8 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01436-8)
Interesting, Myster.
I'm fine with it; but given that I have so much respect for her, Sue Black's opinion (taken from her book not an interview for the article) carries a lot of weight for me too.
What I don't understand is why information can't be shared. Snip And he can’t use results from a US or Australian facility, because their environmental conditions are different from those in Britain.
I think the environment varies depending where you are in Britain. Is he perhaps referring to entomology ~ we certainly don't have many of the ginormous insects endemic in many other countries?
I think having a British body farm may raise as many issues as it resolves. Interesting though.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 08, 2020, 03:53:57 PM
In other words, it's your fault if a paedophile steals your child while it is left unattended as you encouraged the paedophile to do this.
What excuses the torture and rape of the American woman in her own home as we contemplate the scenario that the victim ~ not the perpetrator ~ is at fault for the crime.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 08, 2020, 03:55:56 PM
While I don't have a firm view on body farms, if other countries already have them for research purposes, why would UK bother with establishing another? Why not just use the research findings of other countries ?
My question exactly.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 08, 2020, 04:01:55 PM
For The Germans to share this at the moment would be a very silly thing to do.
The last information they shared ended up prematurely in the public domain; they would be foolish to allow that situation to arise again, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 04:03:58 PM
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
How did you answer that question yourself?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 04:07:00 PM
Do you mind? It is not a different debate at all. The parents cannot be hung on the basis that they both murdered one of them (as Spam believes) AND neglected them to their fate at the hands of a paedophile. On second thoughts Spam probably can (and will) do both, illogical though it is. Also, it's worth pointing out that despite your apparent belief that the children were abandoned to their fate you also believe that there was scarcely a window of opportunity for an abductor to strike as members of the Tapas Group were in such close proximity to the apartment for most of the evening that it made abduction "virtually impossible" - so were the kids left to the mercy of an abductor or not?
That is where the phrase "small window of opportunity" comes into play. Especially if Madeleine got out the front door and a concerned person closed the front door from within. She could easily be taken by someone else off the street. We have no idea how many people were concerned by that stage of the week.
Mrs. Fenn, and the family above her, her niece, the staff at OC that Mrs. Fenn rang the next day, Silvia Batista, Jez Wilkins, and Bridget all seem to beware of the danger too. The staff at the Tapas restaurant too must IMO have known. The presence of a couple of baby monitors on the table must have been a sure giveaway there were kids being left to their own devices. Even the McCann friends were putting extra checks in at times during the week.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on November 08, 2020, 04:59:56 PM
I'm fine with it; but given that I have so much respect for her, Sue Black's opinion (taken from her book not an interview for the article) carries a lot of weight for me too.
What I don't understand is why information can't be shared. Snip And he can’t use results from a US or Australian facility, because their environmental conditions are different from those in Britain.
I think the environment varies depending where you are in Britain. Is he perhaps referring to entomology ~ we certainly don't have many of the ginormous insects endemic in many other countries?
I think having a British body farm may raise as many issues as it resolves. Interesting though.
The total UK MoD land holdings as of April 2019 was in the region of 430,000 hectares, and as the article mentions, covert plans no doubt are probably well under way to establish such a "body farm" in some isolated corner of this huge estate. Intrusion from prying public eyes is easily dealt with using CCTV controlled security fences, forbidden flight paths and no-drone zones. We used to be in the forefront of scientific research, and still are in some areas, so why let other countries take the lead yet again. I also have Sue Black's book waiting to be read after I've finished "Unnatural Causes" by forensic pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd... who might hold a different view.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 05:10:11 PM
Isn't the expression of need for a body farm a sign that cadaver dogs at the moment are not sufficiently well trained
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 05:12:09 PM
I think that the fact they were checking on them regularly was a factor in this case. Social Services visited the McCann's and they were happy that they were responsible parents, so are you saying our Social Services should be questioned?
Were the children put on the ‘at risk ‘ register ? Do we know?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 08, 2020, 05:52:06 PM
The last information they shared ended up prematurely in the public domain; they would be foolish to allow that situation to arise again, in my opinion.
No it didn’t ~ in my opinion. Time to stop banging the same old drum B. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 06:04:50 PM
Were the children put on the ‘at risk ‘ register ? Do we know?
Ive just noticed your new avatar....I said the same some years ago...good to see you've caught on. Being called a fool by the village idiot is no insult.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 08, 2020, 06:13:42 PM
What excuses the torture and rape of the American woman in her own home as we contemplate the scenario that the victim ~ not the perpetrator ~ is at fault for the crime.
The primary victim in the McCann case was Madeleine, who was to blame for nothing. It wasn't her job to protect herself.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 06:16:06 PM
The primary victim in the McCann case was Madeleine, who was to blame for nothing. It wasn't her job to protect herself.
Her family are also victims...it may well be if the portuguese judicial system and police had done their job properly she would never have been abducted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 06:17:58 PM
Ive just noticed your new avatar....I said the same some years ago...good to see you've caught on. Being called a fool by the village idiot is no insult.
Is there an avatar fire sale going on somewhere? Some people seem to have a new one every week.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 08, 2020, 06:55:49 PM
Her family are also victims...it may well be if the portuguese judicial system and police had done their job properly she would never have been abducted.
Fear not.
She wasn't, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 06:57:57 PM
For The Germans to share this at the moment would be a very silly thing to do.
The police are obliged to inform the parents of any missing child if they have found anything of significance. The only situation where this doesn't happen is if the police are convinced that they (parents) know the truth already.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2020, 07:12:14 PM
The police are obliged to inform the parents of any missing child if they have found anything of significance. The only situation where this doesn't happen is if the police are convinced that they (parents) know the truth already.
Does this apply in Germany?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 08, 2020, 07:14:37 PM
The primary victim in the McCann case was Madeleine, who was to blame for nothing. It wasn't her job to protect herself.
Here we go again. The McCann's thought they would do their own listening services, apparently the nannies couldn't do it on this holiday complex as it was too spaced out. They did their own listening service and thought they were keeping their children safe, they made a wrong decision Madeleine was taken.
Now I wouldn't have left my children alone and no doubt there are a lot who wouldn't either, but I don't go on and on about it because it has been done and there's nothing the McCann's can do about it now, they said they wish they could turn back the clock but they can't. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, they will have to carry that burden for the rest of their lives.
It was supposed to have been a family friendly site, the McCann's said it was very quiet, maybe if they had read up on the place and realised there were many Paedophiles living around there they wouldn't have even gone there on holiday let alone have left the children alone.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on November 08, 2020, 07:17:45 PM
Are you suggesting that Madeleine grazed her knee in the UK and then waited until she reached 5A to squash herself behind a sofa to bleed? That sounds likely (not).
I'm pretty sure you don't have any evidence that TS's grandfather lived in 5A.
I'm not an expert on the training and handling of those dogs, which is why, unlike some, I refrain from criticising the actions of those who are experts.
If I recall correctly, TS"s grandparents did live in 5a but I believe the grandfather died in hospital.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 08, 2020, 07:20:50 PM
It's a nice thought, but highly unlikely IMO. Where is Madeleine now? How did she manage to make it to 17 without anyone noticing this altruistic couple suddenly had Madeleine McCann (the most famous missing child on the planet) living with them?
Lie low for a while by which time small children change significantly due to normal age related changes in development.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 07:42:23 PM
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
VS - I was interested to know what your answer was.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 08, 2020, 08:37:50 PM
Her family are also victims...it may well be if the portuguese judicial system and police had done their job properly she would never have been abducted.
If she was abducted it wouldn't have happened if her parents had put the the safety of their children first.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 08:44:47 PM
OK I must have missed it. I'll check your profile.
Right you answered "Of course it does". http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg625655#msg625655
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
"Of course it does" So you do believe, "leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar".
It certainly makes the job somewhat easier for the abductor. I agree.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2020, 09:13:30 PM
OK I must have missed it. I'll check your profile.
Right you answered "Of course it does".
But surely you don’t believe leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar do you??
"Of course it does" So you do believe, "leaving a child asleep and unattended in an unlocked ground floor apartment greatly increases the likelihood of said child being abducted by a local paedophile/rapist/burglar".
It certainly makes the job somewhat easier for the abductor. I agree.
I don't think it does really
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 09:17:11 PM
You said greatly increases...I think stranger abduction is so rare the odds are not greatly increased
OK you are repeating something I heard Gerry McCann say, to the effect that ""stranger abduction was extremely rare".
We are not really discussing the likelihood of "stranger abduction" but the likelihood of being the target of a "stranger abduction".
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 10:06:10 PM
This is worth a read, parents and grandparents!
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/ue5155 Child Safety: Preventing Child Abduction Topic Overview Many parents are concerned about child abduction by strangers. Although this is a legitimate concern, keep in mind that stranger abduction is rare. Family members or acquaintances are responsible for most child abductions. Train your child to be aware of his or her surroundings, how to identify a threat, and how to react. When children reach age 3, they can begin to understand some of these basic concepts.
Experts recommend teaching your child the following tips to help prevent abduction:
Stay away from strangers. Explain what makes a person a stranger. Note that even someone with a familiar face is a stranger if you do not know him or her well. Stay away from anyone who is following you on foot or in a car. Don't get close to them or feel as though you must answer any questions they ask you. Run and scream if someone tries to force you to go somewhere with them or tries to push you into a car. Memorize a secret code word. Tell your child not to go with anyone under any circumstances unless that person also knows this code word. Adults shouldn't ask children for help. For example, a child shouldn't trust grown-ups who ask kids for directions or for help finding a puppy or kitten. A child who is approached in this way should tell the person, "Wait here and I'll check with my mom or dad," and then find his or her parents right away. Ask for help when you are lost. If you get lost in a public place, immediately ask someone who works there for help. Always ask for permission before going anywhere with anybody. Ask a parent or the grown-up in charge before leaving the yard or play area, or before going into someone's home. Do not accept any unplanned offers for a ride—from someone known or unknown. Always tell a parent where you are going, how you will get there, who is going with you, and when you will be back. Be home at the agreed-upon time or else find a way to contact home directly. If your child is lost or missing, being able to provide information quickly to the authorities will save them valuable time in searching for your child:
Be prepared with a good description of your child. Have a close-up photograph of your child taken every 6 months. Keep track of and write down details about your child's appearance, such as height and weight, eye colour, birthmarks, scars, and identifiable mannerisms (such as hair-twisting). Have your child fingerprinted. Check with your local police department for instructions. Stay calm. You are more likely to remember helpful details if you can remain calm."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 10:22:09 PM
Another site http://www.actionagainstabduction.org/about-abduction/stranger/ said: "Roughly two-thirds of abductions by a stranger involve a perpetrator in a car." So car access would be an important consideration by the perpetrator IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 08, 2020, 10:29:36 PM
Another site https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/abductions.html has this to say on prevention:
"If your kids are old enough to stay home alone, make sure they keep the door locked and never tell anyone who knocks or calls they are home alone."
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 08, 2020, 10:40:27 PM
If it was CB then if the PJ had done their job properly and solved the rape case he would not have been free to offend
If you treasure something you take care of it yourself to the best of your ability. That's why people lock their doors and windows, fit alarms to cars and houses and pay babysitters if they want to go out without their children.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 08, 2020, 10:49:36 PM
Looking at it from the point of view of Social Services they were looking at a couple who were prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. I doubt if they would have visited once and then gone away. They would have had to make absolutely sure that the other two children were safe in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 11:09:42 PM
Looking at it from the point of view of Social Services they were looking at a couple who were prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. I doubt if they would have visited once and then gone away. They would have had to make absolutely sure that the other two children were safe in my opinion.
It appears that they came to the conclusion that the twins were perfectly safe with the McCanns, something that it must be hard for the parents’ detractors to get their heads around, seeing as how these two are considered by sceptics to be amongst the worst examples of parents that ever lived.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 08, 2020, 11:27:12 PM
Looking at it from the point of view of Social Services they were looking at a couple who were prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. I doubt if they would have visited once and then gone away. They would have had to make absolutely sure that the other two children were safe in my opinion.
I have a friend who is a social worker and in her experience she doubts that the McCanns behaviour would just be brushed off as some here think it would without some kind of action being taken.
I wonder if the parents stayed in Portugal precisely to escape the type of attention from social services they knew would meet them on their return home ?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 08, 2020, 11:46:14 PM
Yeah of course. The McCanns decided to stay in Portugal to escape unwanted attention. (&^&
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 09, 2020, 12:34:29 AM
You seem to be accusing Martin Grime of telling lies. Isn't that what Brietta refers to as 'implied libel'? There's absolutely no reason to suppose Grime lied about his experience and knowledge. It would have been very foolish to risk destroying his own credibility at a time when he was retiring from the police and setting up his own business.
Pig is used as it has been proven in training and operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human remains detecting training for dogs...
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Please give me a cite that Eddie was trained on human cadaver odour prior to the Madeleine case.
From memory, I feel sure that I have read that Eddie was only trained on Piglet cadaver odour prior to the Madeleine case, but later, after Martin Grime went over to the U.S., his cadaver dog/s were trained on Human cadaver odour.
After talking about Eddie being trained with Human cadaver odour prior to Madeleines case, you showed the webpage http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0140174.pdf
However this refers to an appeal case of 2019, for a murder in 2014 - and I can find only mention of Cadaver dog MORSE and blood dog KEELA. I can see nothing about Eddie at all, maybe I have missed it?
Please could you send me a cite that Eddie was Human cadaver dog trained prior to the Madeleine case
.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 01:34:21 AM
Looking at it from the point of view of Social Services they were looking at a couple who were prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. I doubt if they would have visited once and then gone away. They would have had to make absolutely sure that the other two children were safe in my opinion.
Why on earth are you posting in this vein?
You know that the McCann's top priority is their children and to that end the first thing they did on their return home was to set up contact with the relative child protection authorities. This was set in motion by their GP.
The local police visited them within the first twenty four hours of their return home. That visit was to ensure the security of the family from intruders. Sensor alarms which were activated in the local police station if any one broke in were fitted. And they were given alarms to be carried on their persons at all times such was the level of inflammatory nonsense being written in the press and elsewhere about them.
You have quoted from madeleine many times in the past and that information is all in there.
Included is the fact that social work were involved right from the start in Praia da Luz, along with FLOs ~ specialists from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and a detective who was the director of the forensic psychology unit.
These people met with Kate and Gerry who were left under no illusion as a consequence regarding the typical profile of a paedophile, now thirteen+ years down the line there is now a name and a face and a list of heinous crimes to add to the initial horror they felt and have lived with since.
I really feel that now is not the time (nor that there ever should be a time) to be attacking Kate and Gerry McCann using the vehicle of their children. There never could be any pretence that it benefits the twins in any way whatsoever ~ in my opinion it is just a plain nasty thing to do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 01:43:45 AM
Please give me a cite that Eddie was trained on human cadaver odour prior to the Madeleine case. .
Perhaps you'll believe Mark Harrison, who wrote on 23/07/2007;
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Or was he telling lies too, in your opinion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 09:10:33 AM
Didn't we do this twelve years ago? Never did I think that this would be dragged up again.
There was never any danger of the twins being removed. The children were never abandoned. And nor were they neglected.
I think initially it could masquerade as being legitimate concern for the twins. At this remove I think the sheer venom of it cannot be disguised for what it really is.
There is a realistic suspect in the frame at the moment which belies the horrid fantasy carefully built up over the years from nothing but error and I think that worries some.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2020, 09:12:26 AM
Perhaps you'll believe Mark Harrison, who wrote on 23/07/2007;
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Or was he telling lies too, in your opinion?
Do Eddie received training in the US in 2007...doesn't say Grime was a special advisor to the FBI in 2007
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 09, 2020, 09:20:42 AM
If you treasure something you take care of it yourself to the best of your ability. That's why people lock their doors and windows, fit alarms to cars and houses and pay babysitters if they want to go out without their children.
As I have said many times before people tend to throw caution to the wind whilst on holiday. The group knew that this particular holiday company usually did a listening service so they decided to do their own. They did make sure they were all staying in apartments close to each other. They thought this site was family safe it was very quiet. They were sitting close by. I've seen parents let their children loose whilst they drink, read or sleep! Why they think it is safe to do this on holiday when they wouldn't do it at home I don't know. The McCann's used a nanny at home so they cared for their children when they went out for an evening. It worked very well until the Thursday. I don't think the McCann's are uncaring parents, their children are well looked after and Madeleine was a very happy little girl. They are burdened with the bad decision, it will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 09:23:11 AM
I think initially it could masquerade as being legitimate concern for the twins. At this remove I think the sheer venom of it cannot be disguised for what it really is.
There is a realistic suspect in the frame at the moment which belies the horrid fantasy carefully built up over the years from nothing but error and I think that worries some.
What they have always tried to do was to make it sounds as though these children were abandoned and left alone without thought for hours on end when this was clearly not the case.
As you all know, I did something similar for brief periods and I never walked out of the door without making sure that everything was as safe as could be and that I was close by. But then an abductor never even entered my mind.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 09, 2020, 09:23:35 AM
Perhaps you'll believe Mark Harrison, who wrote on 23/07/2007;
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Or was he telling lies too, in your opinion?
So these cadavers weren't fresh were they? Any dog would find a decomposing body. Could Eddie alert to cadaver scent after the body was in a place for a short length of time is the question. I think not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 09:24:30 AM
It appears that they came to the conclusion that the twins were perfectly safe with the McCanns, something that it must be hard for the parents’ detractors to get their heads around, seeing as how these two are considered by sceptics to be amongst the worst examples of parents that ever lived.
I'm sure they did, but not necessarily immediately.
"Amongst the worst examples of parents that ever lived."? My you do exaggerate imo! According to them, a pair of mature people and doctors, they had an incomprehesible ignorance of one of the basic rules of childcare which even single teenage mothers seem able to grasp. I have always found that difficult to believe.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 09:26:00 AM
It's sarcasm. Faithlilly has suggested that in order to avoid scrutiny by the UK authorities the McCanns lingered in Portugal, which is where as we all know they faced intense scrutiny not only by the PT authorities including the police, but also the world's media. If the McCanns had returned to "face the music" in the UK earlier the self-same critics would be accusing the McCanns of running away from Portuguese police scrutiny. Can you see the irony?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 09:27:30 AM
So these cadavers weren't fresh were they? Any dog would find a decomposing body. Could Eddie alert to cadaver scent after the body was in a place for a short length of time is the question. I think not.
This is the thing you see. All good stuff when there is a decomposing body lying around. But any dog could find that, and often do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 09:28:14 AM
What they have always tried to do was to make it sounds as though these children were abandoned and left alone without thought for hours on end when this was clearly not the case.
As you all know, I did something similar for brief periods and I never walked out of the door without making sure that everything was as safe as could be and that I was close by. But then an abductor never even entered my mind.
Another supreme irony is that those who make out the children were abandoned are also the same ones who claim it was virtually impossible for an abductor to have done the deed because of the regular comings and goings of the parents to check on the kids.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 09:28:44 AM
Perhaps you'll believe Mark Harrison, who wrote on 23/07/2007;
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Or was he telling lies too, in your opinion?
Eddie was not specifically identified by Harrison. Nor is it claimed Eddie was taken to America it merely says the training took place in America. I cannot find a claim anywhere for Eddie in America ~ can you/
Snip The dog handler that deployed the victim recovery dogs, Martin Grime, is a world-wide renowned expert in the field of cadaver dogs. He and his first cadaver dog Eddie and his blood detection dog Keela were deployed to Portugal by the British Government when Madeline McCann disappeared. You can presently see Mr. Grime on the Netflix show, “What happened to Madeline” as he uses them to help investigate the case. Mr. Grime was hired by the FBI to come to America and help them establish a cadaver dog program. Mr. Grime brought his two dogs, Morse the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood detection dog, to the Castillo home seventeen days after her body was located. Morse alerted to the basement bathroom where Mrs. Castillo was found, and also to the foot of her bed in the master bedroom. https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/152001/06202019---Virginia-Court-of-Appeals-Affirmed-the-Convictions-Against-Braulio-Castillo?bidId=
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 09:29:15 AM
It's sarcasm. Faithlilly has suggested that in order to avoid scrutiny by the UK authorities the McCanns lingered in Portugal, which is where as we all know they faced intense scrutiny not only by the PT authorities including the police, but also the world's media. If the McCanns had returned to "face the music" in the UK earlier the self-same critics would be accusing the McCanns of running away from Portuguese police scrutiny. Can you see the irony?
When The McCanns finally left they were accused of running away.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 09:29:23 AM
So these cadavers weren't fresh were they? Any dog would find a decomposing body. Could Eddie alert to cadaver scent after the body was in a place for a short length of time is the question. I think not.
And a body that had only been dead for a few minutes months earlier? Let's see the evidence that Eddie had been trained on that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 09:30:39 AM
Another supreme irony is that those who make out the children were abandoned are also the same ones who claim it was virtually impossible for an abductor to have done the deed because of the regular comings and goings of the parents to check on the kids.
A complete lack of Logic. Or just spite. Either will do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 09:33:33 AM
I have a friend who is a social worker and in her experience she doubts that the McCanns behaviour would just be brushed off as some here think it would without some kind of action being taken.
I wonder if the parents stayed in Portugal precisely to escape the type of attention from social services they knew would meet them on their return home ?
They certainly discussed the subject in their first contact with lawyers, eight days after Madeleine disappeared, so it was on their minds. Kate's mother was horrified;
'Why did they think it was OK to do this?' asked Susan Healy, 62.
She revealed that her first words to the couple in the frantic phone call informing her of Madeleine's disappearance were: 'Where were you?' https://www.standard.co.uk/news/where-were-you-that-night-kate-what-grandmother-said-after-she-was-told-that-madeleine-had-been-6661215.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 09:34:54 AM
They certainly discussed the subject in their first contact with lawyers, eight days after Madeleine disappeared, so it was on their minds. Kate's mother was horrified;
'Why did they think it was OK to do this?' asked Susan Healy, 62.
She revealed that her first words to the couple in the frantic phone call informing her of Madeleine's disappearance were: 'Where were you?' https://www.standard.co.uk/news/where-were-you-that-night-kate-what-grandmother-said-after-she-was-told-that-madeleine-had-been-6661215.html
Any excuse to dredge up old Ma Healey's quote, eh? Nothing more thrilling than using Kate's own mother to put the boot in I'm sure.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 09:36:39 AM
Any excuse to dredge up old Ma Healey's quote, eh? Nothing more thrilling than using Kate's own mother to put the boot in I'm sure.
Kate's mother won't have had the full facts of what The McCanns did, where they were or of them checking on the children regularly. It was hardly the time to go into that.
But Yes, let's drag her out again and her shock motivated remark. "Where were you" should tell us all that Mrs. Healy didn't know the circumstances at that point.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 09, 2020, 09:54:15 AM
So these cadavers weren't fresh were they? Any dog would find a decomposing body. Could Eddie alert to cadaver scent after the body was in a place for a short length of time is the question. I think not.
I'd say, think again.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 10:06:22 AM
They certainly discussed the subject in their first contact with lawyers, eight days after Madeleine disappeared, so it was on their minds. Kate's mother was horrified;
'Why did they think it was OK to do this?' asked Susan Healy, 62.
She revealed that her first words to the couple in the frantic phone call informing her of Madeleine's disappearance were: 'Where were you?' https://www.standard.co.uk/news/where-were-you-that-night-kate-what-grandmother-said-after-she-was-told-that-madeleine-had-been-6661215.html
"They certainly discussed the subject in their first contact with lawyers, eight days after Madeleine disappeared, so it was on their minds." Got a cite for that please?
Do you have anything solid ~ or even an opinion ~ about what Brueckner was doing or where he was eight days after Madeleine disappeared? Hopefully the German investigation will turn up some information about that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 10:16:07 AM
Kate's mother won't have had the full facts of what The McCanns did, where they were or of them checking on the children regularly. It was hardly the time to go into that.
But Yes, let's drag her out again and her shock motivated remark. "Where were you" should tell us all that Mrs. Healy didn't know the circumstances at that point.
As she said that in April 2008 I expect she'd heard all the excuses by that point.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 09, 2020, 10:58:29 AM
"They certainly discussed the subject in their first contact with lawyers, eight days after Madeleine disappeared, so it was on their minds." Got a cite for that please?
Do you have anything solid ~ or even an opinion ~ about what Brueckner was doing or where he was eight days after Madeleine disappeared? Hopefully the German investigation will turn up some information about that.
After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. [madeleine]
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 11:14:44 AM
As she said that in April 2008 I expect she'd heard all the excuses by that point.
I don't think you could have read the remarks Susan Healey made in context. "Where Were You?" was not a question asked in 2008 but during the phone conversation with her daughter in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, which was Brietta's point I believe.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 11:30:27 AM
I don't think you could have read the remarks Susan Healey made in context. "Where Were You?" was not a question asked in 2008 but during the phone conversation with her daughter in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, which was Brietta's point I believe.
And mine. It is not possible to believe that Mrs. Healy asked this question in 2008. It simply doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 11:59:12 AM
After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. [madeleine]
You tend to cherry pick your quotes a tad I think. It goes on to say ...
The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court. Wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on a child’s behalf in any legal disputes and to bypass some of the data-protection laws that deal with access to information (hotel guest records, for example, and airline passenger lists), when knowledge of this information is considered to be in the interests of the child in question.
Such an order could be useful in acquiring records not otherwise available to us that might be relevant in our case. We decided to proceed with an application, which was granted in due course. madeleine ... Kate McCann
The lawyers in question were from a firm of specialists in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG) whose visit to Portugal was as the result of an offer to help. Do you think taking advice which was aimed at securing Madeleine's best interests is worth a pejorative mention? I've got to admit your attitude puzzles me.
Now, as I was saying ~ offers of help (also detailed in madeleine) included the appraisal of the horrible reality of the possibility that a paedophile was responsible for taking Madeleine. You seem to be concentrating on Kate and Gerry who despite the extensive documentation available remain clear of anything approaching evidence against them (sceptic shibboleths just don't count) ignoring the other half of the equation in the thread title. Don't you think it is time to lay off the McCanns and time instead to discuss Brueckner's inviolable rights.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 09, 2020, 12:07:20 PM
I've thought about it Rob, a cadaver does not emit gases in the fresh stage of decomposition. It is more likely Eddie alerted to something that had had blood on it and had been taken away, he alerted near to where the dirty washing was stacked. The blood behind the sofa couldn't have been from Madeleine as surely if she had bled behind the sofa more that a tiny speck of blood would have been there and also would have shown up in the grout of the tiles. IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 12:15:05 PM
And mine. It is not possible to believe that Mrs. Healy asked this question in 2008. It simply doesn't make sense.
Someone said her initial reaction was because she didn't know all the circumstances at the time. In 2008 she knew all the circumstances, but was willing to repeat what she had thought and to add;
she said she could understand public anger at the couple for going to dinner while their children slept unattended in an unlocked apartment more than 50 yards away. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2020, 12:22:32 PM
Someone said her initial reaction was because she didn't know all the circumstances at the time. In 2008 she knew all the circumstances, but was willing to repeat what she had thought and to add;
she said she could understand public anger at the couple for going to dinner while their children slept unattended in an unlocked apartment more than 50 yards away. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
If you read on you will come across "Social services did visit the McCanns' home in Rothley, Leicestershire, and said they were satisfied with the couple's childcare arrangements."https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
Please bear it in mind for future reference.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 12:24:37 PM
You tend to cherry pick your quotes a tad I think. It goes on to say ...
The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court. Wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on a child’s behalf in any legal disputes and to bypass some of the data-protection laws that deal with access to information (hotel guest records, for example, and airline passenger lists), when knowledge of this information is considered to be in the interests of the child in question.
Such an order could be useful in acquiring records not otherwise available to us that might be relevant in our case. We decided to proceed with an application, which was granted in due course. madeleine ... Kate McCann
The lawyers in question were from a firm of specialists in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG) whose visit to Portugal was as the result of an offer to help. Do you think taking advice which was aimed at securing Madeleine's best interests is worth a pejorative mention? I've got to admit your attitude puzzles me.
Now, as I was saying ~ offers of help (also detailed in madeleine) included the appraisal of the horrible reality of the possibility that a paedophile was responsible for taking Madeleine. You seem to be concentrating on Kate and Gerry who despite the extensive documentation available remain clear of anything approaching evidence against them (sceptic shibboleths just don't count) ignoring the other half of the equation in the thread title. Don't you think it is time to lay off the McCanns and time instead to discuss Brueckner's inviolable rights.
You asked for a cite and I provided it.
As to Brueckner, I have not seen much in the way of evidence connecting him to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 12:26:40 PM
Someone said her initial reaction was because she didn't know all the circumstances at the time. In 2008 she knew all the circumstances, but was willing to repeat what she had thought and to add;
she said she could understand public anger at the couple for going to dinner while their children slept unattended in an unlocked apartment more than 50 yards away. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
Not quite what you have been implying, is it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 12:34:42 PM
Implying? I'm declaring that Mrs Healy found it as disturbing as others did that the children were left home alone, and understood exactly why people were horrified.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 12:46:03 PM
Implying? I'm declaring that Mrs Healy found it as disturbing as others did that the children were left home alone, and understood exactly why people were horrified.
You'd have thought that "people" would have gotten over it by now. I'm sure Mrs Healey has found it in her heart to forgive her daughter, why can't those who have sweet FA to do with her do the same?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 12:49:53 PM
If you read on you will come across "Social services did visit the McCanns' home in Rothley, Leicestershire, and said they were satisfied with the couple's childcare arrangements."https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
Please bear it in mind for future reference.
As far as I know Social Services made no public comment whatsoever on the subject, so I don't think they; "said they were satisfied with the couple's childcare arrangements." to the Daily Mail.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 12:57:44 PM
You'd have thought that "people" would have gotten over it by now. I'm sure Mrs Healey has found it in her heart to forgive her daughter, why can't those who have sweet FA to do with her do the same?
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 01:07:22 PM
what's it got to do with then, the continual need to harp on about the McCanns "neglect" 13 plus years after the event? do explain.
Surely you realise it's an integral part of the abduction theory? For a child to be abducted there has to be an opportunity for the abductor to abduct.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Surely you realise it's an integral part of the abduction theory? For a child to be abducted there has to be an opportunity for the abductor to abduct.
Even The Portuguese Judiciary didn't think there was any intent to neglect, which there obviously wasn't.
But since it would have taken all of two minutes to abduct this child, how often they checked doesn't actually come in to it.
And you don't appear to believe that Madeleine was abducted, so why keep on about it, 13 blimmin years later?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 02:33:03 PM
Surely you realise it's an integral part of the abduction theory? For a child to be abducted there has to be an opportunity for the abductor to abduct.
That has got absolutely NOTHING to do with my point but as you come to mention it - were the kids abandoned on the night of the 3rd or were there adults checking on them regularly making abduction according to yourself virtually impossible? Which is it?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 03:57:58 PM
That has got absolutely NOTHING to do with my point but as you come to mention it - were the kids abandoned on the night of the 3rd or were there adults checking on them regularly making abduction according to yourself virtually impossible? Which is it?
That, as they say, is the question. Just one of the questions that some people wonder about and others think should be forgotten.
The questions arose mostly from the accounts given by the T9, of course. It was them who claimed to have left all their children home alone for five nights and it was them who described the checking regime on 3rd May.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 09, 2020, 04:24:51 PM
Someone said her initial reaction was because she didn't know all the circumstances at the time. In 2008 she knew all the circumstances, but was willing to repeat what she had thought and to add;
she said she could understand public anger at the couple for going to dinner while their children slept unattended in an unlocked apartment more than 50 yards away. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
That’s pretty damning.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 09, 2020, 04:59:01 PM
Someone said her initial reaction was because she didn't know all the circumstances at the time. In 2008 she knew all the circumstances, but was willing to repeat what she had thought and to add;
she said she could understand public anger at the couple for going to dinner while their children slept unattended in an unlocked apartment more than 50 yards away. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017189/Where-night-Kate-What-grandmother-said-told-Madeleine-snatched.html
The keyword is "UNLOCKED" IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 05:01:23 PM
That, as they say, is the question. Just one of the questions that some people wonder about and others think should be forgotten.
The questions arose mostly from the accounts given by the T9, of course. It was them who claimed to have left all their children home alone for five nights and it was them who described the checking regime on 3rd May.
No one thinks anything should be forgotten but perhaps you can tell me what bearing Susan Healey’s reaction to the news 13 + years ago has on the question posed? The only purpose it serves imo is to elicit an emotional, crritcal response about those “neglectful “ parents which we’ve all heard a million times before and whose only purpose now imo is to make the commentator feel superior and to try and put supporters in their place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2020, 05:04:58 PM
No one thinks anything should be forgotten but perhaps you can tell me what bearing Susan Healey’s reaction to the news 13 + years ago has on the question posed? The only purpose it serves imo is to elicit an emotional, crritcal response about those “neglectful “ parents which we’ve all heard a million times before and whose only purpose now imo is to make the commentator feel superior and to try and put supporters in their place.
Well, that isn't going to work, is it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2020, 05:07:40 PM
No one thinks anything should be forgotten but perhaps you can tell me what bearing Susan Healey’s reaction to the news 13 + years ago has on the question posed? The only purpose it serves imo is to elicit an emotional, crritcal response about those “neglectful “ parents which we’ve all heard a million times before and whose only purpose now imo is to make the commentator feel superior and to try and put supporters in their place.
But in reality it's pathetic
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 09, 2020, 05:38:33 PM
No one thinks anything should be forgotten but perhaps you can tell me what bearing Susan Healey’s reaction to the news 13 + years ago has on the question posed? The only purpose it serves imo is to elicit an emotional, crritcal response about those “neglectful “ parents which we’ve all heard a million times before and whose only purpose now imo is to make the commentator feel superior and to try and put supporters in their place.
Not that I ever thought there was any excuse for the systematic nastiness exhibited as a result but whatever cover they pretended to is well and truly blown. Never a pretty sight it is really pathetic to behold now in my opinion
The fact it has been sustained for over thirteen+ years in the face of reason is quite extraordinary I think.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 05:46:59 PM
Some people are imo addicted to the feeling of superiority that constantly harping on about the neglect gives them and that’s why they just can’t stop themselves dredging it up at every opportunity imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2020, 07:25:42 PM
Some people are imo addicted to the feeling of superiority that constantly harping on about the neglect gives them and that’s why they just can’t stop themselves dredging it up at every opportunity imo.
In my case I talk about the children being left home alone because;
People who like to harp on about abduction want to ignore what made an abduction possible. It contradicts the claim that the children were a priority.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 07:48:43 PM
In my case I talk about the children being left home alone because;
People who like to harp on about abduction want to ignore what made an abduction possible. It contradicts the claim that the children were a priority.
Do you a cite for this allegation? How about you take it as read that ALL supporters acknowledge that the McCanns left their kids unattended thus making abduction possible, then you never need remind us again. WE KNOW OK?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 09, 2020, 08:30:50 PM
In my case I talk about the children being left home alone because;
People who like to harp on about abduction want to ignore what made an abduction possible. It contradicts the claim that the children were a priority.
Very contrite regarding their behavior before, during and after the alleged disappearance of MBM. IMO they well and truly absolved themselves of any blame whatsoever.
Now that vile creature masquerading as a human, 'Herr Bruckner' is in the frame for little Madeline's abduction, rape, torture and murder- it puts it all into perspective - The 'parent's were, we are assured by the parents, reasonable parents who just so happened to go jogging and blogging and mingling with celebs, all happy smiley people, not forgetting to make a few million quid, erm for the 'search' you understand.
The are now living the live they created- one daughter missing though - 'not our fault'...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 09, 2020, 08:42:31 PM
In my case I talk about the children being left home alone because;
People who like to harp on about abduction want to ignore what made an abduction possible. It contradicts the claim that the children were a priority.
The only couple who enrolled their children into both morning and afternoon sessions at the creche. The only couple who left their apartment insecure and their children especially vulnerable.
I think it’s obvious that their children weren’t the McCann’s priority on that holiday.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 09, 2020, 08:42:58 PM
The only couple who enrolled their children into both morning and afternoon sessions at the creche. The only couple who left their apartment insecure and their children especially vulnerable.
I think it’s obvious that their children weren’t the McCann’s priority on that holiday.
Very loving 'family' holiday... according to Kate n Gerry we all do it that way.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 09, 2020, 08:50:14 PM
It is a democracy. They are allowed to vote for who they like.
a touch of the JB?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 09, 2020, 11:10:09 PM
The McCanns may be the most selfish, cruel, neglectful parents that ever walked the planet (some people obviously believe this to be the case, I don’t) but it does not mean they were involved in covering up their daughter’s death.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2020, 11:35:39 PM
Perhaps you'll believe Mark Harrison, who wrote on 23/07/2007;
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Or was he telling lies too, in your opinion?
Once again there is NO REFERENCE to EDDIE in that report, nor is there any relevant date. It is a general report about cadaver dogs in general, in the US.
Please STOP putting false info out purported to be about Eddie, when it is not.
Where is your honour Gunit? Just concede graciously and make sure that you adjust all your posts to correct you error. An apology about my supposedly libelling Martin Grime would be welcomed too.
I believe that I am right in saying that Eddie was trained solely on dead piglets BEFORE Madeleine vanished
If you are able to find anything that proves me wrong, I will gladly concede … But you won't find anything cos' it ain't there as far as I can see.
I am still waiting for a relevant cite, please Gunit
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2020, 11:45:22 PM
Once again there is NO REFERENCE to EDDIE in that report, nor is there any relevant date. It is a general report about cadaver dogs in general, in the US.
Please STOP putting false info out purported to be about Eddie, when it is not.
Where is your honour Gunit? Just concede graciously and make sure that you adjust all your posts to correct you error. An apology about my supposedly libelling Martin Grime would be welcomed too.
I believe that I am right in saying that Eddie was trained solely on dead piglets BEFORE Madeleine vanished
If you are able to find anything that proves me wrong, I will gladly concede … But you won't find anything cos' it ain't there as far as I can see.
I am still waiting for a relevant cite, please Gunit
You are determined, imo, to ignore the facts. There was only one EVRD in the UK and that was Eddie. Two UK police officers testified that his skills were enhanced by visiting the US and training on actual dead bodies, but you refuse to believe them. I wonder if that's because the dog's findings don't fit with your (quite frankly fanciful imo) theory?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 07:25:22 AM
You are determined, imo, to ignore the facts. There was only one EVRD in the UK and that was Eddie. Two UK police officers testified that his skills were enhanced by visiting the US and training on actual dead bodies, but you refuse to believe them. I wonder if that's because the dog's findings don't fit with your (quite frankly fanciful imo) theory?
What findings by the dogs...they didn't find any evidence. They found absolutely nothing of any evidential value. You seem to cling on a belief that they somehow have some value
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2020, 07:57:28 AM
What findings by the dogs...they didn't find any evidence. They found absolutely nothing of any evidential value. You seem to cling on a belief that they somehow have some value
So unless forensic evidence is found detectives just ignore alerts? I wonder.......
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 10, 2020, 07:59:09 AM
You are determined, imo, to ignore the facts. There was only one EVRD in the UK and that was Eddie. Two UK police officers testified that his skills were enhanced by visiting the US and training on actual dead bodies, but you refuse to believe them. I wonder if that's because the dog's findings don't fit with your (quite frankly fanciful imo) theory?
There used to be a video of Martin Grimes training his dogs and he was using human tissues. IMO Eddie had been trained using human cadaver odours.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 10, 2020, 10:09:22 AM
All of the articles and quotes on this subject are ambiguous. They say neither one thing or the other.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 10, 2020, 10:12:27 AM
You are determined, imo, to ignore the facts. There was only one EVRD in the UK and that was Eddie. Two UK police officers testified that his skills were enhanced by visiting the US and training on actual dead bodies, but you refuse to believe them. I wonder if that's because the dog's findings don't fit with your (quite frankly fanciful imo) theory?
Can you retrain a cadaver dog? Eddie was trained using dead pig, then Grime suddenly wants him trained using human dead body. Poor dog. Eddie couldn't tell the difference which to me implies the human body was so decomposed any dog would alert to it. IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 10, 2020, 10:13:24 AM
In my case I talk about the children being left home alone because;
People who like to harp on about abduction want to ignore what made an abduction possible. It contradicts the claim that the children were a priority.
Just a sec, are you implying that if the McCann's knew it wasn't a child friendly site that actually paedophiles lived close by that a man had been entering apartments abusing children, they would have left their children alone? I think not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 10:40:53 AM
Just a sec, are you implying that if the McCann's knew it wasn't a child friendly site that actually paedophiles lived close by that a man had been entering apartments abusing children, they would have left their children alone? I think not.
I think they might have had second thoughts about taking their children there at all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2020, 11:09:37 AM
Just a sec, are you implying that if the McCann's knew it wasn't a child friendly site that actually paedophiles lived close by that a man had been entering apartments abusing children, they would have left their children alone? I think not.
No. I'm saying that parents who put their children first don't leave them home alone no matter where they are. That's because they don't want their children to cry, be sick or unwell without being comforted and reassured.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: carlymichelle on November 10, 2020, 11:18:11 AM
No. I'm saying that parents who put their children first don't leave them home alone no matter where they are. That's because they don't want their children to cry, be sick or unwell without being comforted and reassured.
It has been implied that the McCann's encouraged a paedo to enter by leaving the children alone.
I agree I wouldn't have left my children alone, the McCann's thought it was safe to do so, they checked regularly. Children can be sick or unwell when their parents are there in the house, but if upstairs they wouldn't hear them unless they checked on them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
It has been implied that the McCann's encouraged a paedo to enter by leaving the children alone.
I agree I wouldn't have left my children alone, the McCann's thought it was safe to do so, they checked regularly. Children can be sick or unwell when their parents are there in the house, but if upstairs they wouldn't hear them unless they checked on them.
It doesn't matter what they said they thought, the fact remains that the McCanns decided to ignore the custom (and official advice) of either staying in or hiring a babysitter. When I had three children under 5 years of age in the 1960's I stayed in if I didn't have a babysitter. I didn't particularly like it, especially when my husband was expected to attend with or without me, but it was my duty.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 12:14:57 PM
Wluld you please post a cite where he’s said that davel ?I haven’t across it .
its in his statement...
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Its surprising posters who post opinions on the alerts aren't aware of what Grime actually said
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 12:39:31 PM
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Its surprising posters who post opinions on the alerts aren't aware of what Grime actually said
Thankyou ,that’s weird because I already read Martin Grime’s May 14th 2008 in the PJ files several times over periods of time but don’t see that passage anywhere in it .
However I found it in Grime’s REPORT not his statement ,
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Lace on November 10, 2020, 12:42:10 PM
It doesn't matter what they said they thought, the fact remains that the McCanns decided to ignore the custom (and official advice) of either staying in or hiring a babysitter. When I had three children under 5 years of age in the 1960's I stayed in if I didn't have a babysitter. I didn't particularly like it, especially when my husband was expected to attend with or without me, but it was my duty.
I always had a baby sister, the McCann's had a baby sitter at home. This is what I mean about people on holiday they do things they would never do at home. What do you think of people in tents or caravans who leave their children alone to go to a BBQ on the site? They probably have baby sitters when they are at home. The McCann's were still in the holiday resort when they went to dinner, they probably felt like the parents in the tents/caravans we are in a family safe holiday resort.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 10, 2020, 01:17:54 PM
Thankyou ,that’s weird because I already read Martin Grime’s May 14th 2008 in the PJ files several times over periods of time but don’t see that passage anywhere in it .
However I found it in Grime’s REPORT not his statement ,
Davel posted this link some time ago ~ http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
I think it reveals what an awful lot of nonsense has been read into the 'alerts' in Praia da Luz. All unnecessary if only Grime had been listened to properly in the first place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 10, 2020, 01:25:07 PM
It doesn't matter what they said they thought, the fact remains that the McCanns decided to ignore the custom (and official advice) of either staying in or hiring a babysitter. When I had three children under 5 years of age in the 1960's I stayed in if I didn't have a babysitter. I didn't particularly like it, especially when my husband was expected to attend with or without me, but it was my duty.
We get it. The McCanns didn't do what any other normal loving decent parent on the planet would have done. They are in short wicked beyond belief. How about we all agree to that and move on, would that satisfy you, or do we still need reminding on a daily basis how they abandoned their babies allowing one of them not to be stolen be a paedophile because (despite all the wicked neglect) the McCanns and their friends were checking so often the poor abductor didn't get a chance to carry out his dastardly deed??
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 10, 2020, 01:25:29 PM
Davel posted this link some time ago ~ http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
I think it reveals what an awful lot of nonsense has been read into the 'alerts' in Praia da Luz. All unnecessary if only Grime had been listened to properly in the first place.
Thankyou .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: misty on November 10, 2020, 01:37:34 PM
Davel posted this link some time ago ~ http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
I think it reveals what an awful lot of nonsense has been read into the 'alerts' in Praia da Luz. All unnecessary if only Grime had been listened to properly in the first place.
Grime has had ample opportunity to correct public interpretation of his dogs' alerts following release of the excerpt in the Sun, taken from the extended video. He has chosen not to do so. In the circumstances, it's no wonder PJ cannot move beyond the parents & give serious consideration to CB having abducted a living Madeleine. IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lrrMoUr3OA
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 01:39:18 PM
Thankyou ,that’s weird because I already read Martin Grime’s May 14th 2008 in the PJ files several times over periods of time but don’t see that passage anywhere in it .
However I found it in Grime’s REPORT not his statement ,
So after 13 years you've never seen it...it's a bit tiresome continually having to point out the basics You should be grateful I've taught you something
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 01:41:02 PM
We get it. The McCanns didn't do what any other normal loving decent parent on the planet would have done. They are in short wicked beyond belief. How about we all agree to that and move on, would that satisfy you, or do we still need reminding on a daily basis how they abandoned their babies allowing one of them not to be stolen be a paedophile because (despite all the wicked neglect) the McCanns and their friends were checking so often the poor abductor didn't get a chance to carry out his dastardly deed??
May I make clear that those are your opinions, not mine? I'm sure most people know that, however, and recognise your strawman arguments for what they are.
Apart from the statements given by the T9 all we know for sure is that they dined at the Tapas from 8:30pm onwards with no children in sight. Some men were seen leaving the complex at times, but which ones and how often isn't clear. Neither is it clear where they went, because apart from Jez W. no-one saw any of them and Jez was unable to say what time he saw Gerry McCann.
The T9's statements suggested that foot traffic up and down that road was so frequent that an alleged abductor would have had to move very quickly in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 10, 2020, 02:30:26 PM
May I make clear that those are your opinions, not mine? I'm sure most people know that, however, and recognise your strawman arguments for what they are.
Apart from the statements given by the T9 all we know for sure is that they dined at the Tapas from 8:30pm onwards with no children in sight. Some men were seen leaving the complex at times, but which ones and how often isn't clear. Neither is it clear where they went, because apart from Jez W. no-one saw any of them and Jez was unable to say what time he saw Gerry McCann.
The T9's statements suggested that foot traffic up and down that road was so frequent that an alleged abductor would have had to move very quickly in my opinion.
So you don't accept that members of the Tapas group told the truth that they were leaving the table to perform checks on their children? What do you think they might have been doing instead then?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2020, 02:53:41 PM
I always had a baby sister, the McCann's had a baby sitter at home. This is what I mean about people on holiday they do things they would never do at home. What do you think of people in tents or caravans who leave their children alone to go to a BBQ on the site? They probably have baby sitters when they are at home. The McCann's were still in the holiday resort when they went to dinner, they probably felt like the parents in the tents/caravans we are in a family safe holiday resort.
I have no idea what people do on campsites or how far away from their tents they venture. If you've seen this perhaps you could identify the site so a comparison can be made?
I don't know what you mean by 'holiday resort'. The whole of a town like Blackpool is a holiday resort.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2020, 02:58:51 PM
So you don't accept that members of the Tapas group told the truth that they were leaving the table to perform checks on their children? What do you think they might have been doing instead then?
I don't know if they told the truth or not, and neither do you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 03:27:06 PM
So after 13 years you've never seen it...it's a bit tiresome continually having to point out the basics You should be grateful I've taught you something
Like I said it wasn’t an excerpt from his statement , which is where you said it was and I wouldn’t say that report came under the basics column .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 03:34:09 PM
Like I said it wasn’t an excerpt from his statement , which is where you said it was and I wouldn’t say that report came under the basics column .
The report is part of the files and part of the information on the dogs...I've provided a cite...I've shown you something you hadn't seen before and you are still moaning...I wish I'd just ignored your request as other posters do when asked for a cite
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 10, 2020, 03:58:38 PM
I don't know if they told the truth or not, and neither do you.
I know that members of the group left the table, the waiters said so, unless they are not telling the truth either? So - apart from to check on their children (as they said they did) what other reasons could members of the group have had for leaving the table at regular intervals? Do you think there are credible alternative reasons that the Tapas group are trying to cover up, if so what might they be do you think?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on November 10, 2020, 04:05:49 PM
I know that members of the group left the table, the waiters said so, unless they are not telling the truth either? So - apart from to check on their children (as they said they did) what other reasons could members of the group have had for leaving the table at regular intervals? Do you think there are credible alternative reasons that the Tapas group are trying to cover up, if so what might they be do you think?
Swinging? A Quickie between courses?
We might as well visit the Swinging again, what with David Payne and all that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 10, 2020, 05:31:21 PM
We might as well visit the Swinging again, what with David Payne and all that.
Well unless it was swinging in the bushes they would have likely been using one of the apartments so at least *some* of the children had a mummy and daddy nearby (even if not both belonged to them).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on November 10, 2020, 05:51:21 PM
Grime has had ample opportunity to correct public interpretation of his dogs' alerts following release of the excerpt in the Sun, taken from the extended video. He has chosen not to do so. In the circumstances, it's no wonder PJ cannot move beyond the parents & give serious consideration to CB having abducted a living Madeleine. IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lrrMoUr3OA
Almost everyone else associated however vaguely with Madeleine's case has had their say on it. What I think he could have contributed mattered very much back in the day and could have made a real difference to the way the case was perceived by the general public. I think Grime's silence in the face of the prevalent and obvious misinformation regarding the role of victim recovery dogs which has surrounded the visit to Praia da Luz from the word go is reprehensible and does him no favours.
If he is associated with the "dogs don't lie" mantra that is doubly so and verges on dishonourable in my opinion.
I think the issue could have been settled many years ago if the will had been there to settle it and I think it could have been sorted without mention of Praia da Luz ~ and he was the man who should have done that.
All that was required was to address the general issue of dogs exactly as he has done in his statements and in the world of academia. I find it extraordinary that he didn't do that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 06:01:41 PM
Well unless it was swinging in the bushes they would have likely been using one of the apartments so at least *some* of the children had a mummy and daddy nearby (even if not both belonged to them).
Gunit insinuates the men in her post "Some men were seen leaving the complex at times, but which ones and how often isn't clear. Neither is it clear where they went," So unfortunately and disgustingly I really don't think 'swinging' comes into the reckoning.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 06:10:57 PM
May I make clear that those are your opinions, not mine? I'm sure most people know that, however, and recognise your strawman arguments for what they are.
Apart from the statements given by the T9 all we know for sure is that they dined at the Tapas from 8:30pm onwards with no children in sight. Some men were seen leaving the complex at times, but which ones and how often isn't clear. Neither is it clear where they went, because apart from Jez W. no-one saw any of them and Jez was unable to say what time he saw Gerry McCann.
The T9's statements suggested that foot traffic up and down that road was so frequent that an alleged abductor would have had to move very quickly in my opinion.
Not really if Madeleine got over by the Tapas entrance and she asked for help to open the door. What if she actually approached an adult and the adult took advantage?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 06:14:52 PM
Well unless it was swinging in the bushes they would have likely been using one of the apartments so at least *some* of the children had a mummy and daddy nearby (even if not both belonged to them).
Good point but were they keeping an eye on the kids whilst this was going on?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on November 10, 2020, 06:27:24 PM
Almost everyone else associated however vaguely with Madeleine's case has had their say on it. What I think he could have contributed mattered very much back in the day and could have made a real difference to the way the case was perceived by the general public. I think Grime's silence in the face of the prevalent and obvious misinformation regarding the role of victim recovery dogs which has surrounded the visit to Praia da Luz from the word go is reprehensible and does him no favours.
If he is associated with the "dogs don't lie" mantra that is doubly so and verges on dishonourable in my opinion.
I think the issue could have been settled many years ago if the will had been there to settle it and I think it could have been sorted without mention of Praia da Luz ~ and he was the man who should have done that.
All that was required was to address the general issue of dogs exactly as he has done in his statements and in the world of academia. I find it extraordinary that he didn't do that.
Why should Grime feel the need to justify himself to anyone ? Much like Redwood who, allegedly, had the Tanner sighting going in the wrong way, he does not owe an explanation to you or anyone else.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 06:31:31 PM
Not really if Madeleine got over by the Tapas entrance and she asked for help to open the door. What if she actually approached an adult and the adult took advantage?
Do you really believe the story that the door was left unlocked so Madeleiine could come to find them? Her mother later denied she would leave and anyway said the door would be too heavy for her!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 06:35:21 PM
Do you really believe the story that the door was left unlocked so Madeleiine could come to find them? Her mother later denied she would leave and anyway said the door would be too heavy for her!
Do you have acite for...Door would be too heavy for her
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 06:41:01 PM
Do you really believe the story that the door was left unlocked so Madeleiine could come to find them? Her mother later denied she would leave and anyway said the door would be too heavy for her!
Kate is talking about the patio door. I'm talking about the front door. Different doors altogether. And the door to the Tapas entrance is another door as well.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 06:42:24 PM
Do you have acite for...Door would be too heavy for her
Oh really you’re asking me for a cite now. (&^& I quote this and believe it was possibly during that Woman’s Hour interview , after the last line .
Jenny: 'What was your first thought, what did you think immediately had happened?' (Upon discovering that Madeleine wasn't there)
Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.
So she had said the patio door was left unlocked so Madeleine could get out , then here contradicts it by saying she wouldn’t have walked out by herself . I remember too a heavy curtain being mentioned .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 10, 2020, 07:24:32 PM
Oh really you’re asking me for a cite now. (&^& I quote this and believe it was possibly during that Woman’s Hour interview , after the last line .
Jenny: 'What was your first thought, what did you think immediately had happened?' (Upon discovering that Madeleine wasn't there)
Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.
So she had said the patio door was left unlocked so Madeleine could get out , then here contradicts it by saying she wouldn’t have walked out by herself . I remember too a heavy curtain being mentioned .
laughs laughs... that really irritated me about those two- the smiles , sN.....s and laughs. She can't go into the reasons why she thought her daughter was taken from the room.. oh wonder why not...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 07:29:42 PM
Oh really you’re asking me for a cite now. (&^& I quote this and believe it was possibly during that Woman’s Hour interview , after the last line .
Jenny: 'What was your first thought, what did you think immediately had happened?' (Upon discovering that Madeleine wasn't there)
Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.
So she had said the patio door was left unlocked so Madeleine could get out , then here contradicts it by saying she wouldn’t have walked out by herself . I remember too a heavy curtain being mentioned .
you claimed kate said the door was too heavy...wheres your cite....you havent given one
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 07:37:33 PM
you claimed kate said the door was too heavy...wheres your cite....you havent given one
i haven’t . Do you know why ? Because I have a life outside of this forum so I don’t keep everything I read to refer to as you do . It might take a while before I can provide a cite and this isn’t a court of law where I’m on trial btw.
If you’ve ever stayed in a hotel or apartment where those kind of doors are in place you should know how heavy they are anyway . .Maybe not for a man but I find them so .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 07:42:27 PM
i haven’t . Do you know why ? Because I have a life outside of this forum so I don’t keep everything I read to refer to as you do . It might take a while before I can provide a cite and this isn’t a court of law where I’m on trial btw.
If you’ve ever stayed in a hotel or apartment where those kind of doors are in place you should know how heavy they are anyway . .Maybe not for a man but I find them so .
You think I dont have a life outside this forum....how little you know. You dont have a cite ...fine. you are obvioulsly getting angry and abusive
it would be important if kate had said the patio door was too heavy for Maddie to open...that would be highly significant...but it seems she didnt
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 07:52:00 PM
Quote from: Snowgirl on Today at 06:31:31 PM Do you really believe the story that the door was left unlocked so Madeleiine could come to find them? Her mother later denied she would leave and anyway said the door would be too heavy for her!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 07:55:14 PM
You think I dont have a life outside this forum....how little you know. You dont have a cite ...fine. you are obvioulsly getting angry and abusive
it would be important if kate had said the patio door was too heavy for Maddie to open...that would be highly significant...but it seems she didnt
davel I don’t do anger you say is obvious nor do I think I’ve been abusive .I’ve told you why I cannot provide a cite at this moment ? You can’t wait ? Fine . I really don’t care . Kate said on Woman’s Hour she knew Madeleine wouldn’t go out . Ask yourself how she knew that . Here’s a link to where Kate said Madeleine would have had to open the door https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-madeleine-mccann-was-snatched-10278077 I quote also a post below of Sadies in another thread on the same topic ...door .
. But we dont know if it was double locked, do we?
Also Madeleine would NOT have walked out of that pitch black porch, closing the door behind her, to then walk along a very dark walled passageway. A place that had walls too high for her to see over and was curved so that she could not see the end .... and was some 20 metres [66ft] long. All in darkness.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 10, 2020, 07:58:27 PM
davel I don’t do anger you say is obvious nor do I think I’ve been abusive .I’ve told you why I cannot provide a cite at this moment ? You can’t wait ? Fine . I really don’t care . Kate said on Woman’s Hour she knew Madeleine wouldn’t go out . Ask yourself how she knew that .
and then add that to the fact she left the door unlocked because... someone could come in? OR MBM could get out?
tricky one to get out of eh?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 08:07:44 PM
davel I don’t do anger you say is obvious nor do I think I’ve been abusive .I’ve told you why I cannot provide a cite at this moment ? You can’t wait ? Fine . I really don’t care . Kate said on Woman’s Hour she knew Madeleine wouldn’t go out . Ask yourself how she knew that . Here’s a link to where Kate said Madeleine would have had to open the door https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-madeleine-mccann-was-snatched-10278077
Well it wasnt because the door was too heavy...which would be significant
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 08:17:07 PM
Well it wasnt because the door was too heavy...which would be significant
Maybe that’s why Kate knew Madeleine wouldn’t go out ? She was only slight for her age? I will take Kate’s word for it on this occasion that Madeleine wouldn’t have left . That just leaves why the door was left as it was . Maybe so “ they” could come to take her? ( “ they’ve taken her” ) Maybe a prearranged appointment ? Maybe Madeleine wasn’t well maybe was injured ,had to be taken somewhere? It’s all supposition .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 10, 2020, 08:31:56 PM
How do you think "Looks like she was abducted and murdered by CB.." is acceptable?
You can't prove it is true.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 08:36:44 PM
Never said I could..that's why I said looks like...that isn't definite. Watched s 5 minute video on statement analysis do I'm an expert now.
When told about about the existence of evidence CBs lawyer doesn't say my clients innocent so it can't exist..he says ..show me the evidence
The lawyer wouldn't make a statement saying his client is innocent- he would say his client denies the charge and expect the prosecutor to provide the evidence. The court decides innocence or guilt, based on the evidence presented.
Not that much of an expert in the real world. But you can still play pretend in here Davel. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2020, 09:03:21 PM
The lawyer wouldn't make a statement saying his client is innocent- he would say his client denies the charge and expect the prosecutor to provide the evidence. The court decides innocence or guilt, based on the evidence presented.
Not that much of an expert in the real world. But you can still play pretend in here Davel. 8**8:/:
The court doesn't decide innocence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 10, 2020, 09:06:43 PM
In Scotland we have a 'not proven' as well... leaves a bad taste in all concerned with a case with such an outcome.
Not guilty is not the same as innocent
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Snowgirl on November 10, 2020, 09:26:32 PM
Without knowing if the child was capable of opening the Yale type lock on the front door ... or able to slide the patio door open ... I doubt anyone could answer that. Madeleine McCann's mother was apparently of the opinion she couldn't. Which seems to be backed up by the lack of Madeleine's fingerprints or any other trace in these areas.
She could have exited via the window. Similarly there is no trace she did that either and the nanny was of the opinion the height of the window would have been a barrier to that.
I think aged three Madeleine was a petite child, who if able to open the patio door probably would not have closed it behind her. I don't think she left the apartment of her own volition
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on November 11, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
In a trial, 'not guilty' simply means that there is an insufficiency of evidence to return a guilty verdict beyond all reasonable doubt. I clearly recall an incident in Edinburgh when a hoodlum leader was boasting of his criminal endeavours and returned from the courtroom laughing his head off with a not guilty verdict.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 12, 2020, 03:25:01 PM
In a trial, 'not guilty' simply means that there is an insufficiency of evidence to return a guilty verdict beyond all reasonable doubt. I clearly recall an incident in Edinburgh when a hoodlum leader was boasting of his criminal endeavours and returned from the courtroom laughing his head off with a not guilty verdict.
Indeed. I said this many moons ago. Someone can be guilty but found to be not guilty and vice versa. I made that claim as all we read about from supporters was the McCanns are innocent blah blah.
using he word innocent out of context was deliberate..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2020, 04:18:36 PM
Indeed. I said this many moons ago. Someone can be guilty but found to be not guilty and vice versa. I made that claim as all we read about from supporters was the McCanns are innocent blah blah.
using he word innocent out of context was deliberate..
You have that back to front. Its scepetics who claim that the Mccanns havent been proven innocent and Icontinually point out there is no mechanism to prove innocence...as Barry George has found out.
You didnt use the word out of contet you made an incorrect claim...ie. that innocent was AKA not guilty
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 12, 2020, 08:09:11 PM
You have that back to front. Its scepetics who claim that the Mccanns havent been proven innocent and Icontinually point out there is no mechanism to prove innocence...as Barry George has found out.
You didnt use the word out of contet you made an incorrect claim...ie. that innocent was AKA not guilty
No I have not got that back to front at all. No sceptic on this forum has said the parents are not innocent- the claim was made by supporters they were innocent- and that claim was challenged by non supporters.
It was the PJ who said they failed to prove their innocence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2020, 08:13:06 PM
No I have not got that back to front at all. No sceptic on this forum has said the parents are not innocent- the claim was made by supporters they were innocent- and that claim was challenged by non supporters.
It was the PJ who said they failed to prove their innocence.
Trust me...youve got it back to front....you are making so many errors of fact in your posts its impossible to know where to start. If the courts cant prove innocence how were the mccanns supposed to prove theirs...it was a stupid idea...and the archiving report never said taht...neither did the PJ
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 12, 2020, 08:34:16 PM
Trust me...youve got it back to front....you are making so many errors of fact in your posts its impossible to know where to start. If the courts cant prove innocence how were the mccanns supposed to prove theirs...it was a stupid idea...and the archiving report never said taht...neither did the PJ
Seriously... I mean WHAT!
You are typing because you have nothing else to do with your life. nothing wrong with that at all.
Have a nice rest later...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2020, 08:38:55 PM
You are typing because you have nothing else to do with your life. nothing wrong with that at all.
Have a nice rest later...
Oh dear...you know nothing about me and my life.....but like everything selse you know nothing about...you think you are an expert on it. The forum is descending into a shadow of its former self...and I actually have much better things to do than post here
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 12, 2020, 08:59:52 PM
Oh dear...you know nothing about me and my life.....but like everything selse you know nothing about...you think you are an expert on it. The forum is descending into a shadow of its former self...and I actually have much better things to do than post here
em..ok Mr Too busy to respond to every post in every McCANN thread. Ta ta catch ya later.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2020, 09:04:52 PM
em..ok Mr Too busy to respond to every post in every McCANN thread. Ta ta catch ya later.
I dont think you will....I think the standard of your posts are so appallingly poor Ill probably just ignore them in future
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 04, 2021, 03:08:17 PM
A really good Vidio IMO it looks at both sides of what happened - as in are the mccs involved in what happened to Maddie or just a lot of strange/cold behaviour
Amazed at the things mentioned that have been brought up over the years as being very very odd.
A really good Vidio IMO it looks at both sides of what happened - as in are the mccs involved in what happened to Maddie or just a lot of strange/cold behaviour
Amazed at the things mentioned that have been brought up over the years as being very very odd.
Haven't seen it all yet as on longer than I expected so don't know their conclusion of what they think happened..
IMO there is a lot more reason to think the mccs are more involve ...than CB
You'd need a medal to sit through 98 minutes of those two fellas chatting to each other. Good luck! (PS: SPOILER ALERT they conclude the parents dunnit ob).
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2021, 03:30:51 PM
Let's be careful to avoid Libel, if you please. John doesn't like it and I don't like having to Delete comments. So this is not a request. It is a warning.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 04, 2021, 03:33:34 PM
Let's be careful to avoid Libel, if you please. John doesn't like it and I don't like having to Delete comments. So this is not a request. It is a warning.
Good to know it's still not permitted to libel individuals on this forum - I was beginning to wonder recently....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 04, 2021, 04:54:13 PM
You'd need a medal to sit through 98 minutes of those two fellas chatting to each other. Good luck! (PS: SPOILER ALERT they conclude the parents dunnit ob).
don't know the concluding part yet only listened to 45 mins,
They seem pretty open-minded to me so far
Behaviour, after all, is circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 04, 2021, 05:00:34 PM
Seeing now how CB could in fact be a scapegoat, although now because of the continued media saying he is guilty. Some could now believe he is... on just hearsay and a phone ping. Nothing to prove he was at 5a.
Nothing to prove he was the alleged abductor.
IMO a lot of things with the mccs don't add up more so the abduction - that there is still no proof of it happening.
At his office near the reconstructed medieval town centre, Mr Wolters said: "We have found nothing in the past three months to make us think we've got the wrong suspect, but the evidence we have now is the same we had when we made our first appeal on 3 June.
Mr Wolters said: "There is no forensic evidence, but it is not necessary to have forensics to charge our suspect. We just need more evidence, but I can't say what it is we are looking for though there are different possibilities. Maybe a witness, a photo or a video."
For me the most interesting aspect of this subject is that those who campaigned vigorously for the parent’s innocence, even when the PJ were claiming that they had evidence of their guilt, are the very same individuals who believe Wolter now when he claims that he has evidence of Brueckner’s guilt.
It’s a funny old world.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 04, 2021, 05:05:53 PM
For me the most interesting aspect of this subject is that those who campaigned vigorously for the parent’s innocence, even when the PJ were claiming that they had evidence of their guilt, are the very same individuals who believe Wolter now when he claims that he has evidence of Brueckner’s guilt.
It’s a funny old world.
it is a funny old world indeed. When tne McCanns were made arguidos I assumed at the time that the PJ had some concrete evidence against them. Turned out they didn’t . when HCW says he has concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead and that CB is involved I take it at face value and will accept what he says until or unless it it is shown to be false. I don’t see what is wrong with this approach do you?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 04, 2021, 05:15:27 PM
it is a funny old world indeed. When tne McCanns were made arguidos I assumed at the time that the PJ had some concrete evidence against them. Turned out they didn’t . when HCW says he has concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead and that CB is involved I take it at face value and will accept what he says until or unless it it is shown to be false. I don’t see what is wrong with this approach do you?
Then that being the case I’m not talking about you.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 04, 2021, 05:24:51 PM
Then that being the case I’m not talking about you.
Who are you talking about then? I don’t think you know, you’re just making assumptions in order to pooh-pooh those of us who think Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 04, 2021, 06:09:21 PM
it is a funny old world indeed. When tne McCanns were made arguidos I assumed at the time that the PJ had some concrete evidence against them. Turned out they didn’t . when HCW says he has concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead and that CB is involved I take it at face value and will accept what he says until or unless it it is shown to be false. I don’t see what is wrong with this approach do you?
I assumed at the time that the PJ had some concrete evidence against them. [/b] Turned out they didn’t .
Just shows then IMO your not sure if they are involved or not.
Whereas when I heard that Wolt had concrete evidence against CB - I knew he hadn't ...and still hasn't 8 months on.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 04, 2021, 06:20:14 PM
The message said, Libel, Potential Libel and Inappropriate Comments.
I am not talking about anything. John is. You and me have to use our common sense and apply it to Everyone and not just the ill fated.
Well, I'd like to know what potential libel is too. We'd been moderating those threads and we let those post go through, and then John comes along and says he wiped a lot of them out. I'd like to know how we can improve our judgement on these matters.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on February 05, 2021, 06:08:03 AM
Well, I'd like to know what potential libel is too. We'd been moderating those threads and we let those post go through, and then John comes along and says he wiped a lot of them out. I'd like to know how we can improve our judgement on these matters.
At a guess I can quote a supreme court ruling in that the McCanns haven't been ruled innocent, but if I were to suggest the same without reference then that would be libel? yeah? Also I can quote Wolters because he is on record of saying his suspect killed Madeleine, but if I were to say the same once again without reference then that would also be libel, it's all about context, but the problem imo is the zealous mod will hide behind John's crack down if a post or posts appear which although perfectly legit would disappear because they didn't like it content.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: The General on February 05, 2021, 07:27:20 AM
Well, I'd like to know what potential libel is too. We'd been moderating those threads and we let those post go through, and then John comes along and says he wiped a lot of them out. I'd like to know how we can improve our judgement on these matters.
Easy, stop talking about anything, because 'potential libel' could be just about anything.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 07:36:12 AM
At a guess I can quote a supreme court ruling in that the McCanns haven't been ruled innocent, but if I were to suggest the same without reference then that would be libel? yeah? Also I can quote Wolters because he is on record of saying his suspect killed Madeleine, but if I were to say the same once again without reference then that would also be libel, it's all about context, but the problem imo is the zealous mod will hide behind John's crack down if a post or posts appear which although perfectly legit would disappear because they didn't like it content.
The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 09:57:07 AM
The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.
Who was libelled?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2021, 10:00:26 AM
If someone calims the SC stated the McCanns were not innocent...that is not true and therefore potentially libellous against the McCanns. Can you not see that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:09:13 AM
If someone claims the SC stated the McCanns were not innocent...that is not true and therefore potentially libellous against the McCanns. Can you not see that.
To me the lie is that the SC either said the McCanns are innocent or they didn't say that. It has no bearing IMO on the status of the McCanns. To me it is the SC that could sue for libel.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2021, 10:14:09 AM
To me the lie is that the SC either said the McCanns are innocent or they didn't say that. It has no bearing IMO on the status of the McCanns. To me it is the SC that could sue for libel.
You are wrong imo but I can't be bothered to discuss it.. The SC as I understand.. Cannot be libelled
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:18:40 AM
To me the lie is that the SC either said the McCanns are innocent or they didn't say that. It has no bearing IMO on the status of the McCanns. To me it is the SC that could sue for libel.
You are wrong, Rob. It is quite simple.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:39:11 AM
That could be true but it didn't really answer my question.
What is libel to me is not the same libel to you.
It wasn't "Could be True." It happened. But each case has to be looked at individually. Judge Tugendhat did just that. Perhaps you should look at The Trial Transcript.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:56:47 AM
It wasn't "Could be True." It happened. But each case has to be looked at individually. Judge Tugendhat did just that. Perhaps you should look at The Trial Transcript.
Bennet's trial transcript?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 05, 2021, 11:06:51 AM
If you don't understand the basics you shouldn't be moderating it
What is there to not understand about this.
Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann have strenuously denied any wrongdoing despite extraordinary and unverified claims from former police chief that Maddie died in their flat and that they faked her abduction to cover it up. Hospital worker dead after stabbing at hospital moments before daughter killed But Portuguese Supreme Court judges who ruled last week against their last-ditch appeal over Amaral’s 2008 book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ said the lifting of their status as ‘arguidos’ or formal suspects and the archiving of the criminal case into Maddie’s disappearance did not mean they were innocent.
Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann have strenuously denied any wrongdoing despite extraordinary and unverified claims from former police chief that Maddie died in their flat and that they faked her abduction to cover it up. Hospital worker dead after stabbing at hospital moments before daughter killed But Portuguese Supreme Court judges who ruled last week against their last-ditch appeal over Amaral’s 2008 book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ said the lifting of their status as ‘arguidos’ or formal suspects and the archiving of the criminal case into Maddie’s disappearance did not mean they were innocent.
Whats to understand is that is a newspaper report and its wrong.. If you read the court judgement available on this forum it certainly doesn't say that. That's the problem with people who don't understand the true facts
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 05, 2021, 11:53:11 AM
It wasn't "Could be True." It happened. But each case has to be looked at individually. Judge Tugendhat did just that. Perhaps you should look at The Trial Transcript.
Which trial transcript? As I understand it Bennett agreed to some restrictions on his behaviour in 2009 after being accused using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was later convicted of Contempt of Court for breaching those undertakings. Was he ever sued for or convicted of libel?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 05, 2021, 11:59:30 AM
Which trial transcript? As I understand it Bennett agreed to some restrictions on his behaviour in 2009 after being accused using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was later convicted of Contempt of Court for breaching those undertakings. Was he ever sued for or convicted of libel?
Bennett breached those undertakings by continuing with innuendo and insinuation, as Judge Tugendhat Ruled.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2021, 12:04:09 PM
Bennett caved in when threatened with libel and gave an undertaking to the court not to repeat the claims. He did.. So was charged with contempt by the court
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 05, 2021, 12:21:31 PM
Bennett caved in when threatened with libel and gave an undertaking to the court not to repeat the claims. He did.. So was charged with contempt by the court
He did indeed...silly only goat.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 05, 2021, 12:43:28 PM
Whats to understand is that is a newspaper report and its wrong.. If you read the court judgement available on this forum it certainly doesn't say that. That's the problem with people who don't understand the true facts
Several newspapers all printed the same thing ...so are you saying they libelled the mccs.
If that was the case, why didn't the mcs do anything about it?
Also, the ban on the book was overturned, so is the book libelling the mcs also.
The facts that are documented in the investigation.
he means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;
2. A kidnapping simulation occurred;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in hiding the corpse of their daughter;
4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident.
5.There is evidence of negligence in the guard and safety of the children (n° 24)."
The interview given by Gonçalo Amaral to the newspaper CdM 2 and published in the edition of July 24, 2008 is a way to advertise the book and therefore the thesis developed in it. Here the defendant reaffirms that thesis in so many answers as questions put to him : 1° the girl died in the apartment 2° the testimonies of Jane Tanner and Kate McCann are not credible 3° there are clues of crime simulation 4° there was concealment of the body (n°
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2021, 12:51:03 PM
Several newspapers all printed the same thing ...so are you saying they libelled the mccs.
If that was the case, why didn't the mcs do anything about it?
Also, the ban on the book was overturned, so is the book libelling the mcs also.
The facts that are documented in the investigation.
he means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;
2. A kidnapping simulation occurred;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in hiding the corpse of their daughter;
4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident.
5.There is evidence of negligence in the guard and safety of the children (n° 24)."
The interview given by Gonçalo Amaral to the newspaper CdM 2 and published in the edition of July 24, 2008 is a way to advertise the book and therefore the thesis developed in it. Here the defendant reaffirms that thesis in so many answers as questions put to him : 1° the girl died in the apartment 2° the testimonies of Jane Tanner and Kate McCann are not credible 3° there are clues of crime simulation 4° there was concealment of the body (n°
I'm stating as a fact.. 100%.. The SC did not state that the McCanns had not been proven innocent. That's a fact not opinion. If you think they did you are wrong and need ro read what the SC actually said. If you actually read the article you quoted you would see it does give the precise quote later in the article. Just accept that you and others who misquote the SC are wrong
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 05, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
Bennett breached those undertakings by continuing with innuendo and insinuation, as Judge Tugendhat Ruled.
As I'm unable to see any cites supporting your statements I can only repeat; no judgement was given as to whether Bennett libelled the McCanns, because no trial of Bennett for libel took place.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 05, 2021, 01:16:38 PM
I'm stating as a fact.. 100%.. The SC did not state that the McCanns had not been proven innocent. That's a fact not opinion. If you think they did you are wrong and need ro read what the SC actually said. If you actually read the article you quoted you would see it does give the precise quote later in the article. Just accept that you and others who misquote the SC are wrong
OK whatever D
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter’s disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their ruling. But they added: ‘It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. ‘In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime. ‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
Seems the same will happen with CB - would that also convince you he is innocent of any involvement in abducting Maddie.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 05, 2021, 01:23:58 PM
As I'm unable to see any cites supporting your statements I can only repeat; no judgement was given as to whether Bennett libelled the McCanns, because no trial of Bennett for libel took place.
So you don't believe that Tony Bennett was threatened with a Charge of Libel and backed down and then continued to by innuendo and insinuation after giving an undertaking not to do so?
Heaven knows what he must have been doing In Court.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 05, 2021, 02:39:22 PM
So you don't believe that Tony Bennett was threatened with a Charge of Libel and backed down and then continued to by innuendo and insinuation after giving an undertaking not to do so?
Heaven knows what he must have been doing In Court.
So he was never tried for libel/defamation? I thought not.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 05, 2021, 03:01:39 PM
The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.
Why weren't the tabloids sued for this then.
Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent, judge says
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 05, 2021, 03:49:05 PM
The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
A really good Vidio IMO it looks at both sides of what happened - as in are the mccs involved in what happened to Maddie or just a lot of strange/cold behaviour
Amazed at the things mentioned that have been brought up over the years as being very very odd.
Haven't seen it all yet as on longer than I expected so don't know their conclusion of what they think happened..
I finally got round to watching this. No firm conclusion was reached, and I think that's the only conclusion possible because I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure what happened. One of them explained really well why people feel uneasy about the parents.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 09:20:55 AM
I finally got round to watching this. No firm conclusion was reached, and I think that's the only conclusion possible because I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure what happened. One of them explained really well why people feel uneasy about the parents.
Not all people.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
I finally got round to watching this. No firm conclusion was reached, and I think that's the only conclusion possible because I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure what happened. One of them explained really well why people feel uneasy about the parents.
It’s interesting that after 14 years and a sustained campaign to convince the public of the parent’s innocence people still feel that way.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2021, 11:42:13 AM
So no point in watching it then. Thank God for that.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
Simply repeating something ad infinitum clearly doesn't work.
It works in reverse too you know. Simply releasing sweary 90 minute podcasts which conclude that there’s something fishy about the McCanns or posting interminably about your “doubts” online isn’t going to result in changing the minds of those charged with investigating the case, nor of all the people who have concluded that Madeleine was most likely abducted.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2021, 12:50:17 PM
It works in reverse too you know. Simply releasing sweary 90 minute podcasts which conclude that there’s something fishy about the McCanns or posting interminably about your “doubts” online isn’t going to result in changing the minds of those charged with investigating the case, nor of all the people who have concluded that Madeleine was most likely abducted.
I don't think the podcast was trying to convince anyone of anything, they were just offering their opinions.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 01:15:27 PM
I don't think the podcast was trying to convince anyone of anything, they were just offering their opinions.
Who do you think is trying to convince anyone of anything by “simply repeating things ad finitum” out of interest? Please supply cites for your reasoning.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 06, 2021, 01:17:24 PM
I haven't watched much of it tbh, just the start and the last 10 minutes. Did they seriously consider the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger at any point? Did they discuss any of the other suspects in this case?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 06, 2021, 01:30:05 PM
I haven't watched much of it tbh, just the start and the last 10 minutes. Did they seriously consider the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger at any point? Did they discuss any of the other suspects in this case?
You should have watched the middle.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 01:34:42 PM
Give me the gist. I found it deadly dull and hard to take seriously, particularly the muscle man with the tatts and the effin and jeffin. Why should his opinion be worth the time and effort to listen to?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2021, 02:42:59 PM
At least they gave reasons even if you think their reasons aren't good enough. What has fascinated me is those who simply decided to support the McCanns and offered no reasons whatsoever.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 06, 2021, 02:44:39 PM
Give me the gist. I found it deadly dull and hard to take seriously, particularly the muscle man with the tatts and the effin and jeffin. Why should his opinion be worth the time and effort to listen to?
You should have done what I did - listened to it in bed after my Horlicks.
They discussed various things very fairly IMO tried making sense of there cold odd behaviour.
They did call GA book tacky and felt sympathy for kate.
Apparently they had a large number of requests to do it - so a lot of interest in their opinion they have thousands of followers.
So doubt they will be all that interested in your opinion of them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 02:45:34 PM
At least they gave reasons even if you think their reasons aren't good enough. What has fascinated me is those who simply decided to support the McCanns and offered no reasons whatsoever.
What fascinates me is why you would think anyone owes you an explanation. No response to my last question either. I think you're just throwing out unfounded and slightly goady comments for the want of anything better to do this wet Saturday afternoon
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2021, 02:46:17 PM
At least they gave reasons even if you think their reasons aren't good enough. What has fascinated me is those who simply decided to support the McCanns and offered no reasons whatsoever.
How do you explain Logic to people who have no conception of this?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 02:49:16 PM
You should have done what I did - listened to it in bed after my Horlicks.
They discussed various things very fairly IMO tried making sense of there cold odd behaviour.
They did call GA book tacky and felt sympathy for kate.
Apparently they had a large number of requests to do it - so a lot of interest in their opinion they have thousands of followers.
So doubt they will be all that interested in your opinion of them.
I have no doubt they have a large follwing. So do Q Anon. I would rather not watch those fellas just before bedtime, it might give me nightmares. They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it. Well done them.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2021, 03:03:46 PM
I have no doubt they have a large follwing. So do Q Anon. I would rather not watch those fellas just before bedtime, it might give me nightmares. They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it. Well done them.
They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it.
Well, you watched it lol - and impressed enough to want to know the rest and take the time to comment.
After all you could have just ignored it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2021, 03:12:16 PM
They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it.
Well, you watched it lol - and impressed enough to want to know the rest and take the time to comment.
After all you could have just ignored it.
I watched about one tenth of it, I wasn’t impressed, Showing an interest in a topic under discussion doesn’t mean I’m impressed by it too, if it did we’d have to assume you were extremely impressed by the McCanns lol.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
I don't know; not that I've seen any attempts being made.
Another ridiculous and unevidenced observation IMO. Tell us a logical, plausible account of parental involvement, guaranteed you won’t be able to. IMFriggingO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 06, 2021, 03:43:57 PM
I watched about one tenth of it, I wasn’t impressed, Showing an interest in a topic under discussion doesn’t mean I’m impressed by it too, if it did we’d have to assume you were extremely impressed by the McCanns lol.
No not impressed at all
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 06, 2021, 07:06:25 PM
I opt for the evidence and most certainly would never allow myself to be deceived by belief in a botched unfinished investigation.
Makes me wonder a bit about those who prove inability to think for themselves and place their reliance on the perpetration and perpetrators of error and falsehood.
WOW!!! yet another link to an instruction video to enable opinion to be further cemented firmly in the past from which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2021, 07:12:45 PM
I have no doubt they have a large follwing. So do Q Anon. I would rather not watch those fellas just before bedtime, it might give me nightmares. They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it. Well done them.
I don't know what you mean by 'they are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience'? Perhaps you could explain why you formed that opinion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 07:14:18 PM
I opt for the evidence and most certainly would never allow myself to be deceived by belief in a botched unfinished investigation.
Makes me wonder a bit about those who prove inability to think for themselves and place their reliance on the perpetration and perpetrators of error and falsehood.
WOW!!! yet another link to an instruction video to enable opinion to be further cemented firmly in the past from which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.
Are your comments related to the podcast? There was no 'belief in a botched unfinished investigation' being demonstrated in it imo.
What was demonstrated was how difficult it has always been for some people to understand and accept the parent's stories and behaviours.
There's been a huge effort to move things on in my opinion. Hoards of people have assured us that in their opinions the parents are innocent and the child was abducted. Operation Grange was set up nine years ago to investigate an abduction.
What no-one has ever done, however, is offer any evidence at all which proves there was an abduction and/or that the parents couldn't be involved. Unless and until that happens those uncertainties will remain, even after all the years which have gone by imo.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2021, 07:45:21 PM
Are your comments related to the podcast? There was no 'belief in a botched unfinished investigation' being demonstrated in it imo.
What was demonstrated was how difficult it has always been for some people to understand and accept the parent's stories and behaviours.
There's been a huge effort to move things on in my opinion. Hoards of people have assured us that in their opinions the parents are innocent and the child was abducted. Operation Grange was set up nine years ago to investigate an abduction.
What no-one has ever done, however, is offer any evidence at all which proves there was an abduction and/or that the parents couldn't be involved. Unless and until that happens those uncertainties will remain, even after all the years which have gone by imo.
How very sad.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2021, 07:46:42 PM
As you regularly refuse to answer any of my questions I am under no obligation to answer any of yours.
Fair enough, I'll form my own opinion then; which is that you are denigrating something you made no attempt to watch simply because you think you don't agree with the points you think it raises.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on February 06, 2021, 07:57:23 PM
Are your comments related to the podcast? There was no 'belief in a botched unfinished investigation' being demonstrated in it imo.
What was demonstrated was how difficult it has always been for some people to understand and accept the parent's stories and behaviours.
There's been a huge effort to move things on in my opinion. Hoards of people have assured us that in their opinions the parents are innocent and the child was abducted. Operation Grange was set up nine years ago to investigate an abduction.
What no-one has ever done, however, is offer any evidence at all which proves there was an abduction and/or that the parents couldn't be involved. Unless and until that happens those uncertainties will remain, even after all the years which have gone by imo.
Why would anyone willingly allow their intelligence to be insulted and corrupted by subscribing to videos and podcasts produced to permeate one opinionated aspect of a complex situation as the producer dictates and continue to think they have thought it all through for themselves?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 06, 2021, 08:20:30 PM
Why would anyone willingly allow their intelligence to be insulted and corrupted by subscribing to videos and podcasts produced to permeate one opinionated aspect of a complex situation as the producer dictates and continue to think they have thought it all through for themselves?
Many videos have been made, including 'Madeleine was Here', which, as Michael Wright said, had a specific purpose; it "wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book." In my opinion therefore that documentary was made to present a particular theory about the case as opposed to the contents of TTOTL.
The video we're discussing reached no firm conclusions and promoted no theories. It was just a good example of how difficult some people find it to put aside the questions they are left with after watching and listening to the parents.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 09:40:24 PM
Fair enough, I'll form my own opinion then; which is that you are denigrating something you made no attempt to watch simply because you think you don't agree with the points you think it raises.
think what you like, it matters not a jot.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 09:42:54 PM
Many videos have been made, including 'Madeleine was Here', which, as Michael Wright said, had a specific purpose; it "wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book." In my opinion therefore that documentary was made to present a particular theory about the case as opposed to the contents of TTOTL.
The video we're discussing reached no firm conclusions and promoted no theories. It was just a good example of how difficult some people find it to put aside the questions they are left with after watching and listening to the parents.
Whst eas the point of the video then? Just 90 minutes of two people bitching about how they find the McCanns odd? How very valuable I’m sure.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 06, 2021, 09:44:54 PM
Many videos have been made, including 'Madeleine was Here', which, as Michael Wright said, had a specific purpose; it "wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book." In my opinion therefore that documentary was made to present a particular theory about the case as opposed to the contents of TTOTL.
The video we're discussing reached no firm conclusions and promoted no theories. It was just a good example of how difficult some people find it to put aside the questions they are left with after watching and listening to the parents.
Cite please.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2021, 10:38:23 PM
Whst eas the point of the video then? Just 90 minutes of two people bitching about how they find the McCanns odd? How very valuable I’m sure.
According to the presenters they were asked to review the Netflix documentary about the case and to try and decide what they think happened. They couldn't decide what happened, and they clearly couldn't dismiss the possibility that there was parental involvement.
I didn't see any 'bitching', what I saw was people attempting to understand the parent's attitudes and behaviours and finding it impossible. It interested me because I have faced exactly the same difficulties. Like the presenters I can't decide what happened, I can't say who is guilty, but I can say that I found the parents 'odd', as you put it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 06, 2021, 11:09:19 PM
Please have the courtesy to indicate precisely where I can read a cite for your post ... "which, as Michael Wright said, had a specific purpose; it "wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book." In my opinion therefore that documentary was made to present a particular theory about the case as opposed to the contents of TTOTL.
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 06, 2021, 11:21:04 PM
According to the presenters they were asked to review the Netflix documentary about the case and to try and decide what they think happened. They couldn't decide what happened, and they clearly couldn't dismiss the possibility that there was parental involvement.
I didn't see any 'bitching', what I saw was people attempting to understand the parent's attitudes and behaviours and finding it impossible. It interested me because I have faced exactly the same difficulties. Like the presenters I can't decide what happened, I can't say who is guilty, but I can say that I found the parents 'odd', as you put it.
Asked by whom? These men’s specialist subjects would appear to be football, boxing and gambling. Why would anyone want to know their views on the McCann case? Does anyone really care what they think? Do you think their opinion is more valid than, say, Hans Christian Wolters or Caitlin Moran’s or Andy Redwood’s or Lorraine Kelly’s or Summers and Swann or mine etc?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 06, 2021, 11:30:15 PM
According to the presenters they were asked to review the Netflix documentary about the case and to try and decide what they think happened. They couldn't decide what happened, and they clearly couldn't dismiss the possibility that there was parental involvement.
I didn't see any 'bitching', what I saw was people attempting to understand the parent's attitudes and behaviours and finding it impossible. It interested me because I have faced exactly the same difficulties. Like the presenters I can't decide what happened, I can't say who is guilty, but I can say that I found the parents 'odd', as you put it.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 06, 2021, 11:33:20 PM
Asked by whom? These men’s specialist subjects would appear to be football, boxing and gambling. Why would anyone want to know their views on the McCann case? Does anyone really care what they think? Do you think their opinion is more valid than, say, Hans Christian Wolters or Caitlin Moran’s or Andy Redwood’s or Lorraine Kelly’s or Summers and Swann or mine etc?
You omitted to list my own opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 12:48:31 AM
Asked by whom? These men’s specialist subjects would appear to be football, boxing and gambling. Why would anyone want to know their views on the McCann case? Does anyone really care what they think? Do you think their opinion is more valid than, say, Hans Christian Wolters or Caitlin Moran’s or Andy Redwood’s or Lorraine Kelly’s or Summers and Swann or mine etc?
Validity is subjective, not objective, just as opinions are imo. We choose which we value.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 07, 2021, 01:56:34 AM
Validity is subjective, not objective, just as opinions are imo. We choose which we value.
Why would you consider these men’s opinions more valid than someone who has investigated the case in s professional capacity for years? Would it be because their opinions chime somewhat with yours? IMO these men are playing to the gallery and giving people like you exactly what they want to hear, and in so doing are getting rich off the clicks.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on February 07, 2021, 08:56:02 AM
Incredible to think that countless clueless noobs in the comments section are happily venting their spleen on the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 09:12:15 AM
Please have the courtesy to indicate precisely where I can read a cite for your post ... "which, as Michael Wright said, had a specific purpose; it "wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book." In my opinion therefore that documentary was made to present a particular theory about the case as opposed to the contents of TTOTL.
Validity is subjective, not objective, just as opinions are imo. We choose which we value.
I simply cannot ignore such a patently incorrect and misguidede post.
Validity is predominately objective because its based on evidence not opinion.
These two podcasters present their opinions but to assess validity we should look at what evidence they base their opinions on. Ive watched a few snippets and noted these points they use as evidence for their opinions.
The children may have been sedated with calpol....calpol is not a sedative so...Garbage
Whilst others searched kate refused to answer questions...Garbage
The smell of a rotting corpse was detected in the hire car....Garbage.
theres a phrase GIGO...garbage in...garbage out
Their opinions are therefore garbage. that is not asubjective opinion...its an objective opinion based on evidence
I have to qualify my post with ...all my opinion...I actually think its fact.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 10:11:53 AM
“Everyones been asking us to do a documentary review”. LOL. Who’s everyone? I don’t remember asking them to do one.
I just wonder if Costa Coffee are happy to have their product placement in such a crap video or if they actually paid for the privilege and if so how much.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 10:26:56 AM
I hope validity is more objective as compared to someone's personal opinion.
Validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound. You now need to explain how one person's opinion about the McCanns is more logically or factually sound than another person's.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2021, 10:32:06 AM
Validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound. You now need to explain how one person's opinion about the McCanns is more logically or factually sound than another person's.
I've explained it. It's factually sound when it's based on facts and hard evidence... It really is that simple..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 07, 2021, 10:37:07 AM
Thank you ~ that is a bit of an improvement; now do you see why your original link was inadequate to illustrate the cherry picking indulged in your original post now that we are privy to sufficient information to make an informed judgement without prejudice and in context of the whole.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 10:44:22 AM
I've explained it. It's factually sound when it's based on facts and hard evidence... It really is that simple..
So you think different opinions can't be formed about the same facts and hard evidence? What about when a judicial opinion is overturned by a higher court?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 07, 2021, 10:55:48 AM
I've explained it. It's factually sound when it's based on facts and hard evidence... It really is that simple..
Thankyou for taking the time and trouble to wade through what I consider to be misinformed garbage. I think you have shone a light yet again on clarifying the misconceptions which form the basis of this rather bizarre cult with a belief system (my opinion) which you have rightly summarised as "GIGO...garbage in...garbage out".
At this time and in this place I think there is little to be said other than GIGO for assertions of the non existent sedative properties of CALPOL. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 10:56:46 AM
So you think different opinions can't be formed about the same facts and hard evidence? What about when a judicial opinion is overturned by a higher court?
Opinions are subjective, they are either valid or invalid based on the facts and hard evidence. The earth is flat is an opinion, based on the evidence and hard facts it is an invalid opinion. Calpol us a sedative is an opinion, based on the facts it is an invalid one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 07, 2021, 10:58:52 AM
So you think different opinions can't be formed about the same facts and hard evidence? What about when a judicial opinion is overturned by a higher court?
I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is ... what do you think?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 10:59:58 AM
Validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound. You now need to explain how one person's opinion about the McCanns is more logically or factually sound than another person's.
Who says I do? I know some are "more logically or factually sound than another person". Well, at least that's true IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 11:16:19 AM
I opt for the evidence and most certainly would never allow myself to be deceived by belief in a botched unfinished investigation.
Makes me wonder a bit about those who prove inability to think for themselves and place their reliance on the perpetration and perpetrators of error and falsehood.
WOW!!! yet another link to an instruction video to enable opinion to be further cemented firmly in the past from which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.
which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.
How has the world moved on - have you proof of that or is it just your opinion.
To the world, you are but one B.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 11:19:54 AM
I simply cannot ignore such a patently incorrect and misguidede post.
Validity is predominately objective because its based on evidence not opinion.
These two podcasters present their opinions but to assess validity we should look at what evidence they base their opinions on. Ive watched a few snippets and noted these points they use as evidence for their opinions.
The children may have been sedated with calpol....calpol is not a sedative so...Garbage
Whilst others searched kate refused to answer questions...Garbage
The smell of a rotting corpse was detected in the hire car....Garbage.
theres a phrase GIGO...garbage in...garbage out
Their opinions are therefore garbage. that is not asubjective opinion...its an objective opinion based on evidence
I have to qualify my post with ...all my opinion...I actually think its fact.
Why watch it ...what difference does it make to anything apart from it just not fitting in with your agenda.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 07, 2021, 11:27:05 AM
A particularly ill informed discussion is what I thought.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 11:37:13 AM
Why watch it ...what difference does it make to anything apart from it just not fitting in with your agenda.
Why watch it? You recommended it, that’s why. Thanks for that. Somehow I doubt you would have drawn our attention to it if they concluded at the end that Madeleine was most likely abducted, and only did so because it suited YOUR agenda.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2021, 11:52:37 AM
Why watch it ...what difference does it make to anything apart from it just not fitting in with your agenda.
I watched some of it because I'm open minded and open to have my opinion changed if new evidence comes to light. I've watched some David Icke stuff.. Not because I believe him but I can't dismiss him from a position of ignorance. Thats the sign of someone who is truly open minded and forms a valid opinion based on evidence. How much of Wolters have you listened to?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 12:02:00 PM
Why watch it? You recommended it, that’s why. Thanks for that. Somehow I doubt you would have drawn our attention to it if they concluded at the end that Madeleine was most likely abducted, and only did so because it suited YOUR agenda.
Was I talking to you - but there again I talk to anyone I'm nice like that VS
It didn't suit my agenda as such but the conclusion was they did not know what happened that night.
Same as you and me really
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 12:02:25 PM
Why watch it? You recommended it, that’s why. Thanks for that. Somehow I doubt you would have drawn our attention to it if they concluded at the end that Madeleine was most likely abducted, and only did so because it suited YOUR agenda.
Right-back atya
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 12:03:38 PM
I watched some of it because I'm open minded and open to have my opinion changed if new evidence comes to light. I've watched some David Icke stuff.. Not because I believe him but I can't dismiss him from a position of ignorance. Thats the sign of someone who is truly open minded and forms a valid opinion based on evidence. How much of Wolters have you listened to?
Well, what little there was - all of it.
Thus I would think I know as much as you - after 8 months of nothing new.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2021, 12:10:50 PM
Was I talking to you - but there again I talk to anyone I'm nice like that VS
It didn't suit my agenda as such but the conclusion was they did not know what happened that night.
Same as you and me really
You must have been watching a different video to the one I watched. The one I watched concluded with them saying that it was a bit like the OJ Simpson case, you knew they did it but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. That if you were on the jury you'd have to return a "not guilty" verdict and then be kicking yourself forever afterwards because you just knew they did it. Perhaps you fell asleep before that bit, I wouldn't have blamed you....
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 07, 2021, 12:19:52 PM
I watched some of it because I'm open minded and open to have my opinion changed if new evidence comes to light. I've watched some David Icke stuff.. Not because I believe him but I can't dismiss him from a position of ignorance. Thats the sign of someone who is truly open minded and forms a valid opinion based on evidence. How much of Wolters have you listened to?
Absolutely. And my goodness me, the rubbish I have watched over the years.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 12:27:01 PM
Why would anyone willingly allow their intelligence to be insulted and corrupted by subscribing to videos and podcasts produced to permeate one opinionated aspect of a complex situation as the producer dictates and continue to think they have thought it all through for themselves?
Why would anyone willingly allow their intelligence to be insulted and corrupted by subscribing
Well, I would think anyone who doesn't believe the mccs version of events.
as for subscription, you will have noticed they cover a vast amount of subjects, not just the mccs, they did that it seems because of public demand.
I wouldn't call it to insult intelligence ...more that they can think for themselves and not be brainwashed with every so called suspect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 12:30:16 PM
I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is ... what do you think?
They mentioned Calpol because there was a theory at the time that the children had been given an overdose of it, and this was mentioned in the Netfix documentary. They didn't say they believed it was a sedative imo. Listen from 19:19.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
You must have been watching a different video to the one I watched. The one I watched concluded with them saying that it was a bit like the OJ Simpson case, you knew they did it but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. That if you were on the jury you'd have to return a "not guilty" verdict and then be kicking yourself forever afterwards because you just knew they did it. Perhaps you fell asleep before that bit, I wouldn't have blamed you....
Lol NO. but well-done word for word.
I think basically it was more they didn't commit themselves, because you can only go so far as to the conclusion you yourself come to.
They couldn't go straight in accusing them and they didn't they tried to put a reasonable excuse for there behaviour.
It wasn't there fault - if they failed miserably at trying to defend them IMO
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 01:01:22 PM
They mentioned Calpol because there was a theory at the time that the children had been given an overdose of it, and this was mentioned in the Netfix documentary. They didn't say they believed it was a sedative imo. Listen from 19:19.
You need to listen agin. they suggest the child maight not be able to scream because she had beeen given calpol...they talk about lots of people giving children calpol to help them sleep. They even say ..as a fact...a syringe was found. there was no syringe found...more Garbage
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 01:04:17 PM
I think basically it was more they didn't commit themselves, because you can only go so far as to the conclusion you yourself come to.
They couldn't go straight in accusing them and they didn't they tried to put a reasonable excuse for there behaviour.
It wasn't there fault - if they failed miserably at trying to defend them IMO
IMO, the outcome of their "investigations" and conclusions was completely predictable and pre-judged. I watched the bit where the butch one said "They've taken her" was a red flag and that any reasonable person would simply assume their child had wandered off. The weedy one said "yeah but what about the "alleged" open window?, surely that would be an indicator that your child had been taken rather than wandered off?", but that explanation was more or less completely brushed off without any reasonable rationale apart from the implication that Kate was lying. Well, what if she WASNT lying and the window WAS found open? Then that would explain why she said what she said (even though her exact words were not recorded anyway). The whole podcast is an exercise in bias confirmation IMO, pandering to a McCann Bashing crowd who lap up this sort of propaganda as it confirms their own biases.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 01:06:18 PM
I enjoyed the bit where the weedy one said how much he liked the fat cop with the glasses even though agreeing with the butch one that he was crap at his job. He described him as "likeable" - I mean, what?!
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
They did talk about the dead dog she was stitched into and the volcano that the body was tossed into. I think...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 01:11:39 PM
You must have been watching a different video to the one I watched. The one I watched concluded with them saying that it was a bit like the OJ Simpson case, you knew they did it but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. That if you were on the jury you'd have to return a "not guilty" verdict and then be kicking yourself forever afterwards because you just knew they did it. Perhaps you fell asleep before that bit, I wouldn't have blamed you....
1:29:42 Paraphrasing what was said here, it was "Do you think, based on what we know and the evidence we have, that we can work out what the most likey scenario was?" Answer "No."
The one who said no nevertheless offered his opinion; he leaned towards the McCanns being involved, despite the fact that there was insufficient evidence and enough reasonable doubt to prevent them from being convicted in a court of law. He also pointed out that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the abduction theory.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 07, 2021, 01:17:04 PM
Why are we discussing coupe of nobodies who don't even know what they are talking about?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 01:17:44 PM
1:29:42 Paraphrasing what was said here, it was "Do you think, based on what we know and the evidence we have, that we can work out what the most likey scenario was?" Answer "No."
The one who said no nevertheless offered his opinion; he leaned towards the McCanns being involved, despite the fact that there was insufficient evidence and enough reasonable doubt to prevent them from being convicted in a court of law. He also pointed out that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the abduction theory.
How does that differ from what I said? I think my description was closer to the spirit of what was said, minus the liberal use of the F-word which always adds intellectual weight to any opinion I find.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 01:27:42 PM
How does that differ from what I said? I think my description was closer to the spirit of what was said, minus the liberal use of the F-word which always adds intellectual weight to any opinion I find.
I remember how impressed you were by the intellectual weight of Kate McCanns use of the word. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 01:34:44 PM
IMO, the outcome of their "investigations" and conclusions was completely predictable and pre-judged. I watched the bit where the butch one said "They've taken her" was a red flag and that any reasonable person would simply assume their child had wandered off. The weedy one said "yeah but what about the "alleged" open window?, surely that would be an indicator that your child had been taken rather than wandered off?", but that explanation was more or less completely brushed off without any reasonable rationale apart from the implication that Kate was lying. Well, what if she WASNT lying and the window WAS found open? Then that would explain why she said what she said (even though her exact words were not recorded anyway). The whole podcast is an exercise in bias confirmation IMO, pandering to a McCann Bashing crowd who lap up this sort of propaganda as it confirms their own biases.
who lap up this sort of propaganda as it confirms their own biases.
IMO aren't you doing the same with Wolt.
Why be so nasty as to call them Butch - Weedy they have done nothing to you apart from making a podcast wanted by public demand.
I have always thought that window a key to the whole thing was it left open or wasn't it.
If it wasn't why was it opened there is no real proof it was.
If like some believe Maddie woke and wandered [which is a viable probability] would mean Maddie opened it herself.
The only sense to anyone opening that window IMO was to show someone had been in to back up an abduction theory.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 07, 2021, 01:41:30 PM
They mentioned Calpol because there was a theory at the time that the children had been given an overdose of it, and this was mentioned in the Netfix documentary. They didn't say they believed it was a sedative imo. Listen from 19:19.
There are many who still subscribe to that idiocy ~ just check out any comment section anywhere, anytime ~ the question I asked was what you think of Amaral's "theory" of the time.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 01:44:47 PM
who lap up this sort of propaganda as it confirms their own biases.
IMO aren't you doing the same with Wolt.
Why be so nasty as to call them Butch - Weedy they have done nothing to you apart from making a podcast wanted by public demand.
I have always thought that window a key to the whole thing was it left open or wasn't it.
If it wasn't why was it opened there is no real proof it was.
If like some believe Maddie woke and wandered [which is a viable probability] would mean Maddie opened it herself.
The only sense to anyone opening that window IMO was to show someone had been in to back up an abduction theory.
I don't think HCW is promulgating propaganda, I think he is trying to solve some serious crimes. I am not lapping up anything he says, but I do believe he is sincere in his intentions and I do believe him when he says he has good reasons for coming to the conclusions he has. I will reserve judgement on whether or not he was right to come to those conclusions if and when I find out upon what he is basing those opinions.
I apologise to Butch and Weedy for any offence caused.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: John on February 07, 2021, 01:55:54 PM
I must admit you guys make me laugh out loud sometimes when you turn disagreement into comedy. It certainly brings a much needed bit of humour to discussions and debates which by their very nature tend to be just a tad depressing.
Anyway, please continue to follow the forum rules with a sprinkle of humour added for good taste.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 02:03:38 PM
I know the podcasts of ordinary folk defending the mccs are a bit thin on the ground.
Do you know of any?
It wasn't my podcast - but if it was 50/50 imo 25% roughly or more... are not interestd an sick to the back teeth of the whole mcc thing imo
There aren't many podcasts by people claiming the world isn't run by lizards or that the moon landings weren't faked either, I wouldn't read too much into that though.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 02:34:09 PM
There are many who still subscribe to that idiocy ~ just check out any comment section anywhere, anytime ~ the question I asked was what you think of Amaral's "theory" of the time.
First of all you stated "I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is". As I demonstrated in my reply, nothing the presenters said suggested that they believed any such thing. Why you chose to misrepresent what they said I can't imagine.
As far as I'm concerned my opinion of the theory is irrelevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2021, 02:49:55 PM
First of all you stated "I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is". As I demonstrated in my reply, nothing the presenters said suggested that they believed any such thing. Why you chose to misrepresent what they said I can't imagine.
As far as I'm concerned my opinion of the theory is irrelevant to the discussion.
They actually said parents give children calpol to help them sleep.....they said she may not have been able to cry out because of being given calpol...they said a syringe was found in the apartment....all garbage
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 03:07:49 PM
They actually said parents giv echildren calpol to help them sleep.....they said she amy not have been able to cry out because of being given calpol...they said a syringe wa sfound in the apartment....all garbage
It's amazing that someone who is such a stickler for accuracy should be sticking up for this podcast IMO. I wonder why she's bothering....?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 03:10:03 PM
I don't think HCW is promulgating propaganda, I think he is trying to solve some serious crimes. I am not lapping up anything he says, but I do believe he is sincere in his intentions and I do believe him when he says he has good reasons for coming to the conclusions he has. I will reserve judgement on whether or not he was right to come to those conclusions if and when I find out upon what he is basing those opinions.
I apologise to Butch and Weedy for any offence caused.
Nice of you - but I doubt they have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say.
Unlike your interest in them imo
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 04:09:15 PM
There aren't many podcasts by people claiming the world isn't run by lizards or that the moon landings weren't faked either, I wouldn't read too much into that though.
Well we're not discussing moon landings/lizards are we - its a thread about circumstantial evidence
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 04:10:14 PM
How does that differ from what I said? I think my description was closer to the spirit of what was said, minus the liberal use of the F-word which always adds intellectual weight to any opinion I find.
Does that include gmcc on the bus?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 07, 2021, 04:45:48 PM
First of all you stated "I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is". As I demonstrated in my reply, nothing the presenters said suggested that they believed any such thing. Why you chose to misrepresent what they said I can't imagine.
As far as I'm concerned my opinion of the theory is irrelevant to the discussion.
How does one misrepresent a misrepresentation? In accord with the archiving report, I have always thought Amaral's theories irrelevant ~ must say I find it intriguing you say the same.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 07, 2021, 04:58:54 PM
How does one misrepresent a misrepresentation? In accord with the archiving report, I have always thought Amaral's theories irrelevant ~ must say I find it intriguing you say the same.
I have always thought Amaral's theories irrelevant.
Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter what your opinion is - you weren't there.
GA was and paid to investigate and have theories. That others higher than him also thought.
It seems still to this day his theory that Maddie wasn't abducted still stands.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Brietta on February 07, 2021, 05:09:34 PM
I have always thought Amaral's theories irrelevant.
Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter what your opinion is - you weren't there.
GA was and paid to investigate and have theories. That others higher than him also thought.
It seems still to this day his theory that Maddie wasn't abducted still stands.
If Amaral's case was as good as that can you explain why the Judicial Police and the Portuguese prosecutors of the time discarded it and why present day investigators are pursuing stranger abduction?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 07, 2021, 05:49:02 PM
Well we're not discussing moon landings/lizards are we - its a thread about circumstantial evidence
No, you were pointing out the apparent lack of podcasts supporting the parents didn’t dunnit theory as if this was in some way significant of something.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2021, 09:28:13 PM
How does one misrepresent a misrepresentation? In accord with the archiving report, I have always thought Amaral's theories irrelevant ~ must say I find it intriguing you say the same.
I don't think it's so very complicated. You suggested that the presenters had an opinion which they didn't express.
Amaral's theories? I thought you mentioned "theory" singular, and it was my opinion which I said was irrelevant, not his "theories".
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 07, 2021, 10:12:09 PM
Pathetic. Your cite fails to demonstrate that I was impressed by Kate’s “intellectual weight” using the F- word, what it does demonstrate is my empathetic understanding of why she would be so exasperated by the moronic question she was being asked and what I would have done in similar stressful and distressing circumstances. However, I don’t think swearing your way through a podcast about a serious matter such as a case of a missing child lends the programme or its presenters any credibility, do you?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2021, 07:27:44 AM
Pathetic. Your cite fails to demonstrate that I was impressed by Kate’s “intellectual weight” using the F- word, what it does demonstrate is my empathetic understanding of why she would be so exasperated by the moronic question she was being asked and what I would have done in similar stressful and distressing circumstances. However, I don’t think swearing your way through a podcast about a serious matter such as a case of a missing child lends the programme or its presenters any credibility, do you?
So swearing doesn't detract from the 'intellectual weight' of a person's opinions unless you say so? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 09:51:37 AM
So swearing doesn't detract from the 'intellectual weight' of a person's opinions unless you say so? @)(++(*
so swearing under your breath in a stressful and distressing situation such as being questioned over your daughter's disappearance is on an intellectual par with swearing throughout a 90 minute podcast regarding what happened to that young girl 13 years back? If you say so @)(++(* To equate the two is pathetic whataboutery at its worst - well done.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2021, 10:07:20 AM
Why do you have to have a backup - for writing nonsense? @)(++(*
IMO if you remember something a forum member said and describe what you think you remember them saying on the forum, then that member has a right to challenge it. But apparently not according to Rob, which means I can ascribe any old nonsense to any forum member and not have to back up my claim. Hope that's clear now. Now, I seem to remember you saying you thought the McCanns should be loaded into a cannon and blasted to bits over the Bay Of Biscay.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2021, 12:36:17 PM
IMO if you remember something a forum member said and describe what you think you remember them saying on the forum, then that member has a right to challenge it. But apparently not according to Rob, which means I can ascribe any old nonsense to any forum member and not have to back up my claim. Hope that's clear now. Now, I seem to remember you saying you thought the McCanns should be loaded into a cannon and blasted to bits over the Bay Of Biscay.
I am presuming that this is the "Fun" John said we can have, which sometimes makes him laugh. And God knows we need a laugh now and again.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 01:50:38 PM
yeah well, it was a bit dark admittedly but that's the mood I'm in right now, soz.
I thought it was funny. I mean, who would actually do such a thing? Okay, okay. You can think of a couple and so can I, but they would never get away with it. Would they?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 02:16:25 PM
I thought it was funny. I mean, who would actually do such a thing? Okay, okay. You can think of a couple and so can I, but they would never get away with it. Would they?
I just enjoyed the scansion and the alliteration of it. It was almost poetry IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 08, 2021, 02:23:05 PM
I just enjoyed the scansion and the alliteration of it. It was almost poetry IMO.
I thought the thought of Rob in scanty underwear under his Kilt while herding Sheep was marginally more funny. I mean, who would believe that? And I don't think Rob has got any sheep, apart from a few around here, when it suits them. And does Rob even own a Kilt?
PS. I don't want to know about the scanty underwear. Each to his own say I.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 08, 2021, 02:37:18 PM
IMO if you remember something a forum member said and describe what you think you remember them saying on the forum, then that member has a right to challenge it. But apparently not according to Rob, which means I can ascribe any old nonsense to any forum member and not have to back up my claim. Hope that's clear now. Now, I seem to remember you saying you thought the McCanns should be loaded into a cannon and blasted to bits over the Bay Of Biscay.
Ah you have a good memory then - thats why I always apoligise for offending anyone who reads my posts.
I should have put excuse not back up.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 02:59:44 PM
I thought the thought of Rob in scanty underwear under his Kilt while herding Sheep was marginally more funny. I mean, who would believe that? And I don't think Rob has got any sheep, apart from a few around here, when it suits them. And does Rob even own a Kilt?
PS. I don't want to know about the scanty underwear. Each to his own say I.
In that case I must have been thinking of John. My memory isn't what it used to be.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2021, 03:20:10 PM
Turn me on? Are you saying there was a sexual connotation in what you said? How strange.
I believe wearing women’s lingerie if you’re a man is a sexual kink, yes. Strange it may well be, even stranger that you had to ask, especially when you’d already claimed to be thoroughly put off by my thought processes. What exactly was it about them that repelled you so? Do explain.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2021, 07:52:30 PM
I'm talking about your post. Your post had paranoid overtones. Oh so you never tried to insult me to begin with, is that right? See now I'm showing paranoia.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 08:01:12 PM
I'm talking about your post. Your post had paranoid overtones. Oh so you never tried to insult me to begin with, is that right? See now I'm showing paranoia.
No, I was not trying to insult you, it was a joke, John said we needed to be more humorous so I just trying to do my bit. It’s not my fault if no one shares my sense of humour. 8(8-))
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2021, 08:28:05 PM
No, I was not trying to insult you, it was a joke, John said we needed to be more humorous so I just trying to do my bit. It’s not my fault if no one shares my sense of humour. 8(8-))
Yeah and I'm just continuing the joke, saying you need to get your head read. I'll even give you the cite before you ask for it.
I actually would love to see a shrink and that isn’t a joke.
What would be holding you back? I never found it that helpful myself (It didn't change me). But it was good to be able to show others that I didn't have a problem.
Could you change?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2021, 09:55:53 PM
I believe wearing women’s lingerie if you’re a man is a sexual kink, yes. Strange it may well be, even stranger that you had to ask, especially when you’d already claimed to be thoroughly put off by my thought processes. What exactly was it about them that repelled you so? Do explain.
I just couldn't understand why it popped into your mind. Kilts, sheep and ladie's underwear? Very weird and pretty far out imo. It's probably just not my kind of humour.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 11:09:04 PM
What would be holding you back? I never found it that helpful myself (It didn't change me). But it was good to be able to show others that I didn't have a problem.
Could you change?
Into what?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 08, 2021, 11:10:59 PM
I just couldn't understand why it popped into your mind. Kilts, sheep and ladie's underwear? Very weird and pretty far out imo. It's probably just not my kind of humour.
Probably not, no, you obviously don’t find Monty Python, Dick Emery, The Two Ronnies, Les Dawson, Carry On that sort of typical old school, British humour very funny. No matter.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2021, 12:34:05 AM
Probably not, no, you obviously don’t find Monty Python, Dick Emery, The Two Ronnies, Les Dawson, Carry On that sort of typical old school, British humour very funny. No matter.
Were they into making jokes about men wearing kilts with women's underwear while chasing sheep? I must have missed that. I don't see Monty Python as as old school at all.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 09, 2021, 07:16:21 AM
Were they into making jokes about men wearing kilts with women's underwear while chasing sheep? I must have missed that. I don't see Monty Python as as old school at all.
Monty Python was 50 years ago. That’s half a century. In my book that’s quite old school. All the afore mentioned enjoyed dressing up in women’s clothing for a laugh, and a bit of bawdy humour, I remember kilts featuring in Carry On Up The Khyber. As for the sheep, I didn’t say “chasing sheep”, I was alluding to Rob’s background in animal husbandry and coming from NZ. It really does kind of rip the arse out of things when you have to explain a throwaway aside to someone with a sense of humour bypass but hopefully we can move on now.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Myster on February 09, 2021, 08:08:11 AM
I saw Life of Brian at the cinema, and they showed this before the main film. It took a while to register what was going on because there were always forgetable items shown around main films in those days;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFWo1oqZTe4
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2021, 01:47:23 PM
I thought the thought of Rob in scanty underwear under his Kilt while herding Sheep was marginally more funny. I mean, who would believe that? And I don't think Rob has got any sheep, apart from a few around here, when it suits them. And does Rob even own a Kilt?
PS. I don't want to know about the scanty underwear. Each to his own say I.
I'll let Rob adjudicate this one.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 09, 2021, 06:14:55 PM
It’s definitely not libel Rob, it doesn’t even mention any suspect by name.
Who said you've got to mention names? The implication is enough.
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!" http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 11, 2021, 08:51:27 PM
Who said you've got to mention names? The implication is enough.
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!" http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
Well if you are absolutely sure it’s libel then why are you even arguing about it? Remove the post and award points. You know you want to.... Is that libel too? Probably.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 11, 2021, 08:54:46 PM
Who said you've got to mention names? The implication is enough.
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!" http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
Do you understand what honest opinion means in relation to libel
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 11, 2021, 09:01:41 PM
Well if you are absolutely sure it’s libel then why are you even arguing about it? Remove the post and award points. You know you want to.... Is that libel too? Probably.
Like you already complained about a post being deleted without knowing the reason. To understand each other is the most important thing IMO.
It might be good policing to rattle potential suspects by making statements through the press. The police would be aware of what tactics work.
But to be fair, irrespective of what the police say about a suspect I think we need to be aware that the police may be releasing statements that are actually ruses to make the suspect talk to the media or when questioned in response. It would make them feel the police know too much, in some cases and come clean.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 11, 2021, 09:04:41 PM
It is a matter of time and searching. Nothing good is coming up just yet.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 11, 2021, 11:26:24 PM
Can you be sued for libel for telling the truth? A person who wishes to successfully sue you for libel must generally prove the statement is false. In most states, truth is a complete defense to a libel action. You generally can't sue if the statement in question is true, no matter how unpleasant the statement or the results of its publication.
Might be where honest opinion comes in.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2021, 01:10:01 AM
FGS whatever is your problem D it's like your a post stalker you bring up a post that is over five months old ...why.
I am beginning to feel victimised by you because of my opinion three posts you quoted and a mention on another thread. accusing me of libel.
I don't believe there version of events I am not alone in this and don't believe I am in the minority.
You put your opinion [thats all it is of what you think happened] day in day out.
I am just as entitled to do the same. so kindly stop harassing me because of the posts of my opinion that have never changed in nearly fourteen years.
You have no right whatsoever to do this. when
Last month, Gerry and Kate McCann lost their Supreme Court appeal against Gonçalo Amaral, a former Portuguese police inspector, who claimed in his book The Truth of the Lie that the couple were responsible for their daughter's disappearance.
Now, Portugal's Supreme Court has ruled that neither parent has formally been proved innocent for Maddie's disappearance, and can't be assumed to be so. The couple were ruled out as 'arguidos' (formal suspects) in 2008, but judges have stressed that this does not equate to a ruling of innocence.
FGS whatever is your problem D it's like your a post stalker you bring up a post that is over five months old ...why.
I am beginning to feel victimised by you because of my opinion three posts you quoted and a mention on another thread. accusing me of libel.
I don't believe there version of events I am not alone in this and don't believe I am in the minority.
You put your opinion [thats all it is of what you think happened] day in day out.
I am just as entitled to do the same. so kindly stop harassing me because of the posts of my opinion that have never changed in nearly fourteen years.
You have no right whatsoever to do this. when
Last month, Gerry and Kate McCann lost their Supreme Court appeal against Gonçalo Amaral, a former Portuguese police inspector, who claimed in his book The Truth of the Lie that the couple were responsible for their daughter's disappearance.
Now, Portugal's Supreme Court has ruled that neither parent has formally been proved innocent for Maddie's disappearance, and can't be assumed to be so. The couple were ruled out as 'arguidos' (formal suspects) in 2008, but judges have stressed that this does not equate to a ruling of innocence.
You chose my posts as an example singling me out imo nothing to do with rob.
One of the posts was over five-month-old - so it must have taken some finding. to prove a silly point.
It took no finding.. Just went to the start of the tread and chose a couple of posts that fitted what Rob was critical of... Just happened to be yours and spams
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 12, 2021, 03:11:07 PM
It took no finding.. Just went to the start of the tread and chose a couple of posts that fitted what Rob was critical of... Just happened to be yours and spams
This is correct. I did check.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 12, 2021, 03:15:28 PM
It took no finding.. Just went to the start of the tread and chose a couple of posts that fitted what Rob was critical of... Just happened to be yours and spams
No there wasn't any posts of spams or mention of him. -
so why are you twisting it and trying to blame others?
I knew it!! No comment = guilty as any self respecting McCann basher will tell you.
self respecting McCann basher will tell you.
Seeing its quiet I would like to ask you why do you label anyone who does not believe the mccs version of events is a mcc basher.
Do you think they should shower them with empathy sympathy etc - when in my case I believe they are involved in what happened to Maddie?
How can you call it bashing when some simply post of what they believe happened that night. when it is not set in stone or any evidence that Maddie was abducted.
Its not a bashing - just simply not beleiving there version of events that everyone has a right to do.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on February 14, 2021, 02:26:13 PM
Seeing its quiet I would like to ask you why do you label anyone who does not believe the mccs version of events is a mcc basher.
Do you think they should shower them with empathy sympathy etc - when in my case I believe they are involved in what happened to Maddie?
How can you call it bashing when some simply post of what they believe happened that night. when it is not set in stone or any evidence that Maddie was abducted.
Its not a bashing - just simply not beleiving there version of events that everyone has a right to do.
Those that have a low opinion of Amaral are proud of the bashing they administer, do it with pride kizzy.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 14, 2021, 02:28:40 PM
We're still in lockdown have a read it'll maybe enlighten you.
I was after a cite for your assertion that Eve said “Pride comes before a fall”. She didn’t so I think you need an IMO on your post or even points for misleading the forum and for misquoting the poor woman. She’s been blamed for quite enough already IMO.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 14, 2021, 03:16:35 PM
It's more for me about what you believe to be true.
I have said before if I believed the mccs were innocent I wouldn't be on any of the threads.
I wouldn't see the point.
What fascinates me is that there was no miscarriage of justice per se, because no-one was ever tried for any crime. I agree with the conclusions of the first investigation;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Since that was written in 2008 I have seen no new evidence suggesting that any one of those possibilities could be seen as the only possibility. I have had to assume, therefore, that all the investigators since 2008 are relying on their own opinions of what crime was committed rather than on evidence.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 14, 2021, 05:24:18 PM
What fascinates me is that there was no miscarriage of justice per se, because no-one was ever tried for any crime. I agree with the conclusions of the first investigation;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Since that was written in 2008 I have seen no new evidence suggesting that any one of those possibilities could be seen as the only possibility. I have had to assume, therefore, that all the investigators since 2008 are relying on their own opinions of what crime was committed rather than on evidence.
why would you expect to be privy to new evidence uncovered since 2008? As far as I’m aware they don’t have to run it past you first for approval.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: jassi on February 14, 2021, 05:24:44 PM
What fascinates me is that there was no miscarriage of justice per se, because no-one was ever tried for any crime. I agree with the conclusions of the first investigation;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Since that was written in 2008 I have seen no new evidence suggesting that any one of those possibilities could be seen as the only possibility. I have had to assume, therefore, that all the investigators since 2008 are relying on their own opinions of what crime was committed rather than on evidence.
Or following instructions .
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on February 14, 2021, 05:28:11 PM
What fascinates me is that there was no miscarriage of justice per se, because no-one was ever tried for any crime. I agree with the conclusions of the first investigation;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Since that was written in 2008 I have seen no new evidence suggesting that any one of those possibilities could be seen as the only possibility. I have had to assume, therefore, that all the investigators since 2008 are relying on their own opinions of what crime was committed rather than on evidence.
8@??)(
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 14, 2021, 06:14:51 PM
What fascinates me is that there was no miscarriage of justice per se, because no-one was ever tried for any crime. I agree with the conclusions of the first investigation;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Since that was written in 2008 I have seen no new evidence suggesting that any one of those possibilities could be seen as the only possibility. I have had to assume, therefore, that all the investigators since 2008 are relying on their own opinions of what crime was committed rather than on evidence.
From everything Wolters has said I'm fairly sure he knows exactly how Madeleine died.... And has the evidence to support it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 14, 2021, 06:15:55 PM
As one of the original investigators he has a lot of first hand knowledge about the case.
He does indeed particularly in the areas of mode of entry and exit to 5A, something the Germans probably have little or no knowledge of, but I'm not sure FF would have access to GA?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 14, 2021, 09:32:13 PM
He does indeed particularly in the areas of mode of entry and exit to 5A, something the Germans probably have little or no knowledge of, but I'm not sure FF would have access to GA?
I expect there are ways of contacting him and asking him if he'll speak.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 14, 2021, 09:37:52 PM
He does indeed particularly in the areas of mode of entry and exit to 5A, something the Germans probably have little or no knowledge of, but I'm not sure FF would have access to GA?
The germans may well have proof that Maddie was abducted... And they may well have already visited Luz. SY have already and support abduction. Amarals contribution according to MARK S is that the shutters could not beopened from the outside... Which of course is rubbish
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 14, 2021, 09:49:59 PM
It absolutely would and I don't see how he would say such a thing if he didn't know it to be true
The truth of the matter needs to be determined by a court. Otherwise, CB has presumed to be guilty rather than innocent and that was one of his rights under the ECHR rules.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on February 15, 2021, 06:11:40 AM
The germans may well have proof that Maddie was abducted... And they may well have already visited Luz. SY have already and support abduction. Amarals contribution according to MARK S is that the shutters could not beopened from the outside... Which of course is rubbish
Wolters makes no mention of his suspect removing Madeleine from 5a, it's the big sticking point imo how did the two come together for his suspect to have killed the girl.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 08:30:13 AM
The truth of the matter needs to be determined by a court. Otherwise, CB has presumed to be guilty rather than innocent and that was one of his rights under the ECHR rules.
Again... That's another reason why Wolters would not make such a statement unless he was sure
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 08:42:08 AM
Wolters makes no mention of his suspect removing Madeleine from 5a, it's the big sticking point imo how did the two come together for his suspect to have killed the girl.
I don't see it as any sort of sticking point
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 09:06:03 AM
Again... That's another reason why Wolters would not make such a statement unless he was sure
Is he falling into the same trap GA did? IMO no matter how sure he is he should not publically claim CB is guilty until there is a trial finding CB guilty.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 09:08:08 AM
Is he falling into the same trap GA did? IMO no matter how sure he is he should not publically claim CB is guilty until there is a trial finding CB guilty.
He can do what he likes ..who is going to stop him ..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 09:11:43 AM
I'm not sure he can because of privilege... And if Wolters does have the evidence he's protected by truth
I'd have to understand what privilege would do, but I thought it should be evident whether he has said CB is guilty before any trial has happened.
The dictionary definition of Privilege doesn't help me much. "noun a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. "education is a right, not a privilege"
Either it is published or not. Maybe it is only in the foreign press that this claim appears but his presumption of innocence is maintained in the German press.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2021, 09:25:52 AM
Wolters has publicly declared someone a murderer before any trial has taken place which is in breach of that person's human rights.
Has he stated it as fact or opinion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 09:30:39 AM
If you declare that someone whom you name is your prime suspect in a crime does that then breach their human rights? Were then the McCanns and Murat not denied their human rights when they were made arguidos?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 15, 2021, 09:37:32 AM
If you declare that someone whom you name is your prime suspect in a crime does that then breach their human rights? Were then the McCanns and Murat not denied their human rights when they were made arguidos?
They had the right to defend themselves ie the prosecution put its case to them and they had the right to answer (or not in KM's case). They and their lawyers were also able to refute the case against them.
In the case of CB the prosecutor is telling the whole world CB is guilty without even telling him or his lawyer what the case is against him.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 09:46:00 AM
If you declare that someone whom you name is your prime suspect in a crime does that then breach their human rights? Were then the McCanns and Murat not denied their human rights when they were made arguidos?
No, there have been many arguidos in the McCann investigation, so they are not being denied their human rights, for they are just being asked questions, with their lawyer present.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 09:48:36 AM
They had the right to defend themselves ie the prosecution put its case to them and they had the right to answer (or not in KM's case). They and their lawyers were also able to refute the case against them.
In the case of CB the prosecutor is telling the whole world CB is guilty without even telling him or his lawyer what the case is against him.
Do you have a cite for HCW telling the whole world that CB is guilty please? This is a serious allegation about HCW, possibly libellous.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 09:54:02 AM
Do you have a cite for HCW telling the whole world that CB is guilty please? This is a serious allegation about HCW, possibly libellous.
Isn't that one of the cites that Davel has been promoting. From memory, it was in an interview with Mark Saunokonoko. Maybe not in that podcast, but that was where HCW names "Brueckner" by name rather than just "Christian B". The podcast could go all over the world.
I have a feeling HCW would claim the naming of Brueckner was unintentional and he may not have listened to the podcast before it was broadcast.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 09:57:17 AM
Isn't that one of the cites that Davel has been promoting. From memory, it was in an interview with Mark Saunokonoko. Maybe not in that podcast, but that was where HCW names "Brueckner" by name rather than just "Christian B". The podcast could go all over the world.
But what does he actually say? Does he say something like "I'm telling you Christian Bruckner murdered Madeleine McCann no ifs no buts?" or does he refer to his prime suspect by his full name and say he has reason to believe Madeleine has been murdered without explicitly saying that CB definitely murdered her?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 10:04:53 AM
He used the name Mr Breukner in the Ms podcast. He says the evidence shows MM is dead and our suspect murdered her
The combination means our suspect [Brueckner] murdered her No presumption of innocence there so, in the end, you could expect CB taking HCW to the ECHR no matter what the future trials may find.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 10:12:56 AM
He used the name Mr Breukner in the Ms podcast. He says the evidence shows MM is dead and our suspect murdered her
Then he has presumably breached Bruckner's human rights and Bruckner's solicitor should be mounting a case to prosecute the German State in the ECHR.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2021, 10:15:47 AM
The prosecutor said: "We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her.
"We don't have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11975041/madeleine-mccann-evidence-dead-christian-b-buried-videos/
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 10:19:27 AM
The prosecutor said: "We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her.
"We don't have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11975041/madeleine-mccann-evidence-dead-christian-b-buried-videos/
Presumably there is (in the opinion of the police) strong evidence against anyone who becomes a prime suspect in any case, so isn't HCW just stating the obvious?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 10:20:28 AM
The combination means our suspect [Brueckner] murdered her No presumption of innocence there so, in the end, you could expect CB taking HCW to the ECHR no matter what the future trials may find.
I think a lot depends on whether HCW has this evidence and all this is part of the reason I think he does. If he does and CB is found guilty what can CB do. He must go through all German court appeals first and then go to the ECHR. They can't overturn the conviction..
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 10:23:57 AM
I think a lot depends on whether HCW has this evidence and all this is part of the reason I think he does. If he does and CB is found guilty what can CB do. He must go through all German court appeals first and then go to the ECHR. They can't overturn the conviction..
He would presumably appeal any guilty conviction on the basis of a mistrial due to the publication of HCW presumption of guilt prior to the trial. This could also be raised in the first trial. It would be what I'd do in a situation like this.
He would presumably appeal any guilty conviction on the basis of a mistrial due to the publication of HCW presumption of guilt prior to the trial. This could also be raised in the first trial. It would be what I'd do in a situation like this. Shocking, shocking, shocking.
This presupposes that German judges are unduly influenced by what they read in the papers rather than concentrating on the evidence presented before them in court. Is that a thing I wonder?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 10:36:23 AM
He would presumably appeal any guilty conviction on the basis of a mistrial due to the publication of HCW presumption of guilt prior to the trial. This could also be raised in the first trial. It would be what I'd do in a situation like this. Shocking, shocking, shocking.
But if the evidence is overwhelming it would probably be ruled the publicity had no effect on the verdict
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 10:38:14 AM
This presupposes that German judges are unduly influenced by what they read in the papers rather than concentrating on the evidence presented before them in court. Is that a thing I wonder?
Good point. But what about the expectation of the populace?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 15, 2021, 10:39:14 AM
It may well be Wolters can say anything he likes if it's part of the investigation.. And is protected by privelige
Isn’t that exactly what you argued against a few weeks ago?
Wasn’t one of the reasons you thought Wolter wouldn’t have said what he did if it wasn’t true, because he could face a prison sentence?
And the libel trial transcript...do you now accept that you were wrong in your reason for not accepting its veracity? That you were comparing the transcript from two different trials.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 10:39:28 AM
I don't know if Brueckner is Guilty or not. But I doubt that he has a reputation to trash, or any Human Rights worth defending.
Brueckner's reputation doesn't include the word "murderer". He has never been tried or convicted of murder, and is entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence. Wolters seems to be working on a presumption of guilt.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 10:43:56 AM
Brueckner's reputation doesn't include the word "murderer". He has never been tried or convicted of murder, and is entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence. Wolters seems to be working on a presumption of guilt.
Perhaps if we had seen the evidence he has we might agree with him
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2021, 10:45:40 AM
If the judges found him innocent where the populace strongly thought he was guilty there could be riots. (like what happened in the USA.) That is the purpose of a trial in a court where the evidence can be examined.
Wolters is free to say what he wants if he feels it will help the investigation.. As I understand that is the law
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 10:48:24 AM
If the judges found him innocent where the populace strongly thought he was guilty there could be riots. (like what happened in the USA.) That is the purpose of a trial in a court where the evidence can be examined.
I think there are more likely to be riots if he's found guilty - certainly amongst a certain very small sector of society.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 10:53:53 AM
Again this is why I don't think Wolters would make these claims unless he ws very sure
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: faithlilly on February 15, 2021, 10:54:11 AM
They say that they have and that it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
I think you’d have to be incredibly naive to believe that several police forces are working collaboratively and haven’t shared all the information they have. How would they know if they were duplicating work or had information that bolstered the others case?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 15, 2021, 10:56:26 AM
The germans may well have proof that Maddie was abducted... And they may well have already visited Luz. SY have already and support abduction. Amarals contribution according to MARK S is that the shutters could not beopened from the outside... Which of course is rubbish
IMO the whole shutter/window scenario is rubbish.
I believe if the window hadn't been opened it could prove IMO the whole thing was a sham.
There is no real evidence that that window was left open.
apart from the mccs saying so - kmc slide it shut but still left twins - why not leave it as it was
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 11:05:39 AM
Not Human Rights Law, which Germany has signed up to uphold and comply with.
Investigating police officers are covered by privelige for statements made as part of an investigation. I had a discussion here with ICHTT covering it.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 11:11:52 AM
If the judges found him innocent where the populace strongly thought he was guilty there could be riots. (like what happened in the USA.) That is the purpose of a trial in a court where the evidence can be examined.
Judges don't find people innocent
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 11:13:25 AM
Ahaic if Wolters has the evidence he's fine.. Otherwise he might be in big trouble. That suggests to me he has it
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 15, 2021, 11:14:23 AM
Investigating police officers are covered by privelige for statements made as part of an investigation. I had a discussion here with ICHTT covering it.
I saw that, and imo your arguments were defeated.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 11:31:59 AM
Brueckner's reputation doesn't include the word "murderer". He has never been tried or convicted of murder, and is entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence. Wolters seems to be working on a presumption of guilt.
Brueckner would surely have to be Convicted of Abduction and or Murder before he can take a case to The ECHR.
Remembering that The ECHR cannot overturn a Conviction. Or so I am told.
By which time Brueckner will have no Reputation to trash?
Sheesh. This is doing my head in.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 11:42:27 AM
Then you didn't follow it properly. ICHTT argued that Wolters was covered by privelige and could say what he wants
If you are going to quote me at least quote me correctly, I have never said he could say what he likes. I said he has to have some evidence to enable him to claim the person is involved, just being in the location will do.
Last I heard from you on the subject you were claiming Absolute privilege was a false alarm, and I had given up on receiving the cite I asked for,the one about when Wolters had absolute and when he had qualified privilege.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2021, 12:29:45 PM
Brueckner would surely have to be Convicted of Abduction and or Murder before he can take a case to The ECHR.
Remembering that The ECHR cannot overturn a Conviction. Or so I am told.
By which time Brueckner will have no Reputation to trash?
Sheesh. This is doing my head in.
The danger is that Wolter's pronouncements could cast doubt on the possibility of a fair trial. Being declared guilty before being tried can adversely influence the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2021, 12:29:50 PM
The danger is that Wolter's pronouncements could cast doubt on the possibility of a fair trial. Being declared guilty before being tried can adversely influence the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty.
So you think that German Judges can be influenced by Public Opinion?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Mr Gray on February 15, 2021, 12:36:53 PM
The danger is that Wolter's pronouncements could cast doubt on the possibility of a fair trial. Being declared guilty before being tried can adversely influence the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty.
Wolters was asked this question and said he's confident the Judges will not be influenced. If it was a jury trial it would be different
Whatever happens CB can only involve the ECHR after all domestic avenues are complete and then ano the 4 to 5 yrs wait at the ECHR
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
The danger is that Wolter's pronouncements could cast doubt on the possibility of a fair trial. Being declared guilty before being tried can adversely influence the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty.
How?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2021, 12:56:16 PM
So you think that German Judges can be influenced by Public Opinion?
I think anyone can be influenced. In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary. https://themaddiecasefiles.com/ward-of-court-information-t3472.html
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 15, 2021, 01:08:50 PM
I think anyone can be influenced. In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary. https://themaddiecasefiles.com/ward-of-court-information-t3472.html
The difference here is that the trial judge will hear all the evidence for and against
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2021, 01:16:21 PM
I think anyone can be influenced. In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary. https://themaddiecasefiles.com/ward-of-court-information-t3472.html
This is outrageous. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on February 15, 2021, 01:34:18 PM
I think anyone can be influenced. In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary. https://themaddiecasefiles.com/ward-of-court-information-t3472.html
What pro-McCann activity do you think brought undue influence upon Justice Hogg's decision?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on February 15, 2021, 01:41:54 PM
Careful not to "slur " the media. In some way what you're saying sounds a bit like a put-down to me.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: kizzy on May 15, 2021, 11:46:14 AM
Seems Its obvious that all wolt has is circumstantial evidence as many suspected ...
Just because of the phone ping and hearsay ...
He does need but... seems he is not going to get the solid evidence....That CB was in 5a.
We know the mccs were in 5a ...gmc was the last person to see maddie...
Window open door slamming non of this has ever been proved ...or any evidence of an intruder.
Just it seems the mccs version of events....abducted yet let everyone in the apartment when kmc had already searched it.
What is a fact is 3 children were left in an open apartment..an to this day not one bit of evidence to say it seems maddie was abducted.
Yet we are expected to believe a no mark drifter commited the perfect crime ...ye right.
Surely I believe imo what happened to maddie is staring you in the face...but only if you want to see it.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters has now revealed that new evidence has been gathered in recent days, though he declined to reveal specifics.
He told the Sun: 'We are still building the case and at some time in the future we shall share the details with the suspect and his lawyer — but now is not the time.
'I cannot disclose the type of evidence we have been given, it is not forensic I can tell you that but it is new circumstantial evidence which all adds to the working theory that he is the man responsible.
Seems Its obvious that all wolt has is circumstantial evidence as many suspected ...
Just because of the phone ping and hearsay ...
He does need but... seems he is not going to get the solid evidence....That CB was in 5a.
We know the mccs were in 5a ...gmc was the last person to see maddie...
Window open door slamming non of this has ever been proved ...or any evidence of an intruder.
Just it seems the mccs version of events....abducted yet let everyone in the apartment when kmc had already searched it.
What is a fact is 3 children were left in an open apartment..an to this day not one bit of evidence to say it seems maddie was abducted.
Yet we are expected to believe a no mark drifter commited the perfect crime ...ye right.
Surely I believe imo what happened to maddie is staring you in the face...but only if you want to see it.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters has now revealed that new evidence has been gathered in recent days, though he declined to reveal specifics.
He told the Sun: 'We are still building the case and at some time in the future we shall share the details with the suspect and his lawyer — but now is not the time.
'I cannot disclose the type of evidence we have been given, it is not forensic I can tell you that but it is new circumstantial evidence which all adds to the working theory that he is the man responsible.
Seems Its obvious that all wolt has is circumstantial evidence as many suspected ...
Just because of the phone ping and hearsay ...
He does need but... seems he is not going to get the solid evidence....That CB was in 5a.
We know the mccs were in 5a ...gmc was the last person to see maddie...
Window open door slamming non of this has ever been proved ...or any evidence of an intruder.
Just it seems the mccs version of events....abducted yet let everyone in the apartment when kmc had already searched it.
What is a fact is 3 children were left in an open apartment..an to this day not one bit of evidence to say it seems maddie was abducted.
Yet we are expected to believe a no mark drifter commited the perfect crime ...ye right.
Surely I believe imo what happened to maddie is staring you in the face...but only if you want to see it.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters has now revealed that new evidence has been gathered in recent days, though he declined to reveal specifics.
He told the Sun: 'We are still building the case and at some time in the future we shall share the details with the suspect and his lawyer — but now is not the time.
'I cannot disclose the type of evidence we have been given, it is not forensic I can tell you that but it is new circumstantial evidence which all adds to the working theory that he is the man responsible.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on May 15, 2021, 04:08:10 PM
Is this what some of you want? What was the only decent Forum on this subject? Or are you getting a bit fed up with being gainsaid?
This should work both ways. And no one needs to insult anyone, but it has now degenerated.
I can no longer do the job that I signed up for. In fact I find myself being almost as ghastly as most Sceptics.
I don't want to be like this. I don't want to think like this. I want at least to consider what I read. And least of all do I need to be insulted by whoever sees fit, when in fact I have done nothing at all in many a long month.
However, if you all want to say whatever you please then you will have no use for the likes of me.
In fact I think it is probably time for me to retire. Seven years has been a bit too long.
I shall be offering my notice to John.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 15, 2021, 06:27:45 PM
Is this what some of you want? What was the only decent Forum on this subject? Or are you getting a bit fed up with being gainsaid?
This should work both ways. And no one needs to insult anyone, but it has now degenerated.
I can no longer do the job that I signed up for. In fact I find myself being almost as ghastly as most Sceptics.
I don't want to be like this. I don't want to think like this. I want at least to consider what I read. And least of all do I need to be insulted by whoever sees fit, when in fact I have done nothing at all in many a long month.
However, if you all want to say whatever you please then you will have no use for the likes of me.
In fact I think it is probably time for me to retire. Seven years has been a bit too long.
I shall be offering my notice to John.
Can you suggest Spam as your replacement? Then the forum really would be perfect.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on May 15, 2021, 06:35:05 PM
Why ever not? This might explain what on earth pissed me off in the first place
Lets get this right, there's yourself, Bri, Anthro, Myster, VS, davel, Carana, Lace, Sadie, Have I missed anyone? you don't see a weighted bias against the sceptic side.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 15, 2021, 06:45:50 PM
Lets get this right, there's yourself, Bri, Anthro, Myster, VS, davel, Carana, Lace, Sadie, Have I missed anyone? you don't see a weighted bias against the sceptic side.
McCann bashers are in far greater number than supporters on this forum.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Eleanor on May 15, 2021, 06:47:33 PM
Lets get this right, there's yourself, Bri, Anthro, Myster, VS, davel, Carana, Lace, Sadie, Have I missed anyone? you don't see a weighted bias against the sceptic side.
How on earth dd I personally have anything to do with?
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on May 15, 2021, 06:48:36 PM
Lets get this right, there's yourself, Bri, Anthro, Myster, VS, davel, Carana, Lace, Sadie, Have I missed anyone? you don't see a weighted bias against the sceptic side.
Don't forget the Scottish sock puppet that makes an occasional appearance 8(0(*
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on May 15, 2021, 06:56:06 PM
Sceptics, myself, Gunit, jassi, spammy ,kizzy, carly, about even, sure of your statement.
Angelo, The General, John, Faithlilly, Pathfinder, Holly, Icanhandlethetruth, there are others who think the McCanns are hiding something or worth kicking too...
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on May 15, 2021, 07:27:15 PM
Angelo, The General, John, Faithlilly, Pathfinder, Holly, Icanhandlethetruth, there are others who think the McCanns are hiding something or worth kicking too...
At least one of those hasn't posted for some time, absent from elsewhere too.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 15, 2021, 07:35:10 PM
At least one of those hasn't posted for some time, absent from elsewhere too.
I don’t know what absent from elsewhere means, and I don’t know who you are referring to but it is clear to me that there are far more bashers than supporters on this forum. Add Miss Taken while you’re at it, she’ll be back to put the boot in soon enough.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: barrier on May 15, 2021, 07:38:26 PM
I don’t know what absent from elsewhere means, and I don’t know who you are referring to but it is clear to me that there are far more bashers than supporters on this forum. Add Miss Taken while you’re at it, she’ll be back to put the boot in soon enough.
Best get recruiting then if it causes so much angst.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 15, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
Is this what some of you want? What was the only decent Forum on this subject? Or are you getting a bit fed up with being gainsaid?
This should work both ways. And no one needs to insult anyone, but it has now degenerated.
I can no longer do the job that I signed up for. In fact I find myself being almost as ghastly as most Sceptics.
I don't want to be like this. I don't want to think like this. I want at least to consider what I read. And least of all do I need to be insulted by whoever sees fit, when in fact I have done nothing at all in many a long month.
However, if you all want to say whatever you please then you will have no use for the likes of me.
In fact I think it is probably time for me to retire. Seven years has been a bit too long.
I shall be offering my notice to John.
Please don’t, Eleanor.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 15, 2021, 08:31:44 PM
Oh Dear, Anthro, if only you realised. I don't actually do anything. I sit here for endless hours and watch a bunch of idiots who might perhaps not say something that they should't just because I am watching.
But I think that I have been doing this for a it bit too long now.
You see, I have done this for what I thought was the good of The Forum and the right of anyone to comment. But it hasn't quite panned out that way. My decisions as a Moderator are often reversed. So what was the point?
I am perfectly capable of expressing an opinion as an ordinary member without being hog tied to Moderator Status. In fact probably more so.
So don't worry. I won't be going anywhere.
Title: Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
Post by: Anthro on May 15, 2021, 08:41:32 PM
Oh Dear, Anthro, if only you realised. I don't actually do anything. I sit here for endless hours and watch a bunch of idiots who might perhaps not say something that they should't just because I am watching.
But I think that I have been doing this for a it bit too long now.
You see, I have done this for what I thought was the good of The Forum and the right of anyone to comment. But it hasn't quite panned out that way. My decisions as a Moderator are often reversed. So what was the point?
I am perfectly capable of expressing an opinion as an ordinary member without being hog tied to Moderator Status. In fact probably more so.