UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on September 14, 2021, 10:41:45 AM
-
i was originally just going to discuss questions which could be put to the McCanns to clarify the events of May 2007, but decided to make the tread more general so other unasked questions could be included.
My first question is for the McCanns, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFpmLwS2FEE
You have emphasised that you would not have left your children home alone had you thought it was unsafe. You have then suggested that by unsafe you mean in danger of being abducted. Were you, as doctors, aware of any other risks associated with leaving young children home alone for up to 30 minutes at a time?
-
The question arises
- Had you known of the incidence of British holidaymaker's children being sexually assaulted in their beds by an intruder while their parents slept under the same roof - how happy would you have been to book a holiday there
-
- Had you known of the preponderance there was of burglaries taking place particularly in holiday apartments - including those which took place in the apartment block you had booked into - would you have booked your holiday there
-
We know that there is a growing problem with paedophiles making use of the dark net and sometimes congregating in particular places
- Had you known how popular Praia da Luz was to these low-lives would you have booked a family holiday there?
-
i was originally just going to discuss questions which could be put to the McCanns to clarify the events of May 2007, but decided to make the tread more general so other unasked questions could be included.
My first question is for the McCanns, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFpmLwS2FEE
You have emphasised that you would not have left your children home alone had you thought it was unsafe. You have then suggested that by unsafe you mean in danger of being abducted. Were you, as doctors, aware of any other risks associated with leaving young children home alone for up to 30 minutes at a time?
What answer to this question could possibly take you closer to establishing what happened to Madeleine in your view? This question serves only one purpose in my view, and that is as a stick to poke and beat the McCanns with.
-
i was originally just going to discuss questions which could be put to the McCanns to clarify the events of May 2007, but decided to make the tread more general so other unasked questions could be included.
My first question is for the McCanns, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFpmLwS2FEE
You have emphasised that you would not have left your children home alone had you thought it was unsafe. You have then suggested that by unsafe you mean in danger of being abducted. Were you, as doctors, aware of any other risks associated with leaving young children home alone for up to 30 minutes at a time?
The problem I think you may have with yet another typically negative thread is that your target isn't a member of this forum and very likely has lots more to do with their time than answering trivia.
There is so much going on in their lives including the very real indication that at long last there is an opportunity that at long last there is a glimmer of hope that what happened to Madeleine McCann is about to be revealed.
It says soooooooooooooooooo much about you that all you can think to question in your posts is not the accomplished burglar, rapist and paedophile criminal but Madeleine's parents.
Oh Dear!!! Oh Dear!!!
-
I'd like to ask Amaral why he lied about Brueckner's appearance and his van in his recent media attempts at deflecting suspicion from the renowned paedo and rapist. I'd also like to ask Amaral why officers were sent to knock on Brueckner's door and why when he didn't answer they decided he wasn't involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
@McCanns
In the daytime you were mostly in the Tapas complex, just as you were in the evenings. Why did you lock your apartment in the daytime but not in the evenings?
Who was prescribed Terfenadine, the anti-histamine which you took with you to Portugal?
-
The problem I think you may have with yet another typically negative thread is that your target isn't a member of this forum and very likely has lots more to do with their time than answering trivia.
There is so much going on in their lives including the very real indication that at long last there is an opportunity that at long last there is a glimmer of hope that what happened to Madeleine McCann is about to be revealed.
It says soooooooooooooooooo much about you that all you can think to question in your posts is not the accomplished burglar, rapist and paedophile criminal but Madeleine's parents.
Oh Dear!!! Oh Dear!!!
You ask your questions and I'll ask mine. I won't speculate about your motives, nor about the usefulness of your questions and hopefully you'll return the favour.
-
Their answer to each and every question would be 'no comment' IMO
-
Their answer to each and every question would be 'no comment' IMO
To my questions, yes.
-
@McCanns
In the daytime you were mostly in the Tapas complex, just as you were in the evenings. Why did you lock your apartment in the daytime but not in the evenings?
Who was prescribed Terfenadine, the anti-histamine which you took with you to Portugal?
The thing is we have been here so often before that it all tends to become a bit boring. The forum has discussed Terfenadine loads of times before. Just type it into the search engine and it will recall many discusions you have already had on the subject.
Do you think a few years down the line there is anything which can be discovered that you didn't notice at the original time of asking.
-
The thing is we have been here so often before that it all tends to become a bit boring. The forum has discussed Terfenadine loads of times before. Just type it into the search engine and it will recall many discusions you have already had on the subject.
Do you think a few years down the line there is anything which can be discovered that you didn't notice at the original time of asking.
Yes, if the question was answered.
-
You ask your questions and I'll ask mine. I won't speculate about your motives, nor about the usefulness of your questions and hopefully you'll return the favour.
Who do you think is going to answer your @McCanns questions?
I do not require to speculate about your motives which I find transparently clear. You are the individual addressing questions to individuals who are not members of this forum.
You started a thread to do that.
Why ??? I think that is utterly bizarre but inventive and just a bit dishonest since you seem to be doing nothing but asking rhetorical sceptic shibboleths under this guise. All of which like 'Terfenadine' have all been discussed on the forum and every other forum one can think of ad nauseam.
-
@McCanns
Who prescribed the Terfenadine and when?
-
Yes, if the question was answered.
Answered by whom?
-
Who do you think is going to answer your @McCanns questions?
I do not require to speculate about your motives which I find transparently clear. You are the individual addressing questions to individuals who are not members of this forum.
You started a thread to do that.
Why ??? I think that is utterly bizarre but inventive and just a bit dishonest since you seem to be doing nothing but asking rhetorical sceptic shibboleths under this guise. All of which like 'Terfenadine' have all been discussed on the forum and every other forum one can think of ad nauseam.
I am asking questions to which I would like answers.
-
@McCanns
Who prescribed the Terfenadine and when?
@)(++(*
-
@McCanns -
Marmite or Vegimite?
-
@McCanns
Who prescribed the Terfenadine and when?
Why on earth not just ask them if they made Madeleine take Terfenadine and if they hid her body in a bin? Why skirt around the issue with your loaded questions? This thread is utterly pathetic. IMO.
-
I am asking questions to which I would like answers.
You are asking direct questions from individuals who are not members of this forum. Is that an honest approach when you seek answers?
-
You are asking direct questions from individuals who are not members of this forum. Is that an honest approach when you seek answers?
Why not?
G is raising questions he would like to know the answer to . I don't think he's actually expecting McCann to answer
-
Why not?
G is raising questions he would like to know the answer to . I don't think he's actually expecting McCann to answer
I'm a male now? That'll cause confusion. @)(++(*
-
I'm a male now? That'll cause confusion. @)(++(*
Don't worry. It didn't.
-
Why on earth not just ask them if they made Madeleine take Terfenadine and if they hid her body in a bin? Why skirt around the issue with your loaded questions? This thread is utterly pathetic. IMO.
Utterly pathetic and bizarre. IMO.
-
I'm a male now? That'll cause confusion. @)(++(*
Who knows on here ? No offence meant.
I'm gender fluid so don't bother how I'm labelled. 8(0(*
-
Who knows on here ? No offence meant.
I'm gender fluid so don't bother how I'm labelled. 8(0(*
Noooo! OMG.
-
Who knows on here ? No offence meant.
I'm gender fluid so don't bother how I'm labelled. 8(0(*
Goodness me! I hope it's not sore - sounds awful.
-
Noooo! OMG.
It's only a forum. You can be anything you like while online.
-
It's only a forum. You can be anything you like while online.
I am who I say am.
-
Who knows on here ? No offence meant.
I'm gender fluid so don't bother how I'm labelled. 8(0(*
you ain’t no lady that’s for sure.
-
@McCanns
Two photographs taken during your week's holiday in Portugal did not appear in the released files. They are commonly referred to as the tennis photo and the last photo. Were they given to the PJ at the time?
-
@McCanns
Two photographs taken during your week's holiday in Portugal did not appear in the released files. They are commonly referred to as the tennis photo and the last photo. Were they given to the PJ at the time?
Are you able to enumerate everything that was included in the Levy files and everything that was excluded from the Levy files.
If you are unable to do so I suggest your insinuation is invalid.
-
@McCanns
Two photographs taken during your week's holiday in Portugal did not appear in the released files. They are commonly referred to as the tennis photo and the last photo. Were they given to the PJ at the time?
Ask Amaral. I’m sure he’ll give you an honest answer.
-
@McCanns
Two photographs taken during your week's holiday in Portugal did not appear in the released files. They are commonly referred to as the tennis photo and the last photo. Were they given to the PJ at the time?
Yes they were. McCanns have authorised me to answer your questions on their behalf. Next question?
-
Im not surprised no one's mentioned those critically important 48 questions
-
@Kate McCann
Your friend testified that you were unsure whether it was a good idea to leave the patio doors unlocked on the evening of 3rd May. Why did you become concerned about doing it on that occasion when, you say, you did it on previous evenings?
-
@Kate McCann
Your friend testified that you were unsure whether it was a good idea to leave the patio doors unlocked on the evening of 3rd May. Why did you become concerned about doing it on that occasion when, you say, you did it on previous evenings?
Kate says to tell you she was never overly comfortable with the idea, but had a particularly bad feeling that evening, a sort of sixth sense if you will, that it wasn’t such a good idea. She bitterly regrets not following her instincts but Gerry said to stop worrying and it would be ok.
-
@Kate McCann
Your friend testified that you were unsure whether it was a good idea to leave the patio doors unlocked on the evening of 3rd May. Why did you become concerned about doing it on that occasion when, you say, you did it on previous evenings?
I think you are trolling.
-
I think you are trolling.
I don't.
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
-
I don't.
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
You’re not contributing to any discussion. You’re simply posting a series of hackneyed questions addressed to individuals who aren’t on this forum. There can be no discussion or debate on this thread as you refuse to take part in any, so yes, I think you are definitely trolling.
-
I don't.
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
What is it you think you are doing.
Is it legitimate
Is it a contribution
Is it a discussion
Is it even controversial
Five very seriously asked questions since apparently you don't think you are a troll.
-
What is it you think you are doing.
Is it legitimate
Is it a contribution
Is it a discussion
Is it even controversial
Five very seriously asked questions since apparently you don't think you are a troll.
Here is the source of this thread;
Quote from: Davel on September 14, 2021, 09:06:27 AM
The McCanns were fully investigated by the PJ and no real evidence found.. CB wasnt even questioned.
I dont see what elsecould be done to further investigate the mccanns
I can think of a lot of questions which the McCanns could be asked. (G-Unit)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12205.msg665531#msg665531
Various comments followed and it occured to me that there were questions which were never asked so I started a new thread as any further discussion on the other thread would have taken it off-topic.
-
Here is the source of this thread;
Quote from: Davel on September 14, 2021, 09:06:27 AM
The McCanns were fully investigated by the PJ and no real evidence found.. CB wasnt even questioned.
I dont see what elsecould be done to further investigate the mccanns
I can think of a lot of questions which the McCanns could be asked. (G-Unit)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12205.msg665531#msg665531
Various comments followed and it occured to me that there were questions which were never asked so I started a new thread as any further discussion on the other thread would have taken it off-topic.
This isn’t a discussion thread though is it? It’s an “Only Asking Questions” thread, by which I mean you hope to express your doubts and suspicions unchallenged by asking a series of loaded questions of people that you know will never answer.
-
This isn’t a discussion thread though is it? It’s an “Only Asking Questions” thread, by which I mean you hope to express your doubts and suspicions unchallenged by asking a series of loaded questions of people that you know will never answer.
There are people who believe that the McCanns were fully investigated and others who believe they weren't. Unanswered questions shouldn't remain after a full investigation imo, but they do.
-
@Amaral
Were all the holidaymakers who dined at the Tapas restaurant on 3rd May 2007 interviewed, and if so by whom?
-
There are people who believe that the McCanns were fully investigated and others who believe they weren't. Unanswered questions shouldn't remain after a full investigation imo, but they do.
Have you considered the possibility that your questions were considered unimportant or irrelevant by those investigating the McCanns?
-
@McCanns
Who prescribed the Terfenadine and when?
For example why is this relevant or important in helping us understand what happened to Madeleine McCann? Please explain.
-
Here is the source of this thread;
Quote from: Davel on September 14, 2021, 09:06:27 AM
The McCanns were fully investigated by the PJ and no real evidence found.. CB wasnt even questioned.
I dont see what elsecould be done to further investigate the mccanns
I can think of a lot of questions which the McCanns could be asked. (G-Unit)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12205.msg665531#msg665531
Various comments followed and it occured to me that there were questions which were never asked so I started a new thread as any further discussion on the other thread would have taken it off-topic.
I think the point you are missing is that "Various comments followed" from Davel's post.
Which is great. This being a discussion forum open to all opinions.
Why therefore leading on from that have you selfishly embarked on a series of self centred monologues all of which are vastly outdated and prejudicial.
If ever I have seen an 'Abuse of Power' such conduct epitomises it. The worrying thing about it is that you seem oblivious to that.
-
@Amaral
Were all the holidaymakers who dined at the Tapas restaurant on 3rd May 2007 interviewed, and if so by whom?
@ Gunit
Why did Amaral lie that Brueckner had dreadlocks in 2007 - even producing a photoshopped image to support his lies - when it is patently obvious he did not.
-
@ Gunit
Why did Amaral lie that Brueckner had dreadlocks in 2007 - even producing a photoshopped image to support his lies - when it is patently obvious he did not.
I have no way of answering that question, except by referring to what Amaral said at the time;
""In 2007 there are people who claim that his figure is not with short hair. He looked like a hippie and wore long hair down his back. And the police know that," he adds."
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
So some nameless people have described CB as having long hair in 2007, so Amaral is saying that people who knew/saw him at that time wouldn't necessarily recognise him with short hair.
-
I have no way of answering that question, except by referring to what Amaral said at the time;
""In 2007 there are people who claim that his figure is not with short hair. He looked like a hippie and wore long hair down his back. And the police know that," he adds."
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
So some nameless people have described CB as having long hair in 2007, so Amaral is saying that people who knew/saw him at that time wouldn't necessarily recognise him with short hair.
How interesting. I wonder where the dreadlock quote comes from?
-
How interesting. I wonder where the dreadlock quote comes from?
Didn't Amaral appear on a TV programme in which he made the claim illustrated by a composite picture of Brueckner with dreadlocks was shown, as well as a picture of his van covered in stickers?
-
Didn't Amaral appear on a TV programme in which he made the claim illustrated by a composite picture of Brueckner with dreadlocks was shown, as well as a picture of his van covered in stickers?
Yet another fact which has been discarded from the pick and mix of sceptic history I'm afraid.
-
Didn't Amaral appear on a TV programme in which he made the claim illustrated by a composite picture of Brueckner with dreadlocks was shown, as well as a picture of his van covered in stickers?
He did. The interesting question is where Amaral got the idea that CB and his camper van looked different in 2007.
-
He did. The interesting question is where Amaral got the idea that CB and his camper van looked different in 2007.
Wherever it was it shows he isn't very good at checking his sources' claims. He made himself look more of a mendacious fool than ever, IMO. Or perhaps it's more sinister than that.
-
How interesting. I wonder where the dreadlock quote comes from?
It's interesting in another way too;
He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant. This person did not stay very long. Their behaviour was somewhat strange and they seemed to be rather nervous. He was alone, he did not speak to anyone and left soon afterwards. The informant maintains that he has never seen this person in the village.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
The PJ identified this person, but as far as I know Jeremy Wilkins never confirmed that it was him.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm [scroll to end]
-
It's interesting in another way too;
He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant. This person did not stay very long. Their behaviour was somewhat strange and they seemed to be rather nervous. He was alone, he did not speak to anyone and left soon afterwards. The informant maintains that he has never seen this person in the village.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
The PJ identified this person, but as far as I know Jeremy Wilkins never confirmed that it was him.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm [scroll to end]
Couldn't be Brueckner then, if his hair was short.
-
Couldn't be Brueckner then, if his hair was short.
He liked dressing up so maybe it was a wig.
-
Couldn't be Brueckner then, if his hair was short.
Well we don't know how witnesses have described him, but the only evidence I've seen that he had short hair at the time was provided by the Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html?ito=push-notification&ci=25796&si=2964257
I can't find any details of this trip elsewhere online.
-
Well we don't know how witnesses have described him, but the only evidence I've seen that he had short hair at the time was provided by the Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html?ito=push-notification&ci=25796&si=2964257
I can't find any details of this trip elsewhere online.
Of course if he was wearing a wig, then Amaral could be perfectly correct about people saying he had long hair.
-
Well we don't know how witnesses have described him, but the only evidence I've seen that he had short hair at the time was provided by the Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html?ito=push-notification&ci=25796&si=2964257
I can't find any details of this trip elsewhere online.
Do you dispute the evidence as shown in the Daily Mail?
-
Of course if he was wearing a wig, then Amaral could be perfectly correct about people saying he had long hair.
Yes, and I expect he used to dress his van up with stickers every now and again.
-
Amaral tells us the police went looking for Brueckner in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance but were unable to locate him so concluded he wasn’t involved. So, as they never clapped eyes on him how did they know he had dreadlocks? Amaral has made the whole thing up IMO. My question is why would he do that?
-
Do you dispute the evidence as shown in the Daily Mail?
Not entirely, but UK newspapers do tend to be unreliable at times.
-
It's interesting in another way too;
He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant. This person did not stay very long. Their behaviour was somewhat strange and they seemed to be rather nervous. He was alone, he did not speak to anyone and left soon afterwards. The informant maintains that he has never seen this person in the village.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
The PJ identified this person, but as far as I know Jeremy Wilkins never confirmed that it was him.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm [scroll to end]
Don't you think Amaral is entirely capable of making a complete fool of himself - or maybe even worse - without the slightest assistance.
Gonçalo Amaral shows robot portrait of suspect in maddie case in 2007 that beresies German version
Gonçalo Amaral released a photomontage of what Christian Brueckner had at the time of Maddie's disappearance.
Morning Mail
June 26, 2020 at 15:02
For Gonçalo Amaral, former inspector of the Judicial Police, Christian Brueckner is the "almost perfect suspect" in the case of Maddie McCann. In an interview with Jornal do Centro,Amaral released an image of the German with long hair that defends to correspond to the image that he would have at the time of Maddie's disappearance.
(https://cdn.cmjornal.pt/images/2020-06/img_298x169$2020_06_26_13_52_40_952457.jpg)
The former PJ pointed out what he considers failures of the English and German police in conducting the process. One of the incongruities pointed out is related to the images released of the German, which correspond to his current image and not to the one he had 13 years ago, when the crime occurred.
"I can't say that someone recognizes someone by an image of the person who's already a few years old. People change (...) Showing images of the 43-year-old is not the same as showing the 30-year-old," he said during the interview.
The former coordinator of the PJ portimão points out that the robot portraits released by the authorities at the time of the crime show a suspect with short hair, a fact that seems to exonerated Christian Bruecker, who in 2007 would have long hair on his back.
"In 2007 there are people who claim that his figure is not with short hair. He looked like a hippie and wore long hair behind his back. And the police know that," he says.
To consolidate his statements, Gonçalo Amaral decided to present himself a reconstitution of what would be the appearance of german in the year maddie disappeared.
Using an image of Brueckner in 2006, a year before Maddie's disappearance, and using an image manipulation program, the former PJ presented a photomontage of the long-haired suspect.
Amaral concludes his theory with the fact that most of the witnesses in the case claimed that the suspect was similar to Madeleine McCann's father, allegations corroborated by the British police. "I wonder where this individual has similarities to Mr. Gerard McCann," he asks.
The former PJ devalues the new evidence linking Christian Brueckner to the investigation of the disappearance of the English girl and asks for more concrete evidence to consolidate a "serious investigation".
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
-
Not entirely, but UK newspapers do tend to be unreliable at times.
you don't entirely dispute it? Which bits do you dispute then and why?
-
Don't you think Amaral is entirely capable of making a complete fool of himself - or maybe even worse - without the slightest assistance.
Gonçalo Amaral shows robot portrait of suspect in maddie case in 2007 that beresies German version
Gonçalo Amaral released a photomontage of what Christian Brueckner had at the time of Maddie's disappearance.
Morning Mail
June 26, 2020 at 15:02
For Gonçalo Amaral, former inspector of the Judicial Police, Christian Brueckner is the "almost perfect suspect" in the case of Maddie McCann. In an interview with Jornal do Centro,Amaral released an image of the German with long hair that defends to correspond to the image that he would have at the time of Maddie's disappearance.
(https://cdn.cmjornal.pt/images/2020-06/img_298x169$2020_06_26_13_52_40_952457.jpg)
The former PJ pointed out what he considers failures of the English and German police in conducting the process. One of the incongruities pointed out is related to the images released of the German, which correspond to his current image and not to the one he had 13 years ago, when the crime occurred.
"I can't say that someone recognizes someone by an image of the person who's already a few years old. People change (...) Showing images of the 43-year-old is not the same as showing the 30-year-old," he said during the interview.
The former coordinator of the PJ portimão points out that the robot portraits released by the authorities at the time of the crime show a suspect with short hair, a fact that seems to exonerated Christian Bruecker, who in 2007 would have long hair on his back.
"In 2007 there are people who claim that his figure is not with short hair. He looked like a hippie and wore long hair behind his back. And the police know that," he says.
To consolidate his statements, Gonçalo Amaral decided to present himself a reconstitution of what would be the appearance of german in the year maddie disappeared.
Using an image of Brueckner in 2006, a year before Maddie's disappearance, and using an image manipulation program, the former PJ presented a photomontage of the long-haired suspect.
Amaral concludes his theory with the fact that most of the witnesses in the case claimed that the suspect was similar to Madeleine McCann's father, allegations corroborated by the British police. "I wonder where this individual has similarities to Mr. Gerard McCann," he asks.
The former PJ devalues the new evidence linking Christian Brueckner to the investigation of the disappearance of the English girl and asks for more concrete evidence to consolidate a "serious investigation".
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema
No dreadlocks in that picture, just long hair.
-
Well we don't know how witnesses have described him, but the only evidence I've seen that he had short hair at the time was provided by the Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html?ito=push-notification&ci=25796&si=2964257
I can't find any details of this trip elsewhere online.
I really do not think you tried very hard then. I had no difficulty finding provenance of the Mail article. Amaral lied. He was caught out in his lies ~ which when you think about it, was a pretty whopping great lie designed to falsify the physical appearance of the prime suspect in a missing child case.
There sure are questions arising for him regarding that and I think it probable that one day he may be required to provide answers to them.
Footage surfaced!
Shortly before Maddie's disappearance: Here Christian B. drives tourists through Portugal
August 01, 2020 - 12:55 PM
He drove the car in which he is said to have kidnapped Maddie
He allegedly kidnapped Madeleine McCann in 2007 at a resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, and murdered her. Now footage of Christian B. has surfaced showing the Maddie suspect on a road trip through the town – a few weeks before the disappearance of the then 3-year-old. Of all things, with the van in which he is said to have kidnapped the girl. More about this in the video.
Three Germans on the road with Christian B.
He laughs, he jokes. Christian B. has three German travellers in tow, whom he takes with him from Spain to Portugal, reports the Daily Mail. On the picture: B. sits in the car of the model T3 Westfalia over a map and has fun with his guests. Only a few weeks later, the convicted sex offender is said to have kidnapped Madeleine McCann with exactly this car.
One of the tourists – a man named Tomas – told the Daily Mail: "It makes me sick to think that the little girl could have been taken away in the same van a month later."
Little Maddie is said to have been kidnapped in the van
The video was shot on March 30, 2007, just five weeks before Madeleine disappeared from her Portuguese holiday home in Praia da Luz. In retrospect, his traveller Tomas was surprised that B. had been filmed, he said. "He didn't mind that we filmed him and took his pictures. He enjoyed posing – he must have known that we could never have guessed what a terrible man he really was," says the German. It is frightening to know that he raped a woman and was a convicted child molester.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/fall-maddie-aufnahmen-aufgetaucht-hier-faehrt-christian-b-im-van-durch-portugal-4587932.html
This road trip happened. Video footage from it revealed Brueckner's true appearance just before Madeleine's disappearance which was directly opposite to the description broadcast by Amaral just a few weeks before.
Amaral didn't know about the existence of this video which proved him to be a liar. Not only a liar but someone anxious to put about false information in an attempt to destroy an active police investigation.
You may be content to attempt to obfuscate the misdeeds of a person like that which is entirely your prerogative but misleading the forum is a bit of a No! No!
-
Not entirely, but UK newspapers do tend to be unreliable at times.
It was a video. The hitchhikers would know when they had a lift with CB.
-
I really do not think you tried very hard then. I had no difficulty finding provenance of the Mail article. Amaral lied. He was caught out in his lies ~ which when you think about it, was a pretty whopping great lie designed to falsify the physical appearance of the prime suspect in a missing child case.
There sure are questions arising for him regarding that and I think it probable that one day he may be required to provide answers to them.
Footage surfaced!
Shortly before Maddie's disappearance: Here Christian B. drives tourists through Portugal
August 01, 2020 - 12:55 PM
He drove the car in which he is said to have kidnapped Maddie
He allegedly kidnapped Madeleine McCann in 2007 at a resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, and murdered her. Now footage of Christian B. has surfaced showing the Maddie suspect on a road trip through the town – a few weeks before the disappearance of the then 3-year-old. Of all things, with the van in which he is said to have kidnapped the girl. More about this in the video.
Three Germans on the road with Christian B.
He laughs, he jokes. Christian B. has three German travellers in tow, whom he takes with him from Spain to Portugal, reports the Daily Mail. On the picture: B. sits in the car of the model T3 Westfalia over a map and has fun with his guests. Only a few weeks later, the convicted sex offender is said to have kidnapped Madeleine McCann with exactly this car.
One of the tourists – a man named Tomas – told the Daily Mail: "It makes me sick to think that the little girl could have been taken away in the same van a month later."
Little Maddie is said to have been kidnapped in the van
The video was shot on March 30, 2007, just five weeks before Madeleine disappeared from her Portuguese holiday home in Praia da Luz. In retrospect, his traveller Tomas was surprised that B. had been filmed, he said. "He didn't mind that we filmed him and took his pictures. He enjoyed posing – he must have known that we could never have guessed what a terrible man he really was," says the German. It is frightening to know that he raped a woman and was a convicted child molester.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/fall-maddie-aufnahmen-aufgetaucht-hier-faehrt-christian-b-im-van-durch-portugal-4587932.html
This road trip happened. Video footage from it revealed Brueckner's true appearance just before Madeleine's disappearance which was directly opposite to the description broadcast by Amaral just a few weeks before.
Amaral didn't know about the existence of this video which proved him to be a liar. Not only a liar but someone anxious to put about false information in an attempt to destroy an active police investigation.
You may be content to attempt to obfuscate the misdeeds of a person like that which is entirely your prerogative but misleading the forum is a bit of a No! No!
Provenance means the origin of something; it's first appearance. The story in the Mail was published on 31st July and the RTL story you quote was published on 1st August. So the Mail is the origin of the story as shown in the RTL story, which acknowledges the source of the story; "reports the "Daily Mail"
So the RTL story doesn't establish the provenance of the Mail story; in fact the reverse is true.
-
Provenance means the origin of something; it's first appearance. The story in the Mail was published on 31st July and the RTL story you quote was published on 1st August. So the Mail is the origin of the story as shown in the RTL story, which acknowledges the source of the story; "reports the "Daily Mail"
So the RTL story doesn't establish the provenance of the Mail story; in fact the reverse is true.
I think your whole line if questioning is pathetic and of no importance... I understand you won't agree but ll you are promoting is your opinion.. Which in reality is of no importance whatsoever
-
Provenance means the origin of something; it's first appearance. The story in the Mail was published on 31st July and the RTL story you quote was published on 1st August. So the Mail is the origin of the story as shown in the RTL story, which acknowledges the source of the story; "reports the "Daily Mail"
So the RTL story doesn't establish the provenance of the Mail story; in fact the reverse is true.
Which bit of the claims in the article do you dispute? The date? The existence of the hitchikers? The video itself? What?
-
Provenance means the origin of something; it's first appearance. The story in the Mail was published on 31st July and the RTL story you quote was published on 1st August. So the Mail is the origin of the story as shown in the RTL story, which acknowledges the source of the story; "reports the "Daily Mail"
So the RTL story doesn't establish the provenance of the Mail story; in fact the reverse is true.
Thank you for the English lesson.
I must say I find your skills of denial quite amazing perhaps even spectacular regarding Amaral's lies. In my opinion it is a master class in the practice of McCann scepticism. It certainly clarifies a few things.
-
Thank you for the English lesson.
I must say I find your skills of denial quite amazing perhaps even spectacular regarding Amaral's lies. In my opinion it is a master class in the practice of McCann scepticism. It certainly clarifies a few things.
i'm sceptical about many things, not just McCann-related things. I can't check the provenance of the story in the Mail and I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers (who does?). I'm not denying that the story is true, I'm saying I don't know if it is or not.
Those who believe it is and that it proves that Amaral has been telling lies about Brueckner could, in my opinion, benefit from developing a more sceptical outlook on the world themselves.
-
i'm sceptical about many things, not just McCann-related things. I can't check the provenance of the story in the Mail and I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers (who does?). I'm not denying that the story is true, I'm saying I don't know if it is or not.
Those who believe it is and that it proves that Amaral has been telling lies about Brueckner could, in my opinion, benefit from developing a more sceptical outlook on the world themselves.
Then you should question the accuracy of the initial statements... They may or may not be accurate.
The fact you don't shows your post to be insencere
-
i'm sceptical about many things, not just McCann-related things. I can't check the provenance of the story in the Mail and I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers (who does?). I'm not denying that the story is true, I'm saying I don't know if it is or not.
Those who believe it is and that it proves that Amaral has been telling lies about Brueckner could, in my opinion, benefit from developing a more sceptical outlook on the world themselves.
If it’s not true then you would have to concede that the Mail has gone to extraordinary lengths to fabricate a video, using actors, including a CB lookalike. Are you seriously doubting whether this video is true or not?
-
If it’s not true then you would have to concede that the Mail has gone to extraordinary lengths to fabricate a video, using actors, including a CB lookalike. Are you seriously doubting whether this video is true or not?
I don't think the video is fabricated, but it would be nice to see confirmation of the date.
-
I don't think the video is fabricated, but it would be nice to see confirmation of the date.
What would you need to see before you accepted the date? Is there literally anything or anyone on the planet that could confirm the date to your satisfaction, what with you accepting nothing and believing no one and all?
-
I don't think the video is fabricated, but it would be nice to see confirmation of the date.
How about disregarding the video all together and considering how many of Brueckner’s associates, friends, ex-lovers, victims, mugshots etc ever described him as having long hair down his back?
-
I don't think the video is fabricated, but it would be nice to see confirmation of the date.
You won't accept the proven fact that Amaral misunderstood the evidence... That says it all
-
You won't accept the proven fact that Amaral misunderstood the evidence... That says it all
When it's proved I will.
-
When it's proved I will.
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred
-
You won't accept the proven fact that Amaral misunderstood the evidence... That says it all
Don’t forget you’re debating with someone who doesn’t even accept years of research into the harmful effects of smoking, she’s unlikely to accept anything at all that doesn’t chime with her own beliefs.
-
Don’t forget you’re debating with someone who doesn’t even accept years of research into the harmful effects of smoking, she’s unlikely to accept anything at all that doesn’t chime with her own beliefs.
Not quite correct, VS. My argument is that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, it's associated with it.
-
Not quite correct, VS. My argument is that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, it's associated with it.
You are absolutely wrong...... Its been proven to cause lung cancer. You think you know better than just about every expert on the subject
-
You are absolutely wrong...... Its been proven to cause lung cancer. You think you know better than just about every expert on the subject
Given your interest in statistics I thought you would understand the difference between a causal link and a correlation.
A causal link means that if A occurs (smoking) then B (lung cancer) will follow. As only 10-15% of smokers develop lung cancer the causal link is not proven.
-
Given your interest in statistics I thought you would understand the difference between a causal link and a correlation.
A causal link means that if A occurs (smoking) then B (lung cancer) will follow. As only 10-15% of smokers develop lung cancer the causal link is not proven.
its not me who doesnt understand...its you...
Causal links
The correlation between a factor and an outcome could be a coincidence, or it could be caused by a completely different factor.
For example, as ice cream sales increase, sales of meat for barbecues also increase. However, buying ice cream does not cause people to buy barbecue meat. This is influenced by the temperature and weather.
To show a causal link, scientists must find evidence that scientifically explains the connection.
If there is no scientific explanation then there is only a correlation. It cannot be shown that the factor causes the outcome.
You seem to think that because everyone who smokes does not deevlop lung cancr then there is no Causal link...that isnt true.
remember those beagles who were forced to smoke...what do you think caused the lung cancer that followed....or do you think it was just a coincidence...LOL
-
its not me who doesnt understand...its you...
Causal links
The correlation between a factor and an outcome could be a coincidence, or it could be caused by a completely different factor.
For example, as ice cream sales increase, sales of meat for barbecues also increase. However, buying ice cream does not cause people to buy barbecue meat. This is influenced by the temperature and weather.
To show a causal link, scientists must find evidence that scientifically explains the connection.
If there is no scientific explanation then there is only a correlation. It cannot be shown that the factor causes the outcome.
You seem to think that because everyone who smokes does not deevlop lung cancr then there is no Causal link...that isnt true.
remember those beagles who were forced to smoke...what do you think caused the lung cancer that followed....or do you think it was just a coincidence...LOL
This is an old tired argument and neither of us are going to change our opinions.
-
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred
The most important word there is 'indicate'.
-
@Amaral
The time that the alarm was raised has been given as 10pm, although some witness statements given by people present at the time cast doubt upon that time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
Why is there no record of further enquiries being made to confirm the time of 10pm?
-
This is an old tired argument and neither of us are going to change our opinions.
Many of the greatest early mountaineers puffed away on pipes & cigs during high altitude expeditions.
I read that smoking increases red blood cells, which is essential for carrying more oxygen in the thin air, so smoking actually aids acclimatisation.
There is also mention of smoking reducing the instances of acute mountain sickness.
So I believe there are many health giving & life affirming benefits to smoking & I wont have a bad word said about the wonderful habit.
-
Not quite correct, VS. My argument is that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, it's associated with it.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
Many of the greatest early mountaineers puffed away on pipes & cigs during high altitude expeditions.
I read that smoking increases red blood cells, which is essential for carrying more oxygen in the thin air, so smoking actually aids acclimatisation.
There is also mention of smoking reducing the instances of acute mountain sickness.
So I believe there are many health giving & life affirming benefits to smoking & I wont have a bad word said about the wonderful habit.
I've heard that hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a hammer has excellent health benefits particularly for people who have a history of trolling, perhaps you should give it a go?
-
I've heard that hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a hammer has excellent health benefits particularly for people who have a history of trolling, perhaps you should give it a go?
Ok. But it will have to wait until after my next expedition.
Olympus Mons without supplementary oxygen.
-
The most important word there is 'indicate'.
So tlyou think if both dogs alert it indicates a cadaver having been there and its at this spot death probably occurred.. Looks like amaral is not the only one who doesn't understand the evidence
-
So tlyou think if both dogs alert it indicates a cadaver having been there and its at this spot death probably occurred.. Looks like amaral is not the only one who doesn't understand the evidence
Now if Wolters where to say.................
-
@Amaral
Were any of the questions which Kate McCann decided not to answer on 7th September asked because of entries she had made in her diaries?
-
This is an old tired argument and neither of us are going to change our opinions.
Im not stating opinion I'm stating fact. The causal link has been proved.. Tobacco smoke is a carcinogen.
This is relevant to the discussion in as much it shows however much evidence is produced some posters minds are closed.
I look forward to your reaction to anymore evidence revealed linking CB to Maddies disappearance
-
Im not stating opinion I'm stating fact. The causal link has been proved.. Tobacco smoke is a carcinogen.
This is relevant to the discussion in as much it shows however much evidence is produced some posters minds are closed.
I look forward to your reaction to anymore evidence revealed linking CB to Maddies disappearance
Time and tide, you'll have a long wait .
-
Time and tide, you'll have a long wait .
Who knows.. I wonder how posters will react if the evidence is as concrete as Wolters claims
-
Who knows.. I wonder how posters will react if the evidence is as concrete as Wolters claims
Go silent for a day or two, digest the news, then spin it into something else entirely. That’s what usually happens. For example when CB was first identified as the prime suspect some people were desperate to try and suggest a link between him and the McCanns, eg that he had helped them dispose of the body or that he had bought Madeleine from them. Whatever the next bit of news, it still won’t exonerate the McCanns from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance as far as the sceptics are concerned I guarantee it.
-
Go silent for a day or two, digest the news, then spin it into something else entirely. That’s what usually happens. For example when CB was first identified as the prime suspect some people were desperate to try and suggest a link between him and the McCanns, eg that he had helped them dispose of the body or that he had bought Madeleine from them. Whatever the next bit of news, it still won’t exonerate the McCanns from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance as far as the sceptics are concerned I guarantee it.
Sadly, I think you have hit the nail on the head with that post. Nothing could make it clearer than the constant repetition of logic defying fallacies which I now accept people actually do believe.
-
Sadly, I think you have hit the nail on the head with that post. Nothing could make it clearer than the constant repetition of logic defying fallacies which I now accept people actually do believe.
I think an open minded approach which refuses to accept anything as proved is preferable to one which relies on and begins with a fixed conviction. Insisting that the question of parental involvement has been answered and basing arguments on that conviction is fallacious imo. There is, imo, only one proven fact in this case; that Madeleine McCann disappeared.
-
I think an open minded approach which refuses to accept anything as proved is preferable to one which relies on and begins with a fixed conviction. Insisting that the question of parental involvement has been answered and basing arguments on that conviction is fallacious imo. There is, imo, only one proven fact in this case; that Madeleine McCann disappeared.
There are lots more proven facts but imo you have a problem accepting evidence which goes against your fixed mindset.
You talk about ruling out the parents... What exactly do you mean.
I think it's been shown that the parents have been ruled out by the available evidence. That doesn't mean they have been proven innocent..
-
Who knows.. I wonder how posters will react if the evidence is as concrete as Wolters claims
I can think of one or two who think the girl is still alive will disappointed.
-
There are lots more proven facts but imo you have a problem accepting evidence which goes against your fixed mindset.
You talk about ruling out the parents... What exactly do you mean.
I think it's been shown that the parents have been ruled out by the available evidence. That doesn't mean they have been proven innocent..
You accuse me of having a fixed mindset but I think my mindset is less fixed than yours because I'm willing to consider any possible scenario. Those who are convinced that certain people have been ruled out are unable to accept the possibility of the statistically most likely scenario imo.
-
You accuse me of having a fixed mindset but I think my mindset is less fixed than yours because I'm willing to consider any possible scenario. Those who are convinced that certain people have been ruled out are unable to accept the possibility of the statistically most likely scenario imo.
Which is ?
-
I think an open minded approach which refuses to accept anything as proved is preferable to one which relies on and begins with a fixed conviction. Insisting that the question of parental involvement has been answered and basing arguments on that conviction is fallacious imo. There is, imo, only one proven fact in this case; that Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Says the woman who has declared stranger abduction virtually impossible! That strikes me as extremely closed-minded to that particular scenario.
-
You accuse me of having a fixed mindset but I think my mindset is less fixed than yours because I'm willing to consider any possible scenario. Those who are convinced that certain people have been ruled out are unable to accept the possibility of the statistically most likely scenario imo.
Statistics have got eff all to do with it, can't believe you are using this as an argument, it's absurd.
-
Imagine if all cases were solved by statistics, wouldn't that make life so much easier? Then the parents of all the victims of the Moors Murderers could have served life in prison instead of the chore of having to find the real perpetrators and bring them to justice.
-
You accuse me of having a fixed mindset but I think my mindset is less fixed than yours because I'm willing to consider any possible scenario. Those who are convinced that certain people have been ruled out are unable to accept the possibility of the statistically most likely scenario imo.
I don't think you understand what ruled out means.
I dont agree with your opinion that parental involvement is statistically most likely.. I feel you don't understand the statistics.
My mind is completely open.. To evidence. If the PJ announced they had concrete evidence of parental involvement... I would be intrigued... Not automatically dismissive as you have been.
I've give two examples of you refusing to admit two points.. Even though I have supplied proof.. That's why I see your mindset as fixed
-
Imagine if all cases were solved by statistics, wouldn't that make life so much easier? Then the parents of all the victims of the Moors Murderers could have served life in prison instead of the chore of having to find the real perpetrators and bring them to justice.
I would definitely say stranger abduction is statistically most likely in this case
-
I would definitely say stranger abduction is statistically most likely in this case
It's clearly the only plausible and logical explanation imo and it appears that at least two leading police forces are of the same view.
-
I don't think you understand what ruled out means.
I dont agree with your opinion that parental involvement is statistically most likely.. I feel you don't understand the statistics.
My mind is completely open.. To evidence. If the PJ announced they had concrete evidence of parental involvement... I would be intrigued... Not automatically dismissive as you have been.
I've give two examples of you refusing to admit two points.. Even though I have supplied proof.. That's why I see your mindset as fixed
Despite your objections I stick by my point. I'm open to all possibilities and some aren't. You claim evidence and proof are important, but rely on evidence provided by people who were themselves suspects at a certain point in time.
-
Despite your objections I stick by my point. I'm open to all possibilities and some aren't. You claim evidence and proof are important, but rely on evidence provided by people who were themselves suspects at a certain point in time.
How can you say you are open to the possibility of stranger abduction from the apartment when you have declared such a scenario as virtually impossible? Do you mean in the same way you are open to the possibility that the Loch Ness Monster exists, or fairies at the bottom of your garden? In other words are you really just taking the piss when you say you are open to all possibilities?
-
Despite your objections I stick by my point. I'm open to all possibilities and some aren't. You claim evidence and proof are important, but rely on evidence provided by people who were themselves suspects at a certain point in time.
Suspects based on the PJs inability to understand the evidence. I think you misunderstand many things here. I'm open to parental involvement... Does that surprise you
-
Suspects based on the PJs inability to understand the evidence. I think you misunderstand many things here. I'm open to parental involvement... Does that surprise you
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, Davel.
It is impossible to form an opinion unless one has considered all possibilities.
-
Suspects based on the PJs inability to understand the evidence. I think you misunderstand many things here. I'm open to parental involvement... Does that surprise you
You may be open to parental involvement, but you are also open to relying their evidence to support the thesis of stranger abduction.
-
You may be open to parental involvement, but you are also open to relying their evidence to support the thesis of stranger abduction.
And why should I not be open to their evidence,...if you are not your mind is closed. I dont take anything at face value.
Do you beleive the Needhams families statements...they were once suspects too. we only have their word for it that Ben disappeared
-
And why should I not be open to their evidence,...if you are not your mind is closed. I dont take anything at face value.
Do you beleive the Needhams families statements...they were once suspects too. we only have their word for it that Ben disappeared
Where can I find the Needham's statements?
I'd be interested to read them.
-
And why should I not be open to their evidence,...if you are not your mind is closed. I dont take anything at face value.
Do you beleive the Needhams families statements...they were once suspects too. we only have their word for it that Ben disappeared
As far as I can follow your thought processes you think you can rely on the parent's evidence being true because they're not suspects. So when they say a window and some shutters were opened by someone other than them you believe that is true. You then use it as evidence of stranger abduction.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3150.msg340871#msg340871
That sounds reasonable unless those who have decided they are not suspects are wrong.
-
As far as I can follow your thought processes you think you can rely on the parent's evidence being true because they're not suspects. So when they say a window and some shutters were opened by someone other than them you believe that is true. You then use it as evidence of stranger abduction.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3150.msg340871#msg340871
That sounds reasonable unless those who have decided they are not suspects are wrong.
If you had been in charge of this investigation from Day One what course of enquiry would you have pursued and why?
-
If you had been in charge of this investigation from Day One what course of enquiry would you have pursued and why?
To paraphrase Colin Sutton there's only one way to begin an investigation such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann;
...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... 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.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
-
To paraphrase Colin Sutton there's only one way to begin an investigation such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann;
...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... 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.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
And do you think that was not done properly by the initial investigation? Moreover, would you spend weeks, months or years investigating the parents to the exclusion of any other possibility?
-
If a child disappears from their home shouldn't the police investigate ALL possibilities rather than concentrating on one before moving onto the next? It's called keeping an open mind and maximises the chances of recovering the child, because they could have been kidnapped by a stranger and be recoverable alive. So - G-Unit, at what point would you have ruled out stranger abduction if you'd been in charge?
-
Dear the police, government, whoever.
What is the cut off point in funding missing persons investigations?
Supposing half the people in this country disappeared.
Would the remaining population be expected to fork out 12 million per head of missing person with no result?
Would you be willing to snatch from 12 million children's money boxes just to pay for the search for Maddie?
That's pretty much what you're doing.
-
Grange will continue until someone in authority decides to pull the plug.
As long as money is provided, then Dick will continue the investigation, irrespective of whether it leads anywhere.
IMO
-
Grange will continue until someone in authority decides to pull the plug.
As long as money is provided, then Dick will continue the investigation, irrespective of whether it leads anywhere.
IMO
There's been nothing but dicks investigating since Amaral got taken off the case.
-
There's been nothing but dicks investigating since Amaral got taken off the case.
AS you obviously think so highly of Amaral perhaps you can volunteer a suggestion as to why he deliberately put out false information about Brueckner and his van last year. Any ideas?
-
Dear the police, government, whoever.
What is the cut off point in funding missing persons investigations?
Supposing half the people in this country disappeared.
Would the remaining population be expected to fork out 12 million per head of missing person with no result?
Would you be willing to snatch from 12 million children's money boxes just to pay for the search for Maddie?
That's pretty much what you're doing.
If 30 million people suddenly went missing from this country then there would certainly be very good grounds for mountain a full and comprehensive investigation which would probably lead to measures costing many billions. How much has been spent to date protecting the NHS and the vulnerable in the last 18 months? You haven't really thought this one through have you?
-
To paraphrase Colin Sutton there's only one way to begin an investigation such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann;
...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... 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.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
Colin Sutton does not know if this has been done. My understanding is that Wolters evidence completelyrules out the parents
-
If 30 million people suddenly went missing from this country then there would certainly be very good grounds for mountain a full and comprehensive investigation which would probably lead to measures costing many billions. How much has been spent to date protecting the NHS and the vulnerable in the last 18 months? You haven't really thought this one through have you?
Yes, you're right.
The government is also wasting an unacceptable amount on the NHS.
If we abolished the NHS, more people would die & then the burden on the taxpayer would be considerably reduced, along with the environmental damage to the planet that human existence causes.
-
Yes, you're right.
The government is also wasting an unacceptable amount on the NHS.
If we abolished the NHS, more people would die & then the burden on the taxpayer would be considerably reduced, along with the environmental damage to the planet that human existence causes.
yadda yadda yadda, just more boring troll talk.
-
yadda yadda yadda, just more boring troll talk.
The question is that if it results in the casebeing solved then is it money wrll spent. If CB is guilty then if the rape case had been solved by the portuguese then maddie would not have been abducted.
-
The question is that if it results in the casebeing solved then is it money wrll spent. If CB is guilty then if the rape case had been solved by the portuguese then maddie would not have been abducted.
There may not even have been a rape case, had the woman used basic home security, & if the McCanns had never had kids, they couldn't have lost one.
-
Spammy is an internal pain in the back side.
-
Play nicely everyone please. Cheers
-
So that's it is it. Or is is something to do with me not being around to kick up a storm?
-
i was originally just going to discuss questions which could be put to the McCanns to clarify the events of May 2007, but decided to make the tread more general so other unasked questions could be included.
My first question is for the McCanns, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFpmLwS2FEE
You have emphasised that you would not have left your children home alone had you thought it was unsafe. You have then suggested that by unsafe you mean in danger of being abducted. Were you, as doctors, aware of any other risks associated with leaving young children home alone for up to 30 minutes at a time?
"Do you regret using the Zapata case as a means to attempt to discredit the work of the British Police dogs, Eddie and Keela?"
"Did you instruct Clarence Mitchell to ignore the Smith family sighting for months, or was that his own strategy?"
"Did anyone in the family suffer from hay fever or any other allergic reactions?"
"Do you remember now if Madeleine had a bad nose bleed in the apartment?"
"Did you go to Chaplin's Bar late evening of Tuesday May 1st?"
-
@Amaral
What specifically made you decide that the McCanns were lying - the 'eureka' moment? - and what would you do differently, if you had the chance, knowing what we know now with CB?
Two questions.
-
@Amaral
What specifically made you decide that the McCanns were lying - the 'eureka' moment? - and what would you do differently, if you had the chance, knowing what we know now with CB?
Two questions.
Why? What do we know with CB, other than he's innocent?
-
Why? What do we know with CB, other than he's innocent?
Well we know he's the prime suspect in the German investigation, so that should give Amaral food for thought. As a seemingly competent, proud detective, the categorical assertions of the German police must give him cause for introspection.
-
Well we know he's the prime suspect in the German investigation, so that should give Amaral food for thought. As a seemingly competent, proud detective, the categorical assertions of the German police must give him cause for introspection.
Seemingly Competent? Where did that idea come from? Amaral doesn't do introspection. In fact he doesn't think at all.
I pay Amaral the courtesy of being as thick as it comes.