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: Brietta on January 05, 2022, 05:52:32 PM
-
From the ‘Observer’ which is behind a paywall
The perfect criminal? How Brueckner passed alongside the investigation and 13 years later seems to be the key to maddie's mystery
The phone number of the German, now suspected of Maddie's disappearance, was on the list of 74,000 numbers given to the PJ by the operators. But it was ignored. For many reasons.
21 jun 2020, 15:03
https://observador.pt/especiais/o-criminoso-perfeito-como-brueckner-passou-ao-lado-da-investigacao-13-anos-depois-parece-ser-a-chave-do-misterio-maddie/
According to the Observer, the PJ criteria for the selection of the calls to be investigated was made taking into consideration the time/duration/frequency/direction” of each call and deciding to focus attention on what was called the “critical period”, between 20:00 and 22:00 which the investigation considered was the relevant time indicated by the process.
Brueckner’s half hour call ended at 8:02 which was precisely two minutes past the threshold established by the investigation.
But the PJ apparently ignored that call in preference to prioritising other numbers which apparently led nowhere or we would have heard about it and it was only when the German investigators noticed the omission in 2017 that Brueckner’s name fell into place.
-
My first thought is to wonder where they got that information about the PJ's strategy? My second one is that the Germans knew the number first, then looked at the call records. Even if the PJ had seen the record of the call would they have found it suspicious? If they did, would they have been able to trace the user?
-
Here is the full article, pinched from STM
Observador June 2020
Perfect criminal?How Brueckner escaped the PJ
The phone number of the German, now suspected of Maddie's disappearance, was on the list of 74,000 numbers given to the PJ by the operators.But it was ignored.For many reasons.
21 jun 2020, 15:0338
The cell phone number Christian Brueckner used when Maddie disappeared was one of the 74,000 records provided to the Judiciary Police by the operators at the time, TMN, Optimus and Vodafone, as being active on the antennas serving Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, between May 2 and 4, 2007. However, and despite the fact that the PJ tried to select the longest duration calls in the period before the disappearance of the English child, the phone call received by the German passed by the investigation because it was not made within the time interval established by the inspectors.This evidence was only recovered in 2017, ten years after the case, when the German police contacted the Portuguese, realizing that this man could be a suspect in the crime and what number he was using at the time.
(00351) 912 730 680 received a call between 19:32 and 20:02 on that day 3 May 2007 from another Portuguese number, (00351) 916 510 683. He activated the antennas that serve the area where the McCann couple was on vacation with the two younger twins and Madeleine, who was almost four years old and, with a duration of 30 minutes, would attract some interest to investigators.
However, having in their hands thousands of other numbers that had to be investigated, the PJ inspectors — at the time led by the coordinator Gonçalo Amaral — had to define selection criteria for the investigation.First, they started by analyzing the three-day calls made by the McCann couple and their friends.And also Robert Murat — one of the first suspects and defendants in the case, after his overly helpful behavior with the authorities and the media raised suspicions to a journalist — and his inner circle.They then decided to extend that time period for all of them.
In addition to these calls, the PJ also decided that one of the ways to select the thousands of telephone records would be made according to the “time/duration/frequency/direction” of each one, focusing attention on what it called the “critical period” , between 20:00 and 22:00, that is, until the moment when the crime will have happened, as shown in the report in the process.And that was how he let slip the call to Brueckner, which ended precisely at 8:02 pm that day, two minutes past the threshold established by the investigation.
According to this report, however, there was another record considered important for the PJ: a number from an unknown user — similar to the number used by Brueckner, a prepaid card that was deactivated shortly afterwards.This contact activated the antennas between 9:39 pm and 9:15 pm, with five communications with a number that turned out to be a real estate agency.He also received two calls from an Irish operator shortly before 10 pm — the time at which a group of witnesses said they saw a man leaving the enterprise with a child in his arms (which led to the creation of the famous robot portrait of a male child. .70 m (about 30 years old, which in the field of hypotheses fits almost all suspects, even Maddie's father).
The PJ's attention was tied to these two numbers, which ended up extending the period of time previously defined for the analysis to a later date.But only for these numbers.The call that Brueckner would have received remained in the records, but it was not even analyzed, like thousands of others.
Suspect had help from another?
In addition to the family who saw a man with a child in his arms, at 10:00 pm, a friend of the McCann couple also gave an identical report to the PJ, although she assured that she saw him at 9:15 pm — about 45 minutes before the other witnesses and in an opposite location.These two pieces of information led the PJ to suspect that, given the discrepancy in the time and location of the two witnesses, they could be facing two different suspects who helped each other.
This led inspectors to create yet another criterion for analyzing telephone records: all calls whose sender and receiver activated the antenna at the same time.Brueckner's call, now I suspect, would also escape this criterion, since the number that called him activated an antenna outside Praia da Luz.
To analyze the more than 70 thousand calls, the PJ decided to select telephone records according to the "time/duration/frequency/direction" of each one, focusing attention on what it called the "critical period", between 8 pm and 10 pm in the May 3.
The numbers of the telephone booths, reception of the development, and its owner were also investigated.But, according to the conclusions of the police, nothing was found."These data only served, like the remaining 74 thousand records of the operators, to eliminate possible suspects", the report reads.Suspects that, apparently, already existed in the case.
The two lines of inquiry that set Brueckner apart
As an inspector from the PJ who worked on the case reminded the Observer, shortly after Maddie's disappearance, two lines of investigation were defined: the child had either been kidnapped or killed at home.
In the first hypothesis, that of abduction, the PJ concluded that the McCanns' routine had not changed much during the holidays.During the day the children were usually taken with nannies, so that the couple could do various activities (the main one being playing tennis with friends).At night, the couple bathed the children, fed them, laid them down and stayed with them until they fell asleep and then went to dinner at a restaurant near the apartment where they were staying, within the complex, the Tapas Bar — but where not it was possible to see the house with the naked eye.So they and their friends took turns going to see the children every half hour.On the day of the disappearance, between 9 pm (when Gerry went to the apartment) and 10 pm (when it was Kate), the British girl will have disappeared.The friend who made the 9.30 pm visit only listened at the door and window, but did not go inside.The children were silent, so he concluded that they were sleeping and everything was fine.
In August of that year of 2007, the PJ had the collaboration of a retired policeman from England who brought two dogs: one detected the odor of blood, the other a dead body.Its results led the McCanns to be appointed defendants.
This routine, fed by witnesses heard by the PJ who realized they had seen someone hanging around the apartment days before the disappearance, reinforced the hypothesis that Maddie had been kidnapped.A suspect was quickly found: Murat, whose house he lived in, his mother's, was searched by investigators, who even excavated in the garden.The mother always insisted that the son had not even left the house on the night of the alleged crime.Even so, Murat was constituted a defendant.
The homicide thesis and the hundreds of traces that came to nothing
In August of that year, 2007, the thesis of death began to gain strength.The PJ had the collaboration of a retired policeman from England.He presented himself as a professional with 35 years of experience, some of which was with the South Yorkshire Police, where he had worked as a senior dog trainer.Martin Grime arrived at the village of Luz with two animals: Eddie, trained to detect dead bodies, and Keela, a specialist in finding human blood.Eddie marked an area by the window of the Ocean's Club apartment, which was found open the night of the disappearance.He also marked a zone in the McCanns' car, rented almost a month after their eldest daughter disappeared.Keela marked yet another area inside the apartment.
The PJ lifted the tiles in the area that Keela marked as having traces of blood and sent the window curtain and part of a plastic from the car for analysis, where Eddie detected a dead body odor.Hundreds of traces were also sent, such as hair found, and oral swabs from Maddie's family and friends, as well as employees, in order to be able to select who was and was not a suspect.
Everything seemed to point to a murder, possibly accidental, inside the house.At this point, the McCanns were also under surveillance, until the beginning of September they ended up being accused.The process then had three defendants: Murat, in the abduction thesis, and the McCanns in the thesis of the murder of their own daughter.
While these lines of inquiry were pursued, all others fell to the ground.If before the PJ came to question an English citizen, who a month before Maddie's disappearance had lived in the car and who was seen several times in the vicinity of the Ocean's Club, the thesis that someone from outside could be involved in the abduction or in the crime quickly lost steam.
"These data only served, like the remaining 74 thousand records of the operators, to eliminate possible suspects".
PJ Report
“It was never understood very well.Other lines of investigation were abandoned, such as that someone had been prowling the apartment days before.And all of a sudden, without any traces of evidence, they are constituted as defendants”, a source who participated in the investigation stated to the Observer and who pointed out to him some flaws.
The material collected on site was sent to the Genetics and Forensic Biology Service of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine.It was here that, in two different phases, 25 samples and 447 traces arrived, a piece of Maddie's bed quilt, two parts of the Renault Scénic and 444 hairs.Much of the material was contaminated because the area was not properly protected and among the analyzed hairs there was even dog hair.A crime scene was not guarded as it is now.
In 2017, when the German police contacted the Portuguese Judiciary Police to confirm that Brueckner's number was in the process as active at the time of the disappearance, the PJ ended up locating the call.
The investigation coordinator fired and the evidence that remains
A month after the McCann couple was made a defendant, the coordinator of the investigation was dismissed from his post, after publicly saying that the British police were only following clues provided by the McCann couple.Months later, Gonçalo Amaral would end up submitting his own PJ's resignation, at just 48 years of age, announcing that he would write a book about the case — which resulted in another legal battle brought by the McCanns, and which they won.
Two months before this announcement, in February, and while the collected material was being analyzed, a team of independent researchers from Lisbon headed to the Algarve and took the process to see what had been done to date.The list of thousands of numbers containing Brueckner's contact details was re-analyzed.But the inspectors adopted a strategy that would turn out to be equally beneficial to the one who is now the main suspect in the case: they cross-referenced all the messages and phone calls with the witnesses from the process to see if there were any contradictions or loose ends that could unravel the mystery. that still endures today.
▲Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book "A Verdade da Mentira" which was the target of a lawsuit by the McCanns
In the end, the recommendations of this team were: in the case of murder, wait for the results of the traces sent to England, as well as understand the reliability of the results obtained through the dogs of the English trainer;on the other hand, in the case of abduction, they proposed, in the absence of evidence, to wait for new elements that could reach the process and that could open other lines of investigation.
The laboratory results both in Portugal and in England would arrive shortly afterwards to show that the biological traces collected in the car could be as much from Maddie as from her brothers.In Portugal, after analyzing all the evidence, there was only one left, which may now be crucial to understand whether Brueckner was in the Ocean's Club apartment.The one that didn't match the date at all: a saliva stain found on Maddie's bedspread.
Process ended up filed and no suspects
The case would end up being filed, without any charges against Murat or the McCanns.In 2013, however, a new suspicion would cause the case to be reopened.At the time, British and Portuguese researchers collaborated, there were even new searches in England.But the suspicions ended up bumping into a wall.“There have been more silent lines of investigation” since then, a PJ source admitted to the Observer.The same source recalls that all of them were investigated and that none of them bore fruit.Furthermore, after Gonçalo Amaral, many other investigators were involved in the case, and they never managed to solve the mystery of Maddie's disappearance.
In 2017, when the German police contacted the Portuguese Judiciary Police to confirm whether the number of Brueckner, who lived in the Praia da Luz area at the time, was in the process as active at the time of the disappearance, the PJ ended up locating the call.As well as the number that called you.Problem: both numbers were prepaid and in 2010 they changed hands.But there were images of the car and motorhome used by him, which could serve as a reference for anyone who knew him and could help the police.
The van that the now suspect German was using at the time of the disappearance
3 pictures
Two years after this sharing of information, the German police suggested that the Portuguese and the English do what is done in the so-called “cold cases”, that is, in the archived cases that have been unresolved for years: ask the public for help.The habit is uncommon in Portugal but, as the Observer found out, the PJ ended up choosing to join the plan, because it knew that the Germans would come forward with statements in the media anyway.Two conditions were put in place: Maddie's parents would be notified by the British police first and the suspect's name would not be released.
In less than 24 hours, however, Brueckner's name was released in the German press."This is one more possibility that has to be followed, but if the German authorities continue to say what they say, this investigation could be a flop", the same source from the PJ tells the Observer, who guarantees that there is more evidence besides the calls and cars.And that the suspect's own personality is compatible with Maddie's abduction and probable murder.
“There are several signs that point in that direction and it's not just the fact that he raped an elderly woman.There are more signs that could strengthen or fade away”, said the PJ source, who believes that Brueckner is more than a mere possibility and that it is the new line of investigation.
So far the German Public Ministry has shown that it is convinced that Maddie is dead, but without showing any proof.And following the same logic he used, that of looking for other crimes that the suspect may have committed in the places where he lived, other countries have started to reopen unresolved cases that may eventually be linked to him.In Portugal, the case of the disappearance of an English boy in Aljezur and the sexual attack on a woman, who has only just complained, have already been discarded from her role of crimes.But in Belgium and Germany there are still investigations into the murders and abductions of children in which he may be involved.
After 13 years of mystery, can we finally find out what happened to Maddie and how the suspect always managed to escape?Or will this be an unsolved crime?
-
My first thought is to wonder where they got that information about the PJ's strategy? My second one is that the Germans knew the number first, then looked at the call records. Even if the PJ had seen the record of the call would they have found it suspicious? If they did, would they have been able to trace the user?
The PJ broke the system they were using.
The Brueckner call at two minutes after eight came within the imposed threshold for investigation. TWO MINUTES!
-
My first thought is to wonder where they got that information about the PJ's strategy? My second one is that the Germans knew the number first, then looked at the call records. Even if the PJ had seen the record of the call would they have found it suspicious? If they did, would they have been able to trace the user?
According to Amaral the PJ paid a visit to Bruckner’s last known address in the days following the disappearance. The question I have is - why?
-
The PJ broke the system they were using.
The Brueckner call at two minutes after eight came within the imposed threshold for investigation. TWO MINUTES!
Is the threshold supplied in the article a fact then? I can't see anything in the files supporting it. I wonder why the article reads like a google translation?
-
Is the threshold supplied in the article a fact then? I can't see anything in the files supporting it. I wonder why the article reads like a google translation?
It is, the Observador is Portuguese.
-
Is the threshold supplied in the article a fact then? I can't see anything in the files supporting it. I wonder why the article reads like a google translation?
The article reads to me like a good piece of investigative journalism. It would stretch credulity to breaking point to imagine it was all made up.
-
Here is the full article, pinched from STM
Observador June 2020
Perfect criminal?How Brueckner escaped the PJ
The phone number of the German, now suspected of Maddie's disappearance, was on the list of 74,000 numbers given to the PJ by the operators.But it was ignored.For many reasons.
21 jun 2020, 15:0338
The cell phone number Christian Brueckner used when Maddie disappeared was one of the 74,000 records provided to the Judiciary Police by the operators at the time, TMN, Optimus and Vodafone, as being active on the antennas serving Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, between May 2 and 4, 2007. However, and despite the fact that the PJ tried to select the longest duration calls in the period before the disappearance of the English child, the phone call received by the German passed by the investigation because it was not made within the time interval established by the inspectors.This evidence was only recovered in 2017, ten years after the case, when the German police contacted the Portuguese, realizing that this man could be a suspect in the crime and what number he was using at the time.
(00351) 912 730 680 received a call between 19:32 and 20:02 on that day 3 May 2007 from another Portuguese number, (00351) 916 510 683. He activated the antennas that serve the area where the McCann couple was on vacation with the two younger twins and Madeleine, who was almost four years old and, with a duration of 30 minutes, would attract some interest to investigators.
However, having in their hands thousands of other numbers that had to be investigated, the PJ inspectors — at the time led by the coordinator Gonçalo Amaral — had to define selection criteria for the investigation.First, they started by analyzing the three-day calls made by the McCann couple and their friends.And also Robert Murat — one of the first suspects and defendants in the case, after his overly helpful behavior with the authorities and the media raised suspicions to a journalist — and his inner circle.They then decided to extend that time period for all of them.
In addition to these calls, the PJ also decided that one of the ways to select the thousands of telephone records would be made according to the “time/duration/frequency/direction” of each one, focusing attention on what it called the “critical period” , between 20:00 and 22:00, that is, until the moment when the crime will have happened, as shown in the report in the process.And that was how he let slip the call to Brueckner, which ended precisely at 8:02 pm that day, two minutes past the threshold established by the investigation.
According to this report, however, there was another record considered important for the PJ: a number from an unknown user — similar to the number used by Brueckner, a prepaid card that was deactivated shortly afterwards.This contact activated the antennas between 9:39 pm and 9:15 pm, with five communications with a number that turned out to be a real estate agency.He also received two calls from an Irish operator shortly before 10 pm — the time at which a group of witnesses said they saw a man leaving the enterprise with a child in his arms (which led to the creation of the famous robot portrait of a male child. .70 m (about 30 years old, which in the field of hypotheses fits almost all suspects, even Maddie's father).
The PJ's attention was tied to these two numbers, which ended up extending the period of time previously defined for the analysis to a later date.But only for these numbers.The call that Brueckner would have received remained in the records, but it was not even analyzed, like thousands of others.
Suspect had help from another?
In addition to the family who saw a man with a child in his arms, at 10:00 pm, a friend of the McCann couple also gave an identical report to the PJ, although she assured that she saw him at 9:15 pm — about 45 minutes before the other witnesses and in an opposite location.These two pieces of information led the PJ to suspect that, given the discrepancy in the time and location of the two witnesses, they could be facing two different suspects who helped each other.
This led inspectors to create yet another criterion for analyzing telephone records: all calls whose sender and receiver activated the antenna at the same time.Brueckner's call, now I suspect, would also escape this criterion, since the number that called him activated an antenna outside Praia da Luz.
To analyze the more than 70 thousand calls, the PJ decided to select telephone records according to the "time/duration/frequency/direction" of each one, focusing attention on what it called the "critical period", between 8 pm and 10 pm in the May 3.
The numbers of the telephone booths, reception of the development, and its owner were also investigated.But, according to the conclusions of the police, nothing was found."These data only served, like the remaining 74 thousand records of the operators, to eliminate possible suspects", the report reads.Suspects that, apparently, already existed in the case.
The two lines of inquiry that set Brueckner apart
As an inspector from the PJ who worked on the case reminded the Observer, shortly after Maddie's disappearance, two lines of investigation were defined: the child had either been kidnapped or killed at home.
In the first hypothesis, that of abduction, the PJ concluded that the McCanns' routine had not changed much during the holidays.During the day the children were usually taken with nannies, so that the couple could do various activities (the main one being playing tennis with friends).At night, the couple bathed the children, fed them, laid them down and stayed with them until they fell asleep and then went to dinner at a restaurant near the apartment where they were staying, within the complex, the Tapas Bar — but where not it was possible to see the house with the naked eye.So they and their friends took turns going to see the children every half hour.On the day of the disappearance, between 9 pm (when Gerry went to the apartment) and 10 pm (when it was Kate), the British girl will have disappeared.The friend who made the 9.30 pm visit only listened at the door and window, but did not go inside.The children were silent, so he concluded that they were sleeping and everything was fine.
In August of that year of 2007, the PJ had the collaboration of a retired policeman from England who brought two dogs: one detected the odor of blood, the other a dead body.Its results led the McCanns to be appointed defendants.
This routine, fed by witnesses heard by the PJ who realized they had seen someone hanging around the apartment days before the disappearance, reinforced the hypothesis that Maddie had been kidnapped.A suspect was quickly found: Murat, whose house he lived in, his mother's, was searched by investigators, who even excavated in the garden.The mother always insisted that the son had not even left the house on the night of the alleged crime.Even so, Murat was constituted a defendant.
The homicide thesis and the hundreds of traces that came to nothing
In August of that year, 2007, the thesis of death began to gain strength.The PJ had the collaboration of a retired policeman from England.He presented himself as a professional with 35 years of experience, some of which was with the South Yorkshire Police, where he had worked as a senior dog trainer.Martin Grime arrived at the village of Luz with two animals: Eddie, trained to detect dead bodies, and Keela, a specialist in finding human blood.Eddie marked an area by the window of the Ocean's Club apartment, which was found open the night of the disappearance.He also marked a zone in the McCanns' car, rented almost a month after their eldest daughter disappeared.Keela marked yet another area inside the apartment.
The PJ lifted the tiles in the area that Keela marked as having traces of blood and sent the window curtain and part of a plastic from the car for analysis, where Eddie detected a dead body odor.Hundreds of traces were also sent, such as hair found, and oral swabs from Maddie's family and friends, as well as employees, in order to be able to select who was and was not a suspect.
Everything seemed to point to a murder, possibly accidental, inside the house.At this point, the McCanns were also under surveillance, until the beginning of September they ended up being accused.The process then had three defendants: Murat, in the abduction thesis, and the McCanns in the thesis of the murder of their own daughter.
While these lines of inquiry were pursued, all others fell to the ground.If before the PJ came to question an English citizen, who a month before Maddie's disappearance had lived in the car and who was seen several times in the vicinity of the Ocean's Club, the thesis that someone from outside could be involved in the abduction or in the crime quickly lost steam.
"These data only served, like the remaining 74 thousand records of the operators, to eliminate possible suspects".
PJ Report
“It was never understood very well.Other lines of investigation were abandoned, such as that someone had been prowling the apartment days before.And all of a sudden, without any traces of evidence, they are constituted as defendants”, a source who participated in the investigation stated to the Observer and who pointed out to him some flaws.
The material collected on site was sent to the Genetics and Forensic Biology Service of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine.It was here that, in two different phases, 25 samples and 447 traces arrived, a piece of Maddie's bed quilt, two parts of the Renault Scénic and 444 hairs.Much of the material was contaminated because the area was not properly protected and among the analyzed hairs there was even dog hair.A crime scene was not guarded as it is now.
In 2017, when the German police contacted the Portuguese Judiciary Police to confirm that Brueckner's number was in the process as active at the time of the disappearance, the PJ ended up locating the call.
The investigation coordinator fired and the evidence that remains
A month after the McCann couple was made a defendant, the coordinator of the investigation was dismissed from his post, after publicly saying that the British police were only following clues provided by the McCann couple.Months later, Gonçalo Amaral would end up submitting his own PJ's resignation, at just 48 years of age, announcing that he would write a book about the case — which resulted in another legal battle brought by the McCanns, and which they won.
Two months before this announcement, in February, and while the collected material was being analyzed, a team of independent researchers from Lisbon headed to the Algarve and took the process to see what had been done to date.The list of thousands of numbers containing Brueckner's contact details was re-analyzed.But the inspectors adopted a strategy that would turn out to be equally beneficial to the one who is now the main suspect in the case: they cross-referenced all the messages and phone calls with the witnesses from the process to see if there were any contradictions or loose ends that could unravel the mystery. that still endures today.
▲Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book "A Verdade da Mentira" which was the target of a lawsuit by the McCanns
In the end, the recommendations of this team were: in the case of murder, wait for the results of the traces sent to England, as well as understand the reliability of the results obtained through the dogs of the English trainer;on the other hand, in the case of abduction, they proposed, in the absence of evidence, to wait for new elements that could reach the process and that could open other lines of investigation.
The laboratory results both in Portugal and in England would arrive shortly afterwards to show that the biological traces collected in the car could be as much from Maddie as from her brothers.In Portugal, after analyzing all the evidence, there was only one left, which may now be crucial to understand whether Brueckner was in the Ocean's Club apartment.The one that didn't match the date at all: a saliva stain found on Maddie's bedspread.
Process ended up filed and no suspects
The case would end up being filed, without any charges against Murat or the McCanns.In 2013, however, a new suspicion would cause the case to be reopened.At the time, British and Portuguese researchers collaborated, there were even new searches in England.But the suspicions ended up bumping into a wall.“There have been more silent lines of investigation” since then, a PJ source admitted to the Observer.The same source recalls that all of them were investigated and that none of them bore fruit.Furthermore, after Gonçalo Amaral, many other investigators were involved in the case, and they never managed to solve the mystery of Maddie's disappearance.
In 2017, when the German police contacted the Portuguese Judiciary Police to confirm whether the number of Brueckner, who lived in the Praia da Luz area at the time, was in the process as active at the time of the disappearance, the PJ ended up locating the call.As well as the number that called you.Problem: both numbers were prepaid and in 2010 they changed hands.But there were images of the car and motorhome used by him, which could serve as a reference for anyone who knew him and could help the police.
The van that the now suspect German was using at the time of the disappearance
3 pictures
Two years after this sharing of information, the German police suggested that the Portuguese and the English do what is done in the so-called “cold cases”, that is, in the archived cases that have been unresolved for years: ask the public for help.The habit is uncommon in Portugal but, as the Observer found out, the PJ ended up choosing to join the plan, because it knew that the Germans would come forward with statements in the media anyway.Two conditions were put in place: Maddie's parents would be notified by the British police first and the suspect's name would not be released.
In less than 24 hours, however, Brueckner's name was released in the German press."This is one more possibility that has to be followed, but if the German authorities continue to say what they say, this investigation could be a flop", the same source from the PJ tells the Observer, who guarantees that there is more evidence besides the calls and cars.And that the suspect's own personality is compatible with Maddie's abduction and probable murder.
“There are several signs that point in that direction and it's not just the fact that he raped an elderly woman.There are more signs that could strengthen or fade away”, said the PJ source, who believes that Brueckner is more than a mere possibility and that it is the new line of investigation.
So far the German Public Ministry has shown that it is convinced that Maddie is dead, but without showing any proof.And following the same logic he used, that of looking for other crimes that the suspect may have committed in the places where he lived, other countries have started to reopen unresolved cases that may eventually be linked to him.In Portugal, the case of the disappearance of an English boy in Aljezur and the sexual attack on a woman, who has only just complained, have already been discarded from her role of crimes.But in Belgium and Germany there are still investigations into the murders and abductions of children in which he may be involved.
After 13 years of mystery, can we finally find out what happened to Maddie and how the suspect always managed to escape?Or will this be an unsolved crime?
Wow. Thanks VS, well pinched - there is quite a load of information there. I had only seen the first part re the phone call. It will take a wee while to wade through that lot.
-
In the PJ files it says;
"an Analysis Report dated 29 May 2007, starts by saying that "competent correlations and analyses" have been done on all calls made in Praia da Luz during 2, 3 and 4 May 2007 based on information furnished by the three phone companies...two sets of calls seen during the "critical period", understood to be between 20h00 and 22h00 on 3 May 2007 immediately stand out"
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
That sounds to as if all the calls over the three days were analysed, but particular attention was paid to calls on 3rd between 20h00 and 22h00. So the calls outside that time slot weren't ignored.
-
del
-
In the PJ files it says;
"an Analysis Report dated 29 May 2007, starts by saying that "competent correlations and analyses" have been done on all calls made in Praia da Luz during 2, 3 and 4 May 2007 based on information furnished by the three phone companies...two sets of calls seen during the "critical period", understood to be between 20h00 and 22h00 on 3 May 2007 immediately stand out"
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
That sounds to as if all the calls over the three days were analysed, but particular attention was paid to calls on 3rd between 20h00 and 22h00. So the calls outside that time slot weren't ignored.
What attention was given to calls outside this time period then? Bearing in mind the PJ went so far as to knock on CB’s door and his phone number was on the list - do you believe the two things are connected?
-
In the PJ files it says;
"an Analysis Report dated 29 May 2007, starts by saying that "competent correlations and analyses" have been done on all calls made in Praia da Luz during 2, 3 and 4 May 2007 based on information furnished by the three phone companies...two sets of calls seen during the "critical period", understood to be between 20h00 and 22h00 on 3 May 2007 immediately stand out"
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
That sounds to as if all the calls over the three days were analysed, but particular attention was paid to calls on 3rd between 20h00 and 22h00. So the calls outside that time slot weren't ignored.
That is your opinion which seems to be wrong as far as Brueckner's number is concerned according to the report in the Observer.
I think it is obvious the PJ did not pick up on Brueckner's number for analysis for the very simple reason we would have heard from them the reason why they had eliminated him from the inquiry instead of Amaral's lame comment that the PJ had knocked at his door but he wasn't in.
... as shown in the report in the process. And that was how he let slip the call to Brueckner, which ended precisely at 8:02 pm that day, two minutes past the threshold established by the investigation.
According to this report, however, there was another record considered important for the PJ: a number from an unknown user — similar to the number used by Brueckner, a prepaid card that was deactivated shortly afterwards. This contact activated the antennas between 9:39 pm and 9:15 pm, with five communications with a number that turned out to be a real estate agency.
He also received two calls from an Irish operator shortly before 10 pm — the time at which a group of witnesses said they saw a man leaving the enterprise with a child in his arms (which led to the creation of the famous robot portrait of a male child. .70 m (about 30 years old, which in the field of hypotheses fits almost all suspects, even Maddie's father).
The PJ's attention was tied to these two numbers, which ended up extending the period of time previously defined for the analysis to a later date. But only for these numbers. The call that Brueckner would have received remained in the records, but it was not even analysed, like thousands of others.
-
I can see no reason why the call received by the number allegedly belonging to Brueckner would have been seen as of interest by the PJ.
-
I can see no reason why the call received by the number allegedly belonging to Brueckner would have been seen as of interest by the PJ.
And yet they went to visit him at his home. Why?
-
And yet they went to visit him at his home. Why?
I wonder why you cling to something said by someone you think is a liar.
-
I wonder why you cling to something said by someone you think is a liar.
I’m not clinging to anything. I am asking the question. If he lied then this should be exposed. Why did he lie? If he told the truth, then what was it that prompted the PJ to visit CB’s home.
I hope I am allowed to raise these questions without being accused of trolling you or of having mental health issues. We shall see…
-
I’m not clinging to anything. I am asking the question. If he lied then this should be exposed. Why did he lie? If he told the truth, then what was it that prompted the PJ to visit CB’s home.
I hope I am allowed to raise these questions without being accused of trolling you or of having mental health issues. We shall see…
As we don't know when, where and why the police went to his home, we don't know if it happened so we can't treat the visit as a fact. It's a fact that it was said, but we don't know if it's a fact that it happened.
-
As we don't know when, where and why the police went to his home, we don't know if it happened so we can't treat the visit as a fact. It's a fact that it was said, but we don't know if it's a fact that it happened.
It's a fact that Amaral claimed CB's home was visited shortly after the abduction. Either he's telling the truth (which doesn't really show the PJ in a good light) or he's lying (which doesn't really show him in a good light). Take your pick.
-
It's a fact that Amaral claimed CB's home was visited shortly after the abduction. Either he's telling the truth (which doesn't really show the PJ in a good light) or he's lying (which doesn't really show him in a good light). Take your pick.
Well, unlike you, I don't think there's enough information to choose.
-
Well, unlike you, I don't think there's enough information to choose.
And you think I've chosen?
-
And you think I've chosen?
You posted about the alleged visit to CB as if it were a fact, did you not?
-
You posted about the alleged visit to CB as if it were a fact, did you not?
Yes I did. Naughty me. I should have included the word "allegedly". Personally I can see no reason for Amaral to make up a lie which makes his team look even more incompetent and useless that they already do, so on this occasion I think he is probably telling the truth but accept that as he is a known bare faced liar maybe he just can't help making stuff up for shits and giggles.
-
And yet they went to visit him at his home. Why?
House to house enquiries ? or do you see some conspiracy where none exists ?
-
House to house enquiries ? or do you see some conspiracy where none exists ?
I beg your pardon? I don't see any conspiracy, just incompetence. Did the PJ knock on every door in and around PdL then?
-
Yes I did. Naughty me. I should have included the word "allegedly". Personally I can see no reason for Amaral to make up a lie which makes his team look even more incompetent and useless that they already do, so on this occasion I think he is probably telling the truth but accept that as he is a known bare faced liar maybe he just can't help making stuff up for shits and giggles.
Might be best if you didn't post his words as if they are facts then. Much as you want to believe that the PJ visired Brueckner's house after Madeleine's disappearance, I don't think he had a house at that time.
-
I beg your pardon? I don't see any conspiracy, just incompetence. Did the PJ knock on every door in and around PdL then?
So are you insinuating they knocked on CB's door for a specific reason and not just house to house enquiries ?
-
Might be best if you didn't post his words as if they are facts then. Much as you want to believe that the PJ visired Brueckner's house after Madeleine's disappearance, I don't think he had a house at that time.
Who said they knocked on the door of a house? I don't WANT to believe that the PJ came knocking on his door, I just can't think of any plausible, logical reason for Amaral to make up such a blatant lie. But then perhaps he just can't help himself and is driven by purely illogical impulses.
-
So are you insinuating they knocked on CB's door for a specific reason and not just house to house enquiries ?
I'm not insinuating anything, I am (if you notice by reading my posts) asking WHY they (allegedly) knocked on his door. I hope that's OK with you?
-
The irony of CB being 'in the frame', according to HCW, is that Mrs. Pamela Fenn's account of an aborted burglary attempt jives accurately with his apparent MO; as compelling as corroborative eye witness accounts get. But for this account to be taken into serious consideration, then 'supporters' must then perform a begrudging volte-face regarding their dismissing of the late, lamented, yet much-maligned Mrs. Fenn herself and her account of hearing children crying in the flat downstairs.
There's now a pleasing squaring of the circle about this facet of the case that was hitherto missing prior to CB being fingered.
-
I'm not insinuating anything, I am (if you notice by reading my posts) asking WHY they (allegedly) knocked on his door. I hope that's OK with you?
Probably because he was a known nonce. In fact not probably.
Quite why subsequent follow up wasn't conducted is open to conjecture, but that may be due to the usual combination of lack of manpower, ineptitude, indolence and human nature.
-
The irony of CB being 'in the frame', according to HCW, is that Mrs. Pamela Fenn's account of an aborted burglary attempt jives accurately with his apparent MO; as compelling as corroborative eye witness accounts get. But for this account to be taken into serious consideration, then 'supporters' must then perform a begrudging volte-face regarding their dismissing of the late, lamented, yet much-maligned Mrs. Fenn herself and her account of hearing children crying in the flat downstairs.
There's now a pleasing squaring of the circle about this facet of the case that was hitherto missing prior to CB being fingered.
This is a silly post, designed to goad "supporters" IMO.
-
Probably because he was a known nonce. In fact not probably.
Quite why subsequent follow up wasn't conducted is open to conjecture, but that may be due to the usual combination of lack of manpower, ineptitude, indolence and human nature.
Please note - we are not allowed to say this happened in the first place, only that it "might" have happened. Some people dispute that the PJ ever knocked on his door at all.
-
This is a silly post, designed to goad "supporters" IMO.
No it's not, it's fact. I'm impartial, so have no skin in your sectarian fight.
You can't accept one without the other.
-
Please note - we are not allowed to say this happened in the first place, only that it "might" have happened. Some people dispute that the PJ ever knocked on his door at all.
I don't care. I'm going on statements made in the files. They knocked on his door, according to witness statements.
-
I can see no reason why the call received by the number allegedly belonging to Brueckner would have been seen as of interest by the PJ.
Obviously neither did they.
You've got an excuse though - you are an armchair detective.
-
I can see no reason why the call received by the number allegedly belonging to Brueckner would have been seen as of interest by the PJ.
I'll be honest, given that the PJ compiled meticulous phone records and analysed the data in great detail, I can't understand how they didn't zero in on CB's phone number when they zero'd in on his front door (allegedly, but actually they almost certainly did). There may have been a time lag obtaining the phone data from the phone companies, which may have muddied the waters. The fact that they were looking for an abductor on the run may have had a bearing. Or maybe one hand didn't know what the other was doing - again, common failures in police investigations.
-
I'll be honest, given that the PJ compiled meticulous phone records and analysed the data in great detail, I can't understand how they didn't zero in on CB's phone number when they zero'd in on his front door (allegedly, but actually they almost certainly did). There may have been a time lag obtaining the phone data from the phone companies, which may have muddied the waters. The fact that they were looking for an abductor on the run may have had a bearing. Or maybe one hand didn't know what the other was doing - again, common failures in police investigations.
A few seconds worth of calls or text alerted SY to the three locals, yet a 30 minute call allegedly by CB's phone didn't, wonder why ?
-
A few seconds worth of calls or text alerted SY to the three locals, yet a 30 minute call allegedly by CB's phone didn't, wonder why ?
Yep, same rules apply. In fact it was only when one of CB's apparent previous partners in crime started singing / plea bargaining that anyone tumbled to the phone call at all. And that's not a reflection on some super sleuthing from HCW, that's serendipity.
-
Please note - we are not allowed to say this happened in the first place, only that it "might" have happened. Some people dispute that the PJ ever knocked on his door at all.
I rather get the impression that the judicial police are finding Amaral a bit of an embarrassment at the moment.
"The data is released and now we are in the phase of receiving things that may be relevant, we will analyze them together and then decide the next steps from a procedural point of view, being certain that what will be done next can be consensual decision of the three police or each do what it understands because each has legitimately its process", Highlighted.
One of the unavoidable names when talking about Maddie's disappearance is the former inspector of the PJ Portimão Gonçalo Amaral, still currently the target of criticism from the English press and who came to have a legal dispute with the child's parents.
On the subject, Carlos Farinha (deputy director of the Judiciary Police) recalled that Gonçalo Amaral left the PJ in 2008 and that "after that many people worked and work in the process", lamenting that the name continues to be related to the investigation.
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/maddie-pj-desvaloriza-suspeitas-contra-christian-brueckner
-
A few seconds worth of calls or text alerted SY to the three locals, yet a 30 minute call allegedly by CB's phone didn't, wonder why ?
It depends what the sequence of events was. Either they started with the knowledge that the men had a history of burglary and then found the phone calls, or they found the phone calls and then discovered they belonged to people with records for burglary. If the former, then there was a targetted (not random) search of the phone records.
-
It depends what the sequence of events was. Either they started with the knowledge that the men had a history of burglary and then found the phone calls, or they found the phone calls and then discovered they belonged to people with records for burglary. If the former, then there was a targetted (not random) search of the phone records.
CB had a record for theft , so why wasn't he targeted, rhetorical of course.Out of interest is his number actually in the files , any one know.
-
CB had a record for theft , so why wasn't he targeted, rhetorical of course.Out of interest is his number actually in the files , any one know.
Syphoning deisel isn't quite the same as burglary?
-
Ocean Club employee denounced McCann's habits to maddie abduction suspect
june 7, 2020
PJ and German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable goods in their homes. The suspect's goal would be to make a robbery, but he saw the children and decided to take the older one.
Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007.
It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call.
A former employee of the Ocean Club, on praia da Luz in Lagos, had it on his personal agenda and revealed who he belonged to: a 30-year-old German who lived nearby and who did not have a known profession.
//www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie
Unfortunately that is as far as I am allowed to go - Paywall
But it seems the Portuguese press are making up for lost time with the rather chilling headline about the decision to take the eldest child.
There is a lot more going on than only Madeleine's case if even one iota of the Sabado article is correct- Brueckner's burglary accomplice from the Ocean Club has been identified
- that person had the phone number the BKA were investigating on his phone - hence no more identity requests - they've got the information
- logically, that person will have been singing like a canary since first identified
- imagine having known about the crime against Madeleine which you probably thought you'd got away with - the trauma of being caught out after all those years
-
Syphoning deisel isn't quite the same as burglary?
Still a criminal record though.
-
Ocean Club employee denounced McCann's habits to maddie abduction suspect
june 7, 2020
PJ and German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable goods in their homes. The suspect's goal would be to make a robbery, but he saw the children and decided to take the older one.
Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007.
It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call.
A former employee of the Ocean Club, on praia da Luz in Lagos, had it on his personal agenda and revealed who he belonged to: a 30-year-old German who lived nearby and who did not have a known profession.
//www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie
Unfortunately that is as far as I am allowed to go - Paywall
But it seems the Portuguese press are making up for lost time with the rather chilling headline about the decision to take the eldest child.
There is a lot more going on than only Madeleine's case if even one iota of the Sabado article is correct- Brueckner's burglary accomplice from the Ocean Club has been identified
- that person had the phone number the BKA were investigating on his phone - hence no more identity requests - they've got the information
- logically, that person will have been singing like a canary since first identified
- imagine having known about the crime against Madeleine for which you probably thought you'd got away with - the trauma of being caught out after all those years
Yeh that makes no sense - here's why:
The article is dated June 2020, so piggy backing on the original HCW proclamation.
'Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007', but then this:
'It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call'.
What? I thought this 'friend' only came forward in the last few years? So CB having this discussion isn't the important part, it's when the 'friend' went to the police.
Finally, do you really think this 'friend' would have just been let off and the door flung open if he was some accomplice?
-
Yeh that makes no sense - here's why:
The article is dated June 2020, so piggy backing on the original HCW proclamation.
'Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007', but then this:
'It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call'.
What? I thought this 'friend' only came forward in the last few years? So CB having this discussion isn't the important part, it's when the 'friend' went to the police.
Finally, do you really think this 'friend' would have just been let off and the door flung open if he was some accomplice?
Maddie case: Law does not provide for arrest for Friend of German who watched McCann routines
Law does not provide for arrest for friend of German who watched McCann routines
SATURDAY
june 8, 2020
Friend of the suspect in Maddie's disappearance does not incur any sanction, in the light of Portuguese law, not even if he knew that the goal was to rob the house that was being occupied by the English couple.
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/caso-maddie-lei-nao-preve-prisao-para-amigo-de-alemao-que-vigiou-rotinas-dos-mccann
-
Maddie case: Law does not provide for arrest for Friend of German who watched McCann routines
Law does not provide for arrest for friend of German who watched McCann routines
SATURDAY
june 8, 2020
Friend of the suspect in Maddie's disappearance does not incur any sanction, in the light of Portuguese law, not even if he knew that the goal was to rob the house that was being occupied by the English couple.
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/caso-maddie-lei-nao-preve-prisao-para-amigo-de-alemao-que-vigiou-rotinas-dos-mccann
German law - we're assuming it's his German friend. If this is the key witness, then HCW has interviewed him.
-
German law - we're assuming it's his German friend. If this is the key witness, then HCW has interviewed him.
No assumption about it.
Portuguese Law - The reference is to the former Ocean Club Portuguese employee in possession of Brueckner's phone number.
-
No it's not, it's fact. I'm impartial, so have no skin in your sectarian fight.
You can't accept one without the other.
Of course you can. If she saw something happeningwith her own eyes then that is quite different to hearing a crying child at some distance and claiming to know exactly which child or children were crying, IMO.
-
I don't care. I'm going on statements made in the files. They knocked on his door, according to witness statements.
What statements would those be? You do realise that it is G-Unit who has told me off for claiming it happened don't you?
-
Of course you can. If she saw something happening with her own eyes then that is quite different to hearing a crying child at some distance and claiming to know exactly which child or children were crying, IMO.
At some distance = The floor below.
-
Syphoning deisel isn't quite the same as burglary?
Can I ask why you have not firmly remonstrated with The General for claiming as fact (borne out by witness statements indeed!) that the police knocked on CB's door?
-
Of course you can. If she saw something happeningwith her own eyes then that is quite different to hearing a crying child at some distance and claiming to know exactly which child or children were crying, IMO.
The point being that she's a trustworthy source or she isn't.
-
The point being that she's a trustworthy source or she isn't.
People can be both trustworthy and yet also mistaken. They can be correct about one thing and incorrect about another. Why be so black and white about it? That's just illogical.
-
People can be both trustworthy and yet also mistaken. They can be correct about one thing and incorrect about another. Why be so black and white about it? That's just illogical.
Irrespective of human memory / perception fallibility, is / was she a credible witness, yes or no?
Because certain elements have derided her account of the children crying, despite Kate corroborating it (albeit retrospectively).
As I said, it's one facet of the case and one witness that I think we may be able to rely upon.
-
Irrespective of human memory / perception fallibility, is / was she a credible witness, yes or no?
Because certain elements have derided her account of the children crying, despite Kate corroborating it (albeit retrospectively).
As I said, it's one facet of the case and one witness that I think we may be able to rely upon.
I have no idea if she's a credible witness. As she's dead it's not possible to ascertain if she saw CB trying to break into her apartment so her witness testimony is completely irrelevant now anyway. IMO.
-
At some distance = The floor below.
Literally the nearest human being in proximity, no less.
But it appears that she may have been correct about the children crying, or CB (or some other miscreant) beating a hasty retreat from her window - or vica versa.
What is for certain, Mrs Fenn wasn't lying or mistaken about the former, as Kate rather helpfully corroborated her account. So the chances of her lying or being mistaken about the intruder report must be taken at face value, as she's proven to be reliable; a state that suits both sides of the divide actually, which I find nicely balanced.
-
Literally the nearest human being in proximity, no less.
But it appears that she may have been correct about the children crying, or CB (or some other miscreant) beating a hasty retreat from her window - or vica versa.
What is for certain, Mrs Fenn wasn't lying or mistaken about the former, as Kate rather helpfully corroborated her account. So the chances of her lying or being mistaken about the intruder report must be taken at face value, as she's proven to be reliable; a state that suits both sides of the divide actually, which I find nicely balanced.
I think your deductions are quite illogical personally.
-
I think your deductions are quite illogical personally.
That's your prerogative.
-
I have no idea if she's a credible witness. As she's dead it's not possible to ascertain if she saw CB trying to break into her apartment so her witness testimony is completely irrelevant now anyway. IMO.
I wonder if HCW thinks her witness testimony is 'completely irrelevant now anyway' because she's dead, despite the fact that it places a man roughly matching his description literally upstairs from the scene of the crime mere days / weeks before, attempting to gain entry in the same manner he must think he used when taking MM?
Her being dead now is problematic, granted, but if both the PJ and the BKA discount such compelling testimony, maybe they're both incompetent (although this is a man [HCW] who seemingly,happily trusts the testimony of a career criminal in the midst of levering a plea bargain of sorts)
-
I wonder if HCW thinks her witness testimony is 'completely irrelevant now anyway' because she's dead, despite the fact that it places a man roughly matching his description literally upstairs from the scene of the crime mere days / weeks before, attempting to gain entry in the same manner he must think he used when taking MM?
Her being dead now is problematic, granted, but if both the PJ and the BKA discount such compelling testimony, maybe they're both incompetent (although this is a man [HCW] who seemingly,happily trusts the testimony of a career criminal in the midst of levering a plea bargain of sorts)
Mrs Fenn was not asked for a description of the intruder to her home.
Not apparel.
Not approximation of his height or weight.
Not skin tone.
Not hair colouring or length.
Not if he had any distinguishing features.
Not if she had seen him around. etcetera - etcetera - etcetera
In fact not one single solitary feature which might connect him to Brueckner or to the subject of this thread.
Time to move on and back > to the topic.
-
Mrs Fenn was not asked for a description of the intruder to her home.
Not apparel.
Not approximation of his height or weight.
Not skin tone.
Not hair colouring or length.
Not if he had any distinguishing features.
Not if she had seen him around. etcetera - etcetera - etcetera
In fact not one single solitary feature which might connect him to Brueckner or to the subject of this thread.
Time to move on and back > to the topic.
Nope. We're discussing this, as unpalatable it seems to be to you. This is bang on topic.
Let's get it right, she went to them.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mrs. Fenn's account of an intruder clambering through the window of the apartment above where MM went missing does not have 'one single solitary feature which might connect him to Brueckner or to the subject of this thread'?
Or are you taking exception because it's me discussing it? Because even you, gawd bless ya, can see the connection. You know she lived upstairs, right? I mean right upstairs - 2 metres away. So close, in fact, she could discern the sex and approximate age of the crying child that we now know to be accurate.
....although I can see why there's still a keenness to castigate her, dead or not. I get it.
Love it. The balance, the irony. It's almost unique in this case.
-
I wonder if HCW thinks her witness testimony is 'completely irrelevant now anyway' because she's dead, despite the fact that it places a man roughly matching his description literally upstairs from the scene of the crime mere days / weeks before, attempting to gain entry in the same manner he must think he used when taking MM?
Her being dead now is problematic, granted, but if both the PJ and the BKA discount such compelling testimony, maybe they're both incompetent (although this is a man [HCW] who seemingly,happily trusts the testimony of a career criminal in the midst of levering a plea bargain of sorts)
In terms of helping to secure a conviction Fenn's witness statement cannot be confirmed or tested or questioned therefore it is irrelevant IMO.
-
Nope. We're discussing this, as unpalatable it seems to be to you. This is bang on topic.
Let's get it right, she went to them.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mrs. Fenn's account of an intruder clambering through the window of the apartment above where MM went missing does not have 'one single solitary feature which might connect him to Brueckner or to the subject of this thread'?
Or are you taking exception because it's me discussing it? Because even you, gawd bless ya, can see the connection. You know she lived upstairs, right? I mean right upstairs - 2 metres away. So close, in fact, she could discern the sex and approximate age of the crying child that we now know to be accurate.
....although I can see why there's still a keenness to castigate her, dead or not. I get it.
Love it. The balance, the irony. It's almost unique in this case.
OK - please supply her description of the intruder, and also her description of the crying child.
-
OK - please supply her description of the intruder, and also her description of the crying child.
Why? Are you doubting these accounts exist?
-
In terms of helping to secure a conviction Fenn's witness statement cannot be confirmed or tested or questioned therefore it is irrelevant IMO.
At least you think it's on topic and continue to discuss in a cordial manner.
-
At least you think it's on topic and continue to discuss in a cordial manner.
*pats self on head and basks in the warm glow generated by the General's approval*
-
Why? Are you doubting these accounts exist?
I can't remember one way or the other but you seem quite certain so, in the context of this discussion, why not remind us all of Fenn's exact description of the intruder and the crying child?
-
I can't remember one way or the other but you seem quite certain so, in the context of this discussion, why not remind us all of Fenn's exact description of the intruder and the crying child?
I don't think there are any.
-
I don't think there are any.
Yeh, there are.
-
Yeh, there are.
Then produce them.
-
Then produce them.
Shhh.....gotta be careful...I'm 'watched'
Apparently dredging up old ground is frowned upon......but here's a link to the statement you know exists and have undoubtedly read many times https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm (https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm)
Keep it to yourself, but right down the bottom she mentions 'daughter', which I reckon most of you missed.
Mum's the word.
(or are we still saying all of these statements are unreliable because they're translated? What's the current stance?)
-
Shhh.....gotta be careful...I'm 'watched'
Apparently dredging up old ground is frowned upon......but here's a link to the statement you know exists and have undoubtedly read many times https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm (https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm)
Keep it to yourself, but right down the bottom she mentions 'daughter', which I reckon most of you missed.
Mum's the word.
(or are we still saying all of these statements are unreliable because they're translated? What's the current stance?)
Great and now the description of the intruder?
-
Shhh.....gotta be careful...I'm 'watched'
Apparently dredging up old ground is frowned upon......but here's a link to the statement you know exists and have undoubtedly read many times https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm (https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm)
Keep it to yourself, but right down the bottom she mentions 'daughter', which I reckon most of you missed.
Mum's the word.
(or are we still saying all of these statements are unreliable because they're translated? What's the current stance?)
But according to Madeleine, Sean was crying too, wasn't he? Why did Mrs Fenn hear only one child?
Or have I misremembered about Sean crying? I think he was.
-
Is everyone out of step but Goncalo Amaral, who until very recently was publicly hawking his product and his opinion in the public market place.
One wonders how many are still falling for this vociferous support for a criminal who was close at hand when Madeleine disappeared but who the Judicial Police coordinated by Amaral at the time didn't question although according to him, was on their radar.
In "Maddie: Enough lies!", you can find many pages that look at the latest suspect in the kidnapping of the girl, the German Christian Brueckner, who Gonçalo Amaral believes will be accused of the crime, but "without evidence".
During the presentation of the book to the press, the former inspector of the Judicial Police made harsh criticism stifling the German investigation, even mentioning that there are several "incongruities" throughout the process — starting with the conviction of rape (for which Christian Brueckner is currently serving time), and the German police, according to Gonçalo Amaral, did not have concrete evidence that this happened.
These are aspects that lead the former inspector to believe that Christian B. will be charged with Maddie's case. "I believe that the German prosecutor will charge this individual: if he accused him of such a rape case in which the individual was convicted when the evidence was subdued to the German court [speaks of the medical examination done to the alleged rape victim in Portugal]. Consciously or not, there is no German court that is aware of that examination carried out at the Hospital de Portimão", he said.
In this sense, asked whether he believes that this case will be solved, and when, Gonçalo Amaral replies that "by the words of the German prosecutor" the process will be resolved "in the near future".
"They will charge the man without any evidence, but they will charge him and bring him to trial. All I want to do is warn the prosecutor that there is a Portuguese case and that this, as a living suspect has a lawyer, contrary to the hypothesis of the dead suspects that happened during the first years. There is a great imbroglio here that has to be resolved," he reiterates.
https://magg.sapo.pt/atualidade/atualidade-nacional/artigos/goncalo-amaral-lanca-livro-sobre-maddie-vao-acusar-o-homem-sem-provas-diz-sobre-christian-b
-
But according to Madeleine, Sean was crying too, wasn't he? Why did Mrs Fenn hear only one child?
Or have I misremembered about Sean crying? I think he was.
....and here's the crux of the argument, was Mrs. Fenn a reliable witness?
I mean, let's get it right, her testimony polarises opinion, with one group going as far as suggesting that she was in cahoots with the McCann's, for some tenuous reason, in an attempt to bolster their 'died earlier in the week' narrative.
Her statement served neither side well, with sceptics drawing a veil over the 'intruder' aspect, but clinging to the 'crying' account, until HCW sprang CB on the world in June 2020. Since then her account of having seen off an intruder directly upstairs has had to be added back in to the mix, as it adds credence to the CB MO and corroborates other similar accounts of holiday lets being broken in to.
Ironically, Mrs. Fenn's account of hearing a child crying for circa 70 minutes was once a cornerstone of the sceptics case. Now, however, both sides can't have it both ways - unless supporters are willing to concede that the 'neglect' was repetitive and continued despite the desperate pleas of their child / children. Conversely, sceptics will have to concede that the intruder account was probably accurate (although this really should always have been the case)
Reliable witness? Take a side.
-
....and here's the crux of the argument, was Mrs. Fenn a reliable witness?
I mean, let's get it right, her testimony polarises opinion, with one group going as far as suggesting that she was in cahoots with the McCann's, for some tenuous reason, in an attempt to bolster their 'died earlier in the week' narrative.
Her statement served neither side well, with sceptics drawing a veil over the 'intruder' aspect, but clinging to the 'crying' account, until HCW sprang CB on the world in June 2020. Since then her account of having seen off an intruder directly upstairs has had to be added back in to the mix, as it adds credence to the CB MO and corroborates other similar accounts of holiday lets being broken in to.
Ironically, Mrs. Fenn's account of hearing a child crying for circa 70 minutes was once a cornerstone of the sceptics case. Now, however, both sides can't have it both ways - unless supporters are willing to concede that the 'neglect' was repetitive and continued despite the desperate pleas of their child / children. Conversely, sceptics will have to concede that the intruder account was probably accurate (although this really should always have been the case)
Reliable witness? Take a side.
Don't be silly please. There is no need for anyone to take a side over this. She could have been mistaken about the crying but did see off an intruder who may or may not have been CB. She may have been correct about the crying, but mistaken about the exact duration, or she may have been absolutely accurate in evry word of her testimony - I accept all possibilities without needing to wave a flag for any of them particularly.
-
8((()*/
....and here's the crux of the argument, was Mrs. Fenn a reliable witness?
I mean, let's get it right, her testimony polarises opinion, with one group going as far as suggesting that she was in cahoots with the McCann's, for some tenuous reason, in an attempt to bolster their 'died earlier in the week' narrative.
Her statement served neither side well, with sceptics drawing a veil over the 'intruder' aspect, but clinging to the 'crying' account, until HCW sprang CB on the world in June 2020. Since then her account of having seen off an intruder directly upstairs has had to be added back in to the mix, as it adds credence to the CB MO and corroborates other similar accounts of holiday lets being broken in to.
Ironically, Mrs. Fenn's account of hearing a child crying for circa 70 minutes was once a cornerstone of the sceptics case. Now, however, both sides can't have it both ways - unless supporters are willing to concede that the 'neglect' was repetitive and continued despite the desperate pleas of their child / children. Conversely, sceptics will have to concede that the intruder account was probably accurate (although this really should always have been the case)
Reliable witness? Take a side.
Like some others you seem obsessed with unimportant minutae which we cannot know the veracity of....
-
Mrs Fenn's statement, dated 20th August;
"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."
A week previously would be between 6th and 13th August. The UK press, however, printing their stories before Mrs Fenn actually gave her statement, gave lots more detail than she did.
"In the weeks before Madeleine disappeared Mrs Fenn scared off an intruder who had apparently let himself into her apartment with a key."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s90.html#p3198
So did Mrs Fenn speak to the press?
"Last night Mrs Fenn refused to reveal details of her evidence."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s90.html#p3198
Someone 'revealed' the details which weren't in Mrs Fenn's police statement, but it wasn't her, it seems. She herself denied speaking to any journalists and said it was all rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFHbkbBh5BM
-
I note the General has not responded to my request for cites for his claim that Mrs Fenn gave a detailed description of the intruder nor to the claim that there are witness statements in the files pertaining to the PJ's knocking on CB's door. Strange that the particular and exact Mod who is so quick to make demands of accuracy on me has let these posts pass without comment IMO.
-
Mrs Fenn's statement, dated 20th August;
"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."
A week previously would be between 6th and 13th August. The UK press, however, printing their stories before Mrs Fenn actually gave her statement, gave lots more detail than she did.
"In the weeks before Madeleine disappeared Mrs Fenn scared off an intruder who had apparently let himself into her apartment with a key."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s90.html#p3198
So did Mrs Fenn speak to the press?
"Last night Mrs Fenn refused to reveal details of her evidence."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s90.html#p3198
Someone 'revealed' the details which weren't in Mrs Fenn's police statement, but it wasn't her, it seems. She herself denied speaking to any journalists and said it was all rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFHbkbBh5BM
Is it your suspicion that Brueckner was the intruder who apparently exited Mrs Fenn's premises via a window (later covered with a wrought iron grill).
It is known that one of his accomplices is an Ocean Club employee who might have had access to keys.
-
Is it your suspicion that Brueckner was the intruder who apparently exited Mrs Fenn's premises via a window (later covered with a wrought iron grill).
It is known that one of his accomplices is an Ocean Club employee who might have had access to keys.
Was Brueckner still around in August?
-
Is it your suspicion that Brueckner was the intruder who apparently exited Mrs Fenn's premises via a window (later covered with a wrought iron grill).
It is known that one of his accomplices is an Ocean Club employee who might have had access to keys.
Have police confirmed that ?
-
Have police confirmed that ?
I think not.
-
Have police confirmed that ?
SIGH!!!
ABSOLUTE PROOF that you read nothing and have no interest in contributing anything to the forum other than the odd 'put down' here and there.
The following from the Portuguese press - which already appears in the forum - seems to confirm the police have quite a bit of knowledge about Brueckner's contacts since and at the time in question.
Probably the amount of information available in the public domain on this person explains the ongoing pathetic deflection to Mrs Fenn and anything which is not Brueckner.
Ocean Club employee denounced McCann's habits to maddie abduction suspect
june 7, 2020
PJ and German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable goods in their homes. The suspect's goal would be to make a robbery, but he saw the children and decided to take the older one.
Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007.
It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call.
A former employee of the Ocean Club, on praia da Luz in Lagos, had it on his personal agenda and revealed who he belonged to: a 30-year-old German who lived nearby and who did not have a known profession.
//www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie
Unfortunately that is as far as I am allowed to go - Paywall
But it seems the Portuguese press are making up for lost time with the rather chilling headline about the decision to take the eldest child.
There is a lot more going on than only Madeleine's case if even one iota of the Sabado article is correct- Brueckner's burglary accomplice from the Ocean Club has been identified
- that person had the phone number the BKA were investigating on his phone - hence no more identity requests - they've got the information
- logically, that person will have been singing like a canary since first identified
- imagine having known about the crime against Madeleine which you probably thought you'd got away with - the trauma of being caught out after all those years
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg674281#msg674281
-
I thought the break-in to Mrs. Fenn's flat was in the week before The McCanns arrived on holiday. Am I wrong about that?
-
I thought the break-in to Mrs. Fenn's flat was in the week before The McCanns arrived on holiday. Am I wrong about that?
That's how the press reported it, but Mrs Fenn didn't say that in her statement.
-
SIGH!!!
ABSOLUTE PROOF that you read nothing and have no interest in contributing anything to the forum other than the odd 'put down' here and there.
The following from the Portuguese press - which already appears in the forum - seems to confirm the police have quite a bit of knowledge about Brueckner's contacts since and at the time in question.
Probably the amount of information available in the public domain on this person explains the ongoing pathetic deflection to Mrs Fenn and anything which is not Brueckner.
Ocean Club employee denounced McCann's habits to maddie abduction suspect
june 7, 2020
PJ and German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable goods in their homes. The suspect's goal would be to make a robbery, but he saw the children and decided to take the older one.
Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007.
It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call.
A former employee of the Ocean Club, on praia da Luz in Lagos, had it on his personal agenda and revealed who he belonged to: a 30-year-old German who lived nearby and who did not have a known profession.
//www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie
Unfortunately that is as far as I am allowed to go - Paywall
But it seems the Portuguese press are making up for lost time with the rather chilling headline about the decision to take the eldest child.
There is a lot more going on than only Madeleine's case if even one iota of the Sabado article is correct- Brueckner's burglary accomplice from the Ocean Club has been identified
- that person had the phone number the BKA were investigating on his phone - hence no more identity requests - they've got the information
- logically, that person will have been singing like a canary since first identified
- imagine having known about the crime against Madeleine which you probably thought you'd got away with - the trauma of being caught out after all those years
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg674281#msg674281
So the answer to Jassi's question is that the police haven't confirmed it, is that correct?
-
So the answer to Jassi's question is that the police haven't confirmed it, is that correct?
Another one who cannot read.
-
Another one who cannot read.
Your lengthy quote does not say he was an accomplice - as far as I can see.
-
Another one who cannot read.
That should be , cannot read anything into press reports.
-
Another one who cannot read.
"The Madeleine McCann suspect was tipped off about British tourists leaving their apartment doors open while they dined out by an 'inside man' at the complex where they were staying, a Portuguese newspaper has claimed."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396063/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-tipped-tourists-leaving-apartment-doors-open-inside-man.html
Truth or rumour? No-one knows.
-
That should be , cannot read anything into press reports.
I could, if I wanted to spend a lot of time, list umpteen press reports about this case which are not true. Anyone posting them as facts needs to think again imo. Most of them are speculation.
-
I could, if I wanted to spend a lot of time, list umpteen press reports about this case which are not true. Anyone posting them as facts needs to think again imo. Most of them are speculation.
The press have been very good in reporting what Wolters has never said.
-
Posters are reminded to stay on topic. TY
-
"The Madeleine McCann suspect was tipped off about British tourists leaving their apartment doors open while they dined out by an 'inside man' at the complex where they were staying, a Portuguese newspaper has claimed."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396063/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-tipped-tourists-leaving-apartment-doors-open-inside-man.html
Truth or rumour? No-one knows.
Hence why the thread topic refers to "known facts" and "speculation" regarding the chequered career path pursued throughout his life by Brueckner.
In an active case of this nature it is unrealistic to expect to be kept informed of investigative procedures or confidential ongoing details, so we armchair detectives on fora have to make do with whatever information is available to us in the public domain if we wish to have any discussion at all.
In many instances that is main stream media -
'ONE WORD, GUILTY' Witness who started new Madeleine McCann probe says ‘guilty’ Christian B must ‘stay in jail for a long time’
Nick Pisa
22:30, 10 Sep 2020
**** **** **** ****
When The Sun tracked him down to a village in Corsica, Busching said: “I am not allowed to say anything about Christian B but I hope he stays in jail.’’
Asked if Christian B had ever shown him images of Madeleine, he said: “Look, I can’t talk about any of this. OK? I’m not allowed.”
Before he left, The Sun asked what he thought of Christian B and he said: “One word. Guilty.”
**** **** **** ****
Hans Christian Wolters, the lead prosecutor investigating Madeleine’s disappearance, said of Busching: “I know the name, but I see no reason to tell you anything about this person. Hope you understand that.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
-
Hence why the thread topic refers to "known facts" and "speculation" regarding the chequered career path pursued throughout his life by Brueckner.
In an active case of this nature it is unrealistic to expect to be kept informed of investigative procedures or confidential ongoing details, so we armchair detectives on fora have to make do with whatever information is available to us in the public domain if we wish to have any discussion at all.
In many instances that is main stream media -
'ONE WORD, GUILTY' Witness who started new Madeleine McCann probe says ‘guilty’ Christian B must ‘stay in jail for a long time’
Nick Pisa
22:30, 10 Sep 2020
**** **** **** ****
When The Sun tracked him down to a village in Corsica, Busching said: “I am not allowed to say anything about Christian B but I hope he stays in jail.’’
Asked if Christian B had ever shown him images of Madeleine, he said: “Look, I can’t talk about any of this. OK? I’m not allowed.”
Before he left, The Sun asked what he thought of Christian B and he said: “One word. Guilty.”
**** **** **** ****
Hans Christian Wolters, the lead prosecutor investigating Madeleine’s disappearance, said of Busching: “I know the name, but I see no reason to tell you anything about this person. Hope you understand that.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
The known facts are few and the speculations are many imo.
-
Indeed, many 'facts' are in fact pure speculation - IMO
-
The known facts are few and the speculations are many imo.
Did I suggest otherwise.
-
The known facts are few and the speculations are many imo.
There is wild speculation and drawing conclusions based on the evidence... There's a big difference
-
There is wild speculation and drawing conclusions based on the evidence... There's a big difference
Is there any evidence that Brueckner had a friend working at the Ocean Club?
-
Is there any evidence that Brueckner had a friend working at the Ocean Club?
I'm not really that interested.. I'm far more interested in the concrete evidence Maddie was murdered by CB
-
I'm not really that interested.. I'm far more interested in the concrete evidence Maddie was murdered by CB
So am I.
-
Is there any evidence that Brueckner had a friend working at the Ocean Club?
Well a Portuguese newspaper has claimed it, I wonder if they completely made it up or if they still have someone in the Pj feeding them info…?
-
Mrs Fenn's statement, dated 20th August;
"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."
A week previously would be between 6th and 13th August. The UK press, however, printing their stories before Mrs Fenn actually gave her statement, gave lots more detail than she did.
"In the weeks before Madeleine disappeared Mrs Fenn scared off an intruder who had apparently let himself into her apartment with a key."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s90.html#p3198
So did Mrs Fenn speak to the press?
"Last night Mrs Fenn refused to reveal details of her evidence."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s90.html#p3198
Someone 'revealed' the details which weren't in Mrs Fenn's police statement, but it wasn't her, it seems. She herself denied speaking to any journalists and said it was all rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFHbkbBh5BM
Hmmphr ..., I always thought that Madeleine disappeared in May NOT August
~~~~~~~~~~
ETA: I find that Eleanor noticed this error before me. Well done Elli.
-
Was Brueckner still around in August?
Seems you got it wrong about Mrs Fenns intruder being in August, Gunit, but that Mrs Fenns intruder was in April/May and not in August.
In April/early May Brueckner was around.
Why are yiu giving out this misinformation?
-
Seems you got it wrong about Mrs Fenns intruder being in August, Gunit, but that Mrs Fenns intruder was in April/May and not in August.
In April/early May Brueckner was around.
Why are yiu giving out this misinformation?
Well spotted Sadie - and is an illustration of how information can be inadvertently corrupted when taken out of context.
Mrs Fenn's statement says - 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.
"before or after the event" is quite obviously in reference to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3
Obviously "thinking that the crying of the child could be linked ..." refers to the week prior to the 3rd and not to the date referred to by Gunit which is obviously wrong as you noticed.
The forum prides itself in accuracy and I am sure G will be grateful to you for pointing out such a glaring error which will enable her to amend her post accordingly.
-
Well spotted Sadie - and is an illustration of how information can be inadvertently corrupted when taken out of context.
Mrs Fenn's statement says - 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.
"before or after the event" is quite obviously in reference to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3
Obviously "thinking that the crying of the child could be linked ..." refers to the week prior to the 3rd and not to the date referred to by Gunit which is obviously wrong as you noticed.
The forum prides itself in accuracy and I am sure G will be grateful to you for pointing out such a glaring error which will enable her to amend her post accordingly.
I have looked at the original text, and it says;
He also asserts that a week before the facts he was the victim of an attempted theft
The original is clearer than the translation.
-
I have looked at the original text, and it says;
He also asserts that a week before the facts he was the victim of an attempted theft
The original is clearer than the translation.
He who?
-
He who?
It's they wretched translations again. I think.
-
I have looked at the original text, and it says;
He also asserts that a week before the facts he was the victim of an attempted theft
The original is clearer than the translation.
Are you disputing that you are in error regarding the timing of when Mrs Fenn allegedly heard the crying child.
From one point of view that is fine.
At the date you are claiming for the crying occurrence the McCann family were not living in the Ocean Club apartments, they were domicile in a rented villa.
You have got it wrong - again.
Showing how all to easy it is to misinterpret what was said in witness statements when no electronic record has been made and only an interpreter has been used. One wonders if Ueve Van Loock is even a native English speaker.
NB - Mrs Fenn did not make a verbatim statement. Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, UEVE VAN LOOCK. Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says ...
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
-
It's they wretched translations again. I think.
Yes, well it doesn't do to point out translation errors on here does it? Tsk.
-
Are you disputing that you are in error regarding the timing of when Mrs Fenn allegedly heard the crying child.
From one point of view that is fine.
At the date you are claiming for the crying occurrence the McCann family were not living in the Ocean Club apartments, they were domicile in a rented villa.
You have got it wrong - again.
Showing how all to easy it is to misinterpret what was said in witness statements when no electronic record has been made and only an interpreter has been used. One wonders if Ueve Van Loock is even a native English speaker.
NB - Mrs Fenn did not make a verbatim statement. Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, UEVE VAN LOOCK. Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says ...
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Ueve Van Loock was the translator? Of English into Portuguese and vice versa? Blimey. What was their mother tongue I wonder...
-
Does anyone remember the risible post which was supposed to be a surreptitiously filmed video recording of Mrs Fenn in the hairdressers?
Dating the occurrence in August is obviously a mistake made in error unlike the deliberate fabrication of that video - but it should be rectified nonetheless; there is enough misinformation swilling about on the internet without inadvertently adding to it.
Please sort it Gunit.
-
Are you disputing that you are in error regarding the timing of when Mrs Fenn allegedly heard the crying child.
From one point of view that is fine.
At the date you are claiming for the crying occurrence the McCann family were not living in the Ocean Club apartments, they were domicile in a rented villa.
You have got it wrong - again.
Showing how all to easy it is to misinterpret what was said in witness statements when no electronic record has been made and only an interpreter has been used. One wonders if Ueve Van Loock is even a native English speaker.
NB - Mrs Fenn did not make a verbatim statement. Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, UEVE VAN LOOCK. Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says ...
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
No, looking at it again she does seem to be referring to the week prior to Madeleine's disappearance. I humbly apologise for my mistake. How careless of me!
Whoever tried to burglarise Mrs Fenn either went for the wrong apartment or had no way of identifying empty apartments, it seems.
-
No, looking at it again she does seem to be referring to the week prior to Madeleine's disappearance. I humbly apologise for my mistake. How careless of me!
Whoever tried to burglarise Mrs Fenn either went for the wrong apartment or had no way of identifying empty apartments, it seems.
What do you mean by that exactly?
-
No, looking at it again she does seem to be referring to the week prior to Madeleine's disappearance. I humbly apologise for my mistake. How careless of me!
Whoever tried to burglarise Mrs Fenn either went for the wrong apartment or had no way of identifying empty apartments, it seems.
Great - now that we've got that sorted and you amend your original post accordingly we can get back to the thread topic.
EVERYONE makes mistakes, so no worries and in this instance everyone else compounded the error by not noticing it with the honourable exception of Sadie.
(reading back I see that I've made an error too. Eleanor also noticed and queried the original mistake in the time)
-
Personally, I don't see what this has got to do with anything, beyond the fact that Breuckner was in the area of Praia da Luz when Madeleine disappeared and Mrs. Fenn's flat was broken into. Exactly where isn't all that important either. It's all within a short distance. And he could have woken Madeleine if he tried more than once, or even at all.
-
What empty flat? Mrs. Fenn's flat wasn't empty. 5a was empty the week before so no point in breaking into that one as there won't have been anything of value in there. A week later there was.
-
No, looking at it again she does seem to be referring to the week prior to Madeleine's disappearance. I humbly apologise for my mistake. How careless of me!
Whoever tried to burglarise Mrs Fenn either went for the wrong apartment or had no way of identifying empty apartments, it seems.
Take a note of the 2014 date here. This is at a time when things were kicking off regarding Scotland Yard interest in the spate of burglaries in the Algarve at the time and the suspicions about Brueckner being flagged up by the local police in Germany 2013.
Apartment key theft cover-up by resort staff in Madeleine McCann case
KEYS to the holiday apartment from which Madeleine McCann was abducted were lost shortly before she vanished, it was claimed last night.
By JAMES MURRAY
00:00, Sun, Feb 9, 2014
However, police were not informed about the loss of potentially crucial evidence which could unlock the seven-year mystery.
A Sunday Express investigation in Portugal has revealed astonishing new information which, if proved, suggests the kidnap was well planned and executed using stolen keys.
Amid claims that Portuguese police are about to arrest three former workers at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, based on information gathered by Scotland Yard, we tracked down a former maintenance worker at the complex whose revelations could change the direction of the international investigation.
The retired man, whose identity we have agreed to protect, said: “I have kept this to myself for long enough, so now it is right to tell people what happened.
“There was another maintenance worker at the Ocean Club who said he had lost a set of keys for the whole of block five.”
Kate and Gerry McCann, their twins Sean and Amelie and eldest daughter Madeleine, were staying in apartment 5a in the block, where there had been a spate of burglaries in the weeks before she vanished.
The former Ocean Club worker revealed: “I remember my colleague telling some of us the keys to that block had been lost.
“He told us about it in the week when the child was taken but I cannot remember the exact day. In the maintenance department we kept duplicates of all keys to the apartments.
“They were on a long cable and very clearly marked and we kept them in a safe.
“If there was a problem, a water leak, a gas leak, it was important for us to have entry to apartments if the owners or guests were out.
“When the man told us about the lost keys, he started crying. He was very upset. He was worried about losing his job, I think, and he did not want others to know about it.
“After the child disappeared, we all had to give statements to the police but I did not mention the keys had been lost because I did not think it was relevant.”
Shortly after Madeleine went missing, the world’s media descended on the Ocean Club and staff were told not to speak to journalists and to co-operate fully with police.
It was widely reported then that someone may have entered 5a through unlocked patio doors so people were not suggesting stolen duplicate keys could have been used to gain access through the front door.
The man said: “This has been on my mind for a long time and you are the first person I have told about it. I did not want to get the other man into trouble, I suppose.
"I didn’t really like the man and I didn’t want trouble from him. He was always doing nasty pranks. Once he put fibreglass in my work trousers which is not nice because it rubs against the skin and hurts.
“He was a young, confident man and I was a lot older than him and we just didn’t get on. In fact, he was the reason I left the job. After the little girl was taken, the atmosphere was really bad. It was not a good place to work.”
The Sunday Express has seen the statement the man gave to Portuguese police shortly after Madeleine was taken on the evening of May 3, 2007 ,and there is no mention of him stating keys had gone missing.
A Portuguese newspaper reported last week that police were particularly interested in a driver at the Ocean Club who dropped guests at the apartments after they arrived from Faro airport.
The man said: “On that night I was asked to do some driving because the man who was supposed to do the driving did not arrive at work. I remember ringing my wife and telling her I would be late home that night.”
Now that the man has come forward with new information he is likely to have to give a more detailed statement to police.
The Sunday Express tracked down the maintenance worker who allegedly lost the keys, 29-year-old Tiago da Silva, who lives a few miles from Luz in Lagos, a pretty coastal town.
When we put it to him that keys were lost, he paused momentarily before saying: “That is not the case. I can’t remember any keys going missing. The keys in maintenance were kept in a safe and nobody could get to them.”
However, his former colleague insisted: “I know what he told me at the time. The keys for all the blocks were kept on a cable and clearly marked.
“He said he had lost the keys to block five. He told me in the same week when the little girl went missing. I am sure of this.
“From my memory I think they were replaced with duplicate keys for the apartments which were held at reception. I remember all this very clearly. He did not want us to tell people about it, so we didn’t say anything.”
Scotland Yard officers have made about 20 trips to Portugal for their investigation, Operation Grange, into Madeleine’s disappearance when she was approaching her fourth birthday.
Portuguese detectives have carried out inquiries on behalf of the Yard team, which has not been allowed to pursue investigations on the ground.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
-
What empty flat? Mrs. Fenn's flat wasn't empty. 5a was empty the week before so no point in breaking into that one as there won't have been anything of value in there. A week later there was.
It has been suggested than an Ocean Club employee was letting Brueckner know when apartments were empty. In the Fenn case it either wasn't Brueckner or he didn't get any such information.
The Gordons were in 5A from 21st-28th April, and went out to eat each evening taking their small children with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
-
Take a note of the 2014 date here. This is at a time when things were kicking off regarding Scotland Yard interest in the spate of burglaries in the Algarve at the time and the suspicions about Brueckner being flagged up by the local police in Germany 2013.
Apartment key theft cover-up by resort staff in Madeleine McCann case
KEYS to the holiday apartment from which Madeleine McCann was abducted were lost shortly before she vanished, it was claimed last night.
By JAMES MURRAY
00:00, Sun, Feb 9, 2014
However, police were not informed about the loss of potentially crucial evidence which could unlock the seven-year mystery.
A Sunday Express investigation in Portugal has revealed astonishing new information which, if proved, suggests the kidnap was well planned and executed using stolen keys.
Amid claims that Portuguese police are about to arrest three former workers at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, based on information gathered by Scotland Yard, we tracked down a former maintenance worker at the complex whose revelations could change the direction of the international investigation.
The retired man, whose identity we have agreed to protect, said: “I have kept this to myself for long enough, so now it is right to tell people what happened.
“There was another maintenance worker at the Ocean Club who said he had lost a set of keys for the whole of block five.”
Kate and Gerry McCann, their twins Sean and Amelie and eldest daughter Madeleine, were staying in apartment 5a in the block, where there had been a spate of burglaries in the weeks before she vanished.
The former Ocean Club worker revealed: “I remember my colleague telling some of us the keys to that block had been lost.
“He told us about it in the week when the child was taken but I cannot remember the exact day. In the maintenance department we kept duplicates of all keys to the apartments.
“They were on a long cable and very clearly marked and we kept them in a safe.
“If there was a problem, a water leak, a gas leak, it was important for us to have entry to apartments if the owners or guests were out.
“When the man told us about the lost keys, he started crying. He was very upset. He was worried about losing his job, I think, and he did not want others to know about it.
“After the child disappeared, we all had to give statements to the police but I did not mention the keys had been lost because I did not think it was relevant.”
Shortly after Madeleine went missing, the world’s media descended on the Ocean Club and staff were told not to speak to journalists and to co-operate fully with police.
It was widely reported then that someone may have entered 5a through unlocked patio doors so people were not suggesting stolen duplicate keys could have been used to gain access through the front door.
The man said: “This has been on my mind for a long time and you are the first person I have told about it. I did not want to get the other man into trouble, I suppose.
"I didn’t really like the man and I didn’t want trouble from him. He was always doing nasty pranks. Once he put fibreglass in my work trousers which is not nice because it rubs against the skin and hurts.
“He was a young, confident man and I was a lot older than him and we just didn’t get on. In fact, he was the reason I left the job. After the little girl was taken, the atmosphere was really bad. It was not a good place to work.”
The Sunday Express has seen the statement the man gave to Portuguese police shortly after Madeleine was taken on the evening of May 3, 2007 ,and there is no mention of him stating keys had gone missing.
A Portuguese newspaper reported last week that police were particularly interested in a driver at the Ocean Club who dropped guests at the apartments after they arrived from Faro airport.
The man said: “On that night I was asked to do some driving because the man who was supposed to do the driving did not arrive at work. I remember ringing my wife and telling her I would be late home that night.”
Now that the man has come forward with new information he is likely to have to give a more detailed statement to police.
The Sunday Express tracked down the maintenance worker who allegedly lost the keys, 29-year-old Tiago da Silva, who lives a few miles from Luz in Lagos, a pretty coastal town.
When we put it to him that keys were lost, he paused momentarily before saying: “That is not the case. I can’t remember any keys going missing. The keys in maintenance were kept in a safe and nobody could get to them.”
However, his former colleague insisted: “I know what he told me at the time. The keys for all the blocks were kept on a cable and clearly marked.
“He said he had lost the keys to block five. He told me in the same week when the little girl went missing. I am sure of this.
“From my memory I think they were replaced with duplicate keys for the apartments which were held at reception. I remember all this very clearly. He did not want us to tell people about it, so we didn’t say anything.”
Scotland Yard officers have made about 20 trips to Portugal for their investigation, Operation Grange, into Madeleine’s disappearance when she was approaching her fourth birthday.
Portuguese detectives have carried out inquiries on behalf of the Yard team, which has not been allowed to pursue investigations on the ground.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
The Ocean Club wouldn't have had a key to Mrs Fenn's apartment, of course, as she didn't let it out to their holidaymakers. She was a permanent resident.
-
It has been suggested than an Ocean Club employee was letting Brueckner know when apartments were empty. In the Fenn case it either wasn't Brueckner or he didn't get any such information.
The Gordons were in 5A from 21st-28th April, and went out to eat each evening taking their small children with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
Thank you for that information. Thank goodness The Gordons took their children with them. At least for them.
-
It has been suggested than an Ocean Club employee was letting Brueckner know when apartments were empty. In the Fenn case it either wasn't Brueckner or he didn't get any such information.
The Gordons were in 5A from 21st-28th April, and went out to eat each evening taking their small children with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
I doubt Bruckner only acted on tip offs from others, what makes you think he did?
-
It has been suggested than an Ocean Club employee was letting Brueckner know when apartments were empty. In the Fenn case it either wasn't Brueckner or he didn't get any such information.
The Gordons were in 5A from 21st-28th April, and went out to eat each evening taking their small children with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
Apparently at least one burglar on the rampage through Luz t the time didn't bother too much whether the occupants were at home within the premises or not.
Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian Brueckner 'is linked to 25 burglaries' in Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz where youngster vanished, court papers reveal
Police linked 25 burglaries on Praia da Luz holiday homes to Christian Brueckner
Cash, cameras and mobile phones were the typical items taken during the raids
Most of the burglary victims were from the UK, court papers have now revealed
By GERARD COUZENS and LUKE MAY FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 17:33, 30 August 2020
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner has been linked to 25 burglaries in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz where the youngster vanished, court papers have revealed.
Police hunting the intruder who raped an American OAP in Praia da Luz looked at an astonishing 25 burglaries in just eight months they suspected could also have been committed by the man unmasked years later as the German paedophile.
Most of the burglary victims were from the UK.
And court documents show up to three break-ins analysed by police trying to solve the horrific September 2005 rape Brueckner carried out took place in one 24 hour period on holiday homes occupied by British tourists.
Cash, cameras and mobile phones were the typical items taken in the raids, which often occurred when occupants were out but at times happened when holidaymakers were in other parts of the properties targeted.
The list of unsolved burglaries emerged as a man described as a former friend of Brueckner's confirmed the convicted sex offender had broken into hotel rooms and holiday flats on the Algarve.
The pal, identified only as Manfred S, told German broadcaster RTL Brueckner had bragged to him about the break-ins when they roamed the Algarve together as small-time crooks.
He also revealed he had discovered a video camera with footage of the sex offender raping his elderly victim at her Praia da Luz holiday home, along with a video of a younger woman tied to a wooden beam in another house.
Manfred S told RTL he took the footage to police because he was so disturbed at what he saw and the video eventually led to Brueckner's conviction for the rape.
The German drifter, who lived in a ramshackle cottage a 15-minute drive from the holiday apartment Madeleine McCann went missing from on May 3 2007, received a seven-year prison sentence late last year after being found guilty of the sex attack in his homeland.
Portuguese detectives compiled a list of 25 unsolved break-ins in Praia da Luz in the first eight months of the year of the September 2 2005 rape in a bid to catch the sex offender when he was still at large.
A police report included in the court files, detailing a review of the crimes, says: 'An analysis of the break-ins that have occurred since the start of 2005, right up to the date of the sex offence, has taken place.
'The possibility the sex offender could be related to the home burglaries is not something that can be excluded.
'However it has not been possible to obtain any evidence linking the crimes, given that the identity of the person or people behind the burglaries remains unknown.' The sequence of break-ins is also laid out in the files, showing the first Praia da Luz crime occurred on January 11 and the victims were a British model and her producer partner.
he intruder crept into the property while they were in their living room and took a £3,600 laptop and a Samsung mobile as well as cash, credit cards, sunglasses and a British passport.
Two teenage students from Loughborough in Leicester, aged 18 and 16, were targeted just over two months later while they were out.
They came back home to find cash and credit cards had been stolen.
The court files show three Brit holidaymakers were the victims of almost identical break-ins on the evenings of August 6 and 7, less than a month before the American OAP was raped in the same holiday resort.
The burglaries occurred while the tourists were out for the night, with the intruder forcing entry at two of the properties before stealing valuables including cash, cameras, a watch and computer equipment.
There were no witnesses to the spate of crimes and no DNA profiles are believed to have been obtained by police at the time.
He admitted to a judge he was a convicted sex offender when he was held for the diesel theft, but the key information was never passed on to police investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
The German drifter was linked last month by Portuguese TV to a 2007 burglary in Gale, a 45-minute drive east of Praia da Luz, that led to a family's £90,000 life savings being taken.
RTP investigative reporter Sandra Felgueiras claimed he had been working with a female accomplice who tipped him off so he could break into properties in the Algarve in copycat raids to the one investigators believe resulted in Madeleine's abduction.
Brueckner was declared the prime suspect in the Madeleine case in June.
He is currently in Germany's Kiel Prison for drugs offences and is due to start a seven-year sentence for the 2005 Praia da Luz rape.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8679197/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-linked-25-burglaries-Praia-da-Luz.html
-
The Ocean Club wouldn't have had a key to Mrs Fenn's apartment, of course, as she didn't let it out to their holidaymakers. She was a permanent resident.
You posted
"In the weeks before Madeleine disappeared Mrs Fenn scared off an intruder who had apparently let himself into her apartment with a key."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg674342#msg674342
-
It occurred to the detectives investigating the vicious rape in 2005 which took place in a villa in close proximity to the McCann holiday apartment that there could be link to the spate of burglaries taking place.
One has to wonder why in 2007 when Madeleine vanished the Portuguese investigators neither bothered with burglaries - burglars - or the assaults taking place around and in Luz.
At least they tried in 2005 even if they were unsuccessful at the time but I think history tells us they were certainly on the right track.
Portuguese detectives compiled a list of 25 unsolved break-ins in Praia da Luz in the first eight months of the year of the September 2 2005 rape in a bid to catch the sex offender when he was still at large.
A police report included in the court files, detailing a review of the crimes, says: 'An analysis of the break-ins that have occurred since the start of 2005, right up to the date of the sex offence, has taken place.
'The possibility the sex offender could be related to the home burglaries is not something that can be excluded.
'However it has not been possible to obtain any evidence linking the crimes, given that the identity of the person or people behind the burglaries remains unknown.' The sequence of break-ins is also laid out in the files, showing the first Praia da Luz crime occurred on January 11 and the victims were a British model and her producer partner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8679197/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-linked-25-burglaries-Praia-da-Luz.html
-
I doubt Bruckner only acted on tip offs from others, what makes you think he did?
I agree.
I think he was very much a loose cannon on occasion. But it seems there was someone with him on at least one occasion when he was committing a sex crime.
The prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann 'had an accomplice' during an alleged child sex crime in Portugal, according to witnesses.
Christian Brueckner was seen with a blond man the night he was arrested for allegedly exposing himself to four children, aged eight to 12, in a park in 2017.
The German, 43, had been spotted ahead of the incident with a male companion of similar height as they attended a festival in the village of Messines, according to police sources.
The pair then went to the children's play area where Brueckner is said to have hidden under a slide with his trousers round his knees.
An off-duty female police woman is thought to have challenged him before trying to keep the situation under control as four parents tried to rush toward him.
A source said: 'She called for back-up. Witnesses said a second man fled the scene.'
But the alleged incident never made it to trial and was archived.
It is thought that the descriptions of Brueckner and his companion are similar to those involved in Madeline's disappearance in 2007.
Witnesses outside the McCann's rental apartment in Praia da Luz had reported seeing two blond men in the area hours before the three-year-old was abducted.
One is said to have had blue eyes, like Brueckner, while the other had green eyes.
Brueckner was declared as the prime suspect in the Madeline case in June.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8652867/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-accomplice-witness-says.html
-
"Witnesses outside the McCann's rental apartment in Praia da Luz had reported seeing two blond men in the area hours before the three-year-old was abducted.
One is said to have had blue eyes, like Brueckner, while the other had green eyes."
They got close enough to them that they were able to see their eye colour??!!
Yeah, alright then, if you say so.
-
"Witnesses outside the McCann's rental apartment in Praia da Luz had reported seeing two blond men in the area hours before the three-year-old was abducted.
One is said to have had blue eyes, like Brueckner, while the other had green eyes."
They got close enough to them that they were able to see their eye colour??!!
Yeah, alright then, if you say so.
Its in the brit press, its bound to be right.
-
"Witnesses outside the McCann's rental apartment in Praia da Luz had reported seeing two blond men in the area hours before the three-year-old was abducted.
One is said to have had blue eyes, like Brueckner, while the other had green eyes."
They got close enough to them that they were able to see their eye colour??!!
Yeah, alright then, if you say so.
No-one has reported seeing eye colour as far as I know.
-
No-one has reported seeing eye colour as far as I know.
Yeah, but your average tabloid-reader doesn't know that.
As long as it's not anti-McCann, media can pretty much publish what they like without risk of challenge from anyone - and they do
-
Yeah, but your average tabloid-reader doesn't know that.
As long as it's not anti-McCann, media can pretty much publish what they like without risk of challenge from anyone - and they do
It's laughable how sceptics think.
They can't publish anything anti McCann because there's no real evidence to imolicate them. That's all... No involvement of the Illuminati necessary lol... It's quite simple
-
No-one has reported seeing eye colour as far as I know.
Maddie suspect Christian Brückner was ‘dealing drugs at teenage parties’ in Portugal
David Brown, Praia da Luz
Sunday June 07 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
Madeleine McCann
A witness said Christian Brückner sold drugs at teenage parties around the village of Barão de São João, close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared
A witness said Christian Brückner sold drugs at teenage parties around the village of Barão de São João, close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared
ALAMY
Share
Save
A convicted paedophile who is the key suspect in the abduction of Madeleine McCann allegedly used drugs to coerce children into sex in the months before she disappeared.
Christian Brückner is said to have sold marijuana at parties for young teenagers close to the Portuguese holiday apartment where Madeleine was staying in May 2007.
Following Madeleine’s disappearance the German drifter moved to a remote village 40 miles away where he used a different name.
IN YOUR INBOX
Best of Times
We’ll send you our top stories, across all sections, straight to your inbox. Simple as that.
Sign up now
Before Madeleine’s disappearance Brückner, now 43, sold drugs accompanied by another man, according to a witness. Both men were assumed to be British as they always spoke English.
A witness said he sold drugs at parties held for teenagers in the forests around the village of Barão de São João, five miles north of Praia da Luz where Madeleine was abducted.
ADVERTISEMENT
The village has a large German population and is regarded by locals as a “hippy commune” where marijuana is openly smoked. Villagers have confirmed that Brückner was a regular visitor.
The woman said that Brückner used the drug to coerce girls into sex. The Times has not been able to independently verify the witness’s claims.
“That was an exchange of favors,”she told TVI news. “He gave “greens” [marijuana] and in return they gave sex because . . . there was no [other] way to pay.
His accomplice was so similar in appearance that she thought they might be brothers.
Brückner was often seen with another man, both described as tall and fair
SPONSORED
“They were both tall, both were blond, one had green eyes, the other had blue eyes,” she said. “I thought the two of them were English [but] now they are saying that he was German. I always thought they were English, because I heard them speak in English.”
The woman said she does not believe Brückner is involved with Madeleine’s abduction but last saw him shortly before the British youngster’s disappearance.
Police believe Brückner was living an “itinerant lifestyle” sleeping in his VW campervan or staying at the homes of people he befriended after being released from a Portuguese prison five months before Madeleine’s abduction.
British and German police have released photographs of a home where Brückner was known to stay which was rented by a German family three miles from Barão de São João.
Related articles
NEWS
Police seek a ‘knockout blow’ to charge suspect
NEWS
It could have been us, so we damned the McCanns
NEWS
What happens next in the McCanns’ 13‑year hunt for justice?
ADVERTISEMENT
The suspect and another man also stayed in a luxury villa owned by German woman six miles from the village. The current owner of the villa, which is run as a luxury Airbnb, said he had not been contacted by police.
Detectives have said that they believe Brückner was breaking into hotel rooms to steal valuables and was drug dealing.
Shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance Brückner arrived in the remote Portuguese village of Foral, 40 miles east of Praia da Luz. Angie Dawes, a British woman, told the Sun on Sunday that he began working as a waiter at a local restaurant owned by a German family.
Her father allowed him to park his camper van in their drive and use their home for showers. Ms Dawes said he insisted on being called Chris.
“Even though he was polite, on every occasion he was weird,” said Ms Dawes, 45. “He would just stare at me in a sleazy way for a minute or two without saying a word and not release his gaze. Later that summer he just disappeared one day never to be seen again.”
Madeleine McCannn disappeared in May 2007 from a resort near to where Brückner was staying
EPA
He also parked his camper at a rented villa in Foral which was used by a German woman for a rehabilitation programme for troubled teenagers.
Lia Silva, the villa’s landlord, told the Mail on Sunday that the German tenant and her young daughter abandoned the villa in 2009, leaving behind syringes and bricks of hashish in a shoebox. Neither Ms Dawe or Ms Silva have been interviewed by police.
ADVERTISEMENT
Brückner returned to Germany in late 2007 but made regular trips back to the Algarve. In 2015 he sold the VW T3 Westfalia camper van to the German owner of a scrapyard three miles from Foral.
Brückner had arrived in Portugual in 1995 after fleeing a jail sentence in Germany for the sexual abuse of children. He lived in a rented farmhouse on the outskirts of Praia da Luz.
Witnesses have described seeing a man matching Brückner’s description monitoring the Ocean Club complex where the McCann family was staying in the days before Madeleine’s abduction. Some witnesses believe he may have had an accomplice who was driving a van similar to his VW camper.
He fled to Portugal again 2016 while facing prosecution in Germany for sexually abusing a child. He was extradited in June 2017 and spent 15 months in jail.
Brückner was convicted in Germany last year of the 2005 rape of a 72-year-old American woman after breaking into her villa about half a mile from the McCann’s holiday apartment.
-
No-one has reported seeing eye colour as far as I know.
I wonder if that might possibly be as a result of witness attraction being distracted by other considerations. I think it possible I might have overlooked eye colour if confronted with the situation.
The two would be at a festival in São Bartolomeu de Messines, silves county, having then moved to a playground. Already in this place, Christian Brueckner hid under a slide and put his pants down his knees. A police officer reported the situation and "witnesses said a second man fled the scene," the Mirror wrote, adding that the case was eventually dismissed.
https://sol.sapo.pt/artigo/706638/suspeito-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-teria-c-mplice-em-2017
Perhaps all will be revealed if the BKA prosecute Brueckner as a consequence of this aberrant behaviour which the Portuguese appear to be tolerant of.
-
Maddie suspect Christian Brückner was ‘dealing drugs at teenage parties’ in Portugal
David Brown, Praia da Luz
Sunday June 07 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
Madeleine McCann
A witness said Christian Brückner sold drugs at teenage parties around the village of Barão de São João, close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared
A witness said Christian Brückner sold drugs at teenage parties around the village of Barão de São João, close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared
ALAMY
Share
Save
A convicted paedophile who is the key suspect in the abduction of Madeleine McCann allegedly used drugs to coerce children into sex in the months before she disappeared.
Christian Brückner is said to have sold marijuana at parties for young teenagers close to the Portuguese holiday apartment where Madeleine was staying in May 2007.
Following Madeleine’s disappearance the German drifter moved to a remote village 40 miles away where he used a different name.
IN YOUR INBOX
Best of Times
We’ll send you our top stories, across all sections, straight to your inbox. Simple as that.
Sign up now
Before Madeleine’s disappearance Brückner, now 43, sold drugs accompanied by another man, according to a witness. Both men were assumed to be British as they always spoke English.
A witness said he sold drugs at parties held for teenagers in the forests around the village of Barão de São João, five miles north of Praia da Luz where Madeleine was abducted.
ADVERTISEMENT
The village has a large German population and is regarded by locals as a “hippy commune” where marijuana is openly smoked. Villagers have confirmed that Brückner was a regular visitor.
The woman said that Brückner used the drug to coerce girls into sex. The Times has not been able to independently verify the witness’s claims.
“That was an exchange of favors,”she told TVI news. “He gave “greens” [marijuana] and in return they gave sex because . . . there was no [other] way to pay.
His accomplice was so similar in appearance that she thought they might be brothers.
Brückner was often seen with another man, both described as tall and fair
SPONSORED
“They were both tall, both were blond, one had green eyes, the other had blue eyes,” she said. “I thought the two of them were English [but] now they are saying that he was German. I always thought they were English, because I heard them speak in English.”
The woman said she does not believe Brückner is involved with Madeleine’s abduction but last saw him shortly before the British youngster’s disappearance.
Police believe Brückner was living an “itinerant lifestyle” sleeping in his VW campervan or staying at the homes of people he befriended after being released from a Portuguese prison five months before Madeleine’s abduction.
British and German police have released photographs of a home where Brückner was known to stay which was rented by a German family three miles from Barão de São João.
Related articles
NEWS
Police seek a ‘knockout blow’ to charge suspect
NEWS
It could have been us, so we damned the McCanns
NEWS
What happens next in the McCanns’ 13‑year hunt for justice?
ADVERTISEMENT
The suspect and another man also stayed in a luxury villa owned by German woman six miles from the village. The current owner of the villa, which is run as a luxury Airbnb, said he had not been contacted by police.
Detectives have said that they believe Brückner was breaking into hotel rooms to steal valuables and was drug dealing.
Shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance Brückner arrived in the remote Portuguese village of Foral, 40 miles east of Praia da Luz. Angie Dawes, a British woman, told the Sun on Sunday that he began working as a waiter at a local restaurant owned by a German family.
Her father allowed him to park his camper van in their drive and use their home for showers. Ms Dawes said he insisted on being called Chris.
“Even though he was polite, on every occasion he was weird,” said Ms Dawes, 45. “He would just stare at me in a sleazy way for a minute or two without saying a word and not release his gaze. Later that summer he just disappeared one day never to be seen again.”
Madeleine McCannn disappeared in May 2007 from a resort near to where Brückner was staying
EPA
He also parked his camper at a rented villa in Foral which was used by a German woman for a rehabilitation programme for troubled teenagers.
Lia Silva, the villa’s landlord, told the Mail on Sunday that the German tenant and her young daughter abandoned the villa in 2009, leaving behind syringes and bricks of hashish in a shoebox. Neither Ms Dawe or Ms Silva have been interviewed by police.
ADVERTISEMENT
Brückner returned to Germany in late 2007 but made regular trips back to the Algarve. In 2015 he sold the VW T3 Westfalia camper van to the German owner of a scrapyard three miles from Foral.
Brückner had arrived in Portugual in 1995 after fleeing a jail sentence in Germany for the sexual abuse of children. He lived in a rented farmhouse on the outskirts of Praia da Luz.
Witnesses have described seeing a man matching Brückner’s description monitoring the Ocean Club complex where the McCann family was staying in the days before Madeleine’s abduction. Some witnesses believe he may have had an accomplice who was driving a van similar to his VW camper.
He fled to Portugal again 2016 while facing prosecution in Germany for sexually abusing a child. He was extradited in June 2017 and spent 15 months in jail.
Brückner was convicted in Germany last year of the 2005 rape of a 72-year-old American woman after breaking into her villa about half a mile from the McCann’s holiday apartment.
That witness description appears to be quite unequivocal in clearing up at least two points.- Brueckner was identified as one of the two blonde men:
How many independent witnesses have given that information to the police one wonders. - One was described as being blue eyed.
The other was described as being green eyed.
Sometimes the much maligned British press do get their research right.
-
Take a note of the 2014 date here. This is at a time when things were kicking off regarding Scotland Yard interest in the spate of burglaries in the Algarve at the time and the suspicions about Brueckner being flagged up by the local police in Germany 2013.
Apartment key theft cover-up by resort staff in Madeleine McCann case
KEYS to the holiday apartment from which Madeleine McCann was abducted were lost shortly before she vanished, it was claimed last night.
By JAMES MURRAY
00:00, Sun, Feb 9, 2014
However, police were not informed about the loss of potentially crucial evidence which could unlock the seven-year mystery.
A Sunday Express investigation in Portugal has revealed astonishing new information which, if proved, suggests the kidnap was well planned and executed using stolen keys.
Amid claims that Portuguese police are about to arrest three former workers at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, based on information gathered by Scotland Yard, we tracked down a former maintenance worker at the complex whose revelations could change the direction of the international investigation.
The retired man, whose identity we have agreed to protect, said: “I have kept this to myself for long enough, so now it is right to tell people what happened.
“There was another maintenance worker at the Ocean Club who said he had lost a set of keys for the whole of block five.”
Kate and Gerry McCann, their twins Sean and Amelie and eldest daughter Madeleine, were staying in apartment 5a in the block, where there had been a spate of burglaries in the weeks before she vanished.
The former Ocean Club worker revealed: “I remember my colleague telling some of us the keys to that block had been lost.
“He told us about it in the week when the child was taken but I cannot remember the exact day. In the maintenance department we kept duplicates of all keys to the apartments.
“They were on a long cable and very clearly marked and we kept them in a safe.
“If there was a problem, a water leak, a gas leak, it was important for us to have entry to apartments if the owners or guests were out.
“When the man told us about the lost keys, he started crying. He was very upset. He was worried about losing his job, I think, and he did not want others to know about it.
“After the child disappeared, we all had to give statements to the police but I did not mention the keys had been lost because I did not think it was relevant.”
Shortly after Madeleine went missing, the world’s media descended on the Ocean Club and staff were told not to speak to journalists and to co-operate fully with police.
It was widely reported then that someone may have entered 5a through unlocked patio doors so people were not suggesting stolen duplicate keys could have been used to gain access through the front door.
The man said: “This has been on my mind for a long time and you are the first person I have told about it. I did not want to get the other man into trouble, I suppose.
"I didn’t really like the man and I didn’t want trouble from him. He was always doing nasty pranks. Once he put fibreglass in my work trousers which is not nice because it rubs against the skin and hurts.
“He was a young, confident man and I was a lot older than him and we just didn’t get on. In fact, he was the reason I left the job. After the little girl was taken, the atmosphere was really bad. It was not a good place to work.”
The Sunday Express has seen the statement the man gave to Portuguese police shortly after Madeleine was taken on the evening of May 3, 2007 ,and there is no mention of him stating keys had gone missing.
A Portuguese newspaper reported last week that police were particularly interested in a driver at the Ocean Club who dropped guests at the apartments after they arrived from Faro airport.
The man said: “On that night I was asked to do some driving because the man who was supposed to do the driving did not arrive at work. I remember ringing my wife and telling her I would be late home that night.”
Now that the man has come forward with new information he is likely to have to give a more detailed statement to police.
The Sunday Express tracked down the maintenance worker who allegedly lost the keys, 29-year-old Tiago da Silva, who lives a few miles from Luz in Lagos, a pretty coastal town.
When we put it to him that keys were lost, he paused momentarily before saying: “That is not the case. I can’t remember any keys going missing. The keys in maintenance were kept in a safe and nobody could get to them.”
However, his former colleague insisted: “I know what he told me at the time. The keys for all the blocks were kept on a cable and clearly marked.
“He said he had lost the keys to block five. He told me in the same week when the little girl went missing. I am sure of this.
“From my memory I think they were replaced with duplicate keys for the apartments which were held at reception. I remember all this very clearly. He did not want us to tell people about it, so we didn’t say anything.”
Scotland Yard officers have made about 20 trips to Portugal for their investigation, Operation Grange, into Madeleine’s disappearance when she was approaching her fourth birthday.
Portuguese detectives have carried out inquiries on behalf of the Yard team, which has not been allowed to pursue investigations on the ground.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
Thanks Brie, but it was out about the keys being missing IIRC (it may just have been a rumour, I can't remember) well before 2014 'cos I can remember referring to them being lost really early on after Madeleine vanished on another forum.
To me, it sounds like The Sunday Express bulling themselves up. Eleanor is good at remembering things; do you remember it Elli? Anyone else ?
-
Thanks Brie, but it was out about the keys being missing ( it maybe just have been a rumour, I can't remember) well before 2914 'cos I can remember referring to them being lost really early on after Madeleine vanished on another forum.
To me, it sounds like The Sunday Express bulling themselves up. Eleanor is good at remembering things; do you remember it Elli? Anyone else ?
I remember a statement about an Ocean Club Worker losing keys and that no one wanted to talk about it. But it was a long time ago.
-
That witness description appears to be quite unequivocal in clearing up at least two points.- Brueckner was identified as one of the two blonde men:
How many independent witnesses have given that information to the police one wonders. - One was described as being blue eyed.
The other was described as being green eyed.
Sometimes the much maligned British press do get their research right.
Blond men are not that common, especially two unidentified blond men together.
Could they be the two blond men seen by the Wiltshire sisters on a balcony ovetlooking 5A ?.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
[snip]
Two British sisters gave a dramatic account of a pair of strangers watching the Ocean Club pool and tapas bar hours before Madeleine McCann vanished.
In an exclusive interview, Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire told how they saw two blond men in their 30s, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCanns' flat in Praia da Luz.[snip]
and
[snip]
The sisters said they were immediately struck by the behaviour of the two men on the balcony.
Scroll down for more...
Enlarge
The pair, tanned and in Bermuda shorts, were standing outside the patio doors of a groundfloor apartment, which had been unoccupied all week, and were looking out over the resort's family swimming pool and restaurant area.
Mrs Wiltshire, 58, a mother of two, said: "It was odd because I hadn't seen them before. In May the resort wasn't busy.
Robert Murat
"There were only about 60 of us staying in the apartments and you got to recognise all the other people.
"One of the guys was walking down the steps and as I looked at him, he walked back up and started talking to the other one.
"They had a view of the whole Ocean Club and the McCanns' apartment. It just showed how easy it would be for anyone to use those balconies to watch the area. It has haunted me ever since."
[/snip]
They also saw Robert Murat out and about that evening.
-
I remember a statement about an Ocean Club Worker losing keys and that no one wanted to talk about it. But it was a long time ago.
Thanks Elli. I knew you would remember it.
-
Maddie suspect Christian Brückner was ‘dealing drugs at teenage parties’ in Portugal
David Brown, Praia da Luz
Sunday June 07 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
Madeleine McCann
A witness said Christian Brückner sold drugs at teenage parties around the village of Barão de São João, close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared
A witness said Christian Brückner sold drugs at teenage parties around the village of Barão de São João, close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared
ALAMY
Share
Save
A convicted paedophile who is the key suspect in the abduction of Madeleine McCann allegedly used drugs to coerce children into sex in the months before she disappeared.
Christian Brückner is said to have sold marijuana at parties for young teenagers close to the Portuguese holiday apartment where Madeleine was staying in May 2007.
Following Madeleine’s disappearance the German drifter moved to a remote village 40 miles away where he used a different name.
IN YOUR INBOX
Best of Times
We’ll send you our top stories, across all sections, straight to your inbox. Simple as that.
Sign up now
Before Madeleine’s disappearance Brückner, now 43, sold drugs accompanied by another man, according to a witness. Both men were assumed to be British as they always spoke English.
A witness said he sold drugs at parties held for teenagers in the forests around the village of Barão de São João, five miles north of Praia da Luz where Madeleine was abducted.
ADVERTISEMENT
The village has a large German population and is regarded by locals as a “hippy commune” where marijuana is openly smoked. Villagers have confirmed that Brückner was a regular visitor.
The woman said that Brückner used the drug to coerce girls into sex. The Times has not been able to independently verify the witness’s claims.
“That was an exchange of favors,”she told TVI news. “He gave “greens” [marijuana] and in return they gave sex because . . . there was no [other] way to pay.
His accomplice was so similar in appearance that she thought they might be brothers.
Brückner was often seen with another man, both described as tall and fair
SPONSORED
“They were both tall, both were blond, one had green eyes, the other had blue eyes,” she said. “I thought the two of them were English [but] now they are saying that he was German. I always thought they were English, because I heard them speak in English.”
The woman said she does not believe Brückner is involved with Madeleine’s abduction but last saw him shortly before the British youngster’s disappearance.
Police believe Brückner was living an “itinerant lifestyle” sleeping in his VW campervan or staying at the homes of people he befriended after being released from a Portuguese prison five months before Madeleine’s abduction.
British and German police have released photographs of a home where Brückner was known to stay which was rented by a German family three miles from Barão de São João.
Related articles
NEWS
Police seek a ‘knockout blow’ to charge suspect
NEWS
It could have been us, so we damned the McCanns
NEWS
What happens next in the McCanns’ 13‑year hunt for justice?
ADVERTISEMENT
The suspect and another man also stayed in a luxury villa owned by German woman six miles from the village. The current owner of the villa, which is run as a luxury Airbnb, said he had not been contacted by police.
Detectives have said that they believe Brückner was breaking into hotel rooms to steal valuables and was drug dealing.
Shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance Brückner arrived in the remote Portuguese village of Foral, 40 miles east of Praia da Luz. Angie Dawes, a British woman, told the Sun on Sunday that he began working as a waiter at a local restaurant owned by a German family.
Her father allowed him to park his camper van in their drive and use their home for showers. Ms Dawes said he insisted on being called Chris.
“Even though he was polite, on every occasion he was weird,” said Ms Dawes, 45. “He would just stare at me in a sleazy way for a minute or two without saying a word and not release his gaze. Later that summer he just disappeared one day never to be seen again.”
Madeleine McCannn disappeared in May 2007 from a resort near to where Brückner was staying
EPA
He also parked his camper at a rented villa in Foral which was used by a German woman for a rehabilitation programme for troubled teenagers.
Lia Silva, the villa’s landlord, told the Mail on Sunday that the German tenant and her young daughter abandoned the villa in 2009, leaving behind syringes and bricks of hashish in a shoebox. Neither Ms Dawe or Ms Silva have been interviewed by police.
ADVERTISEMENT
Brückner returned to Germany in late 2007 but made regular trips back to the Algarve. In 2015 he sold the VW T3 Westfalia camper van to the German owner of a scrapyard three miles from Foral.
Brückner had arrived in Portugual in 1995 after fleeing a jail sentence in Germany for the sexual abuse of children. He lived in a rented farmhouse on the outskirts of Praia da Luz.
Witnesses have described seeing a man matching Brückner’s description monitoring the Ocean Club complex where the McCann family was staying in the days before Madeleine’s abduction. Some witnesses believe he may have had an accomplice who was driving a van similar to his VW camper.
He fled to Portugal again 2016 while facing prosecution in Germany for sexually abusing a child. He was extradited in June 2017 and spent 15 months in jail.
Brückner was convicted in Germany last year of the 2005 rape of a 72-year-old American woman after breaking into her villa about half a mile from the McCann’s holiday apartment.
So two blond men were seen in Luz and then two blond men were seen in Barão de São João. Eureka! They must be the same men, so it's perfectly fine to say that the men in Luz had the same colour eyes as the men in Barão de São João! Or is that a bit of a mental leap?
-
So two blond men were seen in Luz and then two blond men were seen in Barão de São João. Eureka! They must be the same men, so it's perfectly fine to say that the men in Luz had the same colour eyes as the men in Barão de São João! Or is that a bit of a mental leap?
If it’s perfectly fine to suggest that Smithman was Gerry McCann then anything goes IMO.
-
If it’s perfectly fine to suggest that Smithman was Gerry McCann then anything goes IMO.
So you think a journalist seemingly deliberately muddying the waters is comparible to a witness giving his honest opinion do you?
-
So you think a journalist seemingly deliberately muddying the waters is comparible to a witness giving his honest opinion do you?
Who are you accusing of deliberately muddying the water and to what end?
-
So two blond men were seen in Luz and then two blond men were seen in Barão de São João. Eureka! They must be the same men, so it's perfectly fine to say that the men in Luz had the same colour eyes as the men in Barão de São João! Or is that a bit of a mental leap?
No "mental leap" required. It seems one witness was close enough to observe the eye colouring of these two guys probably initially noticing the green ones first.
As far as the eye witnesses describing blonde men in Luz are concerned. Many of them have given good descriptions of the men they saw inclusive of efits and these are the ones we know about, there may be more.
One whom if memory serves me well firmly dismissed Ney from the equation at a time when the media were looking in that direction. But she had absolutely no qualms in claiming Brueckner as the man she saw. She was always very definite about her description - so he must have made quite an impression on her.
-
Who are you accusing of deliberately muddying the water and to what end?
Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. Take the testimony of a witness from Barão de São João and inadvertently place her in Luz.
-
Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. Take the testimony of a witness from Barão de São João and inadvertently place her in Luz.
Where exactly did the journalist do that.
I've only seen you making that suggestion in your post.
-
Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. Take the testimony of a witness from Barão de São João and inadvertently place her in Luz.
Come again?
-
No "mental leap" required. It seems one witness was close enough to observe the eye colouring of these two guys probably initially noticing the green ones first.
As far as the eye witnesses describing blonde men in Luz are concerned. Many of them have given good descriptions of the men they saw inclusive of efits and these are the ones we know about, there may be more.
One whom if memory serves me well firmly dismissed Ney from the equation at a time when the media were looking in that direction. But she had absolutely no qualms in claiming Brueckner as the man she saw. She was always very definite about her description - so he must have made quite an impression on her.
Yes I'm sure you're right. Some anonymous witness went around checking out the eye colours of blond men in Luz. Slightly weird imo, but each to his or her own.
-
Yes I'm sure you're right. Some anonymous witness went around checking out the eye colours of blond men in Luz. Slightly weird imo, but each to his or her own.
Please do not be ridiculous.
I have seen no witness making reference to green and blue eyed blonde men in Luz. YOU are the only one with that particular fixation as far as I can see.
Produce a cite to back up what YOU are saying in your posts or accept that once more you are introducing misinformation to the forum - and desist!
-
Please do not be ridiculous.
I have seen no witness making reference to green and blue eyed blonde men in Luz. YOU are the only one with that particular fixation as far as I can see.
Produce a cite to back up what YOU are saying in your posts or accept that once more you are introducing misinformation to the forum - and desist!
Is it ridiculous to wonder where a newspaper reporter's information came from?
It all started with this;
Witnesses outside the McCann's rental apartment in Praia da Luz had reported seeing two blond men in the area hours before the three-year-old was abducted.
One is said to have had blue eyes, like Brueckner, while the other had green eyes.
Brueckner was declared as the prime suspect in the Madeline case in June.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8652867/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-accomplice-witness-says.html
Most people reading that would get the impression that the information about eye colour came from the witnesses who saw the men. We all know that's unlikely, so some of us wondered why that information was included and where it originated. The answer, it seems, is that no-one knows.
-
Anyone know how the rape charges against Brueckner are progressing ?
-
Anyone know how the rape charges against Brueckner are progressing ?
Yes
-
Helpful as usual. @)(++(*
Gizza clue then.
-
Helpful as usual. @)(++(*
Gizza clue then.
They may or not be, Davel's info is from the press like anyone else.
-
Anyone know how the rape charges against Brueckner are progressing ?
You must have a very short memory - this was reported less than a month ago:
"Christian Brückner, 45, is suspected of attacking Hazel Behan, then 20, in her apartment in Praia da Rocha in the Algarve, a 30-minute drive from where Madeleine was abducted. The German news website Der Spiegel said that prosecutors were expected to “conclude the investigation” early next year.
A source claimed that the Braunschweig prosecutor’s office would charge Brückner with raping Behan in Portugal three years before Madeleine’s disappearance in 2007. Brückner denies involvement in her disappearance".
As far as I'm aware no police force issues weekly or daily updates on their progress and since the report there has been the little matter of Christmas and New Year holidays to slow progress down somewhat so my advice is - patience. Ask again in a couple of months if you haven't heard anything.
-
Thanks to STM
IN CASE OF TURMOIL IN THE DISTRICT COURT
12.01.2022, 12:10 | Reading time: 4 minutes
Bettina Thoenes
In November 2020, the murder suspect in the Maddie case was taken to the Braunschweig Regional Court for a detention examination.
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The Braunschweig public prosecutor's office has closed its investigation for bodily injury against five judicial officials.
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/braunschweig/article234294467/Maddie-Verdaechtiger-soll-Rippenbrueche-selbst-verschuldet-haben.html
A comment recalls the volatile incident when the self inflicted injury occurred which included ~ If someone behaves in this way (wantonly clogging the toilet, smearing walls, etc., i.e. committing property damage),
If memory serves me well Brueckner's outburst was because he objected to being filmed. If so - his behaviour would have been recorded.
-
An interesting theory on Websleuths wrt to the evidence held by the BKA is that it is not photographic but journalistic, ie: CB detailed in writing and/or sick drawings what he did to Madeleine and these writings/drawings were uncovered in one of the raids on his property. Now, such writings could of course be pure fantasy and certainly wouldn't be enough to press charges, but if the descriptions in the writings matched with evidence and details given by CB's erstwhile colleagues and confidants that may be the reason why the BKA are so sure CB is responsible. Proving it beyond doubt would be the tricky bit of course.
-
An interesting theory on Websleuths wrt to the evidence held by the BKA is that it is not photographic but journalistic, ie: CB detailed in writing and/or sick drawings what he did to Madeleine and these writings/drawings were uncovered in one of the raids on his property. Now, such writings could of course be pure fantasy and certainly wouldn't be enough to press charges, but if the descriptions in the writings matched with evidence and details given by CB's erstwhile colleagues and confidants that may be the reason why the BKA are so sure CB is responsible. Proving it beyond doubt would be the tricky bit of course.
I shall have to have a think about that.
-
An interesting theory on Websleuths wrt to the evidence held by the BKA is that it is not photographic but journalistic, ie: CB detailed in writing and/or sick drawings what he did to Madeleine and these writings/drawings were uncovered in one of the raids on his property. Now, such writings could of course be pure fantasy and certainly wouldn't be enough to press charges, but if the descriptions in the writings matched with evidence and details given by CB's erstwhile colleagues and confidants that may be the reason why the BKA are so sure CB is responsible. Proving it beyond doubt would be the tricky bit of course.
That seems more reasonable than photographic evidence imo.
-
That seems more reasonable than photographic evidence imo.
I did think photos were a stretch of the imagination until I found out that's exactly how the Rui Pedto csse was solved
-
There seems to have been no shortage of witnesses identifying Ney as one of two men seen in Luz around the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
I'm intrigued by the report of the woman coming forward as a result of viewing the Netflix documentary - I don't think I've heard about that before.
07 May 2019 by Jasmine Stone in Crime
We covered the first of those yesterday – convicted German paedophile and murderer Martin Ney. What we didn’t know then is that Portuguese police have now confirmed that Ney told a fellow inmate at the prison where he is housed “something only McCann’s kidnapper could know”.
Although previously quizzed regarding Maddie’s disappearance, the Daily Beast says that Ney was “working at a homeless centre run by an evangelical church in the same area where McCann disappeared”.
A second suspect, though, is where real progress could be made:
Portuguese authorities say it is more likely a second suspect they are investigating—an alleged accomplice of Ney—will prove more useful.
After watching the Netflix documentary The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann in March, a female worker who had long retired from the Praia Da Luz resort recognized a man—now a suspect—in the grainy footage. She said she had seen him with a man she is sure was Ney.
The woman, whose name is being kept private for her own safety while the investigation continues, had a run-in with the unnamed suspect, who she says she caught stealing from the Ocean Club resort. When she confronted the man, he threatened her, according to an investigator with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal.
Over the years, a number of resort employees have testified about seeing Ney and a second man in and around the resort. That second man, who was still in the area, has now been brought in for questioning.
https://www.2oceansvibe.com/2019/05/07/why-authorities-are-so-hopeful-about-new-break-in-maddie-mccann-case/#ixzz7IZ1n3l3T
-
NO NEW EVIDENCE
Maddie Case: TV documentary meaningless for investigations
01.02.2022
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The broadcaster SAT.1 had announced new evidence as a result of investigative research. Prosecutor reacts: "Nothing new was presented."
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/braunschweig/article234458631/Fall-Maddie-Fernseh-Doku-fuer-Ermittlungen-bedeutungslos.html
It seems the German police are still well ahead of the media when it comes to the evidence in Madeleine's case.
-
Translated.
Maddie case: TV documentary meaningless for investigations
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The broadcaster SAT.1 had announced new evidence as a result of investigative research. Prosecutor reacts: "Nothing new was presented." New traces in the maddie case had promised the television channel SAT.1 on Monday evening in an investigative documentary about the case of three-year-old Madeleine McCann, who disappeared from a holiday resort in Portugal in 2007. After the broadcast, disillusionment sets in. "After the full-bodied praises of the television station, we expected the documentary with great interest," explains Christian Wolters, spokesman for the responsible Braunschweig public prosecutor's office, on request. His conclusion, however, is: "Nothing new was presented. The broadcast therefore has virtually no significance for our investigations." The presumption that the broadcaster's research would not contain any significant news had been confirmed.
The station had advertised that his research had already caused an international sensation. Work in hotel complex was known to investigators That the suspectEd German, who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old, had once worked in the hotel complex in the resort of Praia da Luz, from which Maddie disappeared, according to a witness quoted in the program, is not a new indication for the investigating authority. "That is well known," says Wolters, but there is no temporal connection with the disappearance of the little British woman.
During the period of the crime, however, the mobile phone of the German emigrant, who had a criminal record for sexual, property and drug offences, is said to have been located within the radius of the hotel complex. Thus, the Federal Criminal Police Office and braunschweig public prosecutor's office had already gone public in 2020 in their call for witnesses. The question: Who had spoken to the suspect on the phone that evening? SAT.1 speculates about whether it could have been an acquaintance of the suspect (already questioned by the BKA). However, this does not express itself to the reporters. Suspect: "Perfect crime or innocent" In addition to the preparation already publicly in the known facts, was quoted from a correspondence of the reporter with the murder suspect in the case of Maddie, in which he sees himself, among other things, as a victim of false reporting. He also writes:
Either it was the perfect crime – or he was innocent. However, according to the journalist's summary, he did not provide a credible alibi in the letters. On the suspect's accusation that the public prosecutor's office does not let him speak, Wolters says: "The accused can comment at any time directly or through his defense lawyer. This has not happened so far."
-
Translated.
Maddie case: TV documentary meaningless for investigations
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The broadcaster SAT.1 had announced new evidence as a result of investigative research. Prosecutor reacts: "Nothing new was presented." New traces in the maddie case had promised the television channel SAT.1 on Monday evening in an investigative documentary about the case of three-year-old Madeleine McCann, who disappeared from a holiday resort in Portugal in 2007. After the broadcast, disillusionment sets in. "After the full-bodied praises of the television station, we expected the documentary with great interest," explains Christian Wolters, spokesman for the responsible Braunschweig public prosecutor's office, on request. His conclusion, however, is: "Nothing new was presented. The broadcast therefore has virtually no significance for our investigations." The presumption that the broadcaster's research would not contain any significant news had been confirmed.
The station had advertised that his research had already caused an international sensation. Work in hotel complex was known to investigators That the suspectEd German, who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old, had once worked in the hotel complex in the resort of Praia da Luz, from which Maddie disappeared, according to a witness quoted in the program, is not a new indication for the investigating authority. "That is well known," says Wolters, but there is no temporal connection with the disappearance of the little British woman.
During the period of the crime, however, the mobile phone of the German emigrant, who had a criminal record for sexual, property and drug offences, is said to have been located within the radius of the hotel complex. Thus, the Federal Criminal Police Office and braunschweig public prosecutor's office had already gone public in 2020 in their call for witnesses. The question: Who had spoken to the suspect on the phone that evening? SAT.1 speculates about whether it could have been an acquaintance of the suspect (already questioned by the BKA). However, this does not express itself to the reporters. Suspect: "Perfect crime or innocent" In addition to the preparation already publicly in the known facts, was quoted from a correspondence of the reporter with the murder suspect in the case of Maddie, in which he sees himself, among other things, as a victim of false reporting. He also writes:
Either it was the perfect crime – or he was innocent. However, according to the journalist's summary, he did not provide a credible alibi in the letters. On the suspect's accusation that the public prosecutor's office does not let him speak, Wolters says: "The accused can comment at any time directly or through his defense lawyer. This has not happened so far."
Imagine HCW's face when some tin pot producer of a half-baked documentary waltzes in to his office and presents 'sensational' new evidence that will crack it wide open. Three years of investigation down das Klosett. Imagine the embarrassment, having some TV crank finish the job.
Clearly this wasn't the case, as they're considering an airing date for the latest in a long line of fluff pieces; nonsense. Isolate brain and open eyes. Disposable telly flotsam.
-
Imagine HCW's face when some tin pot producer of a half-baked documentary waltzes in to his office and presents 'sensational' new evidence that will crack it wide open. Three years of investigation down das Klosett. Imagine the embarrassment, having some TV crank finish the job.
Clearly this wasn't the case, as they're considering an airing date for the latest in a long line of fluff pieces; nonsense. Isolate brain and open eyes. Disposable telly flotsam.
The trick with being a member of a discussion forum is that one is supposed to read other members' posts and reply accordingly.
Keeps the discussion flowing don'cha know. Making it up as you go along tends to knock things askew and I am sure that never is your intention.
Allow me to refer you to one I made earlier which might point you in the correct direction rather than embarking on a little deflective discussion with yourself.
NO NEW EVIDENCE
Maddie Case: TV documentary meaningless for investigations
01.02.2022
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The broadcaster SAT.1 had announced new evidence as a result of investigative research. Prosecutor reacts: "Nothing new was presented."
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/braunschweig/article234458631/Fall-Maddie-Fernseh-Doku-fuer-Ermittlungen-bedeutungslos.html
-
"Nothing new was presented."
I am put in mind of Mandy Rice-Davis's word's - 'he would say that'
Wolters isn't going to admit that a mere journalist has anything new to offer -even if he had.
IMO
-
The trick with being a member of a discussion forum is that one is supposed to read other members' posts and reply accordingly.
Keeps the discussion flowing don'cha know. Making it up as you go along tends to knock things askew and I am sure that never is your intention.
Allow me to refer you to one I made earlier which might point you in the correct direction rather than embarking on a little deflective discussion with yourself.
NO NEW EVIDENCE
Maddie Case: TV documentary meaningless for investigations
01.02.2022
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The broadcaster SAT.1 had announced new evidence as a result of investigative research. Prosecutor reacts: "Nothing new was presented."
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/braunschweig/article234458631/Fall-Maddie-Fernseh-Doku-fuer-Ermittlungen-bedeutungslos.html
Which is a fat lot of good behind a paywall.
-
It may not have told HCW anything he didn’t already know but my take away from this documentary that I didn’t know before is that a) he used to do work at the OC b) his phone pings do indeed put his phone within 5 minutes of thenOC on the night of the disappearance c) he definitely doesn’t have an alibi fo the night in question, at least not one that has been hitherto confirmed.
-
The trick with being a member of a discussion forum is that one is supposed to read other members' posts and reply accordingly.
Keeps the discussion flowing don'cha know. Making it up as you go along tends to knock things askew and I am sure that never is your intention.
Allow me to refer you to one I made earlier which might point you in the correct direction rather than embarking on a little deflective discussion with yourself.
NO NEW EVIDENCE
Maddie Case: TV documentary meaningless for investigations
01.02.2022
BRAUNSCHWEIG. The broadcaster SAT.1 had announced new evidence as a result of investigative research. Prosecutor reacts: "Nothing new was presented."
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/braunschweig/article234458631/Fall-Maddie-Fernseh-Doku-fuer-Ermittlungen-bedeutungslos.html
You should try it yourself. In plain English for a change, instead of unwittingly imitating Edward Lear.
As for the point you failed to make, I TOLD YOU SO!!
He's not your man. It's over.
-
"Nothing new was presented."
I am put in mind of Mandy Rice-Davis's word's - 'he would say that'
Wolters isn't going to admit that a mere journalist has anything new to offer -even if he had.
IMO
I'd go further, they wouldn't have allowed its airing, as I predicted, if there was a single morsel of anything 'new'.
Fair trial? Libel? We're way past that now. Not only are they jeopardising this apparent, ongoing investigation in to MM, they're also impinging on any other crimes he may or may not have committed.
His legal team are undoubtedly cataloguing all of this - dealing with the tsunami of shit talk is probably more of a problem for them - including this very forum.
-
I'd go further, they wouldn't have allowed its airing, as I predicted, if there was a single morsel of anything 'new'.
Fair trial? Libel? We're way past that now. Not only are they jeopardising this apparent, ongoing investigation in to MM, they're also impinging on any other crimes he may or may not have committed.
His legal team are undoubtedly cataloguing all of this - dealing with the tsunami of shit talk is probably more of a problem for them - including this very forum.
Yet sceptics were believing the rubbish he had an alibi... I said he wouldn't have. Wolters knows exactly what he is doing and if he has solved the case as I think he has then he deserves nothing but admiration and total respect.
-
Yet sceptics were believing the rubbish he had an alibi... I said he wouldn't have. Wolters knows exactly what he is doing and if he has solved the case as I think he has then he deserves nothing but admiration and total respect.
Only, he hasn't solved the case.
-
Yet sceptics were believing the rubbish he had an alibi... I said he wouldn't have. Wolters knows exactly what he is doing and if he has solved the case as I think he has then he deserves nothing but admiration and total respect.
So you think he's solved the case, even though you've no idea how? You're very trusting.
-
So you think he's solved the case, even though you've no idea how? You're very trusting.
It's patently obvious to all but the simplest of minds that the case is far from solved.
If it were HCW would be basking in his victory by now, having quit the force and gone on a round the world speaking / press tour.
As it is, he's sat in his office surrounded by a retinue of staffers sifting through shite, sometimes literally, hoping some nugget is going to present itself.
The phone's a dead end - despite his Hail Mary pass asking the public for help, he's no nearer pinning that line of enquiry down.
For every jailhouse snitch he's recruited (or failed jailhouse plant - cringe!) there's a CB pal telling the opposite story - yeh, that's going well.
No forensics.
No eye witness.
No body.
Images - yes. But clearly not the slam dunk variety.
Dark Web chat (quite how websleuths got the transcripts, well, perhaps they were there purely for 'research purposes'). It boils down to a solitary 'MM'. Compelling.
Dead dog - there is that, and it's still being flogged.
-
So you think he's solved the case, even though you've no idea how? You're very trusting.
Where did Davel say he has no idea how? I think it’s fairly easy to work out how he may have solved the case.
-
What is patently obvious is that some people cannot bear the thought that HCW may have got closer to the truth than they have despite 14 long years of “doubting” and “only asking questions” (two phrases which are euphemisms for something a whole lot less edifying).
-
What is patently obvious is that some people cannot bear the thought that HCW may have got closer to the truth than they have despite 14 long years of “doubting” and “only asking questions” (two phrases which are euphemisms for something a whole lot less edifying).
Surely you don't expect those with sceptical leanings to accept someone's word for anything?
-
Surely you don't expect those with sceptical leanings to accept someone's word for anything?
Let's address some on topic observations which have emerged in the past few days in an attempt to avoid the ad homs which are becoming the signature of the forum.
Christian Brueckner worked at the resort where Maddie went missing, it has been reported
ByMilo Boyd News Reporter
31 Jan 2022
The German TV channel SAT.1 documentary claims that Brueckner, 44, was "very familiar" with Ocean Club, as well as surrounding parts of the Algarve.
When Maddie disappeared from the hotel room where her parents had left her, the rapist was no more than five minutes away - phone data analyses by SAT.1 suggests.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-worked-26095059
Madeleine McCann prime suspect 'worked as handy man at resort where she vanished'
True or false ?
-
Surely you don't expect those with sceptical leanings to accept someone's word for anything?
I have very low expectations of those with "sceptical leanings" to employ anything remotely resembling common sense and rational thought and logic, or to be able to see the wood for the trees, t'was ever thus with all the conspiracy theorists I have ever encountered online.
-
Let's address some on topic observations which have emerged in the past few days in an attempt to avoid the ad homs which are becoming the signature of the forum.
Christian Brueckner worked at the resort where Maddie went missing, it has been reported
ByMilo Boyd News Reporter
31 Jan 2022
The German TV channel SAT.1 documentary claims that Brueckner, 44, was "very familiar" with Ocean Club, as well as surrounding parts of the Algarve.
When Maddie disappeared from the hotel room where her parents had left her, the rapist was no more than five minutes away - phone data analyses by SAT.1 suggests.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-worked-26095059
Madeleine McCann prime suspect 'worked as handy man at resort where she vanished'
True or false ?
In my opinion, unless Christian Bruckner is filmed while being interviewed and confirms this detail it is unlikely any sceptic will believe it to be true.
-
Let's address some on topic observations which have emerged in the past few days in an attempt to avoid the ad homs which are becoming the signature of the forum.
Christian Brueckner worked at the resort where Maddie went missing, it has been reported
ByMilo Boyd News Reporter
31 Jan 2022
The German TV channel SAT.1 documentary claims that Brueckner, 44, was "very familiar" with Ocean Club, as well as surrounding parts of the Algarve.
When Maddie disappeared from the hotel room where her parents had left her, the rapist was no more than five minutes away - phone data analyses by SAT.1 suggests.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-worked-26095059
Madeleine McCann prime suspect 'worked as handy man at resort where she vanished'
True or false ?
Why would Brueckner not have worked at The Ocean Club? He worked just about everywhere else.
As for the Drug Dealing, wasn't Amaral in charge of The Drug Squad for several years? How come he didn't know that Brueckner was dealing drugs? Or perhaps he did know.
-
In my opinion, unless Christian Bruckner is filmed while being interviewed and confirms this detail it is unlikely any sceptic will believe it to be true.
And probably not even then.
-
I have very low expectations of those with "sceptical leanings" to employ anything remotely resembling common sense and rational thought and logic, or to be able to see the wood for the trees, t'was ever thus with all the conspiracy theorists I have ever encountered online.
This coming from someone who believes Joana may have been abducted.
Ok then.
-
Why would Brueckner not have worked at The Ocean Club? He worked just about everywhere else.
As for the Drug Dealing, wasn't Amaral in charge of The Drug Squad for several years? How come he didn't know that Brueckner was dealing drugs? Or perhaps he did know.
I was dealing drugs for years, so was the guy I bought them off.
How come the police, the UK police, best in the world, didn't know about us?
-
Let's address some on topic observations which have emerged in the past few days in an attempt to avoid the ad homs which are becoming the signature of the forum.
Christian Brueckner worked at the resort where Maddie went missing, it has been reported
ByMilo Boyd News Reporter
31 Jan 2022
The German TV channel SAT.1 documentary claims that Brueckner, 44, was "very familiar" with Ocean Club, as well as surrounding parts of the Algarve.
When Maddie disappeared from the hotel room where her parents had left her, the rapist was no more than five minutes away - phone data analyses by SAT.1 suggests.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-worked-26095059
Madeleine McCann prime suspect 'worked as handy man at resort where she vanished'
True or false ?
False. He was a casual pool cleaner apparently. And you really need to pack the ad hom thing in, or at least try.
-
And probably not even then.
Most definitely not even then. Two popular alternatives would be (a) a clone - (b)Gerry McCann.
I think Brueckner could have made a legitimate living using many of his skills and as quite obviously the largest employer around it would be surprising if he didn't get a job in some capacity with them.
Somewhere in the files Sylvia Batista gives an account of how recruitment was carried out and I think it amounted to "being known".
I think Brueckner might have "been known" and I am quite sure very few knew of his criminal career.
If he was able to move around the Ocean Club with impunity I think he would have made it his business to know every single nook and cranny of the place.
-
False. He was a casual pool cleaner apparently. And you really need to pack the ad hom thing in, or at least try.
~ False ~ your evidence for that, if you please.
-
Most definitely not even then. Two popular alternatives would be (a) a clone - (b)Gerry McCann.
I think Brueckner could have made a legitimate living using many of his skills and as quite obviously the largest employer around it would be surprising if he didn't get a job in some capacity with them.
Somewhere in the files Sylvia Batista gives an account of how recruitment was carried out and I think it amounted to "being known".
I think Brueckner might have "been known" and I am quite sure very few knew of his criminal career.
If he was able to move around the Ocean Club with impunity I think he would have made it his business to know every single nook and cranny of the place.
Your post is contradictory. He's a well known drug dealer, known to police, yet 'very few' knew of his criminal career?
As for knowing every single wee nook and cranny, ken; as a pool cleaner and having no access to most areas?
-
~ False ~ your evidence for that, if you please.
No. Delete it, do what you want. CBA providing anything to you that furthers your limited knowledge.
But it's a fact that you're going to have to deal with.
-
This coming from someone who believes Joana may have been abducted.
Ok then.
Count me amongst those who find it plausible that Joana was indeed abducted. There is absolutely nothing that I've been able to find in the little available to verify that she ever got back home that night.
-
Count me amongst those who find it plausible that Joana was indeed abducted. There is absolutely nothing that I've been able to find in the little available to verify that she ever got back home that night.
Personally I wouldn't boast about believing such stupid nonsense, but if you want to appear gullible/biased that's your choice entirely.
-
Most definitely not even then. Two popular alternatives would be (a) a clone - (b)Gerry McCann.
I think Brueckner could have made a legitimate living using many of his skills and as quite obviously the largest employer around it would be surprising if he didn't get a job in some capacity with them.
Somewhere in the files Sylvia Batista gives an account of how recruitment was carried out and I think it amounted to "being known".
I think Brueckner might have "been known" and I am quite sure very few knew of his criminal career.
If he was able to move around the Ocean Club with impunity I think he would have made it his business to know every single nook and cranny of the place.
Why would he not have done? The Ocean Club appears to have been his hunting ground.
-
Count me amongst those who find it plausible that Joana was indeed abducted. There is absolutely nothing that I've been able to find in the little available to verify that she ever got back home that night.
Absolutely correct.
-
According to John Clarke's 'staff reporter', Leonor has already had her conviction overturned.
"In the same year, an 8 year old girl, Joana Cipriano, also vanished close to Praia Da Luz, Leading to the claim that her mother Leonor had killed her.
The same detectives who investigated the Madeleine case were later found to have beaten a confession out of her.
The conviction was eventually overturned, with numerous independent investigators & detectives believing the two cases are very likely linked.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/10/04/exclusive-this-is-no-comedy-madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-has-no-right-to-call-a-new-book-on-the-case-a-comic/
Lying git.
-
Where the Media are concerned it is very difficult to know what to believe.
They all have their own 'angle' and suppress/ alter/ invent information to suit their own agenda
IMO
-
Tis very strange to me that the drug hunter extraordinaire, according to his wife, Sofia Leal, didn't know that Brueckner was dealing drugs. Just how stupid was Amaral? Or perhaps not.
-
Your post is contradictory. He's a well known drug dealer, known to police, yet 'very few' knew of his criminal career?
As for knowing every single wee nook and cranny, ken; as a pool cleaner and having no access to most areas?
Madeleine McCann prime suspect 'worked as handy man at resort where she vanished'
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg676520#msg676520
-
Tis very strange to me that the drug hunter extraordinaire, according to his wife, Sofia Leal, didn't know that Brueckner was dealing drugs. Just how stupid was Amaral? Or perhaps not.
So, how much was Brueckner shifting per day/week?
Was it such a vast amount, dealt in such a brazen manner that he'd be drawing attention to himself?
Were there scores of weed overdose deaths from his low quality wares, so much so that the police shouldn't have failed to notice the rampant criminal activity?
-
Your post is contradictory. He's a well known drug dealer, known to police, yet 'very few' knew of his criminal career?
As for knowing every single wee nook and cranny, ken; as a pool cleaner and having no access to most areas?
You say ~ "He's a well known drug dealer, known to police" Do you know that for a fact?
Was he a convicted and known drug dealer at the time he was allegedly working as a handy man in the Ocean Club?
In one of his communications with a journalist Brueckner took great pains to describe exactly how he avoided attracting police attention ~ part of his 'alibi' it seems.
-
No. Delete it, do what you want. CBA providing anything to you that furthers your limited knowledge.
But it's a fact that you're going to have to deal with.
What is "CBA" ?
-
Tis very strange to me that the drug hunter extraordinaire, according to his wife, Sofia Leal, didn't know that Brueckner was dealing drugs. Just how stupid was Amaral? Or perhaps not.
As a renowned drug buster Amaral had to glean his info from somewhere and Brueckner might not have been averse to cutting the competition. Bit of the old Quid Pro Quo perhaps.
-
So, how much was Brueckner shifting per day/week?
Was it such a vast amount, dealt in such a brazen manner that he'd be drawing attention to himself?
Were there scores of weed overdose deaths from his low quality wares, so much so that the police shouldn't have failed to notice the rampant criminal activity?
Occurs to me that if he was a reasonably successful dealer he wouldn't be wasting his time doing casual manual labour in his spare time.
-
As a renowned drug buster Amaral had to glean his info from somewhere and Brueckner might not have been averse to cutting the competition. Bit of the old Quid Pro Quo perhaps.
A bit more than that. In My Opinion.
-
Occurs to me that if he was a reasonably successful dealer he wouldn't be wasting his time doing casual manual labour in his spare time.
A “reasonably successful dealer” might also not waste his time siphoning diesel out of a tank, or robbing passports out of holidaymakers’ apartments. Anyway, being a pool cleaner would have given him close legitimate proximity to his potential victims, both adult and child.
-
A “reasonably successful dealer” might also not waste his time siphoning diesel out of a tank, or robbing passports out of holidaymakers’ apartments. Anyway, being a pool cleaner would have given him close legitimate proximity to his potential victims, both adult and child.
He seems to have been attuned to vulnerability and the fact he turned up at locations with his working gear in hand would tend to justify that he carried out some prior observation.
I find his exhibitionism extraordinary and wonder if it wasn't carried out while under the influence of his wares.
-
Personally I wouldn't boast about believing such stupid nonsense, but if you want to appear gullible/biased that's your choice entirely.
ck
I don't think I'm gullible. Find me anything in the legal ruling that could possiby constitute proof that she ever got back home.
-
I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.
But have questions.
The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?
If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?
By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.
-
ck
I don't think I'm gullible. Find me anything in the legal ruling that could possiby constitute proof that she ever got back home.
There is nothing. But Spammy isn't interested in facts.
-
I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.
But have questions.
The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?
If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?
By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.
Why not? You can never have too much evidence and obviously HCW has not shared all he’s got with the general public. Why would he?
-
I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.
But have questions.
The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?
If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?
By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.
I think he has a lot of information, I hesitate to call it reliable evidence, on Brueckner but none of it links back to Madeleine - it's all related to other possible crimes.
IMO
-
ck
I don't think I'm gullible. Find me anything in the legal ruling that could possiby constitute proof that she ever got back home.
There was no forensic evidence at all in the Cipriano case, it was all based on dodgy confessions, at least one of which was tainted by the torture that was inflicted on the suspect by the police. They may very well have done it, but proven beyond reasonable doubt? No way. IMO.
-
So she blamed her brother, then said Joana was murdered in a botched sale to gypsies, whilst the whole time neither her or her brother had any involvement at all & a total stranger had in fact abducted Joana?
Is she mentally ill?
-
Where the Media are concerned it is very difficult to know what to believe.
They all have their own 'angle' and suppress/ alter/ invent information to suit their own agenda
IMO
Bac
Often true. But then it's worth trying to verify what seems accurate or not. Back in the day, Dear Julia's afternoon pink couch show was popular amongst the ladies who knitted who appedar to have believed every word as gospel.
-
So she blamed her brother, then said Joana was murdered in a botched sale to gypsies, whilst the whole time neither her or her brother had any involvement at all & a total stranger had in fact abducted Joana?
Is she mentally ill?
IMO, neither the investigation, nor the court case (s) , can be equated to what one might consider "normal".
-
I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.
But have questions.
The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?
If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?
By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.
To be quite honest I'm surprised how ill informed you are. You really believe Wolters only has a suspect phone call and a profile. That's absolutely laughable imo. Do you really think he would claim CB is 100% guilty based on that...
-
IMO, neither the investigation, nor the court case (s) , can be equated to what one might consider "normal".
Irrelevant, but thanks.
-
To be quite honest I'm surprised how ill informed you are. You really believe Wolters only has a suspect phone call and a profile. That's absolutely laughable imo. Do you really think he would claim CB is 100% guilty based on that...
No, he's also got a vague, second-hand confession, so give him some credit.
-
I wonder what Brueckner did with her body, why he's so confident she'll never be found ?
Maybe he put her in the bin, I'm sure supporters would agree that's a genuine possibility....
-
Irrelevant, but thanks.
Not necessarily. Where was he when Joana disappeared?
-
I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.
But have questions.
The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?
If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?
By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.
I completely agree Heri. HCW may be on the right track, but there's no way to know at the moment.
-
Not necessarily. Where was he when Joana disappeared?
I don't know where Brueckner was, therefore Joana was abducted.
You remind me of Wolters.
-
Not necessarily. Where was he when Joana disappeared?
Possibly in prison. He seems to have spent quite a lot of time locked away.
-
Possibly in prison. He seems to have spent quite a lot of time locked away.
Even if he wasn't & did abduct Joana, he hit the jackpot, her insane mother said her brother murdered her & maintained as much in her own defence.
Bonkers.
-
I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.
But have questions.
The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?
If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?
By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.
Are you aware of what Wolters has said.. Let's take..
We are sure MM is dead and CB murdered her. If we told you the evidence we have you would agree with us.
So if Wolters told us he had a phone call and a profile... Would that convinced you of CB s guilt.. Have a think
-
Are you aware of what Wolters has said.. Let's take..
We are sure MM is dead and CB murdered her. If we told you the evidence we have you would agree with us.
So if Wolters told us he had a phone call and a profile... Would that convinced you of CB s guilt.. Have a think
But a judge might not.
Bit condescending isn't it.
-
I completely agree Heri. HCW may be on the right track, but there's no way to know at the moment.
You completely agree that HCW only has a phone call and a criminal profile? You don’t believe he has witheld any other evidence from the public? What makes you believe that?
-
You completely agree that HCW only has a phone call and a criminal profile? You don’t believe he has witheld any other evidence from the public? What makes you believe that?
I think anyone who believes that all HCW has is a phonecall.. And a profile... Is totally bonkers
-
Perhaps Heri or G- Unit could explain why they believe the German Prosecutor would lay all his cards on the table at this stage of the investigation.
-
Perhaps Heri or G- Unit could explain why they believe the German Prosecutor would lay all his cards on the table at this stage of the investigation.
I'm just surprised at Heri's total lack of insight. My take on what Wolters has said is he has proof of murder.. Beyond reasonable doubt... He has something that ties it to CB.. But..
As everyone knows the law slightly favours the accused. Wolters thinks he may well have enough but he'd like more..
That's why he's made the appeal
-
I'm just surprised at Heri's total lack of insight. My take on what Wolters has said is he has proof of murder.. Beyond reasonable doubt... He has something that ties it to CB.. But..
As everyone knows the law slightly favours the accused. Wolters thinks he may well have enough but he'd like more..
That's why he's made the appeal
But there might be a little bit of hope?
Strange.
-
But there might be a little bit of hope?
Strange.
Thats why I said beyond reasonable doubt. He's explained what he means.. I'm not going to bother to repeat it.. It makes perfect sense
-
“The person he spoke to could put the phone in his hand [by confirming it was Brueckner to whom he spoke], which would mean he was in the area at the time.
“This is the evidence we want before we issue an arrest warrant and then interview him for the murder. It would help the case against him – but we would also need more evidence.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeleine-mccann-update-death-alive-germany-christian-bruckner-a9565441.html
-
Perhaps Heri or G- Unit could explain why they believe the German Prosecutor would lay all his cards on the table at this stage of the investigation.
I don't. Perhaps someone could explain why we should believe that the Germans have an ace in the hole.
-
I don't. Perhaps someone could explain why we should believe that the Germans have an ace in the hole.
Do you really think the BKK are making all this up.... But really have no real evidence.. That sounds completely daft to me
-
I don't. Perhaps someone could explain why we should believe that the Germans have an ace in the hole.
You have to wonder why with all the revelations and the appeal back in 2020 grange are stuck in the past.This from their web site.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
-
I don't. Perhaps someone could explain why we should believe that the Germans have an ace in the hole.
you don’t what? You just said you agreed entirely with Heri that the BKA have nothing more than what they have revealed, it can’t be both.
-
Do you really think the BKK are making all this up.... But really have no real evidence.. That sounds completely daft to me
They have suspicion & flimsy circumstantial evidence.
Like any prosecutor with a less than watertight case, he is boasting about the strength of his evidence, maybe the accused will crack.
Without any of us getting to see this evidence ourselves, this is like an argument over who has the bigger penis, with a refusal to get the tape measure out.
-
You have to wonder why with all the revelations and the appeal back in 2020 grange are stuck in the past.This from their web site.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
They've had Brueckner's mug shot gathering dust on whiteboard for the past 9 years or more now.
He's staring back at them tormenting them every day.
All they need is to prove he was in Luz, then get some evidence from an interview with the defendant himself, then get some more evidence, & then it's a slam dunk.
-
you don’t what? You just said you agreed entirely with Heri that the BKA have nothing more than what they have revealed, it can’t be both.
I agreed that no conclusion can be reached based on the information available.
-
I agreed that no conclusion can be reached based on the information available.
you “completely agreed” with Heri’s post in which he claimed the Germans have nothing more than what they have aleady revealed. You’re all over the place.
-
They have suspicion & flimsy circumstantial evidence.
Like any prosecutor with a less than watertight case, he is boasting about the strength of his evidence, maybe the accused will crack.
Without any of us getting to see this evidence ourselves, this is like an argument over who has the bigger penis, with a refusal to get the tape measure out.
How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.
-
How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.
Calling someone 'pretty dumb' is par for the course from McCann supporters, so you'll fit right in 2030.
So welcome and I look forward to being abused sometime in the near future.
-
How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.
Welcome to the forum. You probably won’t be aware of this yet but you’re trying to talk sense with one of the forum’s self professed WUMs therefore don’t expect anything like a reasonable reply to your perfectly reasonable post.
-
Welcome to the forum. You probably won’t be aware of this yet but you’re trying to talk sense with one of the forum’s self professed WUMs therefore don’t expect anything like a reasonable reply to your perfectly reasonable post.
Including this one?
-
How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.
Brueckner is mocking the prosecutor & confident they won't be charging him.
I suppose he'd be doing that whilst knowing full well they have his paedo photo of Maddie plus all the other seriously incriminating evidence he left behind.
-
Brueckner is mocking the prosecutor & confident they won't be charging him.
I suppose he'd be doing that whilst knowing full well they have his paedo photo of Maddie plus all the other seriously incriminating evidence he left behind.
That's exactly what he's doing. It's not bravado, or putting up a defiant front, or hubris, or even desperation of a doomed man; it's a man safe in the knowledge that this time they are a set of clueless weapons, barking up the wrong nonce.
-
While Brueckner may be cocksure that there's no evidence to be found of him having carried out any crimes against Madeleine, here's a little reminder of part of the BKA appeal from June 2020.
"Furthermore, there is reason to assume that, in addition to the perpetrator himself, there are other people who have specific knowledge of the possible course of events and, if applicable, where the corpse was deposited. We expressly ask these people to get in touch and share their knowledge."
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#detailinformationen132470
After 3 years of police investigations involving many officers (not a small team of documentary makers researching for a few months) BKA must have had a good reason to make that assumption.
Brueckner has written several letters to different people citing reasons why the BKA have got it wrong in the various crimes he's been accused/convicted of. It's almost like he doesn't trust Schwenn & Fulscher to help prove his innocence in the Madeleine case.
-
While Brueckner may be cocksure that there's no evidence to be found of him having carried out any crimes against Madeleine, here's a little reminder of part of the BKA appeal from June 2020.
"Furthermore, there is reason to assume that, in addition to the perpetrator himself, there are other people who have specific knowledge of the possible course of events and, if applicable, where the corpse was deposited. We expressly ask these people to get in touch and share their knowledge."
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#detailinformationen132470
After 3 years of police investigations involving many officers (not a small team of documentary makers researching for a few months) BKA must have had a good reason to make that assumption.
Brueckner has written several letters to different people citing reasons why the BKA have got it wrong in the various crimes he's been accused/convicted of. It's almost like he doesn't trust Schwenn & Fulscher to help prove his innocence in the Madeleine case.
Why does he say 'if applicable' prior to 'where the corpse was deposited'?
Is he unsure Maddie is actually dead?
-
Why does he say 'if applicable' prior to 'where the corpse was deposited'?
Is he unsure Maddie is actually dead?
I think BKA are 99% sure Madeleine is dead.
Events between abduction & murder have yet to be clarified and who else may have been involved imo.
-
I think BKA are 99% sure Madeleine is dead.
Events between abduction & murder have yet to be clarified and who else may have been involved imo.
Not according to Wolters, he said there's no hope she is alive, having previously said there was still a little bit of hope.
Cover both bases, just in case.
-
Not according to Wolters, he said there's no hope she is alive, having previously said there was still a little bit of hope.
Cover both bases, just in case.
One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...
Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.
-
One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...
Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.
So some witness popped up after the appeal & said yes, Brueckner definitely murdered Maddie.
I see.
I wonder why they never came forward 15 years ago?
-
One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...
Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.
I find it amazing that there appears to be a culture of "flies stuck in aspic" with regard to the progression of Madeleine McCann's investigation and the changes made as fresh information is collated over the years!
-
So some witness popped up after the appeal & said yes, Brueckner definitely murdered Maddie.
I see.
I wonder why they never came forward 15 years ago?
Maybe because 15 years ago the people who came forward could have been charged at the time with crimes against Madeleine. It is noticeable that almost all the witnesses who have spoken about Brueckner no longer live in Portugal. I don't think it's a coincidence Busching waited until May 2017 to speak to SY if you factor in the Statute of Limitations in Portugal.
-
I think BKA are 99% sure Madeleine is dead.
Events between abduction & murder have yet to be clarified and who else may have been involved imo.
I can do better than that. I think she's 100% dead.
-
One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...
Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.
I fuuly understand and have explained Wolters apparent contradiction... It isn't a contradiction. I'm sure those still posting the same old rubbish saw the explanation... So I can't be bothered doing it again. It doesn't matter in the slightest if they don't accept it
-
I find it amazing that there appears to be a culture of "flies stuck in aspic" with regard to the progression of Madeleine McCann's investigation and the changes made as fresh information is collated over the years!
You mean Grange I take it,posted yesterday.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
-
You mean Grange I take it,posted yesterday.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
Nothing stays the same forever.
That is particularly so in the case of an active police investigation which is dedicated to finding the actual fact of what happened to Madeleine McCann and is actually working hard at doing just that.
I imagine that even you must concede that much more is now known about the facts and progression of the case than was the situation in 2013.
For example only a select few (Amaral included) knew that Brueckner had allegedly been eliminated from the inquiry by the Judicial Police. Although we are not privy to whether or not that was as a result of him not answering any of the alleged doors he had access to at the time.
-
While in agreement with the same caveat as to the reliability of the author expressed by the WS poster I've lifted this from I think it is worth noting in relation to the process the BKA may be using in building their case against Brueckner.
We are aware that Brueckner is a collector of photographic and video images. But I think it has dropped off the radar a little that he also fancied himself as an author and to that end had left word documents on the storage devices he secreted under his dog's corpse.
In Neuwegersleben, on January 14, 2016, CB’s neighbour calls the local police because of a nauseating smell that came from a certain place of the plot where CB resided in an autocaravan.
The stink was so intense that unlike the earth it did not freeze.
30 cm (1 ft) deep the police found the dead body of a Labrador and underneath it a LIDL supermarket bag containing firewood.
It was found and apprehended in the LIDL bag 6 pen-drives and 2 memory cards which contained “photos of children, including those of an unknown child in sensual poses and, mainly, Word documents which the police responsible for the find describe as writings about serious sexual abuse against children.
Later, BKA identifies these and other writings as two documents produced by the suspect with the titles of Das Buch and Das Buch 1. These books, said to be autobiographic, speak of himself and of friends and describe criminal practices.
It’s unknown if we are before realities or pure fantasies, but the fact is that the finding of all this material was and is useful for the construction of a suspect.
Chapter 26 Goncalo Amaral
-
Maybe because 15 years ago the people who came forward could have been charged at the time with crimes against Madeleine. It is noticeable that almost all the witnesses who have spoken about Brueckner no longer live in Portugal. I don't think it's a coincidence Busching waited until May 2017 to speak to SY if you factor in the Statute of Limitations in Portugal.
Right, the secret paedo child abduction trafficking gang again, something to do with the Russians wasn't it.
I heard they would hand the girls over at Barcelona docks.
-
Maybe because 15 years ago the people who came forward could have been charged at the time with crimes against Madeleine. It is noticeable that almost all the witnesses who have spoken about Brueckner no longer live in Portugal. I don't think it's a coincidence Busching waited until May 2017 to speak to SY if you factor in the Statute of Limitations in Portugal.
You mean the German nationals who live in Germany again now? I can see how that adds weight to your point.
-
You mean the German nationals who live in Germany again now? I can see how that adds weight to your point.
Yeah, Busching was concerned about the 15 year statute.
So when Brueckner confessed to him in 2008, he waited until he was arrested in 2017 (within the statute) to tell police.
Busching also claims he tried telling the PJ around 2008, but was rebuffed.
So he was worried about the statute, & also not worried.
It all makes sense now.
-
Thanks to WS
A documentary by the broadcaster Sat.1 provided new details in the Maddie McCann case. Now the suspect, who is currently in prison, has filed a complaint against one of the journalists.
Christian B., who was arrested for rape, has filed a criminal complaint against journalist Jutta Rabe "on suspicion of qualified defamation". The letter from his lawyer Friedrich Fülscher to the public prosecutor's office in Kiel is available to "Spiegel". The background is a TV documentary followed by a talk show about B., the suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping case . Fülscher writes that the program contained "false factual allegations" intended to make his client "contemptible".
Rabe said in the documentary that B. allegedly starved two dogs. In fact, according to Fülscher, one of the dogs escaped, the other was euthanized due to an incurable cancer, which he also communicated when asked by Sat.1. During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
-
It'll be interesting to see how that goes.
-
Thanks to WS
A documentary by the broadcaster Sat.1 provided new details in the Maddie McCann case. Now the suspect, who is currently in prison, has filed a complaint against one of the journalists.
Christian B., who was arrested for rape, has filed a criminal complaint against journalist Jutta Rabe "on suspicion of qualified defamation". The letter from his lawyer Friedrich Fülscher to the public prosecutor's office in Kiel is available to "Spiegel". The background is a TV documentary followed by a talk show about B., the suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping case . Fülscher writes that the program contained "false factual allegations" intended to make his client "contemptible".
Rabe said in the documentary that B. allegedly starved two dogs. In fact, according to Fülscher, one of the dogs escaped, the other was euthanized due to an incurable cancer, which he also communicated when asked by Sat.1. During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
As if a convicted rapist and paedophile wasn’t contemptible enough as it is fgs, does he think he has a reputation as a dog lover to defend? Actually the thought of CB as a dog lover has kind of turned my stomach…
-
I very much doubt that Brueckner was abusing his dogs. That doesn't appear to have been his thing. But I also doubt that this would have been cause for a Libel Action.
-
As if a convicted rapist and paedophile wasn’t contemptible enough as it is fgs, does he think he has a reputation as a dog lover to defend? Actually the thought of CB as a dog lover has kind of turned my stomach…
Well I think it's rather sweet.
-
I very much doubt that Brueckner was abusing his dogs. That doesn't appear to have been his thing. But I also doubt that this would have been cause for a Libel Action.
Yet, he left them locked up at the kiosk in Brünswick where they eventually died.
-
The point is that CB has shown he has the ability to launch a libel action if he wants.. So why hasn't he sued Wolters
-
Was he prosecuted for this animal neglect ?
-
The point is that CB has shown he has the ability to launch a libel action if he wants.. So why hasn't he sued Wolters
CB hasn't launched a libel action. He has made a criminal complaint.
-
CB hasn't launched a libel action. He has made a criminal complaint.
A criminal complaint re defamation... Another word for libel.. LOL
So after all your claims... Why hasn't he done the same re Wolters
-
I don't think Wolters has actually named him publicly, so that might make a difference.
-
I don't think Wolters has actually named him publicly, so that might make a difference.
He has
-
Really? I thought Wolters always referred to him as CB and it's the media that has done all the expose
-
Really? I thought Wolters always referred to him as CB and it's the media that has done all the expose
He has referred to him as Christian B.
-
He has referred to him as Christian B.
I've already given a cite where he acknowledged his full name
-
He has referred to him as Christian B.
HCW dropped the clanger around 13:10 minutes in...
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast (https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast)
-
HCW dropped the clanger around 13:10 minutes in...
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast (https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast)
Thanks.. That's the one
-
HCW dropped the clanger around 13:10 minutes in...
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast (https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast)
Perhaps Brückner hasn’t heard this. Maybe one of his fan club should forward it to his lawyer.
-
Perhaps Brückner hasn’t heard this. Maybe one of his fan club should forward it to his lawyer.
FF is looking for the Exit door, so it'll have to be the next sucker waiting in line.
-
A criminal complaint re defamation... Another word for libel.. LOL
So after all your claims... Why hasn't he done the same re Wolters
Criminal defamation differs from civil defamation, so the two aren't the same LOL. Perhaps a complaint about Wolters has been made for all we know.
It seems the 'half a fingerprint' evidence in the Behan case is a journalistic invention. It's very difficult to decide which are 'known facts' and which are speculations, that's for sure.
-
Criminal defamation differs from civil defamation, so the two aren't the same LOL. Perhaps a complaint about Wolters has been made for all we know.
It seems the 'half a fingerprint' evidence in the Behan case is a journalistic invention. It's very difficult to decide which are 'known facts' and which are speculations, that's for sure.
says who?
-
Criminal defamation differs from civil defamation, so the two aren't the same LOL. Perhaps a complaint about Wolters has been made for all we know.
It seems the 'half a fingerprint' evidence in the Behan case is a journalistic invention. It's very difficult to decide which are 'known facts' and which are speculations, that's for sure.
It was John who first mentioned libel so take it up with him if it's important to you.
So... Explain the difference or stop trying to deflect from the point.
The point is he has shown he has the resources to launch a libel action... So why hasn't he... Is he not concerned as much as you are with his human rights.
You say he may have... More speculation from you which you continually criticise from others.. LOL
-
It was John who first mentioned libel so take it up with him if it's important to you.
So... Explain the difference or stop trying to deflect from the point.
The point is he has shown he has the resources to launch a libel action... So why hasn't he... Is he not concerned as much as you are with his human rights.
You say he may have... More speculation from you which you continually criticise from others.. LOL
How many 'resources' does it take to complain of a crime?
-
It was John who first mentioned libel so take it up with him if it's important to you.
So... Explain the difference or stop trying to deflect from the point.
The point is he has shown he has the resources to launch a libel action... So why hasn't he... Is he not concerned as much as you are with his human rights.
You say he may have... More speculation from you which you continually criticise from others.. LOL
You are speculating when you say he hasn't acted against Wolters. How do you know?
-
You are speculating when you say he hasn't acted against Wolters. How do you know?
Because Fulscher would have told us.
-
You are speculating when you say he hasn't acted against Wolters. How do you know?
You are getting worse. LOL
-
How many 'resources' does it take to complain of a crime?
Then he has the resources to make a libel claim against Wolters....you are tying yourself in knots
-
The allegation complained of regarding the TV journalists concerns the death of two dogs on the allegation the intention of which was to make Brueckner "contemptible".
I see that lawyer and client have certainly got their priorities right.
It is an interesting piece in the game being played when one considers what lay buried beneath another of the animals associate with Brueckner and bearing in mind his present title of "Prime Suspect" in the case of a missing - presumed murdered - child.
-
Criminal defamation differs from civil defamation, so the two aren't the same LOL. Perhaps a complaint about Wolters has been made for all we know.
It seems the 'half a fingerprint' evidence in the Behan case is a journalistic invention. It's very difficult to decide which are 'known facts' and which are speculations, that's for sure.
Second time of asking - says who? I would genuinely like to know upon what basis you have written off this report as fake news. Has HCW said as much?
-
Because Fulscher would have told us.
Would it not have to be lodged with the courts if a complaint regarding his human rights had been made, and would this not be available for all to see?
-
Second time of asking - says who? I would genuinely like to know upon what basis you have written off this report as fake news. Has HCW said as much?
Are we now saying that somedebody lied about this fingerprint in The Behan Case? I have lost the plot again and I am here knocking on 24/7. Can someone help me?
-
Criminal defamation differs from civil defamation, so the two aren't the same LOL. Perhaps a complaint about Wolters has been made for all we know.
It seems the 'half a fingerprint' evidence in the Behan case is a journalistic invention. It's very difficult to decide which are 'known facts' and which are speculations, that's for sure.
It most certainly is.
Was this partial print actually attributed to Brueckner, or is it just that a print was found ?
-
It most certainly is.
Was this partial print actually attributed to Brueckner, or is it just that a print was found ?
An answer to this might help. Thanks for asking.
-
Are we now saying that somedebody lied about this fingerprint in The Behan Case? I have lost the plot again and I am here knocking on 24/7. Can someone help me?
I doubt that police would openly admit they had his print even if they did have it.
-
I doubt that police would openly admit they had his print even if they did have it.
Almost certainly not. So where did this information come from?
-
I doubt that police would openly admit they had his print even if they did have it.
If they are at the stage of preparing charges the defence will be aware.
Action is being taken against the journalist only regarding the two dead dogs - absolutely nothing else - as far as I can see.
-
If they are at the stage of preparing charges the defence will be aware.
Action is being taken against the journalist only regarding the two dead dogs - absolutely nothing else - as far as I can see.
Oh God, here we go again. What happened to the Two Dead Dogs, other than the fact that they are dead, that is.
-
It most certainly is.
Was this partial print actually attributed to Brueckner, or is it just that a print was found ?
According to Jon Clarke, the partial fingerprint was Brueckner's;
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2022/01/20/exclusive-new-madeleine-clues-linking-german-paedophile-handed-to-police-from-hard-hitting-tv-documentary/
-
According to the (Olive press) he's going to be charged with several crimes in February.
Well we're into February now, so we should soon find out if they are correct.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/24/exclusive-explosive-fingerprint-clue-as-madeleine-mccann-suspect-faces-three-new-charges/
-
According to Jon Clarke, the partial fingerprint was Brueckner's;
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2022/01/20/exclusive-new-madeleine-clues-linking-german-paedophile-handed-to-police-from-hard-hitting-tv-documentary/
You claimed earlier today that the report was fake news - upon what basis did you arrive at this conclusion?
-
According to Jon Clarke, the partial fingerprint was Brueckner's;
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2022/01/20/exclusive-new-madeleine-clues-linking-german-paedophile-handed-to-police-from-hard-hitting-tv-documentary/
Is this report not simply a regurgitation of the German documentary, or are you claiming Jon Clarke made up the claim about the finger print in the first instance?
-
During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
-
During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
"probably"
Wonder if that means "mibbes yes" or "mibbes no" ~ or if it is a mistranslation?
By the way - Brueckner's lawyer is claiming nothing but the cruelty to dogs allegation - unless you know better!
-
During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
Which bit is inaccurate? The DNA traces, the fingerprints, or what? I take it you accept Fulscher's word unquestioningly?
-
This is getting utterly ridiculous now. But the longer it goes on then the more obvious it becomes that Brueckner was involved.
But then this is what it is all about. How long it takes is of the least importance.
-
This is getting utterly ridiculous now. But the longer it goes on then the more obvious it becomes that Brueckner was involved.
But then this is what it is all about. How long it takes is of the least importance.
Involved in what ?
There are so many accusations flying about and yet he is currently charged with nothing.
-
This is getting utterly ridiculous now. But the longer it goes on then the more obvious it becomes that Brueckner was involved.
But then this is what it is all about. How long it takes is of the least importance.
It has already taken fifteen years so a little longer isn't going to make all that much difference except to the suspect and to Madeleine's family.
The only other vested interest is the one which doesn't want anyone to ever know for certain what happened to Madeleine and in my opinion that is one Hell of a burden they have chosen to be carrying through life.
-
Involved in what ?
There are so many accusations flying about and yet he is currently charged with nothing.
The Germans are quite steadfast in that- Madeleine is dead
- Madeleine was murdered by Brueckner
That is enough of an accusation to be going on with and left to themselves that is precisely what the Germans are doing.
-
It has already taken fifteen years so a little longer isn't going to make all that much difference except to the suspect and to Madeleine's family.
The only other vested interest is the one which doesn't want anyone to ever know for certain what happened to Madeleine and in my opinion that is one Hell of a burden they have chosen to be carrying through life.
Those who deliberately defend Brueckner aren't doing him or theirselves any favours, but I doubt they will worry about this ultimately. These people will just disappear off The Internet if Brueckner is found Guilty. So don't expect an apology. Most of them don't even believe the rubbish they spout. They are just not very nice people.
-
Why would anyone want to remain after the case has been resolved ?
-
Why would anyone want to remain after the case has been resolved ?
At the moment they are here because they can't reconcile themselves to the fact of the direction in which Madeleine's case has inexorably turned.
If charges are laid and Brueckner faces trial as a result and is found guilty Madeleine's case will continue to reverberate throughout the internet much as it has already - as long as the driving force behind it considers it still to be of use.
Watch this space!
-
Why would anyone want to remain after the case has been resolved ?
what else are you going to do? there's still plenty of McCann bashing to do whatever the resolution.
-
Involved in what ?
There are so many accusations flying about and yet he is currently charged with nothing.
I find it strange how those who thought Madeleine could be alive and the search for her should continue ad infinitum seem to be quite happy to accept that she died 15 years ago.
-
What very strange ideas some Sceptics have of McCann Supporters.
-
I find it strange how those who thought Madeleine could be alive and the search for her should continue ad infinitum seem to be quite happy to accept that she died 15 years ago.
I think that the idea of Madeleine's death is more acceptable now that it is attributed to someone other than McCann.
-
I find it strange how those who thought Madeleine could be alive and the search for her should continue ad infinitum seem to be quite happy to accept that she died 15 years ago.
Who are you referring to exactly? I don't see anyone "happy" about accepting the possibility that Madeleine died 15 years ago, in fact I see quite a few McCann supporters who don't accept that CB is responsible for her death and who cling on to the hope that she is still alive, on the other hand there are those supporters who always believed she was murdered back in 2007 (like myself) but who could see the value in continuing to search for her in the hope that she was still alive and that we may be proven wrong. I find your logic strange and based on a false premise.
-
I think that the idea of Madeleine's death is more acceptable now that it is attributed to someone other than McCann.
I think that is bollocks if you don't mind me saying, and only said by you with the intention of goading.
-
Who are you referring to exactly? I don't see anyone "happy" about accepting the possibility that Madeleine died 15 years ago, in fact I see quite a few McCann supporters who don't accept that CB is responsible for her death and who cling on to the hope that she is still alive, on the other hand there are those supporters who always believed she was murdered back in 2007 like myself but who could see the value in continuing to search for her in the hope that she was still alive and that we may be proven wrong. I find your logic strange and based on a false premise.
Without exception No Supporter would be happy to find that Madeleine is definitely dead. But if she is dead then she is dead and there is nothing that anyone could do about that.
To think that we would be happy about this is a gross insult, but then nothing much surprises me anymore from persons who believe that her parents killed and then disposed of her body, never to be found, in a location they were totally unfamiliar with.
-
Without exception No Supporter would be happy to find that Madeleine is definitely dead. But if she is dead then she is dead and there is nothing that anyone could do about that.
To think that we would be happy about this is a gross insult, but then nothing much surprises me anymore from persons who believe that her parents killed and then disposed of her body, never to be found, in a location they were totally unfamiliar with.
If it wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.
Dear Goodness - even Goncalo Amaral recognises that Brueckner is the PERFECT PATSY and has declared so.
Brueckner possesses EVERY attribute - and then some - to be suspected of an outrage of the magnitude of that was visited on Madeleine.
Then the main ingredient missing from the sceptic cauldron always was common sense and the advent of a new cause to champion was never going to bless them with anything approaching that.
-
I find it strange how those who thought Madeleine could be alive and the search for her should continue ad infinitum seem to be quite happy to accept that she died 15 years ago.
I think it's called having an open mind. The ability to change ones opinion when new evidence comes to light. Amaral supporters don't seem to understand this concept. For them, Eddie the dog said it was the McCanns back in 2007, so case closed!
-
I think that the idea of Madeleine's death is more acceptable now that it is attributed to someone other than McCann.
What is it that gives anyone the idea that the death of any innocent three year old is acceptable to anyone.
Christian Brueckner is the prime suspect in the German investigation into the murder of Madeleine McCann. I think there is something fundamentally twisted in using that fact to try to score points.
It reflects very badly on you.
-
What is it that gives anyone the idea that the death of any innocent three year old is acceptable to anyone.
Christian Brueckner is the prime suspect in the German investigation into the murder of Madeleine McCann. I think there is something fundamentally twisted in using that fact to try to score points.
It reflects very badly on you.
Not only that but Madeleine’s death has NEVER been officially attributed to the McCanns so Jassi’s observation is a complete nonsense through and through.
-
I wonder if 'The Search' will cease if Brueckner is tried and convicted?
-
I wonder if 'The Search' will cease if Brueckner is tried and convicted?
More to the point, will you I wonder?
-
More to the point, will you I wonder?
Don't be silly. It was never about searching for Sceptics. It's about trashing The McCanns. Although I am still having some difficult for the why on that one.
-
More to the point, will you I wonder?
If Brueckner is tried and convicted it's all over. Madeleine's Fund and Operation Grange can be wound up.
-
If Brueckner is tried and convicted it's all over. Madeleine's Fund and Operation Grange can be wound up.
Don't say that, they'll have to do some proper policing.
-
If Brueckner is tried and convicted it's all over. Madeleine's Fund and Operation Grange can be wound up.
And you will have nothing more to wonder about I suppose…? @)(++(*
-
And you will have nothing more to wonder about I suppose…? @)(++(*
They left her aloooone. It's all their fault. Don't forget that
-
They left her aloooone. It's all their fault. Don't forget that
Ah, the “neglect”. When all else fails there’s always that stick left to use for the beating.
-
If Brueckner is tried and convicted it's all over. Madeleine's Fund and Operation Grange can be wound up.
Whether or not Brueckner is tried and convicted does it not occur to you that the perfect vehicle exists for someone of his ilk to join organisations which have been specifically set up to campaign against Madeleine McCann.
Madeleine's Fund was set up to pay for the search for Madeleine McCann.
Operation Grange is involved in an active investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
I find the fact you feel the need to mention both pejoratively really quite extraordinary.
Among the salient facts we know about Brueckner are that - he is computer literate
- he writes using word documents
- he communicates via the media - social and MSM
- he is fluent in English
Shall we go with your scenario of his conviction while bearing in mind that would be for child murder.
There was nothing to prevent him joining any one or any number social media platforms holding the views you constantly bring here ~ much as you have done in the post to which I am replying.
There would have been no more avid "researcher" throwing his weight behind all the campaigns mounted over the years to ensure Madeleine McCann was neither looked for nor had any chance of being found.
That would be his excuse
I wonder what yours is.
-
It seems there is confirmation of Amaral's statement that Brueckner was on the Policia Judiciaria radar.
PJ continues investigation and confirms German involvement in Maddie's disappearance
4 JUNE, 2020
"This man's name was known to 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.
https://zap.aeiou.pt/pj-prossegue-investigacao-confirma-envolvimento-alemao-no-desaparecimento-maddie-328268
-
Whether or not Brueckner is tried and convicted does it not occur to you that the perfect vehicle exists for someone of his ilk to join organisations which have been specifically set up to campaign against Madeleine McCann.
Madeleine's Fund was set up to pay for the search for Madeleine McCann.
Operation Grange is involved in an active investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
I find the fact you feel the need to mention both pejoratively really quite extraordinary.
Among the salient facts we know about Brueckner are that - he is computer literate
- he writes using word documents
- he communicates via the media - social and MSM
- he is fluent in English
Shall we go with your scenario of his conviction while bearing in mind that would be for child murder.
There was nothing to prevent him joining any one or any number social media platforms holding the views you constantly bring here ~ much as you have done in the post to which I am replying.
There would have been no more avid "researcher" throwing his weight behind all the campaigns mounted over the years to ensure Madeleine McCann was neither looked for nor had any chance of being found.
That would be his excuse
I wonder what yours is.
I don't need an excuse for expressing my opinions Brietta.
-
I don't need an excuse for expressing my opinions Brietta.
The court finds you guilty of wrong think & mind crimes against Madeleine's family.
You might just as well have opened the window & taken Maddie yourself.
Disgusting!
-
The court finds you guilty of wrong think & mind crimes against Madeleine's family.
You might just as well have opened the window & taken Maddie yourself.
Disgusting!
I might be crushed if I attached any value to some people's opinions. As I don't I'm not. Despite almost two years of speculation about Brueckner the Germans appear no nearer to being able to charge him.
I have never seen any point in an abductor opening that window to be honest. Why bother if it wasn't to enter or exit?
-
I might be crushed if I attached any value to some people's opinions. As I don't I'm not. Despite almost two years of speculation about Brueckner the Germans appear no nearer to being able to charge him.
I have never seen any point in an abductor opening that window to be honest. Why bother if it wasn't to enter or exit?
Who told you the window wasn’t opened for the purpose of entry or exit? Personally aI’ve never seen the point of opening a window to stage an abduction and then closing it again before the police arrive.
-
I might be crushed if I attached any value to some people's opinions. As I don't I'm not. Despite almost two years of speculation about Brueckner the Germans appear no nearer to being able to charge him.
I have never seen any point in an abductor opening that window to be honest. Why bother if it wasn't to enter or exit?
Brueckner was already in the apartment before Gerry's check, that's why he noticed the bedroom door was open further than they'd left it. The window wasn't open at that point, so yes, it's a strange detail.
All will be explained soon.
-
I have never seen any point in an abductor opening that window to be honest. Why bother if it wasn't to enter or exit?
A way to check the coast was clear before going out the door? An emergency escape route in case someone entered the apartment? A way to throw investigators off that you had the keys to the front door from when you worked at the OC?
Not so difficult to think of reasons when you have an open mind.
-
I might be crushed if I attached any value to some people's opinions. As I don't I'm not. Despite almost two years of speculation about Brueckner the Germans appear no nearer to being able to charge him.
I have never seen any point in an abductor opening that window to be honest. Why bother if it wasn't to enter or exit?
We choose who's opinion we respect based on our understanding of the evidence. Imo you don't understand the evidence and that's why you have no respect for my opinions... No problem
-
I don't need an excuse for expressing my opinions Brietta.
In Brueckner's world opinions have different values. Bit of "what's yours is mine". That does not mean they are acceptable.
-
Criminal defamation differs from civil defamation, so the two aren't the same LOL. Perhaps a complaint about Wolters has been made for all we know.
It seems the 'half a fingerprint' evidence in the Behan case is a journalistic invention. It's very difficult to decide which are 'known facts' and which are speculations, that's for sure.
Barrymore went the route of suing , didn't get him very far.
-
In Brueckner's world opinions have different values. Bit of "what's yours is mine". That does not mean they are acceptable.
There's a lot of people around who are prepared, like Brueckner, to separate others from their belongings. Wise people make that as difficult as possible. Using the safe available to guests at the Ocean Club was a good idea, as was locking apartments when not in them.
-
There's a lot of people around who are prepared, like Brueckner, to separate others from their belongings. Wise people make that as difficult as possible. Using the safe available to guests at the Ocean Club was a good idea, as was locking apartments when not in them.
Why would locking the apartment have made any difference when, according to you, abduction of a child from that (unlocked) apartment was virtually impossible?
-
Who told you the window wasn’t opened for the purpose of entry or exit? Personally aI’ve never seen the point of opening a window to stage an abduction and then closing it again before the police arrive.
Well some one did, only one set of finger prints, DW said she tried to open it,what happened to hers ? and GM's he closed it .
-
Well some one did, only one set of finger prints, DW said she tried to open it,what happened to hers ? and GM's he closed it .
And your point is?
-
And your point is?
Work it out , did GM and DW wear gloves ?
-
Well some one did, only one set of finger prints, DW said she tried to open it,what happened to hers ? and GM's he closed it .
Equally, it could prove that the PJ did a botch job of collecting fingerprints.
-
Work it out , did GM and DW wear gloves ?
OK let’s work it out. You seem to be suggesting that the absence of their fingerprints on the window suggests that they never touched the window in the first place, that’s what I have worked out - that you think they were both lying about touching the window. Am I right? That Dianne Webster and Gerry McCann never once touched the window because their finger prints weren’t on it?
-
Equally, it could prove that the PJ did a botch job of collecting fingerprints.
Absolutely.
-
So, either DW and GM were wearing gloves when they touched the window (unlikely) or they never touched it at all, which means that the only person who opened and closed the window was Kate McCann who did it to stage an abduction. Strange thing to do, both open AND close it to make out Madeleine was taken via the window, but if that’s what Barrier has worked out then that MUST be what happened!
-
So, either DW and GM were wearing gloves when they touched the window (unlikely) or they never touched it at all, which means that the only person who opened and closed the window was Kate McCann who did it to stage an abduction. Strange thing to do, both open AND close it to make out Madeleine was taken via the window, but if that’s what Barrier has worked out then that MUST be what happened!
If that what you want to beleive carry on.
-
Equally, it could prove that the PJ did a botch job of collecting fingerprints.
Absolutely.
You're both wasted on here being such forensic experts.
-
You're both wasted on here being such forensic experts.
I am inclined to agree with you. We both could have been an asset to The PJ. Especially when the forensic expert was only wearing one glove.
Who will ever forget that one.
-
If that what you want to beleive carry on.
I believe that's what you believe and I believe that your belief makes no sense whatsoever, but please do carry on yourself.
-
I am inclined to agree with you. We both could have been an asset to The PJ. Especially when the forensic expert was only wearing one glove.
Who will ever forget that one.
Did their finger print show up ?
-
Did their finger print show up ?
How can we possible know? She could have wiped it, along with others.
-
How can we possible know? She could have wiped it, along with others.
That, in my opinion, is a ridiculous statement based on nothing other than your own prejudice
-
That, in my opinion, is a ridiculous statement based on nothing other than your own prejudice
I think it's a possibility that can't be discounted, after all how do you explain the lack of finger prints from DW and GM on the window / shutter? Were they both lying in their statements and did Kate both open AND close the window in an attempt to stage the most unconvincing abduction in recorded history?
-
How can we possible know? She could have wiped it, along with others.
Where's your absolutely gone.
-
That, in my opinion, is a ridiculous statement based on nothing other than your own prejudice
You think it's okay to collect evidence wearing only one glove?
-
You think it's okay to collect evidence wearing only one glove?
Not being the forensic expert that you clearly are, I couldn't possibly say.
-
Not being the forensic expert that you clearly are, I couldn't possibly say.
You don't need to be a forensic expert, just someone with a modicum of common sense (which might explain your inability to give an opinion).
-
I think it's a possibility that can't be discounted, after all how do you explain the lack of finger prints from DW and GM on the window / shutter? Were they both lying in their statements and did Kate both open AND close the window in an attempt to stage the most unconvincing abduction in recorded history?
I don't know who closed the window, although Silvia Batista said Gerry told her and the GNR that it was him.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Gerry McCann said it was him who closed the shutters.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
I don't know who closed the window, although Silvia Batista said Gerry told her and the GNR that it was him.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Gerry McCann said it was him who closed the shutters.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Well how do you explain the lack of his finger prints on the shutters? Must've been wearing gloves, hmmm? Otherwise there can be no explanation apart from he lied right?
-
Well how do you explain the lack of his finger prints on the shutters? Must've been wearing gloves, hmmm? Otherwise there can be no explanation apart from he lied right?
He would have used the strap inside to close the shutters. I don't think any fingerprints were recovered from that.
-
He would have used the strap inside to close the shutters. I don't think any fingerprints were recovered from that.
He then says he went and opened them from the outside though.
-
He would have used the strap inside to close the shutters. I don't think any fingerprints were recovered from that.
So you reckon he was lying about going outside to test the shutters then? And what about DW, was she wearing gloves or lying in your view?
-
Gerry: look we'll stage an abduction
Kate: how will we do that?
Gerry: well, just before you raise the alarm open the window and the shutter then it will look like someone broke in
Kate: good plan
Hours later Kate opens the window and shutter and then before anyone else enters the room closes the window, Gerry follows in immediately and before anyone else sees him he closes the shutters - from the inside. No evidence of an abduction - d'oh! Plan backfires spectacularly.
Meanwhile Dianne Webster is just a senile woman who didn't know what the hell was going on, and that nanny woman who claimed to see the window open was obviously high on drugs.
-
I don't know who closed the window, although Silvia Batista said Gerry told her and the GNR that it was him.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Gerry McCann said it was him who closed the shutters.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Where in the fingerprint report does it mention or record the results from the outside of the bedroom window. Where does it mention the inside of the shutters ever being examined.
Did they dust the doorknobs?
-
Whether or not Brueckner is tried and convicted does it not occur to you that the perfect vehicle exists for someone of his ilk to join organisations which have been specifically set up to campaign against Madeleine McCann.
Madeleine's Fund was set up to pay for the search for Madeleine McCann.
Operation Grange is involved in an active investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
I find the fact you feel the need to mention both pejoratively really quite extraordinary.
Among the salient facts we know about Brueckner are that - he is computer literate
- he writes using word documents
- he communicates via the media - social and MSM
- he is fluent in English
Shall we go with your scenario of his conviction while bearing in mind that would be for child murder.
There was nothing to prevent him joining any one or any number social media platforms holding the views you constantly bring here ~ much as you have done in the post to which I am replying.
There would have been no more avid "researcher" throwing his weight behind all the campaigns mounted over the years to ensure Madeleine McCann was neither looked for nor had any chance of being found.
That would be his excuse
I wonder what yours is.
Good thinking Brie. He could be here amongst us, spewing out lies,
-
I might be crushed if I attached any value to some people's opinions. As I don't I'm not. Despite almost two years of speculation about Brueckner the Germans appear no nearer to being able to charge him.
I have never seen any point in an abductor opening that window to be honest. Why bother if it wasn't to enter or exit?
There are several reasons why he would open the window. These have been gone ovr time and again as you must know
-
Good thinking Brie. He could be here amongst us, spewing out lies,
Or he could be serving a rather long sentence in prison with no access to the internet. Which one do you think it is?
-
OK let’s work it out. You seem to be suggesting that the absence of their fingerprints on the window suggests that they never touched the window in the first place, that’s what I have worked out - that you think they were both lying about touching the window. Am I right? That Dianne Webster and Gerry McCann never once touched the window because their finger prints weren’t on it?
I think someone deliberately wiped Dianne and Gerrys fingerprints off, but why?
To try and prove no-one came in via that window? To beef up a case against Kate (and Gerry?)
Just my thoughts that could be wrong, but WHERE did the finger prints go ?
-
So, either DW and GM were wearing gloves when they touched the window (unlikely) or they never touched it at all, which means that the only person who opened and closed the window was Kate McCann who did it to stage an abduction. Strange thing to do, both open AND close it to make out Madeleine was taken via the window, but if that’s what Barrier has worked out then that MUST be what happened!
IMO she almost certainly did not go out via the window. No fibres or marks of any sort on the frame or cill.
IMO she went out thru the front door where she was passed to another person. When taking her from her bed, her head would have been on the lifters right arm, but when Jane saw Tannerman, he had her head on his left arm. This indicates that there were at last 2 people involved. And then additionally the get away driver.
This all makes sense in my opinion.
-
Not being the forensic expert that you clearly are, I couldn't possibly say.
Are you jealous? You sound it.
-
Good thinking Brie. He could be here amongst us, spewing out lies,
It's me.
I've been wiping videos from the internet too.
-
I think someone deliberately wiped Dianne and Gerrys fingerprints off, but why?
To try and prove no-one came in via that window? To beef up a case against Kate (and Gerry?)
Just my thoughts that could be wrong, but WHERE did the finger prints go ?
Eh? They broke back in and wiped the fingerprints from a window?
As for castigating the SOC officer for the last 14 years for only wearing one glove [...did you see that Joyce, that woman's only wearing one glove, I mean, really....harummpphh, whine, whine] - she wasn't taking DNA samples, she was specifically taking prints. If she inadvertently placed one of her own there, and she probably didn't, then she would rule that out.
Not best practice probably, but not compromising anything.
-
Eh? They broke back in and wiped the fingerprints from a window?
As for castigating the SOC officer for the last 14 years for only wearing one glove [...did you see that Joyce, that woman's only wearing one glove, I mean, really....harummpphh, whine, whine] - she wasn't taking DNA samples, she was specifically taking prints. If she inadvertently placed one of her own there, and she probably didn't, then she would rule that out.
Not best practice probably, but not compromising anything.
I think the inference is that the Portuguese authorities did it.
-
Just carelessness if you ask me.
-
I think the inference is that the Portuguese authorities did it.
Jesus, talk about nonsensical conspiracy theories, sportaz are awash with them, making a new one up most weeks.
-
The PJ were not known for the care they took. Fag Ash and Dog's Hairs all over the place.
-
Eh? They broke back in and wiped the fingerprints from a window?
As for castigating the SOC officer for the last 14 years for only wearing one glove [...did you see that Joyce, that woman's only wearing one glove, I mean, really....harummpphh, whine, whine] - she wasn't taking DNA samples, she was specifically taking prints. If she inadvertently placed one of her own there, and she probably didn't, then she would rule that out.
Not best practice probably, but not compromising anything.
I think the inference is that the Portuguese authorities did it.
Yeah, they dusted for prints, immediately recognised GM's and DW's prints, and erased them, now how did they know which ones to erase were they on record and on a carry card in your pocket to instantly know who is who .
-
The PJ were not known for the care they took. Fag Ash and Dog's Hairs all over the place.
That's really the only other explanation apart from:
1) Dianne Webster and Gerry wore gloves when they handled the shutter
2) They both lied about doing so.
3) Neither of them were born with fingerprints.
4) Their fingerprints were removed by themselves or sinister High-Ups.
Which explanation seems the most likely depends on your ability to think logically IMO.
-
The PJ were not known for the care they took. Fag Ash and Dog's Hairs all over the place.
....yet not a trace of Madeleine's DNA. Someone was taking care, that's for sure.
-
Yeah, they dusted for prints, immediately recognised GM's and DW's prints, and erased them, now how did they know which ones to erase were they on record and on a carry card in your pocket to instantly know who is who .
Well that's the salient point here. Perhaps they had a hand held fingerprint scanner like off the telly and all that. Like sci fi, the future today, yesterday.
-
That's really the only other explanation apart from:
1) Dianne Webster and Gerry wore gloves when they handled the shutter
2) They both lied about doing so.
3) Neither of them were born with fingerprints.
4) Their fingerprints were removed by themselves or sinister High-Ups.
Which explanation seems the most likely depends on your ability to think logically IMO.
Carelessness.
And the forensic person wasn't wearing any hair covering either.
-
Carelessness.
And the forensic person wasn't wearing any hair covering either.
Outside? Searching for prints?
But I take your point, there's probably a protocol she may / may not have followed.
Fair play to her though, she found those prints.
-
Equally, it could prove that the PJ did a botch job of collecting fingerprints.
Funny it happens only in this case, we're led to believe CB was convicted using an hair sample and there's supposed to be a partial print in the other rape case, although that is open to question it seems.
-
The PJ were not known for the care they took. Fag Ash and Dog's Hairs all over the place.
It was careless of the GNR dog handler (having been woken up from his sleep at home to come and help to find a missing child) to take his dog into the apartment. I can only assume finding the child was seen as a priority at 2.30am on 4th May; she had been missing for over 4.5 hours by then.
What fag ash?
I assume no-one thinks the dog hairs fell off Brueckner's clothes.
-
Funny it happens only in this case, we're led to believe CB was convicted using an hair sample and there's supposed to be a partial print in the other rape case, although that is open to question it seems.
Maybe the PJ botched those too?
-
Outside? Searching for prints?
But I take your point, there's probably a protocol she may / may not have followed.
Fair play to her though, she found those prints.
How many Prints and whose were they?
-
It was careless of the GNR dog handler (having been woken up from his sleep at home to come and help to find a missing child) to take his dog into the apartment. I can only assume finding the child was seen as a priority at 2.30am on 4th May; she had been missing for over 4.5 hours by then.
What fag ash?
I assume no-one thinks the dog hairs fell off Brueckner's clothes.
Never assume - you know what that means don't you...
-
How many Prints and whose were they?
Hmmm, good question. How can we possibly obtain that information, I wonder?
-
I have absolutely no idea what evidence there is available to the BKA concerning Brueckner - and that is precisely as it should be - but without a doubt it is compelling enough to make him the prime suspect in the murder of a three year old child.
-
I have absolutely no idea what evidence there is available to the BKA concerning Brueckner - and that is precisely as it should be - but without a doubt it is compelling enough to make him the prime suspect in the murder of a three year old child.
Yes, anyone would think the BKA were just pretending CB was their prime suspect for no other reason than just to piss off McCann Bashers, so very defensive are the latter of the delightful paedo/rapist.
-
There was Fag Ash collected from the floor of Appartment 5a. None of The Tapas people smoked, so it must have been from The Portuguese Police smoking inside The Crime Scene.
They however had already been On Duty, so perhaps they were tired.
-
Just carelessness if you ask me.
"Slipshod" is the terminology I would use. And that from start to finish which suited the powers that be in Portugal just fine.
Then in 2021 PANIC STATIONS!
Police circles became aware that the BKA and SY were actively pursuing leads which led them directly to Brueckner who they had been investigating over a period of some years.
In my opinion that fact wound Amaral up yet again when he heard about it necessitating another furore and yet another book to put matters straight.
-
I mean, would you believe it? Some of the Forensics collected beggar belief. There was even the finger print of a GNR Officer found on the back patio door.
What a shambles it all was.
-
It was careless of the GNR dog handler (having been woken up from his sleep at home to come and help to find a missing child) to take his dog into the apartment. I can only assume finding the child was seen as a priority at 2.30am on 4th May; she had been missing for over 4.5 hours by then.
What fag ash?
I assume no-one thinks the dog hairs fell off Brueckner's clothes.
you actually raised a good point. Did the PJ simply assume the dog hairs arrived in the apartment owing to the presence of a police dog? Could they have been brought into the apartment by another dog owner who had no reason to be in the apartment? Were the hairs kept? Could they be matched to a breed of dog?
-
Yes, anyone would think the BKA were just pretending CB was their prime suspect for no other reason than just to piss off McCann Bashers, so very defensive are the latter of the delightful paedo/rapist.
The emergence of the BKA into the absolute centre of the inquiry into Madeleine's case most definitely upset Amaral to the extent of forcing him to break cover.
But attacking the BKA with nothing more substantial than a pack of lies was never going to work for anyone who has expounded one iota of common sense and who has compared Amaral's amateurish fabrication of the appearance of Brueckner with the reality of Brueckner as he actually was at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
-
There was Fag Ash collected from the floor of Appartment 5a. None of The Tapas people smoked, so it must have been from The Portuguese Police smoking inside The Crime Scene.
They however had already been On Duty, so perhaps they were tired.
It was alleged by the media that;
Police failed to seal off the apartment as a crime scene, meaning vital samples were contaminated with ash from officers' cigarettes.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/madeleine-how-the-police-ruined-the-forensic-evidence-in-her-bedroom-6646747.html
I can't find eny mention of this contamination in the files, however.
-
you actually raised a good point. Did the PJ simply assume the dog hairs arrived in the apartment owing to the presence of a police dog? Could they have been brought into the apartment by another dog owner who had no reason to be in the apartment? Were the hairs kept? Could they be matched to a breed of dog?
Now there's a thought. Yes, dog hairs can be absolutely matched to a breed of dog, even to The Dog itself. But I doubt that The PJ will have considered that.
-
"Slipshod" is the terminology I would use. And that from start to finish which suited the powers that be in Portugal just fine.
Then in 2021 PANIC STATIONS!
Police circles became aware that the BKA and SY were actively pursuing leads which led them directly to Brueckner who they had been investigating over a period of some years.
In my opinion that fact wound Amaral up yet again when he heard about it necessitating another furore and yet another book to put matters straight.
And yet more fibs from Amaral.
-
It was alleged by the media that;
Police failed to seal off the apartment as a crime scene, meaning vital samples were contaminated with ash from officers' cigarettes.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/madeleine-how-the-police-ruined-the-forensic-evidence-in-her-bedroom-6646747.html
I can't find eny mention of this contamination in the files, however.
Now THERE'S a surprise!
-
I mean, would you believe it? Some of the Forensics collected beggar belief. There was even the finger print of a GNR Officer found on the back patio door.
What a shambles it all was.
There is no denying they mucked it up initially and lost forensics which could have been the clincher in any proper investigation.
It was a total mess - but absolutely on a par with the rest of the bigger mess which was coordinated by Amaral which he outlined in his best seller which in effect records a fiasco of wrong decisions and incompetence.
Unbelievably Amaral has dredged up the fallacy of Calpol yet again and unbelievably the Portuguese media have given him a platform from which to dispense his 'wisdom'.
-
Now THERE'S a surprise!
So I was right about the Fag Ash. And I have known that for a very long time.
Tis amazing how very ignorant some people still are.
-
you actually raised a good point. Did the PJ simply assume the dog hairs arrived in the apartment owing to the presence of a police dog? Could they have been brought into the apartment by another dog owner who had no reason to be in the apartment? Were the hairs kept? Could they be matched to a breed of dog?
Good point.
Brueckner portrays himself as a dog lover - owned dogs of his own - had friends who had dogs.
It is very difficult not to carry dogs' hair around given those facts.
-
Good point.
Brueckner portrays himself as a dog lover - owned dogs of his own - had friends who had dogs.
It is very difficult not to carry dogs' hair around given those facts.
Wouldn't that mean that any dog hair evidence would be pretty flimsy?
-
Good point.
Brueckner portrays himself as a dog lover - owned dogs of his own - had friends who had dogs.
It is very difficult not to carry dogs' hair around given those facts.
Need to be careful about any dog allusions, he's already opened criminal case against the latest 'journalist' who libeled him. The first of many, as I predicted.
-
Need to be careful about any dog allusions, he's already opened criminal case against the latest 'journalist' who libeled him. The first of many, as I predicted.
What did which Journalist say that was libellous?
-
Now THERE'S a surprise!
What? That media rumours are being quoted as facts? I don't find that surprising at all.
-
Sense of Humour Fail, mayhap?
-
What did which Journalist say that was libellous?
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/verdaechtiger-im-fall-madeleine-mccann-stellt-strafanzeige-gegen-tv-journalistin-a-61f890b4-b910-490e-92d6-db08bfcb7578 (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/verdaechtiger-im-fall-madeleine-mccann-stellt-strafanzeige-gegen-tv-journalistin-a-61f890b4-b910-490e-92d6-db08bfcb7578)
-
What? That media rumours are being quoted as facts? I don't find that surprising at all.
You're deliberately misunderstanding methinks. The media reported direct quotes from two Portuguese police officers who were at the scene themsleves but declined to name themselves (for obvious reasons). You may prefer to consider that a "rumour" but I consider it an insight into what was undoubtedly a shambolic crime scene and a poor effort by the police to collect evidence.
-
You're deliberately misunderstanding methinks. The media reported direct quotes from two Portuguese police officers who were at the scene themsleves but declined to name themselves (for obvious reasons). You may prefer to consider that a "rumour" but I consider it an insight into what was undoubtedly a shambolic crime scene and a poor effort by the police to collect evidence.
So as good as 'a source close to', or 'an insider', or even 'bloke in a hat'.
Meaningless. Just like the grasses who tried and failed to pin it on CB.
-
You're deliberately misunderstanding methinks. The media reported direct quotes from two Portuguese police officers who were at the scene themsleves but declined to name themselves (for obvious reasons). You may prefer to consider that a "rumour" but I consider it an insight into what was undoubtedly a shambolic crime scene and a poor effort by the police to collect evidence.
Not the newspaper I quoted. Which one were you reading?
-
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/verdaechtiger-im-fall-madeleine-mccann-stellt-strafanzeige-gegen-tv-journalistin-a-61f890b4-b910-490e-92d6-db08bfcb7578 (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/verdaechtiger-im-fall-madeleine-mccann-stellt-strafanzeige-gegen-tv-journalistin-a-61f890b4-b910-490e-92d6-db08bfcb7578)
Can someone tell me what this says? Merci Beaucoup en avance.
-
Can someone tell me what this says? Merci Beaucoup en avance.
Voila Madame...
Suspect in Madeleine McCann case files criminal charges against TV journalist
February 4th, 2022, 1 p.m. • from DER SPIEGEL 6/2022
Christian B., who was arrested for rape, has filed a criminal complaint against journalist Jutta Rabe “on suspicion of qualified slander”. SPIEGEL has received the letter from his lawyer Friedrich Fülscher to the public prosecutor's office in Kiel. The background is a TV documentary followed by a talk show about B., the suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping case. Fülscher writes that the program contained "untrue factual allegations" that were intended to make his client "contemptible".
Rabe said in the documentary that B. allegedly starved two dogs. In fact, according to Fülscher, one of the dogs escaped, the other was euthanized due to an incurable cancer, which he also communicated when asked by Sat.1. During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
-
Voila Madame...
Suspect in Madeleine McCann case files criminal charges against TV journalist
February 4th, 2022, 1 p.m. • from DER SPIEGEL 6/2022
Christian B., who was arrested for rape, has filed a criminal complaint against journalist Jutta Rabe “on suspicion of qualified slander”. SPIEGEL has received the letter from his lawyer Friedrich Fülscher to the public prosecutor's office in Kiel. The background is a TV documentary followed by a talk show about B., the suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping case. Fülscher writes that the program contained "untrue factual allegations" that were intended to make his client "contemptible".
Rabe said in the documentary that B. allegedly starved two dogs. In fact, according to Fülscher, one of the dogs escaped, the other was euthanized due to an incurable cancer, which he also communicated when asked by Sat.1. During the TV talk, Rabe also said that in two other cases against B. for raping an Irish woman and abusing a child, the public prosecutor's office probably had fingerprints and DNA traces. According to an e-mail from the public prosecutor's office, from which Fülscher quotes, these details are "inaccurate". Rabe did not want to comment on the matter when asked, the presumption of innocence applies.
Thank you for that. This was kind.
But I'm not sure exactly who or what is being sued or how Brueckner is going to prove that these allegations are false. Especially the one that supposedly got away. Wise dog that one.
And of course "Contemptible" is hardly an accusation Brueckner can deny.
-
Not the newspaper I quoted. Which one were you reading?
this one
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
-
this one
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
Better than first I thought. Or did I mean worse?
-
this one
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
From this article....
They spoke out as a woman who claimed she saw Madeleine being bundled into a taxi in Morocco said she has had death threats from gangsters.
Naoual Malhi, 30, said last week she saw a girl with a woman near Fnidk in September.
Abdelmajid Chadili, head of the judicial police, said last night: "We did find a small blonde girl. She was among her true parents and she only speaks Arabic."
But Naoual, who lives near Marbella, Spain, said men claiming to work for Morocco's crime barons had called her to warn her not speak about what she saw.
She said one told her: "Let this lie if you know what's good for you, your daughter and the rest of your family, otherwise you're a dead woman."
But she said she was not frightened: "It's obvious I'm on to something or they wouldn't be calling.
"I know the girl I saw was her and I'm not going to stop until I find her."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
Yet another witness who definitely saw Maddie after May 3rd, this time in Morrocco.
I've forwarded this information to Fulscher & she will be called as a defence witness, along with the other 8000 people who are also certain they saw Maddie.
-
Wait, I could be wrong, maybe Brueckner was involved.
Attention switched back to Morocco on 4 June, after GCHQ in Cheltenham picked up phone intercept messages in Arabic referring to "the little blonde girl", a German man, and a ferry from Tarifa in Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_sightings_of_Madeleine_McCann
-
Thank you for that. This was kind.
But I'm not sure exactly who or what is being sued or how Brueckner is going to prove that these allegations are false. Especially the one that supposedly got away. Wise dog that one.
And of course "Contemptible" is hardly an accusation Brueckner can deny.
I don't know if we will be hearing much more about this complaint but I most likely think not.
His accusation: the public prosecutor Christian Wolters explained his "strategy" against CB to the reporter. Rabe claimed this in a talk show after the film. Not even he, as a defense attorney, has had access to the files. The prosecutor contradicts in an e-mail to the defense attorney, which we have: "I have neither disclosed a strategy to her nor spoken specifically about the evidence."
Maddie-Entführung: Verdächtiger aus Würzburg zeigt TV-Reporterin an Thanks to WS
-
I should ask The Dog. If they can find it. The one who ran away I mean. Not the dead one.
-
this one
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
Are you sure there are direct quotes from two Portuguese police officers? All I saw is;
It has been revealed that detectives failed to seal off the apartment and even contaminated forensic clues with cigarette ash.
No mention of who did the revealing. Are GNR officers qualified to comment on contaminated forensic clues?
-
Are you sure there are direct quotes from two Portuguese police officers? All I saw is;
It has been revealed that detectives failed to seal off the apartment and even contaminated forensic clues with cigarette ash.
No mention of who did the revealing. Are GNR officers qualified to comment on contaminated forensic clues?
The article is full of direct quotes, what are you on about?
-
Then of course there is this opinion from an unnamed source in the Met:
A Scotland Yard source said: 'The Portuguese authorities' stance on this latest development is at odds with the Metropolitan Police and German police but it has been that way from minute one.
'The fact is that Portuguese authorities were embarrassed on a global stage at the time because the crime scene was completely destroyed, there was no forensic recovery of anything of any value etc.
'There may be slight embarrassment again that its German Police who have identified a chief suspect that could be the biggest lead yet in the investigation.
'But it is still has to be a Portuguese investigation as this disappearance – and now possible abduction and murder – happened under their jurisdiction.'
'The investigation is being directed from Germany,' said a police source. 'There are three forces involved in this, but the majority is coming from Germany.'
-
Then of course there is this opinion from the highly respected sceptic hero Colin Sutton
6Forensic examinations of the McCann apartment were poor and no DNA tests were carried out on Madeleine’s toy Cuddle Cat
“In a case like this, you start by looking where Madeleine was when she was taken.
“She was in her bed, probably clutching her fluffy toy Cuddle Cat. So that’s where the forensics begins. The abductor would have had to pull back the duvet, probably physically remove Cuddle Cat from Madeleine’s arms.
"If the reports are true that no DNA tests were carried out on Cuddle Cat before Kate washed it, that’s astonishing.
“There were photographs of officers in their normal clothes, not even wearing gloves, doing fingerprints. It looks like they just didn’t do a good job.”
-
Can someone tell me what this says? Merci Beaucoup en avance.
Hi Eleanor, I posted this yesterday.
The latest:
‘A documentary by the broadcaster Sat.1 provided new details in the Maddie McCann case. Now the suspect, who is currently in prison, has filed a complaint against one of the journalists’.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
-
Then of course there is this opinion by a Portuguese commentator
A few voices in Portugal are now willing to acknowledge as much. "Since the earliest days," Miguel Sousa Tavares wrote in the daily Expresso this week, "I had the impression that the PJ did not have the slightest thought-through strategy . . . And when the McCanns went home, sick and tired of being always on hand and seeing a police force that was only interested in incriminating them, the PJ didn't know what to do. Their old, lazy methods hadn't worked and it didn't know any other ones."
-
Then of course there is this opinion from the highly respected sceptic hero Colin Sutton
6Forensic examinations of the McCann apartment were poor and no DNA tests were carried out on Madeleine’s toy Cuddle Cat
“In a case like this, you start by looking where Madeleine was when she was taken.
“She was in her bed, probably clutching her fluffy toy Cuddle Cat. So that’s where the forensics begins. The abductor would have had to pull back the duvet, probably physically remove Cuddle Cat from Madeleine’s arms.
"If the reports are true that no DNA tests were carried out on Cuddle Cat before Kate washed it, that’s astonishing.
“There were photographs of officers in their normal clothes, not even wearing gloves, doing fingerprints. It looks like they just didn’t do a good job.”
It looks like they didn't know how. Or perhaps they didn't care. Who needs evidence to convict someone. Just make it up as you go along.
-
Then there is this reported by the BBC in a timeline of events (not sure which police chief there are referring to)
In June, a Portuguese police chief admits vital forensic clues may have been destroyed as the scene was not protected properly.
eta
17 June: Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa admits vital forensic clues may have been destroyed in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance as the scene was not protected properly.
-
Hi Eleanor, I posted this yesterday.
The latest:
‘A documentary by the broadcaster Sat.1 provided new details in the Maddie McCann case. Now the suspect, who is currently in prison, has filed a complaint against one of the journalists’.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_91606732/maddie-mccann-verdaechtiger-entfuehrer-klagt-gegen-tv-journalistin.html
Thank you. It's the language I was having a problem with.
-
The article is full of direct quotes, what are you on about?
Your example wasn't a direct quote.
Direct quote, despite the clueless scattering of quotation marks;
One told the Mirror: "When we arrived it was chaos. Everyone had walked through that place.
"I lifted my arms up, rolled my eyes, put my head down and just got on with it. There was nothing we could do. "The damage had already been done. It's so frustrating."
Not a direct quote;
It has been revealed that detectives failed to seal off the apartment and even contaminated forensic clues with cigarette ash.
-
Your example wasn't a direct quote.
Direct quote, despite the clueless scattering of quotation marks;
One told the Mirror: "When we arrived it was chaos. Everyone had walked through that place.
"I lifted my arms up, rolled my eyes, put my head down and just got on with it. There was nothing we could do. "The damage had already been done. It's so frustrating."
Not a direct quote;
It has been revealed that detectives failed to seal off the apartment and even contaminated forensic clues with cigarette ash.
The crime scene was not properly preserved and the PJ admitted it, that’s the most important point here, despite your best pedantic efforts to deflect from that fact.
-
The crime scene was not properly preserved and the PJ admitted it, that’s the most important point here, despite your best pedantic efforts to deflect from that fact.
The PJ admitted it? Not in the article you quoted, that was all by and about the GNR;
Two police officers called to the McCanns' apartment the night Madeleine vanished claimed yesterday their bosses "mucked up big".
The other said: "To find a circus walking in and out of a possible crime scene - well, it's ridiculous.
"Family, friends, neighbours, staff, people off the street - everyone was in and out of that place.
The first officer added: "When we see our superiors on scene we expect the situation to be under control. It was like they weren't even there."
"They know they mucked up. They should have secured the scene and waited for the Policia Judiciaria"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
-
The PJ admitted it? Not in the article you quoted, that was all by and about the GNR;
Two police officers called to the McCanns' apartment the night Madeleine vanished claimed yesterday their bosses "mucked up big".
The other said: "To find a circus walking in and out of a possible crime scene - well, it's ridiculous.
"Family, friends, neighbours, staff, people off the street - everyone was in and out of that place.
The first officer added: "When we see our superiors on scene we expect the situation to be under control. It was like they weren't even there."
"They know they mucked up. They should have secured the scene and waited for the Policia Judiciaria"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-reveal-shambles-of-maddy-crime-518854
You’re right. The Portuguese investigation was and always should be utterly above reproach. It was perfect. They never put a foot wrong from the moment Kate raised the alarm. It was probably the single most impressive criminal investigation ever held on Portuguese soil, if not anywhere on Earth. Everyone from Colin Sutton to those who actually witnessed the unfolding investigation who had the temerity to be anything less than utterly impressed should hang their heads in shame. Bravo, and well done the PT police, just terrible bad luck that they ran out of time and patience with the whole ghastly affair and never managed to solve it by themselves, preferring to leave it to other less competent police forces in Germany and England to try and pick up the reins.
-
You’re right. The Portuguese investigation was and always should be utterly above reproach. It was perfect. They never put a foot wrong from the moment Kate raised the alarm. It was probably the single most impressive criminal investigation ever held on Portuguese soil, if not anywhere on Earth. Everyone from Colin Sutton to those who actually witnessed the unfolding investigation who had the temerity to be anything less than utterly impressed should hang their heads in shame. Bravo, and well done the PT police, just terrible bad luck that they ran out of time and patience with the whole ghastly affair and never managed to solve it by themselves, preferring to leave it to other less competent police forces in Germany and England to try and pick up the reins.
No need to get over-excited, just because you got things a bit wrong. The PJ weren't perfect, but there's no evidence that they allowed people to flick cigarette ash everywhere contaminating forensic samples. When they did arrive they immediately cleared all the unneccessary people out of the apartment too, which the GNR had failed to do.
-
No need to get over-excited, just because you got things a bit wrong. The PJ weren't perfect, but there's no evidence that they allowed people to flick cigarette ash everywhere contaminating forensic samples. When they did arrive they immediately cleared all the unneccessary people out of the apartment too, which the GNR had failed to do.
What did I get wrong exactly? Apart from anecdotal evidence as reported to journalists what other evidence would you expect to discover pertaining to fag ash being flicked around the apartment? Is cigarette ash routinely collected for forensic examination at crime scenes?
ETA
apparently it is!
Crucial evidence which could nail Madeleine McCann's abductor was contaminated by ash from policemen's cigarettes.
The ash was discovered by Portuguese forensic experts among samples from the McCanns' apartment in Praia da Luz taken soon after Madeleine vanished.
Three Portuguese detectives were seen smoking as they walked in and out of the ground-floor apartment on May 4, the day after Madeleine disappeared.
They were seen by a witness laughing and joking among themselves.
And when a passer-by asked what was happening one replied: "A little girl has wandered off but don't worry, we think she'll turn up."
After the ash was discovered at a police lab in the Portuguese capital Lisbon, tests carried out on it showed it matched the brand of cigarettes smoked by policemen who had been at the apartment.
-
No need to get over-excited, just because you got things a bit wrong. The PJ weren't perfect, but there's no evidence that they allowed people to flick cigarette ash everywhere contaminating forensic samples. When they did arrive they immediately cleared all the unneccessary people out of the apartment too, which the GNR had failed to do.
Ooof. Have some of that. Great post.
-
No need to get over-excited, just because you got things a bit wrong. The PJ weren't perfect, but there's no evidence that they allowed people to flick cigarette ash everywhere contaminating forensic samples. When they did arrive they immediately cleared all the unneccessary people out of the apartment too, which the GNR had failed to do.
Its an established fact that the PJ did not understand the evidence and took the investigation in the direction based on their ignorance. That is a fact that no one can dispute
-
What did I get wrong exactly? Apart from anecdotal evidence as reported to journalists what other evidence would you expect to discover pertaining to fag ash being flicked around the apartment? Is cigarette ash routinely collected for forensic examination at crime scenes?
ETA
apparently it is!
Crucial evidence which could nail Madeleine McCann's abductor was contaminated by ash from policemen's cigarettes.
The ash was discovered by Portuguese forensic experts among samples from the McCanns' apartment in Praia da Luz taken soon after Madeleine vanished.
Three Portuguese detectives were seen smoking as they walked in and out of the ground-floor apartment on May 4, the day after Madeleine disappeared.
They were seen by a witness laughing and joking among themselves.
And when a passer-by asked what was happening one replied: "A little girl has wandered off but don't worry, we think she'll turn up."
After the ash was discovered at a police lab in the Portuguese capital Lisbon, tests carried out on it showed it matched the brand of cigarettes smoked by policemen who had been at the apartment.
No link?
There's no evidence that the Scientific Police Laboratory found or tested any cigarette ash.
-
No link?
There's no evidence that the Scientific Police Laboratory found or tested any cigarette ash.
Keep your hair on dear, there’s anecdotal evidence even if the lab report never made it to the files released to the media. In any case it’s now widely accepted (by everyone not in denial) that the evidence gathering from the apartment was poor and the scene was contaminated, the end.
-
Keep your hair on dear, there’s anecdotal evidence even if the lab report never made it to the files released to the media. In any case it’s now widely accepted (by everyone not in denial) that the evidence gathering from the apartment was poor and the scene was contaminated, the end.
Did they test anything found on the floor of Appartment 5a?
Did Brueckner smoke?
-
Did they test anything found on the floor of Appartment 5a?
Did Brueckner smoke?
There's nothing in the files to suggest they ran tests on cigarette ash, however there are newspaper reports that the ash was analysed and confirmed to be the same brand as that smoked by the police officers who were in the apartment at the time. Where such analysis ended up is anyone's guess, if it actually ever existed at all - it certainly wouldn't surprise me if such an inconvenient piece of analysis ended up in the bin. As for Bruckner smoking, I believe he did but I can't confirm that with a hand written statement by him admitting he did, so probably best to say he didn't just to be on the safe side... 8(0(*
-
Well they know which brand of cigarette it was according to your source, so once they prove Brueckner smoked the same brand, case solved.
-
Gerry never mentioned the distinctive smell of fag smoke in the apartment, being a non smoker that's something he would probably notice, so Brueckner wasn't smoking before or during his check.
Neither Kate or Matt mention smelling smoke either, but with good reason I think.
Brueckner got a fright when Gerry came in, he hid in the closet until the 9pm check was over then sparked up a ciggie to relieve his stress, that's why he opened the window.
-
Keep your hair on dear, there’s anecdotal evidence even if the lab report never made it to the files released to the media. In any case it’s now widely accepted (by everyone not in denial) that the evidence gathering from the apartment was poor and the scene was contaminated, the end.
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, especially in this case where no-one who said it can be identified. There is no reason to think that any forensic reports were withheld either.
The crime scene was contaminated by the plethora of people traipsing in and out of the apartment before the PJ arrived. That cerainly made the job of gathering evidence difficult.
-
There's nothing in the files to suggest they ran tests on cigarette ash, however there are newspaper reports that the ash was analysed and confirmed to be the same brand as that smoked by the police officers who were in the apartment at the time. Where such analysis ended up is anyone's guess, if it actually ever existed at all - it certainly wouldn't surprise me if such an inconvenient piece of analysis ended up in the bin. As for Bruckner smoking, I believe he did but I can't confirm that with a hand written statement by him admitting he did, so probably best to say he didn't just to be on the safe side... 8(0(*
Oh Dear. They might have missed a trick there with Brueckner.
-
Gerry never mentioned the distinctive smell of fag smoke in the apartment, being a non smoker that's something he would probably notice, so Brueckner wasn't smoking before or during his check.
Neither Kate or Matt mention smelling smoke either, but with good reason I think.
Brueckner got a fright when Gerry came in, he hid in the closet until the 9pm check was over then sparked up a ciggie to relieve his stress, that's why he opened the window.
You could well be right.
-
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, especially in this case where no-one who said it can be identified. There is no reason to think that any forensic reports were withheld either.
The crime scene was contaminated by the plethora of people traipsing in and out of the apartment before the PJ arrived. That cerainly made the job of gathering evidence difficult.
It didn't stop the police from gathering samples from Madeleine's bedding or Cuddle Cat. It didn't prevent them from taking appropriate measures such as wearing protective gloves when taking samples but carry on defending the PJ's slip-shod methods and failing which have been widely condemned by professionals in the field such as Colin Sutton etc.
-
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, especially in this case where no-one who said it can be identified. There is no reason to think that any forensic reports were withheld either.
The crime scene was contaminated by the plethora of people traipsing in and out of the apartment before the PJ arrived. That certainly made the job of gathering evidence difficult.
In fairness, I would have expected the parents to turn the place upside down. But even the beds were virtually undisturbed. But apparently there's only a finite number of hiding places in a small apartment.
-
Gerry never mentioned the distinctive smell of fag smoke in the apartment, being a non smoker that's something he would probably notice, so Brueckner wasn't smoking before or during his check.
Neither Kate or Matt mention smelling smoke either, but with good reason I think.
Brueckner got a fright when Gerry came in, he hid in the closet until the 9pm check was over then sparked up a ciggie to relieve his stress, that's why he opened the window.
Yeah there is a distinct possibility that Brueckner was already in the apartment and was startled by Gerry's return but I don't think he lit up necessitating ventilation.
There are any number of reasons why he may have opened the window but without a doubt that was not one of them; for example it did not appear to be his MO as it has not been reported or suggested by any of his other victims.
The point of the cigarette ash contamination is that anecdotal evidence has police officers on hand contaminating the crime scene; there never was any suggestion that the perpetrator stopped what he was doing to have a break for a ciggy; but you know that already don't you - but why pass up the opportunity to try another tiresome wind up.
-
Yeah there is a distinct possibility that Brueckner was already in the apartment and was startled by Gerry's return but I don't think he lit up necessitating ventilation.
There are any number of reasons why he may have opened the window but without a doubt that was not one of them; for example it did not appear to be his MO as it has not been reported or suggested by any of his other victims.
The point of the cigarette ash contamination is that anecdotal evidence has police officers on hand contaminating the crime scene; there never was any suggestion that the perpetrator stopped what he was doing to have a break for a ciggy; but you know that already don't you - but why pass up the opportunity to try another tiresome wind up.
Why do you reckon he hypothetically opened the window?
-
Of course Bruckner dealt in drugs so quite probable that he occasionally or often got high on his own supply - I wonder if this was the funny smell that was noticed by some of the children who were attacked in their beds whilst on holiday on the Algarve?
-
In fairness, I would have expected the parents to turn the place upside down. But even the beds were virtually undisturbed. But apparently there's only a finite number of hiding places in a small apartment.
Gerry McCann searched under the beds;
He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I know she was small for her age, but would she have fitted under there?
(https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article890106.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/331C15FA-DB20-CC5A-AF56FC8031D7938B.jpg)
-
Of course Bruckner dealt in drugs so quite probable that he occasionally or often got high on his own supply - I wonder if this was the funny smell that was noticed by some of the children who were attacked in their beds whilst on holiday on the Algarve?
Rumour has it he killed Natalie Wood too when Wagner and Walken were 'down below'.
Just a rumour mind.
-
Gerry McCann searched under the beds;
He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I know she was small for her age, but would she have fitted under there?
No. Behind maybe, but not under. But I'd have had those beds out to make sure they didn't have divan drawers.
-
Yeah there is a distinct possibility that Brueckner was already in the apartment and was startled by Gerry's return but I don't think he lit up necessitating ventilation.
There are any number of reasons why he may have opened the window but without a doubt that was not one of them; for example it did not appear to be his MO as it has not been reported or suggested by any of his other victims.
The point of the cigarette ash contamination is that anecdotal evidence has police officers on hand contaminating the crime scene; there never was any suggestion that the perpetrator stopped what he was doing to have a break for a ciggy; but you know that already don't you - but why pass up the opportunity to try another tiresome wind up.
Eleanor & Vertigo seem quite keen on the idea.
and it really isn't my fault the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann presents so much opportunity for ridicule.
-
Well they know which brand of cigarette it was according to your source, so once they prove Brueckner smoked the same brand, case solved.
The list is rather long, this is but a few from memory, no doubt many many more ,Peter Stuyvesant, Marlborough, Gauloises, Embassy , B&H, roll ups, them menthanol ones, oh which one would it be ?
-
Gerry McCann searched under the beds;
He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I know she was small for her age, but would she have fitted under there?
(https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article890106.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/331C15FA-DB20-CC5A-AF56FC8031D7938B.jpg)
Every normal and natural reaction of parents to the most stressful event of their lives is cynically questioned by you who cannot even know for certain that is the bed Gerry actually looked under.
Didn't the Portuguese police also check under the beds for a missing, possibly hiding child? If they didn't - why didn't they!
Standard procedure I would have thought.
In which way does your post approximate information regarding any known facts about Brueckner.
In which way does it address speculation about Brueckner.
Is it your suggestion that Brueckner may have been hiding under the bed you think Gerry may have looked under when it was discovered Madeleine was missing?
-
Yeah there is a distinct possibility that Brueckner was already in the apartment and was startled by Gerry's return but I don't think he lit up necessitating ventilation.
There are any number of reasons why he may have opened the window but without a doubt that was not one of them; for example it did not appear to be his MO as it has not been reported or suggested by any of his other victims.
The point of the cigarette ash contamination is that anecdotal evidence has police officers on hand contaminating the crime scene; there never was any suggestion that the perpetrator stopped what he was doing to have a break for a ciggy; but you know that already don't you - but why pass up the opportunity to try another tiresome wind up.
Is it to be taken you know for certain CB is the alleged abductor and was in 5a , seems your post is a statement of fact.
-
Eleanor & Vertigo seem quite keen on the idea.
and it really isn't my fault the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann presents so much opportunity for ridicule.
I don't find it appropriate to make fun of or ridicule the fact that a little three year old child was taken from her family and has never been seen since.
I find it ridiculous that there are people who obviously derive some sort of satisfaction from the "wind up" material provided by the fact a druggie paedophile and rapist is the BKA prime suspect in the her murder and have no shame in anonymously broadcasting the fact.
-
Is it to be taken you know for certain CB is the alleged abductor and was in 5a , seems your post is a statement of fact.
"I don't find it appropriate to make fun of or ridicule the fact that a little three year old child was taken from her family and has never been seen since."
That's the problem see, Brietta knows as a matter of fact that Maddie was definitely abducted, although she doesn't explain how she knows this.
She is of course, completely wrong, since I know that infact she wasn't.
-
"I don't find it appropriate to make fun of or ridicule the fact that a little three year old child was taken from her family and has never been seen since."
That's the problem see, Brietta knows as a matter of fact that Maddie was definitely abducted, although she doesn't explained how she knows this.
She is of course, completely wrong, since I know that infact she wasn't.
For the purposes of this thread the sad but true FACT of the matter is that Brueuckner is the only declared suspect for what German investigators have said is the murder of a child.
-
The list is rather long, this is but a few from memory, no doubt many many more ,Peter Stuyvesant, Marlborough, Gauloises, Embassy , B&H, roll ups, them menthanol ones, oh which one would it be ?
Brueckner presumably smoked weed, harden stoners know the secret of menthol spliffs, not so sure about smoking methanol though, not sure I'd advise that.
-
I don't find it appropriate to make fun of or ridicule the fact that a little three year old child was taken from her family and has never been seen since.
I find it ridiculous that there are people who obviously derive some sort of satisfaction from the "wind up" material provided by the fact a druggie paedophile and rapist is the BKA prime suspect in the her murder and have no shame in anonymously broadcasting the fact.
I don't see people ridiculing the fact that a child disappeared. I see people ridiculing some of the ridiculous theories which have been proposed to explain that disappearance.
My problem with the German authorities is that they seem to have found their suspect by listening to various informants, then set out to find evidence of his involvement. Some years on, they still don't appear to have found enough to lay charges. His previous convictions, although they suggest he could be the perpetrator, are not evidence that he was involved.
-
For the purposes of this thread the sad but true FACT of the matter is that Brueuckner is the only declared suspect for what German investigators have said is the murder of a child.
Yep, don't make him right though .
-
Brueckner presumably smoked weed, harden stoners know the secret of menthol spliffs, not so sure about smoking methanol though, not sure I'd advise that.
Good spot, I wondered who would see it, this weed stuff , I never could find it on the shelf .
-
Good spot, I wondered who would see it, this weed stuff , I never could find it on the shelf .
Have you tried a Garden Centre ?
-
Have you tried a Garden Centre ?
In-between the flower pot men I always presumed,
-
I don't see people ridiculing the fact that a child disappeared. I see people ridiculing some of the ridiculous theories which have been proposed to explain that disappearance.
My problem with the German authorities is that they seem to have found their suspect by listening to various informants, then set out to find evidence of his involvement. Some years on, they still don't appear to have found enough to lay charges. His previous convictions, although they suggest he could be the perpetrator, are not evidence that he was involved.
Yet you seem to have a very high tolerance for all the ridiculous theories of parental involvement. No one here who has been ridiculed today or yesterday has put forward a ridiculous theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance so you will have to come up for another reason for why we are being ridiculed.
-
Good spot, I wondered who would see it, this weed stuff , I never could find it on the shelf .
I've smoked methanol. In 'nam.
-
I don't see people ridiculing the fact that a child disappeared. I see people ridiculing some of the ridiculous theories which have been proposed to explain that disappearance.
My problem with the German authorities is that they seem to have found their suspect by listening to various informants, then set out to find evidence of his involvement. Some years on, they still don't appear to have found enough to lay charges. His previous convictions, although they suggest he could be the perpetrator, are not evidence that he was involved.
To have a suspect pointed out then find evidence against them is standard police practice... Exactly what happened with levi Bellfield.. So I don't know what you find strange about that.
The BKK have what they refer to as concrete evidence and are 100 % CB is their man. Do you really think they don't have compelling evidencce...
-
To have a suspect pointed out then find evidence against them is standard police practice... Exactly what happened with levi Bellfield.. So I don't know what you find strange about that.
The BKK have what they refer to as concrete evidence and are 100 % CB is their man. Do you really think they don't have compelling evidencce...
What about the guy they have a conviction for? I suppose a means to an end for your lot.
-
I don't see people ridiculing the fact that a child disappeared. I see people ridiculing some of the ridiculous theories which have been proposed to explain that disappearance.
My problem with the German authorities is that they seem to have found their suspect by listening to various informants, then set out to find evidence of his involvement. Some years on, they still don't appear to have found enough to lay charges. His previous convictions, although they suggest he could be the perpetrator, are not evidence that he was involved.
I think your problem with the German investigation is that the prime suspect is called Brueckner and very specifically not McCann.
Brueckner, the German prime suspect was first suggested to the Germans in 2013 by Scotland Yard.
It has been said by Amaral that the Policia Judiciaria had also investigated Brueckner in the early days of Madeleine's disappearance.
Although police may have suspicions or are merely eliminating individuals in the process of investigating a crime it is not considered appropriate to take action against them without evidence.
As a result of international appeals for information made by Madeleine's parents on the tenth anniversary of her disappearance people came forward with evidence and some people came forward with faked up photographs.
So ACTING ON INFORMATION RECIEVED (a well known way of cracking criminal cases) the German police investigated Brueckner and found sufficient evidence to opine that tragically Madeleine is dead and that Brueckner is the prime suspect in her murder.
But you do know all that already ~ sigh!
-
I think your problem with the German investigation is that the prime suspect is called Brueckner and very specifically not McCann.
Brueckner, the German prime suspect was first suggested to the Germans in 2013 by Scotland Yard.
It has been said by Amaral that the Policia Judiciaria had also investigated Brueckner in the early days of Madeleine's disappearance.
Although police may have suspicions or are merely eliminating individuals in the process of investigating a crime it is not considered appropriate to take action against them without evidence.
As a result of international appeals for information made by Madeleine's parents on the tenth anniversary of her disappearance people came forward with evidence and some people came forward with faked up photographs.
So ACTING ON INFORMATION RECIEVED (a well known way of cracking criminal cases) the German police investigated Brueckner and found sufficient evidence to opine that tragically Madeleine is dead and that Brueckner is the prime suspect in her murder.
But you do know all that already ~ sigh!
I have never before seen a case where a person is named as a murder suspect but is neither arrested and questioned or charged.
-
I have never before seen a case where a person is named as a murder suspect but is neither arrested and questioned or charged.
If you read the background to the case you will understand why
-
I have never before seen a case where a person is named as a murder suspect but is neither arrested and questioned or charged.
I think I can safely say that it is highly likely that the German authorities know what they are doing much better than you could ever hope to.
-
I think I can safely say that it is highly likely that the German authorities know what they are doing much better than you could ever hope to.
We shall see.
-
Then of course there is this opinion from the highly respected sceptic hero Colin Sutton
6Forensic examinations of the McCann apartment were poor and no DNA tests were carried out on Madeleine’s toy Cuddle Cat
“In a case like this, you start by looking where Madeleine was when she was taken.
“She was in her bed, probably clutching her fluffy toy Cuddle Cat. So that’s where the forensics begins. The abductor would have had to pull back the duvet, probably physically remove Cuddle Cat from Madeleine’s arms.
"If the reports are true that no DNA tests were carried out on Cuddle Cat before Kate washed it, that’s astonishing.
“There were photographs of officers in their normal clothes, not even wearing gloves, doing fingerprints. It looks like they just didn’t do a good job.”
OMG !
I hadn't realised that the PJ had failed to make forensic tests on Cuddle cat. That is truly unbelievable.
-
OMG !
I hadn't realised that the PJ had failed to make forensic tests on Cuddle cat. That is truly unbelievable.
No real forensic value there, given that Kate washed it.
-
I think I can safely say that it is highly likely that the German authorities know what they are doing much better than you could ever hope to.
Well there's an utterly pointless, transparent goad (again).
They have the weight of an entire police force and all of the resources that go with that at their disposal.
G-Unit just has her superior intellect and voluminous grasp of the facts of the case, so despite this, she's on to a loser. Which still places her light years beyond you, which I can see irks you hourly.
Now, let's get back on topic, shall we?
Facts - seems the facts in regard to CB are nebulous. Let's take the senior Irish lady; interesting developments occurring there, for those with their finger on the pulse.
-
Well there's an utterly pointless, transparent goad (again).
They have the weight of an entire police force and all of the resources that go with that at their disposal.
G-Unit just has her superior intellect and voluminous grasp of the facts of the case, so despite this, she's on to a loser. Which still places her light years beyond you, which I can see irks you hourly.
Now, let's get back on topic, shall we?
Facts - seems the facts in regard to CB are nebulous. Let's take the senior Irish lady; interesting developments occurring there, for those with their finger on the pulse.
Gunit doesn't believe cigarettes cause lung cancer so I think your confidence in her abilities is misplaced. The only thing that irks me about her posts is the constant repetitive rubbish
-
If you read the background to the case you will understand why
I have and I can see no justification for what has happened. A man who may or may not be involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been identified by the world's press; including Bild, which is not supposed to do that under German law.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/german-privacy-law-madeleine-mccann-suspect-censored-uk/
I don't know what Wolters' massive fishing expedition unearthed, but as he hasn't charged his supect it's difficult to believe he got what he needed. What has happened is that the suspect's life has been examined in a way that usually only happens after conviction, not before someone has even been arrested.
Trial by media has occured and has convinced some of the suspect's guilt based on very little evidence imo.
-
I have and I can see no justification for what has happened. A man who may or may not be involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been identified by the world's press; including Bild, which is not supposed to do that under German law.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/german-privacy-law-madeleine-mccann-suspect-censored-uk/
I don't know what Wolters' massive fishing expedition unearthed, but as he hasn't charged his supect it's difficult to believe he got what he needed. What has happened is that the suspect's life has been examined in a way that usually only happens after conviction, not before someone has even been arrested.
Trial by media has occured and has convinced some of the suspect's guilt based on very little evidence imo.
Post of The Week.
(I'm the self-appointed arbiter)
-
Gunit doesn't believe cigarettes cause lung cancer so I think your confidence in her abilities is misplaced. The only thing that irks me about her posts is the constant repetitive rubbish
Touched a nerve? Enough of the goading and back on topic please.
-
I have and I can see no justification for what has happened. A man who may or may not be involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been identified by the world's press; including Bild, which is not supposed to do that under German law.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/german-privacy-law-madeleine-mccann-suspect-censored-uk/
I don't know what Wolters' massive fishing expedition unearthed, but as he hasn't charged his supect it's difficult to believe he got what he needed. What has happened is that the suspect's life has been examined in a way that usually only happens after conviction, not before someone has even been arrested.
Trial by media has occured and has convinced some of the suspect's guilt based on very little evidence imo.
Oh The Irony.
-
Touched a nerve? Enough of the goading and back on topic please.
More Irony.
-
More Irony.
There resided a girl on a forum
Who despised irony ad nauseum
She would quite often roast
Unwitting forum folk
With clipped ripostes that would bore 'em
-
Oh The Irony.
I assume you're referring to the media stories about the McCanns. The difference is that they themselves involved the media in the case, and the Portuguese authorities did question them under caution; they followed procedure.
The German authorities have ignored their own privacy laws and haven't taken any action at all against their suspect.
-
I assume you're referring to the media stories about the McCanns. The difference is that they themselves involved the media in the case, and the Portuguese authorities did question them under caution; they followed procedure.
The German authorities have ignored their own privacy laws and haven't taken any action at all against their suspect.
Do you actually believe things would have been different in the McCanns hadn't "involved the media"? That the reports would have been more accurate and respectful and less intrusive? Or are you suggesting that because they reached out to the media to help in publicising their daughter's disappearance that they deserved to have their reputations and integrity trashed as a result?
-
Do you actually believe things would have been different in the McCanns hadn't "involved the media"? That the reports would have been more accurate and respectful and less intrusive? Or are you suggesting that because they reached out to the media to help in publicising their daughter's disappearance that they deserved to have their reputations and integrity trashed as a result?
It would have been worse if The McCanns had done nothing. In My Opinion.
-
It would have been worse if The McCanns had done nothing. In My Opinion.
Without McCann's arrogance and sense of entitlement things would have gone much more smoothly.
IMO
-
Without McCann's arrogance and sense of entitlement things would have gone much more smoothly.
IMO
I have seen no arrogance or sense of entitlement. Just a desire to find their daughter. Turn that into a crime if you can.
-
Do you actually believe things would have been different in the McCanns hadn't "involved the media"? That the reports would have been more accurate and respectful and less intrusive? Or are you suggesting that because they reached out to the media to help in publicising their daughter's disappearance that they deserved to have their reputations and integrity trashed as a result?
I was simply pointing out the differences. In the case of the McCanns the media interest was encouraged and sustained by them, their spokespeople and their friends and family. In the case of Brueckner it was encouraged and sustained by the public prosecutor.
-
I was simply pointing out the differences. In the case of the McCanns the media interest was encouraged and sustained by them, their spokespeople and their friends and family. In the case of Brueckner it was encouraged and sustained by the public prosecutor.
So what?
-
I have seen no arrogance or sense of entitlement. Just a desire to find their daughter. Turn that into a crime if you can.
If they're involved in Madeleine's disappearance then that would mean they filed a false missing persons report, which would be a crime.
There.
-
I was simply pointing out the differences. In the case of the McCanns the media interest was encouraged and sustained by them, their spokespeople and their friends and family. In the case of Brueckner it was encouraged and sustained by the public prosecutor.
Is there the slightest possibility of you setting aside your personal vendetta and bias for a few minutes and setting an example of how to deploy the protocol of posting to the topic of the thread.
One of the known facts we have about Brueckner is that he uses personal contacts with the media in which he certainly has not shown the slightest interest in helping the police with their enquiries or assisting them in finding Madeleine.
Also I seem to have a recollection of something about Holy water in Hell as relayed by his legal advisor to the media. I think Brueckner is making use of his time in the spotlight.
-
Is there the slightest possibility of you setting aside your personal vendetta and bias for a few minutes and setting an example of how to deploy the protocol of posting to the topic of the thread.
One of the known facts we have about Brueckner is that he uses personal contacts with the media in which he certainly has not shown the slightest interest in helping the police with their enquiries or assisting them in finding Madeleine.
Also I seem to have a recollection of something about Holy water in Hell as relayed by his legal advisor to the media. I think Brueckner is making use of his time in the spotlight.
Why would you expect him to ?
He is a career criminal who views police as his enemy.
-
Why would you expect him to ?
He is a career criminal who views police as his enemy.
Agreed.
I think he is a psychopath and I think the sceptic sympathies for him are misplaced. He is in a German prison where his human rights are being respected and will be dealt with or not dependant on what evidence is found regarding the crimes he is suspected of.
That includes the crime against Madeleine McCann which appears to be only one of many.
-
Why would you expect him to ?
He is a career criminal who views police as his enemy.
By not helping with inquiries & not assisting in finding Maddie she means not confessing & not telling police where the body is.
By the same logic, the McCanns haven't helped with inquires or assisted in finding Maddie either.
-
Agreed.
I think he is a psychopath and I think the sceptic sympathies for him are misplaced. He is in a German prison where his human rights are being respected and will be dealt with or not dependant on what evidence is found regarding the crimes he is suspected of.
That includes the crime against Madeleine McCann which appears to be only one of many.
Does that include when he appeared in court and got filled in by the guards?
-
I do't see labeling him as a psychopathy or anything else is of any importance -he is what he is.
Wouldn't wish to see him wrongly convicted though, or more precisely, without due process of law.
One can never be certain about wrongful conviction - IMO
-
No real forensic value there, given that Kate washed it.
Ahh but Eddie alerted to CC apparently after Kate washed it.
-
Is there the slightest possibility of you setting aside your personal vendetta and bias for a few minutes and setting an example of how to deploy the protocol of posting to the topic of the thread.
One of the known facts we have about Brueckner is that he uses personal contacts with the media in which he certainly has not shown the slightest interest in helping the police with their enquiries or assisting them in finding Madeleine.
Also I seem to have a recollection of something about Holy water in Hell as relayed by his legal advisor to the media. I think Brueckner is making use of his time in the spotlight.
Ignoring (once again) the insults and criticism directed at me, Brueckner's responses to the media are purely reactive, while the McCanns were proactive. Whether he is innocent or guilty he is under no obligation to help the police with their enquiries. If they ever get round to questioning him, he is as entitled as anyone else to remain silent in reply.
-
Without McCann's arrogance and sense of entitlement things would have gone much more smoothly.
IMO
Please give an example of the McCanns arrogance and sense of entitlement. Thank you
-
Please give an example of the McCanns arrogance and sense of entitlement. Thank you
Arrogance: showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance an arrogant reply
Reporter: "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction, can I ask this question because Amaral say's that you don't have..."
Kate: "I know, I was here, I found my daughter gone, I know more than you do, I know what I saw..."
https://youtu.be/3k5Q7QZNfFA?t=407
Sense of entitlement.
Expecting other people to look for their daughter & offering nothing but wrist bands for a price in return.
-
I do't see labeling him as a psychopathy or anything else is of any importance -he is what he is.
Wouldn't wish to see him wrongly convicted though, or more precisely, without due process of law.
One can never be certain about wrongful conviction - IMO
In Germany one conviction with out a body ended up a miscarriage, very careful are they of convictions with out bodies.
-
Arrogance: showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance an arrogant reply
Reporter: "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction, can I ask this question because Amaral say's that you don't have..."
Kate: "I know, I was here, I found my daughter gone, I know more than you do, I know what I saw..."
https://youtu.be/3k5Q7QZNfFA?t=407
Sense of entitlement.
Expecting other people to look for their daughter & offering nothing but wrist bands for a price in return.
The answer is that an abduction took place because they said so. Just as Wolters expects us to believe a murder took place because he says so.
-
I have seen no arrogance or sense of entitlement. Just a desire to find their daughter. Turn that into a crime if you can.
Well Wolters seemingly wants to turn using a phone into some conspiracy,
-
The answer is that an abduction took place because they said so. Just as Wolters expects us to believe a murder took place because he says so.
She could have told the reporter what she knows, & what she saw.
That the wind blew the curtains, revealing an open window & shutters, & that there's no way Maddie could have opened the window, shutters & left by herself, & that's how she knows it was an abduction.
Instead, she gives the reporter that rather arrogant response.
I'm sure she's a lovely woman really though, & totally innocent.
-
Well Wolters seemingly wants to turn using a phone into some conspiracy,
The opportunity has gone to prove any of that. Gone.
It will never be established that he was inside that apartment, not with a solitary, meaningless phone record.
-
The opportunity has gone to prove any of that. Gone.
It will never be established that he was inside that apartment, not with a solitary, meaningless phone record.
I can say then with out fear of contraception ( Nellie Pledge ) he wasn't in 5a on the night of 3/05/2007.
-
Ahh but Eddie alerted to CC apparently after Kate washed it.
not only that but Kate didn't wash Cuddle Cat the minute Madeleine disappeared, it was some weeks after her disappearance, so the PJ had ample time to take it away for forensic testing beforehand.
-
The answer is that an abduction took place because they said so. Just as Wolters expects us to believe a murder took place because he says so.
Not because he said so... Because he says he ha concrete evidence that supports it
-
not only that but Kate didn't wash Cuddle Cat the minute Madeleine disappeared, it was some weeks after her disappearance, so the PJ had ample time to take it away for forensic testing beforehand.
Yes, Kate had ample opportunity to offer cuddle cat as evidence, & she didn't.
-
In Germany one conviction with out a body ended up a miscarriage, very careful are they of convictions with out bodies.
Like The McCanns do you thinK?
-
The answer is that an abduction took place because they said so. Just as Wolters expects us to believe a murder took place because he says so.
If you KNOW you didn't hide your child's body and you KNOW that there is no way she could have left the apartment on her own then of COURSE you're going to say an abduction took place, what else are you supposed to say? "Well, maybe she had an accident and died and we hid her body, we just can't recall"? That's not arrogance, it's just knowing. Of course if you're so closed minded that you can't entertain the possibility that the McCanns did not hide their kid's body then you won't understand this post.
-
Not because he said so... Because he says he ha concrete evidence that supports it
Great, extra because he said so.
-
Yes, Kate had ample opportunity to offer cuddle cat as evidence, & she didn't.
I believe she let her other kid play with it. I wonder why considering it was so precious to her.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CUDDLE_CAT.htm
-
If you KNOW you didn't hide your child's body and you KNOW that there is no way she could have left the apartment on her own then of COURSE you're going to say an abduction took place, what else are you supposed to say? "Well, maybe she had an accident and died and we hid her body, we just can't recall"? That's not arrogance, it's just knowing. Of course if you're so closed minded that you can't entertain the possibility that the McCanns did not hide their kid's body then you won't understand this post.
He asked for evidence.
What she knows, not, that she knows.
-
Like The McCanns do you thinK?
Don't know are they likely to go on trial in Germany for something ?
-
I believe she let her other kid play with it. I wonder why considering it was so precious to her.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CUDDLE_CAT.htm
Just how pathetic can anyone get?
-
I believe she let her other kid play with it. I wonder why considering it was so precious to her.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CUDDLE_CAT.htm
It's not hard to work out why, if you have ever been a parent, or have anything resembling a heart or a kind bone in your body (unlikely I know!)
-
Just how pathetic can anyone get?
I know. You'g have thought she would have looked after it better.
-
Just how pathetic can anyone get?
The hatred and contempt will never die, well not until they have all kicked the bucket.
-
The hatred and contempt will never die, well not until they have all kicked the bucket.
What, the McCanns you mean?
No, I'd still hate them long after they're dead
-
Ignoring (once again) the insults and criticism directed at me, Brueckner's responses to the media are purely reactive, while the McCanns were proactive. Whether he is innocent or guilty he is under no obligation to help the police with their enquiries. If they ever get round to questioning him, he is as entitled as anyone else to remain silent in reply.
The known fact is that Brueckner is in contact with the media. His reasoning for doing so is unknown.
The known fact is that Brueckner continues be under investigation for the suspected murder of Madeleine McCann and it is a known fact that Brueckner has been known to police investigating Madeleine's disappearance since 2007 if Goncalo Amaral is to be believed - and on various occasions since then.
Nor is there the slightest possibility that Brueckner is being treated while in custody for his other crimes with anything other than his statutory rights both German and European.
It is risible to suggest or imply anything other than that.
-
What, the McCanns you mean?
No, I'd still hate them long after they're dead
I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but utter contempt certainly.
-
I believe she let her other kid play with it. I wonder why considering it was so precious to her.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CUDDLE_CAT.htm
Do you think that maybe Amelie was missing Madeleine and holding CC give her some comfort?
-
Arrogance: showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance an arrogant reply
Reporter: "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction, can I ask this question because Amaral say's that you don't have..."
Kate: "I know, I was here, I found my daughter gone, I know more than you do, I know what I saw..."
https://youtu.be/3k5Q7QZNfFA?t=407
Sense of entitlement.
Expecting other people to look for their daughter & offering nothing but wrist bands for a price in return.
Well with the reporter coming at her with the evidence Amaral had, I quite agree with what Kate said in return.
The McCann's did search for their daughter, afterwards they were answering questions from the police. How many parents go out and search when the Police have taken over?
-
I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but utter contempt certainly.
Why?
-
If you KNOW you didn't hide your child's body and you KNOW that there is no way she could have left the apartment on her own then of COURSE you're going to say an abduction took place, what else are you supposed to say? "Well, maybe she had an accident and died and we hid her body, we just can't recall"? That's not arrogance, it's just knowing. Of course if you're so closed minded that you can't entertain the possibility that the McCanns did not hide their kid's body then you won't understand this post.
Why should anyone believe them?
-
The answer is that an abduction took place because they said so. Just as Wolters expects us to believe a murder took place because he says so.
It is alleged that Brueckner had been employed in various capacities around the grounds of the holiday complex from which Madeleine vanished.
-
Well with the reporter coming at her with the evidence Amaral had, I quite agree with what Kate said in return.
The McCann's did search for their daughter, afterwards they were answering questions from the police. How many parents go out and search when the Police have taken over?
So you agree Kate is arrogant.
Thanks, that's the first time we've managed to agree on anything.
-
I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but utter contempt certainly.
Strange that you and Spammy are so emotionally affected by the McCanns still to this day, don't you think? A normal adjusted person might have gotten over the McCanns alleged "neglect" by now, 15 years on, especially one who has never met them and has absolutely nothing to do with them (apart from scratching away at their perceived faults on the internet). What did they ever do to you to deserve your abiding attention and emotional investment?
-
I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but utter contempt certainly.
And there was me thinking that you are half decent.
-
Why should anyone believe them?
See, I TOLD you you wouldn't be able to understand my post and I was right! LOL.
-
Strange that you and Spammy are so emotionally affected by the McCanns still to this day, don't you think? A normal adjusted person might have gotten over the McCanns alleged "neglect" by now, 15 years on, especially one who has never met them and has absolutely nothing to do with them (apart from scratching away at their perceived faults on the internet). What did they ever do to you to deserve your abiding attention and emotional investment?
Why are you here?
-
And there was me thinking that you are half decent.
God knows why you ever thought this, quite frankly...
-
And there was me thinking that you are half decent.
And so I am. I haven't said I would dance on their grave.
-
Why should anyone believe them?
Christian Brueckner, a convicted pedophile who is currently serving a jail sentence for raping a 72-year-old American woman, was reportedly working as a handyman on the night that 4-year-old Madeleine McCann was abducted from her hotel room, The Daily Beast reported.
https://www.latintimes.com/convicted-pedophile-worked-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-4-was-reported-missing-504563
Apparently Brueckner has taken umbrage at the German documentary maker and has complained about his alleged treatment of his dogs.
-
Christian Brueckner, a convicted pedophile who is currently serving a jail sentence for raping a 72-year-old American woman, was reportedly working as a handyman on the night that 4-year-old Madeleine McCann was abducted from her hotel room, The Daily Beast reported.
https://www.latintimes.com/convicted-pedophile-worked-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-4-was-reported-missing-504563
Apparently Brueckner has taken umbrage at the German documentary maker and has complained about his alleged treatment of his dogs.
Thanks. I disclosed this a few days ago. But it's more to do with due process, fairness and criminal libel actually. The subject matter is moot.
Although I'm aware that there's a few here who think that sceptics are unaware of the supposed dichotomy.
-
Christian Brueckner, a convicted pedophile who is currently serving a jail sentence for raping a 72-year-old American woman, was reportedly working as a handyman on the night that 4-year-old Madeleine McCann was abducted from her hotel room, The Daily Beast reported.
https://www.latintimes.com/convicted-pedophile-worked-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-4-was-reported-missing-504563
Apparently Brueckner has taken umbrage at the German documentary maker and has complained about his alleged treatment of his dogs.
One of the dogs is dead and the other one appears to have escaped. Not much to go on is there?
-
Christian Brueckner, a convicted pedophile who is currently serving a jail sentence for raping a 72-year-old American woman, was reportedly working as a handyman on the night that 4-year-old Madeleine McCann was abducted from her hotel room, The Daily Beast reported.
https://www.latintimes.com/convicted-pedophile-worked-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-4-was-reported-missing-504563
Apparently Brueckner has taken umbrage at the German documentary maker and has complained about his alleged treatment of his dogs.
Why should anyone believe him might be a more apposite question here.
-
Thanks. I disclosed this a few days ago. But it's more to do with due process, fairness and criminal libel actually. The subject matter is moot.
Although I'm aware that there's a few here who think that sceptics are unaware of the supposed dichotomy.
There ARE a few here who think.
-
There ARE a few here who think.
That's what I said.
-
That's what I said.
No you didn't. I would read your comment again if I were you.
-
So you agree Kate is arrogant.
Thanks, that's the first time we've managed to agree on anything.
How was she arrogant? Kate was there and would know more than the reporter.
-
No you didn't. I would read your comment again if I were you.
On the wind up again, already?
I got your 'joke', dismissed it and replied giving you the chance to draw a veil over your ignominy.
Never mind. I tried to help.
Anyway, back to the topic.....
-
On the wind up again, already?
I got your 'joke', dismissed it and replied giving you the chance to draw a veil over your ignominy.
Never mind. I tried to help.
Anyway, back to the topic.....
Basic Grammar. There is. There are.
-
All well within the rules - at least my posts are.
I'm not attacking any poster. I'm not insulting any poster.
The same cannot be said for some of your lot.
IMO
You've had your fair share of warnings, you must have done SOMETHING wrong at some point!
-
Why should anyone believe him might be a more apposite question here.
I thought it interesting that from extensive coverage of heinous crimes attributed to him the only issue which appeared to rattle his cage was dated discussion of him leaving his dogs to die in his kiosk while he was on a jaunt to Portugal.
Why not sue the press when it was initially reported by them?
-
All well within the rules - at least my posts are.
I'm not attacking any poster. I'm not insulting any poster.
The same cannot be said for some of your lot.
IMO
Remember when you referred to me as a two bit dentist from Wolverhampton. I think you and other posters are blind to your own behaviour. I bet you would find it nigh impossible to find an insult I've made to you.. Lol
-
Remember when you referred to me as a two bit dentist from Wolverhampton. I think you and other posters are blind to your own behaviour. I bet you would find it nigh impossible to find an insult I've made to you.. Lol
But I thought that's what you were, so no insult - just a case of mistaken identity. ?{)(**
-
I thought it interesting that from extensive coverage of heinous crimes attributed to him the only issue which appeared to rattle his cage was dated discussion of him leaving his dogs to die in his kiosk while he was on a jaunt to Portugal.
Why not sue the press when it was initially reported by them?
His legal team have cherry picked the low hanging fruit. This one's easy and the first of many. Unless she can provide proof of the 'libel' then she's toast.
This is a mere flexing of legal muscle, nothing more.
-
His legal team have cherry picked the low hanging fruit. This one's easy and the first of many. Unless she can provide proof of the 'libel' then she's toast.
This is a mere flexing of legal muscle, nothing more.
There is also the fact that other issues are under police investigation, whereas, as far as I know, he's not being investigated for cruelty to animals.
-
All well within the rules - at least my posts are.
I'm not attacking any poster. I'm not insulting any poster.
The same cannot be said for some of your lot.
IMO
I have never attacked you. I cannot answer for anyone else.
-
I thought it interesting that from extensive coverage of heinous crimes attributed to him the only issue which appeared to rattle his cage was dated discussion of him leaving his dogs to die in his kiosk while he was on a jaunt to Portugal.
Why not sue the press when it was initially reported by them?
Oh God, he didn't do that, did he?
-
But I thought that's what you were, so no insult - just a case of mistaken identity. ?{)(**
So you thought that's who Davel was, which you think was acceptable? Goodness me.
-
There is also the fact that other issues are under police investigation, whereas, as far as I know, he's not being investigated for cruelty to animals.
Does cruelty to animals even matter?
-
Does cruelty to animals even matter?
The French seem to think so. Some animal welfare organisation is trying to prosecute a footballer for kicking his cat.
-
So you thought that's who Davel was, which you think was acceptable? Goodness me.
In retrospect, probably not, but I'm now a reformed character.
They say there's nothing like a repentant sinner and I have to say I'm nothing like a repentant sinner @)(++(*
-
But I thought that's what you were, so no insult - just a case of mistaken identity. ?{)(**
I'm not in the slightest offended... But two bit is an attempt... A poor attempt at that. at an insult
Just pointing out your hypocrisy
-
I'm not in the slightest offended... But two bit is an attempt... A poor attempt at that. at an insult
Just pointing out your hypocrisy
Ah, but you must have remembered it - unless you data base of gratuitous insults is very comprehensive 8(0(*
Not to fret, I'm a reformed character these days.
-
The French seem to think so. Some animal welfare organisation is trying to prosecute a footballer for kicking his cat.
Really? You think I don't know about that? This supposed human will come to grief for what he did to an innocent animal. Neither The Brits or The French are all that keen on this. And I wouldn't say much for his career after that disgusting display.
Or do you think that it was okay?
My thoughts on Brueckner and his dogs is neither here nor there. But nothing would surprise about this Psychopath.
-
Ah, but you must have remembered it - unless you data base of gratuitous insults is very comprehensive 8(0(*
Not to fret, I'm a reformed character these days.
I remember just about everything... I've got one of those memories.. I'm a super duper... Certainly not two bit..
-
In retrospect, probably not, but I'm now a reformed character.
They say there's nothing like a repentant sinner and I have to say I'm nothing like a repentant sinner @)(++(*
You try too hard sometimes.
-
Really? You think I don't know about that? This supposed human will come to grief for what he did to an innocent animal. Neither The Brits or The French are all that keen on this. And I wouldn't say much for his career after that disgusting display.
Or do you think that it was okay?
My thoughts on Brueckner and his dogs is neither here nor there. But nothing would surprise about this Psychopath.
I'm very much a cat person, so no I don't that it at all acceptable.
-
Ah, but you must have remembered it - unless you data base of gratuitous insults is very comprehensive 8(0(*
Not to fret, I'm a reformed character these days.
reformed character or unrepentant sinner, you’re sending out mixed messages today, though your gratuitous insult to Davel today would rather suggest the latter than the former.
-
Does cruelty to animals even matter?
Cruelty towards the parents of a missing child matters far less to some I would suggest.
-
Ah, but you must have remembered it - unless you data base of gratuitous insults is very comprehensive 8(0(*
Not to fret, I'm a reformed character these days.
You in fact are a McCann Supporter trying not to be. I am not wrong about you. I am never wrong about people, although the end result is of no importance to me. Over several years of listening to you and believe me I have, then I know that you are not an unkind person. Good try, but you failed with me.
Meanwhile, I don't really care. This is all a game of soldiers now. Who can say what if or what which ways?
The perpetual desire from some to continue to try implicate The McCanns only speaks of a sickness to me for which I am sad.
-
You in fact are a McCann Supporter trying not to be. I am not wrong about you. I am never wrong about people, although the end result is of no importance to me. Over several years of listening to you and believe me I have, then I know that you are not an unkind person. Good try, but you failed with me.
Meanwhile, I don't really care. This is all a game of soldiers now. Who can say what if or what which ways?
The perpetual desire from some to continue to try implicate The McCanns only speaks of a sickness to me for which I am sad.
Perhaps not entirely, but I reserve my kindest for those I consider deserve it. That does not include McCann.
-
I remember just about everything... I've got one of those memories.. I'm a super duper... Certainly not two bit..
Me too. But I am not so good at floating my own boat. Probably because I am female. This always was a hardship. My memory is the best. I even surprise myself sometimes.
-
Oh God, he didn't do that, did he?
Don't know - but the story was well enough put about for it to be mentioned in the discussion following broadcast of the documentary.
His German pals told the Mirror he had two dogs he treated so badly that one of them died. One was a daschund-cross called Mrs Muller, the other a rottweiler called Charlie. He reportedly left them locked inside a kiosk bar for six weeks – with one becoming so malnourished it died.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/true-untold-story-madeleine-mccann-22184502
-
I've smoked methanol. In 'nam.
How strange. You have chosen to address the two different birth dates for you as given on the internet, using this Vietnam attempt to disprove them ?
I see the birth dates have been whooshed now ... and that is SUCH a surprise NOT. Are you a bit touchy about them?
On the internet, your birth dates were stated independently as 1964 and 1962. Why two different dates?
BTW, no way are you born American; you are British Public Schoolboy + year off, then ++... IMO. You are a great communicator, also joker and you speak at the very least 4 diferent languages fluently. I bow to you for that.
I am sure you are great fun to be with.
If you are British, you have to be 90 years old now cos the Brits dropped out of the Vietnam war in 1946 IIRC .
All the above is IMO and based upon deep research, only. I have not identified you.
*%6^Thinks:
Why would anyone give two different birth dates for the world to see? Why? There has to be a reason
-
I'm very much a cat person, so no I don't that it at all acceptable.
Gosh. I am a dog person. But no one has ever treated any of my animals badly. But you just gave yourself away again. You are kind. You like Cats. Sorry about that.
-
Oh God, he didn't do that, did he?
Probably not, but it makes for good Tabloid fodder.
Would certainly appeal to those who might salivate at the very idea.
IMO
-
Probably not, but it makes for good Tabloid fodder.
Would certainly appeal to those who might salivate at the very idea.
IMO
a goady, idiotic observation imo.
-
Don't know - but the story was well enough put about for it to be mentioned in the discussion following broadcast of the documentary.
His German pals told the Mirror he had two dogs he treated so badly that one of them died. One was a daschund-cross called Mrs Muller, the other a rottweiler called Charlie. He reportedly left them locked inside a kiosk bar for six weeks – with one becoming so malnourished it died.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/true-untold-story-madeleine-mccann-22184502
Oh God, this is awful. Sorry, I can't cope with this.
-
Oh God, this is awful. Sorry, I can't cope with this.
Treat it as fiction - it probably is.
-
Treat it as fiction - it probably is.
You think? Okay why not. I can't be asked to speculate anymore.
-
How strange. You have chosen to address the two different birth dates for you as given on the internet, using this Vietnam attempt to disprove them ?
I see the birth dates have been whooshed now ... and that is SUCH a surprise NOT. Are you a bit touchy about them?
On the internet, your birth dates were stated independently as 1964 and 1962. Why two different dates?
BTW, no way are you born American; you are British Public Schoolboy + year off, then ++... IMO. You are a great communicator, also joker and you speak at the very least 4 diferent languages fluently. I bow to you for that.
I am sure you are great fun to be with.
If you are British, you have to be 90 years old now cos the Brits dropped out of the Vietnam war in 1946 IIRC .
All the above is IMO and based upon deep research, only. I have not identified you.
*%6^Thinks:
Why would anyone give two different birth dates for the world to see? Why? There has to be a reason
All I'll admit to is spending some time with Correa on the Napo River, liaising with locals and the oil giants. That should set you on the right track.
-
There is no doubt that CB is a very dangerous convicted offender, and has the profile of a person who could abduct a toddler like Madeleine.
And there could be proof that he was in PdL less than two hours before the crime.
And HCW firmly believes CB killed Madeleine (I also believe she was killed, based only on statistical likelihood, but not 100% sure).
Has HCW more evidence, apart from profile and call? Or HCW says he has more evidence expecting CB confession?
-
There is no doubt that CB is a very dangerous convicted offender, and has the profile of a person who could abduct a toddler like Madeleine.
And there could be proof that he was in PdL less than two hours before the crime.
And HCW firmly believes CB killed Madeleine (I also believe this, based only on statistical likelihood, but not 100% sure).
Has HCW more evidence, apart from profile and call? Or HCW say he has more evidence expecting CB confession?
I believe HCW has the evidence he claims to have which has convinced the German investigators that they are investigating a murderer.
My opinion is that if Brueckner murdered Madeleine he will never confess.
I think Brueckner has all the necessary skills to carry out an abduction whether alone or with the assistance of others.
He was local and knew the area of the holiday complex very well either through legitimate work or through his illegal activities.
He had access to quite a few vehicles and his itinerant lifestyle gave him the freedom to come and go without attracting too much attention.
I find it interesting that one of the Mark Warner nannies claims to have been shown Brueckner's photograph by the Portuguese police in the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.
The nanny told the Daily Mirror: 'I was shown identikits the day after they took my statement (about her time with Madeleine).
'I recognised a few people from just being about… one guy I recognised was a known paedophile who later committed suicide.
'I am aware of his (Brueckner's) name and face from photos I was shown but I don't think I remember having seen him in real life. I'm aware police knew of guys like this in Praia da Luz at the time.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393901/Madeleine-McCann-witness-says-Christian-Brueckner-man-saw-near-apartment.html
-
There is no doubt that CB is a very dangerous convicted offender, and has the profile of a person who could abduct a toddler like Madeleine.
And there could be proof that he was in PdL less than two hours before the crime.
And HCW firmly believes CB killed Madeleine (I also believe she was killed, based only on statistical likelihood, but not 100% sure).
Has HCW more evidence, apart from profile and call? Or HCW says he has more evidence expecting CB confession?
I have always defended your right to an opinion, although I doubt that you will remember this.
But this is all too much. Ifs and Maybes. I already know all of what you are saying. So what is it that you want me to believe? Or perhaps it is just a language thing and I am at fault because I don't understand what you are saying.
Personally, I have no idea of if this really horrible man abducted Madeleine. At the moment I can only hope not, unless Madeleine was up for sale. But that is just me and my hopes.
I am not having Brueckner convicted just because someone said so. But then I ever was a wild card, even if some of these idiots don't realise.
-
There is no doubt that CB is a very dangerous convicted offender, and has the profile of a person who could abduct a toddler like Madeleine.
And there could be proof that he was in PdL less than two hours before the crime.
And HCW firmly believes CB killed Madeleine (I also believe she was killed, based only on statistical likelihood, but not 100% sure).
Has HCW more evidence, apart from profile and call? Or HCW says he has more evidence expecting CB confession?
There is NO evidence Christian Bruckner ever abducted anyone let alone a child so let's keep to the facts please.
In my opinion, HCW is merely grasping at ever decreasing straws and time is running out. In the not very distant future he will have to put up or shut up.
The fact that he has never been able to share any information with Madeleine's parents is in my view a clear indication that he doesn't have anything of significance.
-
There is NO evidence Christian Bruckner ever abducted anyone let alone a child so let's keep to the facts please.
In my opinion, HCW is merely grasping at ever decreasing straws and time is running out. In the not very distant future he will have to put up or shut up.
The fact that he has never been able to share any information with Madeleine's parents is in my view a clear indication that he doesn't have anything of significance.
John, you simply cannot make statements of fact like your first sentence unless you have been involved in the German investigation and they have shared everything they have with you. It’s opinion only so please don’t pretend to know what’s what. Nor does the fact that the BKA haven’t shared everything they have with the McCanns necessarily mean they have nothing at all either imo.
-
Why sit on such compelling evidence with their prime suspect sat in a jail cell?
Why wait, given the apparent certainty and their insistence of their level of confidence?
Why not charge him with what they have if it's so compelling?
The line in the sand was when HCW proclaimed to the world - nearly 2 years ago - that they had their man. There was no squeezing the genie back in to the lamp, so his gambit had to pay off fully and his 'caller' either come forward or be identified. It all hinged on that.
The caller has never been identified and he's no nearer today to charging CB than he was in June 2020.
In the meantime, as unpalatable as it seems to be to some, any chance of a 'fair' trial has evaporated, and HCW knows it. By going public he opened Pandora's Box, unleashing a global maelstrom of speculation, innuendo, falsehoods, libel, research, crappy disposable 'documentaries' and every internet idiot all having a square go - including me, including right here on this forum. (A quick search will unveil many instances of potential libel for CB's legal team to sift through on this section alone).
I believe the German prosecutors have rebuffed him (HCW) several times, with him presenting his case to them and them informing him that the threshold of their precious trial / success ratio has not been met - and this, the biggest story out there, with the eyes of the world now firmly fixed directly at them, failure is not an option.
The caller? Probably dead or fled. It may be it was one of his little band of hippy miscreants, although given that they're lining up to spill their guts, we would probably know by now. So it's more likely it's another contact - and I reckon it's a Brit on a burner, probably a drug deal.
He's now opening up, having remained relatively taciturn for so long. Why? Because he knows what they have, or don't have, and he knows he's in the clear, perhaps because he didn't do it - or maybe not.
The legal case against the SAT 1 'journalist' is the first shot across the bows in Germany. That might shut a few of the press hounds up for a bit, but it will have the opposite effect elsewhere. But it's also a signal of where this all ends, with CB languishing in a cushy prison, having been moved due to the threat of Human Rights litigation, sat on an ever increasing pile of Euro until his release in 2027
-
There is no doubt that CB is a very dangerous convicted offender, and has the profile of a person who could abduct a toddler like Madeleine.
And there could be proof that he was in PdL less than two hours before the crime.
And HCW firmly believes CB killed Madeleine (I also believe she was killed, based only on statistical likelihood, but not 100% sure).
Has HCW more evidence, apart from profile and call? Or HCW says he has more evidence expecting CB confession?
I think you are totally out of touch with the reality of the situation.
-
There is NO evidence Christian Bruckner ever abducted anyone let alone a child so let's keep to the facts please.
In my opinion, HCW is merely grasping at ever decreasing straws and time is running out. In the not very distant future he will have to put up or shut up.
The fact that he has never been able to share any information with Madeleine's parents is in my view a clear indication that he doesn't have anything of significance.
The BKK have the evidence they claim that MM was murdered by CB.... Evidence that convinces them 100 %.
I simply don't believe they are playing some kind of game... That to me is totally ridiculous. HCW has been 100% consistent in everything he has said
-
I think you are totally out of touch with the reality of the situation.
I think Herburrito is part right.
But I don't think he cares what you or I think.
He's right about the confession; that's the only thing that saves HCW from eternal ridicule.
-
The BKK have the evidence they claim that MM was murdered by CB.... Evidence that convinces them 100 %.
I simply don't believe they are playing some kind of game... That to me is totally ridiculous. HCW has been 100% consistent in everything he has said
There's no game, they don't have enough evidence, despite their '100% confidence'.
-
Why sit on such compelling evidence with their prime suspect sat in a jail cell?
Why wait, given the apparent certainty and their insistence of their level of confidence?
Why not charge him with what they have if it's so compelling?
The line in the sand was when HCW proclaimed to the world - nearly 2 years ago - that they had their man. There was no squeezing the genie back in to the lamp, so his gambit had to pay off fully and his 'caller' either come forward or be identified. It all hinged on that.
The caller has never been identified and he's no nearer today to charging CB than he was in June 2020.
In the meantime, as unpalatable as it seems to be to some, any chance of a 'fair' trial has evaporated, and HCW knows it. By going public he opened Pandora's Box, unleashing a global maelstrom of speculation, innuendo, falsehoods, libel, research, crappy disposable 'documentaries' and every internet idiot all having a square go - including me, including right here on this forum. (A quick search will unveil many instances of potential libel for CB's legal team to sift through on this section alone).
I believe the German prosecutors have rebuffed him (HCW) several times, with him presenting his case to them and them informing him that the threshold of their precious trial / success ratio has not been met - and this, the biggest story out there, with the eyes of the world now firmly fixed directly at them, failure is not an option.
The caller? Probably dead or fled. It may be it was one of his little band of hippy miscreants, although given that they're lining up to spill their guts, we would probably know by now. So it's more likely it's another contact - and I reckon it's a Brit on a burner, probably a drug deal.
He's now opening up, having remained relatively taciturn for so long. Why? Because he knows what they have, or don't have, and he knows he's in the clear, perhaps because he didn't do it - or maybe not.
The legal case against the SAT 1 'journalist' is the first shot across the bows in Germany. That might shut a few of the press hounds up for a bit, but it will have the opposite effect elsewhere. But it's also a signal of where this all ends, with CB languishing in a cushy prison, having been moved due to the threat of Human Rights litigation, sat on an ever increasing pile of Euro until his release in 2027
Its been fully explained by Wolters himself why he is in no rush to charge.Nothing on this forum passes the legal threshold for libel. CB has not issued libel proceedings.. He's made a criminal complaint and there is as yet no indication any action is being taken
The question of a fair trial depends on what evidence HCW has.
I dont think there is the slightest doubt the Germans have the evidence they claim
-
There's no game, they don't have enough evidence, despite their '100% confidence'.
Your post is imprecise..
Enough evidence for what.. And
100% sure of what.
-
Your post is imprecise..
Enough evidence for what.. And
100% sure of what.
Enough evidence to achieve the threshold to satisfy the prosecutor to proceed.
'100%' is their term, not mine.
-
Its been fully explained by Wolters himself why he is in no rush to charge.Nothing on this forum passes the legal threshold for libel. CB has not issued libel proceedings.. He's made a criminal complaint and there is as yet no indication any action is being taken
The question of a fair trial depends on what evidence HCW has.
I dont think there is the slightest doubt the Germans have the evidence they claim
The fairness of a trial depends on whether the suspect was treated as if he was innocent up to the time when he was convicted. Brueckner's trial (if it ever happens) is tainted because the prosecution declared his guilt to the world even before he was arrested. Guilt is decided by a criminal trial, not by anyone or anything else.
-
The fairness of a trial depends on whether the suspect was treated as if he was innocent up to the time when he was convicted. Brueckner's trial (if it ever happens) is tainted because the prosecution declared his guilt to the world even before he was arrested. Guilt is decided by a criminal trial, not by anyone or anything else.
total rubbish imo. The fairness of a trial is governed by the quality of the evidence. By you logic the greek helicopter pilot who has allegedly confessed to killing his wife will not get a fair trial...do you accept that. Your argumnet does not stand up
-
Enough evidence to achieve the threshold to satisfy the prosecutor to proceed.
'100%' is their term, not mine.
You have stated that as fact even though its your opinion. I have seen nothing to say the court has been approached. HCW is the prosecutor and he has explained why he is not proceeding at present. Im fairly sure that CB would need to be questioned first
-
The BKK have the evidence they claim that MM was murdered by CB.... Evidence that convinces them 100 %.
I simply don't believe they are playing some kind of game... That to me is totally ridiculous. HCW has been 100% consistent in everything he has said
Doesn't mean he's right, some where imo there's doubt that a conviction can be secured with what he's got, remember he's no photo or video, no dna, doesn't leave much but his circumstantial, clearly not enough least of all because in all likelihood CB wasn't involved.
-
total rubbish imo. The fairness of a trial is governed by the quality of the evidence. By you logic the greek helicopter pilot who has allegedly confessed to killing his wife will not get a fair trial...do you accept that. Your argumnet does not stand up
Nonsense. There's a huge difference between a suspect saying he did it and a prosecutor saying it.
-
There is no doubt that CB is a very dangerous convicted offender, and has the profile of a person who could abduct a toddler like Madeleine.
And there could be proof that he was in PdL less than two hours before the crime.
And HCW firmly believes CB killed Madeleine (I also believe she was killed, based only on statistical likelihood, but not 100% sure).
Has HCW more evidence, apart from profile and call? Or HCW says he has more evidence expecting CB confession?
I have always defended your right to an opinion, although I doubt that you will remember this.
But this is all too much. Ifs and Maybes. I already know all of what you are saying. So what is it that you want me to believe? Or perhaps it is just a language thing and I am at fault because I don't understand what you are saying.
Personally, I have no idea of if this really horrible man abducted Madeleine. At the moment I can only hope not, unless Madeleine was up for sale. But that is just me and my hopes.
I am not having Brueckner convicted just because someone said so. But then I ever was a wild card, even if some of these idiots don't realise.
Eleanor you asked about reasonable doubt previously , to me Heri explains it well with his second sentence, could be in Luz, unless 100% certain then there is doubt, that then is reasonable doubt imo that no one can place him in Luz 2 hrs before 10pm let alone at 10pm on 3/05/2007 , as long as that remains then the BKA have an unsurmountable problem again imo.
-
Nonsense. There's a huge difference between a suspect saying he did it and a prosecutor saying it.
Nonsense.. Have you heard the suspect confess... No.. You believe the police. Your logic doesn't stand up
So if the suspect claims he was pressured into confessing and now retracts it... By your logic he can claim an unfair trial on the basis the police have declared him guilty
Your logic doesn't stand up
-
Why sit on such compelling evidence with their prime suspect sat in a jail cell?
Why wait, given the apparent certainty and their insistence of their level of confidence?
Why not charge him with what they have if it's so compelling?
The line in the sand was when HCW proclaimed to the world - nearly 2 years ago - that they had their man. There was no squeezing the genie back in to the lamp, so his gambit had to pay off fully and his 'caller' either come forward or be identified. It all hinged on that.
The caller has never been identified and he's no nearer today to charging CB than he was in June 2020.
In the meantime, as unpalatable as it seems to be to some, any chance of a 'fair' trial has evaporated, and HCW knows it. By going public he opened Pandora's Box, unleashing a global maelstrom of speculation, innuendo, falsehoods, libel, research, crappy disposable 'documentaries' and every internet idiot all having a square go - including me, including right here on this forum. (A quick search will unveil many instances of potential libel for CB's legal team to sift through on this section alone).
I believe the German prosecutors have rebuffed him (HCW) several times, with him presenting his case to them and them informing him that the threshold of their precious trial / success ratio has not been met - and this, the biggest story out there, with the eyes of the world now firmly fixed directly at them, failure is not an option.
The caller? Probably dead or fled. It may be it was one of his little band of hippy miscreants, although given that they're lining up to spill their guts, we would probably know by now. So it's more likely it's another contact - and I reckon it's a Brit on a burner, probably a drug deal.
He's now opening up, having remained relatively taciturn for so long. Why? Because he knows what they have, or don't have, and he knows he's in the clear, perhaps because he didn't do it - or maybe not.
The legal case against the SAT 1 'journalist' is the first shot across the bows in Germany. That might shut a few of the press hounds up for a bit, but it will have the opposite effect elsewhere. But it's also a signal of where this all ends, with CB languishing in a cushy prison, having been moved due to the threat of Human Rights litigation, sat on an ever increasing pile of Euro until his release in 2027
I do wonder if this has been the intention all along.
Wolters had his suspicions and facilitated the outing and media assassination of Brueckner because he was lacking the essential evidence.
He could have brought the details of the phone call to the public's attention without identifying the suspect in any way by just saying that it was a 'German National' who received the call in PDL.
As it is Wolters can now say that they couldn't bring him to trial, but have no doubt of his guilt and because of media speculation and a string of dubious documentaries, people will believe that Brueckner is the man - even if he isn't.
Mission accomplished as they say.
IMO.
-
I do wonder if this has been the intention all along.
Wolters had his suspicions and facilitated the outing and media assassination of Brueckner because he was lacking the essential evidence.
He could have brought the details of the phone call to the public's attention without identifying the suspect in any way by just saying that it was a 'German National' who received the call in PDL.
As it is Wolters can now say that they couldn't bring him to trial, but have no doubt of his guilt and because of media speculation and a string of dubious documentaries, people will believe that Brueckner is the man - even if he isn't.
Mission accomplished as they say.
IMO.
Why would the Germans be on a mission to point the finger of blame for Madeleine's disappearance at one of their own? Is it a conspiracy to deflect from the real culprits do you think? *%87
-
Nonsense.. Have you heard the suspect confess... No.. You believe the police. Your logic doesn't stand up
So if the suspect claims he was pressured into confessing and now retracts it... By your logic he can claim an unfair trial on the basis the police have declared him guilty
Your logic doesn't stand up
The Greek police said he confessed. Presumeably they had a written confession in their possession. Wolters said his suspect was guilty but offered no evidence at all to back up his statement.
-
Its been fully explained by Wolters himself why he is in no rush to charge.Nothing on this forum passes the legal threshold for libel. CB has not issued libel proceedings.. He's made a criminal complaint and there is as yet no indication any action is being taken
The question of a fair trial depends on what evidence HCW has.
I dont think there is the slightest doubt the Germans have the evidence they claim
This is a new one, you're wrong on all counts this time. Usually it's only about 70%
-
The Greek police said he confessed. Presumeably they had a written confession in their possession. Wolters said his suspect was guilty but offered no evidence at all to back up his statement.
What, nothing? Do you know what evidence means?
-
What, nothing?
Yeah, a crook said Brueckner confessed, but he had to keep it secret until he got arrested for something else.
-
I've got some decent snake oil on sale right now, I can't tell you all the ingredients, but you must believe me when I say it cures all ailments, 100%.
-
There is NO evidence Christian Bruckner ever abducted anyone let alone a child so let's keep to the facts please.
In my opinion, HCW is merely grasping at ever decreasing straws and time is running out. In the not very distant future he will have to put up or shut up.
The fact that he has never been able to share any information with Madeleine's parents is in my view a clear indication that he doesn't have anything of significance.
There is evidence which proved that Christian Brueckner carried out a brutal rape in a villa in close proximity to the McCann holiday apartment.
It was found when it was looked for and when the police had a suspect against whom it was checked many years down the line.
I think H C Wolters is in possession of the evidence he claims to have quite simply because in its absence it would not have been possible to designate Brueckner as the prime suspect in a child murder.
He could not have been treated as such without supporting evidence.
Wolters is not a one man band pursuing his own vendetta here. He is an official who is following the evidence the BKA have presented to him as head of the chain and he has acted accordingly.
I think he will “put up” when the time is right and it suits him to do so.
Maybe he is working through things chronologically starting with the Hazel Behan case and the sexual assault on the child on the beach.
Without supporting evidence the suspicion against him cannot be sustained as proven by cases in which he was a suspect or being checked for elimination purposes being shelved through lack of evidence.
I don’t think it is possible to know what information Kate and Gerry McCann have been given but I cannot bear to think of what they and their family are going through at this stage in the German inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
The Greek police said he confessed. Presumeably they had a written confession in their possession. Wolters said his suspect was guilty but offered no evidence at all to back up his statement.
The Greek police said he confessed..you seem to believe them. Why.. You are now speculating he made a written
statement.. What if he now says he was pressured into it. Can he receive a fair trial
-
The Greek police said he confessed. Presumeably they had a written confession in their possession. Wolters said his suspect was guilty but offered no evidence at all to back up his statement.
Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?
I really do not think so. In fact I think such a suggestion risible.
-
This is a new one, you're wrong on all counts this time. Usually it's only about 70%
See if you can point out a point im wrong on... Put up or shut up as they say.
CB has made a criminal complaint.. Not started libel proceedings. It remains to be seen if the police investigate it
-
Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?
I really do not think so. In fact I think such a suggestion risible.
You mean like identifying a prime suspect who's already in custody, releasing his phone number, his whereabouts, his criminal history, declaring he absolutely is guilty and briefing the press on just about anything they ask about him?
Dear God, have a word with yourself, then pop back and edit your post.
-
Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?
I really do not think so. In fact I think such a suggestion risible.
Well, if they had absolute proof Madeleine was murdered, if anyone deserves to see such it would be her parents, rather than letting them live in false hope.
Maybe it's standard police procedure to let families believe a relative could still be alive when there's absolute evidence they are in fact dead.
I don't know, I'm neither a policeman, nor have I ever staged an abduction.
-
You mean like identifying a prime suspect who's already in custody, releasing his phone number, his whereabouts, his criminal history, declaring he absolutely is guilty and briefing the press on just about anything they ask about him?
Dear God, have a word with yourself, then pop back and edit your post.
Afaiaa... The police have licence to release any information as long as its to help the enquiry. If CB feels he's being unfairly treated he can make a criminal complaint
-
See if you can point out a point im wrong on... Put up or shut up as they say.
OK, give me a few minutes to trawl back through a certain person's posts for a little cracker of a libel example.
Be warned though, bringing this back in to the light might compromise the forum member in the future.
-
Afaiaa... The police have licence to release any information as long as its to help the enquiry. If CB feels he's being unfairly treated he can make a criminal complaint
You're wrong again. As usual. Unless you can show me this carte blanche that runs roughshod across privacy laws.
As for your 2nd point, so they'll happily potentially jeopardise the judicial process to secure a conviction, only for that conviction to be brought in to question legally? Like the Guildford 4? I'm liking your 70's style of judiciary.
-
Well, if they had absolute proof Madeleine was murdered, if anyone deserves to see such it would be her parents, rather than letting them live in false hope.
Maybe it's standard police procedure to let families believe a relative could still be alive when there's absolute evidence they are in fact dead.
I don't know, I'm neither a policeman, nor have I ever staged an abduction.
Seems like they're cherry picking what to disclose. 'Yeh, your daughter's dead, but we don't know how, and we're not sure, but she's deffo dead'. In German. In fact, that was the jist of the letter they didn't get.
-
You're wrong again. As usual. Unless you can show me this carte blanche that runs roughshod across privacy laws.
As for your 2nd point, so they'll happily potentially jeopardise the judicial process to secure a conviction, only for that conviction to be brought in to question legally? Like the Guildford 4? I'm liking your 70's style of judiciary.
The Guildford 4 case was appealed on the basis the prosecution suppressed evidence of innocence
A conviction will be decided by the evidence...
You accuse me if being wrong again without pointing out where I was wrong in the first place. I'm right in just about everything I say... You provided nothing to counter that claim
Your posts are just flowery waffle.. No substance. If you think Im wrong on any point... Put up or shut up
-
The Guildford 4 case was appealed on the basis the prosecution suppressed evidence of innocence
A conviction will be decided by the evidence...
You accuse me if being wrong again without pointing out where I was wrong in the first place. I'm right in just about everything I say... You provided nothing to counter that claim
Your posts are just flowery waffle.. No substance. If you think Im wrong on any point... Put up or shut up
...still wrong, but you'll carry on anyway.
As I stated, I'm discussing the disregard for overarching judicial process, an abstraction you simply can't comprehend, which you shouldn't be too concerned about as lateral thinking isn't within the capability of everyone.
So the example is valid; drive a horse and cart through the process, in whichever form you choose, secure a conviction, then wait for the appeal process - or not - to iron out the wrinkles, by which time all of the protagonists are either retired or dead. Or both.
But crack on, DAVEL, I'm sure Google will continue to serve you well.
-
...still wrong, but you'll carry on anyway.
As I stated, I'm discussing the disregard for overarching judicial process, an abstraction you simply can't comprehend, which you shouldn't be too concerned about as lateral thinking isn't within the capability of everyone.
So the example is valid; drive a horse and cart through the process, in whichever form you choose, secure a conviction, then wait for the appeal process - or not - to iron out the wrinkles, by which time all of the protagonists are either retired or dead. Or both.
But crack on, DAVEL, I'm sure Google will continue to serve you well.
If you feel the necessity to discuss a topic - why not open an appropriate thread. In the intervening period this thread topic is "The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect"
Thank you for your future cooperation in adhering to the topic of current threads.
-
I do wonder if this has been the intention all along.
Wolters had his suspicions and facilitated the outing and media assassination of Brueckner because he was lacking the essential evidence.
He could have brought the details of the phone call to the public's attention without identifying the suspect in any way by just saying that it was a 'German National' who received the call in PDL.
As it is Wolters can now say that they couldn't bring him to trial, but have no doubt of his guilt and because of media speculation and a string of dubious documentaries, people will believe that Brueckner is the man - even if he isn't.
Mission accomplished as they say.
IMO.
The legend is writ.
-
If you feel the necessity to discuss a topic - why not open an appropriate thread. In the intervening period this thread topic is "The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect"
Thank you for your future cooperation in adhering to the topic of current threads.
Cheers for that. I'll ensure I inform the other member who was also discussing off topic in case he misses it, bearing in mind you only deigned to intervene in reply to my post as opposed to his.
Thanks again, take care now.
-
Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?
I really do not think so. In fact I think such a suggestion risible.
No one is suggesting that confidential information should be released. It's not usual for prosecutors to announce that a suspect is guilty before the suspect is even arrested. That's the subject being discussed.
-
No one is suggesting that confidential information should be released. It's not usual for prosecutors to announce that a suspect is guilty before the suspect is even arrested. That's the subject being discussed.
And yet CB seems more bothered about claims he mistreated his dogs than he does about the prosecutor announcing he's guilty of murdering a little girl. I wonder why that is...?
-
No one is suggesting that confidential information should be released. It's not usual for prosecutors to announce that a suspect is guilty before the suspect is even arrested. That's the subject being discussed.
That's it in a nutshell.
Is it unique?
-
Afaiaa... The police have licence to release any information as long as its to help the enquiry. If CB feels he's being unfairly treated he can make a criminal complaint
I am discussing the prosecutor's behaviour, not that of the police. Wolters prejudged Brueckner and the Germans need to acknowledge it and deal with it. South Africa had to;
Menzi Simelane, national head of the prosecution service, appeared to have pre-judged the honeymoon murder-accused in a TV interview in February. He told SABC3: "This is a pure criminal matter of somebody who murdered his wife whilst he should be celebrating his honeymoon.
The head of South Africa's prosecution service, who accused British businessman Shrien Dewani of committing a "heinous" crime, has been removed from office, according to documents from the country's supreme court.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/01/dewani-prosecutor-removed-south-africa
-
I am discussing the prosecutor's behaviour, not that of the police. Wolters prejudged Brueckner and the Germans need to acknowledge it and deal with it. South Africa had to;
Menzi Simelane, national head of the prosecution service, appeared to have pre-judged the honeymoon murder-accused in a TV interview in February. He told SABC3: "This is a pure criminal matter of somebody who murdered his wife whilst he should be celebrating his honeymoon.
The head of South Africa's prosecution service, who accused British businessman Shrien Dewani of committing a "heinous" crime, has been removed from office, according to documents from the country's supreme court.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/01/dewani-prosecutor-removed-south-africa
Wolters wants to solve the case.. He doesn't have to acknowledge anything. The same posters interested in proper judicial process are the ones who condone the beating of Cipriano by the PJ.. Strange that isn't it
-
I am discussing the prosecutor's behaviour, not that of the police. Wolters prejudged Brueckner and the Germans need to acknowledge it and deal with it. South Africa had to;
Menzi Simelane, national head of the prosecution service, appeared to have pre-judged the honeymoon murder-accused in a TV interview in February. He told SABC3: "This is a pure criminal matter of somebody who murdered his wife whilst he should be celebrating his honeymoon.
The head of South Africa's prosecution service, who accused British businessman Shrien Dewani of committing a "heinous" crime, has been removed from office, according to documents from the country's supreme court.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/01/dewani-prosecutor-removed-south-africa
to be fair it doesn't say in the article that Simelane was removed from office for that particular alleged transgression.
-
I am discussing the prosecutor's behaviour, not that of the police. Wolters prejudged Brueckner and the Germans need to acknowledge it and deal with it. South Africa had to;
Menzi Simelane, national head of the prosecution service, appeared to have pre-judged the honeymoon murder-accused in a TV interview in February. He told SABC3: "This is a pure criminal matter of somebody who murdered his wife whilst he should be celebrating his honeymoon.
The head of South Africa's prosecution service, who accused British businessman Shrien Dewani of committing a "heinous" crime, has been removed from office, according to documents from the country's supreme court.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/01/dewani-prosecutor-removed-south-africa
The question that needs to be answered is whether this will affect the outcome of any trial... That depends on the evidence
-
The question that needs to be answered is whether this will affect the outcome of any trial... That depends on the evidence
Well, it isn't going to be much of trial if Wolters doesn't present evidence.
And I'm not even sure you can proceed directly to trial without charging a suspect first, or arresting them.
-
Wolters wants to solve the case.. He doesn't have to acknowledge anything. The same posters interested in proper judicial process are the ones who condone the beating of Cipriano by the PJ.. Strange that isn't it
To beat up Leonor Cipriano
A confession was extracted de facto
CB is in jail
HCW on his trail
Legally dubious in CB's Winnebago
-
I have a topic requiring approval on the News & Current affairs board if there are any mods around.
Maybe we can talk about something other than Maddie for once, but I understand that's not popular.
Thanks in advance.
-
To beat up Leonor Cipriano
A confession was extracted de facto
CB is in jail
HCW on his trail
Legally dubious in CB's Winnebago
It doesnt scan
-
To beat up Leonor Cipriano
A confession was extracted de facto
CB is in jail
HCW on his trail
Legally dubious in CB's Winnebago
Are you related to Tim Key?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUw_Qg09K2A
-
Canadian 19-year-old 'murdered by British boyfriend she came to UK to be with after meeting online' died from stab wounds to the chest, inquest hears.
Does anyone think he won't get a free trial
-
It doesnt scan
I'm glad you care.
-
I'm glad you care.
No its good really and.on reflection it does scan. Poetry and language are your strengths.. You studied the arts.. Your weakness.. And my strength is science. That's why I understand the evidence.and you think Im getting it all wrong.. I'm not
-
No its good really and.on reflection it does scan. Poetry and language are your strengths.. You studied the arts.. Your weakness.. And my strength is science. That's why I understand the evidence.and you think Im getting it all wrong.. I'm not
What evidence?
-
What evidence?
Theres lots that you seem blind to
-
Canadian 19-year-old 'murdered by British boyfriend she came to UK to be with after meeting online' died from stab wounds to the chest, inquest hears.
Does anyone think he won't get a free trial
Yeah, she was stabbed to death in his house while he was there, & he's probably got her blood all over him, but I'm hoping I get a seat on the jury as I reckon someone else did it.
-
The General thought Davel was thick
And regularly gave him stick
What he didn't realise
And to his surprise
Davel really was a clever dick
-
Theres lots that you seem blind to
I find the 2 pane design of my rear windscreens can cause an obstruction, but I have a reverse camera which aids parking & I could never quite get the hang of seeing the animal in them magic eye puzzles, I'd see it for like a split second & then it's gone.
-
The General thought Davel was thick
And regularly gave him stick
What he didn't realise
And to his surprise
Davel really was a clever dick
7/10 Bravo
-
Taken from an excellent post on Websleuths, written today - couldn’t have put it better myself
“I don't believe for one moment though that all they have is a phone ping and a 'profile that fits'. When you consider all the actions the BKA have taken, I think it's important to ask - Why?
Why would the BKA involve themselves in this hot potato of a case, if they had no real evidence other than what we've been told about so far?
Why put themselves in the spotlight of a media frenzy and risk ridicule and libel suits by publicly proclaiming CB's guilt if they had nothing of any real substance to back it up?
Why would they spend over 4 years investigating this lead if all they have got is hearsay and a phone ping which doesn't even place the phone at the crime scene or during the crime window?
Why would they spend all this money and waste their limited resources on a case where the victim isn't German, the crime took place in another country and they have no responsibility to investigate it?
Why wouldn't they just hand over the evidence they've got to PJ and SY and let them deal with it unless they were pretty confident they could get a conviction?
Why have they taken this unprecedented approach of publicly accusing someone of murder without charging them, in a country where privacy laws are extremely strict and further...
...Why would that approach have been sanctioned at a higher level if there wasn't already strong indicative evidence to warrant such a bold action?
Any claims that they are just on some tenuous fishing expedition... or they are fitting up a patsy... or that they have no real evidence... or that they are just plain incompetent..... none of these stand up to any kind of proper logic or scrutiny when considering the above questions.
IMO, they had enough evidence to convince them of CB's guilt but not quite enough to assure a conviction. With no forensics linking him to the crime scene and no body, you can see why they might have a problem in that regard. But they certainly have a lot more than what we know about so far IMO.
And from HCW's comments in October, he says they do "now" have enough to charge CB. I've seen nothing so far to contradict that not being the case and therefore, they must have some pretty strong evidence to back up their claims. JMO”
-
Taken from an excellent post on Websleuths, written today - couldn’t have put it better myself
“I don't believe for one moment though that all they have is a phone ping and a 'profile that fits'. When you consider all the actions the BKA have taken, I think it's important to ask - Why?
Why would the BKA involve themselves in this hot potato of a case, if they had no real evidence other than what we've been told about so far?
Why put themselves in the spotlight of a media frenzy and risk ridicule and libel suits by publicly proclaiming CB's guilt if they had nothing of any real substance to back it up?
Why would they spend over 4 years investigating this lead if all they have got is hearsay and a phone ping which doesn't even place the phone at the crime scene or during the crime window?
Why would they spend all this money and waste their limited resources on a case where the victim isn't German, the crime took place in another country and they have no responsibility to investigate it?
Why wouldn't they just hand over the evidence they've got to PJ and SY and let them deal with it unless they were pretty confident they could get a conviction?
Why have they taken this unprecedented approach of publicly accusing someone of murder without charging them, in a country where privacy laws are extremely strict and further...
...Why would that approach have been sanctioned at a higher level if there wasn't already strong indicative evidence to warrant such a bold action?
Any claims that they are just on some tenuous fishing expedition... or they are fitting up a patsy... or that they have no real evidence... or that they are just plain incompetent..... none of these stand up to any kind of proper logic or scrutiny when considering the above questions.
IMO, they had enough evidence to convince them of CB's guilt but not quite enough to assure a conviction. With no forensics linking him to the crime scene and no body, you can see why they might have a problem in that regard. But they certainly have a lot more than what we know about so far IMO.
And from HCW's comments in October, he says they do "now" have enough to charge CB. I've seen nothing so far to contradict that not being the case and therefore, they must have some pretty strong evidence to back up their claims. JMO”
Obviously no supporters on here are in the same league even davel.
-
Obviously no supporters on here are in the same league even davel.
I think both Davel and myself would agree with everything that is in that post and have pretty much posted similar over the course of the last few months/years - it’s just a neat encapsulation of my views on the matter, and no doubt Davel’s too, though I’m sure he can speak for himself.
I’m sure those keen on putting HCW and the German investigation down will be able to answer every single one of those questions with a perfectly plausible and logical explanation @)(++(*
-
Obviously no supporters on here are in the same league even davel.
I've already posted just about everything mentioned here
-
I've already posted just about everything mentioned here
I knew you wouldn't let me down.
-
I knew you wouldn't let me down.
You have let yourself down by not realising that
-
Canadian 19-year-old 'murdered by British boyfriend she came to UK to be with after meeting online' died from stab wounds to the chest, inquest hears.
Does anyone think he won't get a free trial
Do you mean a fair trial? All the examples in the world won't change the fact that Wolters declared a suspect guilty.
-
Do you mean a fair trial? All the examples in the world won't change the fact that Wolters declared a suspect guilty.
Wil that make a difference to the verdict if there is a trial. Why should it.. It wont
-
Wil that make a difference to the verdict if there is a trial. Why should it.. It wont
When the outcome of a trual is prejudged it leaves a question mark over the verdict.
-
When the outcome of a trual is prejudged it leaves a question mark over the verdict.
Only if the judges at trial are really stupid and not doing their jobs properly.
-
Only if the judges at trial are really stupid and not doing their jobs properly.
One way to be sure that conscious or unconscious bias doesn't influence Court decisions is to make sure that prejudgement doesn't occur.
-
One way to be sure that conscious or unconscious bias doesn't influence Court decisions is to make sure that prejudgement doesn't occur.
How does that work in appeals then, when a guilty verdict has already been handed down? If you were a judge deciding on CB’s guilt your unconscious bias would be towards a not guilty verdict wouldn’t it?
-
How does that work in appeals then, when a guilty verdict has already been handed down? If you were a judge deciding on CB’s guilt your unconscious bias would be towards a not guilty verdict wouldn’t it?
In this case the suspect has had his right to the presumption of innocence breached imo. That's something that the German authorities should address as a matter of urgency imo. There's no need to speculate about a trial at the moment.
-
In this case the suspect has had his right to the presumption of innocence breached imo. That's something that the German authorities should address as a matter of urgency imo. There's no need to speculate about a trial at the moment.
Your avoidance of my questions is once again noted.
-
Your avoidance of my questions is once again noted.
Just because someone asks questions there's no obligation to answer them afaik. I'm discussing something that has occured and have no interest in unrelated speculations.
-
Just because someone asks questions there's no obligation to answer them afaik. I'm discussing something that has occured and have no interest in unrelated speculations.
No obligation no, but it is good manners to give a straight answer to a straight question, something I always strive to do. Why do you think CB is more interested in issuing a complaint about a journo’s accusation that he starved his dogs thsn a prosecutor’s contention that he murdered a child if his poi has been breached? Obviously you won’t give me a straight answer but it strikes me as odd anyway.
-
No obligation no, but it is good manners to give a straight answer to a straight question, something I always strive to do. Why do you think CB is more interested in issuing a complaint about a journo’s accusation that he starved his dogs thsn a prosecutor’s contention that he murdered a child if his poi has been breached? Obviously you won’t give me a straight answer but it strikes me as odd anyway.
Your questions aren't what I would describe as 'straight'. I don't know what CB is thinking, but I am sure that his lawyer advises him what he should do. A complaint may have been made about Wolters for all I know.
-
Just because someone asks questions there's no obligation to answer them afaik. I'm discussing something that has occured and have no interest in unrelated speculations.
A poster in another place said,
"Some people are simply devoid of soul. No humanity at all, yet they walk among us. Destroying people is an elixir they drink for sport."
If Brueckner is one such as those and German investigators have found that there is evidence that he harmed Madeleine - the German authorities have a duty to take their investigation as far as it will go.
There may have been no safeguards for Madeleine but Brueckner is safeguarded by the law of the land and enjoys the right to the presumption of innocence.
He is served by Lawyers who will see to it his rights are not breached under any circumstances by anyone.
My opinion is that lay persons who neither know or are entitled to know the case against him or the lawful strategy being used, would serve the interests of justice by allowing the investigation to run its course without let or hindrance.
While the rest of us await - "Eager for resolution, terrified of the same."
-
A poster in another place said,
"Some people are simply devoid of soul. No humanity at all, yet they walk among us. Destroying people is an elixir they drink for sport."
If Brueckner is one such as those and German investigators have found that there is evidence that he harmed Madeleine - the German authorities have a duty to take their investigation as far as it will go.
There may have been no safeguards for Madeleine but Brueckner is safeguarded by the law of the land and enjoys the right to the presumption of innocence.
He is served by Lawyers who will see to it his rights are not breached under any circumstances by anyone.
My opinion is that lay persons who neither know or are entitled to know the case against him or the lawful strategy being used, would serve the interests of justice by allowing the investigation to run its course without let or hindrance.
While the rest of us await - "Eager for resolution, terrified of the same."
Would you like us to stop commenting on it on the forum, is that it?
-
Your questions aren't what I would describe as 'straight'. I don't know what CB is thinking, but I am sure that his lawyer advises him what he should do. A complaint may have been made about Wolters for all I know.
I am pretty sure we’d be informed if a complaint had been made about Wolters by Brückner, we’ve been kept abreast of all his grievances so why wouldn’t we? That’s a straight question btw which you are obviously under no obligation to answer @)(++(*
-
A poster in another place said,
"Some people are simply devoid of soul. No humanity at all, yet they walk among us. Destroying people is an elixir they drink for sport."
If Brueckner is one such as those and German investigators have found that there is evidence that he harmed Madeleine - the German authorities have a duty to take their investigation as far as it will go.
There may have been no safeguards for Madeleine but Brueckner is safeguarded by the law of the land and enjoys the right to the presumption of innocence.
He is served by Lawyers who will see to it his rights are not breached under any circumstances by anyone.
My opinion is that lay persons who neither know or are entitled to know the case against him or the lawful strategy being used, would serve the interests of justice by allowing the investigation to run its course without let or hindrance.
While the rest of us await - "Eager for resolution, terrified of the same."
The important word is "if". Where there is suspicion there should, of course be investigation. What there should not be is prejudicial statements by the authorities prior to any trial. Everyone is entitled to the legal protection which is available to prevent them being declared guilty before being arrested whatever their background.
The idea that lay persons can affect an investigation is a bit fanciful imo.
-
Your questions aren't what I would describe as 'straight'. I don't know what CB is thinking, but I am sure that his lawyer advises him what he should do. A complaint may have been made about Wolters for all I know.
This first litigatory (is that even a word?) action is nothing more than a calculated moving of a pawn to C6. Again, it's pretty unpalatable for many here, but the harsh reality will bite this year. CB clearly has an Anglo-German team of legal experts at his disposal. Quite how that has happened is my guess and yours, but, as I've suggested previously, he's the golden egg goose laying gilded gander egg layer - it's a no brainer for a defence lawyer to take him on pro-bono. It's a no lose too, given that they can all sit back once he's found guilty or cleared and feast off the residual legal wranglings for years to come, both civil and criminal. Couple that with the inevitable film rights, TV, book, Netflix, Amazon, press, commemorative tea towels, why not hop aboard the MM Express?
Johan Cochraneski
-
When the outcome of a trual is prejudged it leaves a question mark over the verdict.
It remains to be seen whether Wolters statements affect the outcome of any trial.. You are speculating it will. That's your opinion. The fact is it depends on the evidence presented.
I'm interested in Justice being done. It may well be that the actions of Wolters is just what is needed to encourage witnesses to come forward and ensure justice is done.
-
One way to be sure that conscious or unconscious bias doesn't influence Court decisions is to make sure that prejudgement doesn't occur.
Another way is to present such convincing evidence that there is no doubt re guilt
-
I am pretty sure we’d be informed if a complaint had been made about Wolters by Brückner, we’ve been kept abreast of all his grievances so why wouldn’t we? That’s a straight question btw which you are obviously under no obligation to answer @)(++(*
Would you expect the Braunsweig prosecutor's office to announce that they had received a complaint about their spokesperson? When did he last actually speak?
-
The important word is "if". Where there is suspicion there should, of course be investigation. What there should not be is prejudicial statements by the authorities prior to any trial. Everyone is entitled to the legal protection which is available to prevent them being declared guilty before being arrested whatever their background.
The idea that lay persons can affect an investigation is a bit fanciful imo.
Madeleine has rights too... And if it is shown that CB tortured and murdered her... And took great pleasure in doing so... Will you still be so concerned with the rights of CB. Wake up
-
Would you expect the Braunsweig prosecutor's office to announce that they had received a complaint about their spokesperson? When did he last actually speak?
Fulscher has spoken and annonced action against the journalist... Why not against Wolters. There is zero indication of any action yet you believe there may be one. That makes you a speculator of the highest level
-
Would you expect the Braunsweig prosecutor's office to announce that they had received a complaint about their spokesperson? When did he last actually speak?
I would expect Fulscher and Brückner to keep us abreast of such developments certainly. In any case I’m not sure public prosecutors can keep complaints against them secret can they?
-
Another way is to present such convincing evidence that there is no doubt re guilt
Are you saying it's OK to say that someone committed a crime if they're later found guilty? What if they're not?
-
Madeleine has rights too... And if it is shown that CB tortured and murdered her... And took great pleasure in doing so... Will you still be so concerned with the rights of CB. Wake up
It's no different to you being 'concerned' about Leonor Cipriano's right to fair process. I doubt you sympathise with her, but as a concerned citizen (concerned with the erosion of general legal standards) you feel she's been unjustly treated.
-
Are you saying it's OK to say that someone committed a crime if they're later found guilty? What if they're not?
I'm saying it depends on circumstances... No jury makes a big difference. I'm saying Madeleine has rights. I'm saying it depends on the evidence. I'm saying it may be necessary to do this to get justice for Madeleine.. I think thats important.
-
It's no different to you being 'concerned' about Leonor Cipriano's right to fair process. I doubt you sympathise with her, but as a concerned citizen (concerned with the erosion of general legal standards) you feel she's been unjustly treated.
First I've said it depends on the evidence presented at the trial
Second thete is the degree. I don't think you can compare beating a confession out of someone with what Wolters has done
-
First I've said it depends on the evidence presented at the trial
Second thete is the degree. I don't think you can compare beating a confession out of someone with what Wolters has done
We're not comparing anything; we're discussing the overarching concepts. It's on the macro level and non-specific.
-
We're not comparing anything; we're discussing the overarching concepts. It's on the macro level and non-specific.
Its case specific... Depends on the evidence
-
The important word is "if". Where there is suspicion there should, of course be investigation. What there should not be is prejudicial statements by the authorities prior to any trial. Everyone is entitled to the legal protection which is available to prevent them being declared guilty before being arrested whatever their background.
The idea that lay persons can affect an investigation is a bit fanciful imo.
Amaral obviously does not believe that - he certainly did his damnedest to have an adverse effect on the German investigation starting with his announcement to the world regarding the perfect patsy but for the fact he wasn't dead - using Saunokonoko's podcast as his vehicle.
Neither are individuals hiding their light under a bushel when it comes to negativity regarding the investigation aimed at solving what happened to Madeleine McCann. So weird from people who pay lip service to "justice" for Madeleine but who have spent fifteen years fighting tooth and nail to prevent just that.
-
I'm saying it depends on circumstances... No jury makes a big difference. I'm saying Madeleine has rights. I'm saying it depends on the evidence. I'm saying it may be necessary to do this to get justice for Madeleine.. I think thats important.
It isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances. It's ignoring someone's human rights.
-
It isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances. It's ignoring someone's human rights.
If torture is a violation of human rights, then Leonor Cipriano had her human rights violated - discuss.
-
Amaral obviously does not believe that - he certainly did his damnedest to have an adverse effect on the German investigation starting with his announcement to the world regarding the perfect patsy but for the fact he wasn't dead - using Saunokonoko's podcast as his vehicle.
Neither are individuals hiding their light under a bushel when it comes to negativity regarding the investigation aimed at solving what happened to Madeleine McCann. So weird from people who pay lip service to "justice" for Madeleine but who have spent fifteen years fighting tooth and nail to prevent just that.
Whether Amaral affected the German investigation is a matter of opinion, but the Germans themselves say he didn't.
There are right and wrong ways to conduct an investigation and if it's done wrongly then people are going to comment.
-
Whether Amaral affected the German investigation is a matter of opinion, but the Germans themselves say he didn't.
There are right and wrong ways to conduct an investigation and if it's done wrongly then people are going to comment.
It would be interesting to know what the groundswell of public opinion in Germany is about this case - are there public protests outside Braunschweig's PP office protesting about CB's human rights I wonder? Are his human rights being discussed on the German version of Newsnight? Has he become some sort of Assange-like cult hero on his home turf? If not, I wonder why not....
-
If torture is a violation of human rights, then Leonor Cipriano had her human rights violated - discuss.
Different case, different human right allegedly breached, different country. Not helpful or relevant imo.
-
Different case, different human right allegedly breached, different country. Not helpful or relevant imo.
Obviously not helpful to be reminded of the hypocrisy of some bleating about Bruckner's rights while staying entirely mute about Cipriano's, or even arguing that she deserved what she got. The thing they both have in common is that they are both human, and therefore human rights apply to them both equally no?
-
A poster in another place said,
"Some people are simply devoid of soul. No humanity at all, yet they walk among us. Destroying people is an elixir they drink for sport."
Who do you believe hold the moral high ground those who believe a paedo abused and murdered Madeleine or those that don't believe he did.
-
It isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances. It's ignoring someone's human rights.
Thats your opinion.. In this instance I think it's justified.
Everytime a person is held on remand it's a potential breach of human rights.. Has anyone taken a case to The ECHR.
In my view you have shown you are more interested in CB's rights than Madeleine's... Shame on you. Madeleine deserves justice
-
Who do you believe hold the moral high ground those who believe a paedo abused and murdered Madeleine or those that don't believe he did.
I don't believe it's a competition about which theory is the most morally correct, however I would argue that those who have spent nearly 15 years actively promoting on social media the idea that the McCanns were involved in their child's disappearance are a bit warped and in some cases quite deeply unpleasant, obsessive individuals. All IMO, ob
-
Thats your opinion.. In this instance I think it's justified.
Everytime a person is held on remand it's a potential breach of human rights.. Has anyone taken a case to The ECHR.
In my view you have shown you are more interested in CB's rights than Madeleine's... Shame on you. Madeleine deserves justice
CB isn't on remand concerning Madeleines case, thats the difference. Madeleine deserves justice which is and never has been served in public.
-
CB isn't on remand concerning Madeleines case, thats the difference. Madeleine deserves justice which is and never has been served in public.
He's not on remand for anything, is he ?
He is serving a prison sentence and has no outstanding charges against him, as far as I'm aware.
-
Who do you believe hold the moral high ground those who believe a paedo abused and murdered Madeleine or those that don't believe he did.
Gross!
-
Thats your opinion.. In this instance I think it's justified.
Everytime a person is held on remand it's a potential breach of human rights.. Has anyone taken a case to The ECHR.
In my view you have shown you are more interested in CB's rights than Madeleine's... Shame on you. Madeleine deserves justice
It's not a competition between one person's human rights and another's. What a strange suggestion. The crime committed against Madeleine McCann should be investigated but, equally, the investigation should be properly conducted.
-
It's not a competition between one person's human rights and another's. What a strange suggestion. The crime committed against Madeleine McCann should be investigated but, equally, the investigation should be properly conducted.
In terms of being assured a fair trial what essentially is the difference between an official working on a case stating someone is guilty and an ex-official who had worked on the same case stating exactly the same thing? How does being an ex-official lessen the likelihood that a judge or jury will be swayed by their publicity campaign of finger pointing? More difficult questions for which I don't expect an answer....
-
He's not on remand for anything, is he ?
He is serving a prison sentence and has no outstanding charges against him, as far as I'm aware.
That's right. It seems a unique position and one that simply wouldn't fly if he wasn't already in prison. This facet alone makes his treatment potentially 'unfair'. Cue the bleeding heart 'poor Maddie' posts that can't take the concept impartially and in isolation away from the MM case.
Can you imagine it happening here: "Well Janice is in Holloway for the manslaughter of her spouse (Keith)....and we know virtually 100% that she also killed his brother (Barry). But we'd like to appeal for information to the caller of phone number 07629 111 222 on the night in question, as we think this is a valuable lead. We have sent a letter to Barry's parents to tell them that we think Janice killed Barry, although we don't have a body, but have had no response.
We can't disclose what evidence we have and no, we haven't spoken to Janice, but she's free to refute our claims if she wants, but she hasn't thus far.
I can confirm that a documentary maker focusing on the case and her previous conviction, has asked us to look at their program to see if it impinges on our investigation, but it doesn't as there's nothing new, so we have allowed its transmission. Janice is free to object through the proper channels is she feels differently.
I will not answer any questions, but I will keep you fully briefed on bi-weekly basis on developments"
-
It's not a competition between one person's human rights and another's. What a strange suggestion. The crime committed against Madeleine McCann should be investigated but, equally, the investigation should be properly conducted.
You are the one mentioning competition not me... Its a balance. If Wolters actions have provided evidence beyond all doubt of CBs guilts is that worth it.. Or if he is guilty is it better he walks free
-
It's not a competition between one person's human rights and another's. What a strange suggestion. The crime committed against Madeleine McCann should be investigated but, equally, the investigation should be properly conducted.
The first protocol which was broken as far as Brueckner is concerned was - The ex-cop, removed as head of the Madeleine McCann probe in October 2007 for criticising the British police, made his latest comments about the case on a show called 'En El Punta de Mira' about missing adults and children which was aired on Spanish national TV station Cuatro.
Using this vehicleAmaral continued with his slurs against Madeleine’s parents and his conspiracy theories against the British State. Later with the addition of a brand new bogey man; not the suspect – but the German Prosecutor the press having failed to pick up his initial subliminal podcast reveal.
Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has claimed for the first time a German paedophile probed over Madeleine McCann's disappearance is not Martin Ney.
The ex-cop sparked speculation Hamburg-born child strangler Ney was the prime suspect after telling an Australian podcast earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison.
He failed to identify Ney by name at the time, describing 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 Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has fuelled new speculation about his identity by telling a Spanish TV programme: 'A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about.
'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.
'Years later, many years later, it appears that in an Internet chatroom there is a conversation between that person and another person where they talk about Madeleine.'
He responded: 'It can't be him' when he was shown a photo of Ney before adding in a false and vile jibe at Madeleine McCann's father: ...
Police in the UK and Portugal, who are leading separate investigations into Madeleine McCann's May 3 2007 disappearance from the Algarve holiday resort of Praia da Luz, declined to comment on Portuguese reports around the 12th anniversary that investigators had a 'new lead and a new suspect.'
The Policia Judiciaria said in a statement released in May after leading Portuguese daily Correio da Manha said a new suspect had been flagged up to investigators in Lisbon and Porto by Scotland Yard: 'The investigation into the disappearance of an English child in Praia da Luz in 2007, remains open within the framework of an investigation supervised by Portimao's Public Ministry.
'This investigation has been developed in conjunction with international authorities, following police and judicial rules of cooperation justified by the circumstances of the situation.
'The PJ does not feel it is appropriate to make any further clarifications in the interests of the investigation.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7741505/Ex-Portuguese-police-chief-claims-leading-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-mystery-German-paedophile.html
Without Amaral's blatant leaks to the media at a very sensitive time in the investigation I suspect that even now we might still not have been aware of Brueckner and Hazel Behan would still have been ignorant of the rape perpetrated by him which so mirrored her horrific experience.
Sceptics would have been spared the angst of having to safeguard Brueckner's so next time you criticise the Germans, please give a brief nod to the circumstances in which Brueckner's name arrived in the public domain.
-
That's right. It seems a unique position and one that simply wouldn't fly if he wasn't already in prison. This facet alone makes his treatment potentially 'unfair'. Cue the bleeding heart 'poor Maddie' posts that can't take the concept impartially and in isolation away from the MM case.
Can you imagine it happening here: "Well Janice is in Holloway for the manslaughter of her spouse (Keith)....and we know virtually 100% that she also killed his brother (Barry). But we'd like to appeal for information to the caller of phone number 07629 111 222 on the night in question, as we think this is a valuable lead. We have sent a letter to Barry's parents to tell them that we think Janice killed Barry, although we don't have a body, but have had no response.
We can't disclose what evidence we have and no, we haven't spoken to Janice, but she's free to refute our claims if she wants, but she hasn't thus far.
I can confirm that a documentary maker focusing on the case and her previous conviction, has asked us to look at their program to see if it impinges on our investigation, but it doesn't as there's nothing new, so we have allowed its transmission. Janice is free to object through the proper channels is she feels differently.
I will not answer any questions, but I will keep you fully briefed on bi-weekly basis on developments"
As I've repeatedly said it depends what evidence Wolters has and he should be judged once it's known. You are prejudging Wolters.. Yet you object to him prejudging CB.
-
The first protocol which was broken as far as Brueckner is concerned was - The ex-cop, removed as head of the Madeleine McCann probe in October 2007 for criticising the British police, made his latest comments about the case on a show called 'En El Punta de Mira' about missing adults and children which was aired on Spanish national TV station Cuatro.
Using this vehicleAmaral continued with his slurs against Madeleine’s parents and his conspiracy theories against the British State. Later with the addition of a brand new bogey man; not the suspect – but the German Prosecutor the press having failed to pick up his initial subliminal podcast reveal.
Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has claimed for the first time a German paedophile probed over Madeleine McCann's disappearance is not Martin Ney.
The ex-cop sparked speculation Hamburg-born child strangler Ney was the prime suspect after telling an Australian podcast earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison.
He failed to identify Ney by name at the time, describing 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 Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has fuelled new speculation about his identity by telling a Spanish TV programme: 'A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about.
'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.
'Years later, many years later, it appears that in an Internet chatroom there is a conversation between that person and another person where they talk about Madeleine.'
He responded: 'It can't be him' when he was shown a photo of Ney before adding in a false and vile jibe at Madeleine McCann's father: ...
Police in the UK and Portugal, who are leading separate investigations into Madeleine McCann's May 3 2007 disappearance from the Algarve holiday resort of Praia da Luz, declined to comment on Portuguese reports around the 12th anniversary that investigators had a 'new lead and a new suspect.'
The Policia Judiciaria said in a statement released in May after leading Portuguese daily Correio da Manha said a new suspect had been flagged up to investigators in Lisbon and Porto by Scotland Yard: 'The investigation into the disappearance of an English child in Praia da Luz in 2007, remains open within the framework of an investigation supervised by Portimao's Public Ministry.
'This investigation has been developed in conjunction with international authorities, following police and judicial rules of cooperation justified by the circumstances of the situation.
'The PJ does not feel it is appropriate to make any further clarifications in the interests of the investigation.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7741505/Ex-Portuguese-police-chief-claims-leading-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-mystery-German-paedophile.html
Without Amaral's blatant leaks to the media at a very sensitive time in the investigation I suspect that even now we might still not have been aware of Brueckner and Hazel Behan would still have been ignorant of the rape perpetrated by him which so mirrored her horrific experience.
Sceptics would have been spared the angst of having to safeguard Brueckner's so next time you criticise the Germans, please give a brief nod to the circumstances in which Brueckner's name arrived in the public domain.
Are you saying Amaral named Brueckner?
-
Are you saying Amaral named Brueckner?
You have read the link (I presume 😁) What do you think Amaral intimated in his Australian podcast and the Spanish TV interview.
-
Are you saying Amaral named Brueckner?
Amaral began the identification...
The newspapers identified him.. >
-
Without Amaral's blatant leaks to the media at a very sensitive time in the investigation I suspect that even now we might still not have been aware of Brueckner and Hazel Behan would still have been ignorant of the rape perpetrated by him which so mirrored her horrific experience.
Sceptics would have been spared the angst of having to safeguard Brueckner's so next time you criticise the Germans, please give a brief nod to the circumstances in which Brueckner's name arrived in the public domain.
Wolters said last summer he'd charge CB with the rape in 12 weeks, thats not happened nor has he written to the McCann's telling them their daughter is dead, that bloke sure knows how to piss people about.
-
Wolters said last summer he'd charge CB with the rape in 12 weeks, thats not happened nor has he written to the McCann's telling them their daughter is dead, that bloke sure knows how to piss people about.
I know different
-
Wolters said last summer he'd charge CB with the rape in 12 weeks, thats not happened nor has he written to the McCann's telling them their daughter is dead, that bloke sure knows how to piss people about.
Latest update was February, according some media reports, I think, so shouldn't be long now.
-
the PJ have had 15 yeras to solve the crime
-
the PJ have had 15 yeras to solve the crime
The marvelous (sic) Met have been at it for 11 years, the PJ for 12, the Germans for 5, is it? Next!
-
The marvelous (sic) Met have been at it for 11 years, the PJ for 12, the Germans for 5, is it? Next!
According to the Germans they know Maddie was abducted by a stranger
-
The marvelous (sic) Met have been at it for 11 years, the PJ for 12, the Germans for 5, is it? Next!
Criminal masterminds them McCanns innit.
-
According to the Germans they know Maddie was abducted by a stranger
I presume by 'Germans' you mean Wolters? I agree with posters on websleuths that he probably isn't in charge of the case, he's just a spokesman, and one who dealt really badly with the media too.
-
According to the Germans they know Maddie was abducted by a stranger
Easy for them to say without the slightest shred of proof.
-
Easy for them to say without the slightest shred of proof.
At the moment they seem to be saying nothing. Maybe they've said too much?
-
Easy for them to say without the slightest shred of proof.
Sounds to me as if they probably took Grange's word for that - they think it's stranger abduction without actual proof.
IMO
-
I presume by 'Germans' you mean Wolters? I agree with posters on websleuths that he probably isn't in charge of the case, he's just a spokesman, and one who dealt really badly with the media too.
It took you 5 days to come up with this reply to break the forum silence? For shame! @)(++(*
If he's done so very badly, and is merely a mouthpiece why hasn't he been sacked by the Germans? Any ideas?
-
Sounds to me as if they probably took Grange's word for that - they think it's stranger abduction without actual proof.
IMO
You think the German police are complete fools then? That figures...
-
Easy for them to say without the slightest shred of proof.
Another one who doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
-
I presume by 'Germans' you mean Wolters? I agree with posters on websleuths that he probably isn't in charge of the case, he's just a spokesman, and one who dealt really badly with the media too.
Looks like you are starting to catch up with me. I said over 4 months ago Wolters was a spokesman.
Your presumption is wrong... Its clear to me the German investigation have proof beyond reasonable doubt MM is dead and that she was abducted by a paedophile
-
It took you 5 days to come up with this reply to break the forum silence? For shame! @)(++(*
If he's done so very badly, and is merely a mouthpiece why hasn't he been sacked by the Germans? Any ideas?
I thought people might be interested in the opinions expressed on websleuths; they seem to get quoted a lot here. I think the reaction of the (mostly UK) media took the Germans completely by surprise. They could hardly sack Wolters after appointing him to interact with the media. That was their mistake, not his. He was out of his depth imo.
-
Looks like you are starting to catch up with me. I said over 4 months ago Wolters was a spokesman.
Your presumption is wrong... Its clear to me the German investigation have proof beyond reasonable doubt MM is dead and that she was abducted by a paedophile
I must have missed that post, sorry. Mostly you have seemed to portray him as the man in charge imo.
-
I must have missed that post, sorry. Mostly you have seemed to portray him as the man in charge imo.
If you search.. Wolters spokesman... You will find several from Sept 21. I've said constantly Wolters is the spokesman.
So if what he was saying was merely his opinion and not that of the BKK I'm sure we would have heard some dissent from the BKK. He is speaking for the investigation
-
I thought people might be interested in the opinions expressed on websleuths; they seem to get quoted a lot here. I think the reaction of the (mostly UK) media took the Germans completely by surprise. They could hardly sack Wolters after appointing him to interact with the media. That was their mistake, not his. He was out of his depth imo.
My impression of Websleuths is that there are native German contributors posting regularly who can give us facts as well as informed opinion.
I think you will end up finding in the fulness of time that Wolters is anything but "out of his depth".
-
I thought people might be interested in the opinions expressed on websleuths; they seem to get quoted a lot here. I think the reaction of the (mostly UK) media took the Germans completely by surprise. They could hardly sack Wolters after appointing him to interact with the media. That was their mistake, not his. He was out of his depth imo.
I’m very surprised you’re interested in the Websleuths discussion as the general consensus seems to be that CB is involved and the Germans have got it right. You must find that very grating.. And of course they could sack Wolters, if he had broken the law or overstepped the mark.
-
I’m very surprised you’re interested in the Websleuths discussion as the general consensus seems to be that CB is involved and the Germans have got it right. You must find that very grating.. And of course they could sack Wolters, if he had broken the law or overstepped the mark.
I'm not really interested, only insofar as posts on there have been affecting posts on here.
-
I'm not really interested, only insofar as posts on there have been affecting posts on here.
There hadn’t been a post on this forum for five days until you made your observation about what they’re saying on websleuths. It seems it’s all going on over there, and dying a death here. I wonder why..?
-
To answer my own question, perhaps it's because there's just too many sensible, thoughtful, logical posts like this one over on Websleuths - I've already posted it once before and it was resolutely ignored by the HCK/BKA sceptics on this forum. It would be good to hear their replies to these questions but something tells me not to hold my breath...
“I don't believe for one moment though that all they have is a phone ping and a 'profile that fits'. When you consider all the actions the BKA have taken, I think it's important to ask - Why?
Why would the BKA involve themselves in this hot potato of a case, if they had no real evidence other than what we've been told about so far?
Why put themselves in the spotlight of a media frenzy and risk ridicule and libel suits by publicly proclaiming CB's guilt if they had nothing of any real substance to back it up?
Why would they spend over 4 years investigating this lead if all they have got is hearsay and a phone ping which doesn't even place the phone at the crime scene or during the crime window?
Why would they spend all this money and waste their limited resources on a case where the victim isn't German, the crime took place in another country and they have no responsibility to investigate it?
Why wouldn't they just hand over the evidence they've got to PJ and SY and let them deal with it unless they were pretty confident they could get a conviction?
Why have they taken this unprecedented approach of publicly accusing someone of murder without charging them, in a country where privacy laws are extremely strict and further...
...Why would that approach have been sanctioned at a higher level if there wasn't already strong indicative evidence to warrant such a bold action?
Any claims that they are just on some tenuous fishing expedition... or they are fitting up a patsy... or that they have no real evidence... or that they are just plain incompetent..... none of these stand up to any kind of proper logic or scrutiny when considering the above questions.
IMO, they had enough evidence to convince them of CB's guilt but not quite enough to assure a conviction. With no forensics linking him to the crime scene and no body, you can see why they might have a problem in that regard. But they certainly have a lot more than what we know about so far IMO.
And from HCW's comments in October, he says they do "now" have enough to charge CB. I've seen nothing so far to contradict that not being the case and therefore, they must have some pretty strong evidence to back up their claims. JMO”
-
There hadn’t been a post on this forum for five days until you made your observation about what they’re saying on websleuths. It seems it’s all going on over there, and dying a death here. I wonder why..?
There is meaningful and polite discussion taking place on Websleuths which has continued over the five days when we have been moribund.
I think that proves there is still plenty of scope to investigate the many faceted aspects of Madeleine's case. For example over the last five days quite a bit of of German protocols and hierarchies of which we are in complete ignorance
Davel used logic to work out what Wolter's place is in the sphere of things; correctly as was confirmed by WS posters who took the bother to carry out some real research.
Which raises the question of which forum was ahead of the game to begin with.
-
I'm not really interested, only insofar as posts on there have been affecting posts on here.
What is your objection to locating well sourced information for discussion from a source which owns the mantle once possessed by this forum for accuracy and integrity?
-
To answer my own question, perhaps it's because there's just too many sensible, thoughtful, logical posts like this one over on Websleuths - I've already posted it once before and it was resolutely ignored by the HCK/BKA sceptics on this forum. It would be good to hear their replies to these questions but something tells me not to hold my breath...
The very simple answer is two words... Glory Hunters.
The truth is that the Germans have nothing. No evidence of anything really connecting Bruckner with Madeleine McCann. Even Madeleine's parents don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
They thought that someone would come out of the ether and finger Bruckner with damning evidence but it never happened. Now they are stuck with a story which will never be proven one way or the other.
-
There is meaningful and polite discussion taking place on Websleuths which has continued over the five days when we have been moribund.
I think that proves there is still plenty of scope to investigate the many faceted aspects of Madeleine's case. For example over the last five days quite a bit of of German protocols and hierarchies of which we are in complete ignorance
Davel used logic to work out what Wolter's place is in the sphere of things; correctly as was confirmed by WS posters who took the bother to carry out some real research.
Which raises the question of which forum was ahead of the game to begin with.
I can only congratulate their moderators who ensure that discussions are polite.
-
To answer my own question, perhaps it's because there's just too many sensible, thoughtful, logical posts like this one over on Websleuths - I've already posted it once before and it was resolutely ignored by the HCK/BKA sceptics on this forum. It would be good to hear their replies to these questions but something tells me not to hold my breath...
Why would the BKA involve themselves in this hot potato of a case, if they had no real evidence other than what we've been told about so far?
Because they were investigating Brueckner for other offences.
Why put themselves in the spotlight of a media frenzy and risk ridicule and libel suits by publicly proclaiming CB's guilt if they had nothing of any real substance to back it up?
They sent in an undercover to try & get a confession, I imagine that's standard practice when you already have solid evidence & as if Brueckner can really win a libel case
Why would they spend over 4 years investigating this lead if all they have got is hearsay and a phone ping which doesn't even place the phone at the crime scene or during the crime window?
Because they 'think' they have their man, when all they have is hearsay & phone ping...
Why would they spend all this money and waste their limited resources on a case where the victim isn't German, the crime took place in another country and they have no responsibility to investigate it?
How much money & man power are they actually using? I'd like full disclosure including a breakdown of total man hours worked & expenditure please. The old granny rape victim wasn't German, or in Germany, so why did they investigate that?
Why have they taken this unprecedented approach of publicly accusing someone of murder without charging them, in a country where privacy laws are extremely strict and further...
Because they have only flimsy circumstantial & their best hope is to force a confession, as evidenced by their previous attempt to force a confession.
...Why would that approach have been sanctioned at a higher level if there wasn't already strong indicative evidence to warrant such a bold action?
They were desperate enough to try a prison snitch, that didn't work so they had to try knocking up a gear.
-
The very simple answer is two words... Glory Hunters.
The truth is that the Germans have nothing. No evidence of anything really connecting Bruckner with Madeleine McCann. Even Madeleine's parents don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
They thought that someone would come out of the ether and finger Bruckner with damning evidence but it never happened. Now they are stuck with a story which will never be proven one way or the other.
I wonder why that might be.
-
I can only congratulate their moderators who ensure that discussions are polite.
Ever thought of signing up there yourself? Perhaps they could do with someone with you perspective and insight….
-
The very simple answer is two words... Glory Hunters.
The truth is that the Germans have nothing. No evidence of anything really connecting Bruckner with Madeleine McCann. Even Madeleine's parents don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
They thought that someone would come out of the ether and finger Bruckner with damning evidence but it never happened. Now they are stuck with a story which will never be proven one way or the other.
The real truth is - you haven’t a scooby what the Germans actually have and are writing from a position of ignorance. What makes you “know” the Germans haven’t held back evidence that they tell us would convince us they were correct in their deductions? Gut feel is it? Or perhaps your cousin’s girlfriend’s hairdresser has a German uncle in the BKA?
-
The real truth is - you haven’t a scooby what the Germans actually have and are writing from a position of ignorance. What makes you “know” the Germans haven’t held back evidence that they tell us would convince us they were correct in their deductions? Gut feel is it? Or perhaps your cousin’s girlfriend’s hairdresser has a German uncle in the BKA?
So now we're just imagining evidence when we can't be certain it actually exists.
Par for the course in this case.
-
The very simple answer is two words... Glory Hunters.
The truth is that the Germans have nothing. No evidence of anything really connecting Bruckner with Madeleine McCann. Even Madeleine's parents don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
They thought that someone would come out of the ether and finger Bruckner with damning evidence but it never happened. Now they are stuck with a story which will never be proven one way or the other.
Total junk
-
Total junk
Not really. Not everyone is prepared to believe everything the Germans tell us.
-
Not really. Not everyone is prepared to believe everything the Germans tell us.
Yes, even Maddie's parents.
Here is the most convincing abductor yet, & they're not convinced.
Maybe because they already know she was never abducted in the first place.
-
The very simple answer is two words... Glory Hunters.
The truth is that the Germans have nothing. No evidence of anything really connecting Bruckner with Madeleine McCann. Even Madeleine's parents don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
They thought that someone would come out of the ether and finger Bruckner with damning evidence but it never happened. Now they are stuck with a story which will never be proven one way or the other.
The legend is writ.
-
My impression of Websleuths is that there are native German contributors posting regularly who can give us facts as well as informed opinion.
I think you will end up finding in the fulness of time that Wolters is anything but "out of his depth".
They are digging as much dirt on CB as possible, which in turn still does not a murderer make the damning evidence which is missing is beyond them and the BKA imo.
-
They are digging as much dirt on CB as possible, which in turn still does not a murderer make the damning evidence which is missing is beyond them and the BKA imo.
Imo... The BKK think they may be able to find the body.. They are lookung for it.. I think there is no doubt about that
-
Imo... The BKK think they may be able to find the body.. They are looking for it.. I think there is no doubt about that
Really ! where to ?
-
Imo... The BKK think they may be able to find the body.. They are lookung for it.. I think there is no doubt about that
Well, he could have dumped it in Portugal, or anywhere on route between Portugal & Germany really, so that narrows things down a bit.
-
Imo... The BKK think they may be able to find the body.. They are lookung for it.. I think there is no doubt about that
Do you mean the BKA? They can't search in Portugal, you know, which is the most likely location. How do you think they can find something which they can't look for?
-
They are digging as much dirt on CB as possible, which in turn still does not a murderer make the damning evidence which is missing is beyond them and the BKA imo.
I've been looking at Websleuths on and off for the last week or so and agree with your comment about digging dirt, mainly on Brueckner.
I find most of their posts to be marginally interesting, but of little relevance.
For example the latest page is mostly about the possible reasons for the non-appearance of MWT's documentary and before that it was about whether Wolters had received any media training.
-
Do you mean the BKA? They can't search in Portugal, you know, which is the most likely location. How do you think they can find something which they can't look for?
They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells.. According to Wolters. Just as SY searched with sniffer dogs on the hill near Luz. So you.are wrong g once again
-
They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells.. According to Wolters. Just as SY searched with sniffer dogs on the hill near Luz. So you.are wrong g once again
Have they really? Did they find anything ?
-
Have they really? Did they find anything ?
The treasure map they found buried on the wasteland land near the Ocean club led them to the abandoned box factory.
There in the shallow grave they found cartoon drawings & riddles revealing wells to be the next possible location.
-
Have they really? Did they find anything ?
According to gunit they werent even allowed to look..lol
-
According to gunit they werent even allowed to look..lol
“I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
“The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-failed-tell-22350130
-
I'll take that a s a No then , shall I ?
-
I've been looking at Websleuths on and off for the last week or so and agree with your comment about digging dirt, mainly on Brueckner.
I find most of their posts to be marginally interesting, but of little relevance.
For example the latest page is mostly about the possible reasons for the non-appearance of MWT's documentary and before that it was about whether Wolters had received any media training.
There is virtually nothing else to talk about atm, hence why this forum lapsed into complete silence for 5 days, only resurrected because of G-Unit's interest in websleuths, ironically.
-
They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells.. According to Wolters. Just as SY searched with sniffer dogs on the hill near Luz. So you.are wrong g once again
I think you're the one who is wrong once again;
"according to reports, Hans Christian Wolters, Braunschweig's public prosecutor, who is overseeing the German investigation, says he was not alerted about the searches in advance.
Mr Wolters said: 'I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
'The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8519779/German-prosecutors-leading-probe-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-not-told-searches.html
-
They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells.. According to Wolters. Just as SY searched with sniffer dogs on the hill near Luz. So you.are wrong g once again
15 years have almost past since Maddie disappeared so searching wells now is a bit optimistic imo.
-
15 years have almost past since Maddie disappeared so searching wells now is a bit optimistic imo.
I'm not convinced the well searches were connected.
-
I think you're the one who is wrong once again;
"according to reports, Hans Christian Wolters, Braunschweig's public prosecutor, who is overseeing the German investigation, says he was not alerted about the searches in advance.
Mr Wolters said: 'I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
'The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8519779/German-prosecutors-leading-probe-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-not-told-searches.html
The cringe that keeps on giving. Wrong again?
-
I think you're the one who is wrong once again;
"according to reports, Hans Christian Wolters, Braunschweig's public prosecutor, who is overseeing the German investigation, says he was not alerted about the searches in advance.
Mr Wolters said: 'I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
'The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8519779/German-prosecutors-leading-probe-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-not-told-searches.html
I'm right about SY conducting a search with dogs in Luz.... So the Germans can search with the cooperation of the port
-
I'm right about SY conducting a search with dogs in Luz.... So the Germans can search with the cooperation of the port
"They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells."
You made the above statement, which was wrong.
-
"They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells."
You made the above statement, which was wrong.
you were wrong in as much that the Germans can search.
-
I've been looking at Websleuths on and off for the last week or so and agree with your comment about digging dirt, mainly on Brueckner.
I find most of their posts to be marginally interesting, but of little relevance.
For example the latest page is mostly about the possible reasons for the non-appearance of MWT's documentary and before that it was about whether Wolters had received any media training.
Riveting to some it seems.
-
you were wrong in as much that the Germans can search.
After 4/05/2022 ?
-
I've been looking at Websleuths on and off for the last week or so and agree with your comment about digging dirt, mainly on Brueckner.
I find most of their posts to be marginally interesting, but of little relevance.
For example the latest page is mostly about the possible reasons for the non-appearance of MWT's documentary and before that it was about whether Wolters had received any media training.
All these so called witness's telling this person that , another one this adds up to diddly squat, I'm sure if any of them have any thing of worth to say then they'd have been told to keep their counsel in the midst of a supposed ongoing murder investigation.
-
All these so called witness's telling this person that , another one this adds up to diddly squat, I'm sure if any of them have any thing of worth to say then they'd have been told to keep their counsel in the midst of a supposed ongoing murder investigation.
To a certain extent. I agree. It's intelligence but it tells the police where to look and where theu may well find evidence
-
I'm right about SY conducting a search with dogs in Luz.... So the Germans can search with the cooperation of the port
We all know SY searched in Luz, but they didn't just stroll in at will. They searched with the permission of, and supervised by, the Portuguese.
-
To a certain extent. I agree. It's intelligence but it tells the police where to look and where theu may well find evidence
But is it reliable, I doubt it.
-
We all know SY searched in Luz, but they didn't just stroll in at will. They searched with the permission of, and supervised by, the Portuguese.
So the Germans can do the same. Your claim that the Germans can't search in Portugal is wrong... As you now admit
-
But is it reliable, I doubt it.
From what Wolters has said.. It is
-
We all know SY searched in Luz, but they didn't just stroll in at will. They searched with the permission of, and supervised by, the Portuguese.
More than can be said for the McCanns despite their claims. Their idea of searching is getting on the first plane out and never coming back except for a court case which they lost.
-
So the Germans can do the same. Your claim that the Germans can't search in Portugal is wrong... As you now admit
It's a lot nearer the truth than your claim that they have directed searches in Portugal. That was a lie.
-
More than can be said for the McCanns despite their claims. Their idea of searching is getting on the first plane out and never coming back except for a court case which they lost.
The first plane out would have been some time on 4th May 2007 so I think you must be mistaken.
-
It's a lot nearer the truth than your claim that they have directed searches in Portugal. That was a lie.
It wasn't a lie.. Read the definition... So what you are saying is untrue. You really do make yourself look silly trying to insult me.. Lol.. Its not working
-
It wasn't a lie.. Read the definition... So what you are saying is untrue. You really do make yourself look silly trying to insult me.. Lol.. Its not working
I have no interest in insulting you, but I will correct you if your posts are not true.
-
I have no interest in insulting you, but I will correct you if your posts are not true.
You basically called Davel a liar, that’s pretty insulting in my book.
-
I have no interest in insulting you, but I will correct you if your posts are not true.
Then I need to correct you... You need to learn what is meant by a lie. My post was not.. Try Google
-
Do you mean the BKA? They can't search in Portugal, you know, which is the most likely location. How do you think they can find something which they can't look for?
As I've pointed out you are wrong... They can with the cooperation of the Portuguese just as SY did
-
Then I need to correct you... You need to learn what is meant by a lie. My post was not.. Try Google
'Try Google' is not a correction, it's a meaningless statement. Your refusal to acknowledge your mistake is no surprise, but I won't be arguing with you any more. Just to be clear, you said;
"They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells."
That statement wasn't true, the well searches were not suggested, requested or directed by the Germans.
-
'Try Google' is not a correction, it's a meaningless statement. Your refusal to acknowledge your mistake is no surprise, but I won't be arguing with you any more. Just to be clear, you said;
"They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells."
That statement wasn't true, the well searches were not suggested, requested or directed by the Germans.
The correction was you don't understand the meaning of the word.. Lie..
You referred to my post as a lie.. It wasn't... You are wrong
-
'Try Google' is not a correction, it's a meaningless statement. Your refusal to acknowledge your mistake is no surprise, but I won't be arguing with you any more. Just to be clear, you said;
"They have already directed a search to be made at certain wells."
That statement wasn't true, the well searches were not suggested, requested or directed by the Germans.
Were you aware that a statement that isn’t true isn’t necessarily a lie? I wonder if sceptics generally understand this concept because it seems to me one of the reasons why they are so suspicious about the McCanns and their friends is that they see everything they said which may not have been 100% factually correct as lies.
-
Why would the BKA involve themselves in this hot potato of a case, if they had no real evidence other than what we've been told about so far?
Because they were investigating Brueckner for other offences.
Why put themselves in the spotlight of a media frenzy and risk ridicule and libel suits by publicly proclaiming CB's guilt if they had nothing of any real substance to back it up?
They sent in an undercover to try & get a confession, I imagine that's standard practice when you already have solid evidence & as if Brueckner can really win a libel case
Why would they spend over 4 years investigating this lead if all they have got is hearsay and a phone ping which doesn't even place the phone at the crime scene or during the crime window?
Because they 'think' they have their man, when all they have is hearsay & phone ping...
Why would they spend all this money and waste their limited resources on a case where the victim isn't German, the crime took place in another country and they have no responsibility to investigate it?
How much money & man power are they actually using? I'd like full disclosure including a breakdown of total man hours worked & expenditure please. The old granny rape victim wasn't German, or in Germany, so why did they investigate that?
Why have they taken this unprecedented approach of publicly accusing someone of murder without charging them, in a country where privacy laws are extremely strict and further...
Because they have only flimsy circumstantial & their best hope is to force a confession, as evidenced by their previous attempt to force a confession.
...Why would that approach have been sanctioned at a higher level if there wasn't already strong indicative evidence to warrant such a bold action?
They were desperate enough to try a prison snitch, that didn't work so they had to try knocking up a gear.
Wrong and naive on so many counts.
1. What other specific "offences" were they investigating CB for at the time? The only thing they have charged him with since HB's testimony in 2017 was the DM rape and they only found that out as a direct result of looking into the MM case.
2. They "allegedly" sent in an undercover op "apparently" to find out where CB may have hidden the body, a key piece of evidence that could close the case for them. Assuming it's true, do you think that police often just deploy undercover ops into prison on a whim to garner evidence that would ultimately be inadmissible in court? Based on "flimsy" evidence? Do you know anything about how the authorisation protocol for these kind of operations work? You obviously don't.
3. CB has somehow acquired a no-expense-spared legal team including FF who has represented some high-level organised crime figures in the past. What is his interest in a degenerate low-life like CB do you think? CB also apparently has a "team" of British lawyers whose job it is to monitor British Press stories about him. How is he paying for all this exactly? For what purpose would they be doing this if not in the hope of launching libel claims in the event that CB is not convicted? Has he not just launched a demation claim agaist Rabe too?
4. So you reckon because they (who exactly are you including as 'they'?) just "think" it was CB, based purely on this "flimsy" evidence, they would spend 4 years (that is a long time, in case you didn't know) just chasing a phantom. For what pupose exactly? Who is signing off on this goose chase? Seriously, you have no concept of how things work in the real world. Try telling your theory to someone who works for a police or intelligence agency and they will laugh their ass off at you.
6. You're deluded if you think a Prosecutor would publicly accuse someone of murder, making statements to the Press like they have, and put their reputations on the line on the sole basis of such flimsy evidence as a phone ping and a hearsay account from another criminal. The Met also have that same evidence. They were the ones who got HB's testimony in the first place and they're not aligning themselves to those accusations against CB. So what does that tell you? Common sense would indicate that HCW isn't bluffing about having other evidence that only they are privy to. Please feel free to provide an example of another case, any case, where police have launched a multi-nation public appeal, publicly accusing an idividual of murder based on no more than such flimsy evidence you claim. I'll wait....
7. The BKA wont divulge how much money they've sunk into this case for obvious reasons but HCW admitted there are between 50 and 100 officers currently working it and it has grown year on year since 2017. Do you think that's a sure sign of a case going nowhere? Let's say an average salary is 40k, and over the 4.5 years it's been going on they have had a conservative average of, say 15 officers full time over that total period. That would still be 2.7 million expenditure to date, excluding any other outgoings and expenses such as travel costs. Not to mention the man hours from SY and PJ who have been assisting their work. Again, do you have any concept of how budgets work in places like this? Do you think they just have rogue prosecutors out there "glory hunting" and getting all this money handed down to them without question from their superiors? What planet are you living on?
8. The prosecution of the "old granny rape victim" as you so sensitively put it, came about as a direct result of the MM investigation. IMO this was a tactical manoeuvre from the BKA to keep CB behind bars since he was due to be released in 2020. They had HB and MS testimony of similar rapes and then enquired with PJ and found DNA evidence linking him to a rape that matched that same MO. A slam dunk of a case that allowed them more time to gather more evidence for the MM charge. That's "why" they investigated that!
9. You really think, that "because" all they had was flimsy evidence, they thought "sod it, we'll just do an appeal saying he's guilty, and we'll lie and say we got loads of other 'secret' evidence too" in the hope he will just confess to it? Even though they then say the evidence they've got isn't quite enough to convict him.... but yeah "you should just confess and save us the bother" right? Makes sense? Yes, or course you're quite right, that is an absolutely stupendous plan. Tell him you don't yet have enough evidence to prove it in court and then he will of course just confess to it all. Brilliant. You should really join the police force, your insight and tactical nous is beyond genius, it really is.
10. I don't think I really need to say any more but just for completeness and to address your last point, what has the prison op failing got to do with senior officials and judges authorising a person to be publicly accused of murdering the most famous missing child in the world without charging them? You seriously have no concept or understanding of legal matters on this scale.
You are so blinded by bias, you are just inventing things that would never happen in the legal world. I would have more respect for your opinion if you'd claimed CB was the victim of some large scale fit up involving high level officials. Not that I would believe or agree with you then either, but at least I could envisage that all these events over the last 5 years had some plausible motive. But to claim that the BKA have carried out all these actions based solely on a phone ping and a criminal's hearsay is so ridiculous it could only come from a mind who thinks Amaral's theory "makes sense".
-
Were you aware that a statement that isn’t true isn’t necessarily a lie? I wonder if sceptics generally understand this concept because it seems to me one of the reasons why they are so suspicious about the McCanns and their friends is that they see everything they said which may not have been 100% factually correct as lies.
Spot on. It's like the "shutters/window" incident. At the time, and based on what they observed, it was the most plausible scenario to the McCanns that someone had broken in through the window and that's why they said they thought that's what's probably happened. Then, when it was found that the shutters showed no sign of damage, the anti-McCann mob shout "liars". No evidence that someone didn't enter through the window and shutters though, as Heri has shown how easy it was to do without causing damage. And no acknowledgement that the McCanns later accepted that maybe the window was perhaps opened for another reason than for what they (and probably anyone else in the same position would have) initially assumed. No. To the mob this is "proof" they are liars and that the window was never open in the first place. It's all backwards logic, devoid of objective thinking.
-
All these so called witness's telling this person that , another one this adds up to diddly squat, I'm sure if any of them have any thing of worth to say then they'd have been told to keep their counsel in the midst of a supposed ongoing murder investigation.
Indeed they would and it's likely the witnesses who are most crucial to the case are the ones we've not heard about yet. There are certain people who are off limits to the Press. Certain topics and evidences are too, even though some reporters know all about them, they arent allowed to say. There is a chain of permission/authority in sensitive cases like this. Believe me.
Ironic though that there is acceptance that witnesses have to keep counsel but an overriding belief that the police apparently don't. To some, the police not publicly revealing all their evidence means they clearly don't have any. Great logic. Brought to you by the same brilliant minds who think Madeleine was stored in a freezer for 3 weeks.
-
Oh what a breath of pure fresh air, logic and sense the last three posts were to read, more please! 8((()*/
-
Oh what a breath of pure fresh air, logic and sense the last three posts were to read, more please! 8((()*/
One person's speculations are no better than another person's speculations imo. We just admire the ones we agree with.
I don't know why the Braunsweig prosecutor's office spokesperson pronounced their suspect guilty of murder before they had enough evidence to charge him, or why he pronounced a missing child dead before her parents had been notified. Usually victims aren't named until their next of kin have been informed.
In my opinion the longer this goes on the less likely it is that they will charge their suspect with the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann. If they don't, some will still believe he was guilty.
-
One person's speculations are no better than another person's speculations imo. We just admire the ones we agree with.
I don't know why the Braunsweig prosecutor's office spokesperson pronounced their suspect guilty of murder before they had enough evidence to charge him, or why he pronounced a missing child dead before her parents had been notified. Usually victims aren't named until their next of kin have been informed.
In my opinion the longer this goes on the less likely it is that they will charge their suspect with the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann. If they don't, some will still believe he was guilty.
I think you are quite wrong on many counts... I won't believe CB is guilty until I see evidence he is
-
One person's speculations are no better than another person's speculations imo. We just admire the ones we agree with.
I don't know why the Braunsweig prosecutor's office spokesperson pronounced their suspect guilty of murder before they had enough evidence to charge him, or why he pronounced a missing child dead before her parents had been notified. Usually victims aren't named until their next of kin have been informed.
In my opinion the longer this goes on the less likely it is that they will charge their suspect with the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann. If they don't, some will still believe he was guilty.
That is demonstrably false on so many levels. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions have equal value - that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
-
One person's speculations are no better than another person's speculations imo. We just admire the ones we agree with.
I don't know why the Braunsweig prosecutor's office spokesperson pronounced their suspect guilty of murder before they had enough evidence to charge him, or why he pronounced a missing child dead before her parents had been notified. Usually victims aren't named until their next of kin have been informed.
In my opinion the longer this goes on the less likely it is that they will charge their suspect with the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann. If they don't, some will still believe he was guilty.
In much the same way as some still believe the McCanns are guilty, yet as I recall the prosecutor never announced their guilt when they were arguidos, so what essentially is the difference in terms of reputational damage, in your view?
-
One person's speculations are no better than another person's speculations imo. We just admire the ones we agree with.
I don't know why the Braunsweig prosecutor's office spokesperson pronounced their suspect guilty of murder before they had enough evidence to charge him, or why he pronounced a missing child dead before her parents had been notified. Usually victims aren't named until their next of kin have been informed.
In my opinion the longer this goes on the less likely it is that they will charge their suspect with the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann. If they don't, some will still believe he was guilty.
I think some people's speculations are better.
Wolters has never used the word guilty.
I dont think he would have said what he has said unless he has the evidence to support it.
He's explained why he hasnt given the parents the evidence he has and I don't think he would say Maddie was dead unless he was sure.
He's also explained why it's taking longer than expected
I see the Germans as being totally credible and have seen nothing to contradict that
-
Speculations from trolls and WUMs who generally write provocative tripe to get a reaction are not worth the bandwidth, even if they momentarily and accidentally lapse into a writing something they truly believe, they have nevertheless forfeited the right to be taken seriously, ever, certainly by me, and by anyone with any sense. IMO.
-
In much the same way as some still believe the McCanns are guilty, yet as I recall the prosecutor never announced their guilt when they were arguidos, so what essentially is the difference in terms of reputational damage, in your view?
It's not about reputation, it's about disregarding the restrictions imposed on the authorities by Article 6 of the ECHR.
-
Speculations from trolls and WUMs who generally write provocative tripe to get a reaction are not worth the bandwidth, even if they momentarily and accidentally lapse into a writing something they truly believe, they have nevertheless forfeited the right to be taken seriously, ever, certainly by me, and by anyone with any sense. IMO.
Time to heed what you write then.
-
I think some people's speculations are better.
Wolters has never used the word guilty.
I dont think he would have said what he has said unless he has the evidence to support it.
He's explained why he hasnt given the parents the evidence he has and I don't think he would say Maddie was dead unless he was sure.
He's also explained why it's taking longer than expected
I see the Germans as being totally credible and have seen nothing to contradict that
Of course you do - you prefer the ones you agree with.
-
Time to heed what you write then.
I always heed what I write, perhaps you should too because what I write makes perfect sense. IMO.
-
It's not about reputation, it's about disregarding the restrictions imposed on the authorities by Article 6 of the ECHR.
Which is there to protect individuals from harm is it not? Not physical harm, but....what sort of harm?
-
Of course you do - you prefer the ones you agree with.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you believe Spam has got it right and Para has got it all wrong, point by point, rather than taking the easy option of attacking Davel's posts.
-
It's not about reputation, it's about disregarding the restrictions imposed on the authorities by Article 6 of the ECHR.
That is enforced and judged ultimately by the ECHR. The problem for CB is he has to exhaust all domestic remedies first and if he's guilty he will not want to appear in court. I think Wolters is playing a very clever game
-
Of course you do - you prefer the ones you agree with.
The ones based on evidence... Your reading if the situation is pure speculation. Wolters says he has concrete evidence that if he divulged we would agree with him. He's the spokesman for the entire investigation. Not one word of dissent from anyone involved... That's supporting evidence
-
The ones based on evidence... Your reading if the situation is pure speculation. Wolters says he has concrete evidence that if he divulged we would agree with him. He's the spokesman for the entire investigation. Not one word of dissent from anyone involved... That's supporting evidence
Well some ones not so sure, it would have seem a court by now.
-
Which is there to protect individuals from harm is it not? Not physical harm, but....what sort of harm?
Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed;
ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf
Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.
They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.
-
Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed;
ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf
Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.
They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.
He's just expressing an opinion, what's your problem?
-
He's just expressing an opinion, what's your problem?
Why can't you understand that prosecutors aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion is that a suspect is guilty? No-one is guilty until a properly appointed court has tried and convicted them. It's called 'the presumption of innocence'.
-
Why can't you understand that prosecutors aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion is that a suspect is guilty? No-one is guilty until a properly appointed court has tried and convicted them. It's called 'the presumption of innocence'.
All prosecutors believe that in their opinion a prime suspect is guilty otherwise they wouldn't be doing their damnedest to press charges on them them would they? Legally of course all defendants should enjoy the presumption of innocence in court, I fully understand that thank you, however putting someone in the dock means that in the prosecutor's opinion they did the crime. If I am wrong and HCW has broken the law (repeatedly by your estimation) then it begs the question a) why he has not been charged himself and/or sacked and b) why CB's team have not taken the case to the ECHR.
-
All prosecutors believe that in their opinion a prime suspect is guilty otherwise they wouldn't be doing their damnedest to press charges on them them would they? Legally of course all defendants should enjoy the presumption of innocence in court, I fully understand that thank you, however putting someone in the dock means that in the prosecutor's opinion they did the crime. If I am wrong and HCW has broken the law (repeatedly by your estimation) then it begs the question a) why he has not been charged himself and/or sacked and b) why CB's team have not taken the case to the ECHR.
And c) why would HCW risk his job if all the BKA have to back up their claims is "flimsy" evidence.
-
Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed;
ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf
Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.
They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.
Wolters has never referred to Christian B by his full name. Do you see the difference between that & the French case?
-
Why can't you understand that prosecutors aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion is that a suspect is guilty? No-one is guilty until a properly appointed court has tried and convicted them. It's called 'the presumption of innocence'.
Yet CB hasn't made a complaint. Wolters can do what he likes but is subject to the law.. Perhaps. Wolters wants him to. If Wolters has the evidence he claims then imo his actions ate justified and if it leads to a successful prosecution surely he should be congratulated
-
Yet CB hasn't made a complaint. Wolters can do what he likes but is subject to the law.. Perhaps. Wolters wants him to. If Wolters has the evidence he claims then imo his actions are justified and if it leads to a successful prosecution surely he should be congratulated
Indeed he should , but the success of no body convictions we know is sparse at best, what makes you think this will be any different.
-
Indeed he should , but the success of no body convictions we know is sparse at best, what makes you think this will be any different.
It will depend on the evidence.. Wolters has said he doesn't need it
-
It will depend on the evidence.. Wolters has said he doesn't need it
Somethings holding him back, when he's says we can charge I think he means they could but know it wouldn't succeed because of it being only circumstantial along the line of the CPS in this country saying no charges against Canaan in the Lamplugh case after being presented with evidence ,that is why he's says they need stronger evidence , imo that does not exist.
-
Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed;
ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf
Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.
They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.
You need to differentiate between what the papers print and what Wolters actually says
-
Somethings holding him back, when he's says we can charge I think he means they could but know it wouldn't succeed because of it being only circumstantial along the line of the CPS in this country saying no charges against Canaan in the Lamplugh case after being presented with evidence ,that is why he's says they need stronger evidence , imo that does not exist.
Why press charges now if they think there is a realistic chance of getting more evidence, thus improving the chances of a conviction?
-
Somethings holding him back, when he's says we can charge I think he means they could but know it wouldn't succeed because of it being only circumstantial along the line of the CPS in this country saying no charges against Canaan in the Lamplugh case after being presented with evidence ,that is why he's says they need stronger evidence , imo that does not exist.
Whats holding him back... And he has said.. Is they want to build the strongest possible case and are in no hurry
-
Whats holding him back... And he has said.. Is they want to build the strongest possible case and are in no hurry
Because the case is not strong enough with just the circumstantial.
-
Because the case is not strong enough with just the circumstantial.
I'm sure you are wrong
-
Because the case is not strong enough with just the circumstantial.
I think a lot of people fail to understand what "circumstantial" evidence actually means. They hear the word and think it means it is tenuous, weak or flimsy evidence. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, the alternative (direct evidence) is not that common. Direct evidence is something that directly implicates the suspect carried out the crime. So a video recording of the crime for example, or a witness who saw the crime take place would be direct evidence.
Forensics and DNA are usually classed as circumstantial evidence since they don't directly prove the suspect carried out the crime, only that they were there (at some point in time). I know HCW has stated they don't have any scientific (forensic or DNA) evidence either but just pointing out that most evidence used in cases is circumstantial. Even if an eye-witness saw CB bundling MM into his car on that night, it would still only be classified as circumstantial evidence that he murdered her (even though it would be direct evidence he abducted her). Or if they had a photo of them together, this would also be circumstantial since it doesn't directly prove he killed her.
The point is you cannot determine that the evidence is "weak" on the basis that it is "only" circumstantial. People are using the word as if it means something that it doesn't.
-
I think a lot of people fail to understand what "circumstantial" evidence actually means. They hear the word and think it means it is tenuous, weak or flimsy evidence. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, the alternative (direct evidence) is not that common. Direct evidence is something that directly implicates the suspect carried out the crime. So a video recording of the crime for example, or a witness who saw the crime take place would be direct evidence.
Forensics and DNA are usually classed as circumstantial evidence since they don't directly prove the suspect carried out the crime, only that they were there (at some point in time). I know HCW has stated they don't have any scientific (forensic or DNA) evidence either but just pointing out that most evidence used in cases is circumstantial. Even if an eye-witness saw CB bundling MM into his car on that night, it would still only be classified as circumstantial evidence that he murdered her (even though it would be direct evidence he abducted her). Or if they had a photo of them together, this would also be circumstantial since it doesn't directly prove he killed her.
The point is you cannot determine that the evidence is "weak" on the basis that it is "only" circumstantial. People are using the word as if it means something that it doesn't.
Unfortunately, no one even saw that.
-
It will depend on the evidence.. Wolters has said he doesn't need it
Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.
-
Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.
I'm sure Wolters will be devastated when news of your opinion reaches him.
-
Unfortunately, no one even saw that.
How do you know?
-
Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.
There are many investigations that never result in a prosecution. It doesn’t mean investigators have nothing, just not enough to satisfy the CPS and secure a possible conviction. Not having enough evidence to secure a conviction also does not mean the suspect didn’t actually commit the crime, so let’s not be too gleeful if it turns out CB never gets charged, eh?
-
There are many investigations that never result in a prosecution. It doesn’t mean investigators have nothing, just not enough to satisfy the CPS and secure a possible conviction. Not having enough evidence to secure a conviction also does not mean the suspect didn’t actually commit the crime, so let’s not be too gleeful if it turns out CB never gets charged, eh?
Like the parents?
-
Like the parents?
Wait, are you talking to me?
-
Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.
Talk is cheap could equally apply to your post..
Imo Wolters has evidence... Otherwise he would not have made all the claims he has.
If he is saying Maddie has been murdered by a paedophile... And has no evidence to support it... That would be unforgivable... I can't see him doing that
-
Like the parents?
Remind me again. Was the evidence (if you can call it that) against the parents anything more than "circumstantial"? Did the parents confess to someone else they had something to do with it? Did the parents fail to offer a corroborated alibi for where they were when MM disappeared? Did the parents have an obvious motive for taking MM? Did the parents have a criminal track record to indicate they might be capable of something like this?
-
I think a lot of people fail to understand what "circumstantial" evidence actually means. They hear the word and think it means it is tenuous, weak or flimsy evidence. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, the alternative (direct evidence) is not that common. Direct evidence is something that directly implicates the suspect carried out the crime. So a video recording of the crime for example, or a witness who saw the crime take place would be direct evidence.
Forensics and DNA are usually classed as circumstantial evidence since they don't directly prove the suspect carried out the crime, only that they were there (at some point in time). I know HCW has stated they don't have any scientific (forensic or DNA) evidence either but just pointing out that most evidence used in cases is circumstantial. Even if an eye-witness saw CB bundling MM into his car on that night, it would still only be classified as circumstantial evidence that he murdered her (even though it would be direct evidence he abducted her). Or if they had a photo of them together, this would also be circumstantial since it doesn't directly prove he killed her.
The point is you cannot determine that the evidence is "weak" on the basis that it is "only" circumstantial. People are using the word as if it means something that it doesn't.
Thats a very good post. It's the amount of circumstantial evidence that's also important. David Gilroy was convicted of murder solely on circumstantial evidence. There is actually no definitive evidence Susan Pilay is dead
-
You need to differentiate between what the papers print and what Wolters actually says
Says the one who claimed that the Germans directed the well searches in Portugal. Did you read that in the papers?
When there are speech marks, that means the person is being quoted, so they did say what is written.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
-
Talk is cheap could equally apply to your post..
Imo Wolters has evidence... Otherwise he would not have made all the claims he has.
If he is saying Maddie has been murdered by a paedophile... And has no evidence to support it... That would be unforgivable... I can't see him doing that
And not to mention that "talk" in this particular instance is most certainly not "cheap". If HCW cannot back up his words, he stands to lose his livelihood and his reputation. And the BKA would be looking at a massive libel claim if it turned out their accusations were without solid foundation. You know what else isn't cheap? Spending four and half years investigating one person.
-
Says the one who claimed that the Germans directed the well searches in Portugal. Did you read that in the papers?
When there are speech marks, that means the person is being quoted, so they did say what is written.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
Hmm, that’s very trusting of you (and unlike you!) to consider anything reported in quotes in the MSM to be completely accurate.
-
And not to mention that "talk" in this particular instance is most certainly not "cheap". If HCW cannot back up his words, he stands to lose his livelihood and his reputation. And the BKA would be looking at a massive libel claim if it turned out their accusations were without solid foundation. You know what else isn't cheap? Spending four and half years investigating one person.
McCann sceptics have this theory that these investigations (Grange / BKA) can’t give up once they get going even when they know they’re on a hiding to nothing. The theory is, they get so terrified of losing face they can only ever dig themselves into a deeper and deeper hole otherwise there would be riots in the street if the truth ever got out that they had nothing. *%87
-
Remind me again. Was the evidence (if you can call it that) against the parents anything more than "circumstantial"? Did the parents confess to someone else they had something to do with it? Did the parents fail to offer a corroborated alibi for where they were when MM disappeared? Did the parents have an obvious motive for taking MM? Did the parents have a criminal track record to indicate they might be capable of something like this?
Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.
-
Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.
Possibly, we have no idea of the full extent of the BKA evidence against CB.
-
Says the one who claimed that the Germans directed the well searches in Portugal. Did you read that in the papers?
When there are speech marks, that means the person is being quoted, so they did say what is written.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
Do you really believe that because it's in quotation marks its totally correct. I think thats very naive
Do you realise that police have a defence of absolute privelige re defamation in a criminal cade
-
Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.
Lol
-
Did cadaver dogs react to any of the homes or vehicles occupied by Brueckner? Was Brueckner specifically identified carrying a child in PDL on the 3rd of May etc, etc, etc.
Have cadaver dogs checked any of CB's vehicles and homes? Probably not since their alerts have no evidential value in court.
As for whether anyone has identified CB carrying a child, do you know that they haven't? In terms of the parents, I assume you are referring to Martin Smith's dubious claim about the way Gerry carried his other child from the aeroplane. How many distinctive ways are there to carry a child I ask? This is the same Martin Smith who also says in the PJ files :
Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact.
and regarding the man carrying this girl:
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
And as for the etc, etc part of your post. That just means you've run out of any other evidence to cite doesn't it? Thank you for confirming how pathetically weak the evidence pointing to the parents actually is.
-
Have cadaver dogs checked any of CB's vehicles and homes? Probably not since their alerts have no evidential value in court.
As for whether anyone has identified CB carrying a child, do you know that they haven't? In terms of the parents, I assume you are referring to Martin Smith's dubious claim about the way Gerry carried his other child from the aeroplane. How many distinctive ways are there to carry a child I ask? This is the same Martin Smith whos also says in the PJ files :
Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact.
and regarding the man carrying this girl:
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
And as for the etc, etc part of your post. That just means you've run out of any other evidence to cite doesn't it? Thank you for confirming how pathetically weak the evidence pointing to the parents actually is.
According to Grime in his white paper Eddie isn't a reliable cadaver dog
-
Hmm, that’s very trusting of you (and unlike you!) to consider anything reported in quotes in the MSM to be completely accurate.
It's well known what Wolters said, but for those who missed it here is the horse using his mouth;
24:34
"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c
-
It's well known what Wolters said, but for those who missed it here is the horse using his mouth;
24:34
"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c
So just to be clear - a prosecutor or a policeman is not allowed to say they have evidence that a suspect committed a crime?
-
It's well known what Wolters said, but for those who missed it here is the horse using his mouth;
24:34
"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c
And you need to use your ears. He's not claiming guilt or proof.. He's saying that they have strong evidence. Stating a fact no doubt
-
Do you really believe that because it's in quotation marks its totally correct. I think thats very naive
Do you realise that police have a defence of absolute privelige re defamation in a criminal cade
Please provide a cite for this 'absolute privilege'.
-
Please provide a cite for this 'absolute privilege'.
You mean you haven't heard of it
-
Please provide a cite for this 'absolute privilege'.
https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/suing-police-for-defamation
In the UK, there is a defence for action for defamation which is called “Absolute privilege”.
Absolute privilege is effectively a public policy defence which is designed to protect defamatory allegations made in certain situations, for example, statements made in court during or as part of legal proceedings; fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of such proceedings by the press and statements made, and documents created, in the course of a police criminal investigation.
-
https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/suing-police-for-defamation
In the UK, there is a defence for action for defamation which is called “Absolute privilege”.
Absolute privilege is effectively a public policy defence which is designed to protect defamatory allegations made in certain situations, for example, statements made in court during or as part of legal proceedings; fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of such proceedings by the press and statements made, and documents created, in the course of a police criminal investigation.
Thank you. I don't think this would protect a German prosecutor making prejudicial statements to the public, however.
-
Thank you. I don't think this would protect a German prosecutor making prejudicial statements to the public, however.
The obligation not to refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty should not prevent public authorities from publicly disseminating information on the criminal proceedings where this is strictly necessary for reasons relating to the criminal investigation
...
The use of such reasons should be confined to situations in which this would be reasonable and proportionate, taking all interests into account.
Given that CB poses no immediate risk to the public due to his incarceration, the criteria of what is deemed "reasonable and proportionate" has to relate to the strength of their current evidence and the necessity to appeal publicly for confirmatory evidence IMO.
-
The obligation not to refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty should not prevent public authorities from publicly disseminating information on the criminal proceedings where this is strictly necessary for reasons relating to the criminal investigation
...
The use of such reasons should be confined to situations in which this would be reasonable and proportionate, taking all interests into account.
Given that CB poses no immediate risk to the public due to his incarceration, the criteria of what is deemed "reasonable and proportionate" has to relate to the strength of their current evidence and the necessity to appeal publicly for confirmatory evidence IMO.
In my opinion it was necessary to appeal for information, which they did. It was completely unnecessary to claim that Madeleine is dead and their suspect did it.
-
In my opinion it was necessary to appeal for information, which they did. It was completely unnecessary to claim that Madeleine is dead and their suspect did it.
The charge they are pursuing against CB is murder. How does one infer such a charge without stating their belief that the victim is dead and their belief that their suspect did it?
If you accept it was necessary to appeal, what do you suggest they should have said instead?
-
Is anyone able to provide information from ECHR about the rights of people who are already incarcerated for any reason, specifically the presumption of innocence before a suspect is ever tried in court for another offence when details of any previous convictions cannot be disclosed?
-
Have cadaver dogs checked any of CB's vehicles and homes? Probably not since their alerts have no evidential value in court.
As for whether anyone has identified CB carrying a child, do you know that they haven't? In terms of the parents, I assume you are referring to Martin Smith's dubious claim about the way Gerry carried his other child from the aeroplane. How many distinctive ways are there to carry a child I ask? This is the same Martin Smith who also says in the PJ files :
Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact.
and regarding the man carrying this girl:
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
And as for the etc, etc part of your post. That just means you've run out of any other evidence to cite doesn't it? Thank you for confirming how pathetically weak the evidence pointing to the parents actually is.
Two small girls, Madeleine and a lookalike, being carried through the streets of PDL at the same time by a man similar in stature and appearance. Surely even you don’t believe that?
-
Two small girls, Madeleine and a lookalike, being carried through the streets of PDL at the same time by a man similar in stature and appearance. Surely even you don’t believe that?
”Surely even you” is such a trademark Faithlilly put down! I’ve read Para’s post again and can’t see where he referenced two separate men and child incidents. However, as there were a number of young children in the creche that night (let’s say half of whom were young girls) who would all presumably have to be picked up by a parent (let’s be sexist and say that task would fall to the father) and carried back to their holiday accommodation I don’t see it as being in the realms of the Loch Ness Monster or Sasquatch if there were two such incidents.
-
The charge they are pursuing against CB is murder. How does one infer such a charge without stating their belief that the victim is dead and their belief that their suspect did it?
If you accept it was necessary to appeal, what do you suggest they should have said instead?
Appeals can be made without prejudicial statements.
-
Appeals can be made without prejudicial statements.
It may be that prejudicial statements are necessary to solve a case and achieve justice for victims... Its been shown the law supports that
The obligation not to refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty should not prevent public authorities from publicly disseminating information on the criminal proceedings where this is strictly necessary for reasons relating to the criminal investigation
-
It may be that prejudicial statements are necessary to solve a case and achieve justice for victims... Its been shown the law supports that
The obligation not to refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty should not prevent public authorities from publicly disseminating information on the criminal proceedings where this is strictly necessary for reasons relating to the criminal investigation
Which law is that then?
-
Which law is that then?
Looks like a European directive.. Note I didn't say a law... I said the law..
The obligation not to refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty should not prevent public authorities from publicly disseminating information on the criminal proceedings where this is strictly necessary for reasons relating to the criminal investigation
-
Which law is that then?
Have a read
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2016/343/chapter/2/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true
-
Two small girls, Madeleine and a lookalike, being carried through the streets of PDL at the same time by a man similar in stature and appearance. Surely even you don’t believe that?
Even me? What is that supposed to mean?
What are these "two" small girls you refer to being carried at the same time? I didn't mention two girls. In terms of what I believe... I believe that at the time of this sighting, multiple witnesses, including staff at the OC indicate that Gerry McCann was at the OC the whole time. So what I believe is that the person the Smith family saw was not Gerry.
What you seem to believe is that multiple people conspired to give Gerry an alibi in order that he could carry his daughter's corpse through town where anybody could have seen him. Which option is really the most credible?
Whether or not the girl was Madeleine, I don't know. I don't think it is certain but I can't rule it out either.
-
Appeals can be made without prejudicial statements.
You didn't answer my question. You was said it was "unnecessary" for them to claim Madeleine was dead and their belief that their suspect did it. So what exactly do you think they should have said as part of the appeal?
If they are pursuing a murder charge against him, I don't really see how they can avoid making both of those claims.
-
As I recall, the appeal was only in connection with a phone call allegedly received by Christian B
-
As I recall, the appeal was only in connection with a phone call allegedly received by Christian B
I recall Wolters also asking for details of the interiors of any properties CB had access to which would tie in with Wolters having a photo or video that he wants to see if there iss a connection to CB
-
As I recall, the appeal was only in connection with a phone call allegedly received by Christian B
These are the things the BKA appealed to the public for information on, taken from their website:
- Can you provide information on the vehicles used by the suspect and/or have you seen the vehicles in the beginning of May 2007?
- Do you know where these vehicles were parked in the aforementioned time period?
- Can you provide information on the above-mentioned telephone numbers and/or the persons using these numbers in May 2007?
- Can you provide information on the houses and rooms in the photographs or on other points of contact?
- Did you also stay in the Algarve in the beginning of May 2007 and do you still have image material, such as holiday photographs and videos, from that time?
- Did you have contact with persons who have links to the vehicles, buildings and telephone numbers shown?
- Can you provide information on their whereabouts in the beginning of May 2007?
- Have you yourself possibly been the victim of an offence committed by this person?
- Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons, apart from the suspect, who have concrete knowledge of the course of the crime and maybe also of the place where the body was left. We explicitly ask these persons to contact us and provide information.
-
Even me? What is that supposed to mean?
What are these "two" small girls you refer to being carried at the same time? I didn't mention two girls. In terms of what I believe... I believe that at the time of this sighting, multiple witnesses, including staff at the OC indicate that Gerry McCann was at the OC the whole time. So what I believe is that the person the Smith family saw was not Gerry.
What you seem to believe is that multiple people conspired to give Gerry an alibi in order that he could carry his daughter's corpse through town where anybody could see him. Which option is really the most credible?
Whether or not the girl was Madeleine, I don't know. I don't think it is certain but I can't rule it out either.
Simple logic.
You don’t appear to think that the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine….so that’s one girl. Then of course Madeleine herself was allegedly abducted by Bruckner so that’s another child being carried from 5a, then of course there’s Tanner’s sighting which has all but been identified as a doctor holidaying with his young family. Further there is no suggestion that the doctor was the person seen by the the Smiths or indeed that the person the Smiths saw was Brueckner.
So if neither Brueckner nor Gerry were the men seen by the Smiths and the child wasn’t Madeleine and Brueckner did abduct Madeleine and the good doctor was the person seen by Tanner as OG believe then we have not two be three different men mooching about PDL with Madeleine lookalikes.
No….I don’t believe it either.
-
Simple logic.
You don’t appear to think that the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine….so that’s one girl. Then of course Madeleine herself was allegedly abducted by Bruckner so that’s another child being carried from 5a, then of course there’s Tanner’s sighting which has all but been identified as a doctor holidaying with his young family. Further there is no suggestion that the doctor was the person seen by the the Smiths or indeed that the person the Smiths saw was Brueckner.
So if neither Brueckner nor Gerry were the men seen by the Smiths and the child wasn’t Madeleine and Brueckner did abduct Madeleine and the good doctor was the person seen by Tanner as OG believe then we have not two be three different men mooching about PDL with Madeleine lookalikes.
No….I don’t believe it either.
Simple logic seems to have seriously eluded you. Let's start at the beginning. You state Para doesn't appear to believe the girl in the Smith sighing was Madeleine but this is what Para ACTUALLY said
"Whether or not the girl was Madeleine, I don't know. I don't think it is certain but I can't rule it out either".
Attention to detail is always important when trying to debate with those smarter than yourself I find...
-
Simple logic.
You don’t appear to think that the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine….so that’s one girl. Then of course Madeleine herself was allegedly abducted by Bruckner so that’s another child being carried from 5a, then of course there’s Tanner’s sighting which has all but been identified as a doctor holidaying with his young family. Further there is no suggestion that the doctor was the person seen by the the Smiths or indeed that the person the Smiths saw was Brueckner.
So if neither Brueckner nor Gerry were the men seen by the Smiths and the child wasn’t Madeleine and Brueckner did abduct Madeleine and the good doctor was the person seen by Tanner as OG believe then we have not two be three different men mooching about PDL with Madeleine lookalikes.
No….I don’t believe it either.
Your reasoning involves very little in the way of logic.
I didn't say the Smith sighting wasn't Madeleine, it may have been, I just pointed out that not even the Smiths were prepared to say it definitely was. Something you seem to be absolutely sure of though.
Logic would tell you there were hundreds of holidaymakers in a family resort and that a large portion of those were families with young children. What is so inconceivable that the person the Smiths saw was just a different father carrying his child home? Possibly from a night creche. You do know about the night creche right? Maybe it's not a case of all these men "mooching" about PDL with Madeleine "lookalikes" but simply fathers taking their kids home. How else do you think they get from the creche? All JT saw was a pair of legs so calling her a lookalike seems a bit of a stretch too.
Your observation about the doctor who admits to carrying his daughter home from the night creche that same night only serves to weaken your argument. You are providing an example of something that did happen and then trying to claim it is too implausible the be the case in the Smith sighting (that it was simply another father taking his kid home).
I would add that there is no definitive proof that the CB wasn't the person that the Smiths saw, or the person JT saw either. All of the people involved in those sightings have stated, on the record, that they would not be able to identify the person if they saw them again.
I note you completely ignored my other points about multiple people stating Gerry was elsewhere at the time. Or why it would be logical for Gerry to openly carry a dead body through town at that particular time knowing that he could be seen by any number of people or caught on security cameras. How about giving me some "simple logic" to explain that?
-
There is no simple logic to the (imo) absurd notion that a man intent on staging an abduction would carry the corpse of the child whose abduction he was staging, unconcealed through the streets of a holiday town, making no attempt to disguise himself or the child. Not only that but to do all this having pre-arranged for his wife to scream "abduction" either just before he set off on his mission, or afterwards when he would have known he'd been seen by at least half a dozen people doing so. Simpleton logic it may be, but that's about as far as it goes.
-
Have a read
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2016/343/chapter/2/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for as long as a suspect or an accused person has not been proved guilty according to law, public statements made by public authorities, and judicial decisions, other than those on guilt, do not refer to that person as being guilty.
-
You didn't answer my question. You was said it was "unnecessary" for them to claim Madeleine was dead and their belief that their suspect did it. So what exactly do you think they should have said as part of the appeal?
If they are pursuing a murder charge against him, I don't really see how they can avoid making both of those claims.
When the appeal for information was first made, no-one said he was guilty, but they got their message across
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-police-reveal-details-about-latest-suspect-11999972
-
Your reasoning involves very little in the way of logic.
I didn't say the Smith sighting wasn't Madeleine, it may have been, I just pointed out that not even the Smiths were prepared to say it definitely was. Something you seem to be absolutely sure of though.
Logic would tell you there were hundreds of holidaymakers in a family resort and that a large portion of those were families with young children. What is so inconceivable that the person the Smiths saw was just a different father carrying his child home? Possibly from a night creche. You do know about the night creche right? Maybe it's not a case of all these men "mooching" about PDL with Madeleine "lookalikes" but simply fathers taking their kis home. How else do you think they get from the creche? All JT saw was a pair of legs so calling her a lookalike seems a bit of a stretch too.
Your observation about the doctor who admits to carrying his daughter home from the night creche that same night only serves to weaken your argument. You are providing an example of something that did happen and then trying to claim it is too implausible the be the case in the Smith sighting (that it was simply another father taking his kid home).
I would add that there is no definitive proof that the CB wasn't the person that the Smiths saw, or the person JT saw either. All of the people involved in those sightings have stated, on the record, that they would not be able to identify the person if they saw them again.
I note you completely ignored my other points about multiple people stating Gerry was elsewhere at the time. Or why it would be logical for Gerry to openly carry a dead body through town at that particular time knowing that he could be seen by any number of people or caught on security cameras. How about giving me some "simple logic" to explain that?
One would have to wonder where the man seen at around 10pm was going, as he wasn't heading towards Ocean Club accomodation. If he wasn't an OC guest he didn't leave the creche.
The 'multiple' people giving Gerry McCann an alibi were actually seven people, and a couple of them weren't sure, so that's five people. All friends of theirs.
-
Your reasoning involves very little in the way of logic.
I didn't say the Smith sighting wasn't Madeleine, it may have been, I just pointed out that not even the Smiths were prepared to say it definitely was. Something you seem to be absolutely sure of though.
So it could have been Madeleine. At least that’s progress.
Logic would tell you there were hundreds of holidaymakers in a family resort and that a large portion of those were families with young children. What is so inconceivable that the person the Smiths saw was just a different father carrying his child home? Possibly from a night creche. You do know about the night creche right? Maybe it's not a case of all these men "mooching" about PDL with Madeleine "lookalikes" but simply fathers taking their kids home. How else do you think they get from the creche? All JT saw was a pair of legs so calling her a lookalike seems a bit of a stretch too.
Absolutely, the Smith sighting could you been just some random father carrying his child home, except for the fact that Martin Smith was up to 80% sure that it was Gerry, an opinion supported by his wife, and OG put the sighting front and centre of their 2013 appeal. Further doesn’t it seem strange to you, as you’ve said, there was little to connect the child seen by Tanner to Madeleine’s disappearance, that her parents constantly tried to link the sighting to the disappearance? In fact we are told that they sidelined the Smith sighting in favour of it.
Your observation about the doctor who admits to carrying his daughter home from the night creche that same night only serves to weaken your argument. You are providing an example of something that did happen and then trying to claim it is too implausible the be the case in the Smith sighting (that it was simply another father taking his kid home).
It’s not the taking home of children by parents from the creche that I find implausible but that so many of them were, allegedly, similar in appearance and dress.
I would add that there is no definitive proof that the CB wasn't the person that the Smiths saw, or the person JT saw either. All of the people involved in those sightings have stated, on the record, that they would not be able to identify the person if they saw them again.
No definitive proof but, again, almost certainly precludes it.
I note you completely ignored my other points about multiple people stating Gerry was elsewhere at the time. Or why it would be logical for Gerry to openly carry a dead body through town at that particular time knowing that he could be seen by any number of people or caught on security cameras. How about giving me some "simple logic" to explain that?
Apologies that you feel that I have not invested enough time in answering your points fully so let me rectify that. There was not one independent witness that could definitively ( I know you like things to be cast iron) put Gerry McCann in the tapas bar between 9.30 and just before the alarm was raised. Further can I suggest that if you find yourself in a situation where your daughter has died in some tragic accident while you were absent and you fear that that absence may be judged neglectful logic would not be top of the motivations driving you.
-
One would have to wonder where the man seen at around 10pm was going, as he wasn't heading towards Ocean Club accomodation. If he wasn't an OC guest he didn't leave the creche.
The 'multiple' people giving Gerry McCann an alibi were actually seven people, and a couple of them weren't sure, so that's five people. All friends of theirs.
👆🏼What she says.
-
One would have to wonder where the man seen at around 10pm was going, as he wasn't heading towards Ocean Club accomodation. If he wasn't an OC guest he didn't leave the creche.
The 'multiple' people giving Gerry McCann an alibi were actually seven people, and a couple of them weren't sure, so that's five people. All friends of theirs.
Five people is “multiple people”. Friends are also people. Now you have to ask yourself how credible it is that five people would give Gerry an alibi and two other people would go along with it unquestioningly. That’s seven people in a potential cover up, not one of whom has broken cover in 15 years. They must have been very, VERY good friends, yet we know that at least one of them (JT) started the holiday as little more than an acquaintance.
-
One day you’re going to realise how implausible and illogical your theory is but clearly that day has yet to arrive. Oh well, we live in hope.
-
Five people is “multiple people”. Friends are also people. Now you have to ask yourself how credible it is that five people would give Gerry an alibi and two other people would go along with it unquestioningly. That’s seven people in a potential cover up, not one of whom has broken cover in 15 years. They must have been very, VERY good friends, yet we know that at least one of them (JT) started the holiday as little more than an acquaintance.
It's strange how people can speculate about some subjects but not about others. It's not difficult to imagine why a group of people may be interested in making sure they all tell the same story.
-
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for as long as a suspect or an accused person has not been proved guilty according to law, public statements made by public authorities, and judicial decisions, other than those on guilt, do not refer to that person as being guilty.
Wolters has not referred to CB as being guilty
-
It's strange how people can speculate about some subjects but not about others. It's not difficult to imagine why a group of people may be interested in making sure they all tell the same story.
That's what friends are for, according to Disney's vultures
-
That's what friends are for, according to Disney's vultures
Doctors allegedly close ranks to protect each other too. I'm sure they were all aware that their child care arrangements weren't ideal.
-
Doctors allegedly close ranks to protect each other too. I'm sure they were all aware that their child care arrangements weren't ideal.
The slight flaw in your argument is that there was no attempt to cover up their child care arrangements so why risk everything by lying and conspiring simply to protect the reputations of two of your group whose child dies accidentally? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Also, can we have a cite for doctors closing rank in a non professional setting please? Because that doesn’t make any sense either IMO.
-
It's strange how people can speculate about some subjects but not about others. It's not difficult to imagine why a group of people may be interested in making sure they all tell the same story.
If it’s not difficult to imagine then perhaps you can tell us in your own opinion why you think the entire Tapas group might agree to go along with such a wicked plan.
-
"So it could have been Madeleine" - I never said that it couldn't. It was your mistake to interpret that's what I was saying.
"Up to 80% sure" - I believe what he said was 60 to 80 percent sure. Or in other words, not totally sure. Don't you find it strange that he told the police he would not recognise or be able to identify the person if he saw them again, but then somehow attributes a percentage likeness based on the way Gerry held one of the twins? Or strange that this was four months later he came to this epiphany? Four months during which time the McCanns were plastered all over the news and yet somehow neither he or his family clicked that Gerry was the man they saw and gave police witness statements about? Or strange that the Smith family has since talked about wanting to "help" the McCanns find their missing daughter? Why would they do that if they were convinced it was Gerry?
And no, I don't find it especially strange that the McCanns would have thought the JT sighting was the abductor. And how exactly did they "sideline" the Smith sighting? They weren't in charge of the investigation, the PJ were. The PJ didn't really delve any further into it for the same reasons I've mentioned. Gerry was seen by multiple people in the OC at the same time the Smiths thought he was elsewhere.
"Similar in appearance and dress" - they were young female children wearing pyjamas (which are nearly always pink/white for girls). Not really implausible is it? And given that one of these sighting may well have been Madeleine, you are then only talking about one similar person. For example, let's assume the Smith sighting was MM but the man carrying her was not Gerry. What are we left with? A pair of girls legs also wearing white/pink pyjamas. Possibly the daughter of the Doctor. Nothing particularly implausible about that.
"Almost certainly precludes it" - That's just your opinion, not a fact.
"That last bit of waffle" - You still have not offered a logical explanation for why all these witnesses would lie or why Gerry would openly carry a dead body through town at that time when he could be seen by anyone. Panic and worry about claims of neglect over an accident don't cut it. If he was caught disposing of her body, the police would have assumed the parents had murdered her. Owning up to the accident, it's likely they wouldn't have even been prosecuted for anything. Dining at the Tapas while they left their children in the apartment was not illegal. Some MW resorts offer a listening service so that parents can do exactly this and what the Tapas group did was probably a step above this service since they usually entered the apartments to check rather than just periodically listening at the door. Whether MM died from an accident or was taken by someone does not alter the McCanns level of neglect. It doesn't change what they did, the only difference is that the abduction made it worldwide news, so that everyone would now know about their neglect and condemn them for leaving the children unattended. It's not really a great plan therefore is it? Had they just owned up to an accident, I doubt it would have even made the news.
-
One would have to wonder where the man seen at around 10pm was going, as he wasn't heading towards Ocean Club accomodation. If he wasn't an OC guest he didn't leave the creche.
The 'multiple' people giving Gerry McCann an alibi were actually seven people, and a couple of them weren't sure, so that's five people. All friends of theirs.
Actually, the "Ocean Club" is spread across a wide area of Luz. Part of which (The Waterside village) is located on the cliffs at the west end of the beach, which is in the direction the man was heading. Plus, was the Ocean Club night creche the only babysitting service in PDL? In any case, it's irrelevant, there could be any number of reasons why another father might be carrying their daughter that night. Or, as I've already accepted, the girl might well have been Madeleine. What I don't accept though, is that Gerry was the person carrying her.
Whether it was 5 people or 7 people or more, it is still "multiple" witnesses who state Gerry was at the OC at this time. No workers from the Tapas bar state they saw Gerry leave on his own around the time in question either. Other guests confirm Gerry's presence around this time too (Raj and Neil from the balcony). Nobody else has come forward to say Gerry was seen walking to or from town at that time. And since some people here have so much faith in the cadaver dog, perhaps they can explain why the dog didn't alert to any of Gerry's clothes, only Kate's?
Just because the other members of the group were "friends" of the McCanns (I think "acquaintances" would be a more accurate description with regards most of the group's relationship with the McCanns), still doesn't make it at all "logical" that they would all lie and help cover up something as big as this. Persuading just one person to give you an alibi so you can dispose of your daughter's body would be difficult enough, much less an entire group, some of whom barely knew the McCanns on a personal level, they were more friends-of-a-friend.
-
If 80% sure is a good measure of the accuracy of a witness’s recollection of a person they have seen, then we can rejoice that Madeleine is alive because at least one witness has claimed to be 100% sure they saw her post disappearance.
-
"So it could have been Madeleine" - I never said that it couldn't. It was your mistake to interpret that's what I was saying.
Glad we’ve sorted that one out.
"Up to 80% sure" - I believe what he said was 60 to 80 percent sure. Or in other words, not totally sure. Don't you find it strange that he told the police he would not recognise or be able to identify the person if he saw them again, but then somehow attributes a percentage likeness based on the way Gerry held one of the twins? Or strange that this was four months later he came to this epiphany? Four months during which time the McCanns were plastered all over the news and yet somehow neither he or his family clicked that Gerry was the man they saw and gave police witness statements about? Or strange that the Smith family has since talked about wanting to "help" the McCanns find their missing daughter? Why would they do that if they were convinced it was Gerry?
In relation to the ‘help the McCanns’ quote, do you believe a quote in a newspaper or the police statement of Martin Smith? We do know though that the Panorama claim that Smith had recanted his identification is not true and further that OG found Smith and his family’s sighting so credible that it was front and centre of that aforementioned 2013 television appeal.
And no, I don't find it especially strange that the McCanns would have thought the JT sighting was the abductor. And how exactly did they "sideline" the Smith sighting? They weren't in charge of the investigation, the PJ were. The PJ didn't really delve any further into it for the same reasons I've mentioned. Gerry was seen by multiple people in the OC at the same time the Smiths thought he was elsewhere.
You know you are absolutely right, the parents weren’t in charge of the police investigation but they were of their own and we know from the man leading that investigation that the Smith sighting was sidelined in favour of the Tanner sighting, a sighting that even you agree there was no reason to believe wasn't simply a father taking his child home from the creche.
"Similar in appearance and dress" - they were young female children wearing pyjamas (which are nearly always pink/white for girls). Not really implausible is it? And given that one of these sighting may well have been Madeleine, you are then only talking about one similar person. For example, let's assume the Smith sighting was MM but the man carrying her was not Gerry. What are we left with? A pair of girls legs also wearing white/pink pyjamas. Possibly the daughter of the Doctor. Nothing particularly implausible about that.
If the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine then I agree, the sightings of blonde haired girls dwindles somewhat. However from two eyewitnesses, Smith and his almost always forgotten wife, we know that that child was more than likely carried by her own father.
"Almost certainly precludes it" - That's just your opinion, not a fact.
"That last bit of waffle" - You still have not offered a logical explanation for why all these witnesses would lie or why Gerry would openly carry a dead body through town at that time when he could be seen by anyone. Panic and worry about claims of neglect over an accident don't cut it. If he was caught disposing of her body, the police would have assumed the parents had murdered her. Owning up to the accident, it's likely they wouldn't have even been prosecuted for anything. Dining at the Tapas while they left their children in the apartment was not illegal. Some MW resorts offer a listening service so that parents can do exactly this and what the Tapas group did was probably a step above this service since they usually entered the apartments to check rather than just periodically listening at the door. Whether MM died from an accident or was taken by someone does not alter the McCanns level of neglect. It doesn't change what they did, the only difference is that the abduction made it worldwide news, so that everyone would now know about their neglect and condemn them for leaving the children unattended. It's not really a great plan therefore is it? Had they just owned up to an accident, I doubt it would have even made the news.
Why the witnesses may have lied, or at the least obfuscated the truth, we may only know that when the truth of the events that night see the light of day. As to leaving their children alone, if they had done the same in the U.K. and their actions had lead to the death of one of their children it would almost certainly have had dire consequences for both them as a family and their careers. The change of narrative from death through neglect to disappearance by abduction was only ever going to be a partial protection from prosecution but get the weight of the world’s sympathy on your side and who knows? As to Gerry carrying a body through the town, even he admitted in one of his statements how quiet PDL was at night and if he was seen, well he was only one of those fathers taking their child home from the creche, wasn’t he, or so the witness would have thought.
-
Whether it was 5 people or 7 people or more, it is still "multiple" witnesses who state Gerry was at the OC at this time. No workers from the Tapas bar state they saw Gerry leave on his own around the time in question either.
Not true “ SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.“
Other guests confirm Gerry's presence around this time too (Raj and Neil from the balcony).
Not until after the alert.
Nobody else has come forward to say Gerry was seen walking to or from town at that time. And since some people here have so much faith in the cadaver dog, perhaps they can explain why the dog didn't alert to any of Gerry's clothes, only Kate's?
Just because the other members of the group were "friends" of the McCanns (I think "acquaintances" would be a more accurate description with regards most of the group's relationship with the McCanns), still doesn't make it at all "logical" that they would all lie and help cover up something as big as this. Persuading just one person to give you an alibi so you can dispose of your daughter's body would be difficult enough, much less an entire group, some of whom barely knew the McCanns on a personal level, they were more friends-of-a-friend.
-
Which police statement are you referring to? The one where he says he would not be unable to recognise the man again? Or the one where he isn't totally sure that the man was Gerry?
You seem to be a lot more certain that the Smiths saw Gerry than the Smiths were. Let's look at what Martin actually says:
In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. 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. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
IMO, what we are seeing here is along the lines of distinction bias. The Smiths admit they followed the case and for four months, they see Gerry in the news daily. Not once do they consider that this could be the person they saw. Then, just 2 days after the McCanns were made Arguidos, all of a sudden they are thinking "ooh, could Gerry have been the man we saw?" and their opinions and memories are influenced by this news that the parents are now in the frame. It's not a coincidence Martin Smith had this sudden epiphany as soon as the parents were declared suspects IMO.
-
This is not Svetlana's official statement, but from brief notes officers made the day after the disappearance. Note it says "Purportedly" the father. Who is purporting it, her, the officer, someone else who told her? Doesn't say she witnessed this herself, it sounds more likely she is re-telling something one of her colleagues told her (probably the waiter Ricardo who, in his rogotary admits he only later learned the man who he said left the table for a long while was called Russell). It's almost certain that the person she is referring to is actually Russell O'Brien who stayed a while to tend to his daughter and returned shortly before Kate did her check. In her official statement, she makes absolutely no mention of it, indicating this was probably not something that she directly witnessed. She said she was a kitchen assistant and said she only goes outside sometimes to check on the grills and wasn't paying much attention that night.
-
In order for it to have been Gerry then two incredible pieces of luck struck the McCanns that night. Firstly, incredible bad luck in that leaving their sleeping children unattended for up to 30 minutes at a time resulted in one of them having a fatal accident - what are the odds of that happening I wonder? And then secondly incredible good luck in that having discovered the dead child and without recourse to a vehicle, a spade, a torch, or even very much time, Gerry was able to pursue a course of action in which he disposed of the body close to where the child had her accident, for it never to be found again even despite allegedly having been caught in the act of body occultation and to have managed to persuade some or all of his mates to go along with this heinous crime pretty much instantly.
And for some this is all far more plausible and logical than the belief that the McCanns suffered just one incredible piece of (bad) luck that night, ie the child’s abduction by a stranger from the unlocked apartment?
C’mon folks, get real.
-
The slight flaw in your argument is that there was no attempt to cover up their child care arrangements so why risk everything by lying and conspiring simply to protect the reputations of two of your group whose child dies accidentally? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Also, can we have a cite for doctors closing rank in a non professional setting please? Because that doesn’t make any sense either IMO.
They couldn't cover up what they were doing, but they could make sure they offered the best version of it. I don't think you can assume that Madeleine died accidentally or that the McCanns knew that. Neither can you assume there was no 'doctoring' going on in Luz.
-
They couldn't cover up what they were doing, but they could make sure they offered the best version of it. I don't think you can assume that Madeleine died accidentally or that the McCanns knew that. Neither can you assume there was no 'doctoring' going on in Luz.
So you think it’s possible Madeleine was deliberately killed but the parents didn’t necessarily know that? And what do you mean by “doctoring” if that were the case? This has taken an unexpectedly dark turn I must say!
Is closing rank a uniquely “doctoring” phenomenon btw? Do other professionals not do this? If it had been a bunch of teachers or firemen or army personnel would they not have the same insincts in your estimation?
-
So you think it’s possible Madeleine was deliberately killed but the parents didn’t necessarily know that? And what do you mean by “doctoring” if that were the case? This has taken an unexpectedly dark turn I must say!
Is closing rank a uniquely “doctoring” phenomenon btw? Do other professionals not do this? If it had been a bunch of teachers or firemen or army personnel would they not have the same insincts in your estimation?
I have no theory at all, I'm simple open to any possibility that might exist. Sticking one's head above the parapet is risky in any job or profession because it can have adverse personal effects.
-
In order for it to have been Gerry then two incredible pieces of luck struck the McCanns that night. Firstly, incredible bad luck in that leaving their sleeping children unattended for up to 30 minutes at a time resulted in one of them having a fatal accident - what are the odds of that happening I wonder? And then secondly incredible good luck in that having discovered the dead child and without recourse to a vehicle, a spade, a torch, or even very much time, Gerry was able to pursue a course of action in which he disposed of the body close to where the child had her accident, for it never to be found again even despite allegedly having been caught in the act of body occultation and to have managed to persuade some or all of his mates to go along with this heinous crime pretty much instantly.
And for some this is all far more plausible and logical than the belief that the McCanns suffered just one incredible piece of (bad) luck that night, ie the child’s abduction by a stranger from the unlocked apartment?
C’mon folks, get real.
The bit that has always stood out for me is the two versions of events around 9.15pm when Gerry and Jez were supposedly chatting at the side of the road when flip flopping tippy toeing Jane Tanner crept by. Like Amaral, I have great difficulty accepting her version of events. How on earth do you pass someone on a footpath without being seen?
-
I have no theory at all, I'm simple open to any possibility that might exist. Sticking one's head above the parapet is risky in any job or profession because it can have adverse personal effects.
So there is literally nothing you would rule out after 15 years of studying this case (apart from abduction by a paedo like CB obviously!) Is it wrong to assume Madeleine was alive and well during the day of 3rd May 2007 for example?
-
The bit that has always stood out for me is the two versions of events around 9.15pm when Gerry and Jez were supposedly chatting at the side of the road when flip flopping tippy toeing Jane Tanner crept by. Like Amaral, I have great difficulty accepting her version of events. How on earth do you pass someone on a footpath without being seen?
yawn.
-
The bit that has always stood out for me is the two versions of events around 9.15pm when Gerry and Jez were supposedly chatting at the side of the road when flip flopping tippy toeing Jane Tanner crept by. Like Amaral, I have great difficulty accepting her version of events. How on earth do you pass someone on a footpath without being seen?
By not passing them on a footpath? That's how Gerry McCann explained it.
-
I have no theory at all, I'm simple open to any possibility that might exist. Sticking one's head above the parapet is risky in any job or profession because it can have adverse personal effects.
I’d like to come back to this if I may. What risk to their professional careers would there have been if one or more of the Tapas group had decided not to stand by the McCanns’ version of events in your view?
-
So there is literally nothing you would rule out after 15 years of studying this case (apart from abduction by a paedo like CB obviously!) Is it wrong to assume Madeleine was alive and well during the day of 3rd May 2007 for example?
How can anything be ruled out, when it's not clear if what has been said is correct? The 30 minute checks have been publicised, leaving ample time for an abduction, but when the evidence is examined there was allegedly a lot of activity near the apartment which reduced those 30 minute opportunities significantly.
-
The bit that has always stood out for me is the two versions of events around 9.15pm when Gerry and Jez were supposedly chatting at the side of the road when flip flopping tippy toeing Jane Tanner crept by. Like Amaral, I have great difficulty accepting her version of events. How on earth do you pass someone on a footpath without being seen?
I'm far more interested in what evidence the Germans have that has convinced them that Maddie is dead and CB murdered her. Your explanation that the entire German investigation is lying doesn't stand up
-
How can anything be ruled out, when it's not clear if what has been said is correct? The 30 minute checks have been publicised, leaving ample time for an abduction, but when the evidence is examined there was allegedly a lot of activity near the apartment which reduced those 30 minute opportunities significantly.
Ample time for abduction... But you simply can't accept this due to your bias
-
I’d like to come back to this if I may. What risk to their professional careers would there have been if one or more of the Tapas group had decided not to stand by the McCanns’ version of events in your view?
That would depend on what they said, surely? Given the way others have been judged, they wouldn't have been popular in any area of their lives had they 'let down' those 'poor, heartbroken, loving, religious beacons of all that is wonderful parents'.
-
Ample time for abduction... But you simply can't accept this due to your bias
One possible 'ample time' or many? Please be more specific.
-
That would depend on what they said, surely? Given the way others have been judged, they wouldn't have been popular in any area of their lives had they 'let down' those 'poor, heartbroken, loving, religious beacons of all that is wonderful parents'.
Oh dear, you’ve rather let yourself down with that last sentence. Where are you getting this quote from, or is it a oroduct of your sarcastic imaginings? I’m not following your logic either. Are you telling me that if one or more of the doctors had cast doubt on the McCanns’ version of events (which could quite possibly have resulted in arrests and charges) that these honest witnesses would have suffered as a result of turning in two such dishonest, evil parents? Huh?!
-
How can anything be ruled out, when it's not clear if what has been said is correct? The 30 minute checks have been publicised, leaving ample time for an abduction, but when the evidence is examined there was allegedly a lot of activity near the apartment which reduced those 30 minute opportunities significantly.
Yes, even by your own reckoning leaving 10 to 15 minutes for an abduction to occur, yet you still class it as “virtually impossible”. Why, when you seem quite willing to consider the possibility that Madeleine was murdered by one or more of the Tapas group. Also, do you think Madeleine was alive on the morning of 3rd May?
-
Which police statement are you referring to? The one where he says he would not be unable to recognise the man again? Or the one where he isn't totally sure that the man was Gerry?
You seem to be a lot more certain that the Smiths saw Gerry than the Smiths were. Let's look at what Martin actually says:
In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. 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. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
IMO, what we are seeing here is along the lines of distinction bias. The Smiths admit they followed the case and for four months, they see Gerry in the news daily. Not once do they consider that this could be the person they saw. Then, just 2 days after the McCanns were made Arguidos, all of a sudden they are thinking "ooh, could Gerry have been the man we saw?" and their opinions and memories are influenced by this news that the parents are now in the frame. It's not a coincidence Martin Smith had this sudden epiphany as soon as the parents were declared suspects IMO.
Now this is interesting “ the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”
It’s strange that the wife seems to be forever airbrushed from the believer’s narrative.
-
This is not Svetlana's official statement, but from brief notes officers made the day after the disappearance. Note it says "Purportedly" the father. Who is purporting it, her, the officer, someone else who told her? Doesn't say she witnessed this herself, it sounds more likely she is re-telling something one of her colleagues told her (probably the waiter Ricardo who, in his rogotary admits he only later learned the man who he said left the table for a long while was called Russell). It's almost certain that the person she is referring to is actually Russell O'Brien who stayed a while to tend to his daughter and returned shortly before Kate did her check. In her official statement, she makes absolutely no mention of it, indicating this was probably not something that she directly witnessed. She said she was a kitchen assistant and said she only goes outside sometimes to check on the grills and wasn't paying much attention that night.
Rather too much supposition dressed as fact here. Putting ‘ almost certainly’ before a claim does not make it true.
-
One possible 'ample time' or many? Please be more specific.
Baby taken from bath whilst mother in another room
Do you deny abduction as a possibility possibility... Simple question
-
The whole point is that abduction WAS highly unlikely...but it seems that's exactly what happened
-
Now this is interesting “ the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”
It’s strange that the wife seems to be forever airbrushed from the believer’s narrative.
It's strange that you've airbrushed that none of the rest of his family (9 in total) who were there agreed with him. Where is his wife's statement if she is so sure about it too? How strongly did she "agree" with him? Was it a simple "hmm, maybe honey, could be I suppose, he was a similar size I guess". She declined to give another statement when requested by the police, probably because she didn't want to go on the record because she wasn't really at all sure about it.
Isn't is also strange that he gives such a wide range of certainty? 60 to 80 percent. Why not just say "about" 70%. He is not even sure of how sure he is. He feels he has to give a lower limit that his certainty could be as low as 60%. And when you consider that if he'd said 50%, this is the equivalent of saying "I have no idea", "it's 50 - 50", "it might have been him, it might not". 60% is not really that strong a number given it's proximity to 50% is it? Especially when that certainty is not based on what the man looked like, but rather by a mannerism he perceived was similar, 4 months after the event. Just at the time they were made Arguidos. Not a coincidence IMO, I think the news influenced his sudden opinion that the man could have been Gerry and if the McCanns were never made suspects, he would never have contacted police with this new insight. He probably thought he was helping by saying, "the man you've now got as as a suspect, that could have been the guy we saw thinking about it".
-
Rather too much supposition dressed as fact here. Putting ‘ almost certainly’ before a claim does not make it true.
Neither does the word "Purportedly", yet you seem to indicate it was a fact that someone stated Gerry was the person who left the table for 30 minutes.
And it's not supposition, it's called logical reasoning. An alien concept to you perhaps. Straight question, do you think if she was asked about it now, she would say Gerry left the table for 30 minutes?
-
The bit that has always stood out for me is the two versions of events around 9.15pm when Gerry and Jez were supposedly chatting at the side of the road when flip flopping tippy toeing Jane Tanner crept by. Like Amaral, I have great difficulty accepting her version of events. How on earth do you pass someone on a footpath without being seen?
They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?
This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?
-
Rather too much supposition dressed as fact here. Putting ‘ almost certainly’ before a claim does not make it true.
But it makes a lot of sense nonetheless, agreed? No, of course not!!
-
They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?
This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?
Furthermore would it have just been sheer coincidence that having said she saw a man dressed a certain way carrying a child a certain way, a man fitting her description and at the time she says she saw him actually comes forward to say it was probably him? What are the chances, eh?
-
Now this is interesting “ the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”
It’s strange that the wife seems to be forever airbrushed from the believer’s narrative.
You are cherry picking the bits you think suit your theory and ignore the bits that contradict it. "Oh, look, his wife agrees too". Agrees with what? That the person looked like Gerry? That her husband "might" have a point? Or was it maybe that she was the only one who didn't say that he was definitely mistaken?
Why are you ignoring that other members of his family who saw the man disagreed with his assessment that it "could" have been Gerry?
His wife doesn't even make a statement about it. She didn't even go to Portugal when the others did to give their descriptions of the man they saw. How do we even know what she thinks she saw, how good a look she got, how much she remembers, how much she could describe of that person?
There were 3 people who gave detailed descriptions of the man they saw to PJ. Martin, his son Peter and his 12 year old daughter Aoife. So, of the 3 people that we know got a decent look of this bloke, 2 of them don't agree that it could have been Gerry McCann. The one who does is possibly only 60% sure... based on nothing but a mannerism he vaguely recalls as being similar 4 months after the event... an event that he didn't even remember at the time... not until his son Peter asked him whether he'd dreamt them seeing a man carrying a girl.
-
HCW is 100% certain based on the evidence he has seen that CB murdered Madeleine and yet is scorned to high heaven by the majority of McCann sceptics. If he said he was only 60%-80% sure that CB did it, would sceptics be more likely to accept his opinion is correct? Somehow I doubt it!
-
They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?
This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?
I'm not sure they all agreed they were stood in the road. Rather than saying he had seen her, Gerry McCann attempted explain why they hadn't by placing his meeting with Jes Wilkins on the opposite pavement. Neither of the others agreed with him though.
-
HCW is 100% certain based on the evidence he has seen that CB murdered Madeleine and yet is scorned to high heaven by the majority of McCann sceptics. If he said he was only 60%-80% sure that CB did it, would sceptics be more likely to accept his opinion is correct? Somehow I doubt it!
Yet Wolters admits this, now if Amaral said such a thing about the McCanns what a palaver that would cause.
But he admitted prosecutors have no proof Madeleine is dead, any idea how she died and no evidence linking Brueckner to her alleged murder.
-
Yet Wolters admits this, now if Amaral said such a thing about the McCanns what a palaver that would cause.
But he admitted prosecutors have no proof Madeleine is dead, any idea how she died and no evidence linking Brueckner to her alleged murder.
Amaral had no evidence to support his claims.. Wolters has proof beyond reasonable doubt MM is dead at the hands of an abductor paedophile from what he has said. Im going by what he's said.. Not what the papers say
-
Yet Wolters admits this, now if Amaral said such a thing about the McCanns what a palaver that would cause.
But he admitted prosecutors have no proof Madeleine is dead, any idea how she died and no evidence linking Brueckner to her alleged murder.
My point was about the percentages of surety. Should we accept the opinion of someone who is 60-80% sure over one who is a 100% sure and if so why?
-
I'm not sure they all agreed they were stood in the road. Rather than saying he had seen her, Gerry McCann attempted explain why they hadn't by placing his meeting with Jes Wilkins on the opposite pavement. Neither of the others agreed with him though.
What is wrong with trying to make sense of the situation and what does it matter where he was actually standing? People’s recollections are not always 100% and it doesn’t mean they are lying if they get som e facts wrong, do you understand this?
-
They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?
This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?
Yep, they were standing in the road, on its west side across the passageway.
-Gerry had his back foot on the kerb and front foot in the road.
- Stephen Carpenter stood in the road
- He commented about cars being parked up there (I seem to remember that at one stage he mentioned about 6 cars. I no longer go back searching - old age - so if you don't believe me about the 6 cars, that's OK with me.) But there were cars parked.
- Jez was standing in the road too, more or less facing Gerry.
- They were standing between cars: the safest place with a baby. Might one of the cars have been a big van, blocking the view? Dunno, but I do remember a musician sleeping there and living in a van. Can't remember his name
John produced a splendid mock up image that was posted for a long time, but I see that he has changed it.
He had the men in the correct place in the roadway across the entrance to the alleyway, but now they are moved farther up the road, no longer shown across the alleyway. At the alleyway, the pavement is 9 feet wide. A very big width for Jane to pass Gerry easily. In Johns new image, they are moved to a spot where the overhanging hedge drastically narrows the passing width.
This new image gives false information. Please can we have the image corrected John. Show the full depth
- In Amarals video, 'O Enigma', he personally points out the spot where the two men stood chatting. It is in the middle of the alleyway.
*** What cheats they are. The relevant part with Amaral pointing out where Gerry and Jez stood from about 15.34-15.53 has been covered by a video called 'OS AVISTANTENT', but a bit has been left. I dont speak Portuguese so I don't know whether that is relevant.*** The video carries on a bit but the pointing of actual places has been hidden
- Jez's image on paper as cofirmed by Amaral
- Janes appearance in the Cutting Edge Video starting about 9.40 where she holds her anger back at Gerrys mistake and very definitely shows where the men chatted. Confirmed by Amaral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkc3C6csaHI
Jane most certainly did not have to squeeze by Gerry as some seem to imply. Bags of room.
- and the lighting was apalling
-
John produced a splendid mock up image that was posted for a long time, but I see that he has changed it.
He had the men in the correct place in the roadway across the entrance to the alleyway, but now they are moved farther up the road, no longer shown across the alleyway. At the alleyway, the pavement is 9 feet wide. A very big width for Jane to pass Gerry easily. In Johns new image, they are moved to a spot where the overhanging hedge drastically narrows the passing width.
This new image gives false information. Please can we have the image corrected John. Show the full depth
Here you go, you little tinker! Are these the 2 versions you're referring to? In the second, they're only a couple of yards up from the alleyway anyway and the passing width depends on whether the hedge was overgrown or not at the time...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0)
Jane Tanner's map...
-
Here you go, you little tinker! Are these the 2 versions you're referring to? In the second, they're only a couple of yards up from the alleyway anyway and the passing width depends on whether the hedge was overgrown or not at the time...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0)
Jane Tanner's map...
Will you get off my back MYSTER !!
Why didn't you show the Cutting Edge Video and Jezes map which clearly points to the alleyway corner ?
What is your reason for this behaviour? There has to be a reason.
-
They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?
This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?
Gerry couldn’t be sure that his talk with Wilkins hadn’t been witnessed by anyone. Imagine if he said that he’d seen Tanner but someone had come forward to say that he hadn’t. A.W.K.W.A.R.D. Best to put yourself on the other side of the road….it wasn’t perfect but needs must.
-
Madeleine's parents are not the prime suspects in her disappearance.
That distinction is held by Christian Brueckner.
The BKA have already collected enough evidence to convince them that the offence being investigated is one of the murder of a child. I reiterate their prime and only suspect for that is Brueckner.
I am astounded that there are still individuals continuing the fifteen years of slurs aimed at Madeleine's parents while defending to the hilt the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the suspected child murderer Brueckner.
-
Will you get off my back MYSTER !!
Why didn't you show the Cutting Edge Video and Jezes map which clearly points to the alleyway ?
one.
What is your reason for this behaviour? There has to be a reason.
What behaviour SADIE?!!! Sheesh... I've only linked to John's reconstructed images and shown JT's map!
I'm sure you're capable of finding the other two, so I'll leave that to you!
-
Madeleine's parents are not the prime suspects in her disappearance.
That distinction is held by Christian Brueckner.
The BKA have already collected enough evidence to convince them that the offence being investigated is one of the murder of a child. I reiterate their prime and only suspect for that is Brueckner.
I am astounded that there are still individuals continuing the fifteen years of slurs aimed at Madeleine's parents while defending to the hilt the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the suspected child murderer Brueckner.
After 15 years I’m astounded that you’re still astounded.
-
I'm not sure they all agreed they were stood in the road. Rather than saying he had seen her, Gerry McCann attempted explain why they hadn't by placing his meeting with Jes Wilkins on the opposite pavement. Neither of the others agreed with him though.
In each of their accounts, they all admit to not being totally certain of their exact postions, but all of their accounts are consistent with at least one of either Jez or Gerry being stood on the road. And all accounts are consistent with Gerry having his back to where Jane would have been walking.
Also, it is incorrect to suggest Gerry "attempted to explain" why he didn't see her by putting himself across the other side of the road. That's just the way he recollected it. He had no reason to "explain". He had his back to Jane and Jane gives no indication that either of them noticed her walk past as they were deep in conversation.
Inconsistencies like this are to be expected in a truthful story. People over-analyse these minor discrepancies in people's recollections and make them into something they are not. What would be the point in Gerry deliberately lying and claiming to be the other side of the road without telling Jane that's where she should say he was as well? Instead, they have debate on camera about where they think he was stood.
In reality, it is stories that are exactly identical that should be cosidered suspicious as this can indicate that the story has been rehearsed. As I said, if there was an element of collusion (as some people seem to think) to invent the Tannerman abductor, it would have made more sense that Gerry would corroborate seeing Jane pass by him.
-
Here you go, you little tinker! Are these the 2 versions you're referring to? In the second, they're only a couple of yards up from the alleyway anyway and the passing width depends on whether the hedge was overgrown or not at the time...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0)
Jane Tanner's map...
The second picture matches Jane's map, produced on 4th May.
-
Gerry couldn’t be sure that his talk with Wilkins hadn’t been witnessed by anyone. Imagine if he said that he’d seen Tanner but someone had come forward to say that he hadn’t. A.W.K.W.A.R.D. Best to put yourself on the other side of the road….it wasn’t perfect but needs must.
He could be sure it was witnessed by someone. It was witnessed by Jez Wilkins! What sense would it make to deliberately lie about being the other side of the road knowing that Jez knew different?
-
The second picture matches Jane's map, produced on 4th May.
Exactly... which is why John's image is a fairly accurate representation. I've really NO idea what the unnecessary fuss kicked up by Sadie is all about.
-
Gerry couldn’t be sure that his talk with Wilkins hadn’t been witnessed by anyone. Imagine if he said that he’d seen Tanner but someone had come forward to say that he hadn’t. A.W.K.W.A.R.D. Best to put yourself on the other side of the road….it wasn’t perfect but needs must.
If anyone can make sense of this contorted rationale please feel free to let us know.
-
If anyone can make sense of this contorted rationale please feel free to let us know.
No, I didn't get it either. How would someone watching, prove that Gerry hadn't seen Jane walking past? Surely the only way to do that is if this witness was absolutely confident that Jane didn't walk past at all. In which case, the whole "lie" comes tumbling down anyway. So why does that prevent Gerry saying that he saw her? And, if someone was watching Gerry and Jez talking, how does lying about being stood elsewhere help, if this person watching (and Jez) knows where you were really stood?
Not exactly sure what the "theory" is meant to be in all this. Presumably the claim is that Jane never really walked past Gerry and Jez? The question then is, what would be the point in saying she did? If the need was to create a "phantom", why did it need to be at the particular time that Gerry and Jez were talking in the street? Why couldn't Jane just have said she saw the abductor just after Gerry got back? Why make this apparently "invented sighting" less credible by saying it took place with two other people there, neither of whom saw you, or this abductor, walking past? Isn't it actually more likely that Jez and Gerry were just too engrossed in chatting to notice?
Lots of questions I expect no sensible answers to.
-
No, I didn't get it either. How would someone watching, prove that Gerry hadn't seen Jane walking past? Surely the only way to do that is if this witness was absolutely confident that Jane didn't walk past at all. In which case, the whole "lie" comes tumbling down anyway. So why does that prevent Gerry saying that he saw her? And, if someone was watching Gerry and Jez talking, how does lying about being stood elsewhere help, if this person watching (and Jez) knows where you were really stood?
Not exactly sure what the "theory" is meant to be in all this. Presumably the claim is that Jane never really walked past Gerry and Jez? The question then is, what would be the point in saying she did? If the need was to create a "phantom", why did it need to be at the particular time that Gerry and Jez were talking in the street? Why couldn't Jane just have said she saw the abductor just after Gerry got back? Why make this apparently "invented sighting" less credible by saying it took place with two other people there, neither of whom saw you, or this abductor, walking past? Isn't it actually more likely that Jez and Gerry were just too engrossed in chatting to notice?
Lots of questions I expect no sensible answers to.
I believe Faithlilly thinks it’s necessary for JT to have seen the “abductor” at the same time as she saw Gerry talking to Jez to prove that they were not the same person. I don’t understand why she feels this is essential to the plot and the idea that all this complicated scheming was being communicated and agreed between these protagonists in the short time from the trauma of finding a dead Madeleine to hiding her body and raising the alarm is all too silly for words.
-
He could be sure it was witnessed by someone. It was witnessed by Jez Wilkins! What sense would it make to deliberately lie about being the other side of the road knowing that Jez knew different?
Are you truly saying that Gerry is such an arrogant and narcissistic individual that when faced with evidence from two witnesses that he was not where he thought he was he doubles down on his recollection? That when doubling down on his recollection undermines his main witness Tanner he still does it? His daughter has just, according to him, been abducted but it means more to him to appear right rather than accept that he may be wrong.
-
Are you truly saying that Gerry is such an arrogant and narcissistic individual that when faced with evidence from two witnesses that he was not where he thought he was he doubles down on his recollection? That when doubling down on his recollection undermines his main witness Tanner he still does it? His daughter has just, according to him, been abducted but it means more to him to appear right rather than accept that he may be wrong.
It looks like you’re up to your old trick of putting words into people’s mouths again Faithlilly. I do look forward to Para’s takedown of this your latest lame attempt at debate.
-
What behaviour SADIE?!!! Sheesh... I've only linked to John's reconstructed images and shown JT's map!
I'm sure you're capable of finding the other two, so I'll leave that to you!
You know damned well what behaviour. It has happened several times in a row now.
You suddenly appear out of the woodwork when I say anything.
You were charming to me when I was identifying and placing all those huge hearts painted on pillars, walls etc.,. They seemed to be pointers for evil paedos directing them to where the sordid action was available behind Jeronimos magnificent Monastry in the streets of Belem, near Casa Pia boys home and the deaf and dumb, blind schools there.
You are the expert technical man on forum.
Where have all the heart photos gone from forum? Who has removed them and why? There has to be a reason.
I feel that I have been a sucker pointing them out cos they have all now vanished from the streets as well.
Have I inadvertently helped the paedo-masters hide their adverts/ directions to the action? Keenly aided by YOU?
The directions there were * hidden in plain sight * using hearts as direction signs before. I wonder where it goes on now?
-
Madeleine's parents are not the prime suspects in her disappearance.
That distinction is held by Christian Brueckner.
The BKA have already collected enough evidence to convince them that the offence being investigated is one of the murder of a child. I reiterate their prime and only suspect for that is Brueckner.
I am astounded that there are still individuals continuing the fifteen years of slurs aimed at Madeleine's parents while defending to the hilt the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the suspected child murderer Brueckner.
Not according to SY and the McCanns he isn't because Wolters claims she's dead while SY and the McCanns disagree.
-
Exactly... which is why John's image is a fairly accurate representation. I've really NO idea what the unnecessary fuss kicked up by Sadie is all about.
Johns image has changed. Gerry and Jez have been moved
I want to know why and who did it?
The whole situation changes re a watcher on the balcony if they chatted where Johns image shows now.
The watcher would have been able to see them where Johns moved addition shows them, but just the few extra yards down the road and the corner of block 4 obscures the line of vision.
There is cheating going on. It is obviously very important to the perps that we all believe that Jez and Gerry chatted in sight of the balcony, so there was 'no watcher' on the balcony and no abduction.
Who altered Amarals "Enigma" video earlier to blank out his exact description of where the men were standing?
-
How can anything be ruled out, when it's not clear if what has been said is correct? The 30 minute checks have been publicised, leaving ample time for an abduction, but when the evidence is examined there was allegedly a lot of activity near the apartment which reduced those 30 minute opportunities significantly.
That's very true, there were several witnesses in and around 3a during the evening. How long would it take to gain entry to the apartment, find and lift a child and then make an escape all without being seen. And remember, if there was an intruder he was not to know whether his victim would scream the place down.
-
No, I didn't get it either. How would someone watching, prove that Gerry hadn't seen Jane walking past? Surely the only way to do that is if this witness was absolutely confident that Jane didn't walk past at all. In which case, the whole "lie" comes tumbling down anyway. So why does that prevent Gerry saying that he saw her? And, if someone was watching Gerry and Jez talking, how does lying about being stood elsewhere help, if this person watching (and Jez) knows where you were really stood?
Not exactly sure what the "theory" is meant to be in all this. Presumably the claim is that Jane never really walked past Gerry and Jez? The question then is, what would be the point in saying she did? If the need was to create a "phantom", why did it need to be at the particular time that Gerry and Jez were talking in the street? Why couldn't Jane just have said she saw the abductor just after Gerry got back? Why make this apparently "invented sighting" less credible by saying it took place with two other people there, neither of whom saw you, or this abductor, walking past? Isn't it actually more likely that Jez and Gerry were just too engrossed in chatting to notice?
Lots of questions I expect no sensible answers to.
Amaral was of the opinion that Jane turned left into the walkway before she reached the two men standing chatting and that is why neither saw her pass. He also claimed that Jane didn't see the man carrying the child from the street but from her apartment on the first floor.
All very odd imo.
-
Not according to SY and the McCanns he isn't because Wolters claims she's dead while SY and the McCanns disagree.
SY have seen the video I took in. And possibly the Mccanns have too. I hope it gave them comfort.
This video shows a little girl in fancy dress dancing with a group of other children at a gala or festival. The little girl is Madeleine with almost 100% certainty. This was in february 2012.
It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack - anywhere in the world - but by intense research, deep thought and deduction I found a specific spot where she was likely to be. I looked there and the video with 'Madeleine' was there, just as I hoped.
It was being rumoured on the internet that Madeleine had changed so much that no one would recognise her and she was *out*. I guessed that she would probably be partly disguised, so googled the * deducted place name and the words Gala/festival * vidoes. On about the third or fourth video, up she came.
I cannot describe the thrill and excitement when i saw her I must have watched that video over a hundred times analysing all the small details.
I was an art teacher whose hobby was life figure drawing and portraiture, so I have a keen eye.
I suggested that OG go to one of the famous London Art Schools and check the little girls features with them. Also that they checked the little girl out with relatives who would remember Kate and Gerry at the same sort of age.
In the * special edition Crime Watch program * a detective carried one of my folders, whilst my big folder was displayed in the middle of the top shelf of the case folders bookcase. There were others, I'm not sure how many now because serious illnesses disrupted my research. I am no good now.
Where this Festival dance took place is little visited by foreigners, especially in the winter months and remember it wasn't just any chance place . It is about the size of a football pitch and I had deducted it by detailed and painstaking research. Four years of my life gone, but it was very exciting as it unfolded.
It is with SY atm. so I cannot divulge. There is another bit of evidence that also indicates that Madeleine is/was alive as a girl and being protected. sorry I cannot divulge.
Also psychics all believe her alive
John, I don't think Madeleine is dead.
I think she was very carefully selected and is required for some special purpose, probably because of her PURE BLOOD.
I think that the German investigators have made a mistake somewhere thinking Madeleine dead, but I don't know where or how. I feel sure she was abducted, maybe or maybe not by Brueckner.
-
SY have seen the video I took in. And possibly the Mccanns have too. I hope it gave them comfort.
This video shows a little girl in fancy dress dancing with a group of other children at a gala or festival. The little girl is Madeleine with almost 100% certainty. This was in february 2012.
It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack - anywhere in the world - but by intense research, deep thought and deduction I found a specific spot where she was likely to be. I looked there and the video with 'Madeleine' was there, just as I hoped.
It was being rumoured on the internet that Madeleine had changed so much that no one would recognise her and she was *out*. I guessed that she would probably be partly disguised, so googled the * deducted place name and the words Gala/festival * vidoes. On about the third or fourth video, up she came.
I cannot describe the thrill and excitement when i saw her I must have watched that video over a hundred times analysing all the small details.
I was an art teacher whose hobby was life figure drawing and portraiture, so I have a keen eye.
I suggested that OG go to one of the famous London Art Schools and check the little girls features with them. Also that they checked the little girl out with relatives who would remember Kate and Gerry at the same sort of age.
In the * special edition Crime Watch program * a detective carried one of my folders, whilst my big folder was displayed in the middle of the top shelf of the case folders bookcase. There were others, I'm not sure how many now because serious illnesses disrupted my research. I am no good now.
Where this Festival dance took place is little visited by foreigners, especially in the winter months and remember it wasn't just any chance place . It is about the size of a football pitch and I had deducted it by detailed and painstaking research. Four years of my life gone, but it was very exciting as it unfolded.
It is with SY atm. so I cannot divulge. There is another bit of evidence that also indicates that Madeleine is/was alive as a girl and being protected. sorry I cannot divulge.
Also psychics all believe her alive
John, I don't think Madeleine is dead.
I think she was very carefully selected and is required for some special purpose, probably because of her PURE BLOOD.
I think that the German investigators have made a mistake somewhere thinking Madeleine dead, but I don't know where or how. I feel sure she was abducted, maybe or maybe not by Brueckner.
Just wondering Sadie, you identified two young Berber girls in photographs taken in the Rif Mountains as being Madeleine and Joana Cipriano so clearly misidentifications are common. I've given up on the number of occasions somebody claimed to have seen Madeleine but ultimately they were all found to be false. I think if Madeleine was a student in a London Art School that we would have heard about it by now. Hidden in plain sight eh?
-
Just wondering Sadie, you identified two young Berber girls in photographs taken in the Rif Mountains as being Madeleine and Joana Cipriano so clearly misidentifications are common. I've given up on the number of occasions somebody claimed to have seen Madeleine but ultimately they were all found to be false. I think if Madeleine was a student in a London Art School that we would have heard about it by now. Hidden in plain sight eh?
John you did NOT even spend the time reading my post.
Where did you get about Madeleine being a student at a London Art School from"?
I said
I suggested that OG go to one of the famous London Art Schools and check the little girls features with them. Also that they checked the little girl out with relatives who would remember Kate and Gerry at the same sort of age.
I have to wonder, "Are you trying to bury my posts with nonsense?". Get them hidden over page? it has happened before altho i am not aware caused by you then.
Also the two little girls in the Rif Mountains of Morocco.
The original girl on the wo/mans back WAS DEFINITELY NOT Bushra. Almost without doubt she was Madeleine.
Same with the little girl in orange. She was very like Joana and the fact that someone went to the trouble of changing the shape of her legs will confirm it to others that some serious hanky panky is going on imo.
If I were you, I would distance myself from such things. We don't want you to get into trouble, and you certainly don't need it either.
-
That's very true, there were several witnesses in and around 3a during the evening. How long would it take to gain entry to the apartment, find and lift a child and then make an escape all without being seen. And remember, if there was an intruder he was not to know whether his victim would scream the place down.
How long do you think it would take to break into an unlocked apartment and remove a child? How long did it take the creep who removed the girl from her bath who was awake with her mother in the house?
-
Also, if would be child abductors were worried about their quarry screaming when they took them there would never be any child abduction, so let’s stop using that as a rationale for why Madeleine could not have been abducted. It’s absurd.
-
That's very true, there were several witnesses in and around 3a during the evening. How long would it take to gain entry to the apartment, find and lift a child and then make an escape all without being seen. And remember, if there was an intruder he was not to know whether his victim would scream the place down.
Ironically, this is the only thing that rings true about an abduction. It would take mere seconds if that patio door was unlocked and someone knew it - less than a minute.
The 'abductor' could easily overpower and gag a small child to muffle screams.
But that's where credulity ends and fantasy takes over. Let's never forget that Gerry couldn't remember which way he entered the apartment at the moment when his life supposedly pivoted.
-
Ironically, this is the only thing that rings true about an abduction. It would take mere seconds if that patio door was unlocked and someone knew it - less than a minute.
The 'abductor' could easily overpower and gag a small child to muffle screams.
But that's where credulity ends and fantasy takes over. Let's never forget that Gerry couldn't remember which way he entered the apartment at the moment when his life supposedly pivoted.
Both SY and the BKA think abduction took place.. The PJ thought it one of the possibilities.... Sceptic logic falls at the first fence
-
Not according to SY and the McCanns he isn't because Wolters claims she's dead while SY and the McCanns disagree.
You totally misunderstand the situation... That isnt opinion.. Its fact. Neither SY nor the mccanns think Maddie is still alive
-
Are you truly saying that Gerry is such an arrogant and narcissistic individual that when faced with evidence from two witnesses that he was not where he thought he was he doubles down on his recollection? That when doubling down on his recollection undermines his main witness Tanner he still does it? His daughter has just, according to him, been abducted but it means more to him to appear right rather than accept that he may be wrong.
No, that's not what I'm saying. But the fact you are trying to put words in my mouth and deliberately misrepresent what I was saying is comforting. It means you have absolutely nothing of worth to challenge what I actually said.
I'm saying Gerry says that's where he was stood, because that's how he genuinely remembered it. If it was all a lie, it would be easy for him to change his story to align it with the others and say he was mistaken (although if he did that, I'm sure you'd cite that as being equally suspicious). He's saying he was stood further over because he's just being honest about what he remembers. For what it's worth, I think he is probably incorrect in his recollection. The same as I think Martin Smith is incorrect in his. Is Martin Smith an arrogant narcissist for not aligning his view to that of Peter and Aoife, who disagreed that the man was Gerry?
Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood. But piecing together all three accounts, that seems the most likely place, but it's still not certain either.
This is just a typical example of variations in recollections that people try to twist and contort into having a bigger meaning. I'm yet to hear a credible reason for why Jane would lie about passing them though.
-
Amaral was of the opinion that Jane turned left into the walkway before she reached the two men standing chatting and that is why neither saw her pass. He also claimed that Jane didn't see the man carrying the child from the street but from her apartment on the first floor.
All very odd imo.
It was also Amaral's opinion that Gerry slipped away, carried Madeleine’s corpse through town, down to the beach and buried her. Then dug her back up and stuck her in a freezer for a few weeks. Then put her in his hire car. After that, I forget... was it that she was fed to pigs? or am I thinking of another case where he lied his ass off?
-
Both SY and the BKA think abduction took place.. The PJ thought it one of the possibilities.... Sceptic logic falls at the first fence
Indeed, weird sceptic logic that admits a child abduction could easily be executed but that it could not have occurred because Gerry got a fact wrong and had to correct it a couple of days later (which, if he was not striving for absolute accuracy he could have just let pass and no one would have been any the wiser). *%87
-
Not according to SY and the McCanns he isn't because Wolters claims she's dead while SY and the McCanns disagree.
According to the media the BKA have not shared the evidence which has convinced them that Madeleine has been murdered.
According to the media SY and the BKA are hand in glove as far as Brueckner being the prime suspect. SY gave the BKA the name in 2013 and he was interviewed; after televised appeals in 2017 Brueckner's name was again brought to the attention of investigators.
Brueckner has been on the bucket list of SY and the BKA since then; his name only entered the public arena as a direct result of Amaral mouthing off in a podcast of 2019 which the media took to be Ney; only further Amaral media intervention in 2020 assured that the identity of the "patsy" became known.
Amaral had a reason for attempting to disrupt the investigation into Madeleine's case so insistently which must have been pretty urgent to make him break cover as he did.
I think the time may come when he might have to answer questions about his actions and his interference in a live investigation.
-
That's very true, there were several witnesses in and around 3a during the evening. How long would it take to gain entry to the apartment, find and lift a child and then make an escape all without being seen. And remember, if there was an intruder he was not to know whether his victim would scream the place down.
Brueckner is a skilled burglar with many criminal contacts.
Brueckner is a convicted rapist.
Brueckner is a convicted paedophile.
Scotland Yard have already interviewed other known burglars apparently brought to attention as a result of their mobile phone activity on the night Madeleine vanished.
These men were local had expertise as burglars - they had the means to enter premises illegally and if they chose to kidnap a child, they had access to accommodation, vehicles and perhaps even contacts to make sure the child vanished from the face of the earth.
So did Brueckner - which is why he is now the prime suspect in Madeleine's case.
-
No, that's not what I'm saying. But the fact you are trying to put words in my mouth and deliberately misrepresent what I was saying is comforting. It means you have absolutely nothing of worth to challenge what I actually said.
I'm saying Gerry says that's where he was stood, because that's how he genuinely remembered it. If it was all a lie, it would be easy for him to change his story to align it with the others and say he was mistaken (although if he did that, I'm sure you'd cite that as being equally suspicious). He's saying he was stood further over because he's just being honest about what he remembers. For what it's worth, I think he is probably incorrect in his recollection. The same as I think Martin Smith is incorrect in his. Is Martin Smith an arrogant narcissist for not aligning his view to that of Peter and Aoife, who disagreed that the man was Gerry?
Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood. But piecing together all three accounts, that seems the most likely place, but it's still not certain either.
This is just a typical example of variations in recollections that people try to twist and contort into having a bigger meaning. I'm yet to hear a credible reason for why Jane would lie about passing them though.
"Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood."
To that I would add that less than an hour later Gerry was to discover that his precious daughter was missing from her bed. That was a traumatic event which must have taken precedence over all else.
I agree with the positioning as being the most likely. But I think it of little importance where the men were standing.
Strong evidence is that both men had a conversation - Jane - Jes and Gerry all agreed on that.
Strong evidence is that Jane left the tapas table to walk up the street past them to make her check - that too is corroborated, as is Gerry leaving and returning to the meal.
The important issue which this redundant positioning argument attempts to cloud over is Jane Tanner's evidence of her eye witness account of a female child being carried away from the direction of the McCann apartment on the night Madeleine was abducted.
I don't think it takes rocket science to work that one out.
-
Amaral was of the opinion that Jane turned left into the walkway before she reached the two men standing chatting and that is why neither saw her pass. He also claimed that Jane didn't see the man carrying the child from the street but from her apartment on the first floor.
All very odd imo.
Amaral is on record as being of the opinion that Brueckner had a long, shaggy, hippy hairstyle when Madeleine was abducted.
He took the trouble to make a faked up photo image showing how Brueckner 'looked' and advertised it assiduously.
As we all know for certain Amaral was wrong about that too.
-
"Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood."
To that I would add that less than an hour later Gerry was to discover that his precious daughter was missing from her bed. That was a traumatic event which must have taken precedence over all else.
I agree with the positioning as being the most likely. But I think it of little importance where the men were standing.
Strong evidence is that both men had a conversation - Jane - Jes and Gerry all agreed on that.
Strong evidence is that Jane left the tapas table to walk up the street past them to make her check - that too is corroborated, as is Gerry leaving and returning to the meal.
The important issue which this redundant positioning argument attempts to cloud over is Jane Tanner's evidence of her eye witness account of a female child being carried away from the direction of the McCann apartment on the night Madeleine was abducted.
I don't think it takes rocket science to work that one out.
Let's not forget that for years sceptics accused JT of making the whole sighting up, and then had to quickly alter their accusation to fit their narrative of deceit when Totman was ID'ed. IMO JT was an honest witness who has been maligned and traduced over the years, and by some individuals who regularly post on this forum too (if not spreading their poison on here then certainly elsewhere). Poor woman.
-
From the sidelines and as a civilian, Amaral interfered in the German investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance by issuing false information regarding Brueckner.
How can we be sure that as the Policia Judiciaria co-ordinator of Madeleine's case he wasn't already pulling stunts of that type.
He is a dishonest man as his criminal conviction for perjury proves.
-
Let's not forget that for years sceptics accused JT of making the whole sighting up, and then had to quickly alter their accusation to fit their narrative of deceit when Totman was ID'ed. IMO JT was an honest witness who has been maligned and traduced over the years, and by some individuals who regularly post on this forum too (if not here then elsewhere). Poor woman.
It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.
The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.
-
It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.
The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.
My position is that JT, GMcC and JW were and are honest witnesses, and I think that is a position I share with all supporters and anyone else without a McCann bashing agenda. Where who was stood on the pavement is of no significance to anyone but the most ardent sceptic and I am totally open minded about whether JT saw an abductor or a holiday maker, but that she did see someone matching the description she gave, of that I am quite certain.
-
It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.
The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.
The "positions" being adopted might be an internet game, obsession or crusade for some but it should be realised this concerns the true lives of Madeleine and her parents.
-
My position is that JT, GMcC and JW were and are honest witnesses, and I think that is a position I share with all supporters and anyone else without a McCann bashing agenda. Where who was stood on the pavement is of no significance to anyone but the most ardent sceptic and I am totally open minded about whether JT saw an abductor or a holiday maker, but that she did see someone matching the description she gave, of that I am quite certain.
Which one?
-
It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.
The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.
It's not really of any importance if the Germans have proof of abduction and murder which it seems they do
-
The "positions" being adopted might be an internet game, obsession or crusade for some but it should be realised this concerns the true lives of Madeleine and her parents.
The positions are vitally important Brie. Vitally to a sleuth/investigator
Had Gerry and Jez been standing further up the hill, a watcher on the balcony opposite would have been able to see them - and events would have happened differently.
No go ahead for the abduction, because the getaway car, parked conveniently for the watcher on that little car park opposite Tapas reception, would have had to drive past G and Jez. to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine
~~~~~
Because a corner of block 4 was sticking out about 6 feet beyond the balcony, his view was blocked in a southerly direction. He could not see the two men, G and J, when they stood in the road at the entrance to the alleyway.
He thought that it was all clear, so he gave the go ahead for the abduction.
Can you see the reason why (some) posters on here are so keen to lie and try and change facts.
The above is all in my carefully considered opinion.
An opinion which no-one on here (excepting Anthro and maybe a couple of others) care to consider.
Anthro is a very clever slueth and considers all angles and all the details. Furthermore she is flexible and happy to change direction considering new things, rather than get stuck in a rut, as some have here
Thank goodness SY took notice of my findings.
-
You totally misunderstand the situation... That isnt opinion.. Its fact. Neither SY nor the mccanns think Maddie is still alive
That is not correct, it seems Davel. You must have missed this post
Make of this what you will.
EXCLUSIVE: Scotland Yard 'detectives believe Madeleine McCann could still be ALIVE': Bespoke Met Police unit is treating tragedy as a missing person case - despite German authorities insisting snatched girl is dead
Scotland Yard's Madeleine McCann team has 'more open thinking' and is still treating her disappearance as a missing person's investigation – despite German prosecutors insisting she is dead.
Among other theories, the bespoke London unit of officers codenamed Operation Grange is still working on a possibility she may be alive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10239367/Scotland-Yard-open-thinking-Madeleine-McCann-Germans-think-dead.html
Also haven't you wondered why SY have not joined the PJ and the BKA in their final (hopefully) gathering and assessment of evidence?
I have
- and I think it strongly suggests that SY believe Madeleine may still be alive.
-
That is not correct, it seems Davel. You must have missed this post
Also haven't you wondered why SY have not joined the PJ and the BKA in their final (hopefully) gathering and assessment of evidence?
I have
- and I think it strongly suggests that SY believe Madeleine may still be alive.
No haven't missed anything. Neither SY or the McCanns believe Maddie IS alive.... But as they haven't seen the evidence that the Germans have they hang on to the remote possibility she may be. I make this point because some try to maintain that SY and the Germans are not acting together
I'm sure that the Germans have proof Maddie was abducted and murdered.. Probably photographic
-
No, that's not what I'm saying. But the fact you are trying to put words in my mouth and deliberately misrepresent what I was saying is comforting. It means you have absolutely nothing of worth to challenge what I actually said.
I'm saying Gerry says that's where he was stood, because that's how he genuinely remembered it. If it was all a lie, it would be easy for him to change his story to align it with the others and say he was mistaken (although if he did that, I'm sure you'd cite that as being equally suspicious). He's saying he was stood further over because he's just being honest about what he remembers. For what it's worth, I think he is probably incorrect in his recollection. The same as I think Martin Smith is incorrect in his. Is Martin Smith an arrogant narcissist for not aligning his view to that of Peter and Aoife, who disagreed that the man was Gerry?
Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood. But piecing together all three accounts, that seems the most likely place, but it's still not certain either.
This is just a typical example of variations in recollections that people try to twist and contort into having a bigger meaning. I'm yet to hear a credible reason for why Jane would lie about passing them though.
Who had consumed alcohol?
-
Who had consumed alcohol?
Well Gerry certainly had, he states he and Kate were drinking in the apartment in the hour between them putting the kids to bed and leaving for the Tapas.
Jane admits drinking that night at the Tapas as well. Whether she'd drank anything by the time she went to do this check isn't explicitly stated in the files I don't think, but it's probable since she'd been sat at the Tapas for about 40 minutes or more by that point. May be some assumption on my part but if I was sat in a bar for 40 minutes I would have definitely have had a drink by then. Wouldn't you?
No idea if Jez had consumed alcohol that day, don't believe he has ever stated either way if he had or hadn't. Probably because he was never asked.
As for the baby in the pram, I'm going to stick my neck out and say he was probably sober.
-
Well Gerry certainly had, he states he and Kate were drinking in the apartment in the hour between them putting the kids to bed and leaving for the Tapas.
Jane admits drinking that night at the Tapas as well. Whether she'd drank anything by the time she went to do this check isn't explicitly stated in the files I don't think, but it's probable since she'd been sat at the Tapas for about 40 minutes or more by that point. May be some assumption on my part but if I was sat in a bar for 40 minutes I would have definitely have had a drink by then. Wouldn't you?
No idea if Jez had consumed alcohol that day, don't believe he has ever stated either way if he had or hadn't. Probably because he was never asked.
As for the baby in the pram, I'm going to stick my neck out and say he was probably sober.
Do you think that Gerry had had enough alcohol to affect his ability to recall events accurately or indeed Tanner because that would, obviously, have an impact on the veracity of their later statements? Are we to believe that their statements were a true reflect of what they believed happened that night or a series of cobbled together memories coloured by alcohol?
-
Do you think that Gerry had had enough alcohol to affect his ability to recall events accurately or indeed Tanner because that would, obviously, have an impact on the veracity of their later statements? Are we to believe that their statements were a true reflect of what they believed happened that night or a series of cobbled together memories coloured by alcohol?
As no one was breathylsed I would say it’s an impossible question to answer. Don’t forget the sceptic narrative however - they were on the piss every night and had ordered 12 bottles of wine each, or something.
-
Do you think that Gerry had had enough alcohol to affect his ability to recall events accurately or indeed Tanner because that would, obviously, have an impact on the veracity of their later statements? Are we to believe that their statements were a true reflect of what they believed happened that night or a series of cobbled together memories coloured by alcohol?
@)(++(* Trying to put words in my mouth again I see. I knew that was a loaded question, with follow-up responses ready to fire at me no matter what I'd answered, but I just couldn't resist. 8(0(*
All I said was 'Alcohol had been cosumed'. Was that untrue? With or without alcohol, memories are fallible. Several people can watch the exact same event and then if asked to recount it, they will all give slightly different versions of how they remembered it. Especially if a question relates to something as specific as who was stood exactly where at a specific point in time during an event where you had no particular reason to pay attention to those kind of details.
All I was saying, is that cosuming alcohol (even a little) would have potentialy further inhibited recalling specific details such as that. What I was not saying was "Gerry and Jane were smashed off their faces and so we can't trust a word they say".
You seem to want the argument to be black or white. Either they were drunk and so we can't trust their accounts. Or, they weren't drunk and so any minor discrepancy in their accounts must be a lie.
You don't appear to be able to think objectively. You are quite happy to accept that after seeing Gerry on the news constantly for four months, Martin Smith can suddenly remember "that's the shifty looking man I saw carrying that girl in an odd way", but not that Gerry can't recall the exact spot of road he had a meaninless chit chat with his buddy.
Hypothetical question, if it turned out newly unearthed CCTV fototage proved that Jane did indeed walk past Jez and Gerry, and it then turned out that Jane Tanner goes and positively identifies CB as the man she saw and she says she is 90 percent sure (not just 60 to 80%), would you be so willing to accept her assertion as you do Martin Smith's?
-
Well Gerry certainly had, he states he and Kate were drinking in the apartment in the hour between them putting the kids to bed and leaving for the Tapas.
Jane admits drinking that night at the Tapas as well. Whether she'd drank anything by the time she went to do this check isn't explicitly stated in the files I don't think, but it's probable since she'd been sat at the Tapas for about 40 minutes or more by that point. May be some assumption on my part but if I was sat in a bar for 40 minutes I would have definitely have had a drink by then. Wouldn't you?
No idea if Jez had consumed alcohol that day, don't believe he has ever stated either way if he had or hadn't. Probably because he was never asked.
As for the baby in the pram, I'm going to stick my neck out and say he was probably sober.
Sorry Para, but The Tapas group were sitting in a restaurant, not a bar. I have been there and eaten there. The bar is in a seperate building next door. No way had they drunk enough to make them tiddly by the time of Janes sighting
1) In KATES statement she said that they had a glass of NZ wine before dinner
2) LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF JERONIMO RODRIGUES SALCEDAS
Occupation: Fitness Instructor (But working as a waiter and wine waiter at Ocean club)
[snip]
In relation to alcohol consumption, it never appeared to me to be excessive. The wine was included in the dinner at Tapas and the functionaries were very generous in this respect. The permission was approximately one bottler per person [/snip]
~~~~~~~~~~
3) Witness Statement
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Date: 2007.09.07
[snip]
On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine.[/snip]
On that day he did not serve any more wine, This means that there was still some left, so eating a meal as they were, they were pretty sober
Having been served free wines in hotels before, I can tell you it is usually pretty revolting. However with one of the owners of OC being David Symington of the famous Symington Port Family of Oporto, perhaps it was decent?
One bottle serves 5 standard glasses
Para, you are new and may not know this:
I no longer do cites, cos I am old and have been very seriously ill. I am not up to the extra work of finding cites anymore, sorry.
But on this occasion I have made the effort.
-
No haven't missed anything. Neither SY or the McCanns believe Maddie IS alive.... But as they haven't seen the evidence that the Germans have they hang on to the remote possibility she may be. I make this point because some try to maintain that SY and the Germans are not acting together
I'm sure that the Germans have proof Maddie was abducted and murdered.. Probably photographic
I'm afraid I have to agree with Sadie on this one. SY have said there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that is true in fact. The McCanns also hold that hope as they have every right to do.
Wolters has shared nothing even with the missing child's parents and that in itself is a disgrace. I never heard of such callousness ever!
-
I'm afraid I have to agree with Sadie on this one. SY have said there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that is true in fact. The McCanns also hold that hope as they have every right to do.
Wolters has shared nothing even with the missing child's parents and that in itself is a disgrace. I never heard of such callousness ever!
Thank you John.
As I have said before, there is evidence (3 pieces) with OG that Madeleine was still alive in February 2012. I can't share it.
Believe me or believe me not, that's up to you.
-
As no one was breathylsed I would say it’s an impossible question to answer. Don’t forget the sceptic narrative however - they were on the piss every night and had ordered 12 bottles of wine each, or something.
Perhaps some people were daft enough to believe what they read in the newspapers;
Leaks from inside the police investigation suggested the so-called Tapas Nine ordered daiquiris, martinis and beers before dinner, downed up to 14 bottles of wine with their meal, and usually enjoyed almond liqueur afterwards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
-
Perhaps some people were daft enough to believe what they read in the newspapers;
Leaks from inside the police investigation suggested the so-called Tapas Nine ordered daiquiris, martinis and beers before dinner, downed up to 14 bottles of wine with their meal, and usually enjoyed almond liqueur afterwards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
So the ever-twisting defence narrative now is that no wonder their memories were unreliable, they were all shit faced, so the 2nd set of statements are way more reliable?
Explains Gerry's confusion about which door he used when seeing his daughter for the last time. He probably fell over the picket fence, staggered up the steps, lurching in to the hedge as he ascended, gathered himself at the top and swayed precariously towards the patio door, 'shushhing' nobody in particular, before wrenching the door open, tripping over the threshold and clattering in to the coffee table (hence the blood).
He paused at the door and gazed with sozzled wonder at just Madeleine, uttered a teary 'sheez sooo bootiful, so she is....' and somehow managed to extricate himself back to the party without incurring further bodily damage.
And it's no wonder he didn't see Jane, he probably couldn't see his own hands.
-
Perhaps some people were daft enough to believe what they read in the newspapers;
Leaks from inside the police investigation suggested the so-called Tapas Nine ordered daiquiris, martinis and beers before dinner, downed up to 14 bottles of wine with their meal, and usually enjoyed almond liqueur afterwards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
And there is certainly no shortage of daft people willing to believe the Tapas group were off on the piss and roaring drunk every night.
-
Sorry Para, but The Tapas group were sitting in a restaurant, not a bar. I have been there and eaten there. The bar is in a seperate building next door. No way had they drunk enough to make them tiddly by the time of Janes sighting
1) In KATES statement she said that they had a glass of NZ wine before dinner
2) LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF JERONIMO RODRIGUES SALCEDAS
Occupation: Fitness Instructor (But working as a waiter and wine waiter at Ocean club)
[snip]
In relation to alcohol consumption, it never appeared to me to be excessive. The wine was included in the dinner at Tapas and the functionaries were very generous in this respect. The permission was approximately one bottler per person [/snip]
~~~~~~~~~~
3) Witness Statement
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Date: 2007.09.07
[snip]
On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine.[/snip]
On that day he did not serve any more wine, This means that there was still some left, so eating a meal as they were, they were pretty sober
Having been served free wines in hotels before, I can tell you it is usually pretty revolting. However with one of the owners of OC being David Symington of the famous Symington Port Family of Oporto, perhaps it was decent?
One bottle serves 5 standard glasses
Para, you are new and may not know this:
I no longer do cites, cos I am old and have been very seriously ill. I am not up to the extra work of finding cites anymore, sorry.
But on this occasion I have made the effort.
Thank you Sadie. Yes, I understand they were sat in the restaurant area, so maybe should not have used the terminology "Bar" but people do tend to refer to it all interchangeably as the "Tapas Bar". I'm aware it comprises two separate areas though. All I meant is that since Jane admits to drinking wine in the restaurant that night, it's quite probable that she had drunk "some" prior to doing her first check given the times.
And just to clarify, at no point have I tried to make out they were drunk (or even tiddly for that matter). My original comment was simply that "Alcohol had been consumed". That is all. Even a small amount of alcohol can cause some impairment, hence the reason we have drink-drive limits for example. I agree that it does not appear they were drinking excessively. Although some people seem desperate to twist my words to make out that is what I meant.
-
I'm afraid I have to agree with Sadie on this one. SY have said there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that is true in fact. The McCanns also hold that hope as they have every right to do.
Wolters has shared nothing even with the missing child's parents and that in itself is a disgrace. I never heard of such callousness ever!
You can agree but your post is a fallacy and opinion. SY have NOT said there is no evidence maddie is dead
The Germans say they have concrete evidence maddie is dead. You can say you don't believe them but you can't state as a fact it doesn't exist.. I'm sure it does.
I think Wolters is doing an amazing job and if he has solved Maddies fate... Which it seems he has... That will be an amazing achievement
-
So the ever-twisting defence narrative now is that no wonder their memories were unreliable, they were all shit faced, so the 2nd set of statements are way more reliable?
Explains Gerry's confusion about which door he used when seeing his daughter for the last time. He probably fell over the picket fence, staggered up the steps, lurching in to the hedge as he ascended, gathered himself at the top and swayed precariously towards the patio door, 'shushhing' nobody in particular, before wrenching the door open, tripping over the threshold and clattering in to the coffee table (hence the blood).
He paused at the door and gazed with sozzled wonder at just Madeleine, uttered a teary 'sheez sooo bootiful, so she is....' and somehow managed to extricate himself back to the party without incurring further bodily damage.
And it's no wonder he didn't see Jane, he probably couldn't see his own hands.
Reductio ad absurdum. Weak.
-
I'm afraid I have to agree with Sadie on this one. SY have said there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that is true in fact. The McCanns also hold that hope as they have every right to do.
Wolters has shared nothing even with the missing child's parents and that in itself is a disgrace. I never heard of such callousness ever!
I think the Germans now playing their cards very close to their chest is as a direct result of the learning curve they have undergone as McCann investigators.
I think it possible that having gone through the motions of reopening Madeleine's case on the strength of coming up with another suspect fitting a profile but not investigated in 2007 the Portuguese sat back on their laurels until Scotland Yard keeping the investigation active resulted in the dividend of Brueckner's name coming to the fore.
Brueckner's name was leaked to the press as was Montiero's name before his and certainly both were guys who fitted a profile.
JULY 21, 20083:29 PMUPDATED 14 YEARS AGO
Portugal drops Madeleine case, clears parents
By Andrei Khalip
LISBON (Reuters) - Portugal’s public prosecutor dropped the case on the disappearance of British girl Madeleine McCann in the absence of any evidence on Monday, and cleared her parents and another Briton of suspicion of involvement.
Chief prosecutor Fernando Pinto Monteiro said in a statement that Gerry and Kate McCann and Robert Murat, who lived in the same resort in southern Portugal’s Algarve region where the three-year-old vanished 14 months ago, were all cleared.
“The public prosecutor’s office has determined that the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann be archived, due to the lack of evidence of any crime being committed by the suspects,” the statement said.
“The case can be reopened by the public prosecutor’s office, or following a request from an interested party, if new evidence materializes,” it said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-girl/portugal-drops-madeleine-case-clears-parents-idUSL2191413220080721
As an aside ~ has there ever been such an investigation into the case of a missing child ~ where the negativity at the thought of a possible perpetrator is so palpable.
'Goose chases' and 'patsys' just a couple of the terms abounding.
Madeleine McCann: A new kidnapping suspect emerges in 2007 case
Madeleine McCann case reopened: Portuguese police have a new suspect in the mysterious disappearance of British toddler Madeleine McCann. A former employee of the Ocean Club resort is being investigated.
November 2, 2013
By David Clark Scott Staff writer
@davidclarkscott
Could the Madeleine McCann case finally be solved?
Or is this just another wild goose chase?
Last week, Portuguese prosecutors suddenly reopened their investigation into the 2007 disappearance of British toddler Madeleine McCann.
British and Portuguese media now report that the leading suspect is Euclides Monteiro, an immigrant who was a restaurant worker at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, which is where nearly 4-year old Madeleine was last seen. Mr. Monteiro was fired shortly before her disappearance and may have kidnapped the girl as an act of revenge against his former employer, according to the Portuguese daily Correio da Manha.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/1102/Madeleine-McCann-A-new-kidnapping-suspect-emerges-in-2007-case
This is obviously a very sensitive and complex case with evidence the BKA don't want released to the public domain and they have discovered that unfortunately that is not how it happens in Portugal.
Keeping it all in house is an obvious strategy to control that situation.
My opinion is that Madeleine's tremendously brave and stoic parents and family will suffer the pain of not knowing operational matters (after all they have had fifteen years of experiencing the slurs directed at them from so called investigators) in the knowledge and comfort that this investigation is pulling out all the stops to enable "justice" for Madeleine.
Something positive is happening at long last.
No-one is fitting them up and no-one is fitting anyone else up either. I don't think it can be denied that the BKA investigation is an evidence led one and it is all that they can cling to in the hope of finding out what happened to their daughter whether good or bad news.
There is no evidence of complaint from them. There is only evidence that they are waiting.
-
Reductio ad absurdum. Weak.
Your summation whilst accurate is far too kind IMO.
-
You can agree but your post is a fallacy and opinion. SY have NOT said there is no evidence maddie is dead
The Germans say they have concrete evidence maddie is dead. You can say you don't believe them but you can't state as a fact it doesn't exist.. I'm sure it does.
I think Wolters is doing an amazing job and if he has solved Maddies fate... Which it seems he has... That will be an amazing achievement
I think that however painful - Madeleine's family need to know what happened to her. From reading accounts of other families of the missing, that is paramount.
The German investigation is I think the only chance the McCanns have of getting that information and I don't think the time being taken can be helped. Unfortunately whoever did this has had many years to cover their tracks.
-
And there is certainly no shortage of daft people willing to believe the Tapas group were off on the piss and roaring drunk every night.
As you said, we don't know, but the MSM contributed/started the rumours of heavy drinking.
-
As you said, we don't know, but the MSM contributed/started the rumours of heavy drinking.
And your point is?
-
Reductio ad absurdum. Weak.
Cheers Para. I'm Utrinque Paratus (while we're pathetically flexing the Googled Latin), - are you?
-
As you said, we don't know, but the MSM contributed/started the rumours of heavy drinking.
That was during the brief window when they were backing the other horse, when Arguido status was applied - open season for the wretches to vomit up any old crap.
-
I think the Germans now playing their cards very close to their chest is as a direct result of the learning curve they have undergone as McCann investigators.
I think it possible that having gone through the motions of reopening Madeleine's case on the strength of coming up with another suspect fitting a profile but not investigated in 2007 the Portuguese sat back on their laurels until Scotland Yard keeping the investigation active resulted in the dividend of Brueckner's name coming to the fore.
Brueckner's name was leaked to the press as was Montiero's name before his and certainly both were guys who fitted a profile.
JULY 21, 20083:29 PMUPDATED 14 YEARS AGO
Portugal drops Madeleine case, clears parents
By Andrei Khalip
LISBON (Reuters) - Portugal’s public prosecutor dropped the case on the disappearance of British girl Madeleine McCann in the absence of any evidence on Monday, and cleared her parents and another Briton of suspicion of involvement.
Chief prosecutor Fernando Pinto Monteiro said in a statement that Gerry and Kate McCann and Robert Murat, who lived in the same resort in southern Portugal’s Algarve region where the three-year-old vanished 14 months ago, were all cleared.
“The public prosecutor’s office has determined that the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann be archived, due to the lack of evidence of any crime being committed by the suspects,” the statement said.
“The case can be reopened by the public prosecutor’s office, or following a request from an interested party, if new evidence materializes,” it said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-girl/portugal-drops-madeleine-case-clears-parents-idUSL2191413220080721
As an aside ~ has there ever been such an investigation into the case of a missing child ~ where the negativity at the thought of a possible perpetrator is so palpable.
'Goose chases' and 'patsys' just a couple of the terms abounding.
Madeleine McCann: A new kidnapping suspect emerges in 2007 case
Madeleine McCann case reopened: Portuguese police have a new suspect in the mysterious disappearance of British toddler Madeleine McCann. A former employee of the Ocean Club resort is being investigated.
November 2, 2013
By David Clark Scott Staff writer
@davidclarkscott
Could the Madeleine McCann case finally be solved?
Or is this just another wild goose chase?
Last week, Portuguese prosecutors suddenly reopened their investigation into the 2007 disappearance of British toddler Madeleine McCann.
British and Portuguese media now report that the leading suspect is Euclides Monteiro, an immigrant who was a restaurant worker at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, which is where nearly 4-year old Madeleine was last seen. Mr. Monteiro was fired shortly before her disappearance and may have kidnapped the girl as an act of revenge against his former employer, according to the Portuguese daily Correio da Manha.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/1102/Madeleine-McCann-A-new-kidnapping-suspect-emerges-in-2007-case
This is obviously a very sensitive and complex case with evidence the BKA don't want released to the public domain and they have discovered that unfortunately that is not how it happens in Portugal.
Keeping it all in house is an obvious strategy to control that situation.
My opinion is that Madeleine's tremendously brave and stoic parents and family will suffer the pain of not knowing operational matters (after all they have had fifteen years of experiencing the slurs directed at them from so called investigators) in the knowledge and comfort that this investigation is pulling out all the stops to enable "justice" for Madeleine.
Something positive is happening at long last.
No-one is fitting them up and no-one is fitting anyone else up either. I don't think it can be denied that the BKA investigation is an evidence led one and it is all that they can cling to in the hope of finding out what happened to their daughter whether good or bad news.
There is no evidence of complaint from them. There is only evidence that they are waiting.
Wolters does seem to have shut up recently. I think that's a good thing unless he has something significant to say as otherwise it just encourages media speculation.
The BKA investigation may be evidence led, but what that evidence was and how reliable it was we don't know. Judging by the media, it seems to have consisted of information from informants and a possible phone call on 3rd May.
-
Wolters does seem to have shut up recently. I think that's a good thing unless he has something significant to say as otherwise it just encourages media speculation.
The BKA investigation may be evidence led, but what that evidence was and how reliable it was we don't know. Judging by the media, it seems to have consisted of information from informants and a possible phone call on 3rd May.
HCW's comparative radio silence may be, in part, due to the recent litigation issued to Rabbe. Or it may not.
Push the envelope as far as you can, then step back once the inevitable slap on the wrist arrives. Or not.
I think it's clear for everyone that there's a piece of the puzzle missing. Except I don't think it's down the back of the couch, I think the dog ate it. This might not stop proceedings, but it would certainly weaken the case.
-
Wolters does seem to have shut up recently. I think that's a good thing unless he has something significant to say as otherwise it just encourages media speculation.
The BKA investigation may be evidence led, but what that evidence was and how reliable it was we don't know. Judging by the media, it seems to have consisted of information from informants and a possible phone call on 3rd May.
You say.. Judging by the media... And then draw your conclusions... Can't you see how laughable that is.
I base my conclusions on the official spokesman for the German investigation..... I think thats a lot more sensible
-
You say.. Judging by the media... And then draw your conclusions... Can't you see how laughable that is.
I base my conclusions on the official spokesman for the German investigation..... I think thats a lot more sensible
Clinging to Wolters' words is one way of proceeding, I suppose, but I prefer to wait and see if they have what he thinks they have.
-
Wolters does seem to have shut up recently. I think that's a good thing unless he has something significant to say as otherwise it just encourages media speculation.
The BKA investigation may be evidence led, but what that evidence was and how reliable it was we don't know. Judging by the media, it seems to have consisted of information from informants and a possible phone call on 3rd May.
Are you of the opinion that the media must know the full extent of the evidence held by the German investigation?
-
Are you of the opinion that the media must know the full extent of the evidence held by the German investigation?
I know you're not reading my posts, but reading them....I'm not. Quite the opposite.
I'm happy to wait and see.
-
Thank you Sadie. Yes, I understand they were sat in the restaurant area, so maybe should not have used the terminology "Bar" but people do tend to refer to it all interchangeably as the "Tapas Bar". I'm aware it comprises two separate areas though. All I meant is that since Jane admits to drinking wine in the restaurant that night, it's quite probable that she had drunk "some" prior to doing her first check given the times.
And just to clarify, at no point have I tried to make out they were drunk (or even tiddly for that matter). My original comment was simply that "Alcohol had been consumed". That is all. Even a small amount of alcohol can cause some impairment, hence the reason we have drink-drive limits for example. I agree that it does not appear they were drinking excessively. Although some people seem desperate to twist my words to make out that is what I meant.
Thanks Para. They are two seperate rooms, not just seperate areas in the same room alho there is easy access between them. From memory, the buildings were different styles and seem to have been built at different times. Maybe the restaurant was built later, but I do not know.
There is a lot of disinformation around, including two photographs claiming to be of the Tapas restaurant. The one is correct, but the other is nothing like the actual Tapas restaurant. This image has been around so long that my bet is that many think this is the actual restaurant. There is so much that I could correct, but I simply do not have the time or necessary energy.
And, yes, alcohol had been consumed but not in excess it seems.
-
Are you of the opinion that the media must know the full extent of the evidence held by the German investigation?
Of course not. Nor am I of the opinion that they always repeat Wolters' words correctly. What isn't helpful, imo, is how much he has been willing to engage with the media despite being allowed to say very little. That suggests to me that he was either being niaive or there was a fishing expedition going on.
-
Of course not. Nor am I of the opinion that they always repeat Wolters' words correctly. What isn't helpful, imo, is how much he has been willing to engage with the media despite being allowed to say very little. That suggests to me that he was either being niaive or there was a fishing expedition going on.
Thats why as much possible to base my conclusions on what I've seen or heard Wolters say live on film
-
Of course not. Nor am I of the opinion that they always repeat Wolters' words correctly. What isn't helpful, imo, is how much he has been willing to engage with the media despite being allowed to say very little. That suggests to me that he was either being niaive or there was a fishing expedition going on.
I believe Wolters is the designated spokesperson which rather makes it his job to speak to the media. I really do not think you have the measure of the man if you really think he can be described as "naïve".
Bear in mind we heard nothing of the German investigation until Amaral broke Brueckner's cover in December 2019.
Without that unwarranted intervention I think it possible we still might have been in ignorance of Brueckner's role or existence.
SY and the BKA had been working on the Brueckner angle since 2017 without feeling the need of going public on him.
-
Thats why as much possible to base my conclusions on what I've seen or heard Wolters say live on film
Here's what he told Sky News a year ago;
"There's so many facts that she is dead. There's no opportunity that she's still living. We don't have Madeleine McCann's body but we expect that she's dead. We have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed but we need more information from people. We hope that some British tourists can help us to find the murderer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZyYoCyHeBY
What else has he said live on film?
-
I believe Wolters is the designated spokesperson which rather makes it his job to speak to the media. I really do not think you have the measure of the man if you really think he can be described as "naïve".
Bear in mind we heard nothing of the German investigation until Amaral broke Brueckner's cover in December 2019.
Without that unwarranted intervention I think it possible we still might have been in ignorance of Brueckner's role or existence.
SY and the BKA had been working on the Brueckner angle since 2017 without feeling the need of going public on him.
The Germans went public because they needed information, as Wolters said. Imo it wasn't a response to anything said by Amaral, given the time lapse.
-
Of course not. Nor am I of the opinion that they always repeat Wolters' words correctly. What isn't helpful, imo, is how much he has been willing to engage with the media despite being allowed to say very little. That suggests to me that he was either being niaive or there was a fishing expedition going on.
What do you mean by “fishing expedition “? Do you mean appealing to the public for more evidence to build a case against Brückner?
-
What do you mean by “fishing expedition “? Do you mean appealing to the public for more evidence to build a case against Brückner?
That's what Herr Wolters said;
We have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed but we need more information from people. We hope that some British tourists can help us to find the murderer.
-
That's what Herr Wolters said;
We have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed but we need more information from people. We hope that some British tourists can help us to find the murderer.
Why do you have a problem with this?
-
Why do you have a problem with this?
I have no problem with them appealing for information.
-
I have no problem with them appealing for information.
You appear to have a problem with it IMO
"What isn't helpful, imo, is how much he has been willing to engage with the media despite being allowed to say very little. That suggests to me that he was either being niaive or there was a fishing expedition going on".
-
I have no problem with them appealing for information.
Doesn't matter if you do does it
-
Here's what he told Sky News a year ago;
"There's so many facts that she is dead. There's no opportunity that she's still living. We don't have Madeleine McCann's body but we expect that she's dead. We have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed but we need more information from people. We hope that some British tourists can help us to find the murderer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZyYoCyHeBY
What else has he said live on film?
What about.. We have concrete evidence MM is dead and our suspect murdered her.. Have you not heard that
-
What about.. We have concrete evidence MM is dead and our suspect murdered her.. Have you not heard that
Or how about.
Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder.
-
Or how about.
Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder.
Thats a newspaper report not his actual spoken words..
-
Thats a newspaper report not his actual spoken words..
A news paper report of what he said, take it up with them, oh! I once read JFK was shot, that was not actually any ones spoken words I suppose.
-
A news paper report of what he said, take it up with them, oh! I once read JFK was shot, that was not actually any ones spoken words I suppose.
Gibberish as expected
-
You appear to have a problem with it IMO
"What isn't helpful, imo, is how much he has been willing to engage with the media despite being allowed to say very little. That suggests to me that he was either being niaive or there was a fishing expedition going on".
He wasn't asking for information or giving out information, so what was his purpose in speaking with the media?
-
He wasn't asking for information or giving out information, so what was his purpose in speaking with the media?
I’m not sure what you’re about. He has done both, quite clearly. You yourself posted this quote from him
“We have some evidence that the suspect has done the deed but we need more information from people. We hope that some British tourists can help us to find the murderer”.
What is that if not asking for information?
-
@)(++(* Trying to put words in my mouth again I see. I knew that was a loaded question, with follow-up responses ready to fire at me no matter what I'd answered, but I just couldn't resist. 8(0(*
All I said was 'Alcohol had been cosumed'. Was that untrue? With or without alcohol, memories are fallible. Several people can watch the exact same event and then if asked to recount it, they will all give slightly different versions of how they remembered it. Especially if a question relates to something as specific as who was stood exactly where at a specific point in time during an event where you had no particular reason to pay attention to those kind of details.
All I was saying, is that cosuming alcohol (even a little) would have potentialy further inhibited recalling specific details such as that. What I was not saying was "Gerry and Jane were smashed off their faces and so we can't trust a word they say".
You seem to want the argument to be black or white. Either they were drunk and so we can't trust their accounts. Or, they weren't drunk and so any minor discrepancy in their accounts must be a lie.
You don't appear to be able to think objectively. You are quite happy to accept that after seeing Gerry on the news constantly for four months, Martin Smith can suddenly remember "that's the shifty looking man I saw carrying that girl in an odd way", but not that Gerry can't recall the exact spot of road he had a meaninless chit chat with his buddy.
Hypothetical question, if it turned out newly unearthed CCTV fototage proved that Jane did indeed walk past Jez and Gerry, and it then turned out that Jane Tanner goes and positively identifies CB as the man she saw and she says she is 90 percent sure (not just 60 to 80%), would you be so willing to accept her assertion as you do Martin Smith's?
It was you who brought up that the group’s perception may have been shaped by alcohol not me. If you don’t want something to be discussed can I suggest that you don’t use it as some sort of mitigation. If either Gerry or Tanner had consumed enough alcohol to perhaps dim their recall, as you suggested, how can any of their memories be relied upon?
TBH it’s not the fact that Gerry appears not to remember where he was standing I, like you, think there’s nothing suspicious in that. What is suspicious was the way he dug his heels in when two witnesses, one his friend, proved him wrong. Why chose that particular hill to die on?
As to your hypothetical question, I’m afraid I’ll have to answer the two parts separately. If there was CCTV that showed Tanner passing Gerry on that night then of course I’d accept that this had happened. I’d accept that I’d been wrong and crack on. As to Tanner identifying Brueckner I’d have to compare what she said when first describing the man she saw with Brueckner
For a start…from her rogatory interview Tanner described the man she saw as “ not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.” Bruckner is just over 6ft.
From her first interview Tanner described the man she saw as a “dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40” Brueckner was very light skinned and at the time was 30.
“ Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back ”. Of course we know that Bruckner has fair, rather fine hair and just weeks before Madeleine’s his hair was short at the back.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2219932/Video-Christian-B-drives-VW-campervan-just-weeks-Maddie-disappeared.html
So no I wouldn’t accept her assertion that the man she saw was Brueckner and I don’t think that you would either.
-
It was you who brought up that the group’s perception may have been shaped by alcohol not me. If you don’t want something to be discussed can I suggest that you don’t use it as some sort of mitigation. If either Gerry or Tanner had consumed enough alcohol to perhaps dim their recall, as you suggested, how can any of their memories be relied upon?
TBH it’s not the fact that Gerry appears not to remember where he was standing I, like you, think there’s nothing suspicious in that. What is suspicious was the way he dug his heels in when two witnesses, one his friend, proved him wrong. Why chose that particular hill to die on?
As to your hypothetical question, I’m afraid I’ll have to answer the two parts separately. If there was CCTV that showed Tanner passing Gerry on that night then of course I’d accept that this had happened. I’d accept that I’d been wrong and crack on. As to Tanner identifying Brueckner I’d have to compare what she said when first describing the man she saw with Brueckner
For a start…from her rogatory interview Tanner described the man she saw as “ not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.” Bruckner is just over 6ft.
From her first interview Tanner described the man she saw as a “dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40” Brueckner was very light skinned and at the time was 30.
“ Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back ”. Of course we know that Bruckner has fair, rather fine hair and just weeks before Madeleine’s his hair was short at the back.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2219932/Video-Christian-B-drives-VW-campervan-just-weeks-Maddie-disappeared.html
So no I wouldn’t accept her assertion that the man she saw was Brueckner and I don’t think that you would either.
If Brueckner was involved, he would be the man who went into 5a and lifted Madeleine. Getting into buildings and having the nerve to do it, was Bruckners expertise.
If/when he lifted Madeleine, her head would have been on his right arm. Tannerman had Madeleine on his left arm. She had been passed to him, maybe by Brueckner.
Tannerman would not be Bruckner IMO
-
It was you who brought up that the group’s perception may have been shaped by alcohol not me. If you don’t want something to be discussed can I suggest that you don’t use it as some sort of mitigation. If either Gerry or Tanner had consumed enough alcohol to perhaps dim their recall, as you suggested, how can any of their memories be relied upon?
TBH it’s not the fact that Gerry appears not to remember where he was standing I, like you, think there’s nothing suspicious in that. What is suspicious was the way he dug his heels in when two witnesses, one his friend, proved him wrong. Why chose that particular hill to die on?
As to your hypothetical question, I’m afraid I’ll have to answer the two parts separately. If there was CCTV that showed Tanner passing Gerry on that night then of course I’d accept that this had happened. I’d accept that I’d been wrong and crack on. As to Tanner identifying Brueckner I’d have to compare what she said when first describing the man she saw with Brueckner
For a start…from her rogatory interview Tanner described the man she saw as “ not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.” Bruckner is just over 6ft.
From her first interview Tanner described the man she saw as a “dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40” Brueckner was very light skinned and at the time was 30.
“ Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back ”. Of course we know that Bruckner has fair, rather fine hair and just weeks before Madeleine’s his hair was short at the back.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2219932/Video-Christian-B-drives-VW-campervan-just-weeks-Maddie-disappeared.html
So no I wouldn’t accept her assertion that the man she saw was Brueckner and I don’t think that you would either.
NEWSFLASH FOR FAITHLILLY: Gerry did not die on any hill, only in your strange imaginings.
-
If Brueckner was involved, he would be the man who went into 5a and lifted Madeleine. Getting into buildings and having the nerve to do it, was Bruckners expertise.
If/when he lifted Madeleine, her head would have been on his right arm. Tannerman had Madeleine on his left arm. She had been passed to him, maybe by Brueckner.
Tannerman would not be Bruckner IMO
Or Jane saw another holidaymaker carrying his child, as Operation Grange suggested.
-
If Brueckner was involved, he would be the man who went into 5a and lifted Madeleine. Getting into buildings and having the nerve to do it, was Bruckners expertise.
If/when he lifted Madeleine, her head would have been on his right arm. Tannerman had Madeleine on his left arm. She had been passed to him, maybe by Brueckner.
Tannerman would not be Bruckner IMO
I agree that could have been the case, Sadie.
For definite someone removed Madeleine from the apartment and that individual did not have to be the person seen by Jane.
-
Or Jane saw another holidaymaker carrying his child, as Operation Grange suggested.
The acceptance that Jane saw what she said she saw is at at least a bit of a breakthrough after the abuse she has suffered over the years.
Point is if it was yet another holidaymaker - that makes at least two that Amaral's team missed. Not to mention Brueckner who was yet another known criminal apparently missed because he wasn't in.
Hmmm ~ just a wee bit shoddy all these omissions. Particularly the one who actually seems to have been on the police radar but wasn't there when looked for.
Making himself scarce perhaps ~ something I imagine a perpetrator would have done.
-
The acceptance that Jane saw what she said she saw is at at least a bit of a breakthrough after the abuse she has suffered over the years.
Point is if it was yet another holidaymaker - that makes at least two that Amaral's team missed. Not to mention Brueckner who was yet another known criminal apparently missed because he wasn't in.
Hmmm ~ just a wee bit shoddy all these omissions. Particularly the one who actually seems to have been on the police radar but wasn't there when looked for.
Making himself scarce perhaps ~ something I imagine a perpetrator would have done.
I'm not interested in whether Jane Tanner has suffered abuse, to be honest. Who hasn't? Well Leicestershire police have got off lightly, imo, considering it was their job to collect and assess the evidence from British holidaymakers.
-
I'm not interested in whether Jane Tanner has suffered abuse, to be honest. Who hasn't? Well Leicestershire police have got off lightly, imo, considering it was their job to collect and assess the evidence from British holidaymakers.
Have you really suffered abuse as Jane Tanner has done over the years? Have you regularly been accused of being involved in criminal cover up, not only online but in print and other media too? Wow, poor you, you have my sympathy, I had no idea.
-
Have you really suffered abuse as Jane Tanner has done over the years? Have you regularly been accused of being involved in criminal cover up, not only online but in print and other media too? Wow, poor you, you have my sympathy, I had no idea.
There's more than one type of abuse. The PJ have been abused for years as have a lot of people who have been brave or foolish enough to express their opinions in public.
-
There's more than one type of abuse. The PJ have been abused for years as have a lot of people who have been brave or foolish enough to express their opinions in public.
Classic whataboutery.
-
Or how about.
Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder.
Think about the abduction of poor Rui Pedro.. Also in Portugal.
Police find video of abuse
Portuguese police don't know how he died but assume death..
Sound familiar
-
I'm not interested in whether Jane Tanner has suffered abuse, to be honest. Who hasn't? Well Leicestershire police have got off lightly, imo, considering it was their job to collect and assess the evidence from British holidaymakers.
I am more concerned with attempting to keep the threads on topic.
You know - much along the lines of those excellent WS mods for whom you have recently expressed admiration.
Cold cases are sometimes solved by advances in forensic techniques not available to investigators at the time and place of the crime or by information not available to the investigators on the ground at the time and place of the crime.
These circumstances are not applicable to the investigation carried out by the Amaral team. - The PJ knew about Brueckner.
- They went looking for him.
- Brueckner was nowhere to be found and that gave no-one pause for thought, because it certainly seems they didn't bother to try to find out his whereabouts after one abortive attempt.
- Advances in forensics don't come into it either.
- The Amaral team had access to the phone dump of which a little investigation might have revealed the activation of antennae by Brueckner's phone.
And making the excuse of not knowing the number doesn't wash - unless in recognition that the PJ were too inept to find what numbers he was using. - From my reading of the files the only phone numbers the Amaral team were interested in were those of the individuals who had aroused their suspicion - namely Murat et al and Mccann et al.
Your criticism of Leicestershire police is for your opinion to address but I think the local boy scout troop in Leicestershire would have been capable of conducting a more efficient investigation than did the Amaral tram.
Bet they would have found the Totman family - something which was quite obviously beyond the capabilities of Amaral's team.
-
I am more concerned with attempting to keep the threads on topic.
You know - much along the lines of those excellent WS mods for whom you have recently expressed admiration.
Cold cases are sometimes solved by advances in forensic techniques not available to investigators at the time and place of the crime or by information not available to the investigators on the ground at the time and place of the crime.
These circumstances are not applicable to the investigation carried out by the Amaral team. - The PJ knew about Brueckner.
- They went looking for him.
- Brueckner was nowhere to be found and that gave no-one pause for thought, because it certainly seems they didn't bother to try to find out his whereabouts after one abortive attempt.
- Advances in forensics don't come into it either.
- The Amaral team had access to the phone dump of which a little investigation might have revealed the activation of antennae by Brueckner's phone.
And making the excuse of not knowing the number doesn't wash - unless in recognition that the PJ were too inept to find what numbers he was using. - From my reading of the files the only phone numbers the Amaral team were interested in were those of the individuals who had aroused their suspicion - namely Murat et al and Mccann et al.
Your criticism of Leicestershire police is for your opinion to address but I think the local boy scout troop in Leicestershire would have been capable of conducting a more efficient investigation than did the Amaral tram.
Bet they would have found the Totman family - something which was quite obviously beyond the capabilities of Amaral's team.
You don't understand why the PJ didn't pick Brueckner's phone number from the 7,000 odd numbers they received?
All I can say is why on earth would they? Why and how would they know/find out his phone number? Your criticisms are totally unrealistic imo.
As for Leicestershire police, they maybe should have let their local boy scouts examine the holidaymaker's completed questionnaires.
-
You don't understand why the PJ didn't pick Brueckner's phone number from the 7,000 odd numbers they received?
All I can say is why on earth would they? Why and how would they know/find out his phone number? Your criticisms are totally unrealistic imo.
As for Leicestershire police, they maybe should have let their local boy scouts examine the holidaymaker's completed questionnaires.
The incompetent PJ thought mistakenly they had proof Maddie died in the apt and was transported in the hire car... Can't you see that simple truth
-
You don't understand why the PJ didn't pick Brueckner's phone number from the 7,000 odd numbers they received?
All I can say is why on earth would they? Why and how would they know/find out his phone number? Your criticisms are totally unrealistic imo.
As for Leicestershire police, they maybe should have let their local boy scouts examine the holidaymaker's completed questionnaires.
Madeleine's was a Portuguese investigation and a jealously guarded one at that as recorded in Amaral's book.
At a time of strained resources while the PJ were supposed to be looking for a missing child, Amaral relates having a weather eye kept on Madeleine's home force by putting senior officers et al under surveillance!
The clincher to the incompetence is the fact that the Portuguese knew about Brueckner.
The PJ tried to interview Brueckner and they failed to do so.
The PJ failed to follow through on that lead and failed to trace him which I think shows someone somewhere in the chain of command was too busy sniffing Calpol bottles and tracing Murat and McCann pings to be too bothered with local criminals.
Get real about the thousand upon thousand phone calls the PJ had to investigate.
Do you really think for one millisecond they did that.
They did what any sensible investigation would do and chose certain limits for checking and started to work through those pings falling within those chosen parameters.
Years later the Scotland Yard investigation showed they hadn't bothered to check out the pings of a team of burglars active in the resort and in contact at the relevant time.
Years after that SY showed the PJ hadn't bothered to check out Brueckner whose criminality they knew about whose pings actually fell within the time span being investigated by two minutes.
I think that might have been a very important two minutes in a little girl's life.
-
Madeleine's was a Portuguese investigation and a jealously guarded one at that as recorded in Amaral's book.
At a time of strained resources while the PJ were supposed to be looking for a missing child, Amaral relates having a weather eye kept on Madeleine's home force by putting senior officers et al under surveillance!
The clincher to the incompetence is the fact that the Portuguese knew about Brueckner.
The PJ tried to interview Brueckner and they failed to do so.
The PJ failed to follow through on that lead and failed to trace him which I think shows someone somewhere in the chain of command was too busy sniffing Calpol bottles and tracing Murat and McCann pings to be too bothered with local criminals.
Get real about the thousand upon thousand phone calls the PJ had to investigate.
Do you really think for one millisecond they did that.
They did what any sensible investigation would do and chose certain limits for checking and started to work through those pings falling within those chosen parameters.
Years later the Scotland Yard investigation showed they hadn't bothered to check out the pings of a team of burglars active in the resort and in contact at the relevant time.
Years after that SY showed the PJ hadn't bothered to check out Brueckner whose criminality they knew about whose pings actually fell within the time span being investigated by two minutes.
I think that might have been a very important two minutes in a little girl's life.
Sometimes people are so convinced that their opinions are correct that there's no point in debating with them. I'll content myself with one question; why didn't Leicestershire police notice Totman was wandering about with his child?
-
Sometimes people are so convinced that their opinions are correct that there's no point in debating with them. I'll content myself with one question; why didn't Leicestershire police notice Totman was wandering about with his child?
A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?
-
Sometimes people are so convinced that their opinions are correct that there's no point in debating with them. I'll content myself with one question; why didn't Leicestershire police notice Totman was wandering about with his child?
I have no interest in "debating" long redundant points with you or anyone else for that matter. Many of which are nothing short of libellous and if not that amazingly obtuse and nasty.
The fact is that Brueckner is the prime suspect in the German investigation into whatever fate befell Madeleine McCann.
The fact is the German prosecutor has publicly advised that they have no interest in Madeleine's parents concerning her disappearance.
The fact is that the German spokesperson has categorically stated that the German investigation has evidence against Brueckner which has convinced them that Madeleine is dead and that Brueckner is their prime suspect in her murder.
The fact is that Operation Grange continues to investigate Madeleine's case as that of a missing person. But having co-operated with the German investigation into Brueckner for over five years I think they will have a finger on the pulse of what is going down.
That is a brief summary of some of what should be getting debated on this thread. Deflection back to Leicestershire police is nothing more or less than tiresome and on topic only when it pertains to Brueckner's present role in the matter.
Please bear the thread topic in mind, whatever that may be, in your future discussion. I think it makes for a better run forum when members do that.
-
A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?
If memory serves me well VS we have screeds of posts and perhaps even dedicated topics to that effect.
We have moved into the surreal realms of where a suspected child murderer's "alibi" is apparently provided to a documentary team and states he was out and about the day before and the day after Madeleine's disappearance.
If that is correct, I would say that definitely places him in the locality before and after, leaving the police to find out where he was on the night Madeleine's abduction took place.
-
If memory serves me well VS we have screeds of posts and perhaps even dedicated topics to that effect.
We have moved into the surreal realms of where a suspected child murderer's "alibi" is apparently provided to a documentary team and states he was out and about the day before and the day after Madeleine's disappearance.
If that is correct, I would say that definitely places him in the locality before and after, leaving the police to find out where he was on the night Madeleine's abduction took place.
Sceptics simply cannot move on. They are stuck in 2007 where trivial non-issues like who stood where on the pavement and Gerry allegedly swearing on an airport bus are of more significance than the fact that there was a known rapist and paedophile operating in the area, someone with a declared interest in taking and abusing a small child for days. Sceptics don’t want to know about that, they want to know why Kate and Gerry were photographed smiling outside a church and why Kate didn’t rush the twins to hospital that night, and why Gerry said front door if he meant patio door, all questions which are not keeping any of the German or British police awake at night, I’m pretty certain.
-
A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?
Or, why did they take notice when Jes Wilkins, the Smiths, Roman Stem, Lance Purser and Derek Flack approached them, but allegedly ignored the Totmans and Jayne Jensen? Funny, that imo.
-
Sceptics simply cannot move on. They are stuck in 2007 where trivial non-issues like who stood where on the pavement and Gerry allegedly swearing on an airport bus are of more significance than the fact that there was a known rapist and paedophile operating in the area, someone with a declared interest in taking and abusing a small child for days. Sceptics don’t want to know about that, they want to know why Kate and Gerry were photographed smiling outside a church and why Kate didn’t rush the twins to hospital that night, and why Gerry said front door if he meant patio door, all questions which are not keeping any of the German or British police awake at night, I’m pretty certain.
That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.
The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.
-
A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?
You would have thought that Amaral when told by Jane Tanner she had seen a man carrying a child, would have questioned all the people using the creche. Asking if they carried their child at that time on the 3rd of May. He didn't.
What sort of investigation allows the bedding to be taken away and washed when it is the bedding of a a missing child ?
That bed was crucial to the investigation, it could have contained skin, fingerprints, yet it was taken away!!
Amaral said they knocked on CB's door but there was no answer. Yet he says they eliminated him from the investigation, what was it that eliminated him and did they even question him. Did they look to see if CB's phone number was on their list?
-
That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.
The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.
Have you an obsession with the first investigation? You seem to bring up the 'was Gerry in the Tapas Bar' rather a lot. Which to me means you think Gerry had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
-
That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.
The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.
So, if it was Amaral finding all this out about CB, would you stil have the same thoughts.
-
That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.
The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.
There's nothing ironic about my post. No supporter obsesses about the unimportant minutiae of the original investigation in the way that McCann sceptic obsessives do, unless you can point me to some examples? You pride yourself in knowing pretty much every word of the original files and look down on those who don't. I meanwhile am quite content not to be quite that anally retentive and obsessive. That said I know nothing is going to stop you niggling away at what you perceive as witness statement inconsistencies, even I doubt a successful prosecution of the child's abductor. Still, I guess it gives you something to do to pass the time, so who am I to stand in the way of your little pleasures, sad though I find your inability to move on and face the reality of the situation.
-
Sceptics simply cannot move on. They are stuck in 2007 where trivial non-issues like who stood where on the pavement and Gerry allegedly swearing on an airport bus are of more significance than the fact that there was a known rapist and paedophile operating in the area, someone with a declared interest in taking and abusing a small child for days. Sceptics don’t want to know about that, they want to know why Kate and Gerry were photographed smiling outside a church and why Kate didn’t rush the twins to hospital that night, and why Gerry said front door if he meant patio door, all questions which are not keeping any of the German or British police awake at night, I’m pretty certain.
I don't think there is one of us so called "supporters" who isn't aware that the case against Brueckner hinges on the sum of the evidence against him and whether or not prosecutors can combine that evidence into proof which will be tested and decided in a court of law.
Anecdotally Brueckner appears to be a reprehensible character and the offenses of which he has been convicted tend to reinforce that assessment - but that doesn't make him a child murderer. That will require proof and a judicial decision and the information emanating from Germany is that the police are certain that they have the evidence and that thy have been working for over five years in getting it.
I truly fail to grasp why there is a problem with that or why police investigations into everyone and anyone who is not Kate and Gerry McCann causes such furore.
The suspects being investigated are all innocent even before any process of elimination ahs been conducted or patsies as the police investigation is derided.
The question is what is the difference in the police actions in the normal run of things when a suspect is taken in for questioning. Are they all patsies or is that defence reserved for those questioned in the McCann case - with of course the dishonourable exception of those who have been denied the presumption of innocence from the word go.
-
So, if it was Amaral finding all this out about CB, would you stil have the same thoughts.
Well, if Brueckner's 'friend' is to be believed the Portuguese police ignored him too.
Busching had tried to report his concerns to the Portuguese police but had been fobbed off.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
Strange how all these people claim the Portuguese police ignored them, don't you think? It seems to be the stock answer to the question as to why they share their information a) late and b) with the MSM.
-
Or, why did they take notice when Jes Wilkins, the Smiths, Roman Stem, Lance Purser and Derek Flack approached them, but allegedly ignored the Totmans and Jayne Jensen? Funny, that imo.
Were Mrs Fenn and Mr and Mrs Moyes liars too?
Why do you think your post is relevant to the topic of Brueckner - please share.
-
Well, if Brueckner's 'friend' is to be believed the Portuguese police ignored him too.
Busching had tried to report his concerns to the Portuguese police but had been fobbed off.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
Strange how all these people claim the Portuguese police ignored them, don't you think? It seems to be the stock answer to the question as to why they share their information a) late and b) with the MSM.
Not strange, just incompetent. The PJ disregarded or downgraded information which did not fit with the narrative they had built around the case. They're not the only police force to do this and they won't be the last, why do you find this difficult to accept?
-
Well, if Brueckner's 'friend' is to be believed the Portuguese police ignored him too.
Busching had tried to report his concerns to the Portuguese police but had been fobbed off.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
Strange how all these people claim the Portuguese police ignored them, don't you think? It seems to be the stock answer to the question as to why they share their information a) late and b) with the MSM.
Why did they fob him off?
Was it because Amaral had drummed into them that it was the McCann's? He wrote a book detailing why he knew it was the McCann's.
-
Why did they fob him off?
Was it because Amaral had drummed into them that it was the McCann's? He wrote a book detailing why he knew it was the McCann's.
I don't know if the Portuguese police fobbed anyone off, but you can believe those claims if it suits your stance.
-
I don't know if the Portuguese police fobbed anyone off, but you can believe those claims if it suits your stance.
Why are you so resistant to the possibility that a number of witnesses were fobbed off by the Portuguese police? There’s plenty of evidence to support this view.
-
I don't know if the Portuguese police fobbed anyone off, but you can believe those claims if it suits your stance.
I wonder how many time wasters, bums, cranks and divvies HCW has fobbed off during the course of his ongoing investigation?
-
I wonder how many time wasters, bums, cranks and divvies HCW has fobbed off during the course of his ongoing investigation?
Well how many of these had something of note, had to have helped the concrete to harden surely.
Madeleine McCann: Police receive 270 calls and emails after appeal for information about latest suspect
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-receive-270-calls-and-emails-after-appeal-for-information-about-latest-suspect-12000758
-
Well how many of these had something of note, had to have helped the concrete to harden surely.
Madeleine McCann: Police receive 270 calls and emails after appeal for information about latest suspect
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-receive-270-calls-and-emails-after-appeal-for-information-about-latest-suspect-12000758
So 268 then.
-
Sceptics simply cannot move on. They are stuck in 2007 where trivial non-issues like who stood where on the pavement and Gerry allegedly swearing on an airport bus are of more significance than the fact that there was a known rapist and paedophile operating in the area, someone with a declared interest in taking and abusing a small child for days. Sceptics don’t want to know about that, they want to know why Kate and Gerry were photographed smiling outside a church and why Kate didn’t rush the twins to hospital that night, and why Gerry said front door if he meant patio door, all questions which are not keeping any of the German or British police awake at night, I’m pretty certain.
Re the importance of the positions of Gerry and Jez on the pavement, you obviously missed this post VS.
You are a very intelligent person, so please take the time to read it and check what I am saying on GE maps and street scene.
Had Gerry and Jez been standing higher up the road, the abduction would probably not have taken place.
The watcher on the balcony did not realise that Gerry was still on the scene because a wall blocked his view of them
Quote from: Brietta on February 21, 2022, 11:40:26 AM
The "positions" being adopted might be an internet game, obsession or crusade for some but it should be realised this concerns the true lives of Madeleine and her parents.
The positions are vitally important Brie. Vitally to a sleuth/investigator
Had Gerry and Jez been standing further up the hill, a watcher on the balcony opposite would have been able to see them - and events would have happened differently.
No go-ahead for the abduction, because the getaway car, parked conveniently for the watcher on that little car park opposite Tapas reception, would have had to drive past G and Jez. to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine
~~~~~
Because a corner of block 4 was sticking out about 6 feet beyond the balcony, his view was blocked in a southerly direction. He could not see the two men, G and J, when they stood in the road at the entrance to the alleyway.
He thought that it was all clear, so he gave the go ahead for the abduction.
Can you see the reason why (some) posters on here are so keen to lie and try and change facts.
The above is all in my carefully considered opinion.
An opinion which no-one on here (excepting Anthro and maybe a couple of others) care to consider.
Anthro is a very clever slueth and considers all angles and all the details. Furthermore she is flexible and happy to change direction considering new things, rather than get stuck in a rut, as some have here
Thank goodness SY took notice of my findings.
-
Hi Sadie, thanks for your reply. As SY seem to be of the opinion that the man seen by JT was an innocent holiday maker I don’t see how they would be interested in the relative positions of Gerry or Jez at the time JT passed them, sorry.
-
Re the importance of the positions of Gerry and Jez on the pavement, you obviously missed this post VS.
You are a very intelligent person, so please take the time to read it and check what I am saying on GE maps and street scene.
Had Gerry and Jez been standing higher up the road, the abduction would probably not have taken place.
The watcher on the balcony did not realise that Gerry was still on the scene because a wall blocked his view of them
Quote from: Brietta on February 21, 2022, 11:40:26 AM
The positions are vitally important Brie. Vitally to a sleuth/investigator
Had Gerry and Jez been standing further up the hill, a watcher on the balcony opposite would have been able to see them - and events would have happened differently.
No go-ahead for the abduction, because the getaway car, parked conveniently for the watcher on that little car park opposite Tapas reception, would have had to drive past G and Jez. to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine
~~~~~
Because a corner of block 4 was sticking out about 6 feet beyond the balcony, his view was blocked in a southerly direction. He could not see the two men, G and J, when they stood in the road at the entrance to the alleyway.
He thought that it was all clear, so he gave the go ahead for the abduction.
Can you see the reason why (some) posters on here are so keen to lie and try and change facts.
The above is all in my carefully considered opinion.
An opinion which no-one on here (excepting Anthro and maybe a couple of others) care to consider.
Anthro is a very clever slueth and considers all angles and all the details. Furthermore she is flexible and happy to change direction considering new things, rather than get stuck in a rut, as some have here
Thank goodness SY took notice of my findings.
Im certainly stuck in a rut... The rut of following the available evidence.... I think thats quite a sensible rut to be in
-
Why are you so resistant to the possibility that a number of witnesses were fobbed off by the Portuguese police? There’s plenty of evidence to support this view.
What does this plentiful evidence consist of?
-
What does this plentiful evidence consist of?
Interviews given by numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Portuguese police that have appeared in the media, I suppose you don’t consider that evidence?
-
Hi Sadie, thanks for your reply. As SY seem to be of the opinion that the man seen by JT was an innocent holiday maker I don’t see how they would be interested in the relative positions of Gerry or Jez at the time JT passed them, sorry.
Ah, that was under the command of DCI Andy Redwood.
From the interest shown in my folders on the Special Madeleine Crimewatch program, I think they are open minded.
The father was coming from a different direction to Tannerman. They are not the same man. Jane is not doolally and she was not drunk. There were two men out and about that evening, Dr Totman and Tannerman.
DS. Gary Redmond was the main officer that I talked with, after my being promoted from DC level to DS level. I went several times taking folders and had more ready when I fell ill. They never got sent and I sadly haven't a clue where they are now.
It is my understanding that at hands on level DS Gary Redmond is now running the investigation. His interest in what I was telling them seemed very sincere - and I find it interesting that out of over 30 officers, he is now in charge.
He seemed very much on the ball and I wonder if he considers Dr Totman to be Tannerman?
What with
1) the wrong direction, [Modified to point out that whilst Totman was generally going easterly like Tannerman, he also was heading for the entrance to the car park of block 6. This was to the south. So Tannerman was walking more or less SE whilst Totman was walking E.S.E. and part facing Jane.}
2) The wrong time
3) and the wrong pyjamas.
Jeez, VS, were those PJays ever wrong !!!! I can't believe that we were suckers enough to even think that they could be the same ones Jane described and Kate and Gerry showed. They were so different.
The persistence of the Mccann disbelievers that they were higher up the road, reinforces my conviction that the position that Gerry and Jez stood is very important to them. And they want fact changing so that Gerry was in sight, when he wasn't.
Had he been in sight, there would have been no abduction IMO
You are exceedingly intelligent: Think about it
-
Interviews given by numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Portuguese police that have appeared in the media, I suppose you don’t consider that evidence?
It's very wek without more details such as when, where, which police force etc. In the case of the Totmans, for example, the PJ would have been very keen to talk to someone who claimed to be the innocent man seen by Jane Tanner.
-
It's very wek without more details such as when, where, which police force etc. In the case of the Totmans, for example, the PJ would have been very keen to talk to someone who claimed to be the innocent man seen by Jane Tanner.
All of those questions were answered in the interview given by the Totmans in the press I believe.
-
Ah, that was under the command of DCI Andy Redwood.
From the interest shown in my folders on the Special Madeleine Crimewatch program, I think they are open minded.
The father was coming from a different direction to Tannerman. They are not the same man. Jane is not doolally and she was not drunk. There were two men out and about that evening, Dr Totman and Tannerman.
DS. Gary Redmond was the main officer that I talked with, after my being promoted from DC level to DS level. I went several times taking folders and had more ready when I fell ill. They never got sent and I sadly haven't a clue where they are now.
It is my understanding that at hands on level DS Gary Redmond is now running the investigation. His interest in what I was telling them seemed very sincere - and I find it interesting that out of over 30 officers, he is now in charge.
He seemed very much on the ball and I wonder if he considers Dr Totman to be Tannerman?
What with
1) the wrong direction,
2) the wrong time
3) and the wrong pyjamas.
Jeez, VS, were those PJays ever wrong !!!! I can't believe that we were suckers enough to even think that they could be the same ones Jane described and Kate and Gerry showed. They were so different.
The persistence of the Mccann disbelievers that they were higher up the road, reinforces my conviction that the position that Gerry and Jez stood is very important to them. And they want fact changing so that Gerry was in sight, when he wasn't.
Had he been in sight, there would have been no abduction IMO
You are exceedingly intelligent: Think about it
I have thought about it Sadie. What you suggest is a possibility though in my opinion not likely. I find it hard to believe that the police would accept Totman was Tannerman unless they had also ascertained that Totman was walking in the same direction that JT claimed Tannerman was walking. I also accept that I and they could be wrong.
-
It's very wek without more details such as when, where, which police force etc. In the case of the Totmans, for example, the PJ would have been very keen to talk to someone who claimed to be the innocent man seen by Jane Tanner.
On the other hand, there may have been certain elements in the PJ who didn't want it known that the Totmans were in the vicinity at the relevant time and had perhaps seen something or someone they weren't meant to.
Two things concern me.
1. During the whole period between the filing of the investigation & SY becoming involved, which includes the McCann PI's & journalists, why did no-one ever question the lack of a completed LP questionnaire or any other information from a family whose child left the creche around 9pm? If a questionnaire was completed, what happened to it?
2. It's been suggested on several occasions that Dr Totman was, in fact, doubling back towards the creche because his wife was lagging behind with their son/had the apartment key/he'd dropped something. If that was indeed the case and without an appropriate explanation as to why he also carried his daughter back, what reason would there have been for Jez not seeing the Totmans as he made his way back to the same holiday Block 4?
As the above is all off-topic perhaps we could discuss CB's various reported alibis:-
a] CB wasn't in Portugal at the time.
b)CB can't remember where he was in May 2007 because it's too long ago.
c) CB's phone records, scrutinised by Fulscher, seem to provide CB with only a 90 sec window of opportunity for an abduction from 5A.
d) CB was travelling back from Tomar that evening (Nicole F's alleged statement)
e) CB was 30 mins away from Luz with an 18yr old German girl, his holiday fling for the week. This now-married woman appears to have either ignored or been oblivious to the public appeals by BKA for information about CB between at least June & Dec 2020. Perhaps Mark Williams Thomas will provide us all with more information about both her & the various other witnesses who also reportedly can provide an alibi for CB.
-
On the other hand, there may have been certain elements in the PJ who didn't want it known that the Totmans were in the vicinity at the relevant time and had perhaps seen something or someone they weren't meant to.
Two things concern me.
1. During the whole period between the filing of the investigation & SY becoming involved, which includes the McCann PI's & journalists, why did no-one ever question the lack of a completed LP questionnaire or any other information from a family whose child left the creche around 9pm? If a questionnaire was completed, what happened to it?
2. It's been suggested on several occasions that Dr Totman was, in fact, doubling back towards the creche because his wife was lagging behind with their son/had the apartment key/he'd dropped something. If that was indeed the case and without an appropriate explanation as to why he also carried his daughter back, what reason would there have been for Jez not seeing the Totmans as he made his way back to the same holiday Block 4?
As the above is all off-topic perhaps we could discuss CB's various reported alibis:-
a] CB wasn't in Portugal at the time.
b)CB can't remember where he was in May 2007 because it's too long ago.
c) CB's phone records, scrutinised by Fulscher, seem to provide CB with only a 90 sec window of opportunity for an abduction from 5A.
d) CB was travelling back from Tomar that evening (Nicole F's alleged statement)
e) CB was 30 mins away from Luz with an 18yr old German girl, his holiday fling for the week. This now-married woman appears to have either ignored or been oblivious to the public appeals by BKA for information about CB between at least June & Dec 2020. Perhaps Mark Williams Thomas will provide us all with more information about both her & the various other witnesses who also reportedly can provide an alibi for CB.
I don't know if Brueckner gave the police an alibi in 2013 but I would imagine he did. If so, I wonder if it tallies with the ones the documentary makers have uncovered.
-
I don't know if Brueckner gave the police an alibi in 2013 but I would imagine he did. If so, I wonder if it tallies with the ones the documentary makers have uncovered.
I guess he'd have said he hadn't any recollection of where he was or what he was doing on 3/5/07 and had no knowledge of what happened to Madeleine.
-
I have thought about it Sadie. What you suggest is a possibility though in my opinion not likely. I find it hard to believe that the police would accept Totman was Tannerman unless they had also ascertained that Totman was walking in the same direction that JT claimed Tannerman was walking. I also accept that I and they could be wrong.
But from all reports, they weren't walking in totally the same direction, were they?
Tannerman carried on along the road going east, whilst Totman had to swing right, in a southerly direction, to gain entrance to the car park of block 6 which led to his flat. Totman would have been partially facing Jane as she was walking in a northerly direction. Why didn't she see his face, she was only about 5 metres away accoding to one of her statements. how come she saw the back of his head and his bottom rather than his front?
Jane didn't see Totman. She saw Tannerman.
1) They were walking in partially different directions
2) The Pjays are totally wrong
3) The time was wrong by about half an hour Jane aint daft!
4) Why is the image of Tannerman shown of his back when he was either sideways on or walking in a part southerly direction towards jane ? Why didn't she see his face?
Jane didn't see Totman. She saw Tannerman. IMO.
Poor Jane. How devastated she must be by everyone doubting her.
Good to see that at least you are keeping a bit of open mind about what we were talking about earlier yesterday.
-
On the other hand, there may have been certain elements in the PJ who didn't want it known that the Totmans were in the vicinity at the relevant time and had perhaps seen something or someone they weren't meant to.
Two things concern me.
1. During the whole period between the filing of the investigation & SY becoming involved, which includes the McCann PI's & journalists, why did no-one ever question the lack of a completed LP questionnaire or any other information from a family whose child left the creche around 9pm? If a questionnaire was completed, what happened to it?
2. It's been suggested on several occasions that Dr Totman was, in fact, doubling back towards the creche because his wife was lagging behind with their son/had the apartment key/he'd dropped something. If that was indeed the case and without an appropriate explanation as to why he also carried his daughter back, what reason would there have been for Jez not seeing the Totmans as he made his way back to the same holiday Block 4?
As the above is all off-topic perhaps we could discuss CB's various reported alibis:-
a] CB wasn't in Portugal at the time.
b)CB can't remember where he was in May 2007 because it's too long ago.
c) CB's phone records, scrutinised by Fulscher, seem to provide CB with only a 90 sec window of opportunity for an abduction from 5A.
d) CB was travelling back from Tomar that evening (Nicole F's alleged statement)
e) CB was 30 mins away from Luz with an 18yr old German girl, his holiday fling for the week. This now-married woman appears to have either ignored or been oblivious to the public appeals by BKA for information about CB between at least June & Dec 2020. Perhaps Mark Williams Thomas will provide us all with more information about both her & the various other witnesses who also reportedly can provide an alibi for CB.
I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are hinting at in respect of the PJ, sorry.
What makes you think the Totman's questionnaire went missing?
Did Totman say he was doubling back, or is that an internet rumour?
MWT's programme will perhaps clear up the questions about Bruecker's whereabouts.
-
I guess he'd have said he hadn't any recollection of where he was or what he was doing on 3/5/07 and had no knowledge of what happened to Madeleine.
It rattled him a bit though, or I don't think he would have mentioned it to his friends. Unfortunately if he was the perpetrator it gave him plenty of notice if he had any loose ends to tie up.
-
But from all reports, they weren't walking in totally the same direction, were they?
Tannerman carried on along the road going east, whilst Totman had to swing right, in a southerly direction, to gain entrance to the car park of block 6 which led to his flat. Totman would have been partially facing Jane as she was walking in a northerly direction. Why didn't she see his face, she was only about 5 metres away accoding to one of her statements. how come she saw the back of his head and his bottom rather than his front?
Jane didn't see Totman. She saw Tannerman.
1) They were walking in partially different directions
2) The Pjays are totally wrong
3) The time was wrong by about half an hour Jane aint daft!
4) Why is the image of Tannerman shown of his back when he was either sideways on or walking in a part southerly direction towards jane ? Why didn't she see his face?
Jane didn't see Totman. She saw Tannerman. IMO.
Poor Jane. How devastated she must be by everyone doubting her.
Good to see that at least you are keeping a bit of open mind about what we were talking about earlier yesterday.
Also Sadie, Jane said she watched Gerry and Julian Totman play tennis. I think she would have known what he looked like and would have pointed out that she saw him with the girl, instead of Tannerman (?)
-
I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are hinting at in respect of the PJ, sorry.
What makes you think the Totman's questionnaire went missing?
Did Totman say he was doubling back, or is that an internet rumour?
MWT's programme will perhaps clear up the questions about Bruecker's whereabouts.
I don't think- that Misty is 'hinting' at any 'conspiracy' theory.
She is quite openly QUESTIONING the conduct of the investigating team with regard to material witnesses. I take it that is allowed. - you are the one suggesting negligence on the part of Leicestershire police regarding questionnaires - I think it is for you to explain how it worked particularly for those holidaymakers not living in their catchment area. Such as those returning from NI or like the Totmans, the South West
You constantly make reference to questionnaires.
My opinion is that anyone responding to local police requests for information would be holidaymakers returning from Luz around the time the McCann party would have been booked to come home and whom the Portuguese police did not have the time to question.
The Totmans did not come into that category of those whose travel arrangements interfered with the PJ investigation and apparently they did make a report at the time. Amaral's docu made use of the information given although still not explaining the direction of travel. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465981#msg465981
The Totmans remained in Luz long enough for the PJ to do the job of checking out the eight families using the creche that night.
We've got a whole thread on this topic. Here's one I posted earlier on it "the explanation for an investigative journalist getting hold of an individual's details is easily understood.
Paulo Reis "found" Dr Totman and published his name on his blog in 2009 in relation to quite another conspiracy theory all together." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465931#msg465931
I don't really think it is appropriate to rely on documentaries to 'solve' cases although the Netflix one came at the right time to open eyes just a little in Portugal.
I think it might have been more pertinent for the PJ to have checked out the criminal elements resident in Luz at the time.
Reading between the lines I think there was a bit of a panic going on, certainly frantic enough to attract the attention of Scotland Yard in 2013 regarding the phone dump. Who knows what questioning that in the immediate aftermath days later might have led to.
Brueckner - who as far as the police were concerned, but apparently not his alibis - had vanished. But might have revealed exactly what was happening with the registration of his vehicle.
Misty is a poster consistently making salient points which really should open up a bit of intelligent discussion on the forum. What appears to me as consistent passive aggression in response doesn't really take us anywhere. But heigh-ho
-
I don't think- that Misty is 'hinting' at any 'conspiracy' theory.
She is quite openly QUESTIONING the conduct of the investigating team with regard to material witnesses. I take it that is allowed. - you are the one suggesting negligence on the part of Leicestershire police regarding questionnaires - I think it is for you to explain how it worked particularly for those holidaymakers not living in their catchment area. Such as those returning from NI or like the Totmans, the South West
You constantly make reference to questionnaires.
My opinion is that anyone responding to local police requests for information would be holidaymakers returning from Luz around the time the McCann party would have been booked to come home and whom the Portuguese police did not have the time to question.
The Totmans did not come into that category of those whose travel arrangements interfered with the PJ investigation and apparently they did make a report at the time. Amaral's docu made use of the information given although still not explaining the direction of travel. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465981#msg465981
The Totmans remained in Luz long enough for the PJ to do the job of checking out the eight families using the creche that night.
We've got a whole thread on this topic. Here's one I posted earlier on it "the explanation for an investigative journalist getting hold of an individual's details is easily understood.
Paulo Reis "found" Dr Totman and published his name on his blog in 2009 in relation to quite another conspiracy theory all together." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465931#msg465931
I don't really think it is appropriate to rely on documentaries to 'solve' cases although the Netflix one came at the right time to open eyes just a little in Portugal.
I think it might have been more pertinent for the PJ to have checked out the criminal elements resident in Luz at the time.
Reading between the lines I think there was a bit of a panic going on, certainly frantic enough to attract the attention of Scotland Yard in 2013 regarding the phone dump. Who knows what questioning that in the immediate aftermath days later might have led to.
Brueckner - who as far as the police were concerned, but apparently not his alibis - had vanished. But might have revealed exactly what was happening with the registration of his vehicle.
Misty is a poster consistently making salient points which really should open up a bit of intelligent discussion on the forum. What appears to me as consistent passive aggression in response doesn't really take us anywhere. But heigh-ho
According to page 8 of the strategic debrief, Leicestershire police developed and used a questionnaire for ALL UK citizens who were resident in the holiday resort around the time Madeleine went missing. Completed questionnaires were received from 559 individuals.
Those questionnaires would surely have revealed where those individuals (and their children) were during the evening of 3rd May.
If the Totmans spoke to the GNR as they claimed, that means that they knew about Jane Tanner's sighting almost immediately. That suggests that the secrecy rule was broken almost immediately. I also wonder why the Totmans didn't speak to the McCanns, their representatives or perhaps John Hill. Imo all those people could have attracted the attention of the PJ for them.
I see no point in speculating about Brueckner's possible alibi. He either has one or he doesn't, and if MWT has found something it will be revealed in time.
I would appreciate it if you could restrict yourself to discussing the content of my posts rather than sharing your opinions about my motives and intentions.
-
According to page 8 of the strategic debrief, Leicestershire police developed and used a questionnaire for ALL UK citizens who were resident in the holiday resort around the time Madeleine went missing. Completed questionnaires were received from 559 individuals.
Those questionnaires would surely have revealed where those individuals (and their children) were during the evening of 3rd May.
If the Totmans spoke to the GNR as they claimed, that means that they knew about Jane Tanner's sighting almost immediately. That suggests that the secrecy rule was broken almost immediately. I also wonder why the Totmans didn't speak to the McCanns, their representatives or perhaps John Hill. Imo all those people could have attracted the attention of the PJ for them.
I see no point in speculating about Brueckner's possible alibi. He either has one or he doesn't, and if MWT has found something it will be revealed in time.
I would appreciate it if you could restrict yourself to discussing the content of my posts rather than sharing your opinions about my motives and intentions.
8((()*/
-
Also Sadie, Jane said she watched Gerry and Julian Totman play tennis. I think she would have known what he looked like and would have pointed out that she saw him with the girl, instead of Tannerman (?)
A very good point. Well spotted Anthro. On the ball as usual.
.................
P.S. I have modified my words about direction in my original post on this subject; I wasn't clear before.
-
Also Sadie, Jane said she watched Gerry and Julian Totman play tennis. I think she would have known what he looked like and would have pointed out that she saw him with the girl, instead of Tannerman (?)
Jane watched some of the men's social tennis, but I'm not sure she said who was there. Ian Horrocks, in The Sun, speculated that she would have seen him there and would have therefore recognised him at 9.15pm.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2634164/gerry-mccann-played-tennis-with-tannerman-on-the-day-madeleine-went-missing/
There's no way of knowing if Totman was still present when Tanner arrived, but equally there's no reason to believe she didn't know him by sight.
The man she saw was unlikely to have been Brueckner, that's all we do know imo.
-
I
- snip
The Totmans did not come into that category of those whose travel arrangements interfered with the PJ investigation and apparently they did make a report at the time. Amaral's docu made use of the information given although still not explaining the direction of travel. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465981#msg465981
The Totmans remained in Luz long enough for the PJ to do the job of checking out the eight families using the creche that night.
We've got a whole thread on this topic. Here's one I posted earlier on it "the explanation for an investigative journalist getting hold of an individual's details is easily understood.
Paulo Reis "found" Dr Totman and published his name on his blog in 2009 in relation to quite another conspiracy theory all together." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465931#msg465931
- /snip
TAKE CARE ~ WARNING
Both adresses
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465981#msg465981
and
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465931#msg465931
are unsafe addresses. They should start with https[/b] not http (without the s) in order for them to be safe.
Sometimes when I come on forum I am presented with an unsafe address like the above. I spend ages finding a way in without having to resort to using an unsafe way in. Can this problem be addressed please John?
-
Jane watched some of the men's social tennis, but I'm not sure she said who was there. Ian Horrocks, in The Sun, speculated that she would have seen him there and would have therefore recognised him at 9.15pm.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2634164/gerry-mccann-played-tennis-with-tannerman-on-the-day-madeleine-went-missing/
There's no way of knowing if Totman was still present when Tanner arrived, but equally there's no reason to believe she didn't know him by sight.
The man she saw was unlikely to have been Brueckner, that's all we do know imo.
Why was the man Jane saw unlikely to have been Brueckner?
-
Why was the man Jane saw unlikely to have been Brueckner?
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
-
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
So how likely was the man Jane saw to be Dr Totman based on the evidence you are using?
-
Why was the man Jane saw unlikely to have been Brueckner?
I don't think anyone can categorically identify the man seen by Jane.
It is known that Brueckner's MO sometimes consisted of dressing up and that wigs etc were found in his home.
-
I don't think anyone can categorically identify the man seen by Jane.
It is known that Brueckner's MO sometimes consisted of dressing up and that wigs etc were found in his home.
Both Brueckner & Totman can be ruled out based on hair alone, aside from height and build.
-
So how likely was the man Jane saw to be Dr Totman based on the evidence you are using?
The only evidence anyone has is Operation Grange's statement that they were 'almost certain' that it was a holidaymaker. Do you think the SY highly praised 'experts' got it wrong?
-
The only evidence anyone has is Operation Grange's statement that they were 'almost certain' that it was a holidaymaker. Do you think the SY highly praised 'experts' got it wrong?
I think it depends on how you interpret their exact words.
Certainly Sandra F promoted a 9.10pm abduction time in her 2020 Sexta9 series about Brueckner, which was compiled after much discussion with Wolters. IMO that specific time was not speculation.
-
I don't think- that Misty is 'hinting' at any 'conspiracy' theory.
She is quite openly QUESTIONING the conduct of the investigating team with regard to material witnesses. I take it that is allowed. - you are the one suggesting negligence on the part of Leicestershire police regarding questionnaires - I think it is for you to explain how it worked particularly for those holidaymakers not living in their catchment area. Such as those returning from NI or like the Totmans, the South West
You constantly make reference to questionnaires.
My opinion is that anyone responding to local police requests for information would be holidaymakers returning from Luz around the time the McCann party would have been booked to come home and whom the Portuguese police did not have the time to question.
The Totmans did not come into that category of those whose travel arrangements interfered with the PJ investigation and apparently they did make a report at the time. Amaral's docu made use of the information given although still not explaining the direction of travel. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465981#msg465981
The Totmans remained in Luz long enough for the PJ to do the job of checking out the eight families using the creche that night.
We've got a whole thread on this topic. Here's one I posted earlier on it "the explanation for an investigative journalist getting hold of an individual's details is easily understood.
Paulo Reis "found" Dr Totman and published his name on his blog in 2009 in relation to quite another conspiracy theory all together." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465931#msg465931
I don't really think it is appropriate to rely on documentaries to 'solve' cases although the Netflix one came at the right time to open eyes just a little in Portugal.
I think it might have been more pertinent for the PJ to have checked out the criminal elements resident in Luz at the time.
Reading between the lines I think there was a bit of a panic going on, certainly frantic enough to attract the attention of Scotland Yard in 2013 regarding the phone dump. Who knows what questioning that in the immediate aftermath days later might have led to.
Brueckner - who as far as the police were concerned, but apparently not his alibis - had vanished. But might have revealed exactly what was happening with the registration of his vehicle.
Misty is a poster consistently making salient points which really should open up a bit of intelligent discussion on the forum. What appears to me as consistent passive aggression in response doesn't really take us anywhere. But heigh-ho
Once again - thank you, Brietta. I do try to post comments which may stimulate debate here between people who have differing opinions on the case. Certain folk should perhaps remember the quick demise of The Discussion Forum, where only a one-sided opinion was allowed to prevail.
-
I think it depends on how you interpret their exact words.
Certainly Sandra F promoted a 9.10pm abduction time in her 2020 Sexta9 series about Brueckner, which was compiled after much discussion with Wolters. IMO that specific time was not speculation.
[/b]
Which is at complete odds of SY who pushed the time onto 10pm after being almost certain Tanner man was not the abductor.
-
[/b]
Which is at complete odds of SY who pushed the time onto 10pm after being almost certain Tanner man was not the abductor.
That was under the leadership of one man DCI Andy RedWOOD. I wonder if he got it right with at least three things that point against the man being Dr Totman. There was a lot of questioning on forums after I pointed out that Dr. Totman was going in the wrong direction from the Creche. DCI Redwood retired pretty sharply after the PdL on site investigaton.
My sargeant at OG , DS Gary RedMOND took over at a hands on level. He showed a good deal of interest in my theory. We talked for about 40 mins IIRC. There was another ?Sargeant sitting in the corner observing. I was introduced and afterwards I wondered if she was assessing whether or not I was barmy, cos the theory was so different and unusual, yet based upon proven fact I must have passed the observation test because they showed at least two of my folders on Crimewatch UK.
They also made a comment about "one person had done an indepth analysis that had changed the direction of the investigation." A policeman was carrying one of my folders as it was said
Additionally, I wonder if Dr Totman could have managed to carry his daughter all the way from the creche with her lying across his arms as illustrated. The leverage on his arms would be immense. It would have been much more natural and easier to carry her on his shoulder as Gerry did with Sean when he descended the aircrafts steps on arrival back in the UK. He was an experienced father and knew the easiest way to carry his daughter, so why was he carrying her across his arms? Was that detail one added by OG to make the possible sighting more 'real' to the world? Dunno
With Tannerman carrying 'Madeleine' across his arms as he did, I am inclined to think that he was not a father. This fits with Brueckner, BUT please,please , this observation does not mean Tannerman was Brueckner. Let's not jump to conclusions.
Carrying her across his arms in this way also indicates that he was expecting a quick pick up .
I understand the likely protests that "he wanted a little child to mess with for days", so he wouldn't be given the task by Mr Big.
We now know that he was part of a drug cartel, so he would know that if he did anything to Madeleine that displeased Mr Big, he was likely to have his fingers and "crown jewels" sliced off, his leg bones smashed and ear cut off. ..... And he was only supposed to hold her for the time, merely seconds, for the pick up vehicle to come from the little car park across the road from the Tapas reception.. But it didn't come because Gerry was in the way chatting with Jez. The watcher/ getaway driver didn't know because the two men were hidden from his sight by the protuding wall of Unit 6 building.
Hope you have taken the time to examine the situation of the protuding wall and placements of G and J on GE.
And, of course, Breuckner could have been the "get in and lift Madeleine operator" within 5a. He might have passed Madeleine to Tannerman, then fast footed it out of there. Dunno .
This is all IMHO, but it fits. Can you add to it Gunit, you helped me before. ?{)(**
Now, if you will excuse me, I am tired, but please do examine GE, both street scene and birds eye view.
6&%5% .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
-
That was under the leadership of one man DCI Andy RedWOOD.
Do you consider him in the same vain as Amaral ? surely one man doesn't lead an investigation.
-
Do you consider him in the same vain as Amaral ? surely one man doesn't lead an investigation.
No, I don't
Some people are just no good at direction. My hubby is one and he is a 1st class Hons Engineer, so you wouldn't expect that. Thank God for me and for Sat Navs. Even with Sat Navs, whilst touring around Portugal, we ended up at the end of a lane in a milking parlour once. (&^&
Soz, but 6&%5% ..... zzzzzz....
-
That was under the leadership of one man DCI Andy RedWOOD. I wonder if he got it right with at least three things that point against the man being Dr Totman. There was a lot of questioning on forums after I pointed out that Dr. Totman was going in the wrong direction from the Creche. DCI Redwood retired pretty sharply after the PdL on site investigaton.
My sargeant at OG , DS Gary RedMOND took over at a hands on level. He showed a good deal of interest in my theory. We talked for about 40 mins IIRC. There was another ?Sargeant sitting in the corner observing. I was introduced and afterwards I wondered if she was assessing whether or not I was barmy, cos the theory was so different and unusual, yet based upon proven fact I must have passed the observation test because they showed at least two of my folders on Crimewatch UK.
They also made a comment about "one person had done an indepth analysis that had changed the direction of the investigation." A policeman was carrying one of my folders as it was said
Additionally, I wonder if Dr Totman could have managed to carry his daughter all the way from the creche with her lying across his arms as illustrated. The leverage on his arms would be immense. It would have been much more natural and easier to carry her on his shoulder as Gerry did with Sean when he descended the aircrafts steps on arrival back in the UK. He was an experienced father and knew the easiest way to carry his daughter, so why was he carrying her across his arms? Was that detail one added by OG to make the possible sighting more 'real' to the world? Dunno
With Tannerman carrying 'Madeleine' across his arms as he did, I am inclined to think that he was not a father. This fits with Brueckner, BUT please,please , this observation does not mean Tannerman was Brueckner. Let's not jump to conclusions.
Carrying her across his arms in this way also indicates that he was expecting a quick pick up .
I understand the likely protests that "he wanted a little child to mess with for days", so he wouldn't be given the task by Mr Big.
We now know that he was part of a drug cartel, so he would know that if he did anything to Madeleine that displeased Mr Big, he was likely to have his fingers and "crown jewels" sliced off, his leg bones smashed and ear cut off. ..... And he was only supposed to hold her for the time, merely seconds, for the pick up vehicle to come from the little car park across the road from the Tapas reception.. But it didn't come because Gerry was in the way chatting with Jez. The watcher/ getaway driver didn't know because the two men were hidden from his sight by the protuding wall of Unit 6 building.
Hope you have taken the time to examine the situation of the protuding wall and placements of G and J on GE.
And, of course, Breuckner could have been the "get in and lift Madeleine operator" within 5a. He might have passed Madeleine to Tannerman, then fast footed it out of there. Dunno .
This is all IMHO, but it fits. Can you add to it Gunit, you helped me before. ?{)(**
Now, if you will excuse me, I am tired, but please do examine GE, both street scene and birds eye view.
6&%5% .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
No they did not! They said nothing of the sort... your delusions of grandeur strike again!...
https://youtu.be/3EyqHtsLeGQ?t=1159 (https://youtu.be/3EyqHtsLeGQ?t=1159)
-
No they did not! They said nothing of the sort... your delusions of grandeur strike again!...
https://youtu.be/3EyqHtsLeGQ?t=1159 (https://youtu.be/3EyqHtsLeGQ?t=1159)
A clever bit of dubbing there. Different words spoken now, but plenty heard the original words and hopefully will verify them.
See also, the folder has changed colour again. it is no longer the aquamarine green that it had been changed to by someone ....... and the top shelf showing my big box folder has vanished again
You are the forum technical man, did you do both these things?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RE: The thread about the hearts on pilars, street corners etc near Casa Pia Boys Home and the deaf and dumb school behind Jeronimoes magnificent monastry in Belem, Lisbon. The hearts that seemed like sign posts for paedos indicating where all the sordid acton was have vanished. Luckily as with everything there are hard copies; some with SY as well. So I suggest you tread carefully
You encouraged me to find the hearts from GE. Then they all vanished, not only in real life but also on the thread. You are the forum technical man ..... did you do it?
Are you working for the other side?
Only wondering, but it seems like it
And what a nasty man you are, always picking on me.
-
I assume it's already been proposed here before so I hesitate to say it. But the other option for the Met not resolving the issue of why Totman would be walking in that direction is because they don't actually believe that he did. Instead, Redwood's assumption is that Jane is mistaken in her recollection of which way the man was going.
The mind can play tricks. Redwood may have concluded that Jane recalling seeing a man, after Madeleine had just been seemingly abducted, might have caused her recollection to become influenced/muddled about what she actually saw. The same as Martin Smith's recollection possibly was when he learned that Gerry had been made Arguido.
To be clear, I'm NOT necessarily saying that's what "I" think happened to Jane, before anyone tries putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that "IF" the Met were indeed working on this assumption, it could also explain a few other things.
1. It could explain why the Portuguese authorites so quickly dismissed Totman as being Tannerman. If he'd said he was definitely heading towards the apartment block with his daughter, and never away from it as Jane described, he may have been ruled out on that basis. As inadequate as their investigation was, it is strange they would not have followed this up at any point, given it was their main lead at the time. Or later on, when it would have suited them down to the ground to have assigned Totman to being the man Jane saw.
2. It could explain why the McCanns have never committed to Totman being the person Jane saw. And why they, nor Jane, have made any comment about it. Despite Redwood being "almost" certain, they don't appear to agree. The drawings of Tannerman are still displayed prominently on their website and they state that while "the Met" believe this man "may" be another guest, it is "not certain" that it's the same person.
3. It could explain why neither the Met or the Totmans have offered any explanation as to why he was walking in that direction. The Totmans provided comments to the press and could have explained about the route he walked and at what time this was, but they offered up no details at all. All Redwood would commit to was that Mr Totman was walking "near" the apartment. He doesn't say at what time and I think if they "had" ascertained that he had walked in the direction Jane described, they would/should have said something about it IMO. If their assumption was that Jane was incorrect in her memories, I think that would be something that none of them would want to particularly broadcast though. It would only raise more doubts, questions and criticism if they were working on the assumption that Jane was wrong about what she saw. It would also undermine their promotion of the Smith sighting as a new angle of focus.
4. It could explain why the Totmans never contacted police during the 6 years before Redwood's team got in touch with the night creche families directly. If the Totmans strongly believed he could have been that person, you'd think they would have done a bit more to come forward, rather than just waiting to "hear back" as his wife put it. It could be that it's because he knows he wasn't walking in that direction at all and so, either it wasn't him, or he would have to claim Jane's account was wrong.
IMO, the assignation of Totman being Tannerman is inconclusive.
Going back to CB though, I thought it quite interesting that the BKA are seemingly placing no interest on the Smith sighting. Martin Smith says he didn't even find out about CB until it came out in the papers. Given how much the BKA 'appear' to want to place CB in the area, you would have thought they (or SY on their behalf) might have at least approached the Smiths with a photo of CB to see if it rang any bells prior to the appeal. I just wonder if they perhaps have other intel about the course of events that night which allows them to consider this event redundant.
-
Cheers Para. I'm Utrinque Paratus (while we're pathetically flexing the Googled Latin), - are you?
Nice Para pun Sir. You aren't an unintelligent person, I can tell that. I just don't quite understand why you resort to ridiculing an argument that nobody made when you are quite obviously capable of engaging in a proper grown-up debate.
-
It was you who brought up that the group’s perception may have been shaped by alcohol not me. If you don’t want something to be discussed can I suggest that you don’t use it as some sort of mitigation. If either Gerry or Tanner had consumed enough alcohol to perhaps dim their recall, as you suggested, how can any of their memories be relied upon?
TBH it’s not the fact that Gerry appears not to remember where he was standing I, like you, think there’s nothing suspicious in that. What is suspicious was the way he dug his heels in when two witnesses, one his friend, proved him wrong. Why chose that particular hill to die on?
As to your hypothetical question, I’m afraid I’ll have to answer the two parts separately. If there was CCTV that showed Tanner passing Gerry on that night then of course I’d accept that this had happened. I’d accept that I’d been wrong and crack on. As to Tanner identifying Brueckner I’d have to compare what she said when first describing the man she saw with Brueckner
For a start…from her rogatory interview Tanner described the man she saw as “ not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.” Bruckner is just over 6ft.
From her first interview Tanner described the man she saw as a “dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40” Brueckner was very light skinned and at the time was 30.
“ Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back ”. Of course we know that Bruckner has fair, rather fine hair and just weeks before Madeleine’s his hair was short at the back.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2219932/Video-Christian-B-drives-VW-campervan-just-weeks-Maddie-disappeared.html
So no I wouldn’t accept her assertion that the man she saw was Brueckner and I don’t think that you would either.
I've already explained in detail what I meant and you are still choosing to twist it out of context. My main point was that memories are fallible anyway, my secondary point was that alcohol can affect memory accuracy further. At what point the level of intoxication makes a person's account "unreliable" is entirely subjective. No person's account can be considered 100% "reliable" if you want to get technical about it. Not even the world's most honest, stone-cold sober person.
Personally, I wouldn't categorise a person's account as "unreliable" on the basis they can't recall every specific detail of their night accurately such as where exactly they stood, even if "part" of the reason for that was down to light/moderate alcohol consumption.
It's a fact that consumption of alcohol affects perception and memory. Agree? Generally, the more alcohol consumed, the more ones recollections are likely to be distorted. Agree? And so, even a relatively small amount of alcohol could therefore affect ones recollections of "some" details to a degree, even if they were in otherwise sound control of their senses. Agree?
Have I said anything controversial or incorrect there?
If you want to interpret that the above means Gerry's memories are "unreliable", that's up to you. But on that basis you'd have to equate that Martin Smith's memories are "unreliable" too. You can't have it both ways.
There's a big difference between unreliable and untrustworthy though.
As for why Gerry "doubled down" about his positioning, again, it's simple. He's just being honest about how he recalls it. In spite of Jez and Jane thinking it was elsewhere, there is still a possibility he was right and they were wrong so why should he just discount his own recollection for the convenience of having an agreeable story? You choose to interpret that as being suspicious, but if he changed his story to fit the others accounts, I expect you'd have claimed that was suspicious too. Gerry correcting his version about which door he used being a prime example of where people think that.
At the end of the day, you're going to believe what you want to believe. I don't try or expect to change your mind, but I will pont out the flaws in your logic or argument when they are evidently apparent. Anyway let's move on, the topic is meant to be about CB.
-
I've already explained in detail what I meant and you are still choosing to twist it out of context. My main point was that memories are fallible anyway, my secondary point was that alcohol can affect memory accuracy further. At what point the level of intoxication makes a person's account "unreliable" is entirely subjective. No person's account can be considered 100% "reliable" if you want to get technical about it. Not even the world's most honest, stone-cold sober person.
Personally, I wouldn't categorise a person's account as "unreliable" on the basis they can't recall every specific detail of their night accurately such as where exactly they stood, even if "part" of the reason for that was down to light/moderate alcohol consumption.
It's a fact that consumption of alcohol affects perception and memory. Agree? Generally, the more alcohol consumed, the more ones recollections are likely to be distorted. Agree? And so, even a relatively small amount of alcohol could therefore affect ones recollections of "some" details to a degree, even if they were in otherwise sound control of their senses. Agree?
Have I said anything controversial or incorrect there?
If you want to interpret that the above means Gerry's memories are "unreliable", that's up to you. But on that basis you'd have to equate that Martin Smith's memories are "unreliable" too. You can't have it both ways.
There's a big difference between unreliable and untrustworthy though.
As for why Gerry "doubled down" about his positioning, again, it's simple. He's just being honest about how he recalls it. In spite of Jez and Jane thinking it was elsewhere, there is still a possibility he was right and they were wrong so why should he just discount his own recollection for the convenience of having an agreeable story? You choose to interpret that as being suspicious, but if he changed his story to fit the others accounts, I expect you'd have claimed that was suspicious too. Gerry correcting his version about which door he used being a prime example of where people think that.
At the end of the day, you're going to believe what you want to believe. I don't try or expect to change your mind, but I will pont out the flaws in your logic or argument when they are evidently apparent. Anyway let's move on, the topic is meant to be about CB.
I think the Portuguese police got themselves caught up in a mindset which didn't allow them to look at the broader picture which would have included investigating the burglars there at the time and Brueckner who wasn't there when they tried to speak to him.
I've just watched a documentary on Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire ripper) who was actually interviewed on at least four occasions but the police couldn't see beyond a hoaxer the press called 'Wearside Jack'.
Which calls to mind Amaral's sacking when he had a flaky reported in the media about evidence forwarded to him from Britain concerning a former ocean club employee who might well have been Euclides Monteiro.
So not only is witness testimony fallible police investigations are too. Those of us enjoying the benefit of hindsight really ought to remember that.
-
Unless the tip off was about a woman;
The email - sent via Prince Charles' website - claimed a disgruntled former employee of the Portuguese resort where the toddler went missing, could be behind her disappearance.
It claimed Madeleine was abducted from the Praia da Luz apartment in revenge against the complex's owners.
It is understood police have confirmed the woman named in the email did work at the resort when Madeleine was last seen 150 days ago.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/prince-charles-maddie-tip-off/news-story/df27a5de24f61f575cbe063265b1fd82
-
Unless the tip off was about a woman;
The email - sent via Prince Charles' website - claimed a disgruntled former employee of the Portuguese resort where the toddler went missing, could be behind her disappearance.
It claimed Madeleine was abducted from the Praia da Luz apartment in revenge against the complex's owners.
It is understood police have confirmed the woman named in the email did work at the resort when Madeleine was last seen 150 days ago.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/prince-charles-maddie-tip-off/news-story/df27a5de24f61f575cbe063265b1fd82
Could be so. But irrespective of gender Amaral's outburst was such at the introduction of fresh evidence that it cost him his job.
There is also quite a supposition doing the rounds that Brueckner did not act alone but did so with an accomplice or as part of a group.
-
Could be so. But irrespective of gender Amaral's outburst was such at the introduction of fresh evidence that it cost him his job.
There is also quite a supposition doing the rounds that Brueckner did not act alone but did so with an accomplice or as part of a group.
I was merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with Monreiro. Do you think Brueckner was recruited by 'Mr Big' too?
-
I was merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with Monreiro. Do you think Brueckner was recruited by 'Mr Big' too?
By all accounts Euclides Monteiro was the motivation behind the Portuguese re-opening of Madeleine's case so the evidence for that must have been strong.
I have an open mind about whatever it was that motivated Brueckner if indeed it was he. The Germans think they have the evidence to tell us exactly what Brueckner's role was ~ I am content to wait for that to be presented.
-
I was merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with Monreiro. Do you think Brueckner was recruited by 'Mr Big' too?
This is the man who was nicking diesel and selling it in pop bottles, by the way, in case we've all lost sight of his predicament at the time.
Ok, so he was skint, but he remained skint and was still skint when he was nicked.
If he had abducted MM for someone else, I doubt he'd have been paid with a crate of Strongbow and a couple of tubes of Pringles.
(Cue the comments about the 'massive' drugs deal he was subsequently embroiled in).
-
This is the man who was nicking diesel and selling it in pop bottles, by the way, in case we've all lost sight of his predicament at the time.
Ok, so he was skint, but he remained skint and was still skint when he was nicked.
If he had abducted MM for someone else, I doubt he'd have been paid with a crate of Strongbow and a couple of tubes of Pringles.
(Cue the comments about the 'massive' drugs deal he was subsequently embroiled in).
Is this the person who bought a very large mobile home.. And a disused factory and land at auction... That skint person
-
Is this the person who bought a very large mobile home.. And a disused factory and land at auction... That skint person
I wonder what the General imagines is the going rate to hire a lowlife like Bruckner to abduct a child?
-
By all accounts Euclides Monteiro was the motivation behind the Portuguese re-opening of Madeleine's case so the evidence for that must have been strong.
I have an open mind about whatever it was that motivated Brueckner if indeed it was he. The Germans think they have the evidence to tell us exactly what Brueckner's role was ~ I am content to wait for that to be presented.
It was alleged in Correio da Manha that Monteiro was the strongest new lead presented to state prosecutors which led to the investigation being reopened.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm
So not the only lead, and not confirmed by the PJ.
Interestingly it was suggested that he came under suspicion because;
He had worked at the Ocean Club and his phone showed he was nearby on 3rd.
Similar to the claims being made about Brueckner, it seems.
-
It was alleged in Correio da Manha that Monteiro was the strongest new lead presented to state prosecutors which led to the investigation being reopened.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm
So not the only lead, and not confirmed by the PJ.
Interestingly it was suggested that he came under suspicion because;
He had worked at the Ocean Club and his phone showed he was nearby on 3rd.
Similar to the claims being made about Brueckner, it seems.
My view is that the Portuguese were shamed into reopening the case and used Monteiro as an excuse to make it look as though it was their decision
-
My view is that the Portuguese were shamed into reopening the case and used Monteiro as an excuse to make it look as though it was their decision
Whose decision was it then?
-
Whose decision was it then?
My post is clear.. Only Portugal could reopen the investigation... They were shamed into it and invented monteiro as a new lead
-
It clearly was their decision then. As to why, we can only speculate as you are doing.
-
It clearly was their decision then. As to why, we can only speculate as you are doing.
When will you realise that much of the forum.. Including many of your posts are speculation
-
When will you realise that much of the forum.. Including many of your posts are speculation
Posting speculations as facts is something that shouldn't happen;
"They were shamed into it and invented monteiro as a new lead"
That statement has no evidential basis whatsoever imo.
-
Posting speculations as facts is something that shouldn't happen;
"They were shamed into it and invented monteiro as a new lead"
That statement has no evidential basis whatsoever imo.
I used to put imo on every post that was opinion.... But as several other posters.. Including you sometimes.. Dont bother... Then I don't either..
-
By all accounts Euclides Monteiro was the motivation behind the Portuguese re-opening of Madeleine's case so the evidence for that must have been strong.
I have an open mind about whatever it was that motivated Brueckner if indeed it was he. The Germans think they have the evidence to tell us exactly what Brueckner's role was ~ I am content to wait for that to be presented.
Let's not forget that Brueckners home was only 200 metres away acros countryside from Boavista golf Course where Monteiro worked, driving a tractor.
It is in record that Breuckner used to walk across to the golf course to collect golf balls lost in the long grass. He used to sell them, I believe.
The area where they might have met is out of sight and hearing from any civilisation, unless a golfer came by.
In fact IF Madeleine abduction planning meetings had taken place there, it would have been an excellent place for Mr Big to meet up with them ... and also any others involved. After all he was just out on a round of golf, wasn't he?
Please, please, this does NOT mean that Bruckner or Manteiro did it, but I think that it would be wise for SY to consider it
-
Let's not forget that Brueckners home was only 200 metres away acros countryside from Boavista golf Course where Monteiro worked, driving a tractor.
It is in record that Breuckner used to walk across to the golf course to collect golf balls lost in the long grass. He used to sell them, I believe.
The area where they might have met is out of sight and hearing from any civilisation, unless a golfer came by.
In fact IF Madeleine abduction planning meetings had taken place there, it would have been an excellent place for Mr Big to meet up with them ... and also any others involved. After all he was just out on a round of golf, wasn't he?
Please, please, this does NOT mean that Bruckner or Manteiro did it, but I think that it would be wise for SY to consider it
I'm sure SY see CB as the prime suspect....and think in reality the odds of Maddie being alive are very very slim... Which is exactly what the Germans have said
-
I'm sure SY see CB as the prime suspect....and think in reality the odds of Maddie being alive are very very slim... Which is exactly what the Germans have said
I don't see why they should think so given the Germans haven't shared anything of substance and are merely theorising as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Do you honestly think that SY would like to see the Germans solve this case when the Portuguese and the English have failed to do so?
-
I don't see why they should think so given the Germans haven't shared anything of substance and are merely theorising as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Do you honestly think that SY would like to see the Germans solve this case when the Portuguese and the English have failed to do so?
I dont think the Germans are theorising... I think they have strong evidence to support their views. I think the PJ will be annoyed if the Germans have solved it because it means they were wrong all along. SY it seems we're right to believe in abduction.. It was their idea to make the appeal in Germany that pointed the finger at CB so they deserve some credit
-
I've already explained in detail what I meant and you are still choosing to twist it out of context. My main point was that memories are fallible anyway, my secondary point was that alcohol can affect memory accuracy further. At what point the level of intoxication makes a person's account "unreliable" is entirely subjective. No person's account can be considered 100% "reliable" if you want to get technical about it. Not even the world's most honest, stone-cold sober person.
Personally, I wouldn't categorise a person's account as "unreliable" on the basis they can't recall every specific detail of their night accurately such as where exactly they stood, even if "part" of the reason for that was down to light/moderate alcohol consumption.
It's a fact that consumption of alcohol affects perception and memory. Agree? Generally, the more alcohol consumed, the more ones recollections are likely to be distorted. Agree? And so, even a relatively small amount of alcohol could therefore affect ones recollections of "some" details to a degree, even if they were in otherwise sound control of their senses. Agree?
Have I said anything controversial or incorrect there?
If you want to interpret that the above means Gerry's memories are "unreliable", that's up to you. But on that basis you'd have to equate that Martin Smith's memories are "unreliable" too. You can't have it both ways.
There's a big difference between unreliable and untrustworthy though.
As for why Gerry "doubled down" about his positioning, again, it's simple. He's just being honest about how he recalls it. In spite of Jez and Jane thinking it was elsewhere, there is still a possibility he was right and they were wrong so why should he just discount his own recollection for the convenience of having an agreeable story? You choose to interpret that as being suspicious, but if he changed his story to fit the others accounts, I expect you'd have claimed that was suspicious too. Gerry correcting his version about which door he used being a prime example of where people think that.
At the end of the day, you're going to believe what you want to believe. I don't try or expect to change your mind, but I will pont out the flaws in your logic or argument when they are evidently apparent. Anyway let's move on, the topic is meant to be about CB.
I don’t think Gerry’s recollections were ‘unreliable’, simply dishonest. Martin Smith’s however were not. That’s the difference.
-
I don't see why they should think so given the Germans haven't shared anything of substance and are merely theorising as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Do you honestly think that SY would like to see the Germans solve this case when the Portuguese and the English have failed to do so?
I don't think we can discount that perhaps SY and the McCanns know quite a bit more about the BKA evidence than what has been let on publicly. And that perhaps the reason all parties (including the BKA) are intimating otherwise is for other sensitive reasons. One of which might be that the BKA haven't afforded the PJ same level of knowledge about their evidence. HCW has made no secret that the level of cooperation with the PJ is not great and I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious. The PJ don't really want the BKA to solve this case and prove that Madeleine was abducted IMO. Whereas I think SY would feel vindicated that they were correct about her being taken and also that they played a part in bringing CB to justice.
Personally, I think the McCanns may have been privately told certain details of why the BKA so strongly believe CB is responsible via SY, although probably not all of the details about the evidence that supports it.
IMO people read too much into the SY's standard "still being treated as a missing persons enquiry" line. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe CB murdered Madeleine. What else do we expect them to say? "The Germans are telling everyone that they haven't shared all their evidence with us, but as they seem pretty sure she was murdered, we're going to change our position to a murder enquiry now too"? Unlikely. Within the scope of a "missing person" enquiry, they will of course be investigating the possibility of murder, so the two positions are not contradictary. It's a very politically sensitive case, and any comments coming from SY will be very carefully worded. When you analyse them, to get any meaning from them you need to consider what they DON'T say, rather than what they DO.
The fact that SY, nor the McCanns, have made any real fuss about "apparently" being left in the dark, or shown any dissent, I get the feeling they have been told a lot more than what has been released publicly, even if it's not everything. The only contentious comment they seem to have made was about the "letter" that the BKA sent. When you read what they say though, the dig is not aimed at the BKA, it is aimed at the press. The McCanns were complaining about the accuracy of what the media had reported about the letter, which was that the letter supposedly told them there was proof that Madeleine was dead.
It seems to me that the press were using a mish-mash of their own interpretation around what HCW was saying publicly about the case and what he said about the letter. I think this is what the McCanns took exception to. After the McCanns made their statement, the Press then decided to make out that this directly contradicted what HCW had said, when in reality, it just contradicted what the Press had made out that HCW had said about the letter. In fact, some of the press made out the McCanns were claiming there was NO letter at all, which is not what they said either. The McCanns released another statement a few days later clarifying a letter WAS passed on to them via the Met.
This is what Wolters said about it after the McCanns made their first statement about the letter:
And today, Mr Wolters again insisted they had sent a letter to the McCann's saying in a statement: 'We have written to the parents.
'The Public Prosecutor's Office has never commented on the content of the letter and will not do so.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8426407/Kate-Gerry-McCann-hit-German-prosecutors-claims.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
-
I don’t think Gerry’s recollections were ‘unreliable’, simply dishonest. Martin Smith’s however were not. That’s the difference.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that I don't think either of them were being intentionally dishonest. I just think they were probably both mistaken. Two people contradicted where Gerry said he was stood during the Tanner sighting so you could say there's only a 33% chance at best, that he was right about where he stood. How many people contradicted that Gerry could have been present at the Smith sighting at 10 o clock when you include all the people who said he was at the OC at the time, plus all of the Smith family members who disagreed with Martin Smith that the man they saw was Gerry?
Your logic doesn't stack up. Your reasoning for believing Gerry is being dishonest (rather than being correct or mistaken) about where he stood is clearly based on other biases when you so readily accept that Martin Smith was correct in spite of the amount of contradictary accounts that he was not. This argument is getting boring and going nowhere so I suggest we draw a line under it as I'm guessing everyone else is getting fed up of listening to it too.
-
I don't think we can discount that perhaps SY and the McCanns know quite a bit more about the BKA evidence than what has been let on publicly. And that perhaps the reason all parties (including the BKA) are intimating otherwise is for other sensitive reasons. One of which might be that the BKA haven't afforded the PJ same level of knowledge about their evidence. HCW has made no secret that the level of cooperation with the PJ is not great and I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious. The PJ don't really want the BKA to solve this case and prove that Madeleine was abducted IMO. Whereas I think SY would feel vindicated that they were correct about her being taken and also that they played a part in bringing CB to justice.
Personally, I think the McCanns may have been privately told certain details of why the BKA so strongly believe CB is responsible via SY, although probably not all of the details about the evidence that supports it.
IMO people read too much into the SY's standard "still being treated as a missing persons enquiry" line. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe CB murdered Madeleine. What else do we expect them to say? "The Germans are telling everyone that they haven't shared all their evidence with us, but as they seem pretty sure she was murdered, we're going to change our position to a murder enquiry now too"? Unlikely. Within the scope of a "missing person" enquiry, they will of course be investigating the possibility of murder, so the two positions are not contradictary. It's a very politically sensitive case, and any comments coming from SY will be very carefully worded. When you analyse them, to get any meaning from them you need to consider what they DON'T say, rather than what they DO.
The fact that SY, nor the McCanns, have made any real fuss about "apparently" being left in the dark, or shown any dissent, I get the feeling they have been told a lot more than what has been released publicly, even if it's not everything. The only contentious comment they seem to have made was about the "letter" that the BKA sent. When you read what they say though, the dig is not aimed at the BKA, it is aimed at the press. The McCanns were complaining about the accuracy of what the media had reported about the letter, which was that the letter supposedly told them there was proof that Madeleine was dead.
It seems to me that the press were using a mish-mash of their own interpretation around what HCW was saying publicly about the case and what he said about the letter. I think this is what the McCanns took exception to. After the McCanns made their statement, the Press then decided to make out that this directly contradicted what HCW had said, when in reality, it just contradicted what the Press had made out that HCW had said about the letter. In fact, some of the press made out the McCanns were claiming there was NO letter at all, which is not what they said either. The McCanns released another statement a few days later clarifying a letter WAS passed on to them via the Met.
This is what Wolters said about it after the McCanns made their first statement about the letter:
And today, Mr Wolters again insisted they had sent a letter to the McCann's saying in a statement: 'We have written to the parents.
'The Public Prosecutor's Office has never commented on the content of the letter and will not do so.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8426407/Kate-Gerry-McCann-hit-German-prosecutors-claims.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
There was a time whe McCann sceptics used to delight in reminding us that Operation Grange was being operated by a team from the homicide squad which to them meant SY must know Madeleine was dead and not missing. Now bizarrely they seem to view it as massively significant that the Met are treating the case as a missing persons investigation simply because they appear to cling to the hope that the Met are not in agreement with the Germans wrt to CB’s involvement. To be a McCann sceptic requires alot of faulty, twisted logic imo.
-
I dont think the Germans are theorising... I think they have strong evidence to support their views. I think the PJ will be annoyed if the Germans have solved it because it means they were wrong all along. SY it seems we're right to believe in abduction.. It was their idea to make the appeal in Germany that pointed the finger at CB so they deserve some credit
Do you mean the Crimewatch programme? The one where it was suggested that Madeleine was abducted between 9.30 and 10pm? Although some seem to still be prepared to speculate about the time;
Certainly Sandra F promoted a 9.10pm abduction time in her 2020 Sexta9 series about Brueckner, which was compiled after much discussion with Wolters. IMO that specific time was not speculation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg677862#msg677862
-
Do you mean the Crimewatch programme? The one where it was suggested that Madeleine was abducted between 9.30 and 10pm? Although some seem to still be prepared to speculate about the time;
Certainly Sandra F promoted a 9.10pm abduction time in her 2020 Sexta9 series about Brueckner, which was compiled after much discussion with Wolters. IMO that specific time was not speculation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg677862#msg677862
The McCanns made an appeal on German TV and it was this appeal that led to CBs name being put forward. I have said for a long time abduction is by a mile the most likely reason for the disappearance.. Looks like.I was right
-
The McCanns made an appeal on German TV and it was this appeal that led to CBs name being put forward. I have said for a long time abduction is by a mile the most likely reason for the disappearance.. Looks like.I was right
Looks like its what they are investigating not what actually happened, OG showed that.
-
Looks like its what they are investigating not what actually happened, OG showed that.
Doesn't look like it to me.
-
Looks like its what they are investigating not what actually happened, OG showed that.
I wonder if the Germans realise that stranger abduction has never been proved to be the crime which was committed? It became the only possibility not because of overwheming evidence but because of repeated reiteration.
-
I wonder if the Germans realise that stranger abduction has never been proved to be the crime which was committed? It became the only possibility not because of overwheming evidence but because of repeated reiteration.
Is that a fact or is that your opinion? Just how very stupid do you think the BKA are, on a scale of one to ten?
-
I wonder if the Germans realise that stranger abduction has never been proved to be the crime which was committed? It became the only possibility not because of overwheming evidence but because of repeated reiteration.
Do you really "wonder" that? Do you really think they've spent 4 or 5 years blissfully unaware of the sceptics theories and the direction the original investigation took?
Wolters commented about it during an interview and was not particularly complimentary about Amaral. From memory he went on to say something along the lines of " He (Amaral) knows how he comes to his conclusions, we know how we come to ours".
-
I wonder if the Germans realise that stranger abduction has never been proved to be the crime which was committed? It became the only possibility not because of overwheming evidence but because of repeated reiteration.
Opinion as fact and obviously wrong and misinformed imo.
It never ceases to amaze me how out of touch sceptics are.
You think the BKA have 100 people on the case because the mccanns claimed abduction.. Absolutely daft
-
Opinion as fact and obviously wrong and misinformed imo.
It never ceases to amaze me how out of touch sceptics are.
You think the BKA have 100 people on the case because the mccanns claimed abduction.. Absolutely daft
Absolutely, and yet seemingly intelligent people seem genuinely to believe this. It’s hard to fathom, it really is.
-
Is that a fact or is that your opinion? Just how very stupid do you think the BKA are, on a scale of one to ten?
Perhaps they assume, like some others, that Scotland Yard couldn't possibly be wrong.
-
Perhaps they assume, like some others, that Scotland Yard couldn't possibly be wrong.
An absolutely daft post. From what Wolters has said he has proof of abduction
-
An absolutely daft post. From what Wolters has said he has proof of abduction
Did he actually say that or are you reading between the lines? I thought he couldn't even prove that Brueckner was in Praia da Luz on the evening of 3rd May 2007.
-
Did he actually say that or are you reading between the lines? I thought he couldn't even prove that Brueckner was in Praia da Luz on the evening of 3rd May 2007.
I said proof of abduction.. Not that CB was involved
-
Perhaps they assume, like some others, that Scotland Yard couldn't possibly be wrong.
So you reckon they are a 10 on the stupid scale then?
-
I said proof of abduction.. Not that CB was involved
Whats that based that on then, there's been no indication any Germans have been in Luz investigating.
-
Whats that based that on then, there's been no indication any Germans have been in Luz investigating.
they wouldnt have to...pointless me expalining..you wouldnt accept it
-
I said proof of abduction.. Not that CB was involved
I think you're getting carried away.
-
they wouldnt have to...pointless me expalining..you wouldnt accept it
Well they ain't gonna find Madeleine hiding in a broom cupboard in any BKA office.
-
Well they ain't gonna find Madeleine hiding in a broom cupboard in any BKA office.
According to A C Rowley catching the abductor would prove abduction had occured.
-
According to A C Rowley catching the abductor would prove abduction had occured.
Well OG never caught anything.
-
I think you're getting carried away.
I think your prejudice is stopping you seeing the truth
-
Well OG never caught anything.
My sources tell me that a bad case of athlete’s foot was caught by an officer from a pair of secondhand crocs, so not strictly true.
-
Crikey, there seems to have been a bit of a trollish rampage on here last night….what’s with all the asinine comments on dead threads?
-
Crikey, there seems to have been a bit of a trollish rampage on here last night….what’s with all the asinine comments on dead threads?
Well, there you go. I suspect that The General was unwell. But tomorrow is another day.
-
Crikey, there seems to have been a bit of a trollish rampage on here last night….what’s with all the asinine comments on dead threads?
There was a concerted flood of puerile wind up merchanting throughout the day as well. Either just a further attempt to wreck the credibility of the forum or a competition on who could make the most irrelevant off topic banal post and get away with it. My opinion!
-
There was a concerted flood of puerile wind up merchanting throughout the day as well. Either just a further attempt to wreck the credibility of the forum or a competition on who could make the most irrelevant off topic banal post and get away with it. My opinion!
Ya. Testing the water in the light of current events. Not even remotely important. En Y Var.
-
There was a concerted flood of puerile wind up merchanting throughout the day as well. Either just a further attempt to wreck the credibility of the forum or a competition on who could make the most irrelevant off topic banal post and get away with it. My opinion!
Not even as clever as that.
We are now left with Freedom of Speech as apples to Amaral and Portugal. It does not apply to this Forum unless John says it does.
So stand by for anything that offends me.
-
Not even as clever as that.
We are now left with Freedom of Speech as apples to Amaral and Portugal. It does not apply to this Forum unless John says it does.
So stand by for anything that offends me.
Here's one for you then, whats the legal position on reproducing Amaral's book on here, not interested on the moral stance.
-
Not even as clever as that.
We are now left with Freedom of Speech as apples to Amaral and Portugal. It does not apply to this Forum unless John says it does.
So stand by for anything that offends me.
The UK courts are bound by the ECHR just as the Portuguese courts are. Their findings apply across all the states they deal with.
-
The UK courts are bound by the ECHR just as the Portuguese courts are. Their findings apply across all the states they deal with.
He would be sued for at least a million of not more in the UK courts.. He has no defence to libel. After several appeals costing millions he could appeal to the ECHR and imo.. With a proper solicitor.. Would not be sure the UK would not mount a strong defence
-
He would be sued for at least a million of not more in the UK courts.. He has no defence to libel. After several appeals costing millions he could appeal to the ECHR and imo.. With a proper solicitor.. Would not be sure the UK would not mount a strong defence
I find it a bit strange the UK press were happy to repeat his blasphemy the other day.
-
He would be sued for at least a million of not more in the UK courts.. He has no defence to libel. After several appeals costing millions he could appeal to the ECHR and imo.. With a proper solicitor.. Would not be sure the UK would not mount a strong defence
Your opinions on anything legal and tuppence ha'penny wouldn't buy me a hair cut, and I'm bald.
-
Here's one for you then, whats the legal position on reproducing Amaral's book on here, not interested on the moral stance.
You will have to ask John about that. I personally wouldn't have a problem.
-
The UK courts are bound by the ECHR just as the Portuguese courts are. Their findings apply across all the states they deal with.
Fine by me.
-
Well, there you go. I suspect that The General was unwell. But tomorrow is another day.
Must’ve been a bad batch of Evo Stick.
-
Your opinions on anything legal and tuppence ha'penny wouldn't buy me a hair cut, and I'm bald.
Why has Amaral's Book never been published in England?
-
Must’ve been a bad batch of Evo Stick.
I think that stuff is non-solvent, so wouldn't get much of a buzz from that. Not that I'd know anything about that sort of thing.
-
Here's one for you then, whats the legal position on reproducing Amaral's book on here, not interested on the moral stance.
The files haven't been made public in the UK, officially. Had they been, might that alter things?
We'll just have to wait for the UK to release their files anyway, which would include the PJ files presumably. But that's never going to happen. We can't expect our police to be transparent, for some reason.
-
Why has Amaral's Book never been published in England?
No UK publisher wants to risk publication for fear of persecution.
-
No UK publisher wants to risk publication for fear of persecution.
I like what you did there.
-
No UK publisher wants to risk publication for fear of persecution.
I think you mean Prosecution, which would be absolutely correct;
-
I think you mean Prosecution, which would be absolutely correct;
But what if the files were officially made public in the UK?
Then what?
Maybe our resident legal expert knows.
-
Have always said wolt is more interested in solving other cases than what happened to Maddie.
Another one imo used Maddie to get maximum publicity.
This month, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said there is no end in sight to the Madeleine case.
But he is preparing to give a TV update on five other cases linked to Brueckner, who is currently in jail for raping a woman aged 72 in Portugal.
Brueckner, 43, denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any offence in relation to Madeleine.
Mr Bleksley said: “My concern is this is going to end up being one of the great unsolved crime mysteries.
“I don’t share Wolters’ optimism. I think he should put up or shut up. If you’ve got the evidence, stick him on the sheet, as we used to say.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-budget-madeleine-mccann-probe-28073248
-
Have always said wolt is more interested in solving other cases than what happened to Maddie.
Another one imo used Maddie to get maximum publicity.
This month, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said there is no end in sight to the Madeleine case.
But he is preparing to give a TV update on five other cases linked to Brueckner, who is currently in jail for raping a woman aged 72 in Portugal.
Brueckner, 43, denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any offence in relation to Madeleine.
Mr Bleksley said: “My concern is this is going to end up being one of the great unsolved crime mysteries.
“I don’t share Wolters’ optimism. I think he should put up or shut up. If you’ve got the evidence, stick him on the sheet, as we used to say.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-budget-madeleine-mccann-probe-28073248
Brueckner will be charged with his crimes against Maddie after these other cases have been dealt with, so I'm reliably informed.
Just be patient.
-
Your opinions on anything legal and tuppence ha'penny wouldn't buy me a hair cut, and I'm bald.
Your opinion isn't worth anything.. I've proved mine is. Every point zi made was absolutely correct... Man city vs tranmere... The McCanns had a poor lawyer
Gunit said ECHR law governs UK... She's wrong.. So who has the best legal knowledge.
The ECHR ruled the UK could not stop prisoners voting... The govt ignored it
-
Your opinion isn't worth anything.. I've proved mine is. Every point zi made was absolutely correct... Man city vs tranmere... The McCanns had a poor lawyer
Gunit said ECHR law governs UK... She's wrong.. So who has the best legal knowledge.
The ECHR ruled the UK could not stop prisoners voting... The govt ignored it
Have you offered to represent the McCanns in their appeal yet?
-
Your opinion isn't worth anything.. I've proved mine is. Every point zi made was absolutely correct... Man city vs tranmere... The McCanns had a poor lawyer
Gunit said ECHR law governs UK... She's wrong.. So who has the best legal knowledge.
The ECHR ruled the UK could not stop prisoners voting... The govt ignored it
Your opinion is only worth anything to you, the sun came up again, the worlds still spinning , I woke up again this morning the rest of the day is a bonus, see it means nothing.
-
Imagine the comments from supporters if Portugal had lost and chose to ignore the ruling.
Fortunately the Portuguese didn't need to ignore the ruling as they won.
-
Brueckner will be charged with his crimes against Maddie after these other cases have been dealt with, so I'm reliably informed.
Just be patient.
And then we might see what Brueckner has to say if he is convicted. Brueckner won't go down alone.
I think that Amaral could be involved in this after all he has had to say in an attempt to interfere in the course of justice.
But this is only my Theory for which I am entitled according to ECHR Law.
-
Your opinion isn't worth anything.. I've proved mine is. Every point zi made was absolutely correct... Man city vs tranmere... The McCanns had a poor lawyer
Gunit said ECHR law governs UK... She's wrong.. So who has the best legal knowledge.
The ECHR ruled the UK could not stop prisoners voting... The govt ignored it
"The McCanns had a poor lawyer" says Mr Gray. Why? Because the lawyer lost a case which Mr Gray thought should have been won. Are all lawyers who lose cases 'poor, or is it the cases which are poor? I vote for the latter.
-
Have always said wolt is more interested in solving other cases than what happened to Maddie.
Another one imo used Maddie to get maximum publicity.
This month, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said there is no end in sight to the Madeleine case.
But he is preparing to give a TV update on five other cases linked to Brueckner, who is currently in jail for raping a woman aged 72 in Portugal.
Brueckner, 43, denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any offence in relation to Madeleine.
Mr Bleksley said: “My concern is this is going to end up being one of the great unsolved crime mysteries.
“I don’t share Wolters’ optimism. I think he should put up or shut up. If you’ve got the evidence, stick him on the sheet, as we used to say.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-budget-madeleine-mccann-probe-28073248
LOL.. Do you believe everything in the daily mirror
-
"The McCanns had a poor lawyer" says Mr Gray. Why? Because the lawyer lost a case which Mr Gray thought should have been won. Are all lawyers who lose cases 'poor, or is it the cases which are poor? I vote for the latter.
Al my opinions are based on sound evidence. If you are going too the. ECHR it makes sense to employ a specialist lawyer... Is that a fact or not
-
"The McCanns had a poor lawyer" says Mr Gray. Why? Because the lawyer lost a case which Mr Gray thought should have been won. Are all lawyers who lose cases 'poor, or is it the cases which are poor? I vote for the latter.
Once again a junk post. My argument is that the proven facts... Which were not facts do not seem to have been challenged... They claimed the mcs had been cleared ed by the archiving report... There's no precise defn of being cleared..
And then the Mc's employ the same lawyer.. To go to the ECHR... Daft
-
Al my opinions are based on sound evidence. If you are going too the. ECHR it makes sense to employ a specialist lawyer... Is that a fact or not
If you are seeking to lay the blame for the McCann's failure on their lawyers, then they must share the blame for choosing crap lawyers.
-
If you are seeking to lay the blame for the McCann's failure on their lawyers, then they must share the blame for choosing crap lawyers.
Absolutely agree
-
The naive sceptics don't seem to understand the difference a good lawyer with lots of experience in the area of law... Makes to the outcome.
-
If you are seeking to lay the blame for the McCann's failure on their lawyers, then they must share the blame for choosing crap lawyers.
I don't believe for a minute Gerry wouldn't have badgered his lawyer half to death over the cadaver alerts.
-
So many of you don't seem to realise the fall out from this. Davel can argue Law while I argue Me Too. The ECHR have just set a precedence that will allow me to say what ever I like without fear of libel and with no evidence.
Anthony Bennett should have a look at this one.
-
I don't believe for a minute Gerry wouldn't have badgered his lawyer half to death over the cadaver alerts.
I think that the parents were probably advised that the ECRH application was going to fly but Gerry, pugnacious as ever, ignored the advice, fearing public perception if they didn’t.
-
So many of you don't seem to realise the fall out from this. Davel can argue Law while I argue Me Too. The ECHR have just set a precedence that will allow me to say what ever I like without fear of libel and with no evidence.
Anthony Bennett should have a look at this one.
No they haven't.
They've set the precedent that if an ex inspector writes a book based on police files that are public & conclusions reached by his investigation from said files, then they can write thr book about such & it isn't libel.
-
There's two other threads about the ECHR, yet here we are discussing it on a thread about Brueckner.
What has happened to this forum?
It's all over the shop.
-
As an aside, have Portugal released police files from other cases or was the McCann case a one-off ?
If the latter, I wonder why that should be
-
As an aside, have Portugal released police files from other cases or was the McCann case a one-off ?
If the latter, I wonder why that should be
The latter, because the Judiciary couldn't see it ever being, legally, solved imo.
And the 3 investigative forces are proving them right.
-
The naive sceptics don't seem to understand the difference a good lawyer with lots of experience in the area of law... Makes to the outcome.
What a lesson this might be to someone in the future.
I did briefly wonder if they knew what they were doing but presumed that they did. Duart's practice apparently, who should have known, and so I presumed. But it is done now. The McCanns lost a case against a convicted liar. What's to lose? It won't make any difference ultimately. So probably best to say Thanks for the Publicity.
-
What a lesson this might be to someone in the future.
I did briefly wonder if they knew what they were doing but presumed that they did. Duart's practice apparently, who should have known, and so I presumed. But it is done now. The McCanns lost a case against a convicted liar. What's to lose? It won't make any difference ultimately. So probably best to say Thanks for the Publicity.
They lost that case several years ago.
-
They lost that case several years ago.
Indeed, this time they lost a case against a corrupt, paedo infested, fascist hell hole.
-
LOL.. Do you believe everything in the daily mirror
The best laugh will be when wolt admits he has no evidence on CB.
-
The best laugh will be when wolt admits he has no evidence on CB.
That'll never happen.
It will be " insufficient evidence to charge"
-
That'll never happen.
It will be " insufficient evidence to charge"
It won't be the first time that's happened, will it?
-
They lost that case several years ago.
Oh, I see. The fact that Amaral is a convicted liar is no longer of any importance.
I knew from the outset that the loss of this case was not important. it was such a long time ago and during which much publicity for Madeline was gained.
The McCanns will never be arrested. And nor do I care if Bruekner is either. The Germans will see to him one way or another.
-
Oh, I see. The fact that Amaral is a convicted liar is no longer of any importance.
I knew from the outset that the loss of this case was not important. it was such a long time ago and during which much publicity for Madeline was gained.
The McCanns will never be arrested. And nor do I care if Bruekner is either. The Germans will see to him one way or another.
Certainly nothing like as important as you seem to think.
-
Oh, I see. The fact that Amaral is a convicted liar is no longer of any importance.
I knew from the outset that the loss of this case was not important. it was such a long time ago and during which much publicity for Madeline was gained.
The McCanns will never be arrested. And nor do I care if Bruekner is either. The Germans will see to him one way or another.
If it's not important then don't waste anymore time complaining about it.
If you really want Maddie to be found you won't find her here.
-
Certainly nothing like as important as you seem to think.
I thought that you were better than this?
-
Like OG the BKA went off very impressively. We even saw them digging and using dogs just like OG did. I wonder if they're down to a handful of officers like OG yet?
-
Like OG the BKA went off very impressively. We even saw them digging and using dogs just like OG did. I wonder if they're down to a handful of officers like OG yet?
I didn't know the BKA had been digging. I suppose its standard procedure for police to dig a hole and then look into it
Did they find anything ?
-
Like OG the BKA went off very impressively. We even saw them digging and using dogs just like OG did. I wonder if they're down to a handful of officers like OG yet?
Being German dogs, one would expect them to be highly efficient and superior in every way compared to those of other forces.
Did they find anything ?
-
Members are reminded to keep posts relevant and above all, respectful to your fellow members. Please continue to report forum rules breaches in the usual way as reports are always dealt with by our magnificent team of moderators. No report is ever ignored.
Thank you everyone.
-
Police investigate phone data in Madeleine McCann case
Portuguese police have hired people to carry out inquiries on behalf of british police, although this does not mean they will reopen the investigation
From the NewsroomPublished on 10/04/2013
London - British police said Friday they are analysing new cell phone data to advance their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, who disappeared from a resort in Portugal six years ago.
Madeleine, who was three at the time, disappeared from her room in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.
A new inquiry in Britain started two months ago focuses on thousands of phone recordings from the resort at the time.
London police said they had made 31 requests in several countries for information related to the phones used then.
There are 41 suspects, described as "investigative objects", and 15 have British nationality.
British authorities launched a review of the case in 2011 after Madeleine's parents wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron saying not enough was being done to find their daughter.
The Portuguese police have hired six people in Faro to carry out the investigations on behalf of the British police, although this does not mean that they will reopen the investigation.
The two forces will meet to discuss the case in a few weeks.
https://exame.com/mundo/policia-investiga-dados-telefonicos-em-caso-madeleine-mccann/
In the beginning was the evidence.
Unfortunately no-one had bothered to look at it at the time.
It was six years later before the investigation the McCanns had begged throughout those six years took place.
Although not known at the time one of those the London police requested information about was Brueckner, who was later to become the prime suspect in what happened to Madeleine.
It was another eight years before Amaral made his announced and publicised who and what was going on as soon as someone leaked the, until he got hold of it, confidential information on an active police investigation.
So just because it appears nothing much is going on in a police investigation doesn't make it necessarily so.
The known fact is that in one way or another Brueckner has been a feature in this case since 2013.
-
Like OG the BKA went off very impressively. We even saw them digging and using dogs just like OG did. I wonder if they're down to a handful of officers like OG yet?
OG produced the goods and worked away assiduously and quietly checking their findings.
I wonder if BKA operated in the same manner as OG.
Both forces ran a very tight ship.
Only when the PJ got access were we confronted by the leaking like a sieve approach preferred by Amaral ~ who did it again.
-
So many of you don't seem to realise the fall out from this. Davel can argue Law while I argue Me Too. The ECHR have just set a precedence that will allow me to say what ever I like without fear of libel and with no evidence.
Anthony Bennett should have a look at this one.
Profound statement Eleanor 8@??)(
The ECHRs judgement affects us all, to our detriment.
-
As an aside, have Portugal released police files from other cases or was the McCann case a one-off ?
If the latter, I wonder why that should be
In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.
To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part.
For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.
I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off. Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward. So in effect her case was still open.
I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.
But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police. Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.
-
In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.
To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part.
For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.
I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off. Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward. So in effect her case was still open.
I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.
But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police. Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.
Personally I don't think the files should have been released to the public. Did they require the permission of those involved?
-
Personally I don't think the files should have been released to the public. Did they require the permission of those involved?
My opinion is that it was illegally done and certainly no permissions were requested. Nothing was redacted in the hast to get it all posted on the internet complete with peoples' home addresses - phone numbers - passport details and most important of all the witness statements given in confidence to the police.
It took a lot of organisation. Squads of translators worked on it. The question is never asked who organised it all nor why it was done.
The value to a perpetrator is immeasurable ~ did anyone give that a minute's thought.
-
In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.
To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part.
For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.
I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off. Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward. So in effect her case was still open.
I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.
But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police. Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.
Exactly. Well spotted Brie.
It also gave them the opportunity to undermine facts. There have been changes to images and to the written word. Always against The Mccanns.
What a mighty operation this undermining has been ... and still is
-
In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.
To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part.
For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.
I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off. Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward. So in effect her case was still open.
I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.
But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police. Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.
Maybe by writing a book, constructing a narrative, explaining away any inconsistencies & inconvenient details from within the files. I suppose the perpetrators could do something like that perhaps.
-
Claims have been made that Brueckner has an alibi covering the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
The fact is that he does not,
Currently circulating allegations that Christian B. could not be the perpetrator, because he had an alibi for the corresponding time, rejected prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters decisively. As can be read in the British "Daily Star", Wolters explained again: "We have not found anyone who gives Christian B. an alibi. And the suspect is not claiming an alibi." https://www.news.de/panorama/856272216/maddie-mccann-news-aktuell-wende-in-ermittlungen-tatverdaechtiger-christian-b-hat-laut-staatsanwaltschaft-kein-alibi/1/
-
Is it a requirement of the German legal system that Brueckner must have an alibi ?
-
Is it a requirement of the German legal system that Brueckner must have an alibi ?
It is a requirement of the German legal system that all evidence favourable and unfavourable is subject to thorough investigation.
Brueckner does not have an alibi for the time in question.
-
It is a requirement of the German legal system that all evidence favourable and unfavourable is subject to thorough investigation.
Brueckner does not have an alibi for the time in question.
Does he need one ?
-
Does he need one ?
"... the public prosecutor in Germany must always act impartially – in other words, also take into account facts that could exonerate a defendant." https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/how-public-prosecutors-work-in-germany
Would you be asking that question had the prosecutor's investigation found that he had an alibi as opposed to verifying that he did not?
-
"... the public prosecutor in Germany must always act impartially – in other words, also take into account facts that could exonerate a defendant." https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/how-public-prosecutors-work-in-germany
Would you be asking that question had the prosecutor's investigation found that he had an alibi as opposed to verifying that he did not?
If the prosecutor had found one, the question wouldn't need to be asked. If it was valid then they would need to be looking elsewhere.
-
If the prosecutor had found one, the question wouldn't need to be asked. If it was valid then they would need to be looking elsewhere.
We know for a fact that Brueckner does not have an alibi.
You ask ~ "Does he need one ?"
My opinion is that his defence team would find one terribly useful because if he had one as claimed it could well have ruled him out as prime suspect and arguido.
-
We know for a fact that Brueckner does not have an alibi.
You ask ~ "Does he need one ?"
My opinion is that his defence team would find one terribly useful because if he had one as claimed it could well have ruled him out as prime suspect and arguido.
I'm sure they would,but they don't actually need one.
The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor
-
I'm sure they would,but they don't actually need one.
The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor
And the prosecutor has proved beyond doubt that despite claims to the contrary ~ Brueckner has no exonerating alibi.
-
And the prosecutor has proved beyond doubt that despite claims to the contrary ~ Brueckner has no exonerating alibi.
But that doesn't matter. What Wolters has to do is prove that Brueckner is guilty of offences against Madeleine.
-
We know for a fact that Brueckner does not have an alibi.
You ask ~ "Does he need one ?"
My opinion is that his defence team would find one terribly useful because if he had one as claimed it could well have ruled him out as prime suspect and arguido.
We know what Wolters says, but we don't know what has gone on between Brueckner and his lawyer. They could have things up their sleeves which you have no idea about.
-
As neither Brueckner, nor his lawyer are giving press conferences, we can have no idea what their game plan is.
As regards Madeleine, they may not even need one.
-
I'm sure they would,but they don't actually need one.
The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor
I'm not sure how many more times this will need explaining.
-
I'm sure they would,but they don't actually need one.
The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor
They may not need one per se but if the evidence against Bruckner is compelling, then it can all be wiped away with a single cast iron alibi.
-
They may not need one per se but if the evidence against Bruckner is compelling, then it can all be wiped away with a single cast iron alibi.
The evidence is concrete. If we knew the evidence Wolters has then we'd be in no doubt.
It's impossible for Brueckner to refute it.
He is the murderer, no doubt about it & Wolters will prove as much in court one day. Really, he will.
-
We know what Wolters says, but we don't know what has gone on between Brueckner and his lawyer. They could have things up their sleeves which you have no idea about.
I'm not sure that very much will have been stuffed up either Brueckner's or Herr Fulscher's sleeves at the moment.
I rather imagine Herr Fulcher's full attention will be concentrated on the five indictments for sexual crimes his client faces at present and since he will not be charged with any offences regarding Madeleine till well into 2023 neither Brueckner, Herr Fulcher or yourself have the slightest notion of the evidence the prosecution has.
Who knows, it might even be enough to cause all three of you to fall off your chairs.
-
As neither Brueckner, nor his lawyer are giving press conferences, we can have no idea what their game plan is.
As regards Madeleine, they may not even need one.
Far too busy, I would imagine apart from it being nothing to do with them. The German justice system is in control here.
Five very serious charges have been lodged against Brueckner.
So first things first.
-
They may not need one per se but if the evidence against Bruckner is compelling, then it can all be wiped away with a single cast iron alibi.
Particularly since Brueckner laid public claim to having one.
-
Particularly since Brueckner laid public claim to having one.
Did he, or was that just the Tabloids ?
-
Did he, or was that just the Tabloids ?
Do you pretend to know anything at all about this case or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
According to the suspect, he drove the woman to a nearby airport the following day, and they were stopped and photographed at a police checkpoint on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
At airport security, the woman was arrested for having illegal pepper spray in her bag and later appeared in court, according to Brueckner.
Brueckner says Portuguese officials most likely have a record of these events and should be able to confirm his alibi.
https://www.inquisitr.com/10006912/madeleine-mccann-suspect-claims-to-have-alibi
Another fact that we know is that Brueckner has not communicated with the authorities, but did communicate via tabloids when he felt like it.
When checked I believe the date of the airport offence did not correspond with Brueckner's account of events therefore destroying his "alibi".
What I think it may have done was to confirm Brueckner's below the radar presence in Portugal for days after May 3 before he left for his bolthole in Germany.
Wolters recalled that “I was asked if we had found evidence of anything by Madeleine McCann in the suspect’s van and I said I couldn’t talk about the investigation, that’s all. We haven’t found any fibers, and I can say that the new evidence we have is not forensic evidence, but I am not authorized to give you more details. We remain convinced that the suspect in prison is responsible for the crime. There is no alibi. The suspect did not give us an alibi and we did not find an alibi during our investigations.”
Hans Christian Wolters
https://cvvnews.com/brueckner-has-no-alibi-and-there-is-non-forensic-evidence-that-confirms-his-involvement/
-
All I see in your links are other people saying what Brueckner said.
-
All I see in your links are other people saying what Brueckner said.
But just how solid is Brueckner's alibi?
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters, who is leading the investigation into Brueckern's alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, cast doubt on the suspect's story.
Wolters said that "nothing" he has heard so far suggests Brueckner is telling the truth.
"What we found out,
it all went in the other direction,
so was rather incriminating,
without me being able to elaborate on that now," the prosecutor explained to the press.
https://www.inquisitr.com/10006912/madeleine-mccann-suspect-claims-to-have-alibi
-
Far too busy, I would imagine apart from it being nothing to do with them. The German justice system is in control here.
Five very serious charges have been lodged against Brueckner.
So first things first.
I think you might to be waiting a long time for Brueckner to be charged with anything relating to Maddie. But good luck with that idea anyway.
-
I'm not sure that very much will have been stuffed up either Brueckner's or Herr Fulscher's sleeves at the moment.
I rather imagine Herr Fulcher's full attention will be concentrated on the five indictments for sexual crimes his client faces at present and since he will not be charged with any offences regarding Madeleine till well into 2023 neither Brueckner, Herr Fulcher or yourself have the slightest notion of the evidence the prosecution has.
Who knows, it might even be enough to cause all three of you to fall off your chairs.
Since when is Brueckner being charged in relation to Maddie in 2023?
Who told you that, Jon Clarke?
-
Since when is Brueckner being charged in relation to Maddie in 2023?
Who told you that, Jon Clarke?
It's the old pick a year tombola. It was originally 2020. Next year it will be the year after.
The sad part for Maddies poor parents is that they're being left hanging year on year, while still desperately searching. It must be taking a terrible toll.
-
WoooOOoooooOOOooOoooo
....is anyone here? Or is everyone out searching finally?
-
WoooOOoooooOOOooOoooo
....is anyone here? Or is everyone out searching finally?
What a very silly Comment.
-
What a peculiar article and what a peculiar witness. Who 'fell off the stairs' and which detective died, I wonder?
MADELEINE MCCANN
The masked witness says he saw videos that have now disappeared
Status: 07:25 a.m | Reading time: 7 minutes
per_hinrichs_WORLD
By Per Hinrichs
Chief reporter WELT AM SONNTAG
After Maddie's disappearance, her parents launched a media-effective search operation
After Maddie's disappearance, her parents launched a media-effective search operation
Source: pa/dpa/John Stillwell
The public prosecutor has accused Christian Brückner of three rapes. She has a key witness who wants to see evidence. It was also he who gave the decisive clue to Brückner in what is probably the most well-known criminal case in the world. How credible is the man?
Dhe man, who is likely to be one of the most important witnesses for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office in recent years, wears a bulletproof vest and a black mask. He is standing outdoors, behind him a grove can be seen, the sky is blue. Helge Büsching is in Corsica, he's giving a video interview, and he's dressed as if he wants to go to war right away.
"You don't even know who you're messing with," he whispers into the camera in a dark voice. "It's a fire hazard," claims the disguised witness. "You do know that people have fallen off the stairs? The detective, who spent years researching, died,” says Büsching.
continues behind paywall
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/plus241732801/Madeleine-McCann-Der-Zeuge-mit-Maske-sagt-er-habe-Videos-gesehen-die-nun-verschwunden-sind.html
-
What a peculiar article and what a peculiar witness. Who 'fell off the stairs' and which detective died, I wonder?
MADELEINE MCCANN
The masked witness says he saw videos that have now disappeared
Status: 07:25 a.m | Reading time: 7 minutes
per_hinrichs_WORLD
By Per Hinrichs
Chief reporter WELT AM SONNTAG
After Maddie's disappearance, her parents launched a media-effective search operation
After Maddie's disappearance, her parents launched a media-effective search operation
Source: pa/dpa/John Stillwell
The public prosecutor has accused Christian Brückner of three rapes. She has a key witness who wants to see evidence. It was also he who gave the decisive clue to Brückner in what is probably the most well-known criminal case in the world. How credible is the man?
Dhe man, who is likely to be one of the most important witnesses for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office in recent years, wears a bulletproof vest and a black mask. He is standing outdoors, behind him a grove can be seen, the sky is blue. Helge Büsching is in Corsica, he's giving a video interview, and he's dressed as if he wants to go to war right away.
"You don't even know who you're messing with," he whispers into the camera in a dark voice. "It's a fire hazard," claims the disguised witness. "You do know that people have fallen off the stairs? The detective, who spent years researching, died,” says Büsching.
continues behind paywall
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/plus241732801/Madeleine-McCann-Der-Zeuge-mit-Maske-sagt-er-habe-Videos-gesehen-die-nun-verschwunden-sind.html
What is the point of putting up a link in German that we can't read unless we pay?
-
What a peculiar article and what a peculiar witness. Who 'fell off the stairs' and which detective died, I wonder?
MADELEINE MCCANN
The masked witness says he saw videos that have now disappeared
Status: 07:25 a.m | Reading time: 7 minutes
per_hinrichs_WORLD
By Per Hinrichs
Chief reporter WELT AM SONNTAG
After Maddie's disappearance, her parents launched a media-effective search operation
After Maddie's disappearance, her parents launched a media-effective search operation
Source: pa/dpa/John Stillwell
The public prosecutor has accused Christian Brückner of three rapes. She has a key witness who wants to see evidence. It was also he who gave the decisive clue to Brückner in what is probably the most well-known criminal case in the world. How credible is the man?
Dhe man, who is likely to be one of the most important witnesses for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office in recent years, wears a bulletproof vest and a black mask. He is standing outdoors, behind him a grove can be seen, the sky is blue. Helge Büsching is in Corsica, he's giving a video interview, and he's dressed as if he wants to go to war right away.
"You don't even know who you're messing with," he whispers into the camera in a dark voice. "It's a fire hazard," claims the disguised witness. "You do know that people have fallen off the stairs? The detective, who spent years researching, died,” says Büsching.
continues behind paywall
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/plus241732801/Madeleine-McCann-Der-Zeuge-mit-Maske-sagt-er-habe-Videos-gesehen-die-nun-verschwunden-sind.html
Sounds like a dodgy google translation. I wouldn't worry about it too much...
-
Sounds like a dodgy google translation. I wouldn't worry about it too much...
I'm not worrying. It's no concern of mine who the Germans choose to think is a credible witness.
-
I'm not worrying. It's no concern of mine who the Germans choose to think is a credible witness.
So why bother then, other than to mock?
-
I'm not worrying. It's no concern of mine who the Germans choose to think is a credible witness.
Yet you seem to have made it your business for the last couple of years, odd that...
-
So why bother then, other than to mock?
Mock? At Germany's star witness? Not me. If anyone's doing that it's Welt on Sunday. How credible is the man, they asked?
-
Mock? At Germany's star witness? Not me. If anyone's doing that it's Welt on Sunday. How credible is the man, they asked?
You put up the Link. Why did you do that?
-
Mock? At Germany's star witness? Not me. If anyone's doing that it's Welt on Sunday. How credible is the man, they asked?
Didn't you notice that Brueckner is a career criminal?
I imagine he didn't share too many confidences with others who weren't denizens inhabiting his world.
-
You put up the Link. Why did you do that?
It's relevant.
-
Didn't you notice that Brueckner is a career criminal?
I imagine he didn't share too many confidences with others who weren't denizens inhabiting his world.
He was a criminal, but not a career one imo. Part-time thief, part time mechanic, part-time car dealer, part-time waiter and drug dealer.
-
He was a criminal, but not a career one imo. Part-time thief, part time mechanic, part-time car dealer, part-time waiter and drug dealer.
Which part of the definition of career criminal do you think doesn’t fit with CB?
career criminal noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
Definition of career criminal
: a person who has committed many crimes throughout his or her life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/career%20criminal
-
He was a criminal, but not a career one imo. Part-time thief, part time mechanic, part-time car dealer, part-time waiter and drug dealer.
This Comment is really funny. No mention of Rapist and Paedophile. Cherry Picking again; eh what.
-
He was a criminal, but not a career one imo. Part-time thief, part time mechanic, part-time car dealer, part-time waiter and drug dealer.
Brueckner is a career criminal whose record for recidivism and flight is such that the German authorities will not consider allowing him to walk the streets as long as they have anything to do with it.
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner denied parole in Germany
According to the Daily Mirror, Brueckner – who was sentenced to a seven-year term for rape in a separate case in 2019 – was denied parole in April due to his “social prognosis”.
Lead German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Mirror: “His request was rejected on the grounds that he could not be given a positive social prognosis.
“In other words, the court has said it believes that the convict will commit further offences if released.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mccann-christian-brueckner-metropolitan-police-portuguese-germany-b2070206.html
It is impossible for you to be able to sanitise the lifetime criminal career Brueckner has pursued nor is there any justification for condoning the sexual crimes he has committed, which have repulsed other criminals with whom he was associated.
-
Brueckner is a career criminal whose record for recidivism and flight is such that the German authorities will not consider allowing him to walk the streets as long as they have anything to do with it.
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner denied parole in Germany
According to the Daily Mirror, Brueckner – who was sentenced to a seven-year term for rape in a separate case in 2019 – was denied parole in April due to his “social prognosis”.
Lead German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Mirror: “His request was rejected on the grounds that he could not be given a positive social prognosis.
“In other words, the court has said it believes that the convict will commit further offences if released.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mccann-christian-brueckner-metropolitan-police-portuguese-germany-b2070206.html
It is impossible for you to be able to sanitise the lifetime criminal career Brueckner has pursued nor is there any justification for condoning the sexual crimes he has committed, which have repulsed other criminals with whom he was associated.
Quite right too. And that's a Fact.
-
This Comment is really funny. No mention of Rapist and Paedophile. Cherry Picking again; eh what.
I would say he's a child sex abuser, not a diagnosed paedophile.
-
I would say he's a child sex abuser, not a diagnosed paedophile.
I would say you are defending the indefensible. And that is with reference only to the crimes for which we know he was convicted.
-
I would say he's a child sex abuser, not a diagnosed paedophile.
Oh My God. That takes the cake.
-
I would say he's a child sex abuser, not a diagnosed paedophile.
Which is worse in your view?
-
Which is worse in your view?
Aren't they the same thing? No, probably not. Silly me.
-
Aren't they the same thing? No, probably not. Silly me.
IMO a child sex abuser is worse, as you can be a paedophile who never lays a finger on a child.
-
IMO a child sex abuser is worse, as you can be a paedophile who never lays a finger on a child.
You are right about that of course. But but, Child Sex Abusers can't help themselves so it's not really their fault you see.
-
Which is worse in your view?
Abusers, obviously. They've acted.
-
Abusers, obviously. They've acted.
Brueckner is a convicted abuser as well as a convicted paedophile.
But for some reason you failed to include that information as part of your CV "Part-time thief, part time mechanic, part-time car dealer, part-time waiter and drug dealer."
-
Brueckner is a convicted abuser as well as a convicted paedophile.
But for some reason you failed to include that information as part of your CV "Part-time thief, part time mechanic, part-time car dealer, part-time waiter and drug dealer."
Paedophilia isn't a crime and people can't be convicted of it.
-
Paedophilia isn't a crime and people can't be convicted of it.
Yes, people use the term paedophile when what they actually mean is child sex abuser. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a paedophile.
-
Paedophilia isn't a crime and people can't be convicted of it.
Could you explain to me exactly what it is please as I didn't know this.
-
Could you explain to me exactly what it is please as I didn't know this.
As yet there are no Thought Crimes. As long as you don't act on your sexual fantasies (which in the case of a paedophile would be illegal) you are not breaking the law, however "acting on" such fantasies doesn't mean only physical contact, it also includes downloading and creating porn, stalking, exposing genitals etc, so it's not just physical harm to a child that is illegal, but other associated acts. Most child sex abusers are also paedophiles. Some paedophiles are perfectly able to have adult sexual relationships. I think claiming that CB is not also a paedophile is splitting hairs quite frankly.
-
As yet there are no Thought Crimes. As long as you don't act on your sexual fantasies (which in the case of a paedophile would be illegal) you are not breaking the law, however "acting on" such fantasies doesn't mean only physical contact, it also includes downloading and creating porn, stalking, exposing genitals etc, so it's not just physical harm to a child that is illegal, but other associated acts. Most child sex abusers are also paedophiles. Some paedophiles are perfectly able to have adult sexual relationships. I think claiming that CB is not also a paedophile is splitting hairs quite frankly.
Is Brueckner up for diagnosis do you know?
-
Is Brueckner up for diagnosis do you know?
I have no idea. Unlikely unless his defence is going to plead insanity.
-
I have no idea. Unlikely unless his defence is going to plead insanity.
Any ideas on Copycatting? I mean he is quite famous now. And all of the facts on how to do it are out there.
-
I think you might to be waiting a long time for Brueckner to be charged with anything relating to Maddie. But good luck with that idea anyway.
Patience , because he whipped the rape victims he killed Madeleine, because he made a girl grab his todger he killed Madeleine, because he exposed himself to a girl in a playground he killed Madeleine, it all makes sense, just wait and see.
-
Could you explain to me exactly what it is please as I didn't know this.
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are-two-different-things-confusing-them-is-harmful-to-children/
-
Patience , because he whipped the rape victims he killed Madeleine, because he made a girl grab his todger he killed Madeleine, because he exposed himself to a girl in a playground he killed Madeleine, it all makes sense, just wait and see.
What an utterly facetious post. Grow up, seriously.
-
What an utterly facetious post. Grow up, seriously.
Well we know this is what the indictment shows so the link to Madeleine has to be among it.Wolters is 100% convinced CB did for Madeleine.
-
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are-two-different-things-confusing-them-is-harmful-to-children/
Thank You.
So most Paedophiles go undetected until......... And Brueckner is a Serial Child Abuser, well past redemption. Just lock him up for a very long time.
The Sexual Act with a very small child could so easily kill that child, albeit unintentionally. Which is why I try not to think about it. But I expect that some do. This would make them Paedophiles........until.
-
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are-two-different-things-confusing-them-is-harmful-to-children/
So - Jimmy Savile, Clement Freud, Nigel Nessling, etc - not paedophiles. OK then. We must stop labelling these people paedos until they have a medical certificate.
-
Thank You.
So most Paedophiles go undetected until......... And Brueckner is a Serial Child Abuser, well past redemption. Just lock him up for a very long time.
The Sexual Act with a very small child could so easily kill that child, albeit unintentionally. Which is why I try not to think about it. But I expect that some do. This would make them Paedophiles........until.
Yes, thankyou for making me think about such a brutal scenario.
I'd rather you'd try & prefer not to think about it a bit harder in future, if you wouldn't mind. Or at least put it off until I've finished digesting my breakfast.
-
Yes, thankyou for making me think about such a brutal scenario.
I'd rather you'd try & prefer not to think about it a bit harder in future, if you wouldn't mind. Or at least put it off until I've finished digesting my breakfast.
It has never crossed your mind, of course. No wonder Kate McCann had such nightmares about it. While you stagger on Trolling in blissful ignorance.
-
It has never crossed your mind, of course. No wonder Kate McCann had such nightmares about it. While you stagger on Trolling in blissful ignorance.
Well, she says she did, & if she really did, her reason for doing so could be self inflicted.
-
So - Jimmy Savile, Clement Freud, Nigel Nessling, etc - not paedophiles. OK then. We must stop labelling these people paedos until they have a medical certificate.
You'll have to try to work it out for yourself. All I said was that no-one can be a convicted paedophile, which is true.
-
Well, she says she did, & if she really did, her reason for doing so could be self inflicted.
Not possible, SweetCheeks. And you are more sick that I thought you were.
-
Not possible, SweetCheeks. And you are more sick that I thought you were.
Would that the be because of the logistical impossibility you often mention? The one that's easily debunked by the presence of bin collections?
-
Would that the be because of the logistical impossibility you often mention? The one that's easily debunked by the presence of bin collections?
Now if it turns out CB used a bin............
-
The Sexual Act with a very small child could so easily kill that child, albeit unintentionally. Which is why I try not to think about it. But I expect that some do. .
Snipped.
Police who look at such stuff in criminal cases, are they told to look or volunteer ? must leave a scar for life.
-
Now if it turns out CB used a bin............
Well, that would destroy the evidence.
-
Snipped.
Police who look at such stuff in criminal cases, are they told to look or volunteer ? must leave a scar for life.
I once knew a policeman who did this. He was told to do so. He wasn't a good state by the time I met him. Shortly after he left The Police. But I don't think he got much help with his mental health.
-
Patience , because he whipped the rape victims he killed Madeleine, because he made a girl grab his todger he killed Madeleine, because he exposed himself to a girl in a playground he killed Madeleine, it all makes sense, just wait and see.
You forget he also told his mates he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
Diane M, Hazel B, Maddie. In all 3 cases the patio doors were left unlocked.
That about sums up Wolters evidence.
But wait for the Behan trial. The 12" machete she describes will be an exact match to the machete in the photo of Maddie, or something or other.
-
You'll have to try to work it out for yourself. All I said was that no-one can be a convicted paedophile, which is true.
I have already worked it out thanks, as you can see from my previous posts. It IS splitting hairs just to be argumentative to say that CB is not a convicted paedophile IMO. Google "convicted paedophile" and you get a million hits from every media outlet in the world, practically - best you advise them they are ALL wrong.
-
I have already worked it out thanks, as you can see from my previous posts. It IS splitting hairs just to be argumentative IMO.
Well there doesn't seem to be any connection between Brueckner & Madeleine's disappearance we can discuss, & we do have to argue about something I suppose.
-
I have already worked it out thanks, as you can see from my previous posts. It IS splitting hairs just to be argumentative to say that CB is not a convicted paedophile IMO. Google "convicted paedophile" and you get a million hits from every media outlet in the world, practically - best you advise them they are ALL wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time the media went for the sensationalist headlines, would it? Getting things right isn't their main aim; selling a story is what it's about.
-
It wouldn't be the first time the media went for the sensationalist headlines, would it? Getting things right isn't their main aim; selling a story is what it's about.
This is a getting ridiculous now. Before much longer Brueckner will be the greatest Miscarriage of Justice of all time. And banged up for a host of crimes he never committed. Poor Soul.
-
It wouldn't be the first time the media went for the sensationalist headlines, would it? Getting things right isn't their main aim; selling a story is what it's about.
It's a bit more than just sensationalist headlines, it's ubiquitous, widespread, even the BBC do it. It's not a question of sensationalism, or do you think referring to a convicted child sex abuser instead is less sensationalist?
-
It wouldn't be the first time the media went for the sensationalist headlines, would it? Getting things right isn't their main aim; selling a story is what it's about.
This is a getting ridiculous now. Before much longer Brueckner will be the greatest Miscarriage of Justice of all time. And banged up for a host of crimes he never committed. Poor Soul.
What heading do you consider Saville falls under.
-
It's a bit more than just sensationalist headlines, it's ubiquitous, widespread, even the BBC do it. It's not a question of sensationalism, or do you think referring to a convicted child sex abuser instead is less sensationalist?
There is no sense anymore amongst Sceptics. The McCanns done it so it can't be Brueckner. It really is as simple as that, without an iota of proof against The McCanns.
I don't really understand their motivation and would far rather not get into their deep seated problems.
For the moment I would like to see Brueckner locked up for a very long time.
-
What heading do you consider Saville falls under.
Jimmy Savile was never convicted of any thing.
-
There is no sense anymore amongst Sceptics. The McCanns done it so it can't be Brueckner. It really is as simple as that, without an iota of proof against The McCanns.
I don't really understand their motivation and would far rather not get into their deep seated problems.
For the moment I would like to see Brueckner locked up for a very long time.
I'm open to the truth whatever it turns out to be. Unlike some (including Op Grange imo) I have no suspects who are off-limits.
-
Jimmy Savile was never convicted of any thing.
But what do you consider the umbrella of reporting that CB falls under .
-
I'm open to the truth whatever it turns out to be. Unlike some (including Op Grange imo) I have no suspects who are off-limits.
Nor I, I'm waiting to find out how CB circumvented the checking to spirit Madeleine away with out breaking in.
-
I'm open to the truth whatever it turns out to be. Unlike some (including Op Grange imo) I have no suspects who are off-limits.
The McCanns aren't Suspects.
-
But what do you consider the umbrella of reporting that CB falls under .
Brueckner has been convicted. What ever comes up next will be subjected to a Trial. What is difficult about that to understand?
-
I'm open to the truth whatever it turns out to be. Unlike some (including Op Grange imo) I have no suspects who are off-limits.
What none at all? What about Mrs Fenn's niece? Do you think she's a legitimate suspect?
-
What none at all? What about Mrs Fenn's niece? Do you think she's a legitimate suspect?
No-one should be off-limits.
-
No-one should be off-limits.
I agree.
And I can think of a few who come into the category of those who had the resources and the opportunity to do so. Just follow the money!
But it may be worthwhile to contemplate that this thread is about Brueckner ~ "The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect"
So if you have any thoughts about anyone being "off limits" ~ open a thread to discuss it ~ because this is not the place for you to do that.
-
No-one should be off-limits.
No one? Have you gone mad? Where does Evidence come into this?
-
What none at all? What about Mrs Fenn's niece? Do you think she's a legitimate suspect?
You do know this is off-topic, don't you?
-
No-one should be off-limits.
So you thing there’s a possibility that she and her husband kidnapped Madeleine?
-
You do know this is off-topic, don't you?
do your job and delete it then.
-
do your job and delete it then.
This is al Speculation so not actually Off Topic.
-
This is al Speculation so not actually Off Topic.
The idea that after 15 years and millions of pounds and thousands of man hours of investigation that not one single person can yet be eliminated is utterly bonkers IMO.
-
The idea that after 15 years and millions of pounds and thousands of man hours of investigation that not one single person can yet be eliminated is utterly bonkers IMO.
Not actually Bonkers. Just downright nasty and downright Wrong. It is The McCanns that they are after. Everyone else was eliminated years ago.
Meanwhile, the likes of you and me see fit to screw up their game with Logic. But they all lost the plot a long time ago.
-
The idea that after 15 years and millions of pounds and thousands of man hours of investigation that not one single person can yet be eliminated is utterly bonkers IMO.
Hard to believe, isn't it.
-
Hard to believe, isn't it.
Not possible in fact.
-
Hard to believe, isn't it.
Hard to believe that you believe it, yes.
-
The McCanns aren't Suspects.
Everyone's a suspect until they're not.
-
Everyone's a suspect until they're not.
This is simply not true.
-
This is simply not true.
Quite. The McCanns are no longer suspects for a start. Actually, let me rephrase that - they are only suspects in the eyes of those whose opinions count for diddly squat.