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: Mr Gray on November 11, 2022, 08:09:41 AM
-
There's been a lot of criticism of SY re their remit.. But... From what I can see SY have no power to investigate the McCanns as the crime was committed abroad.
Makes Colin Sutton look a bit of a Charlie
-
There's been a lot of criticism of SY re their remit.. But... From what I can see SY have no power to investigate the McCanns as the crime was committed abroad.
Makes Colin Sutton look a bit of a Charlie
What evidence are you relying on?
-
What evidence are you relying on?
The Istanbul Convention and the govt website covering extra territorial jurisdiction. It does blow a hole through the critics of the remit.. SY had no choice
-
There was a time when everyone believed that only Portugal could deal with this. That has proved to be untrue. But no English suspect has ever been in the frame so England has never had any jurisdiction.
-
The Istanbul Convention and the govt website covering extra territorial jurisdiction. It does blow a hole through the critics of the remit.. SY had no choice
Please provide more information including quotes, how the quotes are relevant and links.
-
Please provide more information including quotes, how the quotes are relevant and links.
This is not necessary. You prove otherwise.
-
This is not necessary. You prove otherwise.
It isn't a problem.. I actually thought gunit was familiar with extra territorial jurisdiction ..I was... but perhaps she isn't.?
It limits what SY can investigate when a crime is committed overseas by someone who is normally resident in the UK.
So unless SY suspect Maddie was murdered or sexually abused by her parents SY have no power to investigate them.
-
Please provide more information including quotes, how the quotes are relevant and links.
For most offences, police forces have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate an offence committed abroad, unless they have a legal request in place from a foreign state, such as a European Investigation Order or a Request for Mutual Legal Assistance.
https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/RASSO-actions-for-offences-committed-abroad-2021.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/extraterritorial-jurisdiction-factsheet#what-behaviour-does-the-istanbul-convention-require-the-uk-to-criminalise
-
For most offences, police forces have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate an offence committed abroad, unless they have a legal request in place from a foreign state, such as a European Investigation Order or a Request for Mutual Legal Assistance.
https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/RASSO-actions-for-offences-committed-abroad-2021.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/extraterritorial-jurisdiction-factsheet#what-behaviour-does-the-istanbul-convention-require-the-uk-to-criminalise
Thank you!
If your first quote applies the UK police wouldn't be investigating Madeleine's disappearance at all.
I can't see anything of relevance in your second quote.
-
British Passport Holders Abroad are entitled to help and protection. That should cover it.
-
Thank you!
If your first quote applies the UK police wouldn't be investigating Madeleine's disappearance at all.
I can't see anything of relevance in your second quote.
My first quote is absolutely right. Let me educate you.
SY cannot investigate Maddies disappearance themselves.. They have to go through the PJ. They can only investigate a UK suspect with the cooperation of the PJ unless its a case of an investigation into an offence covered by the Istanbul Convention.. So unless they suspect the mccanns of murder or sexual abuse they cannot investigate them
-
My first quote is absolutely right. Let me educate you.
SY cannot investigate Maddies disappearance themselves.. They have to go through the PJ. They can only investigate a UK suspect with the cooperation of the PJ unless its a case of an investigation into an offence covered by the Istanbul Convention.. So unless they suspect the mccanns of murder or sexual abuse they cannot investigate them
I think OG can investigate UK citizens, they only need Portuguese cooperation if they want to investigate their citizens.
-
I think OG can investigate UK citizens, they only need Portuguese cooperation if they want to investigate their citizens.
Then you think wrong.. I know they can only investigate crimes designated by the Istanbul Convention... They have no jurisdiction to investigate anything else.. Its all explained in the links I've provided.
Do you remember when Bennett tried to bring a private prosecution for neglect.. Do you remember what the court said.. I do
-
Then you think wrong.. I know they can only investigate crimes designated by the Istanbul Convention... They have no jurisdiction to investigate anything else.. Its all explained in the links I've provided.
Do you remember when Bennett tried to bring a private prosecution for neglect.. Do you remember what the court said.. I do
So do I.
-
Then you think wrong.. I know they can only investigate crimes designated by the Istanbul Convention... They have no jurisdiction to investigate anything else.. Its all explained in the links I've provided.
Do you remember when Bennett tried to bring a private prosecution for neglect.. Do you remember what the court said.. I do
Hopefully “piss off you nosey old git, it’s got nothing to do with you” @)(++(*
-
Hopefully “piss off you nosey old git, it’s got nothing to do with you” @)(++(*
The Court was a trifle more polite than that. But in essence, Yes.
-
Hopefully “piss off you nosey old git, it’s got nothing to do with you” @)(++(*
The court said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case
-
The court said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case
In a letter to Mr Bennett, Nick Watson, Clerk to the Justices, Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court, said: "I am not satisfied that this court has jurisdiction. I do not accept that article 17 of the convention (of 19th October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children) gives the magistrates' courts jurisdiction to deal with a criminal charge brought under the 1933 Act which is alleged to have been committed abroad.
"Under these circumstances I refuse to issue the summonses you have requested."
-
In a letter to Mr Bennett, Nick Watson, Clerk to the Justices, Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court, said: "I am not satisfied that this court has jurisdiction. I do not accept that article 17 of the convention (of 19th October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children) gives the magistrates' courts jurisdiction to deal with a criminal charge brought under the 1933 Act which is alleged to have been committed abroad.
"Under these circumstances I refuse to issue the summonses you have requested."
Anthony Bennett obviously thought he knew better. Coming from a disgraced solicitor, this might tell you all something about Anthony Bennett.
-
Anybody still interested in Bennett ? So much a yesterday man.
-
Anybody still interested in Bennett ? So much a yesterday man.
You don’t appear to be interested in anything or anyone so god knows why you sully yourself with this forum, it must be such a drag for you to log on each day and see people commenting on things that hold no interest to you.
-
Anybody still interested in Bennett ? So much a yesterday man.
He's worth breaking the forum silence for apparently.
-
Anthony Bennett obviously thought he knew better. Coming from a disgraced solicitor, this might tell you all something about Anthony Bennett.
Has there ever been a “Justice 4 Maddie” warrior that wasn’t a total embarrassment to the cause? I can’t think of one.
-
You don’t appear to be interested in anything or anyone so god knows why you sully yourself with this forum, it must be such a drag for you to log on each day and see people commenting on things that hold no interest to you.
No one had actually commented for a week, until Eleanor couldn't resist complaining about sceptics any longer. At least it wasn't Amaral or Portugal this time I suppose.
-
I agree with Brietta (probably about the only thing) that we should be concentrating on current, or relatively current events, not events and bit players from donkey's years ago.
-
I agree with Brietta (probably about the only thing) that we should be concentrating on current, or relatively current events, not events and bit players from donkey's years ago.
Concentrate away - start a thread and let’s hear what words of wisdom you have to share on “current events”.
-
Anyhow this thread appears to have taken the wind out of the sails of those complaining about Op Grange’s remit. Davel handed them the seed of a whole new conspiracy theory which I’m surprised no one has yet picked up on.
-
Concentrate away - start a thread and let’s hear what words of wisdom you have to share on “current events”.
How about the thread title 'Wolters never really had any concrete evidence'. Because that's the truth & the very reason there's nothing to talk about.
-
How about the thread title 'Wolters never really had any concrete evidence'. Because that's the truth & the very reason there's nothing to talk about.
There is nothing to talk about on fora: all the discussion currently is taking place under the auspices of the German legal system.
We will eventually discover the outcome of that when it is decided which - if any - of the five sex attacks Brueckner is accused of will proceed to trial.
-
There is nothing to talk about on fora: all the discussion currently is taking place under the auspices of the German legal system.
We will eventually discover the outcome of that when it is decided which - if any - of the five sex attacks Brueckner is accused of will proceed to trial.
None of the offences have anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearence though.
-
Operation Grange’s remit did not specifically state that they should investigate cases of rape and child sex crimes on the Algarve yet they did. How do sceptics account for this, given the remit was specifically about investigating one particular crime - Madeleine’s abduction - and nothing else?
-
How about the thread title 'Wolters never really had any concrete evidence'. Because that's the truth & the very reason there's nothing to talk about.
I thought you were all reading my riveting Blog. I've had a lot of hits lately.
-
Anybody still interested in Bennett ? So much a yesterday man.
Is he still alive?
-
Is he still alive?
I hope so. I don't think Anthony Bennett is a hateful man, just a rather silly one who has his own Remit.
Meanwhile, we are all stuck in limbo with nothing much to talk about.
But I still think that we are a Community.
-
I hope so. I don't think Anthony Bennett is a hateful man, just a rather silly one who has his own Remit.
Meanwhile, we are all stuck in limbo with nothing much to talk about.
But I still think that we are a Community.
So was Bedlam @)(++(*
-
I hope so. I don't think Anthony Bennett is a hateful man, just a rather silly one who has his own Remit.
Meanwhile, we are all stuck in limbo with nothing much to talk about.
But I still think that we are a Community.
I'm part of the straight white community.
If the LGBT's & Black's can have a community then so can straight white people IMO
I'm also part of the White Police Officers Association.
-
So was Bedlam @)(++(*
Back to Bedlam. Major James Blunt.
"Look who's alone now, it's not me, it's not me"
-
So was Bedlam @)(++(*
Well, what do you want? I certainly don't want a one way Forum. This is not a good way to go. Even if them others are all raving mad.
-
I'm part of the straight white community.
If the LGBT's & Black's can have a community then so can straight white people IMO
I'm also part of the White Police Officers Association.
Yer Yer. As ever, boring. Does your IQ actually come into double figures?
-
Yer Yer. As ever, boring. Does your IQ actually come into double figures?
An high IQ if used will land you with a hefty tax burden in tory britain, best be dumb.
-
Yer Yer. As ever, boring. Does your IQ actually come into double figures?
Fine, stay in the grumpy old woman community.
-
An high IQ if used will land you with a hefty tax burden in tory britain, best be dumb.
I don't live in Britain and haven't done so for thirty years, so no one's Remit is of all that importance to me.
Fortunately Bueckner is now the responsibility of Germany after Portugal failed so miserably.
-
I don't live in Britain and haven't done so for thirty years, so no one's Remit is of all that importance to me.
Fortunately Bueckner is now the responsibility of Germany after Portugal failed so miserably.
Complaining about Portugal. That's novel.
-
What about that guy Amaral?
Can we complain about him next? Haven't done that for a while.
-
Complaining about Portugal. That's novel.
Thank you for your contribution to this community.
-
Thank you for your contribution to this community.
You're most welcome dearest.
Now, rather than continually raking old ground & tearing lumps out of each other, I suggest we all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until the next exciting developments in the Maddie case, or the unrelated charges against Christian B, or the McCanns appeal to the ECHR. Whichever comes first. It's been nearly 3 months since the ECHR verdict so there might be news either way before the new year & we'll at least have something new to argue about.
-
I don't live in Britain and haven't done so for thirty years, so no one's Remit is of all that importance to me.
Fortunately Bueckner is now the responsibility of Germany after Portugal failed so miserably.
The sad thing is that there was ever any contention either about Operation Grange having to be set up in the first instance or about the remit.
In all of this what seems to be of no importance is that a little girl vanished off the face of the earth and that after an initial search the investigators stopped looking for her.
Nobody but her parents kept up the investigation into her disappearance. Despite lip service to the contrary the police who should have been the investigative authority had long since written her off.
It is risible that the bone of contention for some is not that dereliction of duty to which Madeleine's case was subject ~ but the 'remit' of the official case of which she was at the centre became the all consuming focus of a rump which had never wanted her looked for at all.
-
The sad thing is that there was ever any contention either about Operation Grange having to be set up in the first instance or about the remit.
In all of this what seems to be of no importance is that a little girl vanished off the face of the earth and that after an initial search the investigators stopped looking for her.
Nobody but her parents kept up the investigation into her disappearance. Despite lip service to the contrary the police who should have been the investigative authority had long since written her off.
It is risible that the bone of contention for some is not that dereliction of duty to which Madeleine's case was subject ~ but the 'remit' of the official case of which she was at the centre became the all consuming focus of a rump which had never wanted her looked for at all.
Much as you prefer to deny it, there is no evidence pointing to abduction being the only crime which should have been investigated.
-
Much as you prefer to deny it, there is no evidence pointing to abduction being the only crime which should have been investigated.
What do you know about it?
-
What do you know about it?
The glaringly obvious.
-
The fact that there are people on here who think that the Files represents the sum total of evidence in this case is absolutely laughable, frankly. It may have escaped your notice but the files only covers the PJ investigation up to 2008. There have been thousands and thousands of man hours devoted to the case since then by Portuguese, German and British police, gathering information most of which will not have been put in the public domain, but do carry on believing y’all know everything about everything even if it does make you look like utter clods.
-
Much as you prefer to deny it, there is no evidence pointing to abduction being the only crime which should have been investigated.
Your post indicates a bit of a closed mind to the theory which drives your opinion which was debunked in short order immediately the forensic report from the FSS was released.
That constitutes a monumental feat of denial which apparently blinds you to exactly how professional investigators conduct their business in accordance with working to their remit.
Snip
October 24, 2013
Prosecutors announced on Thursday the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann, after the Judicial Police presented new evidence.
"A note from the Attorney General's Office (PGR) said that the Public Prosecutor 's Office (MP) ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to the criminal procedural law that says that "the investigation can only be reopened if new evidence emerges that invalidate the grounds put forward by the MP in the order of filing" of the case.
The PGR announced on 21 July 2008 that the MP had filed the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and raised the condition of the defendant to the parents of the English minor and Robert Murat (British who lived in the Algarve), noting that he could reopen the case if "new evidence" emerged, which has now occurred. Please note, that the work carried out by Operation Grange over the year they had been officially reviewing Madeleine's disappearance, was of sufficient standard to convince them that there were many avenues worthy of investigation and to convince the Portuguese investigative authorities of the validity of reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
"At the time, it was learned that a group of six officers from the Faro delegation was formed to assist the British unit responsible for the "Operation Grange" of the Metropolitan Police, which is reviewing all the clues related to the case after the intervention of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. It seems that the Portuguese were also hand in glove with Grange reviewing the information relating to Madeleine's case in parallel to Operation Grange. So there you have it. Essentially, two independent reviews utilising the same resources into the same incident concur, one with the other that further investigation is required.
"Portugal was one of 31 countries to which their respective authorities were sent a letter rogatory with a request for assistance regarding elements that the British police wish to see clarified, related to persons or telephone data. The British police quite obviously went back to basics in their review. They obviously checked what investigative work had been done. But more importantly, they carried out checks which had not been carried out in the first instance. With rogatory letters being sent to thirty one countries, I think that can only be classed as being the result of an exhaustively thorough investigation.
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said British police are trying to find the owners of the mobile phones identified as having been in the area and at the time of the disappearance. That is certainly of interest in the light of current events when one considers that one of those named at that time was Christian Brueckner.
"In June, British police announced the existence of "38 people of interest" who wished to question, including several Portuguese.
They are people who were in a radius of the place of disappearance and who there are reasons to suspect. It takes a little more than circumstantial issues," Redwood explained.
The 12 Britons initially identified have meanwhile joined three more, who are already being investigated, but which the inspector believes will "possibly be eliminated" soon from the list.
Scotland Yard, working on the case for a year, is confident it has found relevant "new information" based on the 40,000 documents and leads collected by police in Portugal, the UK and eight different private detective companies. https://www.record.pt/fora-de-campo/detalhe/mp-reabre-inquerito-sobre-desaparecimento-de-maddie-850508
Operation Grange used every tool in their box to get results. Nota Bene that as well as ruling people in, one of their main investigative aims was ruling people out. Your abduction denial fixation is risible in the extreme when one takes the nature of the multifarious investigative tasks Operation Grange had to perform.
October 24, 2013
Maddie case: New clues rule out parents' guilt
Rogério Alves, lawyer for the parents of the English child, spoke to Lusa about the reopening of the investigation by the public prosecutor Portuguese and was asked about the possibility that Gerry and Kate MaCann could be again constituted defendants.
"The family has been informed that the new evidence does not indicate the accountability of [Madeleine's] parents," the lawyer said. https://www.record.pt/fora-de-campo/detalhe/caso-maddie-novos-indicios-afastam-culpa-dos-pais-850548?ref=Detalhe_Relacionadas
It really is well beyond time that sceptics and theorists join the mainstream cache of knowledge built over the years in the Madeleine McCann investigation and accept the fact that not only did Operation Grange fulfil their remit, they did so with style.
-
What do you know about it?
In my estimation Gunit's posts tend to establish that she knows only what she wants to know.
-
In my estimation Gunit's posts tend to establish that she knows only what she wants to know.
But there isn't anything to know that points to the McCann's involvement. And there never has been.
-
But there isn't anything to know that points to the McCann's involvement. And there never has been.
That's quite a stretch imo. There's loads of evidence that put the McCanns in the frame and that's why the PJ went after them. None of it has been disproved even now.
Kate McCanns conduct when questioned by the Portuguese Police has always bothered me. Who acts in such a manner when your child has disappeared. If she had nothing to hide she should have fully cooperated with the detectives instead of giving no comment answers. She certainly did herself no favours by what she did and merely drew more attention to herself. All imho of course.
-
That's quite a stretch imo. There's loads of evidence that put the McCanns in the frame and that's why the PJ went after them. None of it has been disproved even now.
Kate McCanns conduct when questioned by the Portuguese Police has always bothered me. Who a ts in such a way when your child disappears?
Did The PJ find anything against The McCanns?
-
Did The PJ find anything against The McCanns?
I don't know, they never told me. Maddie is still missing and the Portuguese Supreme Court stated that they (McCanns) have not been cleared.
Read into that what you want.
-
I don't know, they never told me. Maddie is still missing and the Portuguese Supreme Court stated that they (McCanns) have not been cleared.
Read into that what you want.
I don't have to read anything into that. There is no evidence against The McCanns. And they haven't even been so much as arrested.
-
Much as you prefer to deny it, there is no evidence pointing to abduction being the only crime which should have been investigated.
Abduction was the only remit SY could legally work upon imo.
There was no evidence anyone had killed or sexually abused Madeleine.
Madeleine was a ward of court and there was no evidence of parental abduction. SY would have been acting in Madeleine's interests, not the parents.
-
That's quite a stretch imo. There's loads of evidence that put the McCanns in the frame and that's why the PJ went after them. None of it has been disproved even now.
Kate McCanns conduct when questioned by the Portuguese Police has always bothered me. Who acts in such a manner when your child has disappeared. If she had nothing to hide she should have fully cooperated with the detectives instead of giving no comment answers. She certainly did herself no favours by what she did and merely drew more attention to herself. All imho of course.
may 7, 2007
The criminalist criticized the fact that the searches made by the authorities were limited to land, remembering how easy it would be to take the girl to a boat that was anchored nearby.
José Barra da Costa lamented that an affair with a girl occurred again in the Algarve, remembering the "Joana affair".
"I hope this case will be different!
The 'Joana case' is an example of how to do an investigation, but the other way around."
https://barlavento.sapo.pt/arquivo/criminalista-barra-da-costa-acredita-que-sequestrador-de-maddie-e-ingles
Unfortunately José Barra da Costa's hope that Madeleine's case would be conducted differently from the "Joana affair" didn't quite work out.
Luckily though from Kate's point of view, is that the PJ were frustrated by their inability to use the tried and tested interview technique which usually got them their result.
Not so lucky for Madeleine when one takes into consideration the ineptitude described by da Costa's of investigators deciding their outcome then looking for the evidence to back it up.
Which resulted in it taking six years before Operation Grange being allowed the remit to carry out the professional job the Portuguese proved incapable of doing.
-
Abduction was the only remit SY could legally work upon imo.
There was no evidence anyone had killed or sexually abused Madeleine.
Madeleine was a ward of court and there was no evidence of parental abduction. SY would have been acting in Madeleine's interests, not the parents.
Your last sentence sums up the situation to perfection. Quite often Madeleine McCann is the most ignored individual ever in all of this.
It is lovely to see you write in recognition that Operation Grange existed ONLY to act in Madeleine's interests and my opinion is that they've carried out sterling work in doing just that.
-
Your post indicates a bit of a closed mind to the theory which drives your opinion which was debunked in short order immediately the forensic report from the FSS was released.
That constitutes a monumental feat of denial which apparently blinds you to exactly how professional investigators conduct their business in accordance with working to their remit.
Snip
October 24, 2013
Prosecutors announced on Thursday the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann, after the Judicial Police presented new evidence.
"A note from the Attorney General's Office (PGR) said that the Public Prosecutor 's Office (MP) ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to the criminal procedural law that says that "the investigation can only be reopened if new evidence emerges that invalidate the grounds put forward by the MP in the order of filing" of the case.
The PGR announced on 21 July 2008 that the MP had filed the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and raised the condition of the defendant to the parents of the English minor and Robert Murat (British who lived in the Algarve), noting that he could reopen the case if "new evidence" emerged, which has now occurred. Please note, that the work carried out by Operation Grange over the year they had been officially reviewing Madeleine's disappearance, was of sufficient standard to convince them that there were many avenues worthy of investigation and to convince the Portuguese investigative authorities of the validity of reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
"At the time, it was learned that a group of six officers from the Faro delegation was formed to assist the British unit responsible for the "Operation Grange" of the Metropolitan Police, which is reviewing all the clues related to the case after the intervention of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. It seems that the Portuguese were also hand in glove with Grange reviewing the information relating to Madeleine's case in parallel to Operation Grange. So there you have it. Essentially, two independent reviews utilising the same resources into the same incident concur, one with the other that further investigation is required.
"Portugal was one of 31 countries to which their respective authorities were sent a letter rogatory with a request for assistance regarding elements that the British police wish to see clarified, related to persons or telephone data. The British police quite obviously went back to basics in their review. They obviously checked what investigative work had been done. But more importantly, they carried out checks which had not been carried out in the first instance. With rogatory letters being sent to thirty one countries, I think that can only be classed as being the result of an exhaustively thorough investigation.
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said British police are trying to find the owners of the mobile phones identified as having been in the area and at the time of the disappearance. That is certainly of interest in the light of current events when one considers that one of those named at that time was Christian Brueckner.
"In June, British police announced the existence of "38 people of interest" who wished to question, including several Portuguese.
They are people who were in a radius of the place of disappearance and who there are reasons to suspect. It takes a little more than circumstantial issues," Redwood explained.
The 12 Britons initially identified have meanwhile joined three more, who are already being investigated, but which the inspector believes will "possibly be eliminated" soon from the list.
Scotland Yard, working on the case for a year, is confident it has found relevant "new information" based on the 40,000 documents and leads collected by police in Portugal, the UK and eight different private detective companies. https://www.record.pt/fora-de-campo/detalhe/mp-reabre-inquerito-sobre-desaparecimento-de-maddie-850508
Operation Grange used every tool in their box to get results. Nota Bene that as well as ruling people in, one of their main investigative aims was ruling people out. Your abduction denial fixation is risible in the extreme when one takes the nature of the multifarious investigative tasks Operation Grange had to perform.
October 24, 2013
Maddie case: New clues rule out parents' guilt
Rogério Alves, lawyer for the parents of the English child, spoke to Lusa about the reopening of the investigation by the public prosecutor Portuguese and was asked about the possibility that Gerry and Kate MaCann could be again constituted defendants.
"The family has been informed that the new evidence does not indicate the accountability of [Madeleine's] parents," the lawyer said. https://www.record.pt/fora-de-campo/detalhe/caso-maddie-novos-indicios-afastam-culpa-dos-pais-850548?ref=Detalhe_Relacionadas
It really is well beyond time that sceptics and theorists join the mainstream cache of knowledge built over the years in the Madeleine McCann investigation and accept the fact that not only did Operation Grange fulfil their remit, they did so with style.
I'm sure OG worked to their remit. My interest is in how the remit was arrived at.
-
I'm sure OG worked to their remit. My interest is in how the remit was arrived at.
Why don’t you ask them?
-
I'm sure OG worked to their remit. My interest is in how the remit was arrived at.
Caught in a chicken and egg scenario are you not? I don't think you have the faintest notion of what a remit is or how one is arrived; and therein lies your problem.
-
Why don’t you ask them?
I've got to admit that I am at a loss about the angst some feel as a direct result of the fact that Operation Grange has stuck in there and has been steadfast in working on Madeleine McCann's behalf and in her interests since their inception all those long, weary years ago.
-
Your post indicates a bit of a closed mind to the theory which drives your opinion which was debunked in short order immediately the forensic report from the FSS was released.
That constitutes a monumental feat of denial which apparently blinds you to exactly how professional investigators conduct their business in accordance with working to their remit.
Snip
October 24, 2013
Prosecutors announced on Thursday the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann, after the Judicial Police presented new evidence.
"A note from the Attorney General's Office (PGR) said that the Public Prosecutor 's Office (MP) ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to the criminal procedural law that says that "the investigation can only be reopened if new evidence emerges that invalidate the grounds put forward by the MP in the order of filing" of the case.
The PGR announced on 21 July 2008 that the MP had filed the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and raised the condition of the defendant to the parents of the English minor and Robert Murat (British who lived in the Algarve), noting that he could reopen the case if "new evidence" emerged, which has now occurred. Please note, that the work carried out by Operation Grange over the year they had been officially reviewing Madeleine's disappearance, was of sufficient standard to convince them that there were many avenues worthy of investigation and to convince the Portuguese investigative authorities of the validity of reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
"At the time, it was learned that a group of six officers from the Faro delegation was formed to assist the British unit responsible for the "Operation Grange" of the Metropolitan Police, which is reviewing all the clues related to the case after the intervention of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. It seems that the Portuguese were also hand in glove with Grange reviewing the information relating to Madeleine's case in parallel to Operation Grange. So there you have it. Essentially, two independent reviews utilising the same resources into the same incident concur, one with the other that further investigation is required.
"Portugal was one of 31 countries to which their respective authorities were sent a letter rogatory with a request for assistance regarding elements that the British police wish to see clarified, related to persons or telephone data. The British police quite obviously went back to basics in their review. They obviously checked what investigative work had been done. But more importantly, they carried out checks which had not been carried out in the first instance. With rogatory letters being sent to thirty one countries, I think that can only be classed as being the result of an exhaustively thorough investigation.
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said British police are trying to find the owners of the mobile phones identified as having been in the area and at the time of the disappearance. That is certainly of interest in the light of current events when one considers that one of those named at that time was Christian Brueckner.
"In June, British police announced the existence of "38 people of interest" who wished to question, including several Portuguese.
They are people who were in a radius of the place of disappearance and who there are reasons to suspect. It takes a little more than circumstantial issues," Redwood explained.
The 12 Britons initially identified have meanwhile joined three more, who are already being investigated, but which the inspector believes will "possibly be eliminated" soon from the list.
Scotland Yard, working on the case for a year, is confident it has found relevant "new information" based on the 40,000 documents and leads collected by police in Portugal, the UK and eight different private detective companies. https://www.record.pt/fora-de-campo/detalhe/mp-reabre-inquerito-sobre-desaparecimento-de-maddie-850508
Operation Grange used every tool in their box to get results. Nota Bene that as well as ruling people in, one of their main investigative aims was ruling people out. Your abduction denial fixation is risible in the extreme when one takes the nature of the multifarious investigative tasks Operation Grange had to perform.
October 24, 2013
Maddie case: New clues rule out parents' guilt
Rogério Alves, lawyer for the parents of the English child, spoke to Lusa about the reopening of the investigation by the public prosecutor Portuguese and was asked about the possibility that Gerry and Kate MaCann could be again constituted defendants.
"The family has been informed that the new evidence does not indicate the accountability of [Madeleine's] parents," the lawyer said. https://www.record.pt/fora-de-campo/detalhe/caso-maddie-novos-indicios-afastam-culpa-dos-pais-850548?ref=Detalhe_Relacionadas
It really is well beyond time that sceptics and theorists join the mainstream cache of knowledge built over the years in the Madeleine McCann investigation and accept the fact that not only did Operation Grange fulfil their remit, they did so with style.
I believe Brueckner only came to the attention of OG when his criminal compadre asked to speak to them after he was arrested in Greece for people trafficking, some 6 years after the founding of the British investigation. If this hadn’t happened who knows if Brueckner would ever have come to Britain’s Finest’s attention.
-
The fact that there are people on here who think that the Files represents the sum total of evidence in this case is absolutely laughable, frankly. It may have escaped your notice but the files only covers the PJ investigation up to 2008. There have been thousands and thousands of man hours devoted to the case since then by Portuguese, German and British police, gathering information most of which will not have been put in the public domain, but do carry on believing y’all know everything about everything even if it does make you look like utter clods.
Well this is funny, because 2 years ago sceptics were saying Brueckner wouldn't be charged anytime, we didn't need to see the 'evidence' to figure that one out, and here we are 2 years later, still no charges for Brueckner. Called that one perfectly didn't we. Utter clods indeed.
-
Caught in a chicken and egg scenario are you not? I don't think you have the faintest notion of what a remit is or how one is arrived; and therein lies your problem.
OG's remit was to investigate THE ABDUCTION; there's nothing unclear about that. It was written before the evidence they had available had been fully examined and evaluated too.
-
OG's remit was to investigate THE ABDUCTION; there's nothing unclear about that. It was written before the evidence they had available had been fully examined and evaluated too.
Remits are not bound by law, so had they fully examined and evaluated the evidence and come to the conclusion that another scenario was more likely what do you think would have happened? 10 years of investigating a scenario that they knew wasn’t supported by any evidence? Gimme a break. How many times do we have to go round in circles?
-
Remits are not bound by law, so had they fully examined and evaluated the evidence and come to the conclusion that another scenario was more likely what do you think would have happened? 10 years of investigating a scenario that they knew wasn’t supported by any evidence? Gimme a break. How many times do we have to go round in circles?
And how are Grange getting on with all the abduction evidence they've spent 10 years gathering?
Much happening is there?
'The abductor' being brought to justice any time soon is he?
-
police forces have been for years investigating certain crimes on the Algarve that happened longer ago than the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, namely the rape of Hazel Behan and the break-ins to children’s bedrooms in holiday apartments, without anyone so far coming to justice. Does it therefore follow that the police have been investigating the wrong crimes all these years and that they actually never happened or were self-inflicted, that their remit was all wrong? Let me guess: the answer’s yes right?. *%87
-
Sceptic Logic: the longer the police investigate a crime the less likely it is to have happened *%87
-
What does Remit mean? Can someone define it for me please?
-
What does Remit mean? Can someone define it for me please?
It means a sinister order from the High Ups which must never be challenged, otherwise you might find yourself falling from the top floor of the police station, if you get my drift, nudge nudge wink wink.
-
Remits are not bound by law, so had they fully examined and evaluated the evidence and come to the conclusion that another scenario was more likely what do you think would have happened? 10 years of investigating a scenario that they knew wasn’t supported by any evidence? Gimme a break. How many times do we have to go round in circles?
Until you understand how organisations work, you will continue to go round in circles. Who are 'they'? The only 'they' who count are those who feel qualified to express an opinion and those who can act on it. Then the saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" should be considered.
-
Sceptic Logic: the longer the police investigate a crime the less likely it is to have happened *%87
Brueckner IS the murderer.
Wolters has Concrete Evidence.
How could there possibly be any other abductor?
The case is solved, isn't It?
-
Until you understand how organisations work, you will continue to go round in circles. Who are 'they'? The only 'they' who count are those who feel qualified to express an opinion and those who can act on it. Then the saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" should be considered.
In your opinion then do senior police never once veer from a remit, even if their investigating officers are reporting back to them that there is no evidence of the particular crime as laid out in it? Are the police that intransigent that they would far rather waste 10 years of time and money investigating a crime that they are fairly certain never occurred? And that in that time they would be confident that there would be no anonymous whistleblower from within their ranks going to the press to tell them that the investigation was set on a wild goose chase? Is this really what you think?
-
Why is grange still active when there's concrete evidence Maddie was murdered by Brueckner?
Can someone explain?
It's almost as though Wolters wasn't telling the truth, but that would be impossible because Wolters wouldn't lie about such a thing would he.
-
Until you understand how organisations work, you will continue to go round in circles. Who are 'they'? The only 'they' who count are those who feel qualified to express an opinion and those who can act on it. Then the saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" should be considered.
That was my next question. Who are they that decided on and defined The Remit?
-
That was my next question. Who are they that decided on and defined The Remit?
And you might like to ask She Who Knows why they decided it was an abduction and why they refuse to countenance any insubordination from the lower ranks, as she seems to be suggesting.
-
Put it another way with all the trouble the MET are having and have had including now "Head of Scotland Yard's catastrophic VIP sex abuse inquiry faces gross misconduct proceedings over 'misleading comments' at end of £2.5m probe" would one seriously expect them to conduct a proper investigation when it now seems likely CB was given to them not by investigating but by an informant or two coming to their rescue, the article makes interesting reading about crims being informants.
Link to the bolded bit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11444203/Head-Scotland-Yards-catastrophic-VIP-sex-abuse-inquiry-faces-gross-misconduct-proceedings.html
-
In your opinion then do senior police never once veer from a remit, even if their investigating officers are reporting back to them that there is no evidence of the particular crime as laid out in it? Are the police that intransigent that they would far rather waste 10 years of time and money investigating a crime that they are fairly certain never occurred? And that in that time they would be confident that there would be no anonymous whistleblower from within their ranks going to the press to tell them that the investigation was set on a wild goose chase? Is this really what you think?
Does every police investigation have a remit? I know that remits exist; the IOPC has one, for example, which lays down what they are authorised to investigate;
https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/Who-we-are/Our-Policies/IOPC_HomeOffice_Framework_Agreement.pdf
The PIRC is the Scottish equivalent, and their remit excludes certain matters from being investigated by them;
The PIRC cannot review allegations of criminal behaviour by police officers or staff. These are dealt with by the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service. The PIRC also cannot consider complaints made by individuals currently
or formerly serving with the police about employment matters, such as grievances, disciplinary issues, and terms
and conditions of service. In certain circumstances the PIRC may decline to carry out a complaint handling review, for example if a complaint is deemed vexatious or wholly lacking in foundation.
https://pirc.scot/media/4907/pirc_guide_for_police_and_staff_web.pdf
So a remit lays down what the organisation is to investigate. I don't know who decided to create and release the remit of OG, but I would be surprised if every police investigation had one. Perhaps it was related to the funding involvement of the Home Office.
-
And you might like to ask She Who Knows why they decided it was an abduction and why they refuse to countenance any insubordination from the lower ranks, as she seems to be suggesting.
Why and how they decided it was an abduction is one question I have been asking, but no answer seems to be forthcoming.
-
And you might like to ask She Who Knows why they decided it was an abduction and why they refuse to countenance any insubordination from the lower ranks, as she seems to be suggesting.
That was my next question. And I've got a few more.
-
Why and how they decided it was an abduction is one question I have been asking, but no answer seems to be forthcoming.
So why are you pontificating about it if you don't know anything?
-
Remit. Google.
"An item referred to someone for consideration."
That doesn't sound like an order to me.
-
Remit. Google.
"An item referred to someone for consideration."
That doesn't sound like an order to me.
So who decided that consideration should only be focussed on an abduction as if it happened in UK ?
-
So who decided that consideration should only be focussed on an abduction as if it happened in UK ?
You tell me.
-
You tell me.
Its all a moot point now the BKA have it in hand.
-
Why and how they decided it was an abduction is one question I have been asking, but no answer seems to be forthcoming.
Do you expect one of us to be able to answer your question to your satisfaction? Send them an FOI if you're so desperate to know.
-
Do you expect one of us to be able to answer your question to your satisfaction? Send them an FOI if you're so desperate to know.
They didn't decide it was definitely an abduction as far as I can see.
-
Why and how they decided it was an abduction is one question I have been asking, but no answer seems to be forthcoming.
It's actually quite simple. What crimes did SY have jurisdiction to investigate in Portugal in relation to Madeleine? A missing child is not a crime in itself.
-
It's actually quite simple. What crimes did SY have jurisdiction to investigate in Portugal in relation to Madeleine? A missing child is not a crime in itself.
None.
-
Its all a moot point now the BKA have it in hand.
Yes, not quite sure why Grange is still active, considering it's beyond any reasonable doubt that Maddie was murdered by Brueckner.
Unless Wolters wasn't telling the Truth?
And if Wolters wasn't telling the truth then perhaps neither were Redwood, Rowley & the McCanns.
That's possible isn't it.
-
None.
Madeleine was a ward of court. She hadn't been returned to the UK from Portugal. What action should have been taken by the court in the absence of evidence of her death?
-
It's actually quite simple. What crimes did SY have jurisdiction to investigate in Portugal in relation to Madeleine? A missing child is not a crime in itself.
Circumstances surrounding it are though.
-
Madeleine was a ward of court. She hadn't been returned to the UK from Portugal. What action should have been taken by the court in the absence of evidence of her death?
Is there any evidence of death ?
-
Is there any evidence of death ?
There is now. There wasn't when OG was launched.
-
Is there any evidence of death ?
Yes there most definitely is, & it's irrefutable according to the official spokesperson for the BKA.
-
There is now. There wasn't when OG was launched.
If you count bogus confessions.
-
If you count bogus confessions.
When is a confession not a confession?
-
Circumstances surrounding it are though.
The circumstances had already been investigated by PJ and they failed to reach a definitive conclusion.
-
When is a confession not a confession?
Yes, & faked abductions are still a kind of abduction I suppose.
-
There is now. There wasn't when OG was launched.
I doubt it, Wolters IMO is working on stats of missing children being dead with in a few hrs and with no confirmed sightings, thats why he adds the caveat there maybe a little hope, thats why OG still say its a missing child .
Below from an ex cop who was in Luz early days.
Dr. Graham Hill is a criminologist and child protection expert
This was the kind of thing that needed to happen as early as possible, he said, as children that were abducted and ended up dead as a result were normally dead within three to six hours.
-
The circumstances had already been investigated by PJ and they failed to reach a definitive conclusion.
As have OG and the BKA .
-
Yes, & faked abductions are still a kind of abduction I suppose.
Fascinating that you consider Brueckner's confession as fake but the Ciprianos' as true.
Anyway, it's a fact that Madeleine, a ward of court, has never been returned to the UK. As the UK courts have accepted certain responsibilities for Madeleine then they also have the power to request police assistance in her abduction.
-
Fascinating that you consider Brueckner's confession as fake but the Ciprianos' as true.
Anyway, it's a fact that Madeleine, a ward of court, has never been returned to the UK. As the UK courts have accepted certain responsibilities for Madeleine then they also have the power to request police assistance in her abduction.
Back to Madeleine's British Passport. This gives her the right to assistance and protection while abroad. This Remit lark is just a load of nonsense thought up by Sceptics to point the finger at The McCanns.
Madeleine is entitled to whatever help is on offer.
-
Back to Madeleine's British Passport. This gives her the right to assistance and protection while abroad. This Remit lark is just a load of nonsense thought up by Sceptics to point the finger at The McCanns.
Madeleine is entitled to whatever help is on offer.
She's dead so there's no helping her now I'm afraid.
-
Put it another way with all the trouble the MET are having and have had including now "Head of Scotland Yard's catastrophic VIP sex abuse inquiry faces gross misconduct proceedings over 'misleading comments' at end of £2.5m probe" would one seriously expect them to conduct a proper investigation when it now seems likely CB was given to them not by investigating but by an informant or two coming to their rescue, the article makes interesting reading about crims being informants.
Link to the bolded bit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11444203/Head-Scotland-Yards-catastrophic-VIP-sex-abuse-inquiry-faces-gross-misconduct-proceedings.html
If memory serves me well ~ this is a prime example of deciding a remit and sticking to it. Bearing in mind Nick had already laughed all the way to the bank on previous forays in the days when he was astute enough to use dead celebs and not those who were alive and able to fight their corner.
Try comparing like with like.
German investigators are now concentrating all their resources on Madeleine. From inception, Operation Grange followed the evidence in what was a prime example of the excellence of British policing. Nobody from Grange is going to face any sort of procedures such as you suggest in the link you have used. What a shame you fail to recognise the best of British particularly as the Savile saga is called to mind in the police actions you publicise as abhorrent. That isn't double standards and hypocrisy - it is simply just inane.
-
Back to Madeleine's British Passport. This gives her the right to assistance and protection while abroad. This Remit lark is just a load of nonsense thought up by Sceptics to point the finger at The McCanns.
Madeleine is entitled to whatever help is on offer.
What protection was she afforded at circa 10pm ?
-
They didn't decide it was definitely an abduction as far as I can see.
They decided nothing.
They interviewed witnesses and persons of interest.
They ruled people out but they did not have the evidence to enable them to rule anyone in.
They established the sex attacks on children prevalent in the Algarve at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
They even proved that it was possible to walk invisibly about in Luz carrying a child.
They had a job needing to be done and they did it. If someone had done the same early days when Madeleine went missing, the chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation as Madeleine might have been recovered.
-
If memory serves me well ~ this is a prime example of deciding a remit and sticking to it. Bearing in mind Nick had already laughed all the way to the bank on previous forays in the days when he was astute enough to use dead celebs and not those who were alive and able to fight their corner.
Try comparing like with like.
German investigators are now concentrating all their resources on Madeleine. From inception, Operation Grange followed the evidence in what was a prime example of the excellence of British policing. Nobody from Grange is going to face any sort of procedures such as you suggest in the link you have used. What a shame you fail to recognise the best of British particularly as the Savile saga is called to mind in the police actions you publicise as abhorrent. That isn't double standards and hypocrisy - it is simply just inane.
If Grange 'followed the evidence' then how come the evidence didn't lead the Worlds finest to the murderer?
-
They decided nothing.
They interviewed witnesses and persons of interest.
They ruled people out but they did not have the evidence to enable them to rule anyone in.
They established the sex attacks on children prevalent in the Algarve at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
They even proved that it was possible to walk invisibly about in Luz carrying a child.
They had a job needing to be done and they did it. If someone had done the same early days when Madeleine went missing, the chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation as Madeleine might have been recovered.
They proved it possible to walk invisibly in Luz carrying a child?
Right, no way to rule out the McCanns then really.
-
What protection was she afforded at circa 10pm ?
Unlocked windows & doors apparently.
I wouldn't even leave my cat indoors with the place unsecured. I guess I must just love my cat more than the McCanns did their own children.
But then I do love Princess Fluffy rather a lot.
-
If Grange 'followed the evidence' then how come the evidence didn't lead the Worlds finest to the murderer?
Wot spam said .
-
Wot spam said .
It lead to 600 persons of interest apparently. I'm intrigued by the evidence Maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Seems the evidence can be linked to just about anyone really. I wonder what on earth this evidence could possibly be?
Perhaps someone can explain 🤔
-
Wot spam said .
…is facetious, goady crap same as always. There finished your sentence for you, no need to thank me.
-
The point of the thread is that sceptics see it as some kind of conspiracy that SY have not investigated....or interviewed the mccanns under caution when the facts is they do not have the jursdiction to do say. Any investgation would be illegal
-
Fascinating that you consider Brueckner's confession as fake but the Ciprianos' as true.
Anyway, it's a fact that Madeleine, a ward of court, has never been returned to the UK. As the UK courts have accepted certain responsibilities for Madeleine then they also have the power to request police assistance in her abduction.
There is no evidence, other than the word of a convicted criminal, that Brueckner ever confessed. There is with the Cipriano abomination.
There’s your difference.
-
There is no evidence, other than the word of a convicted criminal, that Brueckner ever confessed. There is with the Cipriano abomination.
There’s your difference.
There’s evidence of confession under duress, sure.
-
Madeleine was a ward of court. She hadn't been returned to the UK from Portugal. What action should have been taken by the court in the absence of evidence of her death?
What action was/is available to the High Court?
-
There is now. There wasn't when OG was launched.
So we were told two and a half years ago, but the lack of criminal charges suggests they are unable to link her death to their suspect.
-
The point of the thread is that sceptics see it as some kind of conspiracy that SY have not investigated....or interviewed the mccanns under caution when the facts is they do not have the jursdiction to do say. Any investgation would be illegal
Not if they called it murder like the Germans did.
-
What action was/is available to the High Court?
I'm not sure. It's a specialist area in law and there wouldn't be much point in making a missing child ward of court if the court don't have higher powers.
The point I was trying to make is that there are limitations to extraterritorial jurisdiction and there was no evidence Madeleine had been sexually abused or murdered. In the absence of confirmation of another type of crime the only legally permitted & justified course of action for SY was to investigate stranger abduction. SY would be treading on PJ's toes if they investigated parental involvement. IMO.
-
I believe Brueckner only came to the attention of OG when his criminal compadre asked to speak to them after he was arrested in Greece for people trafficking, some 6 years after the founding of the British investigation. If this hadn’t happened who knows if Brueckner would ever have come to Britain’s Finest’s attention.
This ‘criminal compadre’ may well have valuable information re. CB’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
Not if they called it murder like the Germans did.
So do you think murder committed by the McCanns would have been a valid investigative avenue for the police to have taken?
-
This ‘criminal compadre’ may well have valuable information re. CB’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Post of the day.
-
There is no evidence, other than the word of a convicted criminal, that Brueckner ever confessed. There is with the Cipriano abomination.
There’s your difference.
How do you know that? The ‘convicted criminal’ could be a key witness, currently in witness protection.
-
Post of the day.
You make me laugh. Not.
-
You make me laugh. Not.
It's funny you should say that, because I literally laughed out loud your suggestion Busching could have valuable information of CB's involvement. Tell me another.
-
It's funny you should say that, because I literally laughed out loud your suggestion Busching could have valuable information of CB's involvement. Tell me another.
Fair enough. We shall see.
-
I'm not sure. It's a specialist area in law and there wouldn't be much point in making a missing child ward of court if the court don't have higher powers.
The point I was trying to make is that there are limitations to extraterritorial jurisdiction and there was no evidence Madeleine had been sexually abused or murdered. In the absence of confirmation of another type of crime the only legally permitted & justified course of action for SY was to investigate stranger abduction. SY would be treading on PJ's toes if they investigated parental involvement. IMO.
So the ideas you are offering are based on opinion and guesswork.
-
Fair enough. We shall see.
Yes, I'm going to look a bit stupid when Wolters reveals the concrete evidence. Shouldn't be much longer now.
-
This ‘criminal compadre’ may well have valuable information re. CB’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Or there again maybe not. Dated Oct 2022.
The Federal Criminal Police Office and the Braunschweig public prosecutor ask for your help:
Can you provide information on the vehicles used by the suspect, or did you see them at the beginning of May 2007, or do you know where they were parked during the period mentioned?
Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?
Can you provide information about the houses, rooms or other points of interest shown?
Were you in the Algarve at the beginning of May 2007 and do you still have any photo material such as vacation photos or videos?
Were you in contact with a person who was connected to the vehicles, buildings and telephone numbers shown and can you provide information on their whereabouts at the beginning of May 2007?
Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
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
-
How do you know that? The ‘convicted criminal’ could be a key witness, currently in witness protection.
He’s not.
His word is not only tainted by the circumstances in which he gave the police the information but also by the copious amount of, paid, interviews he has given to the tabloids.
-
Or there again maybe not. Dated Oct 2022.
The Federal Criminal Police Office and the Braunschweig public prosecutor ask for your help:
Can you provide information on the vehicles used by the suspect, or did you see them at the beginning of May 2007, or do you know where they were parked during the period mentioned?
Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?
Can you provide information about the houses, rooms or other points of interest shown?
Were you in the Algarve at the beginning of May 2007 and do you still have any photo material such as vacation photos or videos?
Were you in contact with a person who was connected to the vehicles, buildings and telephone numbers shown and can you provide information on their whereabouts at the beginning of May 2007?
Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
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
Doesn’t appear that they’ve got very far. Isn’t this the very same information that they appealed for over 2 years ago?
-
He’s not.
His word is not only tainted by the circumstances in which he gave the police the information but also by the copious amount of, paid, interviews he has given to the tabloids.
The police confirmed he received no payment or favours for the information he gave them, anything else is superfluous and you have no evidence he was ever paid anyway, just belief.
-
The police confirmed he received no payment or favours for the information he gave them, anything else is superfluous and you have no evidence he was ever paid anyway, just belief.
All will be revealed under cross examination when Busching takes the stand against Brueckner.
Which will be happening soon after the Behan rape trial, if you're totally deluded.
-
The police confirmed he received no payment or favours for the information he gave them, anything else is superfluous and you have no evidence he was ever paid anyway, just belief.
Shame on me….I’m sure he gave the information out of the goodness of his heart. Just coincidence that he had just been arrested for people smuggling I’m sure. How long was it that he had hung on to the information?
Now if you’re interested I have this bridge that’s for sale.
-
Shame on me….I’m sure he gave the information out of the goodness of his heart. Just coincidence that he had just been arrested for people smuggling I’m sure. How long was it that he had hung on to the information?
Now if you’re interested I have this bridge that’s for sale.
What a load of facetious nonsense but carry on believing what you want to believe, which seems to be that the police and the witness are all lying to stitch up some nonentity petty crimnal as the perpetrator of one of the most notorious crimes of the 21st century.
-
What a load of facetious nonsense but carry on believing what you want to believe, which seems to be that the police and the witness are all lying to stitch up some nonentity petty crimnal as the perpetrator of one of the most notorious crimes of the 21st century.
Not fitting up as such but both sides taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Busching would have known that the information he offered would need to have been a bit special to get him out of the particular bind he was in and the Greek police on the other hand I’m sure wouldn’t have been adverse to been seen to be playing an active part in possibly bring to justice one of the most sought after criminals in the world. Quid pro quo if you will.
BTW you didn’t answer my question. Why do you think that Busching held on to the information he eventually gave the police for so many years….also why do you believe a man who had so little thought for Madeleine and her parents that he denied them a resolution to their agony for years and years? Surely a man like that and what he says should be given no credence by any right thinking person?
-
Not fitting up as such but both sides taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Busching would have known that the information he offered would need to have been a bit special to get him out of the particular bind he was in and the Greek police on the other hand I’m sure wouldn’t have been adverse to been seen to be playing an active part in possibly bring to justice one of the most sought after criminals in the world. Quid pro quo if you will.
BTW you didn’t answer my question. Why do you think that Busching held on to the information he eventually gave the police for so many years….also why do you believe a man who had so little thought for Madeleine and her parents that he denied them a resolution to their agony for years and years? Surely a man like that and what he says should be given no credence by any right thinking person?
I don’t know the answers to any of your questions but as the Greek and German police have obviously given credence to his evidence so I can only assume from your last sentence that you don’t believe the police from either force are right thinking.
-
Incidentally Busching’s evidence helped solve a serious rape crime, so his evidence-giving has proven credibility.
-
Or there again maybe not. Dated Oct 2022.
The Federal Criminal Police Office and the Braunschweig public prosecutor ask for your help:
Can you provide information on the vehicles used by the suspect, or did you see them at the beginning of May 2007, or do you know where they were parked during the period mentioned?
Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?
Can you provide information about the houses, rooms or other points of interest shown?
Were you in the Algarve at the beginning of May 2007 and do you still have any photo material such as vacation photos or videos?
Were you in contact with a person who was connected to the vehicles, buildings and telephone numbers shown and can you provide information on their whereabouts at the beginning of May 2007?
Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
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
Clever you to highlight the October date regarding the reprise of previous requests for information made by the BKA. Really it is old news unless the significance of the date leaps out at you and is noted by super sleuths such as you.
What was it happened in October?
Could it have been 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻
Maddie suspect Christian Brueckner charged with multiple sex crimes in Portugalhttps://metro.co.uk/2022/10/11/maddie-suspect-christian-breuckner-charged-with-multiple-sex-crimes-in-portugal-17543720/
Which of course frees up the investigators to give more attention to Madeleine's case which is very obviously very much to the fore.
"The investigation into the disappearance of Maddie McCann continues regardless of the charges," said the spokesman for the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig, Hans Christian Wolters, on Wednesday. Due to the ongoing investigation, no further information on the previous results could be published in the case of the missing Briton.
"You can all be assured that the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig is not anxious to unnecessarily prolong the investigation in the case of Maddie McCann," Wolters told journalists. It is a matter of clarifying the facts in the best possible way. "We continue to ask for the help of the population," said the prosecutor, referring to the public search of the Federal Criminal Police Office on the Internet. https://www.zeit.de/news/2022-10/12/prozess-gegen-maddie-verdaechtigen-beginnt-nicht-vor-2023?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F
So don't worry too much about the same request for the same information being made. The Germans are obviously building their case and acquiring as much information as possible to enable a conclusion. Remind yourself of what that is, a clue is in the appeal for assistance you linked to.
-
I don’t know the answers to any of your questions but as the Greek and German police have obviously given credence to his evidence so I can only assume from your last sentence that you don’t believe the police from either force are right thinking.
I think they want to help solve the case..by any means possible.
You only have to look at the cases of both Lynette White and Michael Stone to see how evidence from unreliable witnesses can contribute to a miscarriage of justice. All you need is a police force desperate to use any means necessary to solve a crime and a witness who has something to fear.
-
Incidentally Busching’s evidence helped solve a serious rape crime, so his evidence-giving has proven credibility.
Did it? He gave evidence about a tape that he couldn’t produce and whose footage didn’t show the rape in question.
Anyway wasn’t it the single hair that convicted Brueckner?
-
Did it? He gave evidence about a tape that he couldn’t produce and whose footage didn’t show the rape in question.
Anyway wasn’t it the single hair that convicted Brueckner?
The hair proved Busching’s claim, are you unable to comprehend that?
-
I think they want to help solve the case..by any means possible.
You only have to look at the cases of both Lynette White and Michael Stone to see how evidence from unreliable witnesses can contribute to a miscarriage of justice. All you need is a police force desperate to use any means necessary to solve a crime and a witness who has something to fear.
Neither the Greeks nor the Germans were desperate to solve the disappearance of a foreign child in a completely different country. There was absolutely no pressure on them to do so, no time or resources previously spent investigating it, your theory is completely illogical. Ironically the one police force who might have something to gain from stitching up a patsy seem less gung-ho to name CB as their chief suspect. How do you account for that?
-
Clever you to highlight the October date regarding the reprise of previous requests for information made by the BKA. Really it is old news unless the significance of the date leaps out at you and is noted by super sleuths such as you.
What was it happened in October?
Could it have been 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻 🔻
Maddie suspect Christian Brueckner charged with multiple sex crimes in Portugalhttps://metro.co.uk/2022/10/11/maddie-suspect-christian-breuckner-charged-with-multiple-sex-crimes-in-portugal-17543720/
Which of course frees up the investigators to give more attention to Madeleine's case which is very obviously very much to the fore.
"The investigation into the disappearance of Maddie McCann continues regardless of the charges," said the spokesman for the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig, Hans Christian Wolters, on Wednesday. Due to the ongoing investigation, no further information on the previous results could be published in the case of the missing Briton.
"You can all be assured that the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig is not anxious to unnecessarily prolong the investigation in the case of Maddie McCann," Wolters told journalists. It is a matter of clarifying the facts in the best possible way. "We continue to ask for the help of the population," said the prosecutor, referring to the public search of the Federal Criminal Police Office on the Internet. https://www.zeit.de/news/2022-10/12/prozess-gegen-maddie-verdaechtigen-beginnt-nicht-vor-2023?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F
So don't worry too much about the same request for the same information being made. The Germans are obviously building their case and acquiring as much information as possible to enable a conclusion. Remind yourself of what that is, a clue is in the appeal for assistance you linked to.
Have you read the Metro link?
“ The Braunschweig prosecutor’s office said in a statement: ‘The accused is the same person against whom charges were brought in connection with the disappearance of the then 3-year-old British girl Madeleine Beth McCann.”
-
The hair proved Busching’s claim, are you unable to comprehend that?
What was Busching’s claim? That he found a tape that DIDN'T show the rape that Brueckner was being investigated for?
Question is did Busching go to the police or did they seek him out? Once again Busching offers the police unverifiable evidence long after he claims the events happened.
-
Neither the Greeks nor the Germans were desperate to solve the disappearance of a foreign child in a completely different country. There was absolutely no pressure on them to do so, no time or resources previously spent investigating it, your theory is completely illogical. Ironically the one police force who might have something to gain from stitching up a patsy seem less gung-ho to name CB as their chief suspect. How do you account for that?
Every police force in the world would have an interest in solving the most famous missing child case in history so stop being silly.
As to your question, perhaps Portugal actually want to seen the case solved and know Brueckner isn’t their man?
-
Every police force in the world would have an interest in solving the most famous missing child case in history so stop being silly.
As to your question, perhaps Portugal actually want to seen the case solved and know Brueckner isn’t their man?
It may have been nice to solve the case but they were under no obligation or expectation to do so. You dont think hundreds and thousands of lowlifes have made false claims about this and other high profile unsolved crimes to police forces all around the world over the years? You claimed they wanted to solve this particular crime by any means possible, including by deception (to the public) and bribery (to the criminal), it makes no sense at all and it’s you who should stop being so silly. Also, I was not referring to the PJ but to the Met. Why haven’t they seemingly fully embraced CB as the patsy you believe him to be?
-
What was Busching’s claim? That he found a tape that DIDN'T show the rape that Brueckner was being investigated for?
Question is did Busching go to the police or did they seek him out? Once again Busching offers the police unverifiable evidence long after he claims the events happened.
Wait, so you think maybe the police identify the hair as belonging to CB and then go looking for one of his known associates and bribe him to make up a story about a rape video? *%87
It’s simple. Busching tells the police he sees a guy in a video he can name committing a rape in the Algarve which resembles a known unsolved rape in the same locale and when the DNA evidence from the crime is compared to that of the guy Busching says was committing the rape on video, it matches. Got it now?
-
Deleted
-
@)(++(*
He’s not.
His word is not only tainted by the circumstances in which he gave the police the information but also by the copious amount of, paid, interviews he has given to the tabloids.
-
Every police force in the world would have an interest in solving the most famous missing child case in history so stop being silly.
As to your question, perhaps Portugal actually want to seen the case solved and know Brueckner isn’t their man?
Incidentally how could the Portuguese KNOW CB didn’t commit the crime? That suggests they have exculpatory evidence that clears him, do you believe this to be the case? If so, why haven’t they shared this with the Germans? Come on now, please accept that what you have written is nonsensical.
-
Doesn’t appear that they’ve got very far. Isn’t this the very same information that they appealed for over 2 years ago?
It was updated 11th October so clearly no charges if at all anytime soon.
-
Incidentally how could the Portuguese KNOW CB didn’t commit the crime? That suggests they have exculpatory evidence that clears him, do you believe this to be the case? If so, why haven’t they shared this with the Germans? Come on now, please accept that what you have written is nonsensical.
On the other hand, if individuals KNOW Brueckner is innocent it rather suggests they KNOW for certain who the individual is who did commit the crime against Madaleine.
The link Barrier has provided suggests the German investigation is not blind to the fact others may be complicit "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."
-
On the other hand, if individuals KNOW Brueckner is innocent it rather suggests they KNOW for certain who the individual is who did commit the crime against Madaleine.
The link Barrier has provided suggests the German investigation is not blind to the fact others may be complicit "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."
Well of course as far as sceptics like Faith are concerned the PJ KNOW the McCanns dunnit, but it makes you wonder how they know and why they haven't shared the vital evidence which proves it and which lets CB off the hook. Very mysterious I'm sure, seeing as how every police force in the world is apparently so desperate to solve this case that they will engage in bribery and corruption in order to do so.
-
It was updated 11th October so clearly no charges if at all anytime soon.
Do you know anything at all about the conduct of this case?
Apparently not.
It is clearly stated that charges against Brueckner are not going to happen on a whim. It will happen if and when the German prosecution service decide such action is appropriate as they continue their investigation into Madeleine's case.
In response to a report that police in Germany were hoping to bring charges by Christmas, Hans Christian Wolters, public prosecutor in Braunschweig, Germany, told Express.co.uk: "No, this report is misinformation. I can say for sure that we will not conclude the investigation into Maddie this year. I cannot predict whether this will be the case in 2023."
He said there is no likelihood Brueckner will be charged by Christmas in connection with Maddie's disappearance and murder, adding: "There will definitely be no charge this year. Whether there will be a charge at all, and if so when, is completely open." https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1682266/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-charges-this-year-prosecutor
Internet sleuths like you are entitled to voice their uninformed opinions as debating points. The real work is being carried out by professionals who know what they are doing and probably who don't give a fig what uninformed debaters are playing with. Particularly since they know nothing of any value.
Tell me Barrier ~ do you applaud the joint police work (inclusive of Operation Grange's) which might result in Diana M's brutal rapist being kept off our streets for a further stint should any of the five sex offences he is charged with be proven. Or do you think they shouldn't have bothered and leave him to resume roaming free when his time served for Diana's rape is up?
Madelaine's case is one of the most complex in the world. Whoever was involved has had over fifteen years to destroy the evidence whether from behind bars or in person. Which rather puts into perspective the mentality of those who have known about 'the German paedophile' (courtesy of Amaral and Saunokonoko's podcast) only since December 2019 and found out it was Brueckner in April 2020, agitating because charges have not yet been laid against him in November 2022 for Madeleine's murder.
I think it is well beyond time to join in with the real world and let the Germans clean up this monumental mess without the characteristic 'let or hindrance' from internet sleuths.
-
Yes yes, just get back to us when Brueckner is charged won't you. Shouldn't be much longer now aye.
Wolters will prove abduction one day. Just believe.
-
It was updated 11th October so clearly no charges if at all anytime soon.
Never. You can take that to the bank, because Madeleine simply wasn't abducted. That much is obvious.
-
Well of course as far as sceptics like Faith are concerned the PJ KNOW the McCanns dunnit, but it makes you wonder how they know and why they haven't shared the vital evidence which proves it and which lets CB off the hook. Very mysterious I'm sure, seeing as how every police force in the world is apparently so desperate to solve this case that they will engage in bribery and corruption in order to do so.
My opinion is that the sceptic angst against Operation Grange which they have lumped into "the remit" in the tone used by presenters Tess and Claudia when they say "the Judges" in the 'strictly come dancing' tv programme, tells us all we need to know about them. And it is a less than salutary spectacle.
ALL the factors which Grange initially uncovered had always been there. Just nobody had looked for them or had the experience to know what they were if they had.- Dr Totman wasn't found at the time proving the criticism that material witnesses had been overlooked
- Assaults perpetrated on children by an invader to their holiday homes were ignored
- CCTV which might have been relevant was not checked out until after the tapes for the relevant time had been erased
- The real significance of the phone dump was not apparent until Operation Grange checked it
- Christian Brueckner was on police radar but was not followed through
Operation Grange has carried out exemplary work which has been justified by the fact that there is possibly little left for them to do all these years later.
I think their "remit" has been carried out with confidence in what they were doing and at some time in the future when looked back upon, I think it will be viewed as a shining example of British policing at its best.
-
Shining example of Britain's best.
They had all that abduction evidence to hand, but instead it took one crook to grass on another. Excellent police work there.
-
Do you know anything at all about the conduct of this case?
Apparently not.
It is clearly stated that charges against Brueckner are not going to happen on a whim. It will happen if and when the German prosecution service decide such action is appropriate as they continue their investigation into Madeleine's case.
In response to a report that police in Germany were hoping to bring charges by Christmas, Hans Christian Wolters, public prosecutor in Braunschweig, Germany, told Express.co.uk: "No, this report is misinformation. I can say for sure that we will not conclude the investigation into Maddie this year. I cannot predict whether this will be the case in 2023."
He said there is no likelihood Brueckner will be charged by Christmas in connection with Maddie's disappearance and murder, adding: "There will definitely be no charge this year. Whether there will be a charge at all, and if so when, is completely open." https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1682266/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-charges-this-year-prosecutor
Internet sleuths like you are entitled to voice their uninformed opinions as debating points. The real work is being carried out by professionals who know what they are doing and probably who don't give a fig what uninformed debaters are playing with. Particularly since they know nothing of any value.
Tell me Barrier ~ do you applaud the joint police work (inclusive of Operation Grange's) which might result in Diana M's brutal rapist being kept off our streets for a further stint should any of the five sex offences he is charged with be proven. Or do you think they shouldn't have bothered and leave him to resume roaming free when his time served for Diana's rape is up?
Madelaine's case is one of the most complex in the world. Whoever was involved has had over fifteen years to destroy the evidence whether from behind bars or in person. Which rather puts into perspective the mentality of those who have known about 'the German paedophile' (courtesy of Amaral and Saunokonoko's podcast) only since December 2019 and found out it was Brueckner in April 2020, agitating because charges have not yet been laid against him in November 2022 for Madeleine's murder.
I think it is well beyond time to join in with the real world and let the Germans clean up this monumental mess without the characteristic 'let or hindrance' from internet sleuths.
Do you bother reading links not from the beloved brit rags.They cannot place him in Luz, Wolters told MWT back in May , still the same today , they don't even know the time of the crime only a presumption. They also assume some one else knows, makes an ass out of u and me.
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
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.
-
Tell me Barrier ~ do you applaud the joint police work (inclusive of Operation Grange's) which might result in Diana M's brutal rapist being kept off our streets for a further stint should any of the five sex offences he is charged with be proven. Or do you think they shouldn't have bothered and leave him to resume roaming free when his time served for Diana's rape is up?
If due process of law is followed and he's found guilty then he should serve time .
-
My opinion is that the sceptic angst against Operation Grange which they have lumped into "the remit" in the tone used by presenters Tess and Claudia when they say "the Judges" in the 'strictly come dancing' tv programme, tells us all we need to know about them. And it is a less than salutary spectacle.
ALL the factors which Grange initially uncovered had always been there. Just nobody had looked for them or had the experience to know what they were if they had.- Dr Totman wasn't found at the time proving the criticism that material witnesses had been overlooked
- Assaults perpetrated on children by an invader to their holiday homes were ignored
- CCTV which might have been relevant was not checked out until after the tapes for the relevant time had been erased
- The real significance of the phone dump was not apparent until Operation Grange checked it
- Christian Brueckner was on police radar but was not followed through
Operation Grange has carried out exemplary work which has been justified by the fact that there is possibly little left for them to do all these years later.
I think their "remit" has been carried out with confidence in what they were doing and at some time in the future when looked back upon, I think it will be viewed as a shining example of British policing at its best.
Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.
It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.
-
Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.
It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.
I seem to recall in the case of the little girl who was abducted from a tent in the Australian outback that the police decided it was an abduction they were investigating very early on. How do you account for this? Can police not use logic to deduce what is the most likely crime committed and base their investigations on that? And if evidence is revealed later which points to a different crime having been committed, then alter the focus of their investigation, or is that not something the police are allowed to do in this country?
-
Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.
It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.
Where does it state that Operation Grange were forbidden from looking at anything else.
-
Do you bother reading links not from the beloved brit rags.They cannot place him in Luz, Wolters told MWT back in May , still the same today , they don't even know the time of the crime only a presumption. They also assume some one else knows, makes an ass out of u and me.
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
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.
What a strange post.
I am British.
Therefore I tend to use British sources, to which you refer as "beloved brit rags" for information. Might I alert you to the fact that using such terminology tends to slot you into a particular categorical box about which the less said is good.
-
Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.
It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.
A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."
He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'
At the same time he laid down the remit to which Operation Grange continued to operate when he responded to a query regarding the theory that a sex predator was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance as follows:
'That's been one key line of inquiry.
The reality is in the modern world in any urban area... you will find sex offenders who live nearby.
And those coincidences need to be sifted out,
what's a coincidence
and what may be linked to the investigation that you are currently doing.
'Offences which may be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out.'
Mr Rowley said there was still a 'lot unknown' in the case, adding: 'All the different hypotheses have to remain open.'
Sceptics prove an inability to move forward in conjunction with events even particularly those which disagree with their own 'remit'. Whereas Operation Grange's 'remit' covering all hypotheses is explained in simple terms which even sceptics should be capable of following, as explained by Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley in 2017 in reference to British detectives having a 'significant' line of inquiry in the Madeleine McCann case, ten years after she went missing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
-
What a strange post.
I am British.
Therefore I tend to use British sources, to which you refer as "beloved brit rags" for information. Might I alert you to the fact that using such terminology tends to slot you into a particular categorical box about which the less said is good.
I think looking at what the Germans are actually saying can be enlightening.
-
A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."
He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'
At the same time he laid down the remit to which Operation Grange continued to operate when he responded to a query regarding the theory that a sex predator was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance as follows:
'That's been one key line of inquiry.
The reality is in the modern world in any urban area... you will find sex offenders who live nearby.
And those coincidences need to be sifted out,
what's a coincidence
and what may be linked to the investigation that you are currently doing.
'Offences which may be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out.'
Mr Rowley said there was still a 'lot unknown' in the case, adding: 'All the different hypotheses have to remain open.'
Sceptics prove an inability to move forward in conjunction with events even particularly those which disagree with their own 'remit'. Whereas Operation Grange's 'remit' covering all hypotheses is explained in simple terms which even sceptics should be capable of following, as explained by Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley in 2017 in reference to British detectives having a 'significant' line of inquiry in the Madeleine McCann case, ten years after she went missing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."
He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'
I don't think he was defining abduction, he was telling us how the Met's senior police officers justify searching for an abductor. By their thinking any child who disappears who is 'too young to start their own life' must have been abducted. I find that hard to believe, so I assume he is referring to just one child; Madeleine McCann.
-
I think looking at what the Germans are actually saying can be enlightening.
I find it rewarding to source what anyone is actually saying ~ which is why I am classing your rather bizarre post as coming from the same stable as the one I thought rather strange posted by Barrier.
Exactly what information hot from the German press do you think has contributed to you being more enlightened than anyone else.
Do share 👀
-
It may have been nice to solve the case but they were under no obligation or expectation to do so. You dont think hundreds and thousands of lowlifes have made false claims about this and other high profile unsolved crimes to police forces all around the world over the years? You claimed they wanted to solve this particular crime by any means possible, including by deception (to the public) and bribery (to the criminal), it makes no sense at all and it’s you who should stop being so silly. Also, I was not referring to the PJ but to the Met. Why haven’t they seemingly fully embraced CB as the patsy you believe him to be?
I’m sure many, many lowlifes have made false claims, I gave you a couple of examples above, and I’m sure that many desperate policemen have accepted the information without question. Your point?
Why haven’t the Met embraced Brueckner as the perpetrator, possibly because they haven’t seen any evidence that convinced them that he was.
-
Wait, so you think maybe the police identify the hair as belonging to CB and then go looking for one of his known associates and bribe him to make up a story about a rape video? *%87
It’s simple. Busching tells the police he sees a guy in a video he can name committing a rape in the Algarve which resembles a known unsolved rape in the same locale and when the DNA evidence from the crime is compared to that of the guy Busching says was committing the rape on video, it matches. Got it now?
Then why destroy the only evidence he has to prove his claim? If his conscience led him to informing the police of the rapes why not preserve the evidence?
-
Incidentally how could the Portuguese KNOW CB didn’t commit the crime? That suggests they have exculpatory evidence that clears him, do you believe this to be the case? If so, why haven’t they shared this with the Germans? Come on now, please accept that what you have written is nonsensical.
Haven’t the PJ already said that the BKA revealed no evidence to them that suggested that Brueckner was Madeleine’s abductor? Ah yes….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8929765/Portuguese-Madeleine-McCann-cops-claim-German-police-NO-evidence.html
-
A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."
He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'
I don't think he was defining abduction, he was telling us how the Met's senior police officers justify searching for an abductor. By their thinking any child who disappears who is 'too young to start their own life' must have been abducted. I find that hard to believe, so I assume he is referring to just one child; Madeleine McCann.
Ten years after Madeleine was abducted Operation Grange was still following active leads on Madeleine's case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html and of course Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley was referring to Madeleine McCann.
But you already know that.
Rather disingenuous of you to imply otherwise. Which in my opinion makes the points you raise in your posts untrustworthy.
Added to that - is your disability of properly interpreting the English language even when it is written in the simplest of terms.
Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made it plain in his interview, that throughout the years of Operation Grange no investigative avenue was overlooked. Which runs contrary to the sceptic mantra you promote but cannot defend without obfuscation and denial.
I think at the time of interview, the botched burglary theory was still a contender but it is apparent the hopeful new evidence the police were pursuing had just become apparent (it being 2017 and all that) and change to the remit was about to arrive in leaps and bounds.
That is where we are currently at just now where just one remaining hypothesis remains open. And that is the point at which the investigation continues into 2023 and perhaps beyond.
-
I’m sure many, many lowlifes have made false claims, I gave you a couple of examples above, and I’m sure that many desperate policemen have accepted the information without question. Your point?
Why haven’t the Met embraced Brueckner as the perpetrator, possibly because they haven’t seen any evidence that convinced them that he was.
Point One: of all the dozens of lowlifes making claims about what they know about this case why pick Busching’s evidence re: CB as the one to hang a multi million euro investigation on? What sets him apart from all the others?
Point Two:(which clearly went right over your head) if every police force in the world is so desperate to solve this case a la the Greeks and the Germans as you have claimed, then how much more desperate would the Met be to have this all put to bed, and embrace the convenient patsy, having spent years an millions on this investigation and thus confirming they were right re: stranger abduction all along! Point is, your logic is faulty re your claim of desperation on the part of the Greeks and the Germans. In any case, if the Germans were so utterly desperate to nail CB for the crime that they would engage in duplicity and bribery to achieve their aims then what’s stopping them going the whole hog and getting CB into court on bogus evidence?
-
Then why destroy the only evidence he has to prove his claim? If his conscience led him to informing the police of the rapes why not preserve the evidence?
I have no idea, but do you now understand why his evidence in the rape case was considered credible? If no, I can draw pictures (to use one of your own favourite put downs).
-
Haven’t the PJ already said that the BKA revealed no evidence to them that suggested that Brueckner was Madeleine’s abductor? Ah yes….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8929765/Portuguese-Madeleine-McCann-cops-claim-German-police-NO-evidence.html
That’s completely different to what you stated which was that the PJ KNOW CB didn’t do it. You do understand the difference don’t you? I can get my crayons out if necessary…
-
Point One: of all the dozens of lowlifes making claims about what they know about this case why pick Busching’s evidence re: CB as the one to hang a multi million euro investigation on? What sets him apart from all the others?
Point Two:(which clearly went right over your head) if every police force in the world is so desperate to solve this case a la the Greeks and the Germans as you have claimed, then how much more desperate would the Met be to have this all put to bed, and embrace the convenient patsy, having spent years an millions on this investigation and thus confirming they were right re: stranger abduction all along! Point is, your logical is faulty re your claim of desperation on the part of the Greeks and the Germans. In any case, if the Germans were so utterly desperate to nail CB for the crime that they would engage in duplicity and bribery to achieve their aims then what’s stopping them going the whole hog and getting CB into court on bogus evidence?
Again why do you think that Busching waited until he was arrested for people trafficking before informing the police of a conversation that happened many, many years before?
-
Again why do you think that Busching waited until he was arrested for people trafficking before informing the police of a conversation that happened many, many years before?
I’ve already answered this question once this evening, here is my answer again: I DON’T KNOW. It’s not relevant to my point.
-
I have no idea, but do you now understand why his evidence in the rape case was considered credible? If no, I can draw pictures (to use one of your own favourite put downs).
TBH I don’t understand why Busching’s evidence was thought credible. There was no tangible evidence that the tape ever existed, the elderly lady who was raped wasn’t on the alleged tape and there appears to have been no investigation by any police force to find out who the women on the alleged tape were.
In fact in Britain I’m not sure that Busching’s evidence would even be deemed admissible in a trial.
-
TBH I don’t understand why Busching’s evidence was thought credible. There was no tangible evidence that the tape ever existed, the elderly lady who was raped wasn’t on the alleged tape and there appears to have been no investigation by any police force to find out who the women on the alleged tape were.
In fact in Britain I’m not sure that Busching’s evidence would even be deemed admissible in a trial.
Tsk, you still don’t get it. Oh well you can lead a horse to water and all that…
-
That’s completely different to what you stated which was that the PJ KNOW CB didn’t do it. You do understand the difference don’t you? I can get my crayons out if necessary…
Messily worded…my bad.
The PJ had seen no evidence that suggested that Brueckner was the one who abducted Madeleine.
There you go.
-
I’ve already answered this question once this evening, here is my answer again: I DON’T KNOW. It’s not relevant to my point.
It is absolutely relevant…in fact it is the most relevant question in relation to Busching’s evidence.
If you can’t see that then there really is no hope for you.
-
Tsk, you still don’t get it. Oh well you can lead a horse to water and all that…
I think it’s you that’s allowing yourself to be lead…down the garden path.
-
TBH I don’t understand why Busching’s evidence was thought credible. There was no tangible evidence that the tape ever existed, the elderly lady who was raped wasn’t on the alleged tape and there appears to have been no investigation by any police force to find out who the women on the alleged tape were.
In fact in Britain I’m not sure that Busching’s evidence would even be deemed admissible in a trial.
There was an appeal in 2019 regarding the teen allegedly seen on video.
https://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/zeugen-sollen-sich-umgehend-bei-polizei-melden-sexualstraftat-vor-rund-18-jahren-in-portugal-bka-sucht-opfer-von-mysterioesem-fall_id_11391399.html?fbclid=IwAR3bGkbwCnHv_k-RNhxeT1hoU9QZF7jiDvcHRmJ4PJfCwvo7vqHCgGrjh2A
-
I find it rewarding to source what anyone is actually saying ~ which is why I am classing your rather bizarre post as coming from the same stable as the one I thought rather strange posted by Barrier.
Exactly what information hot from the German press do you think has contributed to you being more enlightened than anyone else.
Do share 👀
Released October 2022.
Everything the Germans have claimed they knew seems to have been exaggerated.
-
Released October 2022.
Everything the Germans have claimed they knew seems to have been exaggerated.
A suspicion not so much built with concrete but shifting sand.
-
It is absolutely relevant…in fact it is the most relevant question in relation to Busching’s evidence.
If you can’t see that then there really is no hope for you.
Explain why. Is it a fact that all you have to do when charged with a crime is to falsely dob some old acquaintance in it wrt to any unsolved crime in order to get off with a lighter sentence?
-
I think it’s you that’s allowing yourself to be lead…down the garden path.
In what way? Do explain. Remember we are talking about Busching’s evidence being credible wrt to the rape conviction. Also remember, I’m not the only one who thought so as I believe the culprit got 7 years. Off you go, explain.
-
Released October 2022.
Everything the Germans have claimed they knew seems to have been exaggerated.
How do you work that out from your link?
-
Explain why. Is it a fact that all you have to do when charged with a crime is to falsely dob some old acquaintance in it wrt to any unsolved crime in order to get off with a lighter sentence?
Sometimes yes.
-
In what way? Do explain. Remember we are talking about Busching’s evidence being credible wrt to the rape conviction. Also remember, I’m not the only one who thought so as I believe the culprit got 7 years. Off you go, explain.
You do understand that courts get it wrong sometimes, don’t you?
With regard to Brueckner, if there was DNA to link him to the crime then that’s what convicted him, not some people trafficking lowlife with the credibility of Boris Johnson.
-
Sometimes yes.
Wow. Amazing they all don’t do it, who knew it was so easy, and that the police and the courts were so gullible.
-
You do understand that courts get it wrong sometimes, don’t you?
With regard to Brueckner, if there was DNA to link him to the crime then that’s what convicted him, not some people trafficking lowlife with the credibility of Boris Johnson.
It’s sad that you still don’t understand so let me try one last time.
1) an old lady is raped in PdL, bound and tortured.
2) the only evidence found is an unidentified hair.
3) years later Busching describes to police seeing a couple of rapes on a video that he says were committed by CB in the Algarve and also that he is responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance. He describes, torture, victim being tied up etc
4) police check out unsolved rapes in the Algarve and discover similarities between what Busching describes and the rape of the old lady in PdL
5) A DNA profile of the previously unidentified hair matches with the person Busching says committed the other rapes he saw on the video.
6) Bingo! The police have potentially identified the woman’s rapist.
7) CB is chargrd and convicted based largely on this information
8) Had Busching never pointed the finger at CB it’s unlikely the rape would ever have been reinvestigated and the hair tested against his profile
9) Bushcing’s evidence was credible and helped solve thr crime.
Understand now?
&%54%
-
Wow. Amazing they all don’t do it, who knew it was so easy, and that the police and the courts were so gullible.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/23/ukcrime.law
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/23/ukcrime.law
That won't work in Portugal. Not sure about Germany.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/23/ukcrime.law
the Greek police confirmed Busching gained no privileges from his revelation so unless you know otherwise your link is completely irrelevant.
-
It’s sad that you still don’t understand so let me try one last time.
1) an old lady is raped in PdL, bound and tortured.
2) the only evidence found is an unidentified hair.
3) years later Busching describes to police seeing a couple of rapes on a video that he says were committed by CB in the Algarve and also that he is responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance. He describes, torture, victim being tied up etc
4) police check out unsolved rapes in the Algarve and discover similarities between what Busching describes and the rape of the old lady in PdL
5) A DNA profile of the previously unidentified hair matches with the person Busching says committed the other rapes he saw on the video.
6) Bingo! The police have potentially identified the woman’s rapist.
7) CB is chargrd and convicted based largely on this information
8) Had Busching never pointed the finger at CB it’s unlikely the rape would ever have been reinvestigated and the hair tested against his profile
9) Bushcing’s evidence was credible and helped solve thr crime.
Understand now?
&%54%
Busching, I’m sure you will agree, is no friend of the police so why, out of a clear blue sky and 9 years after the event would he suddenly decide to reveal all to them?
Further it would appear that the new charges brought against Brueckner are related to the unknown old lady and young girl allegedly seen on the tape. Busching and his video truly are the gift that keeps giving.
-
Busching, I’m sure you will agree, is no friend of the police so why, out of a clear blue sky and 9 years after the event would he suddenly decide to reveal all to them?
Further it would appear that the new charges brought against Brueckner are related to the unknown old lady and young girl allegedly seen on the tape. Busching and his video truly are the gift that keeps giving.
You have completely ignored my post - do you understand why Busching’s evidence was shown to be credible yet?
-
You have completely ignored my post - do you understand why Busching’s evidence was shown to be credible yet?
Watch the Discovery+ interview with Seyforth.
The court did not decide that Busching’s testimony was credible. After allegedly watching the same tape Busching and Seyforth contradicted each other regarding what they viewed on the tape. Seyforth further contradicts himself in the interview.
-
That won't work in Portugal. Not sure about Germany.
How so?
-
Watch the Discovery+ interview with Seyforth.
The court did not decide that Busching’s testimony was credible. After allegedly watching the same tape Busching and Seyforth contradicted each other regarding what they viewed on the tape. Seyforth further contradicts himself in the interview.
So how did the police make the connection between the rape, the hair and CB? What can I learn from an interview with Seyforth if he contradicts himself in this interview?
-
Out of interest Faithlilly do you think police should not be allowed to use testimony given by one criminal against another? If a petty drug dealer gets arrested and is promised a more lenient sentence if he gives evidence against the gang boss, do you think that’s wrong? Should it be made harder for police to solve crimes by only using evidence supplied by individuals without a criminal record?
-
So how did the police make the connection between the rape, the hair and CB? What can I learn from an interview with Seyforth if he contradicts himself in this interview?
Unless we know the exact chronology of events it is impossible to know what happened when.
What can you learn from the interview? That the two protagonists who allegedly found the tape can’t even agree on the events contained within the tape.
-
Out of interest Faithlilly do you think police should not be allowed to use testimony given by one criminal against another? If a petty drug dealer gets arrested and is promised a more lenient sentence if he gives evidence against the gang boss, do you think that’s wrong? Should it be made harder for police to solve crimes by only using evidence supplied by individuals without a criminal record?
It would depend if an enticement was offered.
-
Unless we know the exact chronology of events it is impossible to know what happened when.
What can you learn from the interview? That the two protagonists who allegedly found the tape can’t even agree on the events contained within the tape.
So what? Recollections may vary. We know this is a human fallibility.
Question: would CB (a man you yourself described as “without doubt a danger to women”) be behind bars on a rape conviction if it hadn’t been for Busching’s evidence?
-
It would depend if an enticement was offered.
I mentioned an enticement in my post. Please re-read and give a straight answer.
-
So what? Recollections may vary. We know this is a human fallibility.
Question: would CB (a man you yourself described as “without doubt a danger to women”) be behind bars on a rape conviction if it hadn’t been for Busching’s evidence?
Of course. The hair put him at the scene.
-
I mentioned an enticement in my post. Please re-read and give a straight answer.
If you want this discussion to carry on can I suggest you alter your tone.
-
Of course. The hair put him at the scene.
The police had the hair for years. It was an unsolved case. What changed?
-
If you want this discussion to carry on can I suggest you alter your tone.
@)(++(* I suggest you stop deflecting.
-
Released October 2022.
Everything the Germans have claimed they knew seems to have been exaggerated.
O que é que se passa?
-
How do you work that out from your link?
My question exactly.
-
The police had the hair for years. It was an unsolved case. What changed?
Who knows. As I said we’d have to know the exact chronology of events to know that.
-
@)(++(* I suggest you stop deflecting.
I suggest that this discussion is at an end.
-
Who knows. As I said we’d have to know the exact chronology of events to know that.
Come on Faithlilly, the answer is clear as day and staring you in the face!! Why does it pain you so much to face up to the fact that the answer is that Busching came forward with his revelation, the police took his information seriously and it resulted in a very dangerous rapist being convicted and imprisoned?! You can play about with the chronology as much as you like but there’s no getting away from the fact that without Busching there would have been no conviction. He id’ed the rapist and his identification was confirmed by the hair. You’re looking extremely silly by refusing to acknowledge this and pretending you don’t know what turned a cold case into a solved case so no wonder you don’t wish to continue the discussion.
-
O que é que se passa?
qu’essayez-vous de dire?
-
qu’essayez-vous de dire?
you made a claim that was unsupported by your link.
-
Come on Faithlilly, the answer is clear as day and staring you in the face!! Why does it pain you so much to face up to the fact that the answer is that Busching came forward with his revelation, the police took his information seriously and it resulted in a very dangerous rapist being convicted and imprisoned?! You can play about with the chronology as much as you like but there’s no getting away from the fact that without Busching there would have been no conviction. He id’ed the rapist and his identification was confirmed by the hair. You’re looking extremely silly by refusing to acknowledge this and pretending you don’t know what turned a cold case into a solved case so no wonder you don’t wish to continue the discussion.
I don't think Madeleine's case ever really had to become a cold case if a little common sense had been applied in the first instance by investigators who had a clue about what they should have been doing in a missing child case.
They didn't - which is why Amaral and his acolytes have kept the waters muddied for all those intervening years.
The spurious Operation Grange Remit being just another ploy in that process.
Once Amaral had been sacked from Madeleine's case, I think it became obvious to the new investigation just how detrimental that incompetence actually was. Which resulted in an unsolvable case till 2017 when an insider was able to spill the beans by delivering and sharing some of the information and evidence necessary to shed light on events which happened in Luz 2007.
Snip
Fiona Govan, The Daily Telegraph
Published: Monday, November 19, 2007
Portuguese police are still investigating the possibility that Madeleine was kidnapped, it emerged yesterday, even though Madeleine's British parents are formal suspects in the case, along with 33-year-old British expatriate Robert Murat.
Alipio Ribeiro, the national director of the Policia Judiciaria, told the Portuguese weekly newspaper, Expresso, that abduction "has not been discounted."
He said: "We are assessing all possibilities. New information reaches us every week. Doors are never closed in these cases because there's always the surprise element."
A police source involved in the investigation from the start also said he believed abduction was still the strongest line of inquiry, and that there was no evidence to incriminate the McCanns in their daughter's disappearance.
"Abduction was always one of the main lines of investigation. Initial suspicions pointed towards the little girl having been taken by a sexual predator," said the source.
"I don't know why that line of investigation was totally abandoned, as there was no concrete evidence to incriminate the McCann couple."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/detectives-very-close-to-finding-kidnapper-19-11-0-t9199.html
-
I don't think Madeleine's case ever really had to become a cold case if a little common sense had been applied in the first instance by investigators who had a clue about what they should have been doing in a missing child case.
They didn't - which is why Amaral and his acolytes have kept the waters muddied for all those intervening years.
The spurious Operation Grange Remit being just another ploy in that process.
Once Amaral had been sacked from Madeleine's case, I think it became obvious to the new investigation just how detrimental that incompetence actually was. Which resulted in an unsolvable case till 2017 when an insider was able to spill the beans by delivering and sharing some of the information and evidence necessary to shed light on events which happened in Luz 2007.
Snip
Fiona Govan, The Daily Telegraph
Published: Monday, November 19, 2007
Portuguese police are still investigating the possibility that Madeleine was kidnapped, it emerged yesterday, even though Madeleine's British parents are formal suspects in the case, along with 33-year-old British expatriate Robert Murat.
Alipio Ribeiro, the national director of the Policia Judiciaria, told the Portuguese weekly newspaper, Expresso, that abduction "has not been discounted."
He said: "We are assessing all possibilities. New information reaches us every week. Doors are never closed in these cases because there's always the surprise element."
A police source involved in the investigation from the start also said he believed abduction was still the strongest line of inquiry, and that there was no evidence to incriminate the McCanns in their daughter's disappearance.
"Abduction was always one of the main lines of investigation. Initial suspicions pointed towards the little girl having been taken by a sexual predator," said the source.
"I don't know why that line of investigation was totally abandoned, as there was no concrete evidence to incriminate the McCann couple."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/detectives-very-close-to-finding-kidnapper-19-11-0-t9199.html
The OG remit was/is spurious?
spurious
adjective
spu·ri·ous ˈspyu̇r-ē-əs
1
: born to parents not married to each other
2
: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
the spurious eminence of the pop celebrity
3
a
: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED
b
: of a deceitful nature or quality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurious
So was it false, forged or deceitful?
-
The OG remit was/is spurious?
spurious
adjective
spu·ri·ous ˈspyu̇r-ē-əs
1
: born to parents not married to each other
2
: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
the spurious eminence of the pop celebrity
3
a
: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED
b
: of a deceitful nature or quality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurious
So was it false, forged or deceitful?
I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The Remit was not spurious, using the Remit as an argument for claiming that Operation Grange is somehow tainted or corrupt or false is the spurious bit. People such as yourself have leapt upon the word "abduction" in the remit and made an absolute mountain out of a molehill. That's the definition of spurious..
-
Then why destroy the only evidence he has to prove his claim? If his conscience led him to informing the police of the rapes why not preserve the evidence?
How do you know he destroyed the evidence? And, investigators said that alliances change over time. This might be exactly what happened. IMO
-
How do you know he destroyed the evidence? And, investigators said that alliances change over time. This might be exactly what happened. IMO
It wouldn't be the first time someone had sat on vital information for many months or years that eventually helped solve a crime. He might well have held on to it in reserve in the belief that the info might earn him some leniency or other advantage in the future, it doesn't mean it was false information, simply that he picked his moment when to play his hand. Obviously it helps if you have the morals of an alleycat to play that particular game but according to the Greek authorities he gained no advantage from his revelations. It suits some people to believe that the guy made the whole thing up, but his evidence was backed up and lent credibility by the forensics and the fact that the modus operandi of the rapist on the alleged video closely resembled that of at least two others that actually did take place in the Algarve. How would he have been able to make that up?
-
How do you know he destroyed the evidence? And, investigators said that alliances change over time. This might be exactly what happened. IMO
Watching the Discovery+ programme again you are absolutely right. If Seyforth is to be believed the tapes weren’t destroyed but went with Busching’s camper van when it was sold. Strangely the buyer of the camper either never found the video or didn’t feel that seeing two brutal rapes was something that they should have informed the police about.
-
The OG remit was/is spurious?
spurious
adjective
spu·ri·ous ˈspyu̇r-ē-əs
1
: born to parents not married to each other
2
: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
the spurious eminence of the pop celebrity
3
a
: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED
b
: of a deceitful nature or quality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurious
So was it false, forged or deceitful?
I think your efforts to deflect from the context of my post rather strange, but thanks for the response anyway which was uncharacteristically in danger of being on topic for a refreshing change.
Allow me to indicate some of the points you missed from the link I provided which were made by Alipio Ribeiro, the national director of the Policia Judiciaria in 2007. - in late 2007 after Amaral's dismissal from Madeleine's case, Portuguese police were still investigating the possibility that Madeleine had been kidnapped
- Alipio Ribeiro, told the Portuguese weekly newspaper, Expresso, that abduction "has not been discounted."
- A police source involved in the investigation from the start also said he believed abduction was still the strongest line of inquiry, and that there was no evidence to incriminate the McCanns in their daughter's disappearance.
- "Abduction was always one of the main lines of investigation. Initial suspicions pointed towards the little girl having been taken by a sexual predator," said the source.
- "I don't know why that line of investigation was totally abandoned, as there was no concrete evidence to incriminate the McCann couple."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/detectives-very-close-to-finding-kidnapper-19-11-0-t9199.html
-
Watching the Discovery+ programme again you are absolutely right. If Seyforth is to be believed the tapes weren’t destroyed but went with Busching’s camper van when it was sold. Strangely the buyer of the camper either never found the video or didn’t feel that seeing two brutal rapes wasn’t something that they should have been informed the police about.
This was in Portugal right?
There may be a clue in the following snippet from a news article
“According to an internal Greek police report, Busching’s information was described as “given voluntarily and without monetary or other consideration”.
It added that it had been “cross-checked and is considered a reliable source”. It also revealed how Busching had tried to report his concerns to the Portuguese police but had been fobbed off”.
-
Watching the Discovery+ programme again you are absolutely right. If Seyforth is to be believed the tapes weren’t destroyed but went with Busching’s camper van when it was sold. Strangely the buyer of the camper either never found the video or didn’t feel that seeing two brutal rapes was something that they should have informed the police about.
To be honest, I’m not too sure about Seyferth’s credibility. It seems his memory span lacks a bit. Perhaps the video tapes were never left in Busching’s camper van. Who knows?!
-
Members do seem to be straying far from the thread topic; The Remit of SY.
-
Members do seem to be straying far from the thread topic; The Remit of SY.
I think you may be wrong with that assessment.
Operation Grange followed their remit right from the very beginning of this episode. All at the absolute insistence of the informant who had previously communicated it to the Portuguese police and received the traditional response from them.
Actually a quick search proves that yet again the forum had a finger spot on the pulse and had access to this information when it really was still hot of the press.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=j7foe953gclcim6jvala9eo8e1&topic=8461.msg422586#msg422586 Even way back then sceptics weren't really interested as this ground breaking information was consigned to two pages.
-
Testimony to "The Tribune"
"The Tribune" identified the 46-year-old foreigner and critical witness of the three-year-old Madeleine case in a region of Fthiotida.
As he noted, "I met a couple of days ago at a Scottish Yard officer that came to Athens.
I give important information about the case.
On the days that Madeline disappeared, I was also - in a neighbouring area - in the particular province of Portugal. I had then contacted the local police, but the investigation had been abandoned.
Now there is a keen interest from Scotland Yard for what I know.
You understand that something serious is coming to come here to meet me.
But I have an explicit prohibition to say anything to anyone else.
My cooperation with the English police will continue in the coming days "
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=j7foe953gclcim6jvala9eo8e1&topic=8461.msg422630#msg422630
-
Testimony to "The Tribune"
"The Tribune" identified the 46-year-old foreigner and critical witness of the three-year-old Madeleine case in a region of Fthiotida.
As he noted, "I met a couple of days ago at a Scottish Yard officer that came to Athens.
I give important information about the case.
On the days that Madeline disappeared, I was also - in a neighbouring area - in the particular province of Portugal. I had then contacted the local police, but the investigation had been abandoned.
Now there is a keen interest from Scotland Yard for what I know.
You understand that something serious is coming to come here to meet me.
But I have an explicit prohibition to say anything to anyone else.
My cooperation with the English police will continue in the coming days "
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=j7foe953gclcim6jvala9eo8e1&topic=8461.msg422630#msg422630
The investigative nature of Operation Grange dictated that at this stage their remit entailed going to Greece to interview a material witness, who might have been able to impart important information to them or it might have ended up a wild goose chase.
The limited vision of sceptics fails to understand the fluid nature of an active police investigation as things are ruled in or ruled out. Which is why they are stumped when asked to define what a remit is.
We knew about Helge Busching in 2017 and didn't know enough to expand discussion beyond two pages on the forum, he didn't go away he just dropped off the radar. What he had to say was credible when checked out but he wasn't talking to us and neither were the police who were busy collecting evidence, as they do.
-
The investigative nature of Operation Grange dictated that at this stage their remit entailed going to Greece to interview a material witness, who might have been able to impart important information to them or it might have ended up a wild goose chase.
The limited vision of sceptics fails to understand the fluid nature of an active police investigation as things are ruled in or ruled out. Which is why they are stumped when asked to define what a remit is.
We knew about Helge Busching in 2017 and didn't know enough to expand discussion beyond two pages on the forum, he didn't go away he just dropped off the radar. What he had to say was credible when checked out but he wasn't talking to us and neither were the police who were busy collecting evidence, as they do.
So he tells the police what he knows about CB, and within two years of coming forward,
(and years after it had been consigned to the dustbin of unsolved cases by thr PJ) a brutal rape case is solved, all thanks to this man. But instead of being commended for his actions in helping put a dangerous rapist behind bars, he is scorned and disbelieved, and there’s only one reason for that: it’s because he’s not implicating the McCanns.
-
So he tells the police what he knows about CB, and within two years of coming forward,
(and years after it had been consigned to the dustbin of unsolved cases by thr PJ) a brutal rape case is solved, all thanks to this man. But instead of being commended for his actions in helping put a dangerous rapist behind bars, he is scorned and disbelieved, and there’s only one reason for that: it’s because he’s not implicating the McCanns.
For some people everything and everyone is measured in accordance with hatred for two people they know nothing about. Hence ludicrous argument about remits for investigators conducting sensitive police inquiries. Bizarre!
-
To be honest, I’m not too sure about Seyferth’s credibility. It seems his memory span lacks a bit. Perhaps the video tapes were never left in Busching’s camper van. Who knows?!
I think it’s his honesty, and that of his friend, rather than his memory span that needs to be questioned.
Any right minded individual after seeing the horrific scenes allegedly played out on the video would have taken it straight to the police rather than lose it or destroy it and wait years and years to reveal what they’d seen. Those who paint Busching as some kind of hero fail to recognise that the delay in him coming forward with this information, if it’s true, allowed Brueckner to commit criminal and sexual carnage over a large sway of Europe.
-
I think it’s his honesty, and that of his friend, rather than his memory span that needs to be questioned.
Any right minded individual after seeing the horrific scenes allegedly played out on the video would have taken it straight to the police rather than lose it or destroy it and wait years and years to reveal what they’d seen. Those who paint Busching as some kind of hero fail to recognise that the delay in him coming forward with this information, if it’s true, allowed Brueckner to commit criminal and sexual carnage over a large sway of Europe.
No one’s calling him a hero, merely recognizing that if he’d never come forward with the information that at least one woman would never have received justice for the abhorrent crime she suffered. At last you now seem to be accepting that it was down to him this case was solved at all, and that therefore his evidence was both credible and taken seriously by the police. Progress!
-
No wonder the police have never found the women allegedly on the tape. Seyferth describes one as 45 while Busching says 70-80. Seyferth says there was one tape while Busching said two.
The court picked up on the contradictions and rather than helping to convict Brueckner there evidence was dismissed.
-
No wonder the police have never found the women allegedly on the tape. Seyferth describes one as 45 while Busching says 70-80. Seyferth says there was one tape while Busching said two.
The court picked up on the contradictions and rather than helping to convict Brueckner there evidence was dismissed.
I think it’s a matter of interpretation. Seyferth said one, meaning one tape with two rapes while Büsching said two, meaning two rapes.
-
No wonder the police have never found the women allegedly on the tape. Seyferth describes one as 45 while Busching says 70-80. Seyferth says there was one tape while Busching said two.
The court picked up on the contradictions and rather than helping to convict Brueckner there evidence was dismissed.
Yes, but there never would have been a court case if they hadn’t named Brückner in the first place, so….
I guess you put me back on ignore when you realised I was right and couldn’t deny it any longer, though you do keep returning to this point like a dog to its own vomit. Time to let it lie. Busching’s evidence was instrumental in bringing a violent rapist to justice no matter how many times you try and deny the obvious.
-
Faithlilly, which of the two scenarios is more plausible in your view:
1) two criminal associates (only one of whom had recently been found guilty of a people smuggling crime) decide in 2017 to stitch up an erstwhile criminal associate by inventing various allegstions about him, including that they both viewed him committing torture and rape on video (the precise details of which they fail to agree on bizarrely) and when the police investigate their claims, by some massive coincidence DNA evidence found at the scene of a very similar rape corroborates their lnvented story, probably deposited in the victim’s bed by her cat, after the accused stopped to pet it one day (being such an animal lover thst he is). People have tried and failed to calculate the odds of this incredible set of occurrences so great a number it is, but coincidences do happen!
2) two criminal associates steal some possessions from a third criminal associate in 2007 and discover videos of him committing torture and rape. One of the two associates is also told by the third that he was involved in Madeleine’s disappearance and so informs the local police who fob him off, a) because he’s a ne’er do well and b) because they “know” the McCanns dunnit and c) because, well to put it politely they’re not the most rigorous cops in the world especially when it comes to sexual crimes against women and children. 10 years later and in a spot of bother again the same criminal associate decides to reveal what he knows about the rapes and the McCann case to the Greek authorities where he’s been banged up. The information is taken seriously this time, and, low and behold, the DNA evidence found at the scene of a previously unsolved rape (one which closely mirrors those that he had described as seeing on tape) matches that of the third criminal associate that he pointed the finger at. As 10 years had elapsed since the first two criminal associates had viewed the video (and being druggies and drunks and possibly off their tits at the time and certainly since) their recollections of what they saw in the tape have diverged significantly from each other, though both recall it was criminal associate number 3 carrying out the depraved acts.
Now, let me guess. Your money’s still on scenario number 1 isn’t it? @)(++(*
-
I think it’s a matter of interpretation. Seyferth said one, meaning one tape with two rapes while Büsching said two, meaning two rapes.
How can one man ‘interpret’ that a woman is 45 while another mam ‘interprets’ the same woman is between 70-80?
-
@)(++(* Oh dear, I AM in the Faith Dog House again... 8(8-))
-
How can one man ‘interpret’ that a woman is 45 while another mam ‘interprets’ the same woman is between 70-80?
Scenario Number 1 it is then. As I thought, thanks for confirming...
-
How can one man ‘interpret’ that a woman is 45 while another mam ‘interprets’ the same woman is between 70-80?
This example of an age progression may be of help.
-
I’m guessing this video was filmed from a fixed point with no cut aways to head and shoulder shots. Probably hard to judge the age of a woman in the circumstances, especially if its viewed by a couple of stoned blokes and let’s fsce it, men are often not the greatest when it comes to putting an age on a woman! I’m nearly 60 and when I revealed this to my decorator recently he was flabbergasted as he thought I was in my early 40s. I told him to get a guide dog.
-
This example of an age progression may be of help.
It doesn’t help or explain.
-
It doesn’t help or explain.
Fair enough. You are clearly not open to anything else than your perception of things.
-
It doesn’t help or explain.
Nothing can help you. You believe the men lied but simply cannot explain how it came to be that their “lies” turned out to be validated by the forensics and similarities with the PdL rape. It must do your head in, the fact that you can’t accept the simplest explanation.
-
It’s funny how Faith is quite happy to overlook the fact that a witness got her description of David Payne so wrong shortly after having a face to face conversation with him (describing a long scar on his face that simply doesn’t exist) but is insistent that there is something fishy about two stoners disagreeing about the age of a rape victim on a home-made video 10 years after seeing it.
-
Fair enough. You are clearly not open to anything else than your perception of things.
And you are clearly trying to avoid the most obvious explanation.
-
And you are clearly trying to avoid the most obvious explanation.
which is that their recollections differed after 10 years. Makes perfect sense taking into account everything else we know about this case.
-
Are we still talking about The SY Remit? Which doesn't appear to exist in so far as I can see.
Apart from some anonymous senior Police Officer, second hand, whose name we still don't know, there is zero evidence that this ever happened. Short of Colin Sutton releasing his Memoirs. Which no doubt earned him a few bob.
Personally, I don't care. Madeleine is either dead or alive. But not my child. And there is nothing that I can do about it.
-
Are we still talking about The SY Remit? Which doesn't appear to exist in so far as I can see.
Apart from some anonymous senior Police Officer, second hand, whose name we still don't know, there is zero evidence that this ever happened. Short of Colin Sutton releasing his Memoirs. Which no doubt earned him a few bob.
Personally, I don't care. Madeleine is either dead or alive. But not my child. And there is nothing that I can do about it.
we should have been talking about the remit but latterly we’ve been discussing the role of Busching in bringing a successful conviction of a dangerous rapist. It seems that some people won’t have it that his coming forward to the police had anything to do with it, which is of course arrant nonsense.
-
we should have been talking about the remit but latterly we’ve been discussing the role of Busching in bringing a successful conviction of a dangerous rapist. It seems that some people won’t have it that his coming forward to the police had anything to do with it, which is of course arrant nonsense.
Septics never did have a good handle on anything.
-
David Venables' septic had a good strong handle when he disposed of his wife...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-62153660 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-62153660)
-
David Venables' septic had a good strong handle when he disposed of his wife...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-62153660 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-62153660)
Not a laughing matter.
-
Septics never did have a good handle on anything.
Anything? Do you know what individual sceptics think of everything then?
-
Anything? Do you know what individual sceptics think of everything then?
The McCanns done it.
-
The McCanns done it.
That’s the overriding belief they all share. There are other common themes too:
-some or all of the Tapas group are in on it
- Clarence Mitchell is pretty much the devil incarnate
- The high-ups prevented the Met from conducting an investigation into the parents
- dogs don’t lie
etc.
-
That’s the overriding belief they all share. There are other common themes too:
-some or all of the Tapas group are in on it
- Clarence Mitchell is pretty much the devil incarnate
- The high-ups prevented the Met from conducting an investigation into the parents
- dogs don’t lie
etc.
Wot? My cousin Clarry?
-
Wot? My cousin Clarry?
Yes, well you’re probably both related to Beelzebub as far as some sceptics are concerned @)(++(*
-
The McCanns done it.
That’s one thing…you said anything.
-
Wot? My cousin Clarry?
Give him my kindest regards.
-
That’s one thing…you said anything.
Isn't that enough to be going on with?
-
Give him my kindest regards.
Thank you thank you. I'll tell him you said that.
-
Isn't that enough to be going on with?
It’s not anything, is it?
Of all the supporters here I always felt that you were least likely to pigeonhole a person because of a single opinion. Perhaps I was wrong.
-
Septics never did have a good handle on anything.
Remember when supporters thought Brueckner abducted Maddie?
Some still think he might have.
Some even think he might yet be charged.
Sceptics had a good handle on that one, from the moment Wolters opened his mouth.
-
It’s not anything, is it?
Of all the supporters here I always felt that you were least likely to pigeonhole a person because of a single opinion. Perhaps I was wrong.
Which opinion is that?
-
Which opinion is that?
”You’ve let Faithlilly down, you’ve let Sceptics down, and worst of all, you’ve let yourself down”
@)(++(*
-
Remember when supporters thought Brueckner abducted Maddie?
Some still think he might have.
Some even think he might yet be charged.
Sceptics had a good handle on that one, from the moment Wolters opened his mouth.
Remember when supporters thought Brueckner abducted Maddie?
My memory is of Amaral on a Saunokonoko podcast announcing to the world that a German paedophile currently under arrest was under suspicion of Madeleine's abduction.
Some still think he might have.
Some like the German police - the Portuguese police - and the English police have seen the evidence that has convinced them to declare Brueckner as their chief suspect.
Some even think he might yet be charged.
That Brueckner would be charged with other heinous sex crimes was derided by McCann sceptics. He has subsequently been charged with those crimes.
Sceptics had a good handle on that one, from the moment Wolters opened his mouth.
Starting long before displaying their ignorance about what defines a remit in an active police investigation, sceptics had never had a 'handle' on anything which had any connection to reality.
Sceptics have got everything wrong from 2007 right through until the present day when being one has become very much a fringe occupation.
-
Remember when supporters thought Brueckner abducted Maddie?
My memory is of Amaral on a Saunokonoko podcast announcing to the world that a German paedophile currently under arrest was under suspicion of Madeleine's abduction.
Some still think he might have.
Some like the German police - the Portuguese police - and the English police have seen the evidence that has convinced them to declare Brueckner as their chief suspect.
Some even think he might yet be charged.
That Brueckner would be charged with other heinous sex crimes was derided by McCann sceptics. He has subsequently been charged with those crimes.
Sceptics had a good handle on that one, from the moment Wolters opened his mouth.
Starting long before displaying their ignorance about what defines a remit in an active police investigation, sceptics had never had a 'handle' on anything which had any connection to reality.
Sceptics have got everything wrong from 2007 right through until the present day when being one has become very much a fringe occupation.
I don't see what Mark Saunokonkos podcast has to do with my first point.
The 'evidence' the three investigative forces have consists of a secondhand alleged confession & b....r all else, that much is obvious.
I never once said Brueckner wouldn't be charged with other crimes.
But other than that you got everything right.
Now, just remember to get back to me when the three expert investigative forces charge Brueckner with anything related to Maddie won't you.
-
If charges not yet having been brought sgainst one’s preferred suspect is a measure of one’s wrongness, then just how wrong does that make those who believe the McCanns dunnit? 15+ years and counting since they were made arguidos, shouldn’t be long now, tick-tock, etc.
-
If charges not yet having been brought sgainst one’s preferred suspect is a measure of one’s wrongness, then just how wrong does that make those who believe the McCanns dunnit? 15+ years and counting since they were made arguidos, shouldn’t be long now, tick-tock, etc.
That doesn't make sense, the McCanns aren't suspects.
P.S, you read my post again, so time to quit being dishonest & change your signature line imo.
-
”You’ve let Faithlilly down, you’ve let Sceptics down, and worst of all, you’ve let yourself down”
@)(++(*
It's not possible to insult me. I've been at this for too long.
Now, where were we? Oh yes. The Remit of SY. Although I confess to being an Off Topic Offender.
-
Besides, there is CONCRETE EVIDENCE Maddie is dead.
Wolters & the BKA are SURE, on the evidence, that Brueckner is the murderer.
The only 'evidence' against the McCanns are dog alerts which aren't even evidence & a sighting of Gerry.
-
Gerry definitely wasn't out 'searching' alone at the time of the Smiths sighting. Wolters can prove it.
-
Anyway, let's get back to the remit.
Investigating the abduction. SY were quite right to do so as we now know Redwood found evidence that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Quite why that evidence didn't lead them to the murderer is anyone's guess, but I'm sure the three expert investigative forces will explain one day why it was that their combined evidence failed miserably until a vagrant beating, people trafficker finally opened his trap.
-
I don't see what Mark Saunokonkos podcast has to do with my first point.
The 'evidence' the three investigative forces have consists of a secondhand alleged confession & b....r all else, that much is obvious.
I never once said Brueckner wouldn't be charged with other crimes.
But other than that you got everything right.
Now, just remember to get back to me when the three expert investigative forces charge Brueckner with anything related to Maddie won't you.
OG asked for three Portuguese men to be made arguido even when the PJ were saying that they weren’t their men so it’s rather disingenuous for Brietta to claim that Brueckner being made arguido has anything to do with the Portuguese stance on the case. In fact in a face to face meeting between the BKA and PJ the PJ had made it clear that they had been shown NO evidence categorically implicating Brueckner.
-
Anyway, let's get back to the remit.
Investigating the abduction. SY were quite right to do so as we now know Redwood found evidence that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Quite why that evidence didn't lead them to the murderer is anyone's guess, but I'm sure the three expert investigative forces will explain one day why it was that their combined evidence failed miserably until a vagrant beating, people trafficker finally opened his trap.
Post of the Week.
-
snip/
Starting long before displaying their ignorance about what defines a remit in an active police investigation, sceptics had never had a 'handle' on anything which had any connection to reality.
I assume you think you know "what defines a remit in an active police investigation". Do explain...
-
OG asked for three Portuguese men to be made arguido even when the PJ were saying that they weren’t their men so it’s rather disingenuous for Brietta to claim that Brueckner being made arguido has anything to do with the Portuguese stance on the case. In fact in a face to face meeting between the BKA and PJ the PJ had made it clear that they had been shown NO evidence categorically implicating Brueckner.
....and yet there are still people who believe Wolters has concrete evidence. It just goes to show how gullible supporters are really.
But maybe it's just that Wolters can't share the concrete evidence with the PJ, the MET or Madeleine's parents, because it could damage the case?
One could cling to that ridiculous idea I suppose.
Yes. I think it must be that.
-
Post of the Week.
"Post of the Week" my Aunt Fanny. Anyone REASONABLE (and that clearly discounts you and the troll) will realise that some investigations remain unsolved despite the very best efforts of the police, and that sometimes all it takes is a lucky break such as one unsavoury specimen decides to spill the beans on another unsavoury specimen, which then finally takes the investigation down the correct route.
-
I assume you think you know "what defines a remit in an active police investigation". Do explain...
I refer you to my previous posts on the subject.
-
"Post of the Week" my Aunt Fanny. Anyone REASONABLE (and that clearly discounts you and the troll) will realise that some investigations remain unsolved despite the very best efforts of the police, and that sometimes all it takes is a lucky break such as one unsavoury specimen decides to spill the beans on another unsavoury specimen, which then finally takes the investigation down the correct route.
You mean Grange spent years chasing bogus leads, while the local paedo burglar was staring them in the face?
They had his phone data, which placed him right next to apartment 5a, but it still didn't dawn on them that this local paedo, who sold his car the day after the abduction & fled to Germany, was the man responsible.
Doesn't say much for Grange really does it.
I wonder what they were doing all them years prior?
-
There never was any Remit. That much is obvious. And so far no one has proved otherwise.
-
I refer you to my previous posts on the subject.
Really? I don't recall seeing an explanation of police remits.
-
There was No Remit. And never any need for one.
-
There never was any Remit. That much is obvious. And so far no one has proved otherwise.
"Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End "
-
"Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End "
Yep…that definitely looks like a remit to me.
-
There was No Remit. And never any need for one.
Yes, Grange followed the abduction evidence didn't they. But for some unknown reason the local paedo who worked at the Ocean Club, his phone data placing him right beside the apartment, along with his vehicle transfer & his escape to Germany immediately after the abduction. All of that wasn't quite enough to convince them until Busching spilled the beans. There must be some serious idiots working for Grange.
-
"Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End "
The Review. Not The Investigation. More codswallop being used to deflect. I worry sometimes about the misuse of The English Language.
-
Yep…that definitely looks like a remit to me.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK)
Well, there's no ambiguity there.
-
So how are we doing with stitching up The McCanns? Is there any progress on that one? No? Gosh, what a surprise.
And No, I don't want to hear about Conspiracy Theories. We have no proof or even evidence of that either.
-
So how are we doing with stitching up The McCanns? Is there any progress on that one? No? Gosh, what a surprise.
And No, I don't want to hear about Conspiracy Theories. We have no proof or even evidence of that either.
How on earth would you expect anyone on this forum to be able to 'stitch up' the McCanns?
What an absolutely ridiculous idea, but thanks for sharing it.
-
How on earth would you expect anyone on this forum to be able to 'stitch up' the McCanns?
What an absolutely ridiculous idea, but thanks for sharing it.
So just doing it for sport. How sick is that.
-
So just doing it for sport. How sick is that.
I don't know. How sick is it exactly? Care to explain.
-
I don't know. How sick is it exactly? Care to explain.
Words fail me on occasions. But it's not my problem anyway. Tis yours and yours and yours.
-
Words fail me on occasions. But it's not my problem anyway. Tis yours and yours and yours.
What problem?
-
What problem?
Do try not to be any more stupid than you actually are.
-
Of course Eleanor & the rest are only here to help find Maddie.
Sniping is utterly beneath them all.
When are supporters organising the next search for Maddie? Sitting behind a keyboard virtue signalling hasn't solved anything so far.
-
Do try not to be any more stupid than you actually are.
Reported to moderator. Personal insults.
-
Reported to moderator. Personal insults.
And the moderator is…ah yes Eleanor! Good luck with that.
-
And the moderator is…ah yes Eleanor! Good luck with that.
Oh Dear. You really don't understand how this Forum works.
John reads every Report along with three other Moderators.
-
The Review. Not The Investigation. More codswallop being used to deflect. I worry sometimes about the misuse of The English Language.
If I was the worrying type, I would worry about the lack of comprehension of the English language;
ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
-
If I was the worrying type, I would worry about the lack of comprehension of the English language;
ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
Perhaps you should read your link in full.
-
The Review. Not The Investigation. More codswallop being used to deflect. I worry sometimes about the misuse of The English Language.
I think the main problem is sceptic inability to see the wood for the giant redwood trees obscuring vision and independent analysis.
-
I think the main problem is sceptic inability to see the wood for the giant redwood trees obscuring vision and independent analysis.
What conspiracy theorists do is fixate on tiny weeny molehills and make veritable Everests out of them, in this instance the molehill is the word “abduction”, and we have watched them moulding it into a mountain ever since the remit was published. Let them keep climbing, they’ll fall off one day.
-
If I was the worrying type, I would worry about the lack of comprehension of the English language;
ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
There seems to be an expectation dominant in all you post that nothing should ever have changed in the initial three pronged approach to analysing investigative materials from the past in the hope of progressing Madeleine McCann's case.
Signifying a very real resistance to change and thus failing to understand what Operation Grange or any other cold case review is designed to accomplish.
The most compelling outcome in Madeleine's investigation to date is the huge change brought about by advancements in knowledge led by new information and evidence which added German input to the mix.
I would say that the Operation Grange remit of attempting to discover what happened to Madeleine has been amazingly worked.
As yet we have no definitive answer as to her fate but for the first time since 2007 there is a named prime suspect in the frame which is testament to the changing climate which has been brought about by the diligence of Operation Grange personnel.
That is what it is all about. Progress and change; words which appear to be anathema to sceptics who by their nature are condemned to be stuck like flies in the aspic of their limitations and prejudices.
-
What conspiracy theorists do is fixate on tiny weeny molehills and make veritable Everests out of them, in this instance the molehill is the word “abduction”, and we have watched them moulding it into a mountain ever since the remit was published. Let them keep climbing, they’ll fall off one day.
I think they have fallen off already, they are just trying to comfort themselves that they haven't.
-
There seems to be an expectation dominant in all you post that nothing should ever have changed in the initial three pronged approach to analysing investigative materials from the past in the hope of progressing Madeleine McCann's case.
Signifying a very real resistance to change and thus failing to understand what Operation Grange or any other cold case review is designed to accomplish.
The most compelling outcome in Madeleine's investigation to date is the huge change brought about by advancements in knowledge led by new information and evidence which added German input to the mix.
I would say that the Operation Grange remit of attempting to discover what happened to Madeleine has been amazingly worked.
As yet we have no definitive answer as to her fate but for the first time since 2007 there is a named prime suspect in the frame which is testament to the changing climate which has been brought about by the diligence of Operation Grange personnel.
That is what it is all about. Progress and change; words which appear to be anathema to sceptics who by their nature are condemned to be stuck like flies in the aspic of their limitations and prejudices.
What a load of old hogwash. Brueckner being a suspect has sod all to do with the dilligence of Grange & everything to do with one crook grassing up another with some flimsy confession 'evidence'. Which is why Brueckner won't be charged with anything relating to Maddie any time ever.
-
Oh Dear. You really don't understand how this Forum works.
John reads every Report along with three other Moderators.
But of course.
-
There seems to be an expectation dominant in all you post that nothing should ever have changed in the initial three pronged approach to analysing investigative materials from the past in the hope of progressing Madeleine McCann's case.
Signifying a very real resistance to change and thus failing to understand what Operation Grange or any other cold case review is designed to accomplish.
The most compelling outcome in Madeleine's investigation to date is the huge change brought about by advancements in knowledge led by new information and evidence which added German input to the mix.
I would say that the Operation Grange remit of attempting to discover what happened to Madeleine has been amazingly worked.
As yet we have no definitive answer as to her fate but for the first time since 2007 there is a named prime suspect in the frame which is testament to the changing climate which has been brought about by the diligence of Operation Grange personnel.
That is what it is all about. Progress and change; words which appear to be anathema to sceptics who by their nature are condemned to be stuck like flies in the aspic of their limitations and prejudices.
Charges and trial are better words….both of which, in relation to Madeleine, we won’t be hearing anytime soon I’d wager.
-
Charges and trial are better words….both of which, in relation to Madeleine, we won’t be hearing anytime soon I’d wager.
You hope, you mean.
-
There seems to be an expectation dominant in all you post that nothing should ever have changed in the initial three pronged approach to analysing investigative materials from the past in the hope of progressing Madeleine McCann's case.
Signifying a very real resistance to change and thus failing to understand what Operation Grange or any other cold case review is designed to accomplish.
The most compelling outcome in Madeleine's investigation to date is the huge change brought about by advancements in knowledge led by new information and evidence which added German input to the mix.
I would say that the Operation Grange remit of attempting to discover what happened to Madeleine has been amazingly worked.
As yet we have no definitive answer as to her fate but for the first time since 2007 there is a named prime suspect in the frame which is testament to the changing climate which has been brought about by the diligence of Operation Grange personnel.
That is what it is all about. Progress and change; words which appear to be anathema to sceptics who by their nature are condemned to be stuck like flies in the aspic of their limitations and prejudices.
The remit of Operation Grange was to review the evidence of the abduction and to investigate it as if it occurred in the UK. They weren't looking for evidence of any other crime. The progress you are so impressed by wasn't driven by the Met's expertise or diligence, but by the accusations levelled by one criminal against another. All OG had to do was listen to him.
-
The remit of Operation Grange was to review the evidence of the abduction and to investigate it as if it occurred in the UK. They weren't looking for evidence of any other crime. The progress you are so impressed by wasn't driven by the Met's expertise or diligence, but by the accusations levelled by one criminal against another. All OG had to do was listen to him.
Are you claiming that Operation Grange did not review ALL the information gathered on this case in its entirety?
-
That is what it is all about. Progress and change; words which appear to be anathema to sceptics who by their nature are condemned to be stuck like flies in the aspic of their limitations and prejudices.
Along with the supporters who just can't get over themselves with their own limitations and prejudices that others have a different point of view.
-
Are you claiming that Operation Grange did not review ALL the information gathered on this case in its entirety?
Apparently every piece of evidence which wasn't already in HOLMES was entered by OG. This took until October 2015, which tells us that the OG remit wasn't arrived at as a result of reviewing the evidence. The remit says 'the abduction' and it's abduction which OG have investigated. My original question remains unanswered; how did those who created OG decide that the crime was an abduction? The Portuguese investigation did not reach that conclusion.
-
Apparently every piece of evidence which wasn't already in HOLMES was entered by OG. This took until October 2015, which tells us that the OG remit wasn't arrived at as a result of reviewing the evidence. The remit says 'the abduction' and it's abduction which OG have investigated. My original question remains unanswered; how did those who created OG decide that the crime was an abduction? The Portuguese investigation did not reach that conclusion.
Ah but Amaral, he’s a convicted criminal and so are all his mates….you can’t believe a word they say…..oh wait !!!
-
Apparently every piece of evidence which wasn't already in HOLMES was entered by OG. This took until October 2015, which tells us that the OG remit wasn't arrived at as a result of reviewing the evidence. The remit says 'the abduction' and it's abduction which OG have investigated. My original question remains unanswered; how did those who created OG decide that the crime was an abduction? The Portuguese investigation did not reach that conclusion.
The Portuguese Investigation didn't reach any conclusion. So what do you want answered? I don't suppose that you can tell us that. Short of Libel.
-
Ah but Amaral, he’s a convicted criminal and so are all his mates….you can’t believe a word they say…..oh wait !!!
Wait for what?
-
The Portuguese Investigation didn't reach any conclusion. So what do you want answered? I don't suppose that you can tell us that. Short of Libel.
How did Grange ascertain that the crime, if any, was abduction, before they finished reviewing the evidence?
It's a simple enough question.
-
Iirc, Rowley's explanation has been that, however Madeleine left the apartment, it was an abduction, because she wasn't old enough to leave & start a life on her own.
Britain's Finest at work there.
-
The Portuguese Investigation didn't reach any conclusion. So what do you want answered? I don't suppose that you can tell us that. Short of Libel.
My question is simple. How did Grange decide that the crime was abduction?
-
Apparently every piece of evidence which wasn't already in HOLMES was entered by OG. This took until October 2015, which tells us that the OG remit wasn't arrived at as a result of reviewing the evidence. The remit says 'the abduction' and it's abduction which OG have investigated. My original question remains unanswered; how did those who created OG decide that the crime was an abduction? The Portuguese investigation did not reach that conclusion.
It's boring going round and round in circles, don't you find? You carry on believing that the police were constrained to only investigate abduction, refusing to consider any other possible alternative even if concrete evidence pointed in a different direction and I'll stay in the real world, if it's all the same to you.
-
My question is simple. How did Grange decide that the crime was abduction?
Why don't you get out the Basildon Bond and the green pen and ask them yourself?
-
It's boring going round and round in circles, don't you find? You carry on believing that the police were constrained to only investigate abduction, refusing to consider any other possible alternative even if concrete evidence pointed in a different direction and I'll stay in the real world, if it's all the same to you.
And how are things going in the real world?
Wolters must be wrapping things up soon I suppose. Given the amount of all the irrefutable abduction evidence the three police forces have at their disposal.
-
My question is simple. How did Grange decide that the crime was abduction?
Common bleeding sense.
-
Apparently every piece of evidence which wasn't already in HOLMES was entered by OG. This took until October 2015, which tells us that the OG remit wasn't arrived at as a result of reviewing the evidence. The remit says 'the abduction' and it's abduction which OG have investigated. My original question remains unanswered; how did those who created OG decide that the crime was an abduction? The Portuguese investigation did not reach that conclusion.
I have seldom read such ill-informed nonsense. I had to read it twice because I was simply in disbelief you actually posted that.
-
I have seldom read such ill-informed nonsense. I had to read it twice because I was simply in disbelief you actually posted that.
Aren't we all. But you can't cure Stupid. Especially when Septics so desperately want their ill conceived opinions to be believed.
It won't help pf course, so I have to wonder in passing what it is that they think they are doing.
Actually it is all a bit sad.
-
Aren't we all. But you can't cure Stupid. Especially when Septics so desperately want their ill conceived opinions to be believed.
It won't help pf course, so I have to wonder in passing what it is that they think they are doing.
Actually it is all a bit sad.
I have got used to the white hat and the black hat mentality sceptics suffer from. But I've got to admit to having been thrown when HOLMES was dragged into the inanity of the fray.
-
I have got used to the white hat and the black hat mentality sceptics suffer from. But I've got to admit to having been thrown when HOLMES was dragged into the inanity of the fray.
I have never quite come to terms with any of this, although I did try to see what it was they were talking about.
But none of it ever makes any sense other than to perceive ill of people who might appear to be better than they personally think they might be.
This all so Village Pump that it should be laughable. But probably in The Genes. And nothing much to be done about that.
-
Wait for what?
The Penny to drop.
-
The Penny to drop.
What is it you think three police forces, the world’s media and those who accept the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger have failed to understand? Do explain. Bet you won’t. Bet you can’t.
-
What is it you think three police forces, the world’s media and those who accept the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger have failed to understand? Do explain. Bet you won’t. Bet you can’t.
That she wasn't abducted?
-
It's boring going round and round in circles, don't you find? You carry on believing that the police were constrained to only investigate abduction, refusing to consider any other possible alternative even if concrete evidence pointed in a different direction and I'll stay in the real world, if it's all the same to you.
You are moving on to after the remit. I'm asking how they arrived at naming the crime in the remit.
-
You are moving on to after the remit. I'm asking how they arrived at naming the crime in the remit.
And once again I am reminding you that no one here can address your concerns nor answer your questions. Get in an FOI request if it interests you so much. You claim to be a researcher, do some actual research for once!
-
And once again I am reminding you that no one here can address your concerns nor answer your questions. Get in an FOI request if it interests you so much. You claim to be a researcher, do some actual research for once!
As no one knows the answer then it's perfectly possible that the decision was based on opinion rather than evidence. It's also possible that the opinion was wrong. If so, then it's possible that they have spent years investigating the wrong crime and are persuing the wrong perpetrator.
-
As no one knows the answer then it's perfectly possible that the decision was based on opinion rather than evidence. It's also possible that the opinion was wrong. If so, then it's possible that they have spent years investigating the wrong crime and are persuing the wrong perpetrator.
Lots of things are possible, but possible does not equal probable. It is improbable that the collective brainpower of several police forces (professionals in the field of crime solving with ALL the evidence gathered to date) have all failed to spot what you (a granny who likes to think of herself as a bit of dab hand researcher despite having access to only a year’s worth of evidence and not even all of that) believe exists that points to this being a crime other than abduction. What makes you believe otherwise, apart from arrogance and conceit?
-
Lots of things are possible, but possible does not equal probable. It is improbable that the collective brainpower of several police forces (professionals in the field of crime solving with ALL the evidence gathered to date) have all failed to spot what you (a granny who likes to think of herself as a bit of dab hand researcher despite having access to only a year’s worth of evidence and not even all of that) believe exists that points to this being a crime other than abduction. What makes you believe otherwise, apart from arrogance and conceit?
The glaring absence of any tangible, verifiable evidence of abduction? Other than, because the McCanns said that's what happened, so therefore it did. I mean, just look at Rowleys take on the matter. The best he could present by way of abduction evidence was that because Maddie wasn't old enough to leave & start a life on her own, therefore she was abducted.
Maybe I'm wrong though & there really is concrete evidence that the three investigative forces keep closely guarded, & maybe the moon is made of cheese.
-
The glaring absence of any tangible, verifiable evidence of abduction? Other than, because the McCanns said that's what happened, so therefore it did. I mean, just look at Rowleys take on the matter. The best he could present by way of abduction evidence was that because Maddie wasn't old enough to leave & start a life on her own, therefore she was abducted.
Maybe I'm wrong though & there really is concrete evidence that the three investigative forces keep closely guarded, & maybe the moon is made of cheese.
It appears the evidence is so closely guarded that the police forces involved aren’t even sharing it with each other.
Very odd behaviour from organisations claiming to be working collaboratively.
-
It appears the evidence is so closely guarded that the police forces involved aren’t even sharing it with each other.
Very odd behaviour from organisations claiming to be working collaboratively.
Ahh, but it could damage the investigation if they share all the evidence with each other. So I've been reliably informed.
-
It appears the evidence is so closely guarded that the police forces involved aren’t even sharing it with each other.
Very odd behaviour from organisations claiming to be working collaboratively.
Aahh, taps the side of her nose, I think I know the reason but it aint for sharing.
-
It appears the evidence is so closely guarded that the police forces involved aren’t even sharing it with each other.
Very odd behaviour from organisations claiming to be working collaboratively.
You have literally no idea what information that police have gathered, nor what information they have shared with each other. It’s revealing that complete ignorance on these matters has resulted in such arrogance on the part of you and your little cabal of pooh-poohers.
-
As no one knows the answer then it's perfectly possible that the decision was based on opinion rather than evidence. It's also possible that the opinion was wrong. If so, then it's possible that they have spent years investigating the wrong crime and are persuing the wrong perpetrator.
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
G Unit where does it say abduction.
-
You have literally no idea what information that police have gathered, nor what information they have shared with each other. It’s revealing that complete ignorance on these matters has resulted in such arrogance on the part of you and your little cabal of pooh-poohers.
We know full well Wolters hasn't shared the death evidence with Grange, the PJ, Madeleine's parents or Brueckner's lawyer.
-
We know full well Wolters hasn't shared the death evidence with Grange, the PJ, Madeleine's parents or Brueckner's lawyer.
Give them a chance, they've narrowed it down to not knowing where he (CB) was.
-
Give them a chance, they've narrowed it down to not knowing where he (CB) was.
Bruekner was trying to hide where he was. And telling fibs. That in itself is very suspicious.
-
We know full well only what we were told about 2 years ago. I thought we weren't supposed to believe a word the police, the media or the McCanns told us anyway? Pick and choose, pick and choose...
-
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
G Unit where does it say abduction.
You've never read the remit?
-
We know full well only what we were told about 2 years ago. I thought we weren't supposed to believe a word, the police, the media or the McCanns told us anyway? Pick and choose, pick and choose...
We know full well, or at least some of us cottoned on over 2 years ago, that Wolters never really had any concrete evidence. That is why Brueckner is never being charged with anything relating to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Bruekner was trying to hide where he was. And telling fibs. That in itself is very suspicious.
Maybe he was out selling drugs or raping grannies & doesn't want to tell the police that.
-
Give them a chance, they've narrowed it down to not knowing where he (CB) was.
It is highly suspicious that Brueckner might have been somewhere in & around the area that he happened to reside in.
-
According to Brueckner his phone was wandering around Luz on it's own.
-
You've never read the remit?
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.
-
You've never read the remit?
They did a review of the case first there is no mention of abduction they say disappearance.
You are saying they were only working on the abduction theory at the very beginning.
-
According to Brueckner his phone was wandering around Luz on it's own.
Was it even his phone?
Certainly, Wolters hasn't proven as much.
-
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.
I wonder where you get your information from? Read the remit! OG conducted both a review and an investigation from the very beginning.
-
I wonder where you get your information from? Read the remit! OG conducted both a review and an investigation from the very beginning.
They did a review this was the conclusion -
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
-
I wonder where you get your information from? Read the remit! OG conducted both a review and an investigation from the very beginning.
This is where I got my information from-
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
-
Right at the beginning no mention of abduction only disappearance. Abduction came after the review.
-
They did a review this was the conclusion -
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
Not having any joy proving as much though. Which is surprising really, considering if we saw the evidence Wolters has we'd be in no doubt. Us, that is, but not a judge for some reason.
-
I wonder where you get your information from? Read the remit! OG conducted both a review and an investigation from the very beginning.
Do you have a cite for the re-investigation running concurrently with the review from the very start please?
-
Right at the beginning no mention of abduction only disappearance. Abduction came after the review.
Really? The review was finally completed in 2015.
-
Really? The review was finally completed in 2015.
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.
-
Really? The review was finally completed in 2015.
Do you have a cite for the re-investigation running concurrently with the review from the very start please?
-
You have literally no idea what information that police have gathered, nor what information they have shared with each other. It’s revealing that complete ignorance on these matters has resulted in such arrogance on the part of you and your little cabal of pooh-poohers.
I cannot quite gauge exactly where people are coming from who believe they have an absolute entitlement to be told every piece evidence in an active police investigation.
Particularly as they have shown complete dimness regarding anything already in the public domain.
-
Give them a chance, they've narrowed it down to not knowing where he (CB) was.
They have also narrowed down Brueckner's alleged alibi to absolutely zilch in the process 🙄
-
We know full well only what we were told about 2 years ago. I thought we weren't supposed to believe a word the police, the media or the McCanns told us anyway? Pick and choose, pick and choose...
It is remarkable that there has been an active international police case going on without interruption since Operation Grange first officially took on Madeleine's case.
It is worth noting that effectively it has followed sceptic precedent by going full circle and ending up precisely where it all began: Madeleine McCann: Investigation was flawed from the start, says senior detective who was there
Published: June 5, 2020
The information from the German authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service indicates that in May 2007 this man was living and frequenting Praia da Luz, Portugal, and possibly committing burglaries at holiday complexes to fund his itinerant lifestyle. It also appears that as a teenager he was convicted of sexual offences against children in Germany and was therefore a known convicted sex offender in 2007.
This raises several questions: was he known to the Portuguese investigation team at the time? If so, when did his name enter their system and what did they do to implicate or eliminate him from their enquiry? When was his name passed on to the UK investigation team? These are questions at the forefront of my mind as I think back to my time in Portugal. https://theconversation.com/madeleine-mccann-investigation-was-flawed-from-the-start-says-senior-detective-who-was-there-140132
One question has been answered. We do know the prime suspect very definitely was on Portuguese police radar at the time.
-
They have also narrowed down Brueckner's alleged alibi to absolutely zilch in the process 🙄
How many times do we have to repeat this? Everybody knows it already.
PS. Any more news from Mark Williams Thomas? Or has he dropped out again?
-
I wonder where you get your information from? Read the remit! OG conducted both a review and an investigation from the very beginning.
I tend to source my information directly from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Snip
Madeleine McCann had been missing for several days when I arrived in Praia da Luz in May 2007.
I had been sent to Portugal as part of the UK’s Child Exploitation Online Protection Centre (CEOP) response to Madeleine’s disappearance.
I was a detective superintendent and senior investigating officer (SIO) with knowledge about predatory child sexual abusers and non-familial child abduction.
...
Three years after Madeleine’s disappearance, in 2010,
I conducted and wrote CEOP’s internal review of the Portuguese investigation,
which was subsequently passed to the Home Office.
The review contained observations and recommendations that, after repeated requests from the McCanns, led to the Met being tasked to establish their own investigation, Operation Grange.
https://theconversation.com/madeleine-mccann-investigation-was-flawed-from-the-start-says-senior-detective-who-was-there-140132
I think there have been many remits following many initiatives in Madeleine's case.
Initially there was no case.
Then there was a REVIEW.
Then there was OPERATION GRANGE.
Do you seriously think a REMIT never changes as fresh information is achieved? Oh Well Then!!! you should be ecstatically happy that a person of interest to the Portuguese cops in 2007 remains, not only a person of interest in 2022 but has progressed to being prime suspect.
-
I tend to source my information directly from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Snip
Madeleine McCann had been missing for several days when I arrived in Praia da Luz in May 2007.
I had been sent to Portugal as part of the UK’s Child Exploitation Online Protection Centre (CEOP) response to Madeleine’s disappearance.
I was a detective superintendent and senior investigating officer (SIO) with knowledge about predatory child sexual abusers and non-familial child abduction.
...
Three years after Madeleine’s disappearance, in 2010,
I conducted and wrote CEOP’s internal review of the Portuguese investigation,
which was subsequently passed to the Home Office.
The review contained observations and recommendations that, after repeated requests from the McCanns, led to the Met being tasked to establish their own investigation, Operation Grange.
https://theconversation.com/madeleine-mccann-investigation-was-flawed-from-the-start-says-senior-detective-who-was-there-140132
I think there have been many remits following many initiatives in Madeleine's case.
Initially there was no case.
Then there was a REVIEW.
Then there was OPERATION GRANGE.
Do you seriously think a REMIT never changes as fresh information is achieved? Oh Well Then!!! you should be ecstatically happy that a person of interest to the Portuguese cops in 2007 remains, not only a person of interest in 2022 but has progressed to bei4ng prime suspect.
...which is utterly pointless, because we know the 'evidence' against the prime suspect is flimsy bluff, hot air & nothing more.
If you're ever left wondering why the case against the new prime suspect doesn't progress, that is the reason.
-
How many times do we have to repeat this? Everybody knows it already.
PS. Any more news from Mark Williams Thomas? Or has he dropped out again?
Probably for as long as subtle and not so subtle misinformation is circulated it needs to be corrected. I must admit though, I am suffering fatigue at the futility of conscience so nakedly and very darkly on display.
For some it was never about putting a missing child centre stage in the effort to recover her and as time passes, that becomes more prosaic.
Last I heard MWT is sticking with woke and wandered.
-
They have also narrowed down Brueckner's alleged alibi to absolutely zilch in the process 🙄
Which is totally meaningless because the three investigative forces are unable to prove that Brueckner or anyone else for that matter, abducted Maddie, despite the mass of abduction evidence in their possession.
The onus on Wolters to prove Brueckner guilty, & he can't.
That much is glaringly obvious.
-
Probably for as long as subtle and not so subtle misinformation is circulated it needs to be corrected. I must admit though, I am suffering fatigue at the futility of conscience so nakedly and very darkly on display.
For some it was never about putting a missing child centre stage in the effort to recover her and as time passes, that becomes more prosaic.
Last I heard MWT is sticking with woke and wandered.
That is all I do these days. Correct blatant misinformation.
-
How many times do we have to repeat this? Everybody knows it already.
PS. Any more news from Mark Williams Thomas? Or has he dropped out again?
How many times does this need repeating. Brueckner doesn’t need an alibi because there is no case against him. Wolters needs to prove Brueckner abducted Maddie, & he can't. So it's Brueckner - winning, three investigative forces - Nil.
-
Probably for as long as subtle and not so subtle misinformation is circulated it needs to be corrected. I must admit though, I am suffering fatigue at the futility of conscience so nakedly and very darkly on display.
For some it was never about putting a missing child centre stage in the effort to recover her and as time passes, that becomes more prosaic.
Last I heard MWT is sticking with woke and wandered.
Yes, MWT has very serious doubts about Kate's curtains & the open window, & frankly, who can blame him. Kate's account of the curtains is both comical & tragic.
-
That is all I do these days. Correct blatant misinformation.
I think it is a recognition that it is all over bar the shouting; but however unedifying it just doesn't have the ring to it that "dogs don't lie" etc. Brueckner has cornered the market and that is a hard one to spin; talk about the desperation they are in if they have to resort to voluntarily adopting the task of "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear" involved in that one.
-
Maybe it will sink in eventually, but then saying that, if you couldn't work out by yourself that Wolters was bluffing, then perhaps not.
-
Everything comes to he who waits.
-
Everything comes to he who waits.
Except charges for Brueckner in relation to Maddie.
That simply isn't going to happen.
-
Which is totally meaningless because the three investigative forces are unable to prove that Brueckner or anyone else for that matter, abducted Maddie, despite the mass of abduction evidence in their possession.
The onus on Wolters to prove Brueckner guilty, & he can't.
That much is glaringly obvious.
From the BKA to which I linked the other day, they know not where he was.
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
-
From the BKA to which I linked the other day, they know not where he was.
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
I would have thought it was very important to place your suspect in the vicinity before announcing that he killed Madeleine.
We're confident we have the man who took and killed her,' Wolters told the Mirror.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
Seems they still haven't finalised the 'took' bit.
-
Keep going. You are all doing really well.
-
From the BKA to which I linked the other day, they know not where he was.
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
Your dated link doesn't actually say what you are claiming.
It is a small part of an extensive list requesting further information from the public regarding known facts about the murder suspect in a murder investigation.
The BKA are still working Madeleine's case up to and beyond the present day.
Working to their remit no doubt.
I am sure they enjoy your full support and hopes for their success in their endeavours. A start would be not interpreting public police appeals to suit your agenda.
-
The bigger they are the harder they fall.
-
I would have thought it was very important to place your suspect in the vicinity before announcing that he killed Madeleine.
We're confident we have the man who took and killed her,' Wolters told the Mirror.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
Seems they still haven't finalised the 'took' bit.
Have you read Barrier's "link"? which he didn't actually link to despite it being a pretty comprehensive list summing up evidence the police have and evidence they want firmed up.
But dream on if you think the 'took bit' is anything other than the part of the whole. Nothing will be finalised until the Bundeskriminalamt and the prosecutors have completed their task which will hopefully lead to finding out what happened to that little three year old who vanished from the face of the earth in 2007.
-
From the BKA to which I linked the other day, they know not where he was.
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
We know Brueckner was inside the apartment before Gerry's check, because the bedroom door had been moved.
-
We know Brueckner was inside the apartment before Gerry's check, because the bedroom door had been moved.
What a shame investigators made such a monumental mess of screwing up the forensics which might have proved it.
But wait a minute! ~ who claimed the door had been moved?
Can't be so can it?
Not in your world at least, so maybe you should work out a different set of nonsense in support of your wumming.
-
We know Brueckner was inside the apartment before Gerry's check, because the bedroom door had been moved.
Brückner wasn’t necessarily the person who removed Madeleine from 5A.
-
Have you read Barrier's "link"? which he didn't actually link to despite it being a pretty comprehensive list summing up evidence the police have and evidence they want firmed up.
But dream on if you think the 'took bit' is anything other than the part of the whole. Nothing will be finalised until the Bundeskriminalamt and the prosecutors have completed their task which will hopefully lead to finding out what happened to that little three year old who vanished from the face of the earth in 2007.
I did, and I have a link!
The appeal by the BKA is dated 11/10/2022
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
-
Brückner wasn’t necessarily the person who removed Madeleine from 5A.
What they can't do is show that Brueckner ever met up with Madeleine.
-
What they can't do is show that Brueckner ever met up with Madeleine.
Indeed, if they can ever do that its game over. Until then its just wishful thinking.
-
Indeed, if they can ever do that its game over. Until then its just wishful thinking.
China Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj20LKdg8-8
-
Brückner wasn’t necessarily the person who removed Madeleine from 5A.
There are so many unanswered questions centring on witness evidence which raise interesting points which have been taken on board by investigators who have had thoughts about how the crime was actually carried out.
Operation Grange questioned burglars whose phones were active in Luz and the German press voiced speculation as to whether or not Brueckner had acted alone or with accomplices.
This is a hugely complex case about which there are no easy answers and one in which the police are keeping their knowledge of the evidence they undoubtedly possess very close to their chest indeed.
-
I did, and I have a link!
The appeal by the BKA is dated 11/10/2022
As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
Which is an update of the link posted in 2020 - the entire site having been recently updated in its entirety.
Didn't you know that?
-
What they can't do is show that Brueckner ever met up with Madeleine.
Yet, the BKA knows that CB killed MM.
-
What they can't do is show that Brueckner ever met up with Madeleine.
You have no evidence to support that opinionated statement. You know nothing about what evidence the BKA and the prosecutors have or do not have. And your ill informed opinion really doesn't cut the mustard.
-
You have no evidence to support that opinionated statement. You know nothing about what evidence the BKA and the prosecutors have or do not have. And your ill informed opinion really doesn't cut the mustard.
We know their 'evidence' isn't sufficient to convince a judge.
We know that.
Wolters just needs a bit more time, then he'll nail Brueckner to the wall. Really, he will. Just have faith in Wolters & the concrete evidence. Not much longer now guys.
-
Yet, the BKA knows that CB killed MM.
Well, Wolters says they do. But was he telling the truth?
No way to be sure really is there.
Just have to have blind faith Maddie really was abducted, because there's sod all evidence that she was.
-
Your dated link doesn't actually say what you are claiming.
The dated ( Oct 2022) link does actually say that which I've quoted.
-
Brückner wasn’t necessarily the person who removed Madeleine from 5A.
Thats the easy get out for the BKA.
-
What they can't do is show that Brueckner ever met up with Madeleine.
Why have you not provided me with the (on topic) cite I requested twice over the weekend?
-
Which is an update of the link posted in 2020 - the entire site having been recently updated in its entirety.
Didn't you know that?
Care to bring the 2020 one to the table for comparison .
-
Getting really desperate now. Who would have thought that some people would be so obsessed with proving The McCanns guilty after all of this time.
Trust me. It's never going to happen.
-
Yet, the BKA knows that CB killed MM.
Have they said that? I know Wolters has, but he's not BKA.
-
Have they said that? I know Wolters has, but he's not BKA.
Wolters is employed by The BKA. He is merely a Public Prosecutor who works on their instructions. Unless you can prove otherwise.
-
Getting really desperate now. Who would have thought that some people would be so obsessed with proving The McCanns guilty after all of this time.
Trust me. It's never going to happen.
The desperation is being shown by those who want to see Brueckner be the guilty party imo. It's not long since some were fantacising that MM was alive, her whereabouts were known and SY had her under surveillance.
-
Wolters is employed by The BKA. He is merely a Public Prosecutor who works on their instructions. Unless you can prove otherwise.
I think you might have got that the wrong way round;
at the request of the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig, the Federal Criminal Police Office is conducting preliminary investigations into suspected murder against a 45-year-old German citizen who is currently in custody on another matter.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
-
The desperation is being shown by those who want to see Brueckner be the guilty party imo. It's not long since some were fantacising that MM was alive, her whereabouts were known and SY had her under surveillance.
I have never said that Brueckner is guilty.
Is there something wrong with people who still wish that Madeleine could be alive? It would appear to be so according to your Comment. Just how sick is that?
-
I think you might have got that the wrong way round;
at the request of the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig, the Federal Criminal Police Office is conducting preliminary investigations into suspected murder against a 45-year-old German citizen who is currently in custody on another matter.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
That says nothin different. Who is collecting the evidence on the ground? It won't be Wolters.
-
The desperation is being shown by those who want to see Brueckner be the guilty party imo. It's not long since some were fantacising that MM was alive, her whereabouts were known and SY had her under surveillance.
Yeah. That was a good one.
Waiting for her 18th birthday until they rescue her @)(++(*
-
I have never said that Brueckner is guilty.
Is there something wrong with people who still wish that Madeleine could be alive? It would appear to be so according to your Comment. Just how sick is that?
Well there's no hope she is alive & concrete evidence she's dead so it's pretty pointless wishing & hoping.
There's no coming back from being dead I'm afraid.
-
Well there's no hope she is alive & concrete evidence she's dead so it's pretty pointless wishing & hoping.
There's no coming back from being dead I'm afraid.
Just how sick in the head are you that you should find this amusing?
-
Just how sick in the head are you that you should find this amusing?
I see no comedy in my post. I was just stating the cold hard facts.
Wolters says Maddie is absolutely dead, he's the official spokesperson for the BKA. If we saw the evidence he has we would be in no doubt.
-
Have they said that? I know Wolters has, but he's not BKA.
Correct. Hans Wolters is not the BKA. Perhaps the following will provide you with a clearer understanding:
“In Germany, the police have an obligation to investigate every single crime reported and subsequently send all investigations to the Staatsanwaltschaft. The public prosecutor, the Staatsanwalt (state attorney), reviews the findings of the police and decides whether to indict the accused or halt the proceedings”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_prosecutor%27s_office_(Germany)
-
Why is a mod ignoring my request for an on-topic cite? Anyone know?
-
Why is a mod ignoring my request for an on-topic cite? Anyone know?
Does anyone care ?
-
I see no comedy in my post. I was just stating the cold hard facts.
Wolters says Maddie is absolutely dead, he's the official spokesperson for the BKA. If we saw the evidence he has we would be in no doubt.
You are an utter disgrace to this Forum.
These aren't even Facts.
Meanwhile, Brueckner is a depraved psychopath and that is a Fact.
-
The dated ( Oct 2022) link does actually say that which I've quoted.
It is not new information. It is an archive retained when the site was recently updated in 2022. The public appeal for information was initially requested by the BKA in 2020 in a television crime programme and was reported wprd for word in the German press at the time.
BKA asks for help in the "Maddie" case with photos and questions
A good 13 years ago, the British girl Madeleine "Maddie" McCann disappeared, now the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig is investigating a 43-year-old German on suspicion of murder. It was a multiple convicted sex offender, informed the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in Wiesbaden. According to RTL information, the man's name is Christian B – what is known about him so far, read here. The investigators have been on his trail for three years. The BKA shared photos and a series of questions with the public and asks for help from the population. The corresponding call for witnesses with further information can be found on the website of the Federal Criminal Police Office. https://www.rtl.de/cms/fall-maddie-mccann-wer-hat-hinweise-zu-diesen-bildern-bka-verspricht-10-000-euro-belohnung-4554291.html
-
Does anyone care ?
Yes. Me.
-
Care to bring the 2020 one to the table for comparison .
Have you really not grasped that what you mistakenly think is the 2022 appeal is actually the archived appeal broadcast on the BKA website in 2020.
Bild did not have a crystal ball in their possession when they printed the appeal on 4 June 2020.
-
The desperation is being shown by those who want to see Brueckner be the guilty party imo. It's not long since some were fantacising that MM was alive, her whereabouts were known and SY had her under surveillance.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary there was and is every reason to hope that a missing person may be found alive.
What on earth strikes you as being reprehensible about that.
-
Does anyone care ?
Actually there are still some who do. You may have noticed I replied to your however impertinently worded demands for cites by providing them.
-
In the absence of evidence to the contrary there was and is every reason to hope that a missing person may be found alive.
What on earth strikes you as being reprehensible about that.
These people need Madeleine to be dead because they want everyone to believe that The McCanns killed her.
I have no idea for why, other than for some nasty episode in their own lives which was most certainly not the fault of The McCanns.
None of this is ever going to work.
-
That says nothin different. Who is collecting the evidence on the ground? It won't be Wolters.
The Prosecutors are not employed by the BKA.
-
The Prosecutors are not employed by the BKA.
From whence do The Prosecutors get their information? They certainly won't be out there collecting it themselves. So stop procrastinating and tell us how the system works. If you can.
-
You are an utter disgrace to this Forum.
These aren't even Facts.
Meanwhile, Brueckner is a depraved psychopath and that is a Fact.
There is CONCRETE EVIDENCE Maddie is dead.
There is no hope she is alive.
Wolters says so, so those are the FACTS.
Thankyou. You're welcome.
-
These people need Madeleine to be dead because they want everyone to believe that The McCanns killed her.
I have no idea for why, other than for some nasty episode in their own lives which was most certainly not the fault of The McCanns.
None of this is ever going to work.
No one said anything about the McCanns killing Maddie.
The BKA are SURE Brueckner is the murderer. Wolters can prove it.
-
No one said anything about the McCanns killing Maddie.
The BKA are SURE Brueckner is the murderer. Wolters can prove it.
I am beginning to feel really sorry for you.
-
I am beginning to feel really sorry for you.
I don't want your sympathy.
All I want is justice for Maddie & Wolters is the man who'll deliver it.
Of that there is absolutely no doubt at all.
-
From whence do The Prosecutors get their information? They certainly won't be out there collecting it themselves. So stop procrastinating and tell us how the system works. If you can.
and while she’s at it G-Unit can provide a cite for her claim that the re-investigation commenced at the same time that the review was first authorised.
-
Have they said that? I know Wolters has, but he's not BKA.
Are you under the impression that the BKA and HCW are at odds over the evidence that has been uncovered by the former? *%87
-
Are you under the impression that the BKA and HCW are at odds over the evidence that has been uncovered by the former? *%87
Is it possible, do you think, that a state prosecutor could exaggerate the strength of 'evidence' for any reason?
-
Is it possible, do you think, that a state prosecutor could exaggerate the strength of 'evidence' for any reason?
I know your question is directed at VS. But, are you being serious?!
-
I know your question is directed at VS. But, are you being serious?!
Well....Yes.
-
Well....Yes.
Okay. Please explain why you would ask such a question.
-
From whence do The Prosecutors get their information? They certainly won't be out there collecting it themselves. So stop procrastinating and tell us how the system works. If you can.
If the prosecutors think a crime has been committed they ask the police to investigate. They then decide whether there is enough evidence to charge.
For the public prosecutor’s office to bring an indictment under Section 170 (1) StPO, there must be sufficient suspicion of an offence against the accused. This is given if there is an overwhelming probability that the accused will be convicted after a preliminary assessment of the evidence situation.
https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/criminal-procedure-law-in-germany/?lang=en#The-Preliminary-Proceeding
Despite Wolter's claims, it seems there isn't an overwhelming probabilty that Brueckner will be convicted.
-
Okay. Please explain why you would ask such a question.
Because this is a public forum where people ask questions??
What a strange question.
-
If the prosecutors think a crime has been committed they ask the police to investigate. They then decide whether there is enough evidence to charge.
For the public prosecutor’s office to bring an indictment under Section 170 (1) StPO, there must be sufficient suspicion of an offence against the accused. This is given if there is an overwhelming probability that the accused will be convicted after a preliminary assessment of the evidence situation.
https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/criminal-procedure-law-in-germany/?lang=en#The-Preliminary-Proceeding
Despite Wolter's claims, it seems there isn't an overwhelming probabilty that Brueckner will be convicted.
But what about the concrete evidence? No, I don't believe you G.
Who should I trust, some anonymous sceptic on a public forum or the official spokesman for the BKA along with the MET & the PJ?
-
Okay. Please explain why you would ask such a question.
Because he’s a self confessed WUM, that’s why.
-
I wonder where you get your information from? Read the remit! OG conducted both a review and an investigation from the very beginning.
FYI, from now on I am following your lead and ignoring all future requests for a cite.
-
Because he’s a self confessed WUM, that’s why.
Someone needs to speak up for the WUM community around here & it might aswell be me. It's a thankless task but I'm firmly committed to it for the foreseeable future. Or until John finally has enough.
-
Because this is a public forum where people ask questions??
What a strange question.
It’s also a platform to debate.
-
It’s also a platform to debate.
I’d liken it more to a bear pit than a debating society.
-
I’d liken it more to a bear pit than a debating society.
And that’s obviously what keeps you coming back night after night.
-
Someone needs to speak up for the WUM community around here & it might aswell be me. It's a thankless task but I'm firmly committed to it for the foreseeable future. Or until John finally has enough.
What and remove the one who keeps the forum alive, what will they do without your daily input and their righteous indignation that you are allowed to post. Mind swirl has Faith to deal with.
-
What and remove the one who keeps the forum alive, what will they do without your daily input and their righteous indignation that you are allowed to post. Mind swirl has Faith to deal with.
If this forum is only being kept alive by a WUM and his tiny (brained) fan club then it's probably for the best if it was put out of its misery imo .
-
If this forum is only being kept alive by a WUM and his tiny (brained) fan club then it's probably for the best if it was put out of its misery imo .
You could say that. But I'm not allowed to.
-
It’s also a platform to debate.
Sadly that ship sailed long ago, too many personal attacks now.
-
Sadly that ship sailed long ago, too many personal attacks now.
The constant attacks on G especially by her fellow moderators have been particularly egregious. Time for it to stop.
-
Members are requested to stick to the thread topic; if that is exhausted please start another thread or revert to an existing thread.
For example, there is already a thread to address all questions or statements regarding moderation.
-
The constant attacks on G especially by her fellow moderators have been particularly egregious. Time for it to stop.
Constant attacks?! If repeated requests for a cite that she refuses to even acknowledge constitutes an attack then I fear you are probably both best off sticking to a forum where you can spout any old nonsense in comfort and without fear of being asked to justify it, and where everyone reinforces your beliefs and strokes your fragile egos.
-
The constant attacks on G especially by her fellow moderators have been particularly egregious. Time for it to stop.
Probably the only way they can attempt to answer my posts. Trying to explain and justify how Operation Grange's remit named the crime before examining the evidence is, after all, pretty much impossible.
-
Probably the only way they can attempt to answer my posts. Trying to explain and justify how Operation Grange's remit named the crime before examining the evidence is, after all, pretty much impossible.
That's not a cite for your claim that the review and reinvestigation were running concurrently right from the start - do you have one please? I'm not asking for much really - but if you can't then simply post a *&^^& emoji and I'll not mention it again.
-
Could we see some examples of these "particularly egregious" attacks on G-Unit?
Egregious definition: "outstandingly bad, shocking"
So - particularly outstandingly bad and shocking attacks is what we're looking for.
Sounds horrendous. I'm amazed the police haven't been called.
-
That's not a cite for your claim that the review and reinvestigation were running concurrently right from the start - do you have one please? I'm not asking for much really - but if you can't then simply post a *&^^& emoji and I'll not mention it again.
Read the remit.
-
Read the remit.
I've read it. Where does it say the re-investigation began at the same time as the review?
-
G-Unit, perhaps you can explain this?
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/#:~:text=In%20July%202013%20the%20status,continues%20to%20fund%20Operation%20Grange.
"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".
How could the Review change to that of an investigation if as you claim it started as an investigation?
-
Constant attacks?! If repeated requests for a cite that she refuses to even acknowledge constitutes an attack then I fear you are probably both best off sticking to a forum where you can spout any old nonsense in comfort and without fear of being asked to justify it, and where everyone reinforces your beliefs and strokes your fragile egos.
Therein lies the reasons behind the constant sniping ,Myths is not high profile enough, so get the [ censored word] off of here and bingo.
-
Probably the only way they can attempt to answer my posts. Trying to explain and justify how Operation Grange's remit named the crime before examining the evidence is, after all, pretty much impossible.
Indeed. It appears I’m being censored for posting against the concentrated effort of some to disrupt the debate.
-
Indeed. It appears I’m being censored for posting against the concentrated effort of some to disrupt the debate.
Get off your high horse. The only person here attempting to debate and post on topic at the moment is me and I am largely being ignored. I wonder why....? *%87
-
I've read it. Where does it say the re-investigation began at the same time as the review?
It was an investigative review and whatever it was doing the crime was abduction..
-
It was an investigative review and whatever it was doing the crime was abduction..
Just admit it: the investigation did not recommence until the review was completed. Had the review of ALL the information revealed that abduction was the least likely scenario do you REALLY believe the Maet would have gone on to spend 10 years investigating something that they knew probably didn’t happen? Seriously? Don’t fob me off, give me a straight answer.
-
Just admit it: the investigation did not recommence until the review was completed. Had the review of ALL the information revealed that abduction was the least likely scenario do you REALLY believe the Maet would have gone on to spend 10 years investigating something that they knew probably didn’t happen? Seriously? Don’t fob me off, give me a straight answer.
The review wasn't completed until 2015.
-
The review wasn't completed until 2015.
As usual you have got it wrong.
..................................................................
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
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.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
-
The review wasn't completed until 2015.
So, you can’t admit you were wrong and you can’t give a straight answer, ‘twas ever thus.
-
As usual you have got it wrong.
..................................................................
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
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.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
that’s the third time that cite has been given on this forum, no doubt it will be ignored for a third time too.
-
that’s the third time that cite has been given on this forum, no doubt it will be ignored for a third time too.
I think the point is that whatever remit Operation Grange were initially given at the review stage, was accomplished and subject to change when the work carried out by the review revealed many avenues which justified a full blown police investigation.
The fact that this was funded by the Home Office was probably right and proper as it would have financially crippled Madeleine's local force and wouldn't have done the Met budget much good either.
It is clear that the investigation proper started in 2013. It is clear that the funding for it is still in place for at least the time being. It is clear that the BKA are continuing their investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
So whatever one cares to think about remits it is quite plain that whatever remits Operation Grange have been working to, has resulted in the emergence of a prime suspect which is progress brought about by dogged determination.
-
Never The Twain Will Meet, it seems to me. But most of us are improving our English skills, so not a complete waste of time.
Brueckner will certainly go down for the two Child Sexual Abuse Charges. Witnesses and a Police Arrest. Not sure if the so called Remit came into the finding of these. But they appear to have been On Record for quite a while.
The Rapes might be a bit more tricky, although I am sure that they happened.
-
Never The Twain Will Meet, it seems to me. But most of us are improving our English skills, so not a complete waste of time.
Brueckner will certainly go down for the two Child Sexual Abuse Charges. Witnesses and a Police Arrest. Not sure if the so called Remit came into the finding of these. But they appear to have been On Record for quite a while.
The Rapes might be a bit more tricky, although I am sure that they happened.
No, I'm sorry Eleanor, I'm not having this. Christian Brueckner is innocent of all charges until proven guilty in a court of law.
-
As usual you have got it wrong.
..................................................................
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
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.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
The review was (almost) finished in 2015, and the numbers taking part in OG were reduced to four.
In a statement, police said the vast majority of the work reviewing all the material collated since May 2007 has now been completed and encompasses more than 40,000 documents from UK and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/28/met-reduces-officers-madeleine-mccann-case-29-to-four
-
The review was (almost) finished in 2015, and the numbers taking part in OG were reduced to four.
In a statement, police said the vast majority of the work reviewing all the material collated since May 2007 has now been completed and encompasses more than 40,000 documents from UK and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/28/met-reduces-officers-madeleine-mccann-case-29-to-four
The investigation began in 2013, not when the review began which is what you claimed. The end.
-
The review was (almost) finished in 2015, and the numbers taking part in OG were reduced to four.
In a statement, police said the vast majority of the work reviewing all the material collated since May 2007 has now been completed and encompasses more than 40,000 documents from UK and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/28/met-reduces-officers-madeleine-mccann-case-29-to-four
Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007 have been working through material and following investigative inquiries since the Home Office requested a review of the case in May 2011. Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues. While there remain lines of inquiry to follow, the vast majority of the work by Operation Grange has been completed. This work included reviewing all the material relating to the case which were brought together for the first time and amounted to collating over 40,000 documents from United Kingdom and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies. Officers worked meticulously through the information. Some of the material had to be translated into English, facts had to be cross-referred and diligently analysed to ensure an oversight of what the MPS was examining and to search for new lines of inquiry. Once this work had been completed the review became a full investigation in July 2012.
-
Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007 have been working through material and following investigative inquiries since the Home Office requested a review of the case in May 2011. Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues. While there remain lines of inquiry to follow, the vast majority of the work by Operation Grange has been completed. This work included reviewing all the material relating to the case which were brought together for the first time and amounted to collating over 40,000 documents from United Kingdom and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies. Officers worked meticulously through the information. Some of the material had to be translated into English, facts had to be cross-referred and diligently analysed to ensure an oversight of what the MPS was examining and to search for new lines of inquiry. Once this work had been completed the review became a full investigation in July 2012.
They seem to be contradicting themselves. Was the work completed in 2012 or 2015?
Still, we know what they were looking for, don't we? Evidence of the already identified crime!
-
They seem to be contradicting themselves. Was the work completed in 2012 or 2015?
Still, we know what they were looking for, don't we? Evidence of the already identified crime!
Having comprehensively reviewed the entirety of all the information collated on this case (a large percentage of which you have never clapped eyes on, but let's ignore that for the time being) what specifically do you think the Met missed or refused to consider in the files that, had they done their jobs properly as you would have liked, would have led them to see what you can apparently so clearly see ie: that abduction is the least likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance?
-
Having comprehensively reviewed the entirety of all the information collated on this case (a large percentage of which you have never clapped eyes on, but let's ignore that for the time being) what specifically do you think the Met missed or refused to consider in the files that, had they done their jobs properly as you would have liked, would have led them to see what you can apparently so clearly see ie: that abduction is the least likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance?
And I thought Gunit was looking for evidence that The McCanns done it.
Am I wrong about that?
-
They seem to be contradicting themselves. Was the work completed in 2012 or 2015?
Still, we know what they were looking for, don't we? Evidence of the already identified crime!
Your posts are a master class in denial and go some way to providing a slight insight into the McCann sceptic psyche.
What is simply amazing is the trivial nature of the erroneous nature of the point on which you have chosen to take your stand.
Your insistence of posting your opinions which quite clearly fly in the face of the absolute fact and evidence that the review into Madeleine's case became a fully fledged investigation in 2013 when the Met took to the airwaves to publicise the fact, are extraordinary.
Snip
Scotland Yard says it has "new evidence and new witnesses" in the Madeleine McCann case and has opened a formal investigation into her disappearance.
The Met Police said it still believed there was a chance Madeleine was alive and it was investigating 38 "persons of interest" after reviewing the evidence.
Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, said the shift from review to investigation was "a big step forward".
...
New theories
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, who is heading what has been called Operation Grange, said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
His 37-strong police team is two-thirds of the way through examining 30,500 documents from files held by the Portuguese, private investigators and British police. Some fresh interviews have also taken place.
"Over the last two years what the review has told me is that there is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead," Det Ch Insp Redwood said.
"So on that basis, I still genuinely believe that there is a possibility that she is alive."
He added: "It is a positive step in our hunt for Madeleine that our understanding of the evidence has enabled us to shift from review to investigation."
Scotland Yard's decision to formally open its own investigation - which, like the review, will be funded by the Home Office - follows extensive discussions with UK prosecutors and the Portuguese.
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said: "It's highly unusual - although not unprecedented - for a British police force to launch its own inquiry into an incident abroad."
In a statement, the McCanns said: "Kate and Gerry warmly welcome the shift in the Met's emphasis from review to investigation.
"It is clearly a big step forward in establishing what happened and, hopefully, towards bringing whoever is responsible for Madeleine's abduction to justice." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23179230
-
And I thought Gunit was looking for evidence that The McCanns done it.
Am I wrong about that?
Lord, she’s “only asking questions”, but why she’s asking them of us is anyone’s guess when she mostly ignores the answers.
-
Lord, she’s “only asking questions”, but why she’s asking them of us is anyone’s guess when she mostly ignores the answers.
Often the answers are unrelated to the questions.
-
Often the answers are unrelated to the questions.
Rubbish. Often the answers are not what you want hear. And - you only ask questions you either already know the answer to or know that no one here can answer. Why bother?
-
Rubbish. Often the answers are not what you want hear. And - you only ask questions you either already know the answer to or know that no one here can answer. Why bother?
It's all about casting doubt on The Mccanns, VS. Nowt else. Disinformation that if repeated often enough becomes 'fact'
Just viscious undermining to try and destroy The Mccanns IMO
A psychological ploy to get 'Public Opinion' on their side
But why? That's what interests me.
-
It's all about casting doubt on The Mccanns, VS. Nowt else. Disinformation that if repeated often enough becomes 'fact'
Just viscious undermining to try and destroy The Mccanns IMO
A psychological ploy to get 'Public Opinion' on their side
But why? That's what interests me.
whatever the reason, it’s utterly pointless and a complete waste of time.
-
whatever the reason, it’s utterly pointless and a complete waste of time.
Furthermore it is cruel and obnoxious. The sign of unpleasant people IMO, or else there is a sinister purpose, to alter the public perception in case of the Law dealing with it. To get Public Opinion against The Mccanns and Madeleine.
Dunno which, but I can have a good guess that with some it is both.
All in my opinion , but it is crazy otherwise.
-
Furthermore it is cruel and obnoxious. The sign of unpleasant people IMO, or else there is a sinister purpose, to alter the public perception in case of the Law dealing with it. To get Public Opinion against The Mccanns and Madeleine.
Dunno which, but I can have a good guess that with some it is both.
All in my opinion , but it is crazy otherwise.
Some people are convinced that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger, but others aren't. Those who believe the McCanns can't prove they're right and I've seen no proof offerred by Operation Grange either. Repeating the same mantra over and over again doesn't make it true.
Opinions can be expressed without any intention to cause harm to anyone.
-
Some people are convinced that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger, but others aren't. Those who believe the McCanns can't prove they're right and I've seen no proof offerred by Operation Grange either. Repeating the same mantra over and over again doesn't make it true.
Opinions can be expressed without any intention to cause harm to anyone.
I still don't buy the abduction claim. As far as I am concerned she walked out of that unlocked unsecured apartment and was run over. Whoever ran her over probably panicked and carried her off. All in my honest opinion.
-
I still don't buy the abduction claim. As far as I am concerned she walked out of that unlocked unsecured apartment and was run over. Whoever ran her over probably panicked and carried her off. All in my honest opinion.
I think any opinions deserve to be heard without the holders of those opinions being accused of having ulterior motives. There's no evidence that Madeleine didn't leave 5A via the patio doors, just opinion.
-
I still don't buy the abduction claim. As far as I am concerned she walked out of that unlocked unsecured apartment and was run over. Whoever ran her over probably panicked and carried her off. All in my honest opinion.
There's no DNA, no evidence of an abduction, no one says they saw a stranger enter or leave 5a.
-
And yet when some of us express an opinion that Madeleine was likely abducted and possibly by Bruckner or someone like him we are trolled mercilessly by the resident WUM and accused of being morally degenerate by the High Horse Brigade and all you who have commented today don’t appear to have a problem with that.
-
I think any opinions deserve to be heard without the holders of those opinions being accused of having ulterior motives. There's no evidence that Madeleine didn't leave 5A via the patio doors, just opinion.
Give us an example of evidence you would expect to find that she didn’t leave via the patio doors
-
I still don't buy the abduction claim. As far as I am concerned she walked out of that unlocked unsecured apartment and was run over. Whoever ran her over probably panicked and carried her off. All in my honest opinion.
It’s odd that not a single investigator ex police or otherwise has come to the same conclusion as you. I wonder why not…?
-
It’s odd that not a single investigator ex police or otherwise has come to the same conclusion as you. I wonder why not…?
MWT thinks she left 5a under her own steam.
-
And yet when some of us express an opinion that Madeleine was likely abducted and possibly by Bruckner or someone like him we are trolled mercilessly by the resident WUM and accused of being morally degenerate by the High Horse Brigade and all you who have commented today don’t appear to have a problem with that.
Window, patio doors, or front door, what time ?
-
And yet when some of us express an opinion that Madeleine was likely abducted and possibly by Bruckner or someone like him we are trolled mercilessly by the resident WUM and accused of being morally degenerate by the High Horse Brigade and all you who have commented today don’t appear to have a problem with that.
Hey, don't come rattling my cage.
Anyway, for me, there is no one quite like Christian Brueckner.
(Returns to forum silence, waiting patiently & peacefully for Wolters to reveal the concrete evidence)
-
Give us an example of evidence you would expect to find that she didn’t leave via the patio doors
There's no evidence of anything imo.
-
There's no evidence of anything imo.
You answered a question I didn’t ask, as usual.
-
MWT thinks she left 5a under her own steam.
Does he think she was run over and someone panicked an hid her body? That’s news to me!
-
Window, patio doors, or front door, what time ?
Calm down dear, my post was about attitudes towards those of us who think Madeleine was abducted be a paedophile. We’re insane and morally bankrupt aren’t we? Why would you want to debate with the likes of me and others who hold this opinion?
-
Calm down dear, my post was about attitudes towards those of us who think Madeleine was abducted be a paedophile. We’re insane and morally bankrupt aren’t we? Why would you want to debate with the likes of me and others who hold this opinion?
You've woken me today so you only have yourself to blame. I think it's rather sick to imagine Maddie being molested by paedos. A simple fall off the back of the sofa then concealment in a dumpster is a considerably more favourable scenario for Maddie's sake.
But anyway, if you must insist it was paedos wot dunnit then I'll agree to that, provided you stop pointing the finger at men & blame lesbian paedophiles instead.
-
Does he think she was run over and someone panicked an hid her body? That’s news to me!
Me Too.
PS. Has Mark Williams Thomas found Brueckner's Alibi yet?
-
Me Too.
PS. Has Mark Williams Thomas found Brueckner's Alibi yet?
Yes, wasn’t it the teenage girl who claims she spent the night with him (apart from the hours when Madeleine went missing)?
-
Perhaps if it ever comes to court Brückner can use the Mark Bridger defence which Angelo would no doubt accept as being highly plausible. It didn’t wash with the jury though in that case, and I doubt it would in this one either.
-
Yes, wasn’t it the teenage girl who claims she spent the night with him (apart from the hours when Madeleine went missing)?
I thought the teenage girl couldn't remember which night. Which begs the question, why bother to try to set up an Alibi in the first place and some several nights beforehand?
-
Does he think she was run over and someone panicked an hid her body? That’s news to me!
Did my post mention he does ?
-
Did my post mention he does ?
Your post was in reply to mine which said that not one single investigator had come to the same conclusion as Angelo’s, ie the she had been run over and disposed of by the driver. My point still stands. MWT has not arrived at this conclusion. He believes Madeleine was abducted by a stranger so not wise to use him to support your views, ‘kay?
-
I thought the teenage girl couldn't remember which night. Which begs the question, why bother to try to set up an Alibi in the first place and some several nights beforehand?
In MWT’s case I would suggest it was an attempt to sell his programme as providing us with sensational new information, sadly it did nothing of the sort.
-
Calm down dear, my post was about attitudes towards those of us who think Madeleine was abducted be a paedophile. We’re insane and morally bankrupt aren’t we? Why would you want to debate with the likes of me and others who hold this opinion?
The only person i've noticed saying you're insane and morally bankrupt is you. Or do you have cites?
-
The only person i've noticed saying you're insane and morally bankrupt is you. Or do you have cites?
Either you have failing eyesight or a failing memory
Here is just one instance
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12404.345
there are other examples from other users, suggesting that there is something morally reprehensible about subscribing to the belief that Mdeleine was abducted and murdered by a paedophile. Apparently the morally correct position to hold is that her dad chucked her body in the bin, after her parents filled her up with sedatives. Ask Faithlilly, she's the moral arbiter around here.
As for insanity - well according to you abduction was virtually impossible so whilst you may not believe me to be insane per se, you must surely think I have a screw loose somewhere to believe such an apparent near impossibility?
-
Either you have failing eyesight or a failing memory
Here is just one instance
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12404.345
there are other examples from other users, suggesting that there is something morally reprehensible about subscribing to the belief that Mdeleine was abducted and murdered by a paedophile. Apparently the morally correct position to hold is that her dad chucked her body in the bin, after her parents filled her up with sedatives. Ask Faithlilly, she's the moral arbiter around here.
As for insanity - well according to you abduction was virtually impossible so whilst you may not believe me to be insane per se, you must surely think I have a screw loose somewhere to believe such an apparent near impossibility?
It's still you going on about it as far as I can see. On and on until someone responds with something you think proves your point. I don't care what any of you think about me. If I'm insulted I respond then move on rather than obsessing about it for ever more.
To get back to the subject, in my opinion Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns, which is why it's remit was to investigate their theory.
-
It's still you going on about it as far as I can see. On and on until someone responds with something you think proves your point. I don't care what any of you think about me. If I'm insulted I respond then move on rather than obsessing about it for ever more.
To get back to the subject, in my opinion Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns, which is why it's remit was to investigate their theory.
This comment is Libellous. In my opinion.
-
It's still you going on about it as far as I can see. On and on until someone responds with something you think proves your point. I don't care what any of you think about me. If I'm insulted I respond then move on rather than obsessing about it for ever more.
To get back to the subject, in my opinion Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns, which is why it's remit was to investigate their theory.
I regularly prove my point and neither you nor others ever have the good grace to acknowledge it. C'est La Vie.
as for your point IMO it is utterly ridiculous. Talk about obsessing about something for ever more, have you no self awareness at all????!!
-
There's no DNA, no evidence of an abduction, no one says they saw a stranger enter or leave 5a.
Well do you think someone going in to abduct a child will show himself? If it was CB no-one saw him entering and leaving the elderly woman's house either. Neither was he seen entering apartments to rob them. He was very efficient at entering apartments without being seen.
As to no evidence of abduction. As reported, Madeleine didn't leave 5a by herself. Abduction is the theory after eliminating everything else.
-
It's still you going on about it as far as I can see. On and on until someone responds with something you think proves your point. I don't care what any of you think about me. If I'm insulted I respond then move on rather than obsessing about it for ever more.
To get back to the subject, in my opinion Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns, which is why it's remit was to investigate their theory.
It was set up to find out what happened to Madeleine.
-
It was set up to find out what happened to Madeleine.
Has it though.
-
Well do you think someone going in to abduct a child will show himself? If it was CB no-one saw him entering and leaving the elderly woman's house either. Neither was he seen entering apartments to rob them. He was very efficient at entering apartments without being seen.
As to no evidence of abduction. As reported, Madeleine didn't leave 5a by herself. Abduction is the theory after eliminating everything else.
Do you have a cite for entering apartments to rob them ?
-
I regularly prove my point and neither you nor others ever have the good grace to acknowledge it. C'est La Vie.
as for your point IMO it is utterly ridiculous. Talk about obsessing about something for ever more, have you no self awareness at all????!!
No you regularly express an opinion , which you think proves a point.
-
Do you have a cite for entering apartments to rob them ?
These Cites are all over this Forum already.
-
These Cites are all over this Forum already.
Newspaper reports not an actual rap sheet though, add these supposed break ins to the below list at your leisure
Christian Brueckner early life
Christian Brueckner sexually abused girls from a young age.
He was first arrested in 1992 on suspicion of a burglary in his hometown of Würzburg.
In 1994, when he was just 18, police sentenced him for the sexual abuse of children when he molested a six-year-old girl in a public playground.
A judge gave him a two-year youth jail sentence for “abusing a child” and “performing sex acts in front of a child”.
In 1995, he travelled to Portugal and began working as a caterer in the seaside resorts of Lagos and Praia da Luz.
Friends, however, say he began to traffic drugs into the Algarve.
Does Christian Breukner have a criminal record?
As well as his two year youth jail sentence (see above) for sexually abusing a child, Christian has a string of other convictions.
Brueckner spent two months in Evora prison in 1999 for a minor offence, and nine months in 2006 after being caught stealing diesel from lorries on a garage forecourt.
In 2011, police sentenced him for “dealing narcotics” in Niebüll, northern Germany.
In 2016, a judge gave him 15 months in prison for “sexual abuse of a child in the act of creating and possessing child pornographic material”.
Police extradited him from Portugal back to Germany in June of 2017, for the Braunschweig district court 15 month sentence for the sexual abuse of a child.
He lived on the streets after being released in August of 2018.
Police jailed him again shortly after for drug offences.
In September of 2018, police arrested him in Milan, Italy, extradited him to Germany, and put him on trial for the rape of an American tourist in 2007.
Police found a DNA match to his hair at the crime scene.
A judge and jury convicted him in Braunschweig in 2017.
That crime went unsolved until 2019, when – following a tip-off from a former friend – Christian Brueckner was arrested and charged.
-
No you regularly express an opinion , which you think proves a point.
No, I literally proved my point by providing a cite that I have been accused of being morally bankrupt, when accused by G-Unit of basically making up the claim. She then failed to acknowledge that I had a point and basically had a go at me, no a word against the silly moo who keeps on referring to me as morally bankrupt. It’s an astoundingly absurd claim but tolerated by those on here who were earlier moaning about the accusations they claim to receive.
-
It's still you going on about it as far as I can see. On and on until someone responds with something you think proves your point. I don't care what any of you think about me. If I'm insulted I respond then move on rather than obsessing about it for ever more.
To get back to the subject, in my opinion Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns, which is why it's remit was to investigate their theory.
Interestingly the insults directed against you are almost always baseless. I’m afraid that’s not the case with some comments directed elsewhere.
-
Interestingly the insults directed against you are almost always baseless. I’m afraid that’s not the case with some comments directed elsewhere.
It’s all a matter of opinion isn’t it? I think some (many) of the criticisms I have seen of G- Unit are fair comment.
-
MWT thinks she left 5a under her own steam.
MWT thinks Brueckner has a alibi.
-
MWT thinks Brueckner has a alibi.
Some people are gullible enough to believe he actually needs one.
-
Do you have a cite for entering apartments to rob them ?
Brueckner lived in the Algarve between 1995 and 2007 and burgled hotels and holiday flats, according to court documents seen by Reuters in 2020. He also falsified passports and was caught stealing diesel from a Portuguese harbour. Police are also examining whether he has any links to other child disappearances in the area.
-
Brueckner lived in the Algarve between 1995 and 2007 and burgled hotels and holiday flats, according to court documents seen by Reuters in 2020. He also falsified passports and was caught stealing diesel from a Portuguese harbour. Police are also examining whether he has any links to other child disappearances in the area.
Wasn't it his 'friends' who told the authorities that he burgled people?
-
Wasn't it his 'friends' who told the authorities that he burgled people?
Brueckner has never done a thing wrong. He must have been stitched up then, by his friends who told The BKA stuff that wasn't true. None of it. OMG, what a patsy.
-
Wasn't it his 'friends' who told the authorities that he burgled people?
To use one of your favourite fallacious arguments I’ve seen no evidence that he didn’t burgle holiday apartments.
-
To use one of your favourite fallacious arguments I’ve seen no evidence that he didn’t burgle holiday apartments.
Didn't one of his ex girlfriends say he stole 100,000 Pounds from a holiday home with her help? Mayhap I imagined that?
-
Didn't one of his ex girlfriends say he stole 100,000 Pounds from a holiday home with her help? Mayhap I imagined that?
Yet an ex girlfriend supposedly gives an alibi and its bollox .
-
Didn't one of his ex girlfriends say he stole 100,000 Pounds from a holiday home with her help? Mayhap I imagined that?
I don't think she confessed to that - it was the victims who believed she had stolen from them if I recall correctly, and then shortly threafter CB was buying big expensive camper vans left right and centre
-
Yet an ex girlfriend supposedly gives an alibi and its bollox .
do you have a link to this alibi?
-
do you have a link to this alibi?
Do you have a link to any evidence of abduction?
I mean, without that, no alibi needed is there.
If you do find some, can you let Wolters know, because he's having a slight problem with that.
-
Wasn't it his 'friends' who told the authorities that he burgled people?
That was in 2017.
But in 2005 burglaries were rife in Luz and the police did check them out in relation to the burglary and horrific rape perpetrated in close proximity to the McCann holiday apartment.
If you remember ~ that is the one Brueckner was found guilty of and for which he is presently doing time.
Snip
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.
The 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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8679197/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-linked-25-burglaries-Praia-da-Luz.html
-
That was in 2017.
But in 2005 burglaries were rife in Luz and the police did check them out in relation to the burglary and horrific rape perpetrated in close proximity to the McCann holiday apartment.
If you remember ~ that is the one Brueckner was found guilty of and for which he is presently doing time.
Snip
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.
The 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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8679197/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-linked-25-burglaries-Praia-da-Luz.html
Doesn’t the article above kind of put paid to the claim that the Portuguese police didn’t do anything about the break ins occurring in PDL ? Further while a myriad of items were taken from the apartments burglarised interestingly no children. Now was this because burglars don’t generally steal children or that those burgled were a little more concerned with their children’s safety than the Tapas group?
-
Doesn’t the article above kind of put paid to the claim that the Portuguese police didn’t do anything about the break ins occurring in PDL ? Further while a myriad of items were taken from the apartments burglarised interestingly no children. Now was this because burglars don’t generally steal children or that those burgled were a little more concerned with their children’s safety than the Tapas group?
An alternative consideration could be: a convicted child molester/paraphile, burgling but deciding to take a child instead. In this case, a female child. The BKA’s five charges against CB, involve women only. Ranging from +/- 15 to 70 years old.
-
Yet an ex girlfriend supposedly gives an alibi and its bollox .
She didn't give him an alibi.
-
Doesn’t the article above kind of put paid to the claim that the Portuguese police didn’t do anything about the break ins occurring in PDL ? Further while a myriad of items were taken from the apartments burglarised interestingly no children. Now was this because burglars don’t generally steal children or that those burgled were a little more concerned with their children’s safety than the Tapas group?
We do know that in some of the break-ins the intruder interacted with the children present despite their parents being on the premises also. This speaks of a rather brazen criminal who is not exactly risk averse does it not?
-
We do know that in some of the break-ins the intruder interacted with the children present despite their parents being on the premises also. This speaks of a rather brazen criminal who is not exactly risk averse does it not?
There's nothing suggesting that the man who was reported as interacting with children and the burglar was the same person, so what he did isn't relevant.
-
An alternative consideration could be: a convicted child molester/paraphile, burgling but deciding to take a child instead. In this case, a female child. The BKA’s five charges against CB, involve women only. Ranging from +/- 15 to 70 years old.
The holiday resort and nearby, obviously had a long history of criminality much of which was allowed to run unchecked.
Check out the dates on the following ~
Madeleine McCann police seek intruder who attacked girls at holiday homes
James Meikle
Wed 19 Mar 2014 21.03 GMT
Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Portuguese holiday resort nearly seven years ago say a lone intruder sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006.
The four incidents – one involving two girls – were among 12 over six years up to 2010 being examined by officers in which a man entered holiday accommodation, mainly villas occupied by British families.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Madeleine: Portuguese police to re-examine burglaries at resort
By FIONA BARTON
Last updated at 11:48 19 August 2007
The under-fire Portuguese police are preparing to take a fresh look at reports of two earlier break-ins in the apartment block where Madeleine McCann and her family stayed.
Both burglaries - one in the apartment directly above the McCann's flat - are understood to have happened two weeks before the family of five arrived at the Mark Warner Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.
One was believed to have been committed by someone with a key to the burgled apartment.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html
Serious crimes were being committed. Yet there seems to have been a dearth of any sort of meaningful search by the Portuguese police for forensic evidence of any kind. To the extent of allowing Madeleine's bedclothes to be removed by the cleaners.
There is little evidence (if any) that there was any serious thought given to the chance that these offences could have been linked either to the same perpetrator or group until Scotland Yard took over the investigation and began working through the case systematically.
Madeleine McCann Update: British Police Want To Interview Three Alleged Burglars
Jan 13, 2014,
Authorities in the UK are traveling to Portugal this week to interview three men in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The three men Metropolitan Police want to interview committed burglaries at the Portuguese resort the British girl vanished from, according to The Daily Mirror.
Cellphone records also allegedly show the three men made numerous calls to each other in the hours after McCann disappeared.
____________________________________________________________________________
"Police want to be given a chance to arrest key suspects. It doesn’t prove they have Madeleine but it will rule them in or out of the investigation and that is important," the spokesman said.
This latest development in the case comes three months after authorities announced they were combing through a huge trove of phone records from tourists and residents who were in the Praia da Luz resort on or around May 3, 2007.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/madeleine-mccann-update_n_4588700
-
There's nothing suggesting that the man who was reported as interacting with children and the burglar was the same person, so what he did isn't relevant.
Individuals in a criminal investigation are only deemed "irrelevant" once they have been investigated and ruled out.
We know the police tried to contact Brueckner at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
Do you know if they were successful in that endeavour?
Or was he added to a similar version of Paiva's later file of all that "wasn't relative to the inquiry"?.
-
She didn't give him an alibi.
Given the BKA cannot place CB in Luz, why does he need one ?
-
An alternative consideration could be: a convicted child molester/paraphile, burgling but deciding to take a child instead.
No evidence if a break in, no forensic evidence, how does the alternative stack up.
-
No evidence if a break in, no forensic evidence, how does the alternative stack up.
No evidence of a break in with the man molesting children in their beds either, isn't that strange? Maybe he had a key?
-
Given the BKA cannot place CB in Luz, why does he need one ?
Your wishful thinking is speculation.
You really know nothing about the evidence available to investigators. So it would be appropriate to post about it when it appears in the public domain should there be a trial.
Just something along the lines of what is happening presently as we await the trial outcome of the five serious charges he faces.
-
Yet an ex girlfriend supposedly gives an alibi and its bollox .
An ex girlfriend said he broke into her apartment and hid under the bed waiting to see if she brought another man back with her, she didn't and he left. another example of him breaking into an apartment, he was experienced at doing that.
-
No evidence if a break in, no forensic evidence, how does the alternative stack up.
The Portuguese police of the time did not appear to "do" collecting forensic evidence. Always a good place to start with evidence, one would think.
-
An ex girlfriend said he broke into her apartment and hid under the bed waiting to see if she brought another man back with her, she didn't and he left. another example of him breaking into an apartment, he was experienced at doing that.
She says he was hiding while lying in wait for her. I think that is serious stuff and certainly ties in with other anecdotal evidence in the public domain.
-
Your wishful thinking is speculation.
You really know nothing about the evidence available to investigators. So it would be appropriate to post about it when it appears in the public domain should there be a trial.
Just something along the lines of what is happening presently as we await the trial outcome of the five serious charges he faces.
We know the evidence available to investigators isn't sufficient to bring charges against Brueckner anytime in the foreseeable future.
We do know that, well, at least some of us worked that out over 2 years ago. Others, not as sharp.
But hey, in your imagination perhaps, it shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Given the BKA cannot place CB in Luz, why does he need one ?
So why did he pretend to have an alibi?
-
So why did he pretend to have an alibi?
He doesn't actually need one anyway.
When is that going to sink In?
-
It seems that Brueckner made an art of thinking up Alibis that he didn't need.
-
It seems that Brueckner made an art of thinking up Alibis that he didn't need.
So you think he was only tapping that German sort during that week purely to give himself an alibi?
I've got a bridge to sell you, it's made of concrete.
-
There's nothing suggesting that the man who was reported as interacting with children and the burglar was the same person, so what he did isn't relevant.
Using your favourite fallacious arguement, there's nothing to suggest it isn't the same man either :-)
-
So you think he was only tapping that German sort during that week purely to give himself an alibi?
I've got a bridge to sell you, it's made of concrete.
So is your head.
-
So is your head.
@)(++(*
-
Using your favourite fallacious arguement, there's nothing to suggest it isn't the same man either :-)
Except he was described as having dark hair and a pot belly.
-
No evidence of a break in with the man molesting children in their beds either, isn't that strange? Maybe he had a key?
To every apartment he was supposed to have entered ?
-
So is your head.
I'm not the one still floundering around with the ridiculous notion that Brueckner needs an alibi. I called it two years ago. Wolters never really had concrete evidence. If you still haven't figured that out then there really is no helping you I'm afraid.
-
To every apartment he was supposed to have entered ?
The paedophile gang had master keys.
When the smelly, pot bellied, bin man finished his shift he handed the keys to Brueckner.
-
To every apartment he was supposed to have entered ?
How did he get in then?
-
Except he was described as having dark hair and a pot belly.
CB's hair can look quite dark at night. We don't know if he had a pot belly around that time do we ?
CB burgled apartments, CB was a Paedophile can you understand why he would be a suspect?
-
So why did he pretend to have an alibi?
Very good question Eleanor.
-
Except he was described as having dark hair and a pot belly.
The intruder who molested children when the opportunity arose was also reported as having an interesting bodily aroma about him.
Scotland Yard released that information into the public domain as a result of their inquiries for information.
Wonder if finding what happened to Madeleine was in their remit?
Snip
Speaking in a documentary for the Australian Channel 7 which aired at the weekend, Colin revealed he thought it would be a "thankless task" to try and find her.
He said: "It's almost impossible without specific intelligence that would allow you to focus on a specific area."
He revealed the only hope of ever finding her would be for someone who knew what had happened to her to come forward and confess.
This comes after Operation Grange - the Metropolitan Police's investigation into her disappearance - was granted another £150,000 to continue their search.
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/madeleine-mccann-colin-sutton-impossible/
There you have it folks: words spoken by Colin Sutton using simple and easily understood language.
The most relevant information available to the police in cases such as Madeleine's will come from individuals "in the know".
And that is precisely what happened. All that was required was the information and for that information to be investigated.
It was a long time coming. In the event, it is precisely as predicted by Sutton a couple of years ago. The German authorities have worked to remove a dangerous criminal from the streets because of information received; and I think they will continue with that end in sight until there is nothing left to investigate.
-
Except he was described as having dark hair and a pot belly.
so what? Means nothing. Bruckner was described as having dreadlocks and driving a van covered in graffiti too, as I recall…
-
Right, so the blonde, slim 6 foot Brueckner has morphed into the dark skinned, darked haired, pot bellied burglary bin man now has he?
That's where we're at today is it?
OK. I suppose we do have to talk about something, while we wait for Wolters to reveal the concrete evidence.
That's if he even really has any that is. Which he very obviously doesn't, & that's why we are where we are.
-
so what? Means nothing. Bruckner was described as having dreadlocks and driving a van covered in graffiti too, as I recall…
It is worth bearing in mind that in the beginning, no-one had ever heard of Brueckner. With the exception of the Portuguese police who tried to interview him.
Everything has a beginning. Scotland Yard took everything back to the beginning when they took on the case. They interviewed other people of whom we had never heard such as Dr Totman and those assaulted when they were children.
Any one who is labouring under the belief that Scotland Yard did not revisit material witnesses based in Britain and hear what they had to say is I think delusional.
Nor do they have a clue about how police inquiries work in practice.
-
Has no interfering busy body actually raised an FOI about the word abduction in the remit yet? I’d be surprised if they hadn’t.
-
Has no interfering busy body actually raised an FOI about the word abduction in the remit yet? I’d be surprised if they hadn’t.
It all got a bit silly at one point. FOIs being demanded for all sorts of spurious reasons, mainly from Tony Bennett during his days of glory. He got what he was entitled to, which wasn't much.
-
It all got a bit silly at one point. FOIs being demanded for all sorts of spurious reasons, mainly from Tony Bennett during his days of glory. He got what he was entitled to, which wasn't much.
All going towards making this criminal investigation probably the most scrutinised one ever and certainly one of the most interfered with.
How many Government petitions did these guys set up? in their endeavours to derail the Scotland Yard investigation into the disappearance of a little girl?
-
All going towards making this criminal investigation probably the most scrutinised one ever and certainly one of the most interfered with.
How many Government petitions did these guys set up? in their endeavours to derail the Scotland Yard investigation into the disappearance of a little girl?
Which all cost even more money to detract from The Investigation.
The Sceptics could do well to shut up about this.
-
Which all cost even more money to detract from The Investigation.
The Sceptics could do well to shut up about this.
You think any one cares ?
-
You think any one cares ?
No one cares about anything, ever. Nor do they hope, believe, or any other optimistic, empathetic emotion you care to mention. We only exist to pour scorn, to hate and dismiss, in a fug of nihilism and despair.
Hope that makes you feel better. @)(++(*
-
You think any one cares ?
Yes, I think some do.
Particularly those who can't seem to resist posting non sequiturs at every opportunity.
-
Which all cost even more money to detract from The Investigation.
The Sceptics could do well to shut up about this.
They have airbrushed their prejudices aimed at preventing any advancement in the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance and will deny it.
But they did it! As anyone who read the social media posts at the time which set about sending misleading information to the police in the midst of public appeals in a child abduction case and encouraging others to join in.
How is it possible to suffer from hatred such as that?
Sick internet trolls target Kate and Gerry McCann after Crimewatch special
THE new investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been hit by vile trolls.
Rick Lyons
20 OCT 2013
Scores of people are thought to have made nuisance calls to the inquiry following a fresh appeal for information on the BBC's Crimewatch show.
Many boasted on Twitter about their time-wasting stunts, with some claiming they told the police new e-fits released on the programme looked like Madeleine's father Gerry, 44.
Twitter user LadyReeve wrote: "Awks when the e-fit is Gerry McCann! I'm going to ring in and name him just in case the police haven't got it yet #Crimewatch."
Another user called KCAEC said: "Who's gonna be the 1st person to phone in and say they recognise the e-fit......its Gerry McCann!"
Someone called Jont-o'-Lantern Gore also tweeted: "Chain smoking pack after pack of cigarettes to change my voice so that I can prank call Crimewatch."
Others on Twitter confirmed that police had been sidetracked by a spate of misleading calls.
Trevor Allman, a former London councillor, said: "Apparently a lot of people have pointed out to the police that the e-fit photo on last night's Crimewatch looks like Gerry McCann."
So far the Crimewatch appeal has generated 2,400 calls and emails to police with information.
The sick phone calls emerged amid growing support for hate-filled opponents of Gerry and Kate McCann, 45.
Detectives are monitoring the internet for vile messages about the couple after a Facebook group targeting the pair attracted 11,000 members.
Madeleine disappeared from the McCanns' holiday apartment in Praia de Luz, Portugal, in 2007.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/sick-internet-trolls-target-kate-18629467
This is what the Scotland Yard investigation into Madeleine's disappearance had to contend with right from its inception.
And the misinformation and resistance continues to this day.
Although revealing a particular mindset, the "Remit" saga is pretty small beer in comparison to deliberately with holding information as Paiva did. Or deliberately imparting false information as Amaral and these individuals did.
-
Omg, sick trolls phoned in & told Crimewatch that the e-fits of Gerry looked like Gerry.
Well that's utterly false & indefensible.
Wolters can prove the sighting was Brueckner.
-
Omg, sick trolls phoned in & told Crimewatch that the e-fits of Gerry looked like Gerry.
Well that's utterly false & indefensible.
Wolters can prove the sighting was Brueckner.
Well, allegedly, someone who actually saw the person thought it was Gerry McCann too. (and he wasn't a troll)
-
Well, allegedly, someone who actually saw the person thought it was Gerry McCann too. (and he wasn't a troll)
The Portuguese police police investigated and dismissed these thoughts as "not being relevant to the inquiry".
Certainly no action was taken. To what do you put that down to? Police incompetence or police doing their jobs and investigating witness statements to determine their accuracy.
I'm not sure your cunningly worded sentence really cuts the mustard as far as libel is concerned.
-
Well, allegedly, someone who actually saw the person thought it was Gerry McCann too. (and he wasn't a troll)
How can you be certain re. not being a troll?
-
The Portuguese police police investigated and dismissed these thoughts as "not being relevant to the inquiry".
Certainly no action was taken. To what do you put that down to? Police incompetence or police doing their jobs and investigating witness statements to determine their accuracy.
I'm not sure your cunningly worded sentence really cuts the mustard as far as libel is concerned.
A report from 2013.
“He ( Martin Smith ) added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.”
Two visits suggest that OG thought Martin Smith’s evidence very relevant to the case.
-
A report from 2013.
“He ( Martin Smith ) added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.”
Two visits suggest that OG thought Martin Smith’s evidence very relevant to the case.
Obviously not. The McCanns are still at large.
-
Obviously not. The McCanns are still at large.
And Brueckner hasn’t been charged with anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance so what are we to make of that?
-
And Brueckner hasn’t been charged with anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance so what are we to make of that?
That Brueckner will be locked up for quite some time. I am only concerned with protecting small children and old ladies for the time being.
-
A report from 2013.
“He ( Martin Smith ) added: “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”
He said he has met with Scotland Yard detectives twice over the past 18 months to help them with the new probe. He added: “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”
“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.”
Two visits suggest that OG thought Martin Smith’s evidence very relevant to the case.
So unlike G-Unit you don’t believe the remit was only to investigate an abduction? Interesting difference of opinion there.
-
So unlike G-Unit you don’t believe the remit was only to investigate an abduction? Interesting difference of opinion there.
Excellent. But then Gunit never had any proof anyway.
I so often find that if you push a point too far then you usually defeat your own argument.
-
Excellent. But then Gunit never had any proof anyway.
I so often find that if you push a point too far then you usually defeat your own argument.
You're never going to see those two debating this point despite apparently having very different opinions on it.
-
You're never going to see those two debating this point despite apparently having very different opinions on it.
They wouldn't agree with you of course. Anything can be screwed to mean anything.
But we carry on. and I no longer care of what they think. I am only here to refute their obvious lies in an attempt to implicate The McCanns. This is never going to happen. And of course they are doomed to failure.
Whether or not Brueckner is ever convicted of the disappearance of Madeleine is immaterial to me. He will stay locked up for a very long time on other charges.
-
They wouldn't agree with you of course. Anything can be screwed to mean anything.
But we carry on. and I no longer care of what they think. I am only here to refute their obvious lies in an attempt to implicate The McCanns. This is never going to happen. And of course they are doomed to failure.
Whether or not Brueckner is ever convicted of the disappearance of Madeleine is immaterial to me. He will stay locked up for a very long time on other charges.
Let's hope (oops, shame on me for having hope!)
-
Let's hope (oops, shame on me for having hope!)
No need for Hope at the moment. Madeleine is alive or dead. But no one has proof of either. This is what is so disgusting. Some persons actually hope that Madeleine is dead.
-
No need for Hope at the moment. Madeleine is alive or dead. But no one has proof of either. This is what is so disgusting. Some persons actually hope that Madeleine is dead.
I think that has always been so, convoluted though it is. Their hope is not only for Madeleine to be dead but that she is so with parental involvement ~ nothing else will suffice.
-
So unlike G-Unit you don’t believe the remit was only to investigate an abduction? Interesting difference of opinion there.
Who says they weren't investigating an abduction when OG investigated the Smith sighting?
-
Who says they weren't investigating an abduction when OG investigated the Smith sighting?
Or anything else.
-
Who says they weren't investigating an abduction when OG investigated the Smith sighting?
Ask Faithlilly what she thinks and get back to me.
-
Ask Faithlilly what she thinks and get back to me.
She didn't say they were investigating something else, I think you assumed she was.
-
No need for Hope at the moment. Madeleine is alive or dead. But no one has proof of either. This is what is so disgusting. Some persons actually hope that Madeleine is dead.
There is proof.
Wolters has CONCRETE EVIDENCE Madeleine is dead & said there's no hope she is alive.
Why do you doubt Wolters when he has the full backing of the BKA the MET & the PJ?
I really don't see the point in hoping Maddie is alive now, given the fact Brueckner murdered her.
-
No need for Hope at the moment. Madeleine is alive or dead. But no one has proof of either. This is what is so disgusting. Some persons actually hope that Madeleine is dead.
Indeed…and at the hands of a vicious paedophile. Shame on them.
-
She didn't say they were investigating something else, I think you assumed she was.
you didn’t ask her did you?
-
Indeed…and at the hands of a vicious paedophile. Shame on them.
Shame on you for continuing to peddle this blatant lie.
-
Who remembers when the McCanns appeared on Crimewatch how many sceptics believed they were being set up by Operation Grange to crack under pressure and that Redwood was playing a cunning game by deliberately shifting attention onto Smithman in order to get Gerry sweating under the studio lights? How would this have fitted in with the “abduction only” remit I wonder?
Nope, there’s definitely not consensus in Scepticland that the Met were ordered to investigate abduction to the exclusion of all other theories.
-
There is proof.
Wolters has CONCRETE EVIDENCE Madeleine is dead & said there's no hope she is alive.
Why do you doubt Wolters when he has the full backing of the BKA the MET & the PJ?
I really don't see the point in hoping Maddie is alive now, given the fact Brueckner murdered her.
There is evidence which validates Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
That will only become “proof” when a German court decides it is. Until then he enjoys the presumption of innocence.
We are also aware that Staatsanwalt H. C. Wolters possesses a firm record of taking Portuguese cases such as the five of which Brueckner currently stands accused to conclusion, by prosecuting filth and removing it to where it no longer presents a danger to women and children.
I am sure you support him to the hilt with his current endeavours.
-
It's even worse hoping she's still alive in that scenario.
Still tied up in a basement all these years.
Poor girl would probably rather she was dead.
Little girls have matured into womanhood in the dire circumstances you post about with such unmitigated relish.
Only you and like individuals are degraded by such posts.
-
There is proof.
Wolters has CONCRETE EVIDENCE Madeleine is dead & said there's no hope she is alive.
Why do you doubt Wolters when he has the full backing of the BKA the MET & the PJ?
I really don't see the point in hoping Maddie is alive now, given the fact Brueckner murdered her.
Unless something has changed very recently, Wolters does NOT have the backing from OG/SY that Madeleine is DEAD.
SY are looking for a MISSING MADELEINE. They have repeatedly made that clear ~ and I have too.
Please clean up your act with the truth.
-
It's even worse hoping she's still alive in that scenario.
Still tied up in a basement all these years.
Poor girl would probably rather she was dead.
Madeleine is NOT tied up in a basement somewhere. She is being quite well looked after, because she has a role to play in some very wealthy mans plans.
This very wealthy man has the blood of Mary and Jesus in his veins, both of whom are thought to have come from the Gods via their fathers. It is thought that Joseph did not father Jesus.
Via Madeleines paternal grandpa she appears to have the blood of John the Baptist in her veins. Her Grandma and Grandma were Johnsons. Some religions and groups see John the Baptist as more important than Jesus. Also there is speculation on the internet that John the Baptists father was of the Gods.
.
There is also speculation on the internet that Mary was the sister of John the Baptists mother and that they were both very attractive women, and that the Gods fathered children by them.
Sorry, but to obtain this information, I have read scores of documents/articles. At present there is Biblical evidence quoted, and not yet wiped out, supporting what I am saying. If anyone has the energy and the will, they will have to check it for themselves asap
My OWN speculation is that this wealthy man wants his bloodline to mate with Madeleines. The off spring will then have twice over sacred blood + ?twice over blood from the Gods. Whether this is for self agrandisement, social climbing, power, or for Nepharious reasons I know not.
And, of course, I fully accept that my theory may be off the mark, but there is an abundance of pointers, which unhappily I cannot share.
-
There is evidence which validates Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
That will only become “proof” when a German court decides it is. Until then he enjoys the presumption of innocence.
We are also aware that Staatsanwalt H. C. Wolters possesses a firm record of taking Portuguese cases such as the five of which Brueckner currently stands accused to conclusion, by prosecuting filth and removing it to where it no longer presents a danger to women and children.
I am sure you support him to the hilt with his current endeavours.
Well this puts me in somewhat of a bind as I'm quite sure you are aware by now that I'm obliged to disagree with McCann supporters on every given subject.
You are essentially trolling me by forcing me to side with the vile rapist I'm afraid.
-
There is evidence which validates Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
That will only become “proof” when a German court decides it is. Until then he enjoys the presumption of innocence.
We are also aware that Staatsanwalt H. C. Wolters possesses a firm record of taking Portuguese cases such as the five of which Brueckner currently stands accused to conclusion, by prosecuting filth and removing it to where it no longer presents a danger to women and children.
I am sure you support him to the hilt with his current endeavours.
The problem is that Bruckner has no prior for abduction or murder of anyone let alone a child so that unfortunately is the starting point.
-
The problem is that Bruckner has no prior for abduction or murder of anyone let alone a child so that unfortunately is the starting point.
He's a dreadful man & has done some appalling things, but he just doesn't seem the murdering kind to me. It's not his MO. He might have joked to his mates about destroying the evidence but I don't believe he really has it in him.
-
He gave Diane M a good whacking with a pole, but I find it slightly curious that he hasn't been reported as doing the same to Hazel B.
Perhaps Diane M being older woman was more uncooperative.
Anyway, we've drifted off topic so I'll stop 'supporting' Brueckner now.
-
The problem is that Bruckner has no prior for abduction or murder of anyone let alone a child so that unfortunately is the starting point.
As has been pointed out dozens of times before there are (sadly) numerous examples of first time child abductor / murderers - why do you think it's unlikely Bruckner could be one too? Any specific reason apart from "just because"?
In your view did the person who you believe ran over Madeleine and hid her body need to have had a track record of running over kids and hiding their bodies in order to have committed this crime?
-
As has been pointed out dozens of times before there are (sadly) numerous examples of first time child abductor / murderers - why do you think it's unlikely Bruckner could be one too? Any specific reason apart from "just because"?
In your view did the person who you believe ran over Madeleine and hid her body have to have had a track record of running over kids and hiding their bodies in order to have committed this crime?
Yes, just because. He just doesn't seem the type. There are no frenzied attacks reported. Playground exposures & calculated rapes, yes, but he doesn't come across as a Levi Bellfield or Peter Suttclife to me. He doesn't seem to have that level of bloodlust.
-
The problem is that Bruckner has no prior for abduction or murder of anyone let alone a child so that unfortunately is the starting point.
Every murderer has a starting point.
-
Every murderer has a starting point.
But just the one abduction & murder for Brueckner.
-
Every murderer has a starting point.
Don't you find it odd that there are people here who seem to know CB so well as to be quite certain that he couldn't possibly have committed such a heinous crime?
-
The problem is that Bruckner has no prior for abduction or murder of anyone let alone a child so that unfortunately is the starting point.
How do you know? Thing is we haven't got a clue what he has done in the past. He went to different countries.
-
But just the one abduction & murder for Brueckner.
Are you stating that as fact?
-
Don't you find it odd that there are people here who seem to know CB so well as to be quite certain that he couldn't possibly have committed such a heinous crime?
I have given that some deeply considered consideration.
-
How do you know? Thing is we haven't got a clue what he has done in the past. He went to different countries.
When the press back in 2020 were like a pack of rabid dogs all manner of supposed crimes were supposed to have been linked to CB, none seemed to have gained traction save for the ones he's been indicted for, but yet not one murder.
-
When the press back in 2020 were like a pack of rabid dogs all manner of supposed crimes were supposed to have been linked to CB, none seemed to have gained traction save for the ones he's been indicted for, but yet not one murder.
Please provide a cite to substantiate your claim.
As we have seen from recent royal claims generalisations about press intrusions are ten a penny.
For our purposes accusations from official sources would be nice.
BKA ~ PJ ~ SY or even something along the lines of ex-investigator's ravings about patsys and dreadlocks would probably be acceptable too.
-
Please provide a cite to substantiate your claim.
As we have seen from recent royal claims generalisations about press intrusions are ten a penny.
For our purposes accusations from official sources would be nice.
BKA ~ PJ ~ SY or even something along the lines of ex-investigator's ravings about patsys and dreadlocks would probably be acceptable too.
I give up. There is no conversation to be had here. But just watch what you all have to say.
-
When the press back in 2020 were like a pack of rabid dogs all manner of supposed crimes were supposed to have been linked to CB, none seemed to have gained traction save for the ones he's been indicted for, but yet not one murder.
That is expected. If a person suspected of abducting a child was in the area where another child went missing, it is normal for the police to look into it.
CB as you know had fantasies of taking something small and then disposing of it, how do you know he hasn't done that?
-
Yes, just because. He just doesn't seem the type. There are no frenzied attacks reported. Playground exposures & calculated rapes, yes, but he doesn't come across as a Levi Bellfield or Peter Suttclife to me. He doesn't seem to have that level of bloodlust.
Doesn't seem the type !!
-
Doesn't seem the type !!
Obviously the troll and the paedo are intimately acquainted for the former to apparently know the latter so well.
-
I wonder what level of “bloodlust” the friends and family of Mark Bridger would have assigned to him prior to him abducting, raping, mudering and chopping up the body of April Jones? Likewise Wayne Couzens. Did either of these “seem the type” prior to their horrendous crimes being revealed?
-
Obviously the troll and the paedo are intimately acquainted for the former to apparently know the latter so well.
He just doesn't seem like a murderer to me, from all the available evidence. Certainly Wolters is having a problem with nailing Brueckner for Maddie's murder & maybe that's because he simply didn't murder her.
That could be the very reason couldn't it.
-
He just doesn't seem like a murderer to me, from all the available evidence. Certainly Wolters is having a problem with nailing Brueckner for Maddie's murder & maybe that's because he simply didn't murder her.
That could be the very reason couldn't it.
My view is that Brückner didn’t kill Madeleine per se. And if he did, it was by accident, I believe. Wolters first want to make sure that Brückner gets sentenced for the five new charges. And as the BKA said, then pursue Madeleine’s case. Personally, I think Madeleine is alive.
-
My view is that Brückner didn’t kill Madeleine per se. And if he did, it was by accident, I believe. Wolters first want to make sure that Brückner gets sentenced for the five new charges. And as the BKA said, then pursue Madeleine’s case. Personally, I think Madeleine is alive.
But there's concrete evidence she's dead? According to Wolters if we knew the evidence he has we'd be in no doubt. How could she possibly be alive? Unless perhaps Wolters wasn't telling the truth. I suppose that's possible isn't it.
-
He just doesn't seem like a murderer to me, from all the available evidence. Certainly Wolters is having a problem with nailing Brueckner for Maddie's murder & maybe that's because he simply didn't murder her.
That could be the very reason couldn't it.
Brueckner could have murdered Madeleine even though he hadn’t murdered before, there’s always a first time. Yet the fact that Gerry had never committed a criminal act is proof that he couldn’t have committed the one he was accused of ie the occultation of a body.
Interesting.
-
Brueckner could have murdered Madeleine even though he hadn’t murdered before, there’s always a first time. Yet the fact that Gerry had never committed a criminal act is proof that he couldn’t have committed the one he was accused of ie the occultation of a body.
Interesting.
Who has ever made that claim?
-
My view is that Brückner didn’t kill Madeleine per se. And if he did, it was by accident, I believe. Wolters first want to make sure that Brückner gets sentenced for the five new charges. And as the BKA said, then pursue Madeleine’s case. Personally, I think Madeleine is alive.
Well said Anthro.
It is not easy going against the majority viewpoint. I hope that they do not put you on ignore as many seem to have done to me.
May I remind posters that at the time, I stood out against the supporters barely hidden conviction that Brueckner was guilty of abducting and murdering Madeleine. Now there is uncertainty where there was conviction. I welcome this.
For expressing an opposing view, it seems to me that I was ostracised by many.
Sad. This is a forum and all views should be considered
-
My view is that Brückner didn’t kill Madeleine per se. And if he did, it was by accident, I believe. Wolters first want to make sure that Brückner gets sentenced for the five new charges. And as the BKA said, then pursue Madeleine’s case. Personally, I think Madeleine is alive.
Like Eleanor, I am reluctant to point the finger at anyone without an abundance of evidence = facts, as well as pointers.
I am still open minded about Brueckner although I have possible pointers that he might have been the driver who Carlos Moreira saw with ?Madeleine in the back of a white van at the roadside cafe on the N10 near Samora Corriea This driver was identified by Carlos as being very like a photofit that we have all seen and discussed.
The photofit was very like CB and I spent ages changing a photograph of CB by adding a wig, altering the eyebrows as though with mascara and possible black pencil + adding the same sort of moustache.
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01457/teeth_1457591i.jpg)
Where have all the small images of this efit sketch vanished to? They seem to have been cleared off the internet. Why?
I think that that photofit was so like a deliberately disguised CB that it ia likely that the photofit was of CB.
But I DON'T KNOW for sure, so it goes on the back burner
Like Elli I don't like accusing without proof and i have no actual proof atm.
-
My view is that Brückner didn’t kill Madeleine per se. And if he did, it was by accident, I believe. Wolters first want to make sure that Brückner gets sentenced for the five new charges. And as the BKA said, then pursue Madeleine’s case. Personally, I think Madeleine is alive.
I still have the hope that CB sold Madeleine. He could have said he killed her so that they wouldn't go into depth as to who he sold her too. If the person or gang he may have sold her too are powerful people he could be afraid they will find him and kill him if he give any details.
Who knows.
-
I still have the hope that CB sold Madeleine. He could have said he killed her so that they wouldn't go into depth as to who he sold her too. If the person or gang he may have sold her too are powerful people he could be afraid they will find him and kill him if he give any details.
Who knows.
Are you hoping that Brueckner didn't kill Madeleine and that therefore Wolters is wrong in his belief ?
Even if he did sell her, there would be no guarantee that she lived long once the hands of this 'powerful gang'
-
Like Eleanor, I am reluctant to point the finger at anyone without an abundance of evidence = facts, as well as pointers.
I am still open minded about Brueckner although I have possible pointers that he might have been the driver who Carlos Moreira saw with ?Madeleine in the back of a white van at the roadside cafe on the N10 near Samora Corriea This driver was identified by Carlos as being very like a photofit that we have all seen and discussed.
The photofit was very like CB and I spent ages changing a photograph of CB by adding a wig, altering the eyebrows as though with mascara and possible black pencil + adding the same sort of moustache.
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01457/teeth_1457591i.jpg)
Where have all the small images of this efit sketch vanished to? They seem to have been cleared off the internet. Why?
I think that that photofit was so like a deliberately disguised CB that it ia likely that the photofit was of CB.
But I DON'T KNOW for sure, so it goes on the back burner
Like Elli I don't like accusing without proof and i have no actual proof atm.
I think it’s very possible, Sadie. Also the fact that Nicole F said CB was in Tomar on the night of 3/4 May 2007. Samora Correia is about an hour’s drive from Tomar.
-
Are you hoping that Brueckner didn't kill Madeleine and that therefore Wolters is wrong in his belief ?
Even if he did sell her, there would be no guarantee that she lived long once the hands of this 'powerful gang'
Here’s the the thing. Many of us hope against hope that Madeleine is alive and well, having been abducted and passed on to a loving, kind family. I don’t know for sure that this didn’t happen but I think it’s highly unlikely. I think the most logical and plausible explanation is that she was abducted for nefarious reasons and died shortly after being taken. I hope I am wrong. I don’t think I am.
-
I still have the hope that CB sold Madeleine. He could have said he killed her so that they wouldn't go into depth as to who he sold her too. If the person or gang he may have sold her too are powerful people he could be afraid they will find him and kill him if he give any details.
Who knows.
Still nothing that points to CB being in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007.
-
I still have the hope that CB sold Madeleine. He could have said he killed her so that they wouldn't go into depth as to who he sold her too. If the person or gang he may have sold her too are powerful people he could be afraid they will find him and kill him if he give any details.
Who knows.
I tend to lean towards this. It's the only thing that I can make sense of.
-
Still nothing that points to CB being in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007.
His phone was there, according to the phone logs.
-
His phone was there, according to the phone logs.
A phone, Wolters admits any one could have used it, if CB is the one then if , buts and maybe's won't get him convicted.
-
A phone, Wolters admits any one could have used it, if CB is the one then if , buts and maybe's won't get him convicted.
His phone in the locale is a pointer that he was there however. You said there were no pointers. There is. A 30 minute phone call received from a number belonging to a known paedophile, according to MWT.
-
A phone, Wolters admits any one could have used it, if CB is the one then if , buts and maybe's won't get him convicted.
Anyone? You lend you phone to all and sundry and don't know who's got It?
-
Anyone? You lend you phone to all and sundry and don't know who's got It?
no one lends their phone out - not for more than a few minutes anyway. You certainly don't give it to a mate when you're elsewhere in the country for any length of time. It's a ridiculous idea.
-
no one lends their phone out - not for more than a few minutes anyway. You certainly don't give it to a mate when you're elsewhere in the country for any length of time. It's a ridiculous idea.
Best tell Wolters then.
-
Best tell Wolters then.
Wolters already knows much more than you do.
-
Anyone? You lend you phone to all and sundry and don't know who's got It?
Never heard of phones being lost or stolen or even sold on ?
-
Never heard of phones being lost or stolen or even sold on ?
Did he use it after the event? Wolters will know that.
-
Did he use it after the event? Wolters will know that.
How would he know? Collected data only covered a few days.
Even then, use wouldn't identify user.
-
How would he know? Collected data only covered a few days.
Even then, use wouldn't identify user.
A few days? One would do. And then it would depend on who spoke to whom and from where. So your argument won't do I'm afraid.
-
Best tell Wolters then.
I'm sure he's worked that one out for himself. The problem is, ludicrous though the idea is, it could be used in defence, just as you can't prove the dog didn't eat the pupil's homework.
-
no one lends their phone out - not for more than a few minutes anyway. You certainly don't give it to a mate when you're elsewhere in the country for any length of time. It's a ridiculous idea.
Drug dealers share a phone number sometimes.
Don't ask me how I know that.
-
Wolters already knows much more than you do.
Wolters has all the answers doesn't he.
He's just reluctant to prove it all in court, which tells you all you need to know about the strength of the concrete evidence really.
Well, at least, some people have cottoned on, others, not so sharp.
-
A few days? One would do. And then it would depend on who spoke to whom and from where. So your argument won't do I'm afraid.
It certainly would, but as Wolters has made no mention of such an event it is likely not to be available.
Just wishful thinking, like so much on here
-
It certainly would, but as Wolters has made no mention of such an event it is likely not to be available.
Just wishful thinking, like so much on here
At least this is looking like a conversation, for which I am grateful.
-
Wolters already knows much more than you do.
Dare say he does, but that knowledge and tuppence h'appeny mighten get you a haircut.
From the updated appeal which has been posted previously.
Now almost doesn't cut it, Redwood was almost certain Tannerman was not an abductor, many or I should say supporters have jumped on that as not entirely ruling it out so using that criteria almost using the phone doesn't mean he was using it.
In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time of the crime in question . A telephone call was made to a previously unknown person on May 3, 2007 at a relevant time in the area of Praia da Luz. The caller used the Portuguese number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness , but was not in the area during the call.
Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?
Heres the cite, use it wisely.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
-
Dare say he does, but that knowledge and tuppence h'appeny mighten get you a haircut.
From the updated appeal which has been posted previously.
Now almost doesn't cut it, Redwood was almost certain Tannerman was not an abductor, many or I should say supporters have jumped on that as not entirely ruling it out so using that criteria almost using the phone doesn't mean he was using it.
In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time of the crime in question . A telephone call was made to a previously unknown person on May 3, 2007 at a relevant time in the area of Praia da Luz. The caller used the Portuguese number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness , but was not in the area during the call.
Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?
Heres the cite, use it wisely.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
If 60%-80% sure = Gerry was Smithman, what does “almost certain” mean?
-
Dare say he does, but that knowledge and tuppence h'appeny mighten get you a haircut.
From the updated appeal which has been posted previously.
Now almost doesn't cut it, Redwood was almost certain Tannerman was not an abductor, many or I should say supporters have jumped on that as not entirely ruling it out so using that criteria almost using the phone doesn't mean he was using it.
In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time of the crime in question . A telephone call was made to a previously unknown person on May 3, 2007 at a relevant time in the area of Praia da Luz. The caller used the Portuguese number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness , but was not in the area during the call.
Can you provide information on the phone numbers mentioned and their users in May 2007?
Heres the cite, use it wisely.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html
You really can't make up a narrative to suit yourself just because you pick and chose or pick and mix your cites.
Particularly at a time when no-one out with the investigation has the faintest idea what information has already been imparted following appeals to the public, short of the fact that as promised, the BKA are obviously concentrating on gathering evidence against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
- Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
- Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons besides the perpetrator himself who have concrete knowledge of the possible course of events and, if necessary, location of the body. We expressly ask these persons to contact us and share their knowledge.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#weitereInformationen132470
Only in sceptic wonderland does time stand still in investigative terms. The rest of the world has moved on and are as near as they ever have been to finding answers to Madeleine's fate. At this stage I think "festina lente" is the sensible way to proceed and I think that is precisely what the BKA are doing.
-
Get all of the other charges sorted first with individual sentences. That'll fix him.
-
Get all of the other charges sorted first with individual sentences. That'll fix him.
Or acquittals, depending on what the Judge(s) decides.
-
Or acquittals, depending on what the Judge(s) decides.
Hardly likely with the Child Abuse Cases with Witnesses and a Police Arrest.
The Rapes remain to be seen, but he has done this before as well.
-
You really can't make up a narrative to suit yourself just because you pick and chose or pick and mix your cites.
Particularly at a time when no-one out with the investigation has the faintest idea what information has already been imparted following appeals to the public, short of the fact that as promised, the BKA are obviously concentrating on gathering evidence against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
- Have you yourself been the victim of a crime by this person?
- Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons besides the perpetrator himself who have concrete knowledge of the possible course of events and, if necessary, location of the body. We expressly ask these persons to contact us and share their knowledge.
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#weitereInformationen132470
Only in sceptic wonderland does time stand still in investigative terms. The rest of the world has moved on and are as near as they ever have been to finding answers to Madeleine's fate. At this stage I think "festina lente" is the sensible way to proceed and I think that is precisely what the BKA are doing.
You've basically just described Supporter Wonderland here.
Still keeping faith in the concrete evidence & believing Wolters really will be wrapping things up.
Well, best of luck with that, but I think you'll find you might be waiting a long time before Brueckner is ever charged with anything that has even the faintest connection to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
It certainly would, but as Wolters has made no mention of such an event it is likely not to be available.
Just wishful thinking, like so much on here
It's gone beyond wishful thinking & ventured into outright delusion imo
-
The phantom conversation stopper strikes again.
-
The phantom conversation stopper strikes again.
There isn't any news to talk about.
We drifted from the remit to Brueckner & his (alleged) sex crimes. But he isn't being charged with anything related to Madeleine's dissappeance anytime in the foreseeable future, so we might just have to wait for the next bit of news we can discuss. Unless you can suggest something for us to argue about today.
-
That's another day down the drain.
-
That's another day down the drain.
Cheer up. Nearly Christmas 🎄
-
Cheer up. Nearly Christmas 🎄
The Winter Solstice has past and I missed it.. Read my Blog.
-
The Winter Solstice has past and I missed it.. Read my Blog.
I thought it was today?
-
It is today... https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/winter-solstice-shortest-day-year/ (https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/winter-solstice-shortest-day-year/)
But Lann-Georges is inhabited by moon worshippers, so anything beyond the norm can happen.
-
Good news! The days start getting longer from tomorrow. One thing to look forward to in an otherwise bleak-looking future.
-
It is today... https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/winter-solstice-shortest-day-year/ (https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/winter-solstice-shortest-day-year/)
But Lann-Georges is inhabited by moon worshippers, so anything beyond the norm can happen.
My thoughts on the matter are logical. Mind you, this Forum isn't known for it's logic.
-
Good news! The days start getting longer from tomorrow. One thing to look forward to in an otherwise bleak-looking future.
The days started getting longer here two days ago. And that is a fact.
-
I thought it was today?
According to t'internet it is today in France.
-
My thoughts on the matter are logical. Mind you, this Forum isn't known for it's logic.
Nor are a few members imo.
-
According to t'internet it is today in France.
'Tis true on t'internet in Bretagne... https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@3030288 (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@3030288)
-
"If winter comes , can spring be far behind" Shelley.
-
Thanks for reading my Blog y'll.
Back On Topic to what passed for On Topic.
The Remit of SY.
-
Yeah, the Remit. The one the Met designed specifically to ensure the McCanns heinous crimes were never investigated. Shocking stuff. Anyone contacted Alex Jones about it?
-
That's another day down the drain.
There are people around who really do not like the ethos of this forum and have gone out of their way to dumb it down by posting any old repetitive nonsense they can.
It is tiresome given the many thousands of like minded forums there are on the internet from which to chose.
Why do I think the object of the exercise is forum disruption? Simples ~ - They can't even be bothered to present a cogent argument. After all, the old shibboleths have done them fine for fifteen years 🙄
- I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe some of the mince they post 👀 as confirmed by the one honest enough to confirm what s/he is all about
-
Thanks for reading my Blog y'll.
Back On Topic to what passed for On Topic.
The Remit of SY.
I've always been of the opinion that the remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann and I think they have made an excellent job of it so far.
-
I've always been of the opinion that the remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann and I think they have made an excellent job of it so far.
What have they achieved then?
-
There are people around who really do not like the ethos of this forum and have gone out of their way to dumb it down by posting any old repetitive nonsense they can.
It is tiresome given the many thousands of like minded forums there are on the internet from which to chose.
Why do I think the object of the exercise is forum disruption? Simples ~ - They can't even be bothered to present a cogent argument. After all, the old shibboleths have done them fine for fifteen years 🙄
- I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe some of the mince they post 👀 as confirmed by the one honest enough to confirm what s/he is all about
You aren't wrong. But it is all such a waste of their time because it isn't working. And it never will.
Perhaps they really can't bear to have been so wrong.
Brenda was a champion. After several years of blaming The McCanns, she actually stood up and admitted how wrong she had been. And I did so admire her for that.
-
I've always been of the opinion that the remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann and I think they have made an excellent job of it so far.
So when it said the remit was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional new investigative approaches we would take"
what it really meant, in your opinion, was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine what happened to Madeleine McCann"
They know what happened, they have said it; she was abducted!
-
So when it said the remit was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional new investigative approaches we would take"
what it really meant, in your opinion, was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine what happened to Madeleine McCann"
They know what happened, they have said it; she was abducted!
Oh well case closed then. Strange that they bothered spending millions on a case they had already solved on day one, still it gives the likes of you something to moan about so money not entirely wasted I guess.
-
So when it said the remit was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional new investigative approaches we would take"
what it really meant, in your opinion, was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine what happened to Madeleine McCann"
They know what happened, they have said it; she was abducted!
Ahh but they didn't know she was murdered though.
They know that now. She was murdered by Brueckner & Wolters is going to prove as much in 2023.
-
You aren't wrong. But it is all such a waste of their time because it isn't working. And it never will.
Perhaps they really can't bear to have been so wrong.
Brenda was a champion. After several years of blaming The McCanns, she actually stood up and admitted how wrong she had been. And I did so admire her for that.
I too admire what Brenda did. Particularly as she didn't slink off into the sunset without setting the record straight on how wrong she had been in her condemnation of Kate and Gerry. What a powerful voice she was in that!
-
So when it said the remit was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional new investigative approaches we would take"
what it really meant, in your opinion, was;
"To examine the case and seek to determine what happened to Madeleine McCann"
They know what happened, they have said it; she was abducted!
Please do not presume to paraphrase my posts. "Yah! Boo! Sucks!" It really contributes nothing at all to the conversation. Then again I don't think that is ever your intention.
It is so obvious that whatever path Operation Grange followed at the beginning has proved to be a fruitful one all these years down the line.
I understand there is a coterie which is not best pleased with that. It must be discomfiting for them; but it is just something they are going to have to learn to live with.
-
Madeleine was Abducted. I just don't know for why or by whom. But someone took a huge risk. Or they would have done if it hadn't happened in Portugal, where they seem to be much more interested in fitting up Mothers.
I don't know if Brueckner was involved with this or even if he was alone, albeit doubtful if it was him.
-
I too admire what Brenda did. Particularly as she didn't slink off into the sunset without setting the record straight on how wrong she had been in her condemnation of Kate and Gerry. What a powerful voice she was in that!
And Bonny Braes of course. I was involved in that because Bonny asked me to tell others that she knew that she had been wrong and that she had been coerced by misinformation. More power to Bonny Braes as well.
-
Madeleine was Abducted. I just don't know for why or by whom. But someone took a huge risk. Or they would have done if it hadn't happened in Portugal, where they seem to be much more interested in fitting up Mothers.
I don't know if Brueckner was involved with this or even if he was alone, albeit doubtful if it was him.
Even from the little we know it is obvious that the phone data the Policia Juducairia had to hand in 2007 justified that certain criminals had questions to answer when the trail was still fresh.
I don't think it is benefit of hindsight that led Operation Grange to play 'catch up' six years down the line when that diligence was carried out and eliminated three burglars from the inquiry. It was as the result of good police work using the information they knew had to be checked.
To date the Germans haven't come up with anything which eliminates Brueckner as they are obliged to do if they find it. But similarly 'proving' his guilt beyond reasonable doubt will be a Herculean task. So the ball is in his court when the presumption of innocence is considered.
It all goes back to the original police incompetence which led to Justice being compromised and McCann presumption of innocence being trampled into the Portuguese dust.
-
And Bonny Braes of course. I was involved in that because Bonny asked me to tell others that she knew that she had been wrong and that she had been coerced by misinformation. More power to Bonny Braes as well.
A lot of good people were initially taken in. And who could blame them. The organisation of the propaganda was unprecedented.
-
Please do not presume to paraphrase my posts. "Yah! Boo! Sucks!" It really contributes nothing at all to the conversation. Then again I don't think that is ever your intention.
It is so obvious that whatever path Operation Grange followed at the beginning has proved to be a fruitful one all these years down the line.
I understand there is a coterie which is not best pleased with that. It must be discomfiting for them; but it is just something they are going to have to learn to live with.
Really? What fruit have Operation Grange harvested exactly?
-
A lot of good people were initially taken in. And who could blame them. The organisation of the propaganda was unprecedented.
But why? Why would anyone get a kick out of doing this by telling Lies? I simply don't understand it. Is our society so fractured as to enjoy doing this?
Well, I'll tell you what. Not in my World.
-
A lot of good people were initially taken in. And who could blame them. The organisation of the propaganda was unprecedented.
The brighter ones cottoned on to this eventually, sadly most others who were taken in either aren’t that bright or aren’t that bothered about what actually happened so long as nothing gets in their way of giving the McCanns a good kicking on a regular basis.
-
The brighter ones cottoned on to this eventually, sadly most others who were taken in either aren’t that bright or aren’t that bothered about what actually happened so long as nothing gets in their way of giving the McCanns a good kicking on a regular basis.
Well we know what happened now don't we.
Maddie was murdered by Brueckner & Wolters is going to prove it. Just not anytime in the foreseeable future though.
-
The brighter ones cottoned on to this eventually, sadly most others who were taken in either aren’t that bright or aren’t that bothered about what actually happened so long as nothing gets in their way of giving the McCanns a good kicking on a regular basis.
Discussing OG's remit equals 'giving the McCanns a good kicking"? Metaphorically speaking I assume. Imo it's time to change the record.
-
Discussing OG's remit equals 'giving the McCanns a good kicking"? Metaphorically speaking I assume. Imo it's time to change the record.
As I didn’t say that I think perhaps it is you who should change the record and stop twisting what I have said. Discussing the remit is fine. Using the remit as evidence that the McCanns were protected by the High Ups is just conspiracy nonsense but even that does not equate to giving the McCanns a good kicking per se. Mine was a general observation. The McCanns are still the subjects of alot if online hate, misinformation and unpleasantness and it is the purveyors of that kind of nasty crap that I was referring to. Some of it happens here, mostly it happens elsewhere. Hope that’s clear now.
-
As I didn’t say that I think perhaps it is you who should change the record and stop twisting what I have said. Discussing the remit is fine. Using the remit as evidence that the McCanns were protected by the High Ups is just conspiracy nonsense but even that does not equate to giving the McCanns a good kicking per se. Mine was a general observation. The McCanns are still the subjects of alot if online hate, misinformation and unpleasantness and it is the purveyors of that kind of nasty crap that I was referring to. Some of it happens here, mostly it happens elsewhere. Hope that’s clear now.
I think some people are fixated on seeing everything that's said on the forum as being motivated by dislike of the McCanns. It gets very boring.
OG's remit suggests no conspiracy to protect the McCanns imo, merely a willingness to name the crime before investigating it. If the UK authorities had evidence definately eliminating those who were connected with Madeleine it's a pity they have chosen to keep it secret for all these years.
-
Discussing OG's remit equals 'giving the McCanns a good kicking"? Metaphorically speaking I assume. Imo it's time to change the record.
You really must refrain from putting words into members' mouths. It is intrinsically dishonest.
-
I think some people are fixated on seeing everything that's said on the forum as being motivated by dislike of the McCanns. It gets very boring.
OG's remit suggests no conspiracy to protect the McCanns imo, merely a willingness to name the crime before investigating it. If the UK authorities had evidence definately eliminating those who were connected with Madeleine it's a pity they have chosen to keep it secret for all these years.
Are you referring to me as "some people"? Presumably, as you are answering my post. I have not said that everything that is said on this forum is motivated by a dislike of the McCanns. Obviously a lot of it is, including every single post by the resident troll(s), by at least one member of the Admin team, and others I shan't name. You may be bored of hearing about it, but frankly I'm bored of hearing you banging on about the remit (how long ago was that written and you're STILL harping on about it!), and discrepancies in the McCanns and friends statements - yawn, the McCanns haven't been suspects since 2008, their friends have NEVER been suspects and yet here you still are trying to raise suspicions about them. The phrase "get a life" springs to mind.
This is an ongoing investigation and the Met are under no obligation to you to share anything with you so I suggest you learn to accept that there are some things that are none of your actual business.
-
I think some people are fixated on seeing everything that's said on the forum as being motivated by dislike of the McCanns. It gets very boring.
OG's remit suggests no conspiracy to protect the McCanns imo, merely a willingness to name the crime before investigating it. If the UK authorities had evidence definately eliminating those who were connected with Madeleine it's a pity they have chosen to keep it secret for all these years.
What? No one has to eliminate The McCanns. This is not the way in which Justice works. You might as well try to eliminate every other person in Praia de Luz that night.
This is a totally insane idea, as ever.
-
What? No one has to eliminate The McCanns. This is not the way in which Justice works. You might as well try to eliminate every other person in Praia de Luz that night.
This is a totally insane idea, as ever.
Only those with means, motive and opportunity need to be investigated and eliminated.
-
Only those with means, motive and opportunity need to be investigated and eliminated.
The whole of PdL on the night in question then.
-
The whole of PdL on the night in question then.
So if a child disappears from a town the whole town needs to be eliminated?
-
So if a child disappears from a town the whole town needs to be eliminated?
Yes, everyone except the child's parents.
-
Only those with means, motive and opportunity need to be investigated and eliminated.
You ae leaving out persons who have unknown motive. Whose motive is not known. There are plenty of them.
So they are to remain uninvestigated?
You are leaving out those who don't need any opportunity because they pay, bribe or blackmail others to do the actual dirty work. They, in the meantime, are sweet talking all around them. Goes on everywhere these days and notably o this forum by an odd person or more
-
So if a child disappears from a town the whole town needs to be eliminated?
You tell me. No one has been cleared right? So Pamela Fenn’s niece, the Tapas Waiter, the nannies, Murat, Tasmin Sillence or her lying, money grabbing dad, any one of them could have done it. They’ve not been eliminated so they are all fair game to be speculated about, ad infinitum till either they or we are kicking up the daisies, isn’t that right? Oh wait, we can eliminate CB on the basis that he probably lent his phone to a friend that night, has never abducted or murdered before and just doesn’t seem the type. But apart from him, no one else can be eliminated.
Why don’t you tell us what evidence could possibly exist that would eliminate the McCanns? Go on, put on your thinking cap and come up with. an example of something, anything that you would accept that eliminated them to your satisfaction.
-
So if a child disappears from a town the whole town needs to be eliminated?
Such a process has worked in the past "Mass DNA collection drives, as needle-in-a-haystack as they might sound, have yielded results in criminal investigations in England and Germany. Six years ago in Germany, for example, authorities investigating the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl collected DNA samples from 16,400 men, a sweep believed to be the largest to date. DNA from one man matched the evidence, prompting him to confess his guilt."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/us/to-try-to-net-killer-police-ask-a-small-towns-men-for-dna.html
And who knows if it will ever be used again in the future. But there are many more elimination processes which remain valid for the purposes of ruling individuals in or out of criminal investigations.
Such as the other investigative methods which have resulted in evidence being found which has led to Brueckner becoming the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's case.
For me, until he is eliminated by further evidence - that is pretty compelling. Certainly more so than the unfounded and disproved nonsense you prefer to nurture.
"In Baton Rouge, La., in 2003, authorities trying to find a serial killer took swabs from 1,200 white men who drove white pickup trucks, but the dragnet did not yield a suspect; a black man was later arrested using other investigative methods."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/us/to-try-to-net-killer-police-ask-a-small-towns-men-for-dna.html
-
Such a process has worked in the past "Mass DNA collection drives, as needle-in-a-haystack as they might sound, have yielded results in criminal investigations in England and Germany. Six years ago in Germany, for example, authorities investigating the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl collected DNA samples from 16,400 men, a sweep believed to be the largest to date. DNA from one man matched the evidence, prompting him to confess his guilt."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/us/to-try-to-net-killer-police-ask-a-small-towns-men-for-dna.html
And who knows if it will ever be used again in the future. But there are many more elimination processes which remain valid for the purposes of ruling individuals in or out of criminal investigations.
Such as the other investigative methods which have resulted in evidence being found which has led to Brueckner becoming the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's case.
For me, until he is eliminated by further evidence - that is pretty compelling. Certainly more so than the unfounded and disproved nonsense you prefer to nurture.
"In Baton Rouge, La., in 2003, authorities trying to find a serial killer took swabs from 1,200 white men who drove white pickup trucks, but the dragnet did not yield a suspect; a black man was later arrested using other investigative methods."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/us/to-try-to-net-killer-police-ask-a-small-towns-men-for-dna.html
The 'investigative method' that resulted in 'evidence' being found against the new prime suspect was nothing more than one crook grassing up another.
The 'evidence' you find compelling is limited to Brueckner joking to his mates that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence. If you're thinking the police have anything more than this then you're going to be rather disappointed I'm afraid. You'll find you'll be waiting until the end of infinity for Brueckner to ever be charged with anything relating to Madeleine"s dissappeance.
-
The 'investigative method' that resulted in 'evidence' being found against the new prime suspect was nothing more than one crook grassing up another.
The 'evidence' you find compelling is limited to Brueckner joking to his mates that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence. If you're thinking the police have anything more than this then you're going to be rather disappointed I'm afraid. You'll find you'll be waiting until the end of infinity for Brueckner to ever be charged with anything relating to Madeleine"s dissappeance.
If you really believe all of that, you are truly more limited than I thought you are.
-
If you really believe all of that, you are truly more limited than I thought you are.
Well it's up to Wolters to prove me wrong isn't it.
How's he getting on with that?
-
If you really believe all of that, you are truly more limited than I thought you are.
The troll thinks he knows better than the authorities exactly what's what. He also believes he is able to predict the future with 100% confidence. And he has the cheek to call us delusional.
-
The troll thinks he knows better than the authorities exactly what's what. He also believes he is able to predict the future with 100% confidence. And he has the cheek to call us delusional.
Well, the troll predicted over 2 years ago that the new prime suspect wouldn't be charged with anything relating to Madeleine’s disappearance, and here we are, no charges in sight for Brueckner. None in the foreseeable future. Maybe I'm psychic, or maybe it's just that supporters aren't all that sharp.
-
Well, the troll predicted over 2 years ago that the new prime suspect wouldn't be charged with anything relating to Madeleine’s disappearance, and here we are, no charges in sight for Brueckner. None in the foreseeable future. Maybe I'm psychic, or maybe it's just that supporters aren't all that sharp.
Or anywhere near as emotionally damaged as you are.
-
Relying on Brueckner being charged is akin to relying on Madeleine being found alive and well cared for. In both cases hope is triumphing over common sense. All in my opinion.
-
Relying on Brueckner being charged is akin to relying on Madeleine being found alive and well cared for. In both cases hope is triumphing over common sense. All in my opinion.
You have set up a completely false premise, that anyone here is relying on CB being charged. I’m not relying on anything, I simply take at face value what the Germans have said on the matter. Either they are telling the truth and they have strong evidence that CB is involved in Madeleine’s disappearance and death, or they are liars and/or completely stupid. Common sense dictates that the former is more likely than the latter scenario, IMO. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think it’s more likely that the German authorities are lying to us and/or are completely stupid.
-
Sorry, but I really can't be unpleasant today or tomorrow.
-
You have set up a completely false premise, that anyone here is relying on CB being charged. I’m not relying on anything, I simply take at face value what the Germans have said on the matter. Either they are telling the truth and they have strong evidence that CB is involved in Madeleine’s disappearance and death, or they are liars and/or completely stupid. Common sense dictates that the former is more likely than the latter scenario, IMO. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think it’s more likely that the German authorities are lying to us and/or are completely stupid.
They were lying. They tried to get Brueckner to confess or get his alibi. They got neither. So Brueckner wins.
-
You have set up a completely false premise, that anyone here is relying on CB being charged. I’m not relying on anything, I simply take at face value what the Germans have said on the matter. Either they are telling the truth and they have strong evidence that CB is involved in Madeleine’s disappearance and death, or they are liars and/or completely stupid. Common sense dictates that the former is more likely than the latter scenario, IMO. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think it’s more likely that the German authorities are lying to us and/or are completely stupid.
Which Germans? The only one I've heard talking about strong/concrete evidence is Wolters.
-
Which Germans? The only one I've heard talking about strong/concrete evidence is Wolters.
Sorry, I was under the impression he was German and represented the prosecution office in Braunschwieg? Am I mistaken? Do you actually believe he works completely alone and makes stuff up on a whim just to troll CB and the world’s media?
-
Sorry, I was under the impression he was German and represented the prosecution office in Braunschwieg? Am I mistaken? Do you actually believe he works completely alone and makes stuff up on a whim just to troll CB and the world’s media?
He's the only German whose thoughts are on record.
-
He's the only German whose thoughts are on record.
I was trying to come up with some quip about German Records. I failed & couldn't think of anything funny to say, but here's "Das Model by Kraftwerk" anyway, enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEnx9xS79Lc
-
I was trying to come up with some quip about German Records. I failed & couldn't think of anything funny to say, but here's "Das Model by Kraftwerk" anyway, enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEnx9xS79Lc
I lived in Germany in the 1970's. They had no hit records of their own, but were very fond of;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0VTAvYg98E
German songs and singers don't seem to have international appeal.
-
He's the only German whose thoughts are on record.
Do you think the German police are not in accord with HCW? What do you think they’ve been investigating all these years then?
-
Do you think the German police are not in accord with HCW? What do you think they’ve been investigating all these years then?
Christian Brueckner & his life of sex crimes, hence the reason he's been charged with 5 offences.
He won't be getting charged with murdering Maddie anytime soon though, because Wolters was exagerating the strength of the evidence.
We know the evidence against him.
He would talk in great detail to Busching about the case.
He told an undertaker paedo guy in a chat room that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
He received a half hour phone call.
That is the totality of Wolters evidence, hence why the evidence won't be seeing the inside of a court room.
-
Christian Brueckner & his life of sex crimes, hence the reason he's been charged with 5 offences.
He won't be getting charged with murdering Maddie anytime soon though, because Wolters was exagerating the strength of the evidence.
We know the evidence against him.
He would talk in great detail to Busching about the case.
He told an undertaker paedo guy in a chat room that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
He received a half hour phone call.
That is the totality of Wolters evidence, hence why the evidence won't be seeing the inside of a court room.
There are charges pending against Brueckner but I'm not sure if they will all lead to convictions. I doubt any new information will come in now. By linking him to Madeleine's disappearance world wide publicity resulted, so if they don't have what they need now they're unlikely to get more imo.
-
Anyone who claims to know the full extent of the police’s evidence against Brückner wrt to Madeleine’s disappearance is IMO quite delusional. Anyone who believes the German authorities has allowed one of their prosecutors to deliberately mislead the entire world for the last two years about the extent of that evidence purely in order to secure additional evidence for other lesser crimes is also similarly delusional imo.
-
Anyone who claims to know the full extent of the police’s evidence against Brückner wrt to Madeleine’s disappearance is IMO quite delusional. Anyone who believes the German authorities has allowed one of their prosecutors to deliberately mislead the entire world for the last two years about the extent of that evidence purely in order to secure additional evidence for other lesser crimes is also similarly delusional imo.
Well, if I'm wrong, then get back to me when Wolters reveals the concrete evidence & Brueckner is prosecuted, won't you dearie.
Shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Even Mr Gray has given up telling us in capital letters that Wolters has CONCRETE EVIDENCE. Others still haven't caught up yet.
-
There are charges pending against Brueckner but I'm not sure if they will all lead to convictions. I doubt any new information will come in now. By linking him to Madeleine's disappearance world wide publicity resulted, so if they don't have what they need now they're unlikely to get more imo.
They already had enough evidence to charge over 2 years ago, Wolters said so. They want to charge CB with the best body of evidence apparently.
Wolters has even said that if Brueckner knew the evidence against him he could change his story.
So, that's how weak the evidence is, that if Brueckner said 'it wasn't me gov' Wolters would be scuppered.
Real solid stuff isn't It!
-
Anyone who claims to know the full extent of the police’s evidence against Brückner wrt to Madeleine’s disappearance is IMO quite delusional. Anyone who believes the German authorities has allowed one of their prosecutors to deliberately mislead the entire world for the last two years about the extent of that evidence purely in order to secure additional evidence for other lesser crimes is also similarly delusional imo.
Having faith in the police isn't a bad thing but they can only work with evidence and when they have enough to charge that's what they do. They have investigated Brueckner since his associate first came forward in 2017. No matter what they have they haven't taken that step. Wolters has ceased making claims now, too. I'm sure they went public in the hope that they could connect him to Madeleine's disappearance but have had to settle for issuing charges unconnected with that.
-
Having faith in the police isn't a bad thing but they can only work with evidence and when they have enough to charge that's what they do. They have investigated Brueckner since his associate first came forward in 2017. No matter what they have they haven't taken that step. Wolters has ceased making claims now, too. I'm sure they went public in the hope that they could connect him to Madeleine's disappearance but have had to settle for issuing charges unconnected with that.
I think you’ve got that slightly wrong. They already had evidence to connect him to Madeleine’s disappearance and were appealing for more in the hope that they could build a watertight case against him. We don’t know what additional evidence they received as a result of their appeal but we do know that some crimes never go to court because the evidence while overwhelming on a circumstantial basis, simply isn’t enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t have faith in the police, I am simply giving them the benefit of the doubt at this stage, rather than pretending I know precisely what the situation is wrt to the investigation. Is there anything wrong with that approach in your view?
-
I think you’ve got that slightly wrong. They already had evidence to connect him to Madeleine’s disappearance and were appealing for more in the hope that they could build a watertight case against him. We don’t know what additional evidence they received as a result of their appeal but we do know that some crimes never go to court because the evidence while overwhelming on a circumstantial basis, simply isn’t enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t have faith in the police, I am simply giving them the benefit of the doubt at this stage, rather than pretending I know precisely what the situation is wrt to the investigation. Is there anything wrong with that approach in your view?
What do you suppose the concrete evidence against Brueckner is then?
Whatever it is, it hasn't convinced the MET, despite being so overwhelmingly convincing that if WE knew what it was, we'd be in no doubt.
-
What do you suppose the concrete evidence against Brueckner is then?
Whatever it is, it hasn't convinced the MET, despite being so overwhelmingly convincing that if WE knew what it was, we'd be in no doubt.
Ahhh, but Wolters can't share all the concrete evidence with the MET, it might damage the case! So I've been previously informed by the sages here.
-
I lived in Germany in the 1970's. They had no hit records of their own, but were very fond of;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0VTAvYg98E
German songs and singers don't seem to have international appeal.
Apart from Boney M, Milli Vanilli, Rammstein, Scorpions, all the Krautrock bands, loads of dance acts, and let’s not forget Nena and the Goombay Dance Band. Oh and Falco.
-
I think you’ve got that slightly wrong. They already had evidence to connect him to Madeleine’s disappearance and were appealing for more in the hope that they could build a watertight case against him. We don’t know what additional evidence they received as a result of their appeal but we do know that some crimes never go to court because the evidence while overwhelming on a circumstantial basis, simply isn’t enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t have faith in the police, I am simply giving them the benefit of the doubt at this stage, rather than pretending I know precisely what the situation is wrt to the investigation. Is there anything wrong with that approach in your view?
Giving Wolters the benefit of the doubt suggests you are still clinging to the hope that he will deliver. Suggesting that he only has circumstancial evidence contradicts what he has claimed. To me, that's an argument which will be used to suggest that the perpetrator was found but won't face justice. You need to consider the possibilty that it's because he wasn't involved.
-
Giving Wolters the benefit of the doubt suggests you are still clinging to the hope that he will deliver. Suggesting that he only has circumstancial evidence contradicts what he has claimed. To me, that's an argument which will be used to suggest that the perpetrator was found but won't face justice. You need to consider the possibilty that it's because he wasn't involved.
Perhaps you don’t understand what the phrase means.
the benefit of the doubt
noun phrase
: the state of accepting something/someone as honest or deserving of trust even though there are doubts.
I have obviously considered the possibility that CB was not involved. What makes you think I am certain that he was?
-
Perhaps you don’t understand what the phrase means.
the benefit of the doubt
noun phrase
: the state of accepting something/someone as honest or deserving of trust even though there are doubts.
I have obviously considered the possibility that CB was not involved. What makes you think I am certain that he was?
You are prepared to give Wolters the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that you have no reason to do so except his words, and he has contradicted himself. A retired Met detective has given his opinion;
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.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/detectives-leading-search-madeleine-mccann-7624781
-
You are prepared to give Wolters the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that you have no reason to do so except his words, and he has contradicted himself. A retired Met detective has given his opinion;
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.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/detectives-leading-search-madeleine-mccann-7624781
I don’t have to give a reason for doing so beyond the fact that I am not in full possession of all the evidence. You are in a similar position to me yet you apparently won’t give him the benefit of the doubt, what’s your reason for not doing so?
-
I don’t have to give a reason for doing so beyond the fact that I am not in full possession of all the evidence. You are in a similar position to me yet you apparently won’t give him the benefit of the doubt, what’s your reason for not doing so?
The prosecution doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. That a right that always belongs to the defendant.
So Brueckner wins. Well done Brueckner.
-
I don’t have to give a reason for doing so beyond the fact that I am not in full possession of all the evidence. You are in a similar position to me yet you apparently won’t give him the benefit of the doubt, what’s your reason for not doing so?
You have never been in full possession of all the evidence, but have always chosen to support the parents imo.
-
You have never been in full possession of all the evidence, but have always chosen to support the parents imo.
Why are you unable to answer my question? I have always given the parents the benefit of the doubt.
-
Well, if I'm wrong, then get back to me when Wolters reveals the concrete evidence & Brueckner is prosecuted, won't you dearie.
Shouldn't be much longer now.
Do you even know what concrete evidence is? It seems not.
"It is concrete evidence,
facts that we have,
not mere indications,"
Brunswick prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told AFP, adding that he was unable to disclose exact information.
https://news.yahoo.com/concrete-evidence-madeleine-mccann-dead-german-prosecutor-171522359.html
-
Apart from Boney M, Milli Vanilli, Rammstein, Scorpions, all the Krautrock bands, loads of dance acts, and let’s not forget Nena and the Goombay Dance Band. Oh and Falco.
Not forgetting KRAFTWERK and other German bands of the era who were leading lights in electronic music.
Just because one can lay claim to residence in another country doesn't make one an 'expert'.
-
Do you even know what concrete evidence is? It seems not.
"It is concrete evidence,
facts that we have,
not mere indications,"
Brunswick prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told AFP, adding that he was unable to disclose exact information.
https://news.yahoo.com/concrete-evidence-madeleine-mccann-dead-german-prosecutor-171522359.html
Interesting that the disappearance of Joanna Cipriano has been mentioned in this article.
-
Interesting that the disappearance of Joanna Cipriano has been mentioned in this article.
Also this;
Wolters said German authorities have written to Madeleine's family, but declined to give details of the content of the letter.
That being the letter that the family denied receiving if I remember correctly. Still, perhaps we should give Wolters the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was told a letter had been written, and maybe he was told there was concrete evidence. Are we shooting the messenger? Perhaps.
-
Interesting that the disappearance of Joanna Cipriano has been mentioned in this article.
Any investigation worth its salt would have paired both disappearances as soon as Madeleine disappeared.
-
Also this;
Wolters said German authorities have written to Madeleine's family, but declined to give details of the content of the letter.
That being the letter that the family denied receiving if I remember correctly. Still, perhaps we should give Wolters the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was told a letter had been written, and maybe he was told there was concrete evidence. Are we shooting the messenger? Perhaps.
Clutching at straws again.
-
Also this;
Wolters said German authorities have written to Madeleine's family, but declined to give details of the content of the letter.
That being the letter that the family denied receiving if I remember correctly. Still, perhaps we should give Wolters the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was told a letter had been written, and maybe he was told there was concrete evidence. Are we shooting the messenger? Perhaps.
Perhaps we should remember that we aren't The Prosecution or The Defence.
-
Any investigation worth its salt would have paired both disappearances as soon as Madeleine disappeared.
I did. Less than three years apart and some seven kilometre. Daft not to.
-
Interesting that the disappearance of Joanna Cipriano has been mentioned in this article.
It speaks of nothing other than a journalists overactive imagination.
-
Do you even know what concrete evidence is? It seems not.
"It is concrete evidence,
facts that we have,
not mere indications,"
Brunswick prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told AFP, adding that he was unable to disclose exact information.
https://news.yahoo.com/concrete-evidence-madeleine-mccann-dead-german-prosecutor-171522359.html
I know Wolters doesn't have any.
-
Perhaps we should remember that we aren't The Prosecution or The Defence.
And that Brueckner isn't being charged anytime in the foreseeable future.
-
Perhaps we should remember that we aren't The Prosecution or The Defence.
Perhaps you should. I posted what the prosecution's spokesperson said, which was contradicted by the family. So either he lied, he was misinformed or the family lied.
-
And that Brueckner isn't being charged anytime in the foreseeable future.
At the moment I am not very interested in whether he is or not. He has been charged with two cases of child sexual abuse and three rapes. All very similar to charges of which he has already been convicted, although not by Portugal where the offences were committed.
This is a international disgrace to Portugal, although I don't care about that either, sad to say.
The PJ were corrupt and apparently still are. Their problem and not mine. I will never go to that beautiful country ever again. Portugal will have to fight it's own way out of their dark ages.
And Madeleine will have to go on the back burner. But if anyone exposed this corrupt society then Madeleine certainly did. One small girl child, and that is all it took. How utterly pathetic and disgusting.
-
Perhaps you should. I posted what the prosecution's spokesperson said, which was contradicted by the family. So either he lied, he was misinformed or the family lied.
Or you are a disgrace.
-
At the moment I am not very interested in whether he is or not. He has been charged with two cases of child sexual abuse and three rapes. All very similar to charges of which he has already been convicted, although not by Portugal where the offences were committed.
This is a international disgrace to Portugal, although I don't care about that either, sad to say.
The PJ were corrupt and apparently still are. Their problem and not mine. I will never go to that beautiful country ever again. Portugal will have to fight it's own way out of their dark ages.
And Madeleine will have to go on the back burner. But if anyone exposed this corrupt society then Madeleine certainly did. One small girl child, and that is all it took. How utterly pathetic and disgusting.
Ahhh, there there dear. Maybe you'll get over it one day.
-
Ahhh, there there dear. Maybe you'll get over it one day.
But you never will. You can't cure stupid.
-
Or you are a disgrace.
G only laid out the options. Is it now disgraceful to tell the truth?
-
G only laid out the options. Is it now disgraceful to tell the truth?
How can it be truth if certain options are ignored?
-
Perhaps you should. I posted what the prosecution's spokesperson said, which was contradicted by the family. So either he lied, he was misinformed or the family lied.
No-one is lying. But I think you are labouring under misapprehensions regarding issues long since resolved. Is that mischief making or what?
The German authorities have no jurisdiction in Britain.
The first point of contact is via Scotland Yard.
-
How can it be truth if certain options are ignored?
Ignoring some or skewing others is not a pathway to the truth.
-
How can it be truth if certain options are ignored?
Ignored or not included? What do you think G should have included?
-
No-one is lying. But I think you are labouring under misapprehensions regarding issues long since resolved. Is that mischief making or what?
The German authorities have no jurisdiction in Britain.
The first point of contact is via Scotland Yard.
Indeed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
-
Indeed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
So the Germans did write a letter, HCW was not lying, always good to give people the benefit of the doubt when you’re not in full possession of the facts.
-
Indeed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
It was only a matter of time, the entire thing was a farce.
-
It was only a matter of time, the entire thing was a farce.
IS a farce.
-
So the Germans did write a letter, HCW was not lying, always good to give people the benefit of the doubt when you’re not in full possession of the facts.
The thing is though, all of this was revealed in the media at the time.
The distortion of the facts posted on this forum which at one time was the byword for accuracy and integrity was not done through ignorance or accidentally.
Just an illustration of a lack of probity and yet more undermining of the ethos which allows the likes of thee and me to have a very small voice amongst the existing plethora of sceptic internet pollution.
It is also a perfect illustration of the corruption and manipulation behind sceptic logic which seems to think the ruined life of a family is just one big game for their amusement.
Scotland Yard reportedly did not send letter to Maddie parents
The British police allegedly did not forward a letter about Maddie's death to her parents. This is now reported by a British newspaper.
by Stéphanie Hofer
On June 19, 2020
Maddie McCann is dead! The German investigators are said to have informed the parents of the since 2007 missing British girl in a letter. The German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters confirmed this in an interview with the Italian newspaper "La Repubblica".
They wanted to inform the parents before they learn about this from the media. "It was a personal, human decision. We are not obliged to contact witnesses – and they are witnesses," Wolters said. And: "We did not want to surprise them with the announcement of the murder investigation."
But: Kate and Gerry McCann deny the receipt of this letter. Even on their website, they denied this.
Now the British "Sun" writes that there are even two letters that the parents apparently never reached. The letters had been sent via the British police. But they would probably simply not have forwarded the mail.
https://www.nau.ch/news/europa/scotland-yard-soll-brief-nicht-an-maddie-eltern-geschickt-haben-65727175
-
Mr Wolters said this week: 'We have concrete evidence that our suspect has killed Madeleine and this means she is dead.
'The parents have been told the German police have evidence that she is dead but we have not told them the details.'
However, Kate and Gerry hit back with a furious rebuke, in which they said: 'The widely reported news that we have a received a letter from the German authorities that states there is evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead is FALSE.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
-
Mr Wolters said this week: 'We have concrete evidence that our suspect has killed Madeleine and this means she is dead.
'The parents have been told the German police have evidence that she is dead but we have not told them the details.'
However, Kate and Gerry hit back with a furious rebuke, in which they said: 'The widely reported news that we have a received a letter from the German authorities that states there is evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead is FALSE.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
“Now the British "Sun" writes that there are even two letters that the parents apparently never reached. The letters had been sent via the British police. But they would probably simply not have forwarded the mail”.
-
It was only a matter of time, the entire thing was a farce.
What was only a matter of time?
-
“Now the British "Sun" writes that there are even two letters that the parents apparently never reached. The letters had been sent via the British police. But they would probably simply not have forwarded the mail”.
a spokesman for the Met said this afternoon: 'The Met received one letter from the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) on June 12, which was passed to the family.
'The letter did not state that there was evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead - the Met continue to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance as a missing person investigation. No letter has been received by the Met from the German prosecutor'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
-
a spokesman for the Met said this afternoon: 'The Met received one letter from the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) on June 12, which was passed to the family.
'The letter did not state that there was evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead - the Met continue to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance as a missing person investigation. No letter has been received by the Met from the German prosecutor'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
Amazing how reliable and honest you believe the Met to be when it suits you, isn’t it?
-
Amazing how reliable and honest you believe the Met to be when it suits you, isn’t it?
I'm repeating what was reported, not what I believe. I'm not someone who has placed my faith in any police force, nor have I tried to convince others that there are three police forces with a common goal. Clearly Operation Grange were not prepared to put their faith in the German 'concrete evidence' that the child was dead;
'The letter did not state that there was evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead - the Met continue to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance as a missing person investigation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
-
I'm repeating what was reported, not what I believe. I'm not someone who has placed my faith in any police force, nor have I tried to convince others that there are three police forces with a common goal. Clearly Operation Grange were not prepared to put their faith in the German 'concrete evidence' that the child was dead;
'The letter did not state that there was evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead - the Met continue to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance as a missing person investigation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
Best leave it to the McCann's .
Operation Grange Statement: June 19, 2020
The Met received one letter from the BKA on 12 June, which was passed to the family. The letter did not state that there was evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead, the MPS continues to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance as a missing person investigation. No letter has been received by the Met from the German prosecutor.
Kate & Gerry McCann Statement: June 16th, 2020
Since the recent police appeals regarding Madeleine’s disappearance there have been many inaccurate stories reported in the media. The widely reported news that we have a received a letter from the German authorities that states there is evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead is FALSE. Like many unsubstantiated stories in the media, this has caused unnecessary anxiety to friends and family and once again disrupted our lives.
As we have stated many times before, we will not give a running commentary on the investigation- that is the job of the law enforcement agencies and we will support them in any way requested. Furthermore, we do not have a family spokesperson nor are we actively paying any lawyers. Any recent comments attributed in the media have not come from us unless they have been posted on our website. If there are important developments that can be made public, they will be issued through official police channels.
Kate and Gerry
-
I cannot make my mind up as to who looks more inept, Scotland Yard's Operation Grange or the German Prosecutor's Office.
All this over a letter or letters that the McCann might or might not have received. What a joke!!!
-
I'm repeating what was reported, not what I believe. I'm not someone who has placed my faith in any police force, nor have I tried to convince others that there are three police forces with a common goal. Clearly Operation Grange were not prepared to put their faith in the German 'concrete evidence' that the child was dead;
'The letter did not state that there was evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead - the Met continue to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance as a missing person investigation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
No what you are doing is picking on what you perceive to be inconsistencies to weave a narrative of incompetence and/or deception on the part of whichever agency or individual you have it in for at the time. Earlier it was the Met you were attempting to cast doubt upon wrt to their integrity and professionalism and right now it’s HCW, because it suits you to at this point in the discussion. You refuse to give anyone the benefit of the doubt or to simply wait and see how things pan out, you prefer to speculate and cast suspicions because I guess that’s just way more entertaining.
-
I cannot make my mind up as to who looks more inept, Scotland Yard's Operation Grange or the German Prosecutor's Office.
We wait with baited breath for you to come to a decision.
-
We wait with baited breath for you to come to a decision.
Let's say they are both as bad as each other. And some people thought Amaral was useless 😂
-
Mr Wolters said this week: 'We have concrete evidence that our suspect has killed Madeleine and this means she is dead.
'The parents have been told the German police have evidence that she is dead but we have not told them the details.'
However, Kate and Gerry hit back with a furious rebuke, in which they said: 'The widely reported news that we have a received a letter from the German authorities that states there is evidence or proof that Madeleine is dead is FALSE.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440359/Scotland-Yard-deny-theyve-failed-hand-letters-Madeleine-McCanns-parents.html
Pathetic!
You know the truth and persist with weaving your fantasy. That was always par for your course meaning that nothing you post can ever be taken at face value.
A MISTAKE was made. The BKA did exactly as the prosecutor intimated they had. They sent a communication to the witnesses via Scotland Yard - although they were under no obligation to do so. They did so in consideration of the horrible information they had to convey.
-
Let's say they are both as bad as each other. And some people thought Amaral was useless 😂
Not forgetting that there are serious Portuguese cases in the German system which for some reason or other the Portuguese system either couldn't cope with or didn't bother with.
Is it incompetence - or is it a case of sticking the head into the sand and telling oneself with confidence that such things cannot possibly happen in Portugal?
-
Pathetic!
You know the truth and persist with weaving your fantasy. That was always par for your course meaning that nothing you post can ever be taken at face value.
A MISTAKE was made. The BKA did exactly as the prosecutor intimated they had. They sent a communication to the witnesses via Scotland Yard - although they were under no obligation to do so. They did so in consideration of the horrible information they had to convey.
Neither of us know the truth. Imo I have reported what was said, and it's you who are spinning the tale to fit your agenda. Communicating with the child's parents is the least they could do after telling the world she was dead. Expecting them to believe that without evidence was naive to say the least; particularly as the UK police didn't.
-
Neither of us know the truth. Imo I have reported what was said, and it's you who are spinning the tale to fit your agenda. Communicating with the child's parents is the least they could do after telling the world she was dead. Expecting them to believe that without evidence was naive to say the least; particularly as the UK police didn't.
As usual, this comment doesn't make sense.
-
Neither of us know the truth. Imo I have reported what was said, and it's you who are spinning the tale to fit your agenda. Communicating with the child's parents is the least they could do after telling the world she was dead. Expecting them to believe that without evidence was naive to say the least; particularly as the UK police didn't.
You really do post though a hole in your keyboard.
So Nota Bene for I shall say this only once
There is no way in this life that the German prosecutors or the German police would communicate evidence in a murder case to anyone outside the investigation.
Wolters is on record as saying this.
The letters sent were WARNING LETTERS to forewarn the witnesses of the breaking news to allow them to prepare for it.
The intention was not to communicate after the release of the information - what on earth do you think the point of that would have been ????
You've got your screw up and bad one it was - I thought you would have been delighted with that!
-
You really do post though a hole in your keyboard.
So Nota Bene for I shall say this only once
There is no way in this life that the German prosecutors or the German police would communicate evidence in a murder case to anyone outside the investigation.
Wolters is on record as saying this.
The letters sent were WARNING LETTERS to forewarn the witnesses of the breaking news to allow them to prepare for it.
The intention was not to communicate after the release of the information - what on earth do you think the point of that would have been ????
You've got your screw up and bad one it was - I thought you would have been delighted with that!
German appeal launched on Wednesday 3rd June. 5th June "We assume Madeleine is dead" said Wolters at a press conference. Letter received by SY 12th June. No forewarning there then.
The above information is easily found, so no need to invent facts.
-
German appeal launched on Wednesday 3rd June. 5th June "We assume Madeleine is dead" said Wolters at a press conference. Letter received by SY 12th June. No forewarning there then.
The above information is easily found, so no need to invent facts.
The difficulty with only providing a partial cite is that omissions obfuscate what you are trying to say. For example the McCanns would not have been phased by hearing of 'assumptions' being made. That was common currency.
Authorities ‘assume’ British girl Madeleine McCann is dead
Convicted German man is under investigation in case of three-year-old British girl missing since 2007.
4 Jun 2020
German prosecutors have said they assume Madeleine McCann, the British girl who went missing while on holiday in Portugal with her parents in 2007, is dead.
The prosecutor’s office in the northern German city of Braunschweig said on Thursday it was investigating a 43-year-old German man who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences as a murder suspect in the case that captured international headlines for more than 10 years.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/4/authorities-assume-british-girl-madeleine-mccann-is-dead
The BKA have maintained for quite some time that they are in possession of material evidence which implicated Brueckner in Madeleine's murder but more work was needed to enable charges to be pressed for the crime.
Seems they may have found that required evidence.
Madeleine McCann: ‘new evidence’ linked to suspect found, prosecutor says
German prosecutor says investigators are sure Christian Brückner killed three-year-old and have ‘new facts’
Ben Quinn
Wed 4 May 2022
Fresh evidence has been found against the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a German prosecutor has revealed.
Hans Christian Wolters said in an interview on Portuguese television that investigators believed they had found “some facts, some new evidence, not forensic evidence.”
Officials in Faro, Portugal, said last week that Christian Brückner, 44, a convicted rapist, was an arguido, or formal suspect – the first time Portuguese authorities have officially identified a suspect in the case since Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were declared such in 2007. They were formally cleared of suspicion in 2008.
Wolters, who has been investigating Brückner since 2020 over the Madeleine case and other alleged offences, was asked in the TV interview whether it was true that German investigators had found something belonging to Madeleine in a caravan used by Brückner. “You can’t deny it, can you?” the CMTV interviewer asked.
Wolters replied: “I don’t want to deny it.”
He added: “We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann. The investigation is still going on and I think we found some new facts, some new evidence – not forensic evidence, but evidence.”
Speaking on the eve of the 15th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, Kate and Gerry McCann said a “horrific crime” had been committed and they were still seeking answers.
They said in a statement: “This year we mark 15 years since we last saw Madeleine. It feels no harder than any other but no easier either. It’s a very long time. Many people talk about the need for closure. It’s always felt a strange term.
“Regardless of outcome, Madeleine will always be our daughter and a truly horrific crime has been committed. These things will remain.”
Last week, the couple said they welcomed the news that the Portuguese authorities had declared an arguido. They said: “Even though the possibility may be slim, we have not given up hope that Madeleine is still alive and we will be reunited with her.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/04/some-new-evidence-found-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner
-
^^
Shouldn't be much longer now.
Get back to us when dearie.
-
The difficulty with only providing a partial cite is that omissions obfuscate what you are trying to say. For example the McCanns would not have been phased by hearing of 'assumptions' being made. That was common currency.
Authorities ‘assume’ British girl Madeleine McCann is dead
Convicted German man is under investigation in case of three-year-old British girl missing since 2007.
4 Jun 2020
German prosecutors have said they assume Madeleine McCann, the British girl who went missing while on holiday in Portugal with her parents in 2007, is dead.
The prosecutor’s office in the northern German city of Braunschweig said on Thursday it was investigating a 43-year-old German man who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences as a murder suspect in the case that captured international headlines for more than 10 years.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/4/authorities-assume-british-girl-madeleine-mccann-is-dead
The BKA have maintained for quite some time that they are in possession of material evidence which implicated Brueckner in Madeleine's murder but more work was needed to enable charges to be pressed for the crime.
Seems they may have found that required evidence.
Madeleine McCann: ‘new evidence’ linked to suspect found, prosecutor says
German prosecutor says investigators are sure Christian Brückner killed three-year-old and have ‘new facts’
Ben Quinn
Wed 4 May 2022
Fresh evidence has been found against the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a German prosecutor has revealed.
Hans Christian Wolters said in an interview on Portuguese television that investigators believed they had found “some facts, some new evidence, not forensic evidence.”
Officials in Faro, Portugal, said last week that Christian Brückner, 44, a convicted rapist, was an arguido, or formal suspect – the first time Portuguese authorities have officially identified a suspect in the case since Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were declared such in 2007. They were formally cleared of suspicion in 2008.
Wolters, who has been investigating Brückner since 2020 over the Madeleine case and other alleged offences, was asked in the TV interview whether it was true that German investigators had found something belonging to Madeleine in a caravan used by Brückner. “You can’t deny it, can you?” the CMTV interviewer asked.
Wolters replied: “I don’t want to deny it.”
He added: “We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann. The investigation is still going on and I think we found some new facts, some new evidence – not forensic evidence, but evidence.”
Speaking on the eve of the 15th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, Kate and Gerry McCann said a “horrific crime” had been committed and they were still seeking answers.
They said in a statement: “This year we mark 15 years since we last saw Madeleine. It feels no harder than any other but no easier either. It’s a very long time. Many people talk about the need for closure. It’s always felt a strange term.
“Regardless of outcome, Madeleine will always be our daughter and a truly horrific crime has been committed. These things will remain.”
Last week, the couple said they welcomed the news that the Portuguese authorities had declared an arguido. They said: “Even though the possibility may be slim, we have not given up hope that Madeleine is still alive and we will be reunited with her.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/04/some-new-evidence-found-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner
I'm sure the McCanns are fine with the Germans assuming that Madeleine is dead, as are we all (with a few diehard exceptions)
-
Hang on a minute. The Sceptics think Madeline is dead. The only difference is who done it. The BKA think Brueckner done it while The Sceptics think The McCanns done it and say so with monotonous regularity, although The Sceptics have no evidence against The McCanns who have never been charged or convicted of anything.
So why the big hoo ha?
Personally, I continue to hope that Madeleine is still alive, but I don't actually know.
-
I'm sure the McCanns are fine with the Germans assuming that Madeleine is dead, as are we all (with a few diehard exceptions)
What a truly insensitive individual your posts indicate you to be.
Speaking on the eve of the 15th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, Kate and Gerry McCann said a “horrific crime” had been committed and they were still seeking answers.
They said in a statement: “This year we mark 15 years since we last saw Madeleine. It feels no harder than any other but no easier either. It’s a very long time. Many people talk about the need for closure. It’s always felt a strange term.
“Regardless of outcome, Madeleine will always be our daughter and a truly horrific crime has been committed. These things will remain.”
If you have a dearly loved daughter would you be "fine" with anyone presuming her dead. The McCanns can only live in hope. That is their prerogative ~ mocking them for that just is not a good look at all ~ but if you want to look bad, that is your prerogative.
-
What a truly insensitive individual your posts indicate you to be.
Speaking on the eve of the 15th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, Kate and Gerry McCann said a “horrific crime” had been committed and they were still seeking answers.
They said in a statement: “This year we mark 15 years since we last saw Madeleine. It feels no harder than any other but no easier either. It’s a very long time. Many people talk about the need for closure. It’s always felt a strange term.
“Regardless of outcome, Madeleine will always be our daughter and a truly horrific crime has been committed. These things will remain.”
If you have a dearly loved daughter would you be "fine" with anyone presuming her dead. The McCanns can only live in hope. That is their prerogative ~ mocking them for that just is not a good look at all ~ but if you want to look bad, that is your prerogative.
And you think any parent would feel comfortable reading this “ On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," about their daughter?
Is their ‘hope’ worthless to you too?