The timeline revisited

[Mr Gray]

One of the reasons I joined the forum was the amount of speculation and opinion which was being posted as fact. I have endeavoured ever since to encourage members to post cites to support their 'factual' posts.

Yet you support CMOMM which does not allow any challenges.

I think this forum has agood record on supporting posts with cites.. Probably better than any other forum

[Vertigo Swirl]

Unlike supporters, sceptics have a wide range of opinions and uncertainties.  IMO

[Vertigo Swirl]

One of the reasons I joined the forum was the amount of speculation and opinion which was being posted as fact. I have endeavoured ever since to encourage members to post cites to support their 'factual' posts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

But not Billy Whizz Kid it seems.  Or Spammy.

This is true.  Every time I ask the Whizz Kid for a cite I am ordered to go and find it myself.  Don't see much intervention from g-Unit on those occasions.

[Brietta]

I’m here to discuss facts. If CB abducted Madeleine McCann then he did so at a specific time and he either broke into the apartment or he found Madeleine wandering. I’m not sure why you believe then that existing testimony of her last known hours is not important to the case. It’s actually central to what happened, isn’t it?

It may be central to those who have got hung up on Amaral's storytelling but to the rest of the world having left 2007 and moved into the reality of the present day, much less so.

Anyway - you seem to be operating from the premise that the present day investigation doesn't know chapter and verse what Brueckner was up to in Praia da Luz in the run up to and in the aftermath of Madeleine's abduction.

They have evidence;  you just don't know what it is.

Just as you are obviously unable to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction.  Above you claim only to deal in facts but you post of your post content "All this is pure speculation".

[Brietta]

A fact based forum? Nonsense! Unless you think that it's a fact that Madeleine McCann had a very special bloodline which led to her being abducted!!

Hmmm ... "A fact based forum? Nonsense!"

You don't seem to have a very high regard for this forum.  I agree with you insofar as facts can be twisted and turned to present a particular point of view or that certain facts can fall off the radar if they do not suit.

Regarding scoffing at bloodlines ~ you don't have to believe anything about bloodlines but there are those that do - a situation which has been recently brought to the fore with furore in the British royal family.

All it would take for Madeleine to be abducted because of her bloodline making her who she is would be one believer.

Go on now ... prove to the forum that there is no such thing as the belief in bloodlines as you imply in your post 😁

[Brietta]

Where has it been suggested this is a fact?

Sadie has put it forward as a theory and it is rather below the belt to ridicule her for it particularly as she seems to be unable to post let alone post a reply.

[Brietta]

It has been repeated many times on this so-called fact based forum. I would describe it as unsupported whimsy which has been tolerated. If one person's whimsy is tolerated then another's can't be sanctioned imo. That's double standards.

WOW!!!  you really don't think much of this forum do you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sadie has put it forward as a theory and it is rather below the belt to ridicule her for it particularly as she seems to be unable to post let alone post a reply.

As far as I recall Sadie has always been at pains to say that it is just her theory, never has she claimed it is a fact, and I don't suppose for one minute anyone reading this forum would have seen Sadie's posts on the subject and assumed it was a fact.  There is another "whimsical" theory doing the rounds on this forum and it involves the abduction of Madeleine by two middle-aged British holiday makers who were unable to have their own child but strangely G-Unit doesn't seem to have a problem with that one, despite the fact that it doesn't take Einstein to work out which two British holidaymakers are "whimsically" being slurred with such an accusation. 

[G-Unit]

It may be central to those who have got hung up on Amaral's storytelling but to the rest of the world having left 2007 and moved into the reality of the present day, much less so.

Anyway - you seem to be operating from the premise that the present day investigation doesn't know chapter and verse what Brueckner was up to in Praia da Luz in the run up to and in the aftermath of Madeleine's abduction.

They have evidence;  you just don't know what it is.

Just as you are obviously unable to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction.  Above you claim only to deal in facts but you post of your post content "All this is pure speculation".

Those investigating Brueckner have to gather evidence of wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt in order to charge him. I don't think they have that, because he hasn't been charged.

There has been speculation about what evidence they do have, but no-one really knows.

If they decide to charge using circumstantial evidence then it seems to me that a believable narrative of how an abduction occured would need to be part of it.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

This is true.  Every time I ask the Whizz Kid for a cite I am ordered to go and find it myself.  Don't see much intervention from g-Unit on those occasions.

To be fair you were claiming that I’d said something that I actually hadn’t, and then I told you where you could find a description of the immediate reaction to the dogs in Kate’s book.

[Brietta]

Those investigating Brueckner have to gather evidence of wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt in order to charge him. I don't think they have that, because he hasn't been charged.

There has been speculation about what evidence they do have, but no-one really knows.

If they decide to charge using circumstantial evidence then it seems to me that a believable narrative of how an abduction occured would need to be part of it.

There is sufficient evidence in place to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's case.  That is all you or anyone else needs to know.

[G-Unit]

WOW!!!  you really don't think much of this forum do you.

I think the forum is fine, but I'm honest enough to admit that it's member's posts are not unfailingly fact based.

[Mr Gray]

I think the forum is fine, but I'm honest enough to admit that it's member's posts are not unfailingly fact based.

Im sure you realise that applies to you too

[G-Unit]

There is sufficient evidence in place to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's case.  That is all you or anyone else needs to know.

He is Wolter's prime suspect, but not necessarily Operation Grange's or the Policia Judiciaria's. According to Martin Brunt;

In fact, one source told me that Christian B may be no better a suspect for Madeleine's abduction than two other principle targets.

They are the unnamed suspect, who may still be the subject of an undercover operation, and Euclides Monteiro, a sacked Ocean club waiter and thief who died two years after Madeleine vanished and was later eliminated from the inquiry.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118