Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 300417 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1920 on: October 24, 2020, 06:59:32 PM »
I only see the ones on here and funnily enough, they seem to be mainly supporters, judging by their posting rate.
You only see supporters on here striving for “justice 4 Maddie” by getting the parents banged up??!  Shorely shome mishtake.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1921 on: October 24, 2020, 07:00:18 PM »
"Amaral is old news I’m afraid and you really do need to move on."  faithlilly

You are mistaken.

Amaral of his own volition has chosen to interject what is definitely FALSE evidence into an active police investigation as well as ensuring that what I assume to be highly confidential information regarding the identity of the German police prime suspect was released into the public domain.

Until Amaral chose to do that there was a general consensus that Ney was that person of interest.  Amaral ensured that further speculation revealed Brueckner to the world.

In my opinion sceptics simply do not wish to discuss any information which reveals the bizarre and obsessive nature of this man; who not content with presiding over the flawed and botched investigation into Madeleine's disappearance appears to be interfering with the present German investigation.


Snip
Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has revealed a German paedophile suspected over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is not Martin Ney.

The ex-cop sparked speculation Ney was the prime suspect after saying in an interview earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison.
________________________________________________________________

In his interview with an Australian podcast, he mentioned the possibility of a German paedophile being responsible - but he didn’t mention 49-year-old Hamburg-born child strangler Ney by name.

Instead he described the suspect only as someone who had been ruled out of the investigation into the missing British youngster in 2008 but later jailed in his home country.

Now Mr Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has now said the suspect isn’t Ney, who was jailed for life in 2012 for abducting and murdering three children, and sexually abusing dozens more.

When he was shown a photo of him on Spanish TV, Amaral responded: “It can’t be him.”

“A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about,” he told a show about missing adults and children.

“What I know is that the suspect is not him, it’s another man. He’s also in prison in Germany. He’s also a paedophile.”

In a bizarre twist, Mr Amaral said the suspect looks similar to Madeleine’s dad Gerry before saying that Ney bears no resemblance to him.

https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema


As a matter of courtesy ~ please do not suggest either to me or any other member what or who is a topic for discussion just because in my opinion it embarrasses you as a sceptic;  Amaral is current news and he took considerable pains to ensure that

Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally.

As to the meat of your post....Amaral had no part in naming Bruckner. Firstly Wolter all but identified him while seeking further information....that had absolutely nothing to do with Amaral. After that the media named him...that again had nothing to do with Amaral.

To be clear it was Wolter’s appeal for information that eventually lead to Bruckner to be identified by the media....not Amaral’s mention of a German scapegoat more than a year before.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1922 on: October 24, 2020, 07:02:37 PM »
It certainly won't be for the want of him trying and what interests me is the why of it.


And I will thank you in future to desist from dropping goading ad homs into your posts ... it is definitely against forum rules as well as being horrifically impolite.

As you learned to your cost.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1923 on: October 24, 2020, 07:20:45 PM »
if amaral had done his job properly CB may have already been thoroughly investigated...all my opinion
Pure speculation.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1924 on: October 24, 2020, 07:27:20 PM »
Pure speculation.
Do you understand what..all my opinion ..means
Particularly when combined with the word ..may
« Last Edit: October 24, 2020, 07:33:29 PM by Davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1925 on: October 24, 2020, 07:40:11 PM »
Do you really think that mentioning Amaral embarrasses me ? Not in the slightest....however it does concern me the obsessive way he is constantly mentioned by supporters...this surely can’t be healthy, mentally.

As to the meat of your post....Amaral had no part in naming Bruckner. Firstly Wolter all but identified him while seeking further information....that had absolutely nothing to do with Amaral. After that the media named him...that again had nothing to do with Amaral.

To be clear it was Wolter’s appeal for information that eventually lead to Bruckner to be identified by the media....not Amaral’s mention of a German scapegoat more than a year before.

I have seen no evidence that criticising Amara for being a poor cop is detrimental to mental health...however I have seen a safe where obsessive criticism of the McCanns resulted in suicide..
Just be nice

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1926 on: October 24, 2020, 07:40:58 PM »
Do you understand what..all my opinion ..means
Particularly when combined with the word ..may
"May" is the speculation and opinion is just opinion.   I was objecting to the way you trashed someone's beliefs as being "insecure".  I didn't delete it but thinking that is the limit to "ad hom" posts.  I will allow comments on insecure beliefs.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1927 on: October 24, 2020, 07:42:58 PM »
I have seen no evidence that criticising Amara for being a poor cop is detrimental to mental health...however I have seen a safe where obsessive criticism of the McCanns resulted in suicide..
Just be nice
I didn't think that was "nice" at all.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1928 on: October 24, 2020, 08:08:14 PM »
So how long is this "ping data" kept?  I was aware the PJ had a list of all the phone numbers of phones called and used for the call.  But did they keep the ping data?
Wolters said in the MS interview CB's phone pinged the cell site at Ocean Club.  That was a ping, not another phone call.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1929 on: October 24, 2020, 08:11:21 PM »
"May" is the speculation and opinion is just opinion.   I was objecting to the way you trashed someone's beliefs as being "insecure".  I didn't delete it but thinking that is the limit to "ad hom" posts.  I will allow comments on insecure beliefs.

The poster you are referring to continually posts opinion as fact .have you not noticed

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1930 on: October 24, 2020, 08:18:47 PM »
The poster you are referring to continually posts opinion as fact .have you not noticed
I have that poster on "ignore".
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1931 on: October 24, 2020, 08:26:35 PM »
I have that poster on "ignore".

You don't know who I am referring to..it's faith
From her posts she doesn't understand what is fact and what is her opinion

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1932 on: October 24, 2020, 08:36:33 PM »
You don't know who I am referring to..it's faith
From her posts she doesn't understand what is fact and what is her opinion
I have Faithlilly on ignore, for she has me on ignore.   
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1933 on: October 24, 2020, 08:42:43 PM »
I have Faithlilly on ignore, for she has me on ignore.
On that I think you are very sensible.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1934 on: October 24, 2020, 09:33:09 PM »
I have seen no evidence that criticising Amara for being a poor cop is detrimental to mental health...however I have seen a safe where obsessive criticism of the McCanns resulted in suicide..
Just be nice

Poor you.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?