Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Brietta]

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.

"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."    faithlilly

What an unnecessarily disagreeable post.

With Amaral’s incompetence and his subsequent vindictiveness taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that Madeleine’s case would have been viewed entirely differently both during the investigation and after.

Amaral wrote a libellous book exonerating himself. 
He has spent thirteen years+ appearing on television to denigrate her parents. 
His latest effort being twofold.  Promoting false information about the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case while also promoting in the same interview false information about Madeleine’s father.

I doubt very much if any of the 'evidence' he has made a career of promoting is worth any more than the dreadlocks he photoshopped onto Brueckner's photograph for the edification of any who would listen and be fooled by him.

Believe it or not ... there are those who hang onto his every word as though it were gospel truth ... glad that doesn't embarrass you or them.

[Brietta]

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.

You may wish to ignore or deny (and it certainly appears as if you do) but there is absolutely no doubt that Amaral broke the news on an Australian podcast that the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case was not Ney but another German paedophile presently detained in a German prison.

[Anthro]

You may wish to ignore or deny (and it certainly appears as if you do) but there is absolutely no doubt that Amaral broke the news on an Australian podcast that the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case was not Ney but another German paedophile presently detained in a German prison.

Yes, that is exactly what he said.

[Brietta]

Yes, that is exactly what he said.

Amaral did not name Brueckner.
But he didn't have to.
Even a cub reporter would have taken minutes to put a name to him given the information Amaral supplied and that was undoubtedly his intent.

[faithlilly]

"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."    faithlilly

What an unnecessarily disagreeable post.

With Amaral’s incompetence and his subsequent vindictiveness taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that Madeleine’s case would have been viewed entirely differently both during the investigation and after.

Amaral wrote a libellous book exonerating himself. 
He has spent thirteen years+ appearing on television to denigrate her parents. 
His latest effort being twofold.  Promoting false information about the prime suspect in Madeleine’s case while also promoting in the same interview false information about Madeleine’s father.

I doubt very much if any of the 'evidence' he has made a career of promoting is worth any more than the dreadlocks he photoshopped onto Brueckner's photograph for the edification of any who would listen and be fooled by him.

Believe it or not ... there are those who hang onto his every word as though it were gospel truth ... glad that doesn't embarrass you or them.

I’m glad that you’re glad.

I often wonder why you don’t just cut and paste your posts....it would certainly save you time repeating the same old tropes again and again.

[faithlilly]

Amaral did not name Brueckner.
But he didn't have to.
Even a cub reporter would have taken minutes to put a name to him given the information Amaral supplied and that was undoubtedly his intent.

The reporters, cub or not, took 15 months to name Brueckner. Why do you think that was ? 15 months sitting on a scoop like that. Amazing !!!

[Erngath]

The reporters, cub or not, took 15 months to name Brueckner. Why do you think that was ? 15 months sitting on a scoop like that. Amazing !!!

However.
Nothing, not even a whisper in any current investigation to suggest that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
But you do still believe that to be true.

[faithlilly]

However.
Nothing, not even a whisper in any current investigation to suggest that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
But you do still believe that to be true.

Wolter said the Portuguese were still looking at the parents...so somewhat more of a whisper according to Wolter.

[Brietta]

I’m glad that you’re glad.

I often wonder why you don’t just cut and paste your posts....it would certainly save you time repeating the same old tropes again and again.

In my opinion your rudeness merely emphasises your chagrin about having no valid argument but it is generally off topic and disruptive as above.  Please desist as both break forum protocols

[Brietta]

The reporters, cub or not, took 15 months to name Brueckner. Why do you think that was ? 15 months sitting on a scoop like that. Amazing !!!

Which is perhaps why (apart from his fee) Amaral had to make an appearance on Spanish Television to rectify the situation.

In my opinion ;)

That seems to have rectified the situation.  The cub reporter finally worked it out but unfortunately Amaral had to leave his fingerprints all over it before achieving the desired effect.

[Brietta]

Wolter said the Portuguese were still looking at the parents...so somewhat more of a whisper according to Wolter.

I think that remark might very well have been in derision particularly if some faces from 2007 are still in evidence and making their presence felt.

[faithlilly]

Which is perhaps why (apart from his fee) Amaral had to make an appearance on Spanish Television to rectify the situation.

In my opinion ;)

That seems to have rectified the situation.  The cub reporter finally worked it out but unfortunately Amaral had to leave his fingerprints all over it before achieving the desired effect.

Rectify what ? He had nothing to rectify.

[faithlilly]

I think that remark might very well have been in derision particularly if some faces from 2007 are still in evidence and making their presence felt.

If it was derision it does, yet again, illustrate how unprofessional he is. Can you imagine Redwood making a remark like that ?

[sadie]

Brueckner is already arrested and is going nowhere anytime soon.  I am sure he will be questioned if or when it suits the Germans to do so.  In the interim I believe many wide ranging investigations concerning criminal cases are being conducted with this man at the core.

They have been investigating this man against the clock for years.  It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.

The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/former-portuguese-police-chief-goncalo-amaral-says-madeleine-mccann-suspect-is-in-german-prison/news-story/13992e3c9cc61ef835a2d95a7f5a7025
And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side https://zap.aeiou.pt/amaral-arrasa-investigacao-alema-331219
And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-mostra-retrato-robo-de-suspeito-do-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-em-2007-que-desmente-versao-alema

Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576985/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-kidnap-campervan-weeks-vanished.html

[b]The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.[/b][/size]

Very odd.  I wonder too.   
I think that Briettas very well researched post deserves another viewing, with perhaps some thoughtful responses


-  They have been investigating this man against the clock for years.  It was only a matter of time until nefarious reasons would cause premature release of his name into the public domain.

The question is why did Goncalo Amaral do that


-  And why would Goncalo Amaral release "evidence" into the public domain about Brueckner's vehicle with painted cartoons on its side


-  And why would Goncalo Amaral feed false information to the Portuguese public about Brueckner's hairstyle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007
Although he was really caught out when the truth of the lie was revealed with the publication of video footage of the Brueckner showing him with a short haircut



-  The question really is why is Amaral so intent on preserving Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence while stamping vigorously on McCann human rights for thirteen+ years ... even to defending Brueckner with the deliberate introduction of false evidence (hairstyle) while vigorously traducing Madeleine's parents.


Briettas observations deserve a second viewing IMO

They are very pertinent.  Just why is Amaral interfering with a case that he no longer has any part of? ...and why is he IMO publicizing falsehoods ?

Is it just to have a dig at Operation Grange and The Mccanns? .... or is there something else ... something deeper?

[kizzy]

It is looking more and more like CB was, in fact, a scapegoat there seems to be no evidence he is the so-called abductor of Maddie.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13013261/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-investigation-close/


We can also reveal how cops on Praia Da Luz where Maddie vanished 13 years ago are privately seething the investigation into Bruckener has carried on so long.

They insist he was ruled out as a suspect soon after the four-year-old  went missing.

And the Portugese believe vital time has been wasted by focusing on the jailed German sex offender.

“The game is almost up for the officers investigating Christian B,” a source close to the investigation said yesterday.

“They’ve been struggling now for many weeks to find new clues[/u]. Leads have dried up catastrophically and there are now hardly any new lines of enquiry at all.

“None of this has come as a surprise to the Portuguese team who worked on the original investigation. They have believed for a long time that the investigation into B is effectively a wild goose chase.