More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Vertigo Swirl]

I said I made no inference from the friendship between the McCann's and Freud. As I said it's another example in a long list of where paedophiles have been linked to this case from Day One and culminating in the current investigation of CB.

what, pray tell, do you make of the "mother" and her self proclaimed fondness for socialising with Clement Freud?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

what, pray tell, do you make of the "mother" and her self proclaimed fondness for socialising with Clement Freud?

That is a question asking someone else what they make of Kate McCann's account of her and Gerry socialising with Clement Freud. I make no inference from her self proclaimed fond visit(s) with Freud who was later accused of child sexual abuse.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/widow-profoundly-sorry-over-clement-freud-child-sex-abuse-allegations-as-links-to-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-investigated-34802990.html

An alleged paedophile in PDL may have links with CB, in my opinion. It would certainly be worth investigated along with the other 30+ known paedophiles that OG reportedly were also investigating.

I did express a personal opinion that I was surprised that after the allegations were made against Freud that the McCann's did not issue a public statement which states where they stand on said allegations. That's just my own personal surprise given what Kate wrote in her book. The book is still on sale. It is likely to be read by people who now know Freud is an alleged child abuser. No inference can be drawn from the lack of a public statement nor from the fond socialising, and neither is that intended.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Who is RH?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/madeleine-mccann-news-son-of-dead-paedophile-suspect-raymond-hewlett-thought-he-was-being-watched_uk_584e8adfe4b0b7ff851d56ca

[Vertigo Swirl]

That is a question asking someone else what they make of Kate McCann's account of her and Gerry socialising with Clement Freud. I make no inference from her self proclaimed fond visit(s) with Freud who was later accused of child sexual abuse.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/widow-profoundly-sorry-over-clement-freud-child-sex-abuse-allegations-as-links-to-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-investigated-34802990.html

An alleged paedophile in PDL may have links with CB, in my opinion. It would certainly be worth investigated along with the other 30+ known paedophiles that OG reportedly were also investigating.

I did express a personal opinion that I was surprised that after the allegations were made against Freud that the McCann's did not issue a public statement which states where they stand on said allegations. That's just my own personal surprise given what Kate wrote in her book. The book is still on sale. It is likely to be read by people who now know Freud is an alleged child abuser. No inference can be drawn from the lack of a public statement nor from the fond socialising, and neither is that intended.

The question you originally asked is not the question you say you were asking.  If it had been you would have asked “what do you make of Kate’s lack of condemnation of a man whose company she enjoyed  subsequently accused of paedophilisa.”.  No, your question clearly asks what should we make of her enjoyment of being in the company of a paedophile.  Your post-rationalisation does not change thst.

As not one of Freud’s close celebrity friends issued a public statement condemning his actions as far as I’m aware I don’t see why the McCanns should be singled out for their failure to do so.  Do you think there is any possible likelihood that they don’t condemn his actions?  It may be important for you to gain this clarity but I would imagine that for 99% of those who have read the book it is of no consequence whatsoever. 

[Eleanor]

That is a question asking someone else what they make of Kate McCann's account of her and Gerry socialising with Clement Freud. I make no inference from her self proclaimed fond visit(s) with Freud who was later accused of child sexual abuse.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/widow-profoundly-sorry-over-clement-freud-child-sex-abuse-allegations-as-links-to-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-investigated-34802990.html

An alleged paedophile in PDL may have links with CB, in my opinion. It would certainly be worth investigated along with the other 30+ known paedophiles that OG reportedly were also investigating.

I did express a personal opinion that I was surprised that after the allegations were made against Freud that the McCann's did not issue a public statement which states where they stand on said allegations. That's just my own personal surprise given what Kate wrote in her book. The book is still on sale. It is likely to be read by people who now know Freud is an alleged child abuser. No inference can be drawn from the lack of a public statement nor from the fond socialising, and neither is that intended.

What do you think would come of The McCanns making a public statement about someone who was never convicted of anything?

[Brietta]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/madeleine-mccann-news-son-of-dead-paedophile-suspect-raymond-hewlett-thought-he-was-being-watched_uk_584e8adfe4b0b7ff851d56ca

On the night Madeleine was abducted Raymond Hewlett was within spitting distance of Praia da Luz ~ with transport ~ with a record ~ with the perfect hiding place of a van full of blonde children ~ " ... living with six children in a converted Dodge truck, when they met English couple ..."

Clement Freud was not in Portugal let alone in his villa a stone's throw from Luz.

Interesting that you should mention Hewlett though.

Did anyone other than McCann detectives attempt to check him out ~ or is he yet another paedophile like Brueckner who was studiously ignored by Portuguese police who really were studying every move and phone call made by their prime suspects.

Snip
However, it is hardly surprising that Kate and Gerry McCann's investigators are now forensically examining any possible link between Hewlett and their daughter's disappearance in 2007.

Hewlett "has been repeatedly jailed for a series of violent sexual offences against young girls.

Once featured on a Crimestoppers list of most wanted paedophiles, he is currently wanted for questioning by British police forces for the indecent assault of a young girl more than 30 years ago.

Several years ago Irish officers investigating a series of attempted abductions were seeking Hewlett, who had been posing as an undercover police officer to search for young girls or befriend their families to gain access to children.

'To say we need to trace this man is an understatement,' said one detective. But, as in the past, Hewlett was one step ahead of the law and had fled."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1186788/Madeleine-McCanns-possible-abductor-Raymond-Hewlett-cunning-predator-30-years-depravity-him.html

You prove that the Algarve appears to have been awash with violent sexual predators when Madeleine was abducted particularly one with a record like Hewlett.  Doesn't it make you wonder why Amaral set his sights on the parents of missing children.

By the way, what you are doing by repeatedly dragging Freud into Madeleine's case based on "allegation" is against decency and Portuguese Law.
Freud isn't fifty years dead.

Criminal Defamation of the Deceased
Seriously offending the dead is punishable under Art. 185 of the Portuguese Criminal Code with a prison term of maximum six months or a fine of maximum 240 days, subject to the defences of truth and legitimate interest and the aggravating circumstances of slander. The statute of limitations is 50 years. http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/portugal/

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The question you originally asked is not the question you say you were asking.  If it had been you would have asked “what do you make of Kate’s lack of condemnation of a man whose company she enjoyed  subsequently accused of paedophilisa.”.  No, your question clearly asks what should we make of her enjoyment of being in the company of a paedophile.  Your post-rationalisation does not change thst.

As not one of Freud’s close celebrity friends issued a public statement condemning his actions as far as I’m aware I don’t see why the McCanns should be singled out for their failure to do so.  Do you think there is any possible likelihood that they don’t condemn his actions?  It may be important for you to gain this clarity but I would imagine that for 99% of those who have read the book it is of no consequence whatsoever.

Freud’s wife and the Liberal Democrats both made public statements that were unequivocal.

I make no inference from the fact that the McCanns chose not to as far as I am aware.

[Brietta]

Freud’s wife and the Liberal Democrats both made public statements that were unequivocal.

I make no inference from the fact that the McCanns chose not to as far as I am aware.

Indeed you do make an inference which you don't even recognise as such.

How can one speak unequivocally about the actions of an "alleged" paedophile ...

I have not continued that sentence because I believe to do so would be libellous.


Now that you have got all that guff out of your system ~ I expect you to return to the thread title as per forum rules, bearing in mind that what is said has to be sensitive regarding Brueckner's proven record which we have only recently discovered, thanks to Amaral.  I am sure there is more to come.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Freud’s wife and the Liberal Democrats both made public statements that were unequivocal.

I make no inference from the fact that the McCanns chose not to as far as I am aware.

It's really not surprising Freud's wife to whom he was married for many years and the party he represented for many years made a public statement but that still doesn't explain why you think Kate McCann (not even a long term close personl friend) should have done so.  Oh well, there's nowt so queer as folk.

[Eleanor]

It's really not surprising Freud's wife to whom he was married for many years and the party he represented for many years made a public statement but that still doesn't explain why you think Kate McCann (not even a long term close personl friend) should have done so.  Oh well, there's nowt so queer as folk.

Anything like that would have been gross impertinence in my opinion.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Indeed you do make an inference which you don't even recognise as such.

How can one speak unequivocally about the actions of an "alleged" paedophile ...

I have not continued that sentence because I believe to do so would be libellous.


Now that you have got all that guff out of your system ~ I expect you to return to the thread title as per forum rules, bearing in mind that what is said has to be sensitive regarding Brueckner's proven record which we have only recently discovered, thanks to Amaral.  I am sure there is more to come.

I will post the statements after work but I stand by “unequivocal”

[Brietta]

I will post the statements after work but I stand by “unequivocal”

Please do not post Mrs Freud's statement nor that from the LibDems.  We have all read them and both are "Off Topic" on this thread.
Clement Freud died in April 2009 the first allegations about him were made in June 2016.

These are not recent events and not associated with Madeleine's disappearance.

[Anthro]

“ A Portuguese source said: “The new information is pointing towards the fact two Russians could be behind it.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15683398/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-documentary/

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

“ A Portuguese source said: “The new information is pointing towards the fact two Russians could be behind it.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15683398/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-documentary/

There's going to be a few posters on this thread that will take issue with the "nothing concrete" claims. A few pages back it was claimed that CB's involvement was a "known" fact.

[Anthro]

There's going to be a few posters on this thread that will take issue with the "nothing concrete" claims. A few pages back it was claimed that CB's involvement was a "known" fact.

In my opinion, Mr Wolters has always maintained that Brückner killed Madeleine, not that he removed her from 5A.