Author Topic: The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect  (Read 106712 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Yet Wolters admits this, now if Amaral said such a thing about the McCanns what a palaver that would cause.

But he admitted prosecutors have no proof Madeleine is dead, any idea how she died and no evidence linking Brueckner to her alleged murder.
My point was about the percentages of surety.  Should we accept the opinion of someone who is 60-80% sure over one who is a 100% sure and if so why?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

I'm not sure they all agreed they were stood in the road. Rather than saying he had seen her, Gerry McCann attempted explain why they hadn't by placing his meeting with Jes Wilkins on the opposite pavement. Neither of the others agreed with him though.
What is wrong with trying to make sense of the situation and what does it matter where he was actually standing?  People’s recollections are not always 100% and it doesn’t mean they are lying if they get som e facts wrong, do you understand this?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline sadie

They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?

This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?

Yep, they were standing in the road, on its west side across the passageway.
 
-Gerry had his back foot on the kerb and front foot in the road.   
- Stephen Carpenter stood in the road
- He commented about cars being parked up there (I seem to remember that at one stage he mentioned about 6 cars.  I no longer go back searching - old age - so if you don't believe me about the 6 cars, that's OK with me.)  But there were cars parked.
- Jez was standing in the road too, more or less facing Gerry.

- They were standing between cars: the safest place with a baby.  Might one of the cars have been a big van, blocking the view?   Dunno, but I do remember a musician sleeping there and living in a van.  Can't remember his name




John produced a splendid mock up image that was posted for a long time, but I see that he has changed it.   

He had the men in the correct place in the roadway across the entrance to the alleyway, but now they are moved farther up the road, no longer shown across the alleyway.   At the alleyway, the pavement is 9 feet wide.   A very big width for Jane to pass Gerry easily.   In Johns new image, they are moved to a spot where the overhanging  hedge drastically narrows the passing width. 

This new image gives false information.  Please can we have the image corrected John.   Show the full depth



- In Amarals video, 'O Enigma', he personally points out the spot where the two men stood chatting.  It is in the middle of the alleyway.   

*** What cheats they are.   The relevant part with Amaral pointing out where Gerry and Jez stood from about 15.34-15.53 has been covered by a video called 'OS AVISTANTENT', but a bit has been left.  I dont speak Portuguese so I don't know whether that is relevant.***
  The video carries on a bit but the pointing of actual places has been hidden


- Jez's image on paper as cofirmed by Amaral
- Janes appearance in the Cutting Edge Video starting about 9.40 where she holds her anger back at Gerrys mistake and very definitely shows where the men chatted.  Confirmed by Amaral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkc3C6csaHI


Jane most certainly did not have to squeeze by Gerry as some seem to imply.  Bags of room.
- and the lighting was apalling


Offline Myster

John produced a splendid mock up image that was posted for a long time, but I see that he has changed it.   

He had the men in the correct place in the roadway across the entrance to the alleyway, but now they are moved farther up the road, no longer shown across the alleyway.   At the alleyway, the pavement is 9 feet wide.   A very big width for Jane to pass Gerry easily.   In Johns new image, they are moved to a spot where the overhanging  hedge drastically narrows the passing width. 

This new image gives false information.  Please can we have the image corrected John.   Show the full depth

Here you go, you little tinker!  Are these the 2 versions you're referring to?  In the second, they're only a couple of yards up from the alleyway anyway and the passing width depends on whether the hedge was overgrown or not at the time...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0

Jane Tanner's map...
« Last Edit: February 20, 2022, 06:39:32 PM by Myster »
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline sadie

Here you go, you little tinker!  Are these the 2 versions you're referring to?  In the second, they're only a couple of yards up from the alleyway anyway and the passing width depends on whether the hedge was overgrown or not at the time...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0

Jane Tanner's map...

Will you get off my back MYSTER !!

Why didn't you show the Cutting Edge Video and Jezes map which clearly points to the alleyway corner ?


What is your reason for this behaviour?     There has to be a reason.


Offline faithlilly

They were stood in the road, Jane walked up along the pavement, so they weren't exactly right next to her. Two men deeply engaged in conversation would not necessarily turn to look at someone else walking by, even if they did hear the deafening roar of flip flops approaching. Do you notice every single person who walks past you, or are you sometimes too busy or not really nosey enough look around?

This again, is a case of confirmation bias. You see this apparent discrepancy and decide it reinforces your belief about them all lying about what happened. You have to wonder though, if there was a pact among the group to cover something up, and the Tanner sighting was just something invented to enforce the theory of an abduction taking place, why didn't Gerry just state that he DID see Jane at that time?

Gerry couldn’t be sure that his talk with Wilkins hadn’t been witnessed by anyone. Imagine if he said that he’d seen Tanner but someone had come forward to say that he hadn’t. A.W.K.W.A.R.D. Best to put yourself on the other side of the road….it wasn’t perfect but needs must.
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 Brietta

Madeleine's parents are not the prime suspects in her disappearance.

That distinction is held by Christian Brueckner.

The BKA have already collected enough evidence to convince them that the offence being investigated is one of the murder of a child.  I reiterate their prime and only suspect for that is Brueckner.

I am astounded that there are still individuals continuing the fifteen years of slurs aimed at Madeleine's parents while defending to the hilt the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the suspected child murderer Brueckner.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Myster

Will you get off my back MYSTER !!

Why didn't you show the Cutting Edge Video and Jezes map which clearly points to the alleyway ?
one.
What is your reason for this behaviour?     There has to be a reason.
What behaviour SADIE?!!!  Sheesh... I've only linked to John's reconstructed images and shown JT's map!

I'm sure you're capable of finding the other two, so I'll leave that to you!
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline faithlilly

Madeleine's parents are not the prime suspects in her disappearance.

That distinction is held by Christian Brueckner.

The BKA have already collected enough evidence to convince them that the offence being investigated is one of the murder of a child.  I reiterate their prime and only suspect for that is Brueckner.

I am astounded that there are still individuals continuing the fifteen years of slurs aimed at Madeleine's parents while defending to the hilt the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the suspected child murderer Brueckner.

After 15 years I’m astounded that you’re still astounded.
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 Ms Para glider

I'm not sure they all agreed they were stood in the road. Rather than saying he had seen her, Gerry McCann attempted explain why they hadn't by placing his meeting with Jes Wilkins on the opposite pavement. Neither of the others agreed with him though.

In each of their accounts, they all admit to not being totally certain of their exact postions, but all of their accounts are consistent with at least one of either Jez or Gerry being stood on the road. And all accounts are consistent with Gerry having his back to where Jane would have been walking.

Also, it is incorrect to suggest Gerry "attempted to explain" why he didn't see her by putting himself across the other side of the road. That's just the way he recollected it. He had no reason to "explain". He had his back to Jane and Jane gives no indication that either of them noticed her walk past as they were deep in conversation.

Inconsistencies like this are to be expected in a truthful story. People over-analyse these minor discrepancies in people's recollections and make them into something they are not. What would be the point in Gerry deliberately lying and claiming to be the other side of the road without telling Jane that's where she should say he was as well? Instead, they have debate on camera about where they think he was stood.

In reality, it is stories that are exactly identical that should be cosidered suspicious as this can indicate that the story has been rehearsed. As I said, if there was an element of collusion (as some people seem to think) to invent the Tannerman abductor, it would have made more sense that Gerry would corroborate seeing Jane pass by him.

Offline G-Unit

Here you go, you little tinker!  Are these the 2 versions you're referring to?  In the second, they're only a couple of yards up from the alleyway anyway and the passing width depends on whether the hedge was overgrown or not at the time...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0

Jane Tanner's map...

The second picture matches Jane's map, produced on 4th May.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Ms Para glider

Gerry couldn’t be sure that his talk with Wilkins hadn’t been witnessed by anyone. Imagine if he said that he’d seen Tanner but someone had come forward to say that he hadn’t. A.W.K.W.A.R.D. Best to put yourself on the other side of the road….it wasn’t perfect but needs must.

He could be sure it was witnessed by someone. It was witnessed by Jez Wilkins! What sense would it make to deliberately lie about being the other side of the road knowing that Jez knew different?

Offline Myster

The second picture matches Jane's map, produced on 4th May.
Exactly... which is why John's image is a fairly accurate representation.   I've really NO idea what the  unnecessary fuss kicked up by Sadie is all about.
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Gerry couldn’t be sure that his talk with Wilkins hadn’t been witnessed by anyone. Imagine if he said that he’d seen Tanner but someone had come forward to say that he hadn’t. A.W.K.W.A.R.D. Best to put yourself on the other side of the road….it wasn’t perfect but needs must.
If anyone can make sense of this contorted rationale please feel free to let us know.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Ms Para glider

If anyone can make sense of this contorted rationale please feel free to let us know.

No, I didn't get it either. How would someone watching, prove that Gerry hadn't seen Jane walking past? Surely the only way to do that is if this witness was absolutely confident that Jane didn't walk past at all. In which case, the whole "lie" comes tumbling down anyway. So why does that prevent Gerry saying that he saw her? And, if someone was watching Gerry and Jez talking, how does lying about being stood elsewhere help, if this person watching (and Jez) knows where you were really stood?

Not exactly sure what the "theory" is meant to be in all this. Presumably the claim is that Jane never really walked past Gerry and Jez? The question then is, what would be the point in saying she did? If the need was to create a "phantom", why did it need to be at the particular time that Gerry and Jez were talking in the street? Why couldn't Jane just have said she saw the abductor just after Gerry got back? Why make this apparently "invented sighting" less credible by saying it took place with two other people there, neither of whom saw you, or this abductor, walking past? Isn't it actually more likely that Jez and Gerry were just too engrossed in chatting to notice?

Lots of questions I expect no sensible answers to.