The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect

[Mr Gray]

Not according to SY and the McCanns he isn't because Wolters claims she's dead while SY and the McCanns disagree.

You totally misunderstand the situation... That isnt opinion.. Its fact. Neither SY nor the mccanns think Maddie is still alive

[Ms Para glider]

Are you truly saying that Gerry is such an arrogant and narcissistic individual that when faced with evidence from two witnesses that he was not where he thought he was he doubles down on his recollection? That when doubling down on his recollection undermines his main witness Tanner he still does it? His daughter has just, according to him, been abducted but it means more to him to appear right rather than accept that he may be wrong.

No, that's not what I'm saying. But the fact you are trying to put words in my mouth and deliberately misrepresent what I was saying is comforting. It means you have absolutely nothing of worth to challenge what I actually said.

I'm saying Gerry says that's where he was stood, because that's how he genuinely remembered it. If it was all a lie, it would be easy for him to change his story to align it with the others and say he was mistaken (although if he did that, I'm sure you'd cite that as being equally suspicious). He's saying he was stood further over because he's just being honest about what he remembers. For what it's worth, I think he is probably incorrect in his recollection. The same as I think Martin Smith is incorrect in his. Is Martin Smith an arrogant narcissist for not aligning his view to that of Peter and Aoife, who disagreed that the man was Gerry?

Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood. But piecing together all three accounts, that seems the most likely place, but it's still not certain either.

This is just a typical example of variations in recollections that people try to twist and contort into having a bigger meaning. I'm yet to hear a credible reason for why Jane would lie about passing them though.

[Ms Para glider]

Amaral was of the opinion that Jane turned left into the walkway before she reached the two men standing chatting and that is why neither saw her pass. He also claimed that Jane didn't see the man carrying the child from the street but from her apartment on the first floor.

 All very odd imo.

It was also Amaral's opinion that Gerry slipped away, carried Madeleine’s corpse through town, down to the beach and buried her. Then dug her back up and stuck her in a freezer for a few weeks. Then put her in his hire car. After that, I forget... was it that she was fed to pigs? or am I thinking of another case where he lied his ass off?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Both SY and the BKA think abduction took place.. The PJ thought it one of the possibilities.... Sceptic logic falls at the first fence

Indeed, weird sceptic logic that admits a child abduction could easily be executed but that it could not have occurred because Gerry got a fact wrong and had to correct it a couple of days later (which, if he was not striving for absolute accuracy he could have just let pass and no one would have been any the wiser).   

[Brietta]

Not according to SY and the McCanns he isn't because Wolters claims she's dead while SY and the McCanns disagree.

According to the media the BKA have not shared the evidence which has convinced them that Madeleine has been murdered.

According to the media SY and the BKA are hand in glove as far as Brueckner being the prime suspect.  SY gave the BKA the name in 2013 and he was interviewed; after televised appeals in 2017 Brueckner's name was again brought to the attention of investigators.

Brueckner has been on the bucket list of SY and the BKA since then; his name only entered the public arena as a direct result of Amaral mouthing off in a podcast of 2019 which the media took to be Ney; only further Amaral media intervention in 2020 assured that the identity of the "patsy" became known.

Amaral had a reason for attempting to disrupt the investigation into Madeleine's case so insistently which must have been pretty urgent to make him break cover as he did.
I think the time may come when he might have to answer questions about his actions and his interference in a live investigation.

[Brietta]

That's very true, there were several witnesses in and around 3a during the evening. How long would it take to gain entry to the apartment, find and lift a child and then make an escape all without being seen. And remember, if there was an intruder he was not to know whether his victim would scream the place down.

Brueckner is a skilled burglar with many criminal contacts.

Brueckner is a convicted rapist.

Brueckner is a convicted paedophile.

Scotland Yard have already interviewed other known burglars apparently brought to attention as a result of their mobile phone activity on the night Madeleine vanished.

These men were local had expertise as burglars - they had the means to enter premises illegally and if they chose to kidnap a child, they had access to accommodation, vehicles and perhaps even contacts to make sure the child vanished from the face of the earth.

So did Brueckner - which is why he is now the prime suspect in Madeleine's case.

[Brietta]

No, that's not what I'm saying. But the fact you are trying to put words in my mouth and deliberately misrepresent what I was saying is comforting. It means you have absolutely nothing of worth to challenge what I actually said.

I'm saying Gerry says that's where he was stood, because that's how he genuinely remembered it. If it was all a lie, it would be easy for him to change his story to align it with the others and say he was mistaken (although if he did that, I'm sure you'd cite that as being equally suspicious). He's saying he was stood further over because he's just being honest about what he remembers. For what it's worth, I think he is probably incorrect in his recollection. The same as I think Martin Smith is incorrect in his. Is Martin Smith an arrogant narcissist for not aligning his view to that of Peter and Aoife, who disagreed that the man was Gerry?

Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood. But piecing together all three accounts, that seems the most likely place, but it's still not certain either.

This is just a typical example of variations in recollections that people try to twist and contort into having a bigger meaning. I'm yet to hear a credible reason for why Jane would lie about passing them though.

"Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood."

To that I would add that less than an hour later Gerry was to discover that his precious daughter was missing from her bed.  That was a traumatic event which must have taken precedence over all else.

I agree with the positioning as being the most likely.  But I think it of little importance where the men were standing.
Strong evidence is that both men had a conversation - Jane - Jes and Gerry all agreed on that.
Strong evidence is that Jane left the tapas table to walk up the street past them to make her check - that too is corroborated, as is Gerry leaving and returning to the meal.

The important issue which this redundant positioning argument attempts to cloud over is Jane Tanner's evidence of her eye witness account of a female child being carried away from the direction of the McCann apartment on the night Madeleine was abducted.

I don't think it takes rocket science to work that one out.

[Brietta]

Amaral was of the opinion that Jane turned left into the walkway before she reached the two men standing chatting and that is why neither saw her pass. He also claimed that Jane didn't see the man carrying the child from the street but from her apartment on the first floor.

 All very odd imo.

Amaral is on record as being of the opinion that Brueckner had a long, shaggy, hippy hairstyle when Madeleine was abducted.

He took the trouble to make a faked up photo image showing how Brueckner 'looked' and advertised it assiduously.

As we all know for certain Amaral was wrong about that too.

[Vertigo Swirl]

"Taking each of the various accounts, I suggest they were probably stood just off the kerb near the corner of where the pathway starts. Memories are fallible, alcohol had been consumed, there was no special reason to etch into their minds where exactly they stood."

To that I would add that less than an hour later Gerry was to discover that his precious daughter was missing from her bed.  That was a traumatic event which must have taken precedence over all else.

I agree with the positioning as being the most likely.  But I think it of little importance where the men were standing.
Strong evidence is that both men had a conversation - Jane - Jes and Gerry all agreed on that.
Strong evidence is that Jane left the tapas table to walk up the street past them to make her check - that too is corroborated, as is Gerry leaving and returning to the meal.

The important issue which this redundant positioning argument attempts to cloud over is Jane Tanner's evidence of her eye witness account of a female child being carried away from the direction of the McCann apartment on the night Madeleine was abducted.

I don't think it takes rocket science to work that one out.

Let's not forget that for years sceptics accused JT of making the whole sighting up, and then had to quickly alter their accusation to fit their narrative of deceit when Totman was ID'ed.   IMO JT was an honest witness who has been maligned and traduced over the years, and by some individuals who regularly post on this forum too (if not spreading their poison on here then certainly elsewhere).  Poor woman. 

[Brietta]

From the sidelines and as a civilian, Amaral interfered in the German investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance by issuing false information regarding Brueckner.

How can we be sure that as the Policia Judiciaria co-ordinator of Madeleine's case he wasn't already pulling stunts of that type.

He is a dishonest man as his criminal conviction for perjury proves.

[G-Unit]

Let's not forget that for years sceptics accused JT of making the whole sighting up, and then had to quickly alter their accusation to fit their narrative of deceit when Totman was ID'ed.   IMO JT was an honest witness who has been maligned and traduced over the years, and by some individuals who regularly post on this forum too (if not here then elsewhere).  Poor woman.

It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.

The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.

The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.

My position is that JT, GMcC and JW were and are honest witnesses, and I think that is a position I share with all supporters and anyone else without a McCann bashing agenda.  Where who was stood on the pavement is of no significance to anyone but the most ardent sceptic and I am totally open minded about whether JT saw an abductor or a holiday maker, but that she did see someone matching the description she gave, of that I am quite certain. 

[Brietta]

It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.

The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.

The "positions" being adopted might be an internet game, obsession or crusade for some but it should be realised this concerns the true lives of Madeleine and her parents.

[The General]

My position is that JT, GMcC and JW were and are honest witnesses, and I think that is a position I share with all supporters and anyone else without a McCann bashing agenda.  Where who was stood on the pavement is of no significance to anyone but the most ardent sceptic and I am totally open minded about whether JT saw an abductor or a holiday maker, but that she did see someone matching the description she gave, of that I am quite certain.

Which one?

[Mr Gray]

It's OK. Imo there are still supporters who have rejected Operation Grange's suggestion that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker not an abductor. I'm surprised you haven't been corrected by them. I've been told that OG were almost, not completely, sure that Jane didn't see an abductor.

The fact is that everyone defends their own position as best they can, whatever that position is. There are three possible positions where Gerry and Jes met, for example, and different people support whichever one suits the rest of their beliefs, although few accept Gerry's version I notice.

It's not really of any importance if the Germans have proof of abduction and murder which it seems they do