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

[Mr Gray]

Which law is that then?

Have a read

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2016/343/chapter/2/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true

[Ms Para glider]

Two small girls, Madeleine and a lookalike, being carried through the streets of PDL at the same time by a man similar in stature and appearance. Surely even you don’t believe that?

Even me? What is that supposed to mean?

What are these "two" small girls you refer to being carried at the same time? I didn't mention two girls. In terms of what I believe... I believe that at the time of this sighting, multiple witnesses, including staff at the OC indicate that Gerry McCann was at the OC the whole time. So what I believe is that the person the Smith family saw was not Gerry.

What you seem to believe is that multiple people conspired to give Gerry an alibi in order that he could carry his daughter's corpse through town where anybody could have seen him. Which option is really the most credible?

Whether or not the girl was Madeleine, I don't know. I don't think it is certain but I can't rule it out either.

[Ms Para glider]

Appeals can be made without prejudicial statements.

You didn't answer my question. You was said it was "unnecessary" for them to claim Madeleine was dead and their belief that their suspect did it. So what exactly do you think they should have said as part of the appeal?

If they are pursuing a murder charge against him, I don't really see how they can avoid making both of those claims.

[jassi]

As I recall, the appeal was only in connection with a phone call allegedly received by  Christian B

[Mr Gray]

As I recall, the appeal was only in connection with a phone call allegedly received by  Christian B

I recall Wolters also asking for details of the interiors of any properties CB had access to which would tie in with Wolters having a photo or video that he wants to see if there iss a connection to CB

[Ms Para glider]

As I recall, the appeal was only in connection with a phone call allegedly received by  Christian B

These are the things the BKA appealed to the public for information on, taken from their website:

- Can you provide information on the vehicles used by the suspect and/or have you seen the vehicles in the beginning of May 2007?
- Do you know where these vehicles were parked in the aforementioned time period?
- Can you provide information on the above-mentioned telephone numbers and/or the persons using these numbers in May 2007?
- Can you provide information on the houses and rooms in the photographs or on other points of contact?
- Did you also stay in the Algarve in the beginning of May 2007 and do you still have image material, such as holiday photographs and videos, from that time?
- Did you have contact with persons who have links to the vehicles, buildings and telephone numbers shown?
- Can you provide information on their whereabouts in the beginning of May 2007?
- Have you yourself possibly been the victim of an offence committed by this person?
- Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons, apart from the suspect, who have concrete knowledge of the course of the crime and maybe also of the place where the body was left. We explicitly ask these persons to contact us and provide information.

[faithlilly]

Even me? What is that supposed to mean?

What are these "two" small girls you refer to being carried at the same time? I didn't mention two girls. In terms of what I believe... I believe that at the time of this sighting, multiple witnesses, including staff at the OC indicate that Gerry McCann was at the OC the whole time. So what I believe is that the person the Smith family saw was not Gerry.

What you seem to believe is that multiple people conspired to give Gerry an alibi in order that he could carry his daughter's corpse through town where anybody could see him. Which option is really the most credible?

Whether or not the girl was Madeleine, I don't know. I don't think it is certain but I can't rule it out either.

Simple logic.

You don’t appear to think that the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine….so that’s one girl. Then of course Madeleine herself was allegedly abducted by Bruckner so that’s another child being carried from 5a, then of course there’s Tanner’s sighting which has all but been identified as a doctor holidaying with his young family. Further there is no suggestion that the doctor was the person seen by the the Smiths or indeed that the person the Smiths saw was Brueckner.

So if neither Brueckner nor Gerry were the men seen by the Smiths and the child wasn’t Madeleine and Brueckner did abduct Madeleine and the good doctor was the person seen by Tanner as OG believe then we have not two be three different men mooching about PDL with Madeleine lookalikes.

No….I don’t believe it either.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Simple logic.

You don’t appear to think that the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine….so that’s one girl. Then of course Madeleine herself was allegedly abducted by Bruckner so that’s another child being carried from 5a, then of course there’s Tanner’s sighting which has all but been identified as a doctor holidaying with his young family. Further there is no suggestion that the doctor was the person seen by the the Smiths or indeed that the person the Smiths saw was Brueckner.

So if neither Brueckner nor Gerry were the men seen by the Smiths and the child wasn’t Madeleine and Brueckner did abduct Madeleine and the good doctor was the person seen by Tanner as OG believe then we have not two be three different men mooching about PDL with Madeleine lookalikes.

No….I don’t believe it either.

Simple logic seems to have seriously eluded you.  Let's start at the beginning.  You state Para doesn't appear to believe the girl in the Smith sighing was Madeleine but this is what Para ACTUALLY said

 "Whether or not the girl was Madeleine, I don't know. I don't think it is certain but I can't rule it out either".

Attention to detail is always important when trying to debate with those smarter than yourself I find...

[Ms Para glider]

Simple logic.

You don’t appear to think that the girl seen by the Smiths was Madeleine….so that’s one girl. Then of course Madeleine herself was allegedly abducted by Bruckner so that’s another child being carried from 5a, then of course there’s Tanner’s sighting which has all but been identified as a doctor holidaying with his young family. Further there is no suggestion that the doctor was the person seen by the the Smiths or indeed that the person the Smiths saw was Brueckner.

So if neither Brueckner nor Gerry were the men seen by the Smiths and the child wasn’t Madeleine and Brueckner did abduct Madeleine and the good doctor was the person seen by Tanner as OG believe then we have not two be three different men mooching about PDL with Madeleine lookalikes.

No….I don’t believe it either.

Your reasoning involves very little in the way of logic.

I didn't say the Smith sighting wasn't Madeleine, it may have been, I just pointed out that not even the Smiths were prepared to say it definitely was. Something you seem to be absolutely sure of though.

Logic would tell you there were hundreds of holidaymakers in a family resort and that a large portion of those were families with young children. What is so inconceivable that the person the Smiths saw was just a different father carrying his child home? Possibly from a night creche. You do know about the night creche right? Maybe it's not a case of all these men "mooching" about PDL with Madeleine "lookalikes" but simply fathers taking their kids home. How else do you think they get from the creche? All JT saw was a pair of legs so calling her a lookalike seems a bit of a stretch too.

Your observation about the doctor who admits to carrying his daughter home from the night creche that same night only serves to weaken your argument. You are providing an example of something that did happen and then trying to claim it is too implausible the be the case in the Smith sighting (that it was simply another father taking his kid home).

I would add that there is no definitive proof that the CB wasn't the person that the Smiths saw, or the person JT saw either. All of the people involved in those sightings have stated, on the record, that they would not be able to identify the person if they saw them again.

I note you completely ignored my other points about multiple people stating Gerry was elsewhere at the time. Or why it would be logical for Gerry to openly carry a dead body through town at that particular time knowing that he could be seen by any number of people or caught on security cameras. How about giving me some "simple logic" to explain that?

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is no simple logic to the (imo) absurd notion that a man intent on staging an abduction would carry the corpse of the child whose abduction he was staging, unconcealed through the streets of a holiday town, making no attempt to disguise himself or the child.  Not only that but to do all this having pre-arranged for his wife to scream "abduction" either just before he set off on his mission, or afterwards when he would have known he'd been seen by at least half a dozen people doing so.  Simpleton logic it may be, but that's about as far as it goes.

[G-Unit]

Have a read

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2016/343/chapter/2/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for as long as a suspect or an accused person has not been proved guilty according to law, public statements made by public authorities, and judicial decisions, other than those on guilt, do not refer to that person as being guilty.

[G-Unit]

You didn't answer my question. You was said it was "unnecessary" for them to claim Madeleine was dead and their belief that their suspect did it. So what exactly do you think they should have said as part of the appeal?

If they are pursuing a murder charge against him, I don't really see how they can avoid making both of those claims.

When the appeal for information was first made, no-one said he was guilty, but they got their message across
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-police-reveal-details-about-latest-suspect-11999972

[G-Unit]

Your reasoning involves very little in the way of logic.

I didn't say the Smith sighting wasn't Madeleine, it may have been, I just pointed out that not even the Smiths were prepared to say it definitely was. Something you seem to be absolutely sure of though.

Logic would tell you there were hundreds of holidaymakers in a family resort and that a large portion of those were families with young children. What is so inconceivable that the person the Smiths saw was just a different father carrying his child home? Possibly from a night creche. You do know about the night creche right? Maybe it's not a case of all these men "mooching" about PDL with Madeleine "lookalikes" but simply fathers taking their kis home. How else do you think they get from the creche? All JT saw was a pair of legs so calling her a lookalike seems a bit of a stretch too.

Your observation about the doctor who admits to carrying his daughter home from the night creche that same night only serves to weaken your argument. You are providing an example of something that did happen and then trying to claim it is too implausible the be the case in the Smith sighting (that it was simply another father taking his kid home).

I would add that there is no definitive proof that the CB wasn't the person that the Smiths saw, or the person JT saw either. All of the people involved in those sightings have stated, on the record, that they would not be able to identify the person if they saw them again.

I note you completely ignored my other points about multiple people stating Gerry was elsewhere at the time. Or why it would be logical for Gerry to openly carry a dead body through town at that particular time knowing that he could be seen by any number of people or caught on security cameras. How about giving me some "simple logic" to explain that?

One would have to wonder where the man seen at around 10pm was going, as he wasn't heading towards Ocean Club accomodation. If he wasn't an OC guest he didn't leave the creche.

The 'multiple' people giving Gerry McCann an alibi were actually seven people, and a couple of them weren't sure, so that's five people. All friends of theirs.

[faithlilly]

Your reasoning involves very little in the way of logic.

I didn't say the Smith sighting wasn't Madeleine, it may have been, I just pointed out that not even the Smiths were prepared to say it definitely was. Something you seem to be absolutely sure of though.

So it could have been Madeleine. At least that’s progress.

Logic would tell you there were hundreds of holidaymakers in a family resort and that a large portion of those were families with young children. What is so inconceivable that the person the Smiths saw was just a different father carrying his child home? Possibly from a night creche. You do know about the night creche right? Maybe it's not a case of all these men "mooching" about PDL with Madeleine "lookalikes" but simply fathers taking their kids home. How else do you think they get from the creche? All JT saw was a pair of legs so calling her a lookalike seems a bit of a stretch too.

Absolutely, the Smith sighting could you been just some random father carrying his child home, except for the fact that Martin Smith was up to 80% sure that it was Gerry, an opinion supported by his wife, and OG put the sighting front and centre of their 2013 appeal. Further doesn’t it seem strange to you, as you’ve said, there was little to connect the child seen by Tanner to Madeleine’s disappearance, that her parents constantly tried to link the sighting to the disappearance? In fact we are told that they sidelined the Smith sighting in favour of it.

Your observation about the doctor who admits to carrying his daughter home from the night creche that same night only serves to weaken your argument. You are providing an example of something that did happen and then trying to claim it is too implausible the be the case in the Smith sighting (that it was simply another father taking his kid home).

It’s not the taking home of children by parents from the creche that I find implausible but that so many of them were, allegedly, similar in appearance and dress.

I would add that there is no definitive proof that the CB wasn't the person that the Smiths saw, or the person JT saw either. All of the people involved in those sightings have stated, on the record, that they would not be able to identify the person if they saw them again.

No definitive proof but, again, almost certainly precludes it.

I note you completely ignored my other points about multiple people stating Gerry was elsewhere at the time. Or why it would be logical for Gerry to openly carry a dead body through town at that particular time knowing that he could be seen by any number of people or caught on security cameras. How about giving me some "simple logic" to explain that?

Apologies that you feel that I have not invested enough time in answering your points fully so let me rectify that. There was not one independent witness that could definitively ( I know you like things to be cast iron) put Gerry McCann in the tapas bar between 9.30 and just before the alarm was raised. Further can I suggest that if you find yourself in a situation where your daughter has died in some tragic accident while you were absent and you fear that that absence may be judged neglectful logic would not be top of the motivations driving you. 

[faithlilly]

One would have to wonder where the man seen at around 10pm was going, as he wasn't heading towards Ocean Club accomodation. If he wasn't an OC guest he didn't leave the creche.

The 'multiple' people giving Gerry McCann an alibi were actually seven people, and a couple of them weren't sure, so that's five people. All friends of theirs.

👆🏼What she says.