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

[Vertigo Swirl]

How can anything be ruled out, when it's not clear if what has been said is correct? The 30 minute checks have been publicised, leaving ample time for an abduction, but when the evidence is examined there was allegedly a lot of activity near the apartment which reduced those 30 minute opportunities significantly.

Yes, even by your own reckoning leaving 10 to 15 minutes for an abduction to occur, yet you still class it as “virtually impossible”.  Why, when you seem quite willing to consider the possibility that Madeleine was murdered by one or more of the Tapas group.  Also, do you think Madeleine was alive on the morning of 3rd May? 

[faithlilly]

Which police statement are you referring to? The one where he says he would not be unable to recognise the man again? Or the one where he isn't totally sure that the man was Gerry?

You seem to be a lot more certain that the Smiths saw Gerry than the Smiths were. Let's look at what Martin actually says:

In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.

IMO, what we are seeing here is along the lines of distinction bias. The Smiths admit they followed the case and for four months, they see Gerry in the news daily. Not once do they consider that this could be the person they saw. Then, just 2 days after the McCanns were made Arguidos, all of a sudden they are thinking "ooh, could Gerry have been the man we saw?" and their opinions and memories are influenced by this news that the parents are now in the frame. It's not a coincidence Martin Smith had this sudden epiphany as soon as the parents were declared suspects IMO.

Now this is interesting “ the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”

It’s strange that the wife seems to be forever airbrushed from the believer’s narrative.

[faithlilly]

This is not Svetlana's official statement, but from brief notes officers made the day after the disappearance. Note it says "Purportedly" the father. Who is purporting it, her, the officer, someone else who told her? Doesn't say she witnessed this herself, it sounds more likely she is re-telling something one of her colleagues told her (probably the waiter Ricardo who, in his rogotary admits he only later learned the man who he said left the table for a long while was called Russell). It's almost certain that the person she is referring to is actually Russell O'Brien who stayed a while to tend to his daughter and returned shortly before Kate did her check. In her official statement, she makes absolutely no mention of it, indicating this was probably not something that she directly witnessed. She said she was a kitchen assistant and said she only goes outside sometimes to check on the grills and wasn't paying much attention that night.

Rather too much supposition dressed as fact here. Putting ‘ almost certainly’ before a claim does not make it true.

[Mr Gray]

One possible 'ample time' or many? Please be more specific.

Baby taken from bath whilst mother in another room
Do you deny abduction as a possibility possibility... Simple question

[Mr Gray]

The whole point is that abduction WAS highly unlikely...but it seems that's exactly what happened

[Ms Para glider]

Now this is interesting “ the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”

It’s strange that the wife seems to be forever airbrushed from the believer’s narrative.

It's strange that you've airbrushed that none of the rest of his family (9 in total) who were there agreed with him. Where is his wife's statement if she is so sure about it too? How strongly did she "agree" with him? Was it a simple "hmm, maybe honey, could be I suppose, he was a similar size I guess". She declined to give another statement when requested by the police, probably because she didn't want to go on the record because she wasn't really at all sure about it.

Isn't is also strange that he gives such a wide range of certainty? 60 to 80 percent. Why not just say "about" 70%. He is not even sure of how sure he is. He feels he has to give a lower limit that his certainty could be as low as 60%. And when you consider that if he'd said 50%, this is the equivalent of saying "I have no idea", "it's 50 - 50", "it might have been him, it might not". 60% is not really that strong a number given it's proximity to 50% is it? Especially when that certainty is not based on what the man looked like, but rather by a mannerism he perceived was similar, 4 months after the event. Just at the time they were made Arguidos. Not a coincidence IMO, I think the news influenced his sudden opinion that the man could have been Gerry and if the McCanns were never made suspects, he would never have contacted police with this new insight. He probably thought he was helping by saying, "the man you've now got as as a suspect, that could have been the guy we saw thinking about it".

[Ms Para glider]

Rather too much supposition dressed as fact here. Putting ‘ almost certainly’ before a claim does not make it true.

Neither does the word "Purportedly", yet you seem to indicate it was a fact that someone stated Gerry was the person who left the table for 30 minutes.

And it's not supposition, it's called logical reasoning. An alien concept to you perhaps. Straight question, do you think if she was asked about it now, she would say Gerry left the table for 30 minutes?

[Ms Para glider]

The bit that has always stood out for me is the two versions of events around 9.15pm when Gerry and Jez were supposedly chatting at the side of the road when flip flopping tippy toeing Jane Tanner crept by. Like Amaral, I have great difficulty accepting her version of events. How on earth do you pass someone on a footpath without being seen?

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Rather too much supposition dressed as fact here. Putting ‘ almost certainly’ before a claim does not make it true.

But it makes a lot of sense nonetheless, agreed?  No, of course not!!

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

Furthermore would it have just been sheer coincidence that having said she saw a man dressed a certain way carrying a child a certain way, a man fitting her description and at the time she says she saw him actually comes forward to say it was probably him? What are the chances, eh?

[Ms Para glider]

Now this is interesting “ the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”

It’s strange that the wife seems to be forever airbrushed from the believer’s narrative.

You are cherry picking the bits you think suit your theory and ignore the bits that contradict it. "Oh, look, his wife agrees too". Agrees with what? That the person looked like Gerry? That her husband "might" have a point? Or was it maybe that she was the only one who didn't say that he was definitely mistaken?

Why are you ignoring that other members of his family who saw the man disagreed with his assessment that it "could" have been Gerry?

His wife doesn't even make a statement about it. She didn't even go to Portugal when the others did to give their descriptions of the man they saw. How do we even know what she thinks she saw, how good a look she got, how much she remembers, how much she could describe of that person?

There were 3 people who gave detailed descriptions of the man they saw to PJ. Martin, his son Peter and his 12 year old daughter Aoife. So, of the 3 people that we know got a decent look of this bloke, 2 of them don't agree that it could have been Gerry McCann. The one who does is possibly only 60% sure... based on nothing but a mannerism he vaguely recalls as being similar 4 months after the event... an event that he didn't even remember at the time... not until his son Peter asked him whether he'd dreamt them seeing a man carrying a girl.

[Vertigo Swirl]

HCW is 100% certain based on the evidence he has seen that CB murdered Madeleine and yet is scorned to high heaven by the majority of McCann sceptics.  If he said he was only 60%-80% sure that CB did it, would sceptics be more likely to accept his opinion is correct?  Somehow I doubt it!

[G-Unit]

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?

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.

[barrier]

HCW is 100% certain based on the evidence he has seen that CB murdered Madeleine and yet is scorned to high heaven by the majority of McCann sceptics.  If he said he was only 60%-80% sure that CB did it, would sceptics be more likely to accept his opinion is correct?  Somehow I doubt it!

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

Amaral had no evidence to support his claims.. Wolters has proof beyond reasonable doubt MM is dead at the hands of an abductor paedophile from what he has said. Im going by what he's said.. Not what the papers say