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

[sadie]

No they did not!  They said nothing of the sort... your delusions of grandeur strike again!...

https://youtu.be/3EyqHtsLeGQ?t=1159

A clever bit of dubbing there.  Different words spoken now, but plenty heard the original words and hopefully will verify them.

See also, the folder has changed colour again.  it is no longer the aquamarine green that it had been changed to by someone ....... and the top shelf showing my big box folder has vanished again

You are the forum technical man, did you do both these things?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RE: The thread about the hearts on pilars, street corners etc near Casa Pia Boys Home and the deaf and dumb school behind Jeronimoes magnificent monastry in Belem, Lisbon.   The hearts that seemed like sign posts for paedos indicating where all the sordid acton was have vanished.  Luckily as with everything there are hard copies; some with SY as well.   So I suggest you tread carefully
 

You encouraged me to find the hearts from GE.  Then they all vanished, not only in real life but also on the thread.   You are the forum technical man ..... did you do it?

Are you working for the other side?


Only wondering, but it seems like it


And what a nasty man you are, always picking on me.

[Ms Para glider]

I assume it's already been proposed here before so I hesitate to say it. But the other option for the Met not resolving the issue of why Totman would be walking in that direction is because they don't actually believe that he did. Instead, Redwood's assumption is that Jane is mistaken in her recollection of which way the man was going.

The mind can play tricks. Redwood may have concluded that Jane recalling seeing a man, after Madeleine had just been seemingly abducted, might have caused her recollection to become influenced/muddled about what she actually saw. The same as Martin Smith's recollection possibly was when he learned that Gerry had been made Arguido.

To be clear, I'm NOT necessarily saying that's what "I" think happened to Jane, before anyone tries putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that "IF" the Met were indeed working on this assumption, it could also explain a few other things.

1. It could explain why the Portuguese authorites so quickly dismissed Totman as being Tannerman. If he'd said he was definitely heading towards the apartment block with his daughter, and never away from it as Jane described, he may have been ruled out on that basis. As inadequate as their investigation was, it is strange they would not have followed this up at any point, given it was their main lead at the time. Or later on, when it would have suited them down to the ground to have assigned Totman to being the man Jane saw.

2. It could explain why the McCanns have never committed to Totman being the person Jane saw. And why they, nor Jane, have made any comment about it. Despite Redwood being "almost" certain, they don't appear to agree. The drawings of Tannerman are still displayed prominently on their website and they state that while "the Met" believe this man "may" be another guest, it is "not certain" that it's the same person.

3. It could explain why neither the Met or the Totmans have offered any explanation as to why he was walking in that direction. The Totmans provided comments to the press and could have explained about the route he walked and at what time this was, but they offered up no details at all. All Redwood would commit to was that Mr Totman was walking "near" the apartment. He doesn't say at what time and I think if they "had" ascertained that he had walked in the direction Jane described, they would/should have said something about it IMO. If their assumption was that Jane was incorrect in her memories, I think that would be something that none of them would want to particularly broadcast though. It would only raise more doubts, questions and criticism if they were working on the assumption that Jane was wrong about what she saw. It would also undermine their promotion of the Smith sighting as a new angle of focus.

4. It could explain why the Totmans never contacted police during the 6 years before Redwood's team got in touch with the night creche families directly. If the Totmans strongly believed he could have been that person, you'd think they would have done a bit more to come forward, rather than just waiting to "hear back" as his wife put it. It could be that it's because he knows he wasn't walking in that direction at all and so, either it wasn't him, or he would have to claim Jane's account was wrong.

IMO, the assignation of Totman being Tannerman is inconclusive.

Going back to CB though, I thought it quite interesting that the BKA are seemingly placing no interest on the Smith sighting. Martin Smith says he didn't even find out about CB until it came out in the papers. Given how much the BKA 'appear' to want to place CB in the area, you would have thought they (or SY on their behalf) might have at least approached the Smiths with a photo of CB to see if it rang any bells prior to the appeal. I just wonder if they perhaps have other intel about the course of events that night which allows them to consider this event redundant.

[Ms Para glider]

Cheers Para. I'm Utrinque Paratus (while we're pathetically flexing the Googled Latin), - are you?

Nice Para pun Sir. You aren't an unintelligent person, I can tell that. I just don't quite understand why you resort to ridiculing an argument that nobody made when you are quite obviously capable of engaging in a proper grown-up debate.

[Ms Para glider]

It was you who brought up that the group’s perception may have been shaped by alcohol not me. If you don’t want something to be discussed can I suggest that you don’t use it as some sort of mitigation. If either Gerry or Tanner had consumed enough alcohol to perhaps dim their recall, as you suggested, how can any of their memories be relied upon?

TBH it’s not the fact that Gerry appears not to remember where he was standing I, like you, think there’s nothing suspicious in that. What is suspicious was the way he dug his heels in when two witnesses, one his friend, proved him wrong. Why chose that particular hill to die on?

As to your hypothetical question, I’m afraid I’ll have to answer the two parts separately. If there was CCTV that showed Tanner passing Gerry on that night then of course I’d accept that this had happened. I’d accept that I’d been wrong and crack on. As to Tanner identifying Brueckner I’d have to compare what she said when first describing the man she saw with Brueckner

For a start…from her rogatory interview Tanner described the man she saw as “ not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.” Bruckner is just over 6ft.

From her first interview Tanner described the man she saw as a “dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40” Brueckner was very light skinned and at the time was 30.

“ Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back ”. Of course we know that Bruckner has fair, rather fine hair and just weeks before Madeleine’s his hair was short at the back.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2219932/Video-Christian-B-drives-VW-campervan-just-weeks-Maddie-disappeared.html

So no I wouldn’t accept her assertion that the man she saw was Brueckner and I don’t think that you would either.

I've already explained in detail what I meant and you are still  choosing to twist it out of context. My main point was that memories are fallible anyway, my secondary point was that alcohol can affect memory accuracy further. At what point the level of intoxication makes a person's account "unreliable" is entirely subjective. No person's account can be considered 100% "reliable" if you want to get technical about it. Not even the world's most honest, stone-cold sober person.

Personally, I wouldn't categorise a person's account as "unreliable" on the basis they can't recall every specific detail of their night accurately such as where exactly they stood, even if "part" of the reason for that was down to light/moderate alcohol consumption.

It's a fact that consumption of alcohol affects perception and memory. Agree? Generally, the more alcohol consumed, the more ones recollections are likely to be distorted. Agree? And so, even a relatively small amount of alcohol could therefore affect ones recollections of "some" details to a degree, even if they were in otherwise sound control of their senses. Agree?

Have I said anything controversial or incorrect there?

If you want to interpret that the above means Gerry's memories are "unreliable", that's up to you. But on that basis you'd have to equate that Martin Smith's memories are "unreliable" too. You can't have it both ways.

There's a big difference between unreliable and untrustworthy though.

As for why Gerry "doubled down" about his positioning, again, it's simple. He's just being honest about how he recalls it. In spite of Jez and Jane thinking it was elsewhere, there is still a possibility he was right and they were wrong so why should he just discount his own recollection for the convenience of having an agreeable story? You choose to interpret that as being suspicious, but if he changed his story to fit the others accounts, I expect you'd have claimed that was suspicious too. Gerry correcting his version about which door he used being a prime example of where people think that.

At the end of the day, you're going to believe what you want to believe. I don't try or expect to change your mind, but I will pont out the flaws in your logic or argument when they are evidently apparent. Anyway let's move on, the topic is meant to be about CB.

[Brietta]

I've already explained in detail what I meant and you are still  choosing to twist it out of context. My main point was that memories are fallible anyway, my secondary point was that alcohol can affect memory accuracy further. At what point the level of intoxication makes a person's account "unreliable" is entirely subjective. No person's account can be considered 100% "reliable" if you want to get technical about it. Not even the world's most honest, stone-cold sober person.

Personally, I wouldn't categorise a person's account as "unreliable" on the basis they can't recall every specific detail of their night accurately such as where exactly they stood, even if "part" of the reason for that was down to light/moderate alcohol consumption.

It's a fact that consumption of alcohol affects perception and memory. Agree? Generally, the more alcohol consumed, the more ones recollections are likely to be distorted. Agree? And so, even a relatively small amount of alcohol could therefore affect ones recollections of "some" details to a degree, even if they were in otherwise sound control of their senses. Agree?

Have I said anything controversial or incorrect there?

If you want to interpret that the above means Gerry's memories are "unreliable", that's up to you. But on that basis you'd have to equate that Martin Smith's memories are "unreliable" too. You can't have it both ways.

There's a big difference between unreliable and untrustworthy though.

As for why Gerry "doubled down" about his positioning, again, it's simple. He's just being honest about how he recalls it. In spite of Jez and Jane thinking it was elsewhere, there is still a possibility he was right and they were wrong so why should he just discount his own recollection for the convenience of having an agreeable story? You choose to interpret that as being suspicious, but if he changed his story to fit the others accounts, I expect you'd have claimed that was suspicious too. Gerry correcting his version about which door he used being a prime example of where people think that.

At the end of the day, you're going to believe what you want to believe. I don't try or expect to change your mind, but I will pont out the flaws in your logic or argument when they are evidently apparent. Anyway let's move on, the topic is meant to be about CB.

I think the Portuguese police got themselves caught up in a mindset which didn't allow them to look at the broader picture which would have included investigating the burglars there at the time and Brueckner who wasn't there when they tried to speak to him.

I've just watched a documentary on Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire ripper) who was actually interviewed on at least four occasions but the police couldn't see beyond a hoaxer the press called 'Wearside Jack'.
Which calls to mind Amaral's sacking when he had a flaky reported in the media about evidence forwarded to him from Britain concerning a former ocean club employee who might well have been Euclides Monteiro.

So not only is witness testimony fallible police investigations are too.  Those of us enjoying the benefit of hindsight really ought to remember that.

[G-Unit]

Unless the tip off was about a woman;

The email - sent via Prince Charles' website - claimed a disgruntled former employee of the Portuguese resort where the toddler went missing, could be behind her disappearance.

It claimed Madeleine was abducted from the Praia da Luz apartment in revenge against the complex's owners.

It is understood police have confirmed the woman named in the email did work at the resort when Madeleine was last seen 150 days ago.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/prince-charles-maddie-tip-off/news-story/df27a5de24f61f575cbe063265b1fd82

[Brietta]

Unless the tip off was about a woman;

The email - sent via Prince Charles' website - claimed a disgruntled former employee of the Portuguese resort where the toddler went missing, could be behind her disappearance.

It claimed Madeleine was abducted from the Praia da Luz apartment in revenge against the complex's owners.

It is understood police have confirmed the woman named in the email did work at the resort when Madeleine was last seen 150 days ago.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/prince-charles-maddie-tip-off/news-story/df27a5de24f61f575cbe063265b1fd82

Could be so.  But irrespective of gender Amaral's outburst was such at the introduction of fresh evidence that it cost him his job.

There is also quite a supposition doing the rounds that Brueckner did not act alone but did so with an accomplice or as part of a group.

[G-Unit]

Could be so.  But irrespective of gender Amaral's outburst was such at the introduction of fresh evidence that it cost him his job.

There is also quite a supposition doing the rounds that Brueckner did not act alone but did so with an accomplice or as part of a group.

I was merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with Monreiro. Do you think Brueckner was recruited by 'Mr Big' too?

[Brietta]

I was merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with Monreiro. Do you think Brueckner was recruited by 'Mr Big' too?

By all accounts Euclides Monteiro was the motivation behind the Portuguese re-opening of Madeleine's case so the evidence for that must have been strong.

I have an open mind about whatever it was that motivated Brueckner if indeed it was he.  The Germans think they have the evidence to tell us exactly what Brueckner's role was ~ I am content to wait for that to be presented.

[The General]

I was merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with Monreiro. Do you think Brueckner was recruited by 'Mr Big' too?

This is the man who was nicking diesel and selling it in pop bottles, by the way, in case we've all lost sight of his predicament at the time.
Ok, so he was skint, but he remained skint and was still skint when he was nicked.
If he had abducted MM for someone else, I doubt he'd have been paid with a crate of Strongbow and a couple of tubes of Pringles.
(Cue the comments about the 'massive' drugs deal he was subsequently embroiled in).

[Mr Gray]

This is the man who was nicking diesel and selling it in pop bottles, by the way, in case we've all lost sight of his predicament at the time.
Ok, so he was skint, but he remained skint and was still skint when he was nicked.
If he had abducted MM for someone else, I doubt he'd have been paid with a crate of Strongbow and a couple of tubes of Pringles.
(Cue the comments about the 'massive' drugs deal he was subsequently embroiled in).

Is this the person who bought a very large mobile home.. And a disused factory and land at auction... That skint person

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is this the person who bought a very large mobile home.. And a disused factory and land at auction... That skint person

I wonder what the General imagines is the going rate to hire a lowlife like Bruckner to abduct a child? 

[G-Unit]

By all accounts Euclides Monteiro was the motivation behind the Portuguese re-opening of Madeleine's case so the evidence for that must have been strong.

I have an open mind about whatever it was that motivated Brueckner if indeed it was he.  The Germans think they have the evidence to tell us exactly what Brueckner's role was ~ I am content to wait for that to be presented.

It was alleged in Correio da Manha that Monteiro was the strongest new lead presented to state prosecutors which led to the investigation being reopened.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm

So not the only lead, and not confirmed by the PJ.

Interestingly it was suggested that he came under suspicion because;

He had worked at the Ocean Club and his phone showed he was nearby on 3rd.

Similar to the claims being made about Brueckner, it seems.

[Mr Gray]

It was alleged in Correio da Manha that Monteiro was the strongest new lead presented to state prosecutors which led to the investigation being reopened.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm

So not the only lead, and not confirmed by the PJ.

Interestingly it was suggested that he came under suspicion because;

He had worked at the Ocean Club and his phone showed he was nearby on 3rd.

Similar to the claims being made about Brueckner, it seems.

My view is that the Portuguese were shamed into reopening the case and used Monteiro as an excuse to make it look as though it was their decision

[G-Unit]

My view is that the Portuguese were shamed into reopening the case and used Monteiro as an excuse to make it look as though it was their decision

Whose decision was it then?