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

[Mr Gray]

Whose decision was it then?

My post is clear.. Only Portugal could reopen the investigation... They were shamed into it and invented monteiro as a new lead

[G-Unit]

It clearly was their decision then. As to why, we can only speculate as you are doing.

[Mr Gray]

It clearly was their decision then. As to why, we can only speculate as you are doing.

When will you realise that much of the forum.. Including many of your posts are speculation

[G-Unit]

When will you realise that much of the forum.. Including many of your posts are speculation

Posting speculations as facts is something that shouldn't happen;

"They were shamed into it and invented monteiro as a new lead"

That statement has no evidential basis whatsoever imo.

[Mr Gray]

Posting speculations as facts is something that shouldn't happen;

"They were shamed into it and invented monteiro as a new lead"

That statement has no evidential basis whatsoever imo.

I used to put imo on every post that was opinion.... But as several other posters.. Including you sometimes.. Dont bother... Then I don't either..

[sadie]

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.

Let's not forget that Brueckners home was only 200 metres away acros countryside from Boavista golf Course where Monteiro worked, driving a tractor.

It is in record that Breuckner used to walk across to the golf course to collect golf balls lost in the long grass.  He used to sell them, I believe.

The area where they might have met is out of sight and hearing from any civilisation, unless a golfer came by.

In fact IF Madeleine abduction planning meetings had taken place there, it would have been an excellent place for Mr Big to meet up with them ... and also any others involved.  After all he was just out on a round of golf, wasn't he?



Please, please, this does NOT mean that Bruckner or Manteiro did it, but I think that it would be wise for SY to consider it

[Mr Gray]

Let's not forget that Brueckners home was only 200 metres away acros countryside from Boavista golf Course where Monteiro worked, driving a tractor.

It is in record that Breuckner used to walk across to the golf course to collect golf balls lost in the long grass.  He used to sell them, I believe.

The area where they might have met is out of sight and hearing from any civilisation, unless a golfer came by.

In fact IF Madeleine abduction planning meetings had taken place there, it would have been an excellent place for Mr Big to meet up with them ... and also any others involved.  After all he was just out on a round of golf, wasn't he?



Please, please, this does NOT mean that Bruckner or Manteiro did it, but I think that it would be wise for SY to consider it

I'm sure SY see CB as the prime suspect....and think in reality the odds of Maddie being alive are very very slim... Which is exactly what the Germans have said

[John]

I'm sure SY see CB as the prime suspect....and think in reality the odds of Maddie being alive are very very slim... Which is exactly what the Germans have said

I don't see why they should think so given the Germans haven't shared anything of substance and are merely theorising as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Do you honestly think that SY would like to see the Germans solve this case when the Portuguese and the English have failed to do so?

[Mr Gray]

I don't see why they should think so given the Germans haven't shared anything of substance and are merely theorising as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Do you honestly think that SY would like to see the Germans solve this case when the Portuguese and the English have failed to do so?

I dont think the Germans are theorising... I think they have strong evidence to support their views. I think the PJ will be annoyed if the Germans have solved it because it means they were wrong all along. SY it seems we're right to believe in abduction.. It was their idea to make the appeal in Germany that pointed the finger at CB so they deserve some credit

[faithlilly]

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 don’t think Gerry’s recollections were ‘unreliable’, simply dishonest. Martin Smith’s however were not. That’s the difference.

[Ms Para glider]

I don't see why they should think so given the Germans haven't shared anything of substance and are merely theorising as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Do you honestly think that SY would like to see the Germans solve this case when the Portuguese and the English have failed to do so?

I don't think we can discount that perhaps SY and the McCanns know quite a bit more about the BKA evidence than what has been let on publicly. And that perhaps the reason all parties (including the BKA) are intimating otherwise is for other sensitive reasons. One of which might be that the BKA haven't afforded the PJ same level of knowledge about their evidence. HCW has made no secret that the level of cooperation with the PJ is not great and I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious. The PJ don't really want the BKA to solve this case and prove that Madeleine was abducted IMO. Whereas I think SY would feel vindicated that they were correct about her being taken and also that they played a part in bringing CB to justice.

Personally, I think the McCanns may have been privately told certain details of why the BKA so strongly believe CB is responsible via SY, although probably not all of the details about the evidence that supports it.

IMO people read too much into the SY's standard "still being treated as a missing persons enquiry" line. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe CB murdered Madeleine. What else do we expect them to say? "The Germans are telling everyone that they haven't shared all their evidence with us, but as they seem pretty sure she was murdered, we're going to change our position to a murder enquiry now too"? Unlikely. Within the scope of a "missing person" enquiry, they will of course be investigating the possibility of murder, so the two positions are not contradictary. It's a very politically sensitive case, and any comments coming from SY will be very carefully worded. When you analyse them, to get any meaning from them you need to consider what they DON'T say, rather than what they DO.

The fact that SY, nor the McCanns, have made any real fuss about "apparently" being left in the dark, or shown any dissent, I get the feeling they have been told a lot more than what has been released publicly, even if it's not everything. The only contentious comment they seem to have made was about the "letter" that the BKA sent. When you read what they say though, the dig is not aimed at the BKA, it is aimed at the press. The McCanns were complaining about the accuracy of what the media had reported about the letter, which was that the letter supposedly told them there was proof that Madeleine was dead.

It seems to me that the press were using a mish-mash of their own interpretation around what HCW was saying publicly about the case and what he said about the letter. I think this is what the McCanns took exception to. After the McCanns made their statement, the Press then decided to make out that this directly contradicted what HCW had said, when in reality, it just contradicted what the Press had made out that HCW had said about the letter. In fact, some of the press made out the McCanns were claiming there was NO letter at all, which is not what they said either. The McCanns released another statement a few days later clarifying a letter WAS passed on to them via the Met.

This is what Wolters said about it after the McCanns made their first statement about the letter:

And today, Mr Wolters again insisted they had sent a letter to the McCann's saying in a statement:  'We have written to the parents.

'The Public Prosecutor's Office has never commented on the content of the letter and will not do so.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8426407/Kate-Gerry-McCann-hit-German-prosecutors-claims.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

[Ms Para glider]

I don’t think Gerry’s recollections were ‘unreliable’, simply dishonest. Martin Smith’s however were not. That’s the difference.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that I don't think either of them were being intentionally dishonest. I just think they were probably both mistaken. Two people contradicted where Gerry said he was stood during the Tanner sighting so you could say there's only a 33% chance at best, that he was right about where he stood. How many people contradicted that Gerry could have been present at the Smith sighting at 10 o clock when you include all the people who said he was at the OC at the time, plus all of the Smith family members who disagreed with Martin Smith that the man they saw was Gerry?

Your logic doesn't stack up. Your reasoning for believing Gerry is being dishonest (rather than being correct or mistaken) about where he stood is clearly based on other biases when you so readily accept that Martin Smith was correct in spite of the amount of contradictary accounts that he was not. This argument is getting boring and going nowhere so I suggest we draw a line under it as I'm guessing everyone else is getting fed up of listening to it too.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think we can discount that perhaps SY and the McCanns know quite a bit more about the BKA evidence than what has been let on publicly. And that perhaps the reason all parties (including the BKA) are intimating otherwise is for other sensitive reasons. One of which might be that the BKA haven't afforded the PJ same level of knowledge about their evidence. HCW has made no secret that the level of cooperation with the PJ is not great and I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious. The PJ don't really want the BKA to solve this case and prove that Madeleine was abducted IMO. Whereas I think SY would feel vindicated that they were correct about her being taken and also that they played a part in bringing CB to justice.

Personally, I think the McCanns may have been privately told certain details of why the BKA so strongly believe CB is responsible via SY, although probably not all of the details about the evidence that supports it.

IMO people read too much into the SY's standard "still being treated as a missing persons enquiry" line. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe CB murdered Madeleine. What else do we expect them to say? "The Germans are telling everyone that they haven't shared all their evidence with us, but as they seem pretty sure she was murdered, we're going to change our position to a murder enquiry now too"? Unlikely. Within the scope of a "missing person" enquiry, they will of course be investigating the possibility of murder, so the two positions are not contradictary. It's a very politically sensitive case, and any comments coming from SY will be very carefully worded. When you analyse them, to get any meaning from them you need to consider what they DON'T say, rather than what they DO.

The fact that SY, nor the McCanns, have made any real fuss about "apparently" being left in the dark, or shown any dissent, I get the feeling they have been told a lot more than what has been released publicly, even if it's not everything. The only contentious comment they seem to have made was about the "letter" that the BKA sent. When you read what they say though, the dig is not aimed at the BKA, it is aimed at the press. The McCanns were complaining about the accuracy of what the media had reported about the letter, which was that the letter supposedly told them there was proof that Madeleine was dead.

It seems to me that the press were using a mish-mash of their own interpretation around what HCW was saying publicly about the case and what he said about the letter. I think this is what the McCanns took exception to. After the McCanns made their statement, the Press then decided to make out that this directly contradicted what HCW had said, when in reality, it just contradicted what the Press had made out that HCW had said about the letter. In fact, some of the press made out the McCanns were claiming there was NO letter at all, which is not what they said either. The McCanns released another statement a few days later clarifying a letter WAS passed on to them via the Met.

This is what Wolters said about it after the McCanns made their first statement about the letter:

And today, Mr Wolters again insisted they had sent a letter to the McCann's saying in a statement:  'We have written to the parents.

'The Public Prosecutor's Office has never commented on the content of the letter and will not do so.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8426407/Kate-Gerry-McCann-hit-German-prosecutors-claims.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

There was a time whe McCann sceptics used to delight in reminding  us that Operation Grange was being operated by a team from the homicide squad which to them meant SY must know Madeleine  was dead and not missing.  Now bizarrely they seem to view it as massively significant that the Met are treating the case as a missing persons investigation simply because they appear to cling to the hope that the Met are not in agreement with the Germans wrt to CB’s involvement.  To be a McCann sceptic requires alot of faulty, twisted logic imo.

[G-Unit]

I dont think the Germans are theorising... I think they have strong evidence to support their views. I think the PJ will be annoyed if the Germans have solved it because it means they were wrong all along. SY it seems we're right to believe in abduction.. It was their idea to make the appeal in Germany that pointed the finger at CB so they deserve some credit

Do you mean the Crimewatch programme? The one where it was suggested that Madeleine was abducted between 9.30 and 10pm? Although some seem to still be prepared to speculate about the time;

Certainly Sandra F promoted a 9.10pm abduction time in her 2020 Sexta9 series about Brueckner, which was compiled after much discussion with Wolters. IMO that specific time was not speculation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg677862#msg677862

[Mr Gray]

Do you mean the Crimewatch programme? The one where it was suggested that Madeleine was abducted between 9.30 and 10pm? Although some seem to still be prepared to speculate about the time;

Certainly Sandra F promoted a 9.10pm abduction time in her 2020 Sexta9 series about Brueckner, which was compiled after much discussion with Wolters. IMO that specific time was not speculation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12294.msg677862#msg677862

The McCanns made an appeal on German TV and it was this appeal that led to CBs name being put forward. I have said for a long time abduction is by a mile the most likely reason for the disappearance.. Looks like.I was right