Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[Eleanor]

Idling away hours discussing a case of a missing child or being bitter and twisted about Portugal , yeah right.

There is nothing bitter and twisted about defending the innocent family of a missing child.  And I am sorry for you if you think there is.

As for Portugal, I almost certainly know more about what is a Beautiful Country than you do.  I have been there several times.  It just saddens me that it is now somewhere that I will never visit again.

[Eleanor]

Well the logic that no one can produce the abductor is reasoned thinking, some don't want to see it.

I don't think that there is much wrong with your brain.  So you will just have to hang about for a while, like the rest of us.

I will continue to defend Brueckner's Right to Innocence in the meantime.

[Eleanor]

Feel free to out logic it, but try doing it without another desperate appeal to authority.

Brueckner is innocent, so are the McCanns, apparently, the 'evidence' leads only to Brueckner, according to Wolters, but since Brueckner didn't do it, no abduction.

How will you counter that?

But remember, can't say Brueckner did it, the presumption of innocence trumps everything, you see.

Absobloodylutely.  Well done.

[Mr Gray]

Feel free to out logic it, but try doing it without another desperate appeal to authority.

Brueckner is innocent, so are the McCanns, apparently, the 'evidence' leads only to Brueckner, according to Wolters, but since Brueckner didn't do it, no abduction.

How will you counter that?

But remember, can't say Brueckner did it, the presumption of innocence trumps everything, you see.

Is this the presumption of innocence that enables people to be jailed on remand

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well the logic that no one can produce the abductor is reasoned thinking, some don't want to see it.

Explain that logic to me then.  What you and Spam seem to believe is that because no charges of abduction have yet been brought against any abductor then that must mean there is no abductor.  Using this same brilliant logic we can also say "because no charges have been brought against anyone for covering up the death of the child in the apartment, the child did not die in the apartment and no one covered it up".  Great logic isn't it?  We must use it more often.  Because no abductor / murderer has been identified in the cases of Claudia Lawrence or Suzy Lamplugh this must mean that neither woman was abducted or murdered.  Yes, they probably ran off together and are performing in some circus double act somewhere, that'll be it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Is this the presumption of innocence that enables people to be jailed on remand

I fail to see the relevance really, Brueckner isn't on remand, he's not even charged with anything, nor will he ever be, much to your disappointment I'm sure, but you'll just have to get used to the idea, because that's reality.

[Wonderfulspam]

Explain that logic to me then.  What you and Spam seem to believe is that because no charges of abduction have yet been brought against any abductor then that must mean there is no abductor.  Using this same brilliant logic we can also say "because no charges have been brought against anyone for covering up the death of the child in the apartment, the child did not die in the apartment and no one covered it up".  Great logic isn't it?  We must use it more often.  Because no abductor / murderer has been identified in the cases of Claudia Lawrence or Suzy Lamplugh this must mean that neither woman was abducted or murdered.  Yes, they probably ran off together and are performing in some circus double act somewhere, that'll be it.

Not any abductor. Brueckner.

It's Brueckner or bust, Wolters has no evidence against anyone else & concrete irrefutable, 100% evidence against Brueckner.

Only it wasn't Brueckner, so that's the end of that.

No abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's utterly pointless trying to reason with people whose reason deserted them years ago that's plainly evident.

[Wonderfulspam]

It's utterly pointless trying to reason with people whose reason deserted them years ago that's plainly evident.

I know right, there are gullible people who still believe Maddie was abducted, despite the total absence of credible, tangible, reliable abduction evidence.

There's simply no reasoning with them.

[Lace]

I didn't. My information came from her book, in which many complaints about others can be found.

They had the right to complain.  Being accused of faking an abduction.  Amaral was incompetent.  There are no two ways about it.   He tried to get things to fit with his theory.   He didn't prove a thing.   Now he is trying to get his voice heard in the Germans investigation but they have the sense not to listen to him.

[Wonderfulspam]

They had the right to complain.  Being accused of faking an abduction.  Amaral was incompetent.  There are no two ways about it.   He tried to get things to fit with his theory.   He didn't prove a thing.   Now he is trying to get his voice heard in the Germans investigation but they have the sense not to listen to him.

Well, maybe they should, because they can't prove anything either, least of all that Maddie was ever even abducted in the first place.

[Eleanor]

I fail to see the relevance really, Brueckner isn't on remand, he's not even charged with anything, nor will he ever be, much to your disappointment I'm sure, but you'll just have to get used to the idea, because that's reality.

Absolutely right yet again.  Well done.

When is Brueckner due to be released?

[Wonderfulspam]

Absolutely right yet again.  Well done.

When is Brueckner due to be released?

Around 2025, probably, good for him, I'm looking forward to reading his book.

[Eleanor]

Around 2025, probably, good for him, I'm looking forward to reading his book.

Me Too, also.

[barrier]

I fail to see the relevance really, Brueckner isn't on remand, he's not even charged with anything, nor will he ever be, much to your disappointment I'm sure, but you'll just have to get used to the idea, because that's reality.

He's been charged on here ,