Wandering Off Topic

[Brietta]

I don't think anyone here has ever expressed that view. I may have heard it being used in support of the McCann arguidos though.

You never miss a trick do you nor are you capable of recognising the hypocrisy of your reference to "the McCann arguidos" fifteen years down the line in comparison with

• the Amaral arguido from the same era who was charged, tried and found guilty of the offence of which he was suspected
• your stout defence of Brueckner arguido's entitlement to the presumption of innocence

. 
What seems to be outwith your comprehension is not that the there was no disgrace attached to the McCanns as a result of the belated and wrong decision to make them suspects directing the investigation more totally off course than it already was.
The disgrace lies entirely with the Portuguese state and sceptics. The former for allowing a man suspected of torture in the case of a missing child to be the lead detective in Madeleine's case in which he had set his sights on another mother.  The latter for perpetuating the disgraceful Amaral nonsense in word and deed.

Are the biggest conspiracy theorists of all time blind to the attempts made by Amaral to pervert the course of justice by promoting more lies as he supported the suspect against the forces of law and order investigating him?

Seems they are if your little snide remark is anything to go by.

[G-Unit]

Another example:

“Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice.  Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories”.

If you read that post in context the poster was referring to child trafficking, not abducting and murdering a child. Is that why there's no link?

[Venturi Swirl]

If you read that post in context the poster was referring to child trafficking, not abducting and murdering a child. Is that why there's no link?

No that is not the reason, nor is your observation relevant.  The excuse  being made frequently in CB's defense both on this forum and elsewhere is that as he doesn't have a past history of committing a specific crime - child abduction, murder, whatever, then it means he's likely innocent of those crimes.  That is such a stupidly illogical deduction I'm surprised I even need to spell it out, but then again this is sceptic logic we're dealing with so...

" for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice" - now apply that logic to the killer of Bobbi-Anne McLeod.  Presumably using that logic he cannot be guilty!

[Wonderfulspam]

No that is not the reason, nor is your observation relevant.  The excuse  being made frequently in CB's defense both on this forum and elsewhere is that as he doesn't have a past history of committing a specific crime - child abduction, murder, whatever, then it means he's likely innocent of those crimes.  That is such a stupidly illogical deduction I'm surprised I even need to spell it out, but then again this is sceptic logic we're dealing with so...

Well, considering he isn't being charged with either child abduction, or murder, then he isn't going to be found guilty of either anytime soon, is he.
So, it's quite right to say he is likely innocent of those crimes, because he hasn't done either.

[G-Unit]

You never miss a trick do you nor are you capable of recognising the hypocrisy of your reference to "the McCann arguidos" fifteen years down the line in comparison with

• the Amaral arguido from the same era who was charged, tried and found guilty of the offence of which he was suspected
• your stout defence of Brueckner arguido's entitlement to the presumption of innocence

. 
What seems to be outwith your comprehension is not that the there was no disgrace attached to the McCanns as a result of the belated and wrong decision to make them suspects directing the investigation more totally off course than it already was.
The disgrace lies entirely with the Portuguese state and sceptics. The former for allowing a man suspected of torture in the case of a missing child to be the lead detective in Madeleine's case in which he had set his sights on another mother.  The latter for perpetuating the disgraceful Amaral nonsense in word and deed.

Are the biggest conspiracy theorists of all time blind to the attempts made by Amaral to pervert the course of justice by promoting more lies as he supported the suspect against the forces of law and order investigating him?

Seems they are if your little snide remark is anything to go by.

The McCanns were made arguidos, Brietta, no matter how you feel about it, and their background was used in their support. Are you denying that?

A person's background is taken into account by police officers during investigations and it's one of the 'main' reasons why Ian Horrocks thought making the McCanns arguidos was 'preposterous'.

"Firstly and most importantly, it is statistically unlikely, the main reason being that there is no family history that would point in any way to this."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Ian_Horrocks.htm

[Brietta]

No that is not the reason, nor is your observation relevant.  The excuse  being made frequently in CB's defense both on this forum and elsewhere is that as he doesn't have a past history of committing a specific crime - child abduction, murder, whatever, then it means he's likely innocent of those crimes.  That is such a stupidly illogical deduction I'm surprised I even need to spell it out, but then again this is sceptic logic we're dealing with so...

" for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice" - now apply that logic to the killer of Bobbi-Anne McLeod.  Presumably using that logic he cannot be guilty!

Logic dictates that there must always be a first time for anything.

Logic also dictates that when first suspected and/or caught, may not necessarily be the first time of doing.

What happened to Bobbi-Anne McLeod - and to many other innocent victims - is a salutary lesson.  It is also an indication of just how difficult it is for the forces of law and order to conduct an investigation when the perpetrator and the victim are strangers or a chance encounter.

That is without any outside interference set on disrupting an investigation for every single step of the way and even denying a crime has taken place as has happened with Madeleine McCann's abduction.

[G-Unit]

No that is not the reason, nor is your observation relevant.  The excuse  being made frequently in CB's defense both on this forum and elsewhere is that as he doesn't have a past history of committing a specific crime - child abduction, murder, whatever, then it means he's likely innocent of those crimes.  That is such a stupidly illogical deduction I'm surprised I even need to spell it out, but then again this is sceptic logic we're dealing with so...

" for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice" - now apply that logic to the killer of Bobbi-Anne McLeod.  Presumably using that logic he cannot be guilty!

I don't think anyone has claimed he's likely innocent at all. It's been pointed out, however, that his past can't be used to predict his future behaviour. Imo some people are very close to saying that it can.

[G-Unit]

Well, considering he isn't being charged with either child abduction, or murder, then he isn't going to be found guilty of either anytime soon, is he.
So, it's quite right to say he is likely innocent of those crimes, because he hasn't done either.

After 5 years of investigation an arrest seems no nearer, despite the prosecutor's brave claims.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think anyone has claimed he's likely innocent at all. It's been pointed out, however, that his past can't be used to predict his future behaviour. Imo some people are very close to saying that it can.

of course his past can be used to predict his future

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't think anyone has claimed he's likely innocent at all. It's been pointed out, however, that his past can't be used to predict his future behaviour. Imo some people are very close to saying that it can.

Once again, I really don't think you've been paying attention.  If you are unaware that most sceptics think (and claim) he's likely innocent as far as Madeleine's disappearance is concerned then I can only assume you reside on a different planet to the rest of us.  You have also completely sidestepped again the issue I raised which was the faulty logic that a person who has never murdered or abducted before is highly unlikely to be the perpetrator in a child abduction / murder.  Deflect as much as you like, it makes no difference to the glaring idiocy of that logic.

[Venturi Swirl]

After 5 years of investigation an arrest seems no nearer, despite the prosecutor's brave claims.

So, the longer you're investigated the more likely you are to be innocent?  Is that the logic you are using here?

[Brietta]

The McCanns were made arguidos, Brietta, no matter how you feel about it, and their background was used in their support. Are you denying that?

A person's background is taken into account by police officers during investigations and it's one of the 'main' reasons why Ian Horrocks thought making the McCanns arguidos was 'preposterous'.

"Firstly and most importantly, it is statistically unlikely, the main reason being that there is no family history that would point in any way to this."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Ian_Horrocks.htm

The McCanns were made arguidos based on entirely the wrong premises. The same circumstances do not apply to anyone being made an arguido in Portugal today including Brueckner; a fact which you contest vehemently but for all your denial, remains just that - a fact.

The only relevance to "the McCanns arguidos" as you so deftly would have it, is that they never faced charges.

Whereas "Amaral arguido" did and was found guilty of a heinous crime.  Which is an event all sceptics manage to wipe entirely from the equation.

Can you possibly explain to me why Brueckner, currently an untried arguido most certainly in the sceptic mind enjoys the right to the presumption of innocence.  But the whipping boys of sceptics, the McCanns, are denied the right to the presumption of innocence despite three police forces publicly declaring for them?

If you cannot bring yourself to attempting to trying to explain sceptic logic, how about having a go at explaining why you think "McCann arguidos" is an appropriate soubriquet for you to use.

Did you come up with that all by yourself? or is it common parlance thought up by someone else in the darker reaches of the internet to where you appear to be trying to drag this little corner of ours?

[Wonderfulspam]

So, the longer you're investigated the more likely you are to be innocent?  Is that the logic you are using here?

The police have been investigating abduction for the past umpteen years.
Still no sign of either Maddie or an abductor though.
So, maybe they're on the wrong track, that would explain why they are at a total dead end.

[Wonderfulspam]

After 5 years of investigation an arrest seems no nearer, despite the prosecutor's brave claims.

But we don't know what evidence Wolters has.
He could be about to solve the case any day now.
Maybe if Amaral hadn't shared a picture of Brueckner with dreadlocks then Wolters might have found the murder weapon by now.

[G-Unit]

Once again, I really don't think you've been paying attention.  If you are unaware that most sceptics think (and claim) he's likely innocent as far as Madeleine's disappearance is concerned then I can only assume you reside on a different planet to the rest of us.  You have also completely sidestepped again the issue I raised which was the faulty logic that a person who has never murdered or abducted before is highly unlikely to be the perpetrator in a child abduction / murder.  Deflect as much as you like, it makes no difference to the glaring idiocy of that logic.

Most sceptics, imo, aren't convinced by Wolters' claims that he's guilty, which is a completely different thing than thinking he's likely to be innocent.

I answered your point about faulty logic; not by deflecting, but by pointing out that Ian Horrocks thought that examining a person's past can inform investigators about their future actions. The Met seem to use your 'faulty logic' too imo.