A big spelling mistake there. Or at least I presume it is, other wise it alters the whole meaning.He could have saved himself the trip and visited this site where he could have seen lots of cites.
He could have saved himself the trip and visited this site where he could have seen lots of cites.
Does anyone know what happened to the new three parter? Have I missed it?No.
MADDIE 'ALIBI' Case against Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian B set to crumble after investigators found he has an alibi
Michael Hamilton
22:34, 8 Jan 2022
THE case against Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian B is set to crumble after British investigators found he has an alibi.
A team led by an ex-detective have discovered the sex predator, 44, was “30 minutes away” from the resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Madeleine disappeared.
Their TV programme, Madeleine McCann: Investigating the Prime Suspect, is set to demolish the case against B, who is in jail in Germany where authorities have said he killed her.
Phone records were said to show him near the scene the night she vanished aged three in 2007.
But the new probe led by former Surrey Police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, is said to show an alibi for B “stacks up”.
The TV team, who spent months in Portugal and Germany, found new witnesses in both countries who throw his guilt into doubt.
Our source said: “They have concluded B could not have snatched Madeleine. He was 30 minutes away and was not on the phone in Praia da Luz the night she vanished.”
The three-parter is set to air on Channel 5 soon.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8254151/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-alibi/
MADDIE 'ALIBI' Case against Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian B set to crumble after investigators found he has an alibi
Michael Hamilton
22:34, 8 Jan 2022
THE case against Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian B is set to crumble after British investigators found he has an alibi.
A team led by an ex-detective have discovered the sex predator, 44, was “30 minutes away” from the resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Madeleine disappeared.
Their TV programme, Madeleine McCann: Investigating the Prime Suspect, is set to demolish the case against B, who is in jail in Germany where authorities have said he killed her.
Phone records were said to show him near the scene the night she vanished aged three in 2007.
But the new probe led by former Surrey Police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, is said to show an alibi for B “stacks up”.
The TV team, who spent months in Portugal and Germany, found new witnesses in both countries who throw his guilt into doubt.
Our source said: “They have concluded B could not have snatched Madeleine. He was 30 minutes away and was not on the phone in Praia da Luz the night she vanished.”
The three-parter is set to air on Channel 5 soon.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8254151/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-alibi/
MADDIE 'ALIBI' Case against Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian B set to crumble after investigators found he has an alibi
Michael Hamilton
22:34, 8 Jan 2022
THE case against Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian B is set to crumble after British investigators found he has an alibi.
A team led by an ex-detective have discovered the sex predator, 44, was “30 minutes away” from the resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Madeleine disappeared.
Their TV programme, Madeleine McCann: Investigating the Prime Suspect, is set to demolish the case against B, who is in jail in Germany where authorities have said he killed her.
Phone records were said to show him near the scene the night she vanished aged three in 2007.
But the new probe led by former Surrey Police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, is said to show an alibi for B “stacks up”.
The TV team, who spent months in Portugal and Germany, found new witnesses in both countries who throw his guilt into doubt.
Our source said: “They have concluded B could not have snatched Madeleine. He was 30 minutes away and was not on the phone in Praia da Luz the night she vanished.”
The three-parter is set to air on Channel 5 soon.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8254151/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-alibi/
No doubt MWT will be able to reveal who had Brueckner's phone that evening, who his alibi is and how this information has escaped the BKA for the last 2 years.
It’s interesting that people on here who have repeatedly scoffed at the idea that CB should be able to remember where he was on the night of the 3rd May 2007 are now apparently so credulous as to believe the possibility that others will definitively be able to place him elsewhere on the same night. A development nonetheless and I shall certainly be watching with interest.
I'm not sure if 'scoffing' is quite the right word. In context, there are those on here who seemed to believe that CB should have been able to remember where he was that night. IN REPLY others expressed doubt about that.
It's quite possible that someone else remembers being with him the night before the news of Madeleine's disappearance emerged.
It should indeed be interesting; especially any conversation between MWT and Wolters.
I'm not sure if 'scoffing' is quite the right word. In context, there are those on here who seemed to believe that CB should have been able to remember where he was that night. IN REPLY others expressed doubt about that.Oh, I think there has been a fair deal of scoffing about CB as a suspect, particularly when the issue of him supplying an alibi has been mooted.
It's quite possible that someone else remembers being with him the night before the news of Madeleine's disappearance emerged.
It should indeed be interesting; especially any conversation between MWT and Wolters.
It's laughable. All those who have repeatedly criticised the UK tabloids suddenly believe everything they read .It’s a Channel 5 programme which imo speaks volumes.
As I've said many times the lack of alibi could well be a part of the German case. For the past two years they have been interviewing every associate of CB to establish he hasn't got one.
Now the Sun says his alibi stacks up.. No mention of proof.
Wolters says he is 100% certain... The Scottish Sun says the evidence stacks up.
I'm sure the story will help sell advertising for the programme.. Lol
It’s a Channel 5 programme which imo speaks volumes.
Is there something wrong with Channel 5 as a medium for airing this latest chapter ?Yes, it's the Daily Star of terrestrial TV Channels, IMO.
Yes, it's the Daily Star of terrestrial TV Channels, IMO.
Which terrestrial channel would you recommend?I would recommend them all over Channel 5.
Which terrestrial channel would you recommend?
Which terrestrial channel would you recommend?
Chortle.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/sep/16/i-spent-a-week-watching-channel-5-so-you-dont-have-to
Is there something wrong with Channel 5 as a medium for airing this latest chapter ?
Chortle.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/sep/16/i-spent-a-week-watching-channel-5-so-you-dont-have-to
It pours scorn on their beloved paedo abductor ?
You would think that they’d be cockahoop that Madeleine may still be alive and hasn’t been abducted and killed by a vicious paedophile….but no it would appear not.
Odd people.
You would think that they’d be cockahoop that Madeleine may still be alive and hasn’t been abducted and killed by a vicious paedophile….but no it would appear not.
Odd people.
Ah but such a solution would vindicate McCann, which appears all-important.
IMO
Of course we would all love maddie to be alive but realists have to face reality....your reasoning is way off if you think we want the worst to be true.
Whilst its all speculation, you have to admit if true its give no credibility to Wolters and dare say you for the trust you put in him. I think its shows just why CB has not been questioned or charged the concrete has never set.
If it was true it would. I thought you gave little credibilty to the rag tops.
To me the whole areticle is preposterous. First it says the case will crumble..then it says thew findings will raise doubts...which is it.
This is what the paper issaying...hearsay....
Im more than happy to admit im wrong if that was the case but its not....as you and others will find out.
You would think that they’d be cockahoop that Madeleine may still be alive and hasn’t been abducted and killed by a vicious paedophile….but no it would appear not.
Odd people.
I don't but its a report of an upcoming tv programme not an investigative piece from a hack.
In red, hang onto that dream.
Of course we would all love maddie to be alive but realists have to face reality....your reasoning is way off if you think we want the worst to be true.
I don’t think anyone WANTS the worst to be true but if it clears the parents c’est la vie.
Madeleine is now but a bit player in her own tragedy.
I see the Mail and the Sun are now reporting it.
No one would want Madeleine to have been abducted and killed by a vicious Paedophile. Wolter'
s however seems to think she has been. Are we supposed to ignore what he says and the evidence he presents?
You are the odd one if you think anyone would want Madeleine to have suffered at the hands of a Paedophile.
Copy and pasting would be more accurate. i wonder how much the Scottish Sun....The Sun and the Mail paid for this story. As long as theres some gullible enough to take it at face value its worth it
You seem to have overlooked the fact that Wolters said a lot, but produced very little evidence to support his words imo.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that Wolters said a lot, but produced very little evidence to support his words imo.And he's explained why.. No ones overlooked anything. Seems like you can't post without sniping
That's because Wolters doesn't want Brueckner to now what evidence he has.It's quite clear.. Wolters has explained...
With that sort of stance, how can matters progress ?
Looking around they're all going with it, including the independent, still a caveat needs to added it is the brit press, but a senior mod puts so much stall in them with their constant pasting of press articles maybe we ought take a leaf out of their book and accept its has fact.
However anyone takes it is of no importance
Even if it brings misinformation to the forum ?
And he's explained why.. No ones overlooked anything. Seems like you can't post without sniping
I don't care what he's explained. Until he offers evidence his words are just talk. Pots and kettles oh sniper extraordinaire (imo).
A piece like that could be written about any channel. I watch BBC2 a lot, and they're obsessed with gardens. I prefer that to the countless Covid updates and pointless interviews with politicians on BBC1. For inanity we have ITV and CH4. The discerning viewer can always find something somewhere to suit them. I don't think many stay on one channel all the time.I enjoyed an excellent documentary about Andy Warhol last night. It was a BBC 2 programme. I can't imagine Channel 5 ever showing anything remotely as well made, informative and in-depth, but each to their own I guess. I think the last time I watched Channel 5 it was that incredibly one-sided piece of propaganda on Luke Mitchell. It seems to get on this channel the programme maker decides on an angle and then sets about trying to prove their point rather than actually doing proper in-depth unbiased research. Having watched other MWT documentaries too I think this one is likely to follow a similar pattern but we shall see...
The value of the programme lies in it's content, not which channel it's on.
I don't care what he's explained. Until he offers evidence his words are just talk. Pots and kettles oh sniper extraordinaire (imo).
You would think that they’d be cockahoop that Madeleine may still be alive and hasn’t been abducted and killed by a vicious paedophile….but no it would appear not.If MWT concludes in his programme that Madeleine wasn't abducted and killed by a vicious paedophile and is still alive and presents compelling evidence to that effect then I will certainly be cockahoop but I really don't think he's likely to come to that conclusion, do you?
Odd people.
Before any sceptic gets carried away by today's MWT revelations they may like to remember what he said back in June 2020 wrt to this case.
‘My analysis back in 2009 in relation to this being a stranger abduction by a predatory paedophile is now being proved in relation to the authorities. I think the evidence supports that.’
22 February 2017
Former police officer, Mark Williams-Thomas, theorises that the child woke up in the middle of the night and wandered off in search of Gerry and Kate McCann who were dining at a Tapas bar in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.
Williams-Thomas went to the resort just days after Madeleine went missing on May 3, 2007 aged three and has followed the unsolved case since.
Speaking This Morning as part of a new series on unsolved crimes on Tuesday he said: 'On that morning of Madeleine's disappearance, we do know she went to [her parents] Gerry and Kate and said: 'Where were you last night?' he explained.
'Because we know the twins did wake up on days prior to her disappearance.
'And I think as a result of that, Madeline was clearly aware they were in the tapas bar that was in the resort.
'Now the interesting element in that is in order to get to the tapas bar you had to actually come out of the premises, walk on a public road to go back in again.
'And that raises a concern I have in regards to Madeleine I believe woke up in the middle of the night, she went looking for Gerry and Kate and she left the apartment and went out.
'Because we know the patio door at the back was insecure.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4246558/Journalist-Did-Madeleine-McCann-just-wander-off.html
MWT believes in differing theories depending on who is asking.
That may very well be true - even if nothing else is
Indeed but this is less about what he believes in the round but what proof he has that Brueckner was elsewhere.
Indeed but this is less about what he believes in the round but what proof he has that Brueckner was elsewhere.
If you read the article it says what he has casts doubt on his guilt... So no proof
What guilt ? CB is as innocent as any one else, he's under suspicion thats all.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that Wolters said a lot, but produced very little evidence to support his words imo.
the guilt towards the crime hes beem accused of and denied any involvement in
But he's not been formerly accused has he, in the press he has.
I think you are wrong yet again.
I don't think Wolter's has produced any evidence.
I think we shall have to wait until he produces what he has in court.
It also questions what Wolters considers as concrete evidence, but having said that, if its proved CB didn't abduct the girl because he was elsewhere it should be noted imo Wolters never said his suspect took Madeleine out of 5a only that his evidence points to his suspect killing the girl.
He's been accused by Wolters
No doubt MWT will be able to reveal who had Brueckner's phone that evening, who his alibi is and how this information has escaped the BKA for the last 2 years.
No doubt MWT will be able to reveal who had Brueckner's phone that evening, who his alibi is and how this information has escaped the BKA for the last 2 years.
Let’s not forget MWT concluded Oscar Pistorious was innocent after interviewing…Oscar Pistorious. b @)(++(*Add Bamber to that list, who Williams-Thomas also thinks is innocent.
Correct. It's all been talk.
Add Bamber to that list, who Williams-Thomas also thinks is innocent.I shall look forward to his three parter on Ian Huntley and the Yorkshire Ripper then, cos they deffo didn’t do it either!
What an extraordinary post.
Wolter has always maintained that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence available for use against Brueckner.
I thought you would be aware of that fact.
Much as I would have expected you to know that Wolter has publicly declared there is now sufficient evidence to enable charges to be laid against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine.
Hans Christian Wolter, who is leading the investigation, said this weekend that police now have enough evidence to charge 43-year-old Christian Brueckner, who is a convicted paedophile, but want to ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/crime/madeleine-mccann-suspect-evidence-latest-b1935794.html
The Germans will process the perhaps multiple charges against Brueckner as they see fit and in the manner which best suits them.
If you think "it's all been talk" I think that is proof positive that you are totally out of touch with what is going on in the real world.
JANUARY 9TH, 2022 - 2:31 PM
NEW DOCUMENTARY FROM ENGLAND RAISES QUESTIONS
Does the Maddie suspect have an alibi?
03:22
Source: BILD
articleby: KAI FELDHAUS AND CELAL CAKARpublished on
January 9th, 2022 - 2:25 pm
Praia da Luz - Are the investigations against Christian Brückner (45) over? A British TV documentary claims: The Maddie suspect should have an alibi for the night of the crime!
It has been known since June 2020 that the BKA and the Braunschweig Public Prosecutor's Office consider the convicted pedophile to be the man who kidnapped little Maddie McCann (then 3) on May 3, 2007 from an apartment in the Algarve and killed her.
A new documentary from Great Britain claims that Christian Brückner had an alibi for the night of the crime
But the makers of the show, which is to be broadcast in England at the end of January, claim Brückner was "30 minutes away from the crime scene" at the time of the crime.
What's behind it?
BILD knows: There is a woman who claims to have spent almost every evening with Brückner around the time of the crime in May 2007. The police have already interrogated her. She couldn't remember whether the two were together on the evening of the crime, said the German. However, the suspect showed no change in behavior after Maddie's disappearance on May 3.
Even more: In the days after Maddie's disappearance, both even got into a police checkpoint, where officers were looking for Maddie. Here, too, Brückner did not behave conspicuously.
Maddie McCann disappeared from an apartment in Portugal on May 3, 2007
A pound of the German investigators against the suspect was always that a cell phone number assigned to Christian Brückner was dialed into a radio cell near the crime scene at the time of the crime. The TV documentary sowed doubts: The cell phone could have been used on the evening of the crime by another German who so far only appeared as a witness.
Is the witness credible?
Profiler and bestselling author Axel Petermann (69 "On behalf of the dead" ) knows the Maddie McCann case. He worked for the criminal police in Bremen for almost four decades, including more than 35 years as a homicide investigator.
Profiler Axel Petermann does not yet take the statements of Brückner's friends as an alibi
Profiler Axel Petermann does not yet take the statements of Brückner's friends as an alibi
Photo: picture alliance / Frank May
He to BILD: “How well can Brückner's acquaintances assess him? Can the witness determine the 'zero line' at Brückner in normal situations in order to notice changes in stressful situations: What was his choice of words, his voice, his body language - is the witness even able to recognize a change in behavior? Why were there evenings when you didn't always seem to see each other? "
And with regard to the police control: “Brückner may have reacted coolly in the control situation because he is generally a 'cool down' guy and was not specifically checked when Christian Brückner was checked. Of course you get nervous in such a situation, but many more people are checked during such a check. But if Brückner had nothing with him that could establish a connection between him and the crime, then that could also be why he stayed calm. For me, the statement made by Brückner's friends is not yet to be seen as an alibi. "
Brückner's lawyer Friedrich Fülscher could not be reached for a statement.
BILD
Is that it?
Claim and counter-claim is the name of the game.
Been going on since 2007 and not likely to stop any time soon.
IMO
Thank you VS. That is interesting.
It is my understanding that the German system of investigation demands that investigators are tasked with viewing all the evidence to hand, not only to test for guilt but to ascertain innocence.
If I am correct in that - it would suggest to me that his alibi would already have been checked. I seem to recall a British woman who was reportedly in a relationship with him at the time among others who claimed various levels of acquaintance with him.
I think the investigators would have already spoken to them all as they were duty bound to do.
I don't think it took MWT to find this witness. Perhaps it just took MWT to put a particular spin on it.
One would expect all police forces to do that and not ignore evidence that doesn't suit a prosecution narrative.If only the PJ had heeded your sage advice in 2007.
Add Bamber to that list, who Williams-Thomas also thinks is innocent.
What an extraordinary post.
Wolter has always maintained that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence available for use against Brueckner.
I thought you would be aware of that fact.
Much as I would have expected you to know that Wolter has publicly declared there is now sufficient evidence to enable charges to be laid against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine.
Hans Christian Wolter, who is leading the investigation, said this weekend that police now have enough evidence to charge 43-year-old Christian Brueckner, who is a convicted paedophile, but want to ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/crime/madeleine-mccann-suspect-evidence-latest-b1935794.html
The Germans will process the perhaps multiple charges against Brueckner as they see fit and in the manner which best suits them.
If you think "it's all been talk" I think that is proof positive that you are totally out of touch with what is going on in the real world.
I think Wolter is just like so many other detectives who have investigated this case and has let his personal feelings influence his judgement.
I think Wolter is just like so many other detectives who have investigated this case and has let his personal feelings influence his judgement.I think you are totally way off the mark and have a big surprise coming
What an extraordinary post.
Wolter has always maintained that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence available for use against Brueckner.
I thought you would be aware of that fact.
Much as I would have expected you to know that Wolter has publicly declared there is now sufficient evidence to enable charges to be laid against Brueckner in relation to Madeleine.
Hans Christian Wolter, who is leading the investigation, said this weekend that police now have enough evidence to charge 43-year-old Christian Brueckner, who is a convicted paedophile, but want to ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/crime/madeleine-mccann-suspect-evidence-latest-b1935794.html
The Germans will process the perhaps multiple charges against Brueckner as they see fit and in the manner which best suits them.
If you think "it's all been talk" I think that is proof positive that you are totally out of touch with what is going on in the real world.
I think Wolter is just like so many other detectives who have investigated this case and has let his personal feelings influence his judgement.
I think Wolter is just like so many other detectives who have investigated this case and has let his personal feelings influence his judgement.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the Germans have something highly, highly significant .
Wolters isn't a detective he's the prosecutor and the spokesman for the German investigation. He isn't giving his opinion.. He's giving the opinion of the investigation.
... German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said investigators were 'confident' they had the right man and had sufficient evidence to charge over the 2007 disappearance.9 Oct 2021
When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.
Even the McCanns believe he's promoting nonsense. No police officer or prosecutor would behave in such a manner in the UK. As the parents of the missing girl, the McCanns have been treated extremely badly by him, anyone can see this.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the Germans have something highly, highly significant .
Wolters isn't a detective he's the prosecutor and the spokesman for the German investigation. He isn't giving his opinion.. He's giving the opinion of the investigation.
... German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said investigators were 'confident' they had the right man and had sufficient evidence to charge over the 2007 disappearance.9 Oct 2021
When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.
As the team that will eventually provide justice for Maddie where the PJ failed miserably... I think most people will give him the credit he deserves .
I just hope Wolters and the BKA repay your faith in them. Relying on other people's assurances without knowing what evidence they're basing them on is either brave or foolish imo.
It's not faith it's a conclusion based on evidence. Anyone who doesn't realise Wolters has something highly significant is foolish imo
What evidence?
What evidence?
What evidence?
What evidence?
What evidence?
Circumstantial, which if this recent story is true puts paid to one of them, his phone may have been there but CB ? another question altogether.
Don't be silly. It's the evidence that Wolters has got but is keeping secret because he doesn't want Brueckner to know what it is.
Until it all goes before a judge we won't know if any of this evidence is of any value.
It really does worry sceptics that Madeleine's case is being investigated to the hilt having resisted any progress for many years to finding out what happened to her.
I find the chagrin palpable to the extent that MWT who has apparently been the bearer of good news for some is getting ignored on his very own thread.
Who needs to be bothered with evidence or a judge when we have a documentary maker par excellence to hand.
Tell me - how do sceptics resist progress? They have no power - any more than you do.On the contrary, they have the power to stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la which is what they have all been doing for many, many years now. Don't you think that's a bit sad?
Oh dear there's doubt in the air and it doesn't sit well, strange stuff concrete .I have absolutely no doubt Madeleine was abducted, almost certainly by someone who was a stranger, intent on doing her harm. Who that person was remains to be seen. I think CB is a likely candidate but if it wasn't him then I will accept that completely and without complaint.
If you have a point to make please do so. In my opinion this interminable puerile cat calling lends nothing to discussion except to dumb the forum down.
Don't you know that in the majority of cases cops actually gather confidential evidence.
Just because Amaral's team followed theories dreamed up in their heads and released for the edification of the Portuguese press doesn't mean that is applicable to all investigations.
Don't you know these elementary things?
I would appreciate it if you could manage to interact with a better attitude.HCW's word is either evidence that the Germans have good evidence that CB committed the crime or evidence that he is a very foolish man intent on ruining his own career and the reputation of the BKA. Perhaps you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence but it is evidence nonetheless so to keep on asking "what evidence" is a bit goady imo.
Having said that, my point is that it's not possible, imo, for Davel to reach conclusions based on evidence other than the words of Hans Christian Wolters. As you yourself have admitted, any evidence gathered by the Germans is confidential.
I would appreciate it if you could manage to interact with a better attitude.
Having said that, my point is that it's not possible, imo, for Davel to reach conclusions based on evidence other than the words of Hans Christian Wolters. As you yourself have admitted, any evidence gathered by the Germans is confidential.
Like anyone else, MWT has an opinion.
Ultimately judges will determine whether this case of Wolters has legs and will go anywhere.
Oh dear there's doubt in the air and it doesn't sit well, strange stuff concrete .
Tell me - how do sceptics resist progress? They have no power - any more than you do.
MWT is not quite in the same league as you or me.
He gets paid for his opinion.
Ultimately the weight of EVIDENCE will decide regarding Brueckner - not a documaker's opinion or even that of armchair dicks such as us.
HCW's word is either evidence that the Germans have good evidence that CB committed the crime or evidence that he is a very foolish man intent on ruining his own career and the reputation of the BKA. Perhaps you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence but it is evidence nonetheless so to keep on asking "what evidence" is a bit goady imo.
We shall see what the programme throws up and judge the evidence presented.
I do find it rather telling though that while you are quite willing to believe the words of Brueckner’s criminal friends, who themselves have admitted being involved in many criminal endeavours including people trafficking you seem rather reluctant to believe MWT’s evidence. Odd that.
At what point in time of the evening in question was Breuckner 30 Minutes away? The Phone Call was between 7.30pm and just after 8pm. The alleged Abduction took place between 9pm and 10pm so plenty of time to get to Luz.
No one takes a phone call lasting 30 minutes on a phone that doesn't belong to them, unless it was an accomplice.
I am still not sure if Breuckner was involved but I continue to hope that Madeleine is still alive. Possibly wishful thinking on my part.
However, as has been pointed out, Wolters is just a Prosecutor. He isn't doing the investigating.
We shall see what the programme throws up and judge the evidence presented.
I do find it rather telling though that while you are quite willing to believe the words of Brueckner’s criminal friends, who themselves have admitted being involved in many criminal endeavours including people trafficking you seem rather reluctant to believe MWT’s evidence. Odd that.
Whatever MWT has, it will be reported in Germany. That should ensure that this case will only be prosecuted with very strong evidence of guilt.
You agree with me, then. The 'evidence' boils down to believing Wolters has the evidence he'll need to convict CB. Perhaps he has, but it I prefer to wait and see if he really does have enough.
I would appreciate it if you could manage to interact with a better attitude.
Having said that, my point is that it's not possible, imo, for Davel to reach conclusions based on evidence other than the words of Hans Christian Wolters. As you yourself have admitted, any evidence gathered by the Germans is confidential.
If Wolters said he had photographic evidence of abuse of Mafdie post 3/5/07 would you think that significant or would you say it's only words. This question destroys your argument sd I would say you don't have an answer
Portuguese Law. British Law. And now German Law. And even European Law varies from State to State. But here in France they do trawl for more evidence if they think there could be some. And they do get a few nutters turning up. So I very much doubt that Wolters has broken The Law.
You agree with me, then. The 'evidence' boils down to believing Wolters has the evidence he'll need to convict CB. Perhaps he has, but it I prefer to wait and see if he really does have enough.I'm still not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word evidence.
We shall see what the programme throws up and judge the evidence presented.Where do think MWT's evidence will be coming from wrt to a potential alibi for CB? Little Lord Fauntleroy, George Washington and Mother Theresa?
I do find it rather telling though that while you are quite willing to believe the words of Brueckner’s criminal friends, who themselves have admitted being involved in many criminal endeavours including people trafficking you seem rather reluctant to believe MWT’s evidence. Odd that.
If Wolters said he had photographic evidence of abuse of Mafdie post 3/5/07 would you think that significant or would you say it's only words. This question destroys your argument and I would say you don't have an answer
He does appear to be a bit of a glory hunter though. He turns up everywhere…obscure podcasts, television programmes…the opening of fetes ( well maybe not the last one but give him time). What is he hoping to achieve?
I don't see that as of particular concern, though it might invalidate any trial.
The issue is does he really have strong enough evidence to ensure a trial or is it just wishful thinking.
He could be doing his job and hoping for Justice. Prosecutors can only work with the information they have got.
The really sad fact is that there was so much to be found in Portugal that was ignored.
I personally feel quite sorry for Amaral on occasions, but he did have his own agenda. His ability to investigate was so very largely influenced by what had gone before and he needed The McCanns to be guilty.
I doubt that he was capable of investigating anything.
Meanwhile, Mark Williams Thomas was a failed Constable who left The Police Force and turned himself into a Detective. A position he could never have aspired to while still being a UK Policeman. A bit like Martin Grime, actually.
According to Wiki he was a detective withe Surrey Constabulary. Served 11 years in a variety of roles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williams-Thomas
Have you actually read your Link?
Yes, have you a problem.
No. But you appear to.
You agree with me, then. The 'evidence' boils down to believing Wolters has the evidence he'll need to convict CB. Perhaps he has, but it I prefer to wait and see if he really does have enough.
Career
Williams-Thomas was a detective and family liaison officer with Surrey Police from 1989 to 2000.[2]
I was going to say something similar.
Brueckner's defence team will be all over this/ whatever it is, and will ensure that it is not just dismissed out of hand as being 'unhelpful'
According to the Bild report the woman concerned has already spoken to the police so I don't think there is any great mystery involved.
I think that would be the Portuguese police.
Whatever MWT has, it will be reported in Germany. That should ensure that this case will only be prosecuted with very strong evidence of guilt.
Has he said that photographic evidence exists?
No idea, but not important.
My original post was correct -According to Wiki ....
No idea, but not important.
My original post was correct -According to Wiki ....
He could be doing his job and hoping for Justice. Prosecutors can only work with the information they have got.
The really sad fact is that there was so much to be found in Portugal that was ignored.
I personally feel quite sorry for Amaral on occasions, but he did have his own agenda. His ability to investigate was so very largely influenced by what had gone before and he needed The McCanns to be guilty.
I doubt that he was capable of investigating anything.
Meanwhile, Mark Williams Thomas was a failed Constable who left The Police Force and turned himself into a Detective. A position he could never have aspired to while still being a UK Policeman. A bit like Martin Grime, actually.
That is a good start towards eliminating the perennial caterwauling. You do concede that there is evidence unlike your goading post which initiated this exchange of the blatantly obvious.
I’m sure Wolter’s job description does not involve giving his opinion every time a microphone is pointed at him.
If the ‘much to be found’ in Portugal was ignored how do we know that it ever existed?
Has Wolters said that? If he did I would still prefer to wait for him to produce it.
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
I don't see that it matters who she has spoken to. Brueckner's defence team will now be aware, if they weren't before, and will be able to use it.
Brueckner's defence team have already been to Luz and I wouldn't think too much of their expertise if they hadn't already spoken to this woman. They may even have passed her details to MWT. Although I don't see it as being the information which is allegedly going to blast us out of our chairs.
I said the evidence isn't known, so we can't reach conclusions based on it. I hearby challenge anyone who claims we can to list the evidence they are using which isn't connected to or inferred from Wolters' words.
The BKA have to destroy the alibi to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can they ?Dependsif the alibi exists and how strong it is...and what pevidence they have,
The BKA have to destroy the alibi to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can they ?
I said the evidence isn't known, so we can't reach conclusions based on it. I hearby challenge anyone who claims we can to list the evidence they are using which isn't connected to or inferred from Wolters' words.
It really doesn't matter what you think which is just as well because there are occasions when you doggedly post the most ridiculous assertions.
The proof of the pudding will lie with the German court which will decide if the evidence against Brueckner translates into proof.
I said the evidence isn't known, so we can't reach conclusions based on it. I hearby challenge anyone who claims we can to list the evidence they are using which isn't connected to or inferred from Wolters' words.
If Wolters said he has a photo of MM post 3/5/07... That would be highly significant.... Yet you regard such a statement as only words. That shows the weakness of your argument
Have you never heard about the inference called "reading between the lines". Your posts constantly doing just that indicate you are aware of it. Much as they are designed to stifle rather ran promote discussion.
You have remembered this is the MWT thread? Just a reminder, since your posts seem to suggest a bit of a fixation with Wolter.
Only if it were true.
The words from his friends.. Given to SY... Not hing to do with Wolters.
His 'friends' seem happy to talk to anyone who asks them to. From what they've told the media, most of it is opinion and rumour imo.
You claimed everything had come from Wolters... It wasn't difficult to prove you wrong
It doesn't matter what any of us think, and if it's ridiculous assertions you're interested in highlighting you've missed some real humdingers imo. I feel your lack of respect in relation to my posts is becoming a problem; please desist.
So you're relying on Wolters words and media reports for your 'evidence'?
So you're relying on Wolters words and media reports for your 'evidence'?Crikey, Groundhog Hour!
You think it didn't?
Have you never heard about the inference called "reading between the lines". Your posts constantly doing just that indicate you are aware of it. Much as they are designed to stifle rather ran promote discussion.
You have remembered this is the MWT thread? Just a reminder, since your posts seem to suggest a bit of a fixation with Wolter.
Your posts are suggesting an obsessive interest?
What is there to respect about a poster who will not rectify a falsehood posted in error despite acknowledging of being in error.
If wolters said he had, a, photo of abuse of MM would you think that was significant... It clearly is.
Wolters has made several statements to suggest that is, what he has
No he hasn’t.
He has... You are showing your ignorance
And you are gaslighting. Desist.says the forum's very own Fanny.
And you are gaslighting. Desist.
He said it live on TV in the discovery programme... You are speaking from a position of ignorance
No he didn’t. You are yet again misinterpreting what he said.
Tell us what you think he said... I would say you haven't got a clue.. I know exactly what he said.. You are totally wrong once again
I know exactly what he said.
“We do not have any forensic evidence for the death of Madeleine McCann. We have no body or body parts. On the other hand we have different evidence. It COULD be witnesses, videos, photos but at the moment I CAN’T SAY WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WE HAVE”
As I said, you continue to misinterpret what he says.
He also said in October just gone.
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder.
Adding:
Evidence being investigated includes a “confession” Brueckner made to a pal and phone analysis showing he was at the Ocean Club when the toddler vanished. Mr Wolters said: “It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”
So he can't say how she died meaning there's no video of any act likely to cause her death.
He also said in October just gone.
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder.
Adding:
Evidence being investigated includes a “confession” Brueckner made to a pal and phone analysis showing he was at the Ocean Club when the toddler vanished. Mr Wolters said: “It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”
So he can't say how she died meaning there's no video of any act likely to cause her death.
Of course if this alibi, soon to be revealed by MWT stands up to scrutiny, everything else goes by the board and Wolters et al will need to look elsewhere, though I feel that if Brueckner were no longer in the frame, the Germans would rapidly lose interest in the McCann case.
For what it's worth I doubt there's any video or photographic evidence either - I strongly believe that if such material existed it would be the moral (if not legal) duty of any police force to share that information with the next of kin and others investigating the case and I don't believe that has happened in this case. I don't think HCW is playing semantic word games when he says they don't have any photos or videos of Madeleine dead, implying they have such material depicting a live child only not linked directly to Bruckner. This would be sensational evidence and I just don't believe it exists.
I think it's the most probable evidence Wolters is referring to. Hrs explained why he hasn't divulged it.I know, I look at it often, I still don't think it's likely for the reasons I've already given. I suppose it's possible that the McCanns and the Met are aware of such visual evidence and are playing dumb on German instructions but I doubt it.
Thetrs a forum called Websleuths.. Where several quite bright people post... And the photo theory is quite popular there
I think it's the most probable evidence Wolters is referring to. Hrs explained why he hasn't divulged it.
Thetrs a forum called Websleuths.. Where several quite bright people post... And the photo theory is quite popular there
I know, I look at it often, I still don't think it's likely for the reasons I've already given. I suppose it's possible that the McCanns and the Met are aware of such visual evidence and are playing dumb on German instructions but I doubt it.
I think it may well be... For the reasons I've given
Your reason seems to be based solely on what Wolters said on the Discovery documentary. I have shown that you have misinterpreted what he said. Do you have any other ‘evidence’ revealed by him?You have shown nothing. Try to keep to the truth if you can.
You have shown nothing. Try to keep to the truth if you can.
So now you accept you were wrong and Wolters said the evidence could be photo,, video... On the discovery channel..
He was quite clear
Is that the same bright people who believe Brueckner abducted Joana?
You have shown nothing. Try to keep to the truth if you can.
So now you accept you were wrong and Wolters said the evidence could be photo,, video... On the discovery channel..
He was quite clear
I think you're misinterpreting Faith's posts. Where does she say she accepts she was wrong? I understood her to be saying you were wrong.
This is what you posted.
‘Wolters has made several statements to suggest that is, what he has’
He has suggested nothing of the sort.
This is certainly a possibility. IMO.
So you're calling Leonor a liar?
Nope. I'm calling her a victim.
I don't think she knows what she's talking about herself.
Well, you're quite wrong about that, because she's a convicted child murderer.
I'm still calling her a victim after seeing the state of her face and body.
He's actually used the words photo and video in the discovery programme.. Suggesting this is what his evidence is
You should see the state of my wife when she's answered me back.
.
It’s Wolters words I posted. You are simply misrepresenting them.
I would rather see the state of you.As if Spam has a wife. I doubt he’s been to first base with a girl yet.
As if Spam has a wife. I doubt he’s been to first base with a girl yet.
So when. Wolters says his evidence could be witness statements.. Photos.. Videos... You don't think he's suggesting that's what it is.
I'm not saying it is... But he has mada a suggestion
No, what the evidence COULD BE…that is a subtle but very important difference.
No, I think that he’s putting forward a list of possible evidence.
Wolters says himself: “ I CAN’T SAY WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WE HAVE”
Difference to what... Saying it is.
I've never claimed he has, said what it is
As, I recall he's appealed for information re then interiors of houses CB had access to. That again suggests he has photo.. Video evidence of a room he wants to match to
A list.. Two possibilities.. That's all.
He's suggested photo.. Video.. As a possibility ..
He can't say what it is because it's confidential
Yes…possibilities…not probabilities.
He's actually used the words photo and video in the discovery programme.. Suggesting this is what his evidence is
He says it COULD BE witnesses, videos or photos. You are interpreting 'Could be' as 'is'.No he isn’t.
He says it COULD BE witnesses, videos or photos. You are interpreting 'Could be' as 'is'.
He says it COULD BE witnesses, videos or photos. You are interpreting 'Could be' as 'is'.
Another one who doesn't understand English. I used the word suggests.. What do you think that means
Definition of suggest
transitive verb
1a: to mention or imply as a possibility
So he's never said he has photographic evidence then. You think, based on something he said, that he might have. We seem to be back to Wolters' words again.
This is why I can't be bothered to discuss anything with you
Wolters has made several statements which suggest the evidence is photographic. He has... I'm right.. You and faith are wrong ...end of. Football soon. Thank god
So he's never said he has photographic evidence then. You think, based on something he said, that he might have. We seem to be back to Wolters' words again.
You are wrong….and a little tip…when the football commentator suggests that there may be a goal, it doesn’t mean that there has been one 😉
If you had any sense you might realise I have never claimed the photo as a fact....
As for thefootball... Might be best to leave it to someone who unerstands the point in question..
You suggested that it was a probability…that simply isn’t true.More utter tripe
I think it's the most probable evidence Wolters is referring to. Hrs explained why he hasn't divulged it.
Thetrs a forum called Websleuths.. Where several quite bright people post... And the photo theory is quite popular there
God this is painful. Why do any of you even care what Davel thinks about it anyway? It’s a mystery!
It's a mystery to me why some people are prepared to put their faith in a German prosecutor's claim that he has evidence of wrongdoing.
It's a mystery to me why some people are prepared to put their faith in a German prosecutor's claim that he has evidence of wrongdoing.
It's a mystery to me why some people are prepared to put their faith in a German prosecutor's claim that he has evidence of wrongdoing.People put their faith in all sorts of things - barking dogs, a disgraced ex-cop, an Irish businessman’s belated recollection, I doubt you find any of those a mystery however. There’s no evidence that HCW is a deceitful liar or an incompetent retard so why not put faith in his claims, until there is a clear reason not to?
I've always wondered that too. Davel appears to believe everything that comes out of Wolter's mouth without exception.I think.. Based off on all the evidence that wolters has proof beyond reasonable doubt that MM was abducted and murdered by a paedophile. I think it's probable he now has enough evidence to charge.
The quality of the debate could certainly teach us a thing or two.
They certainly have turned the discussion on the MWT tease promoting his forthcoming documentary full circle to suggest that rather than providing an alibi it is highlighting aspects of Brueckner's supposed timeline that he possibly might prefer to remain obscure.
I've always wondered that too. Davel appears to believe everything that comes out of Wolter's mouth without exception.
The quality of the debate could certainly teach us a thing or two.
I think.. Based off on all the evidence that wolters has proof beyond reasonable doubt that MM was abducted and murdered by a paedophile. I think it's probable he now has enough evidence to charge.
I think you and others here are going to look a bit silly when the truth comes out
Whatever MWT has uncovered will be revealed in his programme and available for evaluation. That's more than can be said for whatever the German investigators have, although some seem to have decided to put their trust in them.
It really is like arguing with those anti-vaxxers.
When the spokesman for the German investigation says they are.100% certain CB murdered MM I think it's dafft not to be able to see it's significance.
I think of it as being like wrestling with pigs... The pigs like it but I get dirty
And when he also says that he is not 100% sure that Madeleine is dead…those who believe his first contention need to give their head a wobble.
I've always wondered that too. Davel appears to believe everything that comes out of Wolter's mouth without exception.
You are showing your ignorance again
Whatever MWT has uncovered will be revealed in his programme and available for evaluation. That's more than can be said for whatever the German investigators have, although some seem to have decided to put their trust in them.FYI MWT is the maker of a TV programme to be screened on a lowest common denominator TV Channel, designed to make him money by maximising public interest which he hopes to do by pursuing a sexy new angle on the case. HCW on the other hand is not a cheap media celeb whose career is predicated on entertaining Maddie Case fanatics but is based on the serious work of trying to get justice for those who have been hurt and/ or killed by a vicious rapist-cum-paedophile. that’s the main difference between the two individuals imo. Which of the two you decide to place your trust in is of little consequence to anyone but yourself.
Pinched from STM
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... n-25905370
EXCLUSIVE: Prosecutors reject claims Madeleine McCann suspect case ready to 'crumble over alibi'
Authorities in Germany have dismissed claims that prime suspect Christian Brueckner has an alibi that will clear him of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Prosecutors have refuted claims the case against Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner is set to fold.
A team says it found he has an alibi for the night Madeleine, aged three, vanished from her parents’ holiday apartment in May 2007.
Details of its probe will be in a Channel 5 documentary airing this spring. But German authorities have the dismissed claims.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”
Last year a friend of Brueckner gave him a possible alibi but later told a German paper she could not recall if she was him the night Madeleine vanished.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/maddie-mccann-ha ... 97338.html
So is there a spectacular turning point in the Maddie case? Isn't Christian B. the main suspect after all? The responsible public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig strongly contradicts the speculation.
You have "no knowledge of an alibi," said public prosecutor Christian Wolters to "RTL". "Neither the accused nor his defense attorney spoke to us on the matter," said Wolters. The media reports are apparently primarily made up of guesswork, said the prosecutor.
FYI MWT is the maker of a TV programme to be screened on a lowest common denominator TV Channel, designed to make him money by maximising public interest which he hopes to do by pursuing a sexy new angle on the case. HCW on the other hand is not a cheap media celeb whose career is predicated on entertaining Maddie Case fanatics but is based on the serious work of trying to get justice for those who have been hurt and/ or killed by a vicious rapist-cum-paedophile. that’s the main difference between the two individuals imo. Which of the two you decide to place your trust in is of little consequence to anyone but yourself.
There's no need to trust MWT, we will be able to judge his evidence for ourselves. The only person we are being asked to trust is Wolters, whose evidence is known only to him and the BKA.
This is the point, surely. If Breuckner had an alibi he would have to be insane not to produce it.
There's no need to trust MWT, we will be able to judge his evidence for ourselves. The only person we are being asked to trust is Wolters, whose evidence is known only to him and the BKA.I honestly don’t think anyone here gives a damn who you do and don’t put your trust in, I certainly don’t.
I honestly don’t think anyone here gives a damn who you do and don’t put your trust in, I certainly don’t.
You are absolutely wrong. Wolters has said the evidence they have although not showing her death is such that death is realistically the only possible outcome. So they assume she is dead but do not have proof. It seems exactly the same as Rui Pedro . I m going by what Wolters has said... Not by what it has, been reported in the papers.After he was abducted, Rui Pedro Teixteira Mendonca was photographed on a ride at Paris disney. The couple sitting in the seats in front of him came from Portugal. He was also photographed almost hanging from a rope by the hands. his feet were on the ground, but he was looking haunted and desperate; It was awful. His mother, (Philomena?) identified him on the pictues, poor woman. It absolutely broke her up. There were said to be other distressing photos.
It seems you and faith just haven't kept up with all the information
I think.. Based off on all the evidence that wolters has proof beyond reasonable doubt that MM was abducted and murdered by a paedophile. I think it's probable he now has enough evidence to charge.
I think you and others here are going to look a bit silly when the truth comes out
This is the point, surely. If Breuckner had an alibi he would have to be insane not to produce it.
This is certainly a possibility. IMO.
Yep, a man had been living rough for some days in the village of Figueira in a small motorhome. From memory the description of it was was not disimilar to the small motor home owned by Bruechner and it had been noticed by villagers.Joana was killed by her uncle, with the filthy wretch who claimed to be a mother to her conspiring to dispose of her corpse. Over a drunken, incestuous fumble on a minging couch in a hovel. End of. *&^%s
This motorcaravan vanished the same day that Joana did. It was found abandoned in a field at Praia de Luz.
Also the villagers had noticed a black limousine driving around the village. Brueckner had a big black Jag IIRC. I have holidayed several times in the area and from my experience, big black limousines are not common on the Algarve.
This is not proof of Brueckners involvement, but is * put it on the back burner stuff * IMO
I wonder why the PJ seemingly ignored the big black limousine and the camper van, Amaral and Cristovao were on the case.
I also wonder if the peeps at Figuiera who noticed these vehicles are aware of Christian Brueckner and whether if shown photos of him as a younger man, (and his Jag) might tie them in to this case. Perhaps SY could check it out.
Joana was killed by her uncle, with the filthy wretch who claimed to be a mother to her conspiring to dispose of her corpse. Over a drunken, incestuous fumble on a minging couch in a hovel. End of. *&^%sWhere’s the independent evidence that supports your assertion?
At the moment he is not required to say anything or produce anything. He can just sit where he is and watch Wolter make a fool of himself for all the world to see.
But that's just it Dave, he won't reveal any evidence which suggests to me he is a bluffer.
Why on earth do you feel an entitlement to have access to evidence being gathered in an active police investigation.
I don't.
I honestly don’t think anyone here gives a damn who you do and don’t put your trust in, I certainly don’t.
Why discuss it then? Are you trying to make a case for trusting Wolters?I think there is massive reasons to believe Wolters. I said yesterday I thought it a waste of time discussing it.. I was right. Imo you are blinded by bias. Doesn't matter.. Wolters at some stage will have to reveal his evidence and we will see who's the dunce
Why discuss it then? Are you trying to make a case for trusting Wolters?I’m making a case for giving him and the German investigation the benefit of the doubt and waiting and seeing. I’m making the case that to write him off as an incompetent fame seeker as some here are intent on doing is based on incomplete understanding of the evidence the Germans have amassed, and of an illogical (imo) belief that HCW is lying when he says that there is incredibly compelling evidence against CB which has not yet been revealed. Is that so very wrong of me?
I don't.
I’m making a case for giving him and the German investigation the benefit of the doubt and waiting and seeing. I’m making the case that to write him off as an incompetent fame seeker as some here are intent on doing is based on incomplete understanding of the evidence the Germans have amassed, and of an illogical (imo) belief that HCW is lying when he says that there is incredibly compelling evidence against CB which has not yet been revealed. Is that so very wrong of me?
Why discuss it then? Are you trying to make a case for trusting Wolters?
What you don't understand thst in the twisted mindset of the sceptic it's fine for posters to draw the conclusion Wolters us a bluffer.. Fool.. Plonker. But if anyone draws the conclusion he could have this evidence it really uosets themOh I do understand. Sceptics have been rooting for HCW to come unstuck from Day One and are now hoping that MWT has achieved this for them.
At the moment Wolters doesn't have to produce anything but you snd others seem blind to that.
I don't see anyone thinking Wolters looks stupid apart from a handful of people on the net driven by their dislike of the McCanns.
I don't find your reasoning. nor gunit, faith and the rest logical. ...far from it.
The only ones making a fool of themselves are people like you and others here who's prejudice stops them thinking logically
Oh I do understand. Sceptics have been rooting for HCW to come unstuck from Day One and are now hoping that MWT has achieved this for them.
You posted
There's no need to trust MWT, we will be able to judge his evidence for ourselves. The only person we are being asked to trust is Wolters, whose evidence is known only to him and the BKA.
Hmmm - seems you are in a wee bit of denial about the content of your posts - or quite obviously when you post one thing, you really mean something else entirely different. Worth bearing in mind for future reference.
Where’s the independent evidence that supports your assertion?
I've never asked for or expected the Germans to disclose their evidence, which is what you accused me of.
Some are prepared to trust Wolters and believe he has the evidence he needs to charge CB. I'll believe it when it happens.
I've never asked for or expected the Germans to disclose their evidence, which is what you accused me of.What’s wrong with the benefit of the doubt, or do you have no doubt about him being a lying incompetent?
Some are prepared to trust Wolters and believe he has the evidence he needs to charge CB. I'll believe it when it happens.
What’s wrong with the benefit of the doubt, or do you have no doubt about him being a lying incompetent?
This is the point, surely. If Breuckner had an alibi he would have to be insane not to produce it.
I think there is massive reasons to believe Wolters. I said yesterday I thought it a waste of time discussing it.. I was right. Imo you are blinded by bias. Doesn't matter.. Wolters at some stage will have to reveal his evidence and we will see who's the dunce
You yourself of course have absolutely no bias.Wrong.
If the paedophile said he's innocent you'd be willing to consider he might be, & not influenced in your decision by the matter of his prior sex offences.
Right?
Wrong.
His guilt should be decided based on the evidence
So, bearing in mind we have no evidence Brueckner abducted or murdered Maddie, you think he could be innocent, right?
if a convicted rapist and paedophile claimed he was innocent of a crime of rape or paedophilia I would be less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's true. However HCW does not as far as I'm aware have a track record in lying and deceiving the public, or making false allegations therefore I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt...
That's up to you.. Why can't you accept others have a different view
I can. If others want to place their trust in a German prosecutor that's fine. It's when they try to argue that they're relying on evidence, not on trust, that I will get involved.Sigh. Here we go round the Mulberry Bush. Again.
I can. If others want to place their trust in a German prosecutor that's fine. It's when they try to argue that they're relying on evidence, not on trust, that I will get involved..
.
I'm relying on evidence and I dint really care what you think as imo you don't understand what evidence is
I can. If others want to place their trust in a German prosecutor that's fine. It's when they try to argue that they're relying on evidence, not on trust, that I will get involved.Which evidence in this case do you have trust in, out of interest?
Which evidence in this case do you have trust in, out of interest?
You don't have access to or any knowledge of, Wolters employment history, track record for honesty, prosecution success rate & what he gets up to in the bedroom though.
Sigh. Here we go round the Mulberry Bush. Again.
I’ve made the same point myself in the past.Some people don't seem to understand the term "the benefit of the doubt", nor the difference in terms of reputation between a convicted rapist / paedophile and a currently employed public prosecutor. If there are bins to be trawled through as far as HCW is concerned, trawl away! I'm sure attempts have already been made to find some dirt on him, as I'm sure there have been years of concerted but unsuccessful effort to dig up the dirt on the McCanns. What's stopping you Faith? Dig it up and it may well change our opinion.
While it appears that some are quite willing to, metaphorically, trawl through Amaral’s bins, they seem strangely reluctant to do the same with Wolters.
Which evidence in this case do you have trust in, out of interest?
Where’s the independent evidence that supports your assertion?It's legal fact.
I'm not discussing having trust in evidence, I'm discussing trust in people who say they have evidence.
No you're not - you don't know what the evidence is.
Eolyers statement is evidence... It's quite obvious you cannot see thst. It isvas much evidence as any other witness statement. He says he has seen something that makes him 100% sure Maddie had been murdered by CB. You dint have to believe him.. But his statement is evidence
Your honour, the prosecution presents exhibit 42DD: The things I have said to media outlets.....over the course of 20 months and essentially compromised the investigation by going public in a futile attempt to flush out an accomplice.
Some people don't seem to understand the term "the benefit of the doubt", nor the difference in terms of reputation between a convicted rapist / paedophile and a currently employed public prosecutor. If there are bins to be trawled through as far as HCW is concerned, trawl away! I'm sure attempts have already been made to find some dirt on him, as I'm sure there have been years of concerted but unsuccessful effort to dig up the dirt on the McCanns. What's stopping you Faith? Dig it up and it may well change our opinion.
Eolyers statement is evidence... It's quite obvious you cannot see thst. It isvas much evidence as any other witness statement. He says he has seen something that makes him 100% sure Maddie had been murdered by CB. You dint have to believe him.. But his statement is evidence
His statement is evidence he said it, its not evidence of the actual fact of him (CB) killing the girl.
Eolyers statement is evidence... It's quite obvious you cannot see thst. It isvas much evidence as any other witness statement. He says he has seen something that makes him 100% sure Maddie had been murdered by CB. You dint have to believe him.. But his statement is evidence
Then we go back to Oct last where Wolters said he has no video or photographic evidence,
A reminder: If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”
It's evidence to support Maddies death and CBss guilt
Posters seem to cinfuse evidence and proof
He hasn't said he doesn't have photographic evidence.. Several things he's said suggests he has.
A photo of MM dead with CB in camera would be proof
Its you are confused in other statement's which I've posted allegedly coming from Wolters is that :If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”
He hasn't said he doesn't have photographic evidence.. Several things he's said suggests he has.
A photo of MM dead with CB in camera would be proof
The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only MadeleineThe evidential value of this 'evidence' is being whittled down each time you post.
The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only Madeleine
He hasn't said he doesn't have photographic evidence.. Several things he's said suggests he has.
A photo of MM dead with CB in camera would be proof
Make your mind up.
My posts are consistent
This evidential value of this 'evidence' is being whittled down each time you post.
A picture of a dead body is one notch up from a picture of a toaster, I'll grant you that.
A photo of Brueckner with Madeleine would be a slam dunk.
There’s absolutely no evidence that he does.
The evidential value varies depending on the evidence.. I would have thought you understood that. ...You thought correct.
There's evidence.. More likely proof.. He doesn'tHe has one or more image of a dead girl who he believes he's ID'd as MM.
You thought correct.
Could Breuckner have taken a photograph of Madeleine asleep in her bed in 5a for reasons of identification which was later found somewhere on one of his derelict properties? This at least would suggest that he abducted her.Good point.
I usually am100% accuracy when replying to one of my posts this hour.
Could Breuckner have taken a photograph of Madeleine asleep in her bed in 5a for reasons of identification which was later found somewhere on one of his derelict properties? This at least would suggest that he abducted her.
It's legal fact.That's as maybe. It was a conviction based solely on confessions, at least one of which involved torture, from two apparently not very bright individuals - no body, no forensics, not even a bloody dog bark. Legal Fact my arse.
He has one or more image of a dead girl who he believes he's ID'd as MM.
He may have stumbled across the image on one of CB's hard drives, buried under someone's dog, while building a nonce case against him (a case that he probably won't pursue now as it's small fry).
So he's been trying to tie him to the scene of 5a ever since and all he seems to have garnered is a couple of jailhouse snitches willing to provide a anything for a packet of snout.
Now it would appear that strategy is knackered.
His words are not evidence of anything except his convictions. The real evidence is what he has seen to convince him. It's either enough to convince others or it's not. That's the crux of the matter.Do you think he's the only person involved in the investigation who has seen or who knows of this alleged evidence?
He doesn't have an image of a dead girl. You show your ignorance of the facts. He's made it clear he has no image if s dead MMSo no body, no photographic evidence, no forensic evidence.
100% accuracy when replying to one of my posts this hour.I'm totally bored at your cildish attempts at point scoring
Do you think he's the only person involved in the investigation who has seen or who knows of this alleged evidence?Commissioner Dick was not impressed.
Commissioner Dick was not impressed.I see, and you obviously hold her opinion in high esteem. What did she have to say? I forget...
That's as maybe. It was a conviction based solely on confessions, at least one of which involved torture, from two apparently not very bright individuals - no body, no forensics, not even a bloody dog bark. Legal Fact my arse.
So no body, no photographic evidence, no forensic evidence.
So what could it be, Ironside?
I see, and you obviously hold her opinion in high esteem. What did she have to say? I forget...ting around the is
Photographic evidence of severe abuse from which death is almost inevitable.. But only a link to the involvement of CBThat would be fag paper thin, not just circumstantial. The type of evidence that would only be useful as a 'job lot'; a bagatelle of tenuous offerings thrown in to pad out a flimsy case.
That's why he made an appeal for information of the interiors of any dwelling CB had access to.
Perhaps he had thst now... Still only circumstantial
The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only Madeleine
Only you think he's implied he has a photo, as far as I can tell. In the UK a formal indentification is required before a body can be named. Are the German authorities allowed to indentify a person from a photo? I doubt it.
ting around the isHilarious.
She said 'look 'ere, you 'orrible lot, we still be looking for a missing person. Now you can call that semantics and skirting around the issue of a potentailly dead girl, and we ain't gonna give the parents false hope or owt like that, so let the Germans do their thang and we will continue to look for MM - and spend the rest of the OG wonga yo'.
I paraphrased.
Only you think he's implied he has a photo, as far as I can tell. In the UK a formal indentification is required before a body can be named. Are the German authorities allowed to indentify a person from a photo? I doubt it.
Only you think he's implied he has a photo, as far as I can tell. In the UK a formal indentification is required before a body can be named. Are the German authorities allowed to indentify a person from a photo? I doubt it.You'd have to be pretty certain, as certain as Davel is about everyhting, to go public and all but name his suspect.
Hilarious.Thanks mate.
Again speaking from ignorance... It is not only me who thinks he may have a photo.You're not speaking from ignorance if it's about you, mate!
Again speaking from ignorance... It is not only me who thinks he may have a photo.
You're in the company of people who believe Joana was abducted.They don't really, they just despise Amaral and the PJ so much that they can't stand to think that they got it right.
Good point.
But HCW reckons he has a picture of a dead body, not a live one.
You're not speaking from ignorance if it's about you, mate!
I don't think Wolters has said he has a picture of a dead body. Unless you can prove otherwise.Of course you will.
If you can't then I will delete that part of your comment.
Of course you will.
I was actually agreeing with you, but chop away.
Thanks mate.You're welcome mate. Busting my sides at you mate. Funniest thing since "Mrs Brown's Boys" mate.
No need. Others have done it for me.You might need to hack away at your quote of my original post for rigor.
They don't really, they just despise Amaral and the PJ so much that they can't stand to think that they got it right.In what way is it abandoning one's morals to believe there is a possibility that a miscarriage of justice was perpetrated in the Joana Cipriano case? Do kindly elucidate mate?
It doesn't fit the 'Keystone Cops' narrative. It's a sad indictment that they'll happily abandon their morals and sully the name of a dead child in the process to bolster their firmly held belief, but there you have it.
You're welcome mate. Busting my sides at you mate. Funniest thing since "Mrs Brown's Boys" mate.OK, I'm detecting some nuanced, almost imperceptible sarcasm now.
You might need to hack away at your quote of my original post for rigor.
Or get 'others' to have a pop at it.
OK, I'm detecting some nuanced, almost imperceptible sarcasm now.??? I was being deadly serious. You are just the best comedian on here by a country mile!
Not like you that mate.
In what way is it abandoning one's morals to believe there is a possibility that a miscarriage of justice was perpetrated in the Joana Cipriano case? Do kindly elucidate?I already did. Nobody who has an interest in this case really believes in this 'miscarriage of justice'; they believe in sticking the boot in to Amaral. It's a device, not a conviction.
I don't think Wolters has said he has a picture of a dead body.
Some how from what ever Wolters has said davel seems convinced he has.
Showing you ignorance again.. He hasn't. He has, specifically said no fefiniyve proof of deathNo definitive proof of death (I assume), but he knows CB killer her? OK then.
Again speaking from ignorance... It is not only me who thinks he may have a photo.
In what way is it abandoning one's morals to believe there is a possibility that a miscarriage of justice was perpetrated in the Joana Cipriano case? Do kindly elucidate mate?
I already did. Nobody who has an interest in this case really believes in this 'miscarriage of justice'; they believe in sticking the boot in to Amaral. It's a device, not a conviction.Well that's insulting but doesn't really explain anything. Just here to troll today are you?
It's like Flat Earthers, you can't have a flat earth and a moon landing, so they have to disregard both.
Creationists - Dinosaurs.
IMEPO
Showing you ignorance again.. He hasn't. He has, specifically said no definitive proof of death
Well that's insulting but doesn't really explain anything. Just here to troll today are you?Not at all. Ok, I'll concede there may be the odd one who thinks they believe it. But they don't.
Not at all. Ok, I'll concede there may be the odd one who thinks they believe it. But they don't.You know what I believe and what I don't believe? That's some superpower you've got going on there. Wow. How many fingers am I holding up? Now that's an easy one...
No definitive proof of death (I assume), but he knows CB killer her? OK then.You're getting there
You know what I believe and what I don't believe? That's some superpower you've got going on there. Wow. How many fingers am I holding up? Now that's an easy one...On one hand? 6
He admitted it was an assumption, in fact;
"Hans Christian Wolters, from the Braunschweig Public Prosecutor's Office in Germany, said in an update on Thursday: "We are assuming that the girl is dead."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52916137
On one hand? 6Not very good at counting then....
Wolters took it upon himself to make public claims which he was unable to support. By doing so he raised doubts about his credibility.
He announced a murder, then said maybe not.
He announced a phone call received in Luz, but didn't understand the range of the mobile phone towers.
He said he'd contacted the McCanns and they publicly denied it.
He publicly accused CB of murder, which is forbidden under ECHR.
Not a track record to be proud of or which inspires confidence in him imo.
You're the one pushing the idea on here, so you're the one who needs to justify it on here.Did you watch the channel 9 doc. She raised the possibility after interviewing wolters. Her thought process exactly the same as mine
Wolter thought that by going public with his unsupported claims that somebody would come forward and provide new evidence.
Massive fail 🤣
On one hand? 6
Wolters took it upon himself to make public claims which he was unable to support. By doing so he raised doubts about his credibility.
He announced a murder, then said maybe not.
He announced a phone call received in Luz, but didn't understand the range of the mobile phone towers.
He said he'd contacted the McCanns and they publicly denied it.
He publicly accused CB of murder, which is forbidden under ECHR.
Not a track record to be proud of or which inspires confidence in him imo.
I already did. Nobody who has an interest in this case really believes in this 'miscarriage of justice'; they believe in sticking the boot in to Amaral. It's a device, not a conviction.To bring things slightly back on topic, do you consider Mark Williams Thomas to be a morally devoid, Flat Earther with a burning desire to stick the boot into Amaral?
It's like Flat Earthers, you can't have a flat earth and a moon landing, so they have to disregard both.
Creationists - Dinosaurs.
IMEPO
German police have ben seeking witnesses to CB's movements on 3.5.07 between 2100 & 2200hrs on 3/5/07 for at least 18 months now. For those who think the unreliable Busching is he only person to whom CB made some sort of confession, you're wrong.So essentially there's no evidence of any value still. Hence why there's no charges being brought. Total inertia for 20 months. Potentially some images that can't place CB at a scene, that may or may not be MM, on a hard drive that they can't link to CB forensically, under a dog that might have once been fed by CB, near a caravan / hut allegedly once used by CB, corroborated by a phone call to someone in Luz prior to the incident, placing him (or his phone) within approximately 1000sq km.
https://www.asteriscos.tv/noticia-62505.html
*snipped*
It was when the German was in a bar with his Portuguese friend Diego Rivera and they saw on television a note about the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance. Brückner told Rivera that he knew everything that had happened in the McCann case. And then he showed the video of the rape to the American retiree.
Then the friend called the police, but at that time there were not enough elements to incriminate him.
What did advance was the investigation into the sexual abuse of the 72-year-old woman, which was confirmed when Brückner's DNA tested positive with a raised hair from the scene.
The three policemen - German, British and Portuguese - are now looking for witnesses to try to clarify where the suspect was on the day of the little girl's disappearance, on May 3, 2007, between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's highly improbable MWT, given his restricted access to BKA evidence, has been able to find a reliable witness who'd provide CB with a solid alibi when police have failed to do so.
I'm with Davel on the photo issue. IMO the phone is crucial to BKA because of data found on devices elsewhere. I think there is a picture/video of (probably dead) Madeleine in a sequence of other photos/videos taken by CB & featuring him both before & after Madeleine disappeared. Facial recognition software could have been used to confirm her identity.
To bring things slightly back on topic, do you consider Mark Williams Thomas to be a morally devoid, Flat Earther with a burning desire to stick the boot into Amaral?I said those who frequent this forum and expressed an opinion.
“Former Surrey detective Mark Williams-Thomas said: "This controversial case (Joana Cipriano) must be re-opened - there are huge doubts over the convictions.
"The fact that there's another missing-child case so close to where Maddie disappeared just three years ago, that should be ringing alarm bells. There's not a single case in the UK where two children who are unknown to each other have been abducted or disappeared within a period of four years in a seven-mile radius.
"There must be a link. It certainly has to be a serious line of inquiry."
So essentially there's no evidence of any value still. Hence why there's no charges being brought. Total inertia for 20 months. Potentially some images that can't place CB at a scene, that may or may not be MM, on a hard drive that they can't link to CB forensically, under a dog that might have once been fed by CB, near a caravan / hut allegedly once used by CB, corroborated by a phone call to someone in Luz prior to the incident, placing him (or his phone) within approximately 1000sq km.
Quite how he hasn't buckled under the weight of evidence and thrown his hand in is surprising.
I said those who frequent this forum and expressed an opinion.Your post makes little sense. Why is MWT let off the hook but people on this forum are not allowed to share his opinion without being accused of all sorts of ridiculous nonsense? Your faith in the Portuguese justice system is quite touching but I just wonder why you simply refuse to countenance even the possibility that in the absence of any hard evidence at all that Joana was not actually murdered, cut up and fed to the pigs by her Uncle? I am not committed one way or the other wrt to the Ciprianos' guilt or innocence by the way, I just think it's worth another look. If that makes me guilty of being all the nasty things you've levelled at me (indirectly) today then so be it. I can just take the abuse (despite my fragile mental health as diagnosed by your good self Dr. General).
MWT? Well it hasn't been established that MM was abducted and it has been established that Joana wasn't. So he's just plain wrong, but he looks like he's about to improve his batting average.
I think you'd agree that's rather a lot of fairly damning circumstantial evidence. notwithstanding confessions to at least 2 other people. Still, why would CB buckle? He has a top-notch lawyer batting for his side with seemingly unlimited financial backing & all those other "minor" crimes like accidental homicide being divulged by his associates may require further representation.This 'rather a lot of fairly damning circumstantial evidence' may as well be no evidence at all without more of it.
Your post makes little sense. Why is MWT let off the hook but people on this forum are not allowed to share his opinion without being accused of all sorts of ridiculous nonsense? Your faith in the Portuguese justice system is quite touching but I just wonder why you simply refuse to even countenance even the possibility that in the absence of any hard evidence at all that Joana was not actually murdered, cut up and fed to the pigs by her Uncle? I am not committed one way or the other wrt to the Ciprianos' guilt or innocence by the way, I just think it's worth another look. If that makes me guilty of being all the nasty things you've levelled at me (indirectly) today then so be it. I can just take the abuse (despite my fragile mental health as diagnosed by your good self Dr. General).You were cracking up laughing at my repartee earlier. Now this.
This 'rather a lot of fairly damning circumstantial evidence' may as well be no evidence at all without more of it.
Which is the point. 20 months after the last-ditched, desperate public appeal and really all he has added is a few dodgy eye witnesses.
Did you watch the channel 9 doc. She raised the possibility after interviewing wolters. Her thought process exactly the same as mine
To bring things slightly back on topic, do you consider Mark Williams Thomas to be a morally devoid, Flat Earther with a burning desire to stick the boot into Amaral?
“Former Surrey detective Mark Williams-Thomas said: "This controversial case (Joana Cipriano) must be re-opened - there are huge doubts over the convictions.
"The fact that there's another missing-child case so close to where Maddie disappeared just three years ago, that should be ringing alarm bells. There's not a single case in the UK where two children who are unknown to each other have been abducted or disappeared within a period of four years in a seven-mile radius.
"There must be a link. It certainly has to be a serious line of inquiry."
I think you'd agree that's rather a lot of fairly damning circumstantial evidence. notwithstanding confessions to at least 2 other people. Still, why would CB buckle? He has a top-notch lawyer batting for his side with seemingly unlimited financial backing & all those other "minor" crimes like accidental homicide being divulged by his associates may require further representation.
You were cracking up laughing at my repartee earlier. Now this.And sensible answer came there none, as expected.
She said that Madeleine was abducted between 9 and 10pm and that during that same time a mobile phone linked CB was used in the immediate area of her hotel room. (23:10)Wolters answered all questions honestly.. Any DNA in the cars.. No.. Anyb forensic evidence... No.. Any images... I'm not allowed to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q
That isn't correct.
She wondered if there was video evidence showing Madeleine among the items found at the factory site. (23:15). Wolters' reply was that he wasn't allowed to say. It was only later that he admitted to Jon Clarke that he hadn't seen the evidence that was found. On page 278 of his book he says that Wolters has firmly denied that he has them.
I'm not either convinced or impressed by the presenter of the Channel 9 doc.
The guy has proven he'll claim to believe anything, say anything, if there's something for him to gain from it.
His track record shows this. He's flip flopped on the Maddie case when it suits him, & believes Oscar Pistorious is innocent. I wonder how much Oscar paid him to voice that opinion?
She said that Madeleine was abducted between 9 and 10pm and that during that same time a mobile phone linked CB was used in the immediate area of her hotel room. (23:10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q
That isn't correct.
She wondered if there was video evidence showing Madeleine among the items found at the factory site. (23:15). Wolters' reply was that he wasn't allowed to say. It was only later that he admitted to Jon Clarke that he hadn't seen the evidence that was found. On page 278 of his book he says that Wolters has firmly denied that he has them.
I'm not either convinced or impressed by the presenter of the Channel 9 doc.
Your post makes little sense. Why is MWT let off the hook but people on this forum are not allowed to share his opinion without being accused of all sorts of ridiculous nonsense? Your faith in the Portuguese justice system is quite touching but I just wonder why you simply refuse to even countenance even the possibility that in the absence of any hard evidence at all that Joana was not actually murdered, cut up and fed to the pigs by her Uncle? I am not committed one way or the other wrt to the Ciprianos' guilt or innocence by the way I just think it's worth another look. If that makes me guilty of being all the nasty things you've levelled at me (indirectly) today then so be it. I can just take the abuse (despite my fragile mental health as diagnosed by your good self Dr. General).
I see Wolters is denying the alibi claim, like you would through the medium of the press.What medium would suit you better? Carrier pigeon?
So when he says he can't say its because he doesn't know.It could be he's just the mouthpiece and may have limited access to what the grown ups are doing.
What medium would suit you better? Carrier pigeon?
I see Wolters is denying the alibi claim, like you would through the medium of the press.
What's that got to do with what I wrote or commented on?
You believe the nonsense ?
Maybe because CB has been quite whingeingly vocal about all the injustice heaped upon his shoulders?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/prosecutors-reject-claims-madeleine-mccann-25905370
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”
Has he forgotten that ,as yet, he hasn't charged Brueckner with anything or even questioned him ?
Why do people expect Brueckner to say anything ahead of being charged ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/prosecutors-reject-claims-madeleine-mccann-25905370
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”
Has he forgotten that ,as yet, he hasn't charged Brueckner with anything or even questioned him ?
Why do people expect Brueckner to say anything ahead of being charged ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/prosecutors-reject-claims-madeleine-mccann-25905370
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”
Has he forgotten that ,as yet, he hasn't charged Brueckner with anything ?
Why do people expect Brueckner to say anything ahead of being charged ?
So when he says he can't say its because he doesn't know.
CB is making life rather uncomfortable for his friends & associates in the criminal fraternity, that's why.
CB is making life rather uncomfortable for his friends & associates in the criminal fraternity, that's why.
What do you base that on ?
You could start with Nicole F being reinvestigated for her role in the €100000 burglary in Nov 2007 & her activities whilst in the employment of IAPRS, which include the Russians.
And you think that's Brueckner's doing ?
I see Wolters is denying the alibi claim, like you would through the medium of the press.
He would do wouldn't he. Williams-Thomas is making him look a right silly boy @)(++(*
He would do wouldn't he. Williams-Thomas is making him look a right silly boy @)(++(*Why so quick to put your trust in MWT? As far as I'm aware he's not uttered a word about this alleged new alibi.
Not yet he's not - we haven't seen what 'evidence' the tabloids say he has.
He would do wouldn't he. Williams-Thomas is making him look a right silly boy @)(++(*
CB is making life rather uncomfortable for his friends & associates in the criminal fraternity, that's why.
Anyone who even nodded to him in the street is going to be subject to intense scrutiny and I think there may also be a drop in the crime rates as all the crooks are probably on their best behaviour at the moment.
He won't be popular amongst anyone who was a friend or associate who must be concerned about implication by association.
The name Mandy comes to mind ?{)(**
And you think that's Brueckner's doing ?
Yes, I do. His various outbursts over the Madeleine case finally brought him to police's attention and, subsequently, his friends & associates over the years.
Maybe, but I don't see how him remaining silent re an alibi has any bearing on peripheral investigations.
What are you basing all this fluff on?
Because they've got nothing on anyone else if he doesn't say he wasn't involved in something else?
Now, that might sound confusing, but we're dealing with people who believe Joana was abducted, so it's apparently not unreasonable for reality to be stretched beyond credulity.
So someone has spent money putting this MWT series together. They have travelled to Portugal and to Germany. I wonder if it will still be shown if Brueckner is charged in the meantime? Either they know he's not going to be charged before it's shown, or they're taking a chance. Maybe MWT has contacts keeping him informed on the progress of the German case.If the programme makers know for a fact he won’t be charged I’m sure that information would have also been leaked alongside the alibi leak don’t you?
One member even thought Joana and Maddie were out for a dander together in the Rif Mountains. Apologies in advance Sadie. 8**8:/:
Maybe because CB has been quite whingeingly vocal about all the injustice heaped upon his shoulders?I think he's entitled to feel a little aggrieved, having been identified as having abducted and killed a child by a member of the judiciary and not actually charged.
Thanks for bringing it up Angelo.Oh Riley!... I've got an extremely super-duper keen eye when it comes to identification and she is MOST DEFINITELY NOT Madeleine McCann, SOZ!...
The little girl being carried WAS Madeleine. She was DEFINITELY NOT Bushra
... and the little girl walking was almost certainly Joana Cipriano. The inner lower leg muscles , the ankle/foot shape and the domed temples gave her away.
I have a keen eye when it comes to portraiture and also to figure shape. Seems you don't.
I think he's entitled to feel a little aggrieved, having been identified as having abducted and killed a child by a member of the judiciary and not actually charged.If he wanted this to all go away he could, via his lawyer, provide the German authorities with details of his alibi which they would then be duty bound to check out. If the alibi stacks up the heat is off him and he can relax and enjoy his time behind bars instead of having to bust a gut to come up with more witty cartoons to send to the media. Maybe he secretly enjoys all the attention.
So there's bemoaning the seeming injustice and probable illegality of being outed, and then there's keeping your powder dry under legal counsel.
Oh Riley!... I've got an extremely super-duper keen eye when it comes to identification and she is MOST DEFINITELY NOT Madeleine McCann, SOZ!...
I think he's entitled to feel a little aggrieved, having been identified as having abducted and killed a child by a member of the judiciary and not actually charged.
So there's bemoaning the seeming injustice and probable illegality of being outed, and then there's keeping your powder dry under legal counsel.
If he wanted this to all go away he could, via his lawyer, provide the German authorities with details of his alibi which they would then be duty bound to check out. If the alibi stacks up the heat is off him and he can relax and enjoy his time behind bars instead of having to bust a gut to come up with more witty cartoons to send to the media. Maybe he secretly enjoys all the attention.
On this forum... Those who seem concerned with the rights of CB are the ones who condone the torture of cipriano when she was a suspect
I must admit that I don't see the point of him keeping quiet if he has an alibi. He is hardly an innocent victim wrongful conviction.I wonder if he’s managed to come up with an alibi for the rape allegstion he has hanging over him? I would think that one was more pressing anyway if news reports are to be believed.
I wonder if he’s managed to come up with an alibi for the rape allegstion he has hanging over him? I would think that one was more pressing anyway if news reports are to be believed.
Do you think he's entitled if he actually abducted Madeleine. ..sadistically tortured her and then murdered herEntitled to what?
Entitled to what?Read the post in context.. I replied to your post..
If he wanted this to all go away he could, via his lawyer, provide the German authorities with details of his alibi which they would then be duty bound to check out. If the alibi stacks up the heat is off him and he can relax and enjoy his time behind bars instead of having to bust a gut to come up with more witty cartoons to send to the media. Maybe he secretly enjoys all the attention.He can't, that's why he hasn't. You can't answer an accusation without first being formally charged. I mean, you could, but that would not be advisable.
He can't, that's why he hasn't. You can't answer an accusation without first being formally charged. I mean, you could, but that would not be advisable.I think it's far more likely he's contemplating the fact he may spend the rest of his life in prison
He may secretly be enjoying the attention though, you're right there, watching HCW dance around like a balloon, safe in the knowledge that he's got his alibi in his arse pocket. Who knows, he could've instructed Fulscher to surreptitiously tip MWT the wink.
If he wanted this to all go away he could, via his lawyer, provide the German authorities with details of his alibi which they would then be duty bound to check out. If the alibi stacks up the heat is off him and he can relax and enjoy his time behind bars instead of having to bust a gut to come up with more witty cartoons to send to the media. Maybe he secretly enjoys all the attention.
Read the post in context.. I replied to your post..Entitled to what, a fair trial, due process?
I think he's entitled to feel a little aggrieved, having been identified as having abducted and killed a child by a member of the judiciary and not actually charged.
He can't, that's why he hasn't. You can't answer an accusation without first being formally charged. I mean, you could, but that would not be advisable.Yes, that’s a possibility, but at what point is he going to decide “enough’s enough, they aren’t going to charge me because a) I didn’t do it and b) I have a cast iron alibi that proves I didn’t do it” and sue the britches off HCW? Because if he knows he’s never going to be charged then surely the ball is in his court?
He may secretly be enjoying the attention though, you're right there, watching HCW dance around like a balloon, safe in the knowledge that he's got his alibi in his arse pocket. Who knows, he could've instructed Fulscher to surreptitiously tip MWT the wink.
If he has a cast iron defense he doesn't need to do anything. He can sit back and watch Wolters make a fool of himself and even poke fun at him.That doesn’t compute with his alleged sense of indignancy and grievance though does it?
If he hasn't got a cast iron defense then he keeps quiet until the prosecution reveal their evidence.
Entitled to what, a fair trial, due process?What has been uncovered and put in the public domain that makes you absolutely certain he isn’t involved?
He obviously hasn't done it, so he feels a tad put out. I'd be livid. No wonder he wrote a stiff letter and a sketch of his digs.
And what's Leonor got to do with it, why not Steve Biko, or Terry Waite?
I think it's far more likely he's contemplating the fact he may spend the rest of his life in prisonI don't. I think it's far more likely he's been told not to disclose specific details. Why do HCW's job for him?
Entitled to what, a fair trial, due process?Your reply contains the line... He obviously hasn't done it... Which means your reply is utter tripe in response to my question
He obviously hasn't done it, so he feels a tad put out. I'd be livid. No wonder he wrote a stiff letter and a sketch of his digs.
And what's Leonor got to do with it, why not Steve Biko, or Terry Waite?
I don't. I think it's far more likely he's been told not to disclose specific details. Why do HCW's job for him?
Yes, that’s a possibility, but at what point is he going to decide “enough’s enough, they aren’t going to charge me because a) I didn’t do it and b) I have a cast iron alibi that proves I didn’t do it” and sue the britches off HCW? Because if he knows he’s never going to be charged then surely the ball is in his court?He'll be being directed by his legal team. I suppose the smart move would be to let it all pan out.
Perhaps he will refuse to answer questions on that as well. But by doing so he is suggesting that he doesn't have an alibi. He certainly isn't suggesting that he does.
More power to his right to silence.
So you think he may be enjoying the attention.. Enjoying being locked up all day in solitary.. Possibly for the rest of his lifeYou take your victories where you can in his position.
He can't, that's why he hasn't. You can't answer an accusation without first being formally charged. I mean, you could, but that would not be advisable.
He may secretly be enjoying the attention though, you're right there, watching HCW dance around like a balloon, safe in the knowledge that he's got his alibi in his arse pocket. Who knows, he could've instructed Fulscher to surreptitiously tip MWT the wink.
Your reply contains the line... He obviously hasn't done it... Which means your reply is utter tripe in response to my questionRude.
You take your victories where you can in his position.You’re forgetting the rape case that is being built against him also, do you reckon he “obviously “ didn’t do that either?
And the concept of 'enjoy' might merely mean a fleeting jolt of serotonin in response to the occasional thought of HCW's incompetence. I doubt he's having a ket party with his keck on his head at the prospect - be he might be.
Rude.Your reply failed miserably to answer my question
For all we know this supposed alibi could be partial and only covering part of the time period. In which case it might be better to keep quiet.Was it drive though? Was it on a donkey, or a scooter, or on foot; a skateboard perhaps.
We could have oodles of fun tearing this to pieces, or not, depending on how long it takes to drive for 30 minutes.
For all we know this supposed alibi could be partial and only covering part of the time period. In which case it might be better to keep quiet.Someone on Websleuths posited that it could have been him on the other end of the phonecall in question, having lent his phone to an accomplice in PdL. I don’t think being 30 minutes away necessarily lets him off the hook unless he can account for every minute of his actions that evening. In the same way that sceptics are fully prepared to believe that despite having multiple alibis Gerry managed to stride off in the night bold as brass with a dead body looking for an inconvenient bin the other side of town.
We could have oodles of fun tearing this to pieces, or not, depending on how long it takes to drive for 30 minutes.
Your reply failed miserably to answer my questionRuder.
Was it drive though? Was it on a donkey, or a scooter, or on foot; a skateboard perhaps.CB had multiple vehicles but no donkeys or scooters as far as we know.
30 minutes at 40 mile an hour average is 20 miles obviously. That's the next county.
For all we know this supposed alibi could be partial and only covering part of the time period. In which case it might be better to keep quiet.
We could have oodles of fun tearing this to pieces, or not, depending on how long it takes to drive for 30 minutes.
You’re forgetting the rape case that is being built against him also, do you reckon he “obviously “ didn’t do that either?No. I know nothing about it.
What has been uncovered and put in the public domain that makes you absolutely certain he isn’t involved?General, this is my question to you.
Was it drive though? Was it on a donkey, or a scooter, or on foot; a skateboard perhaps.
30 minutes at 40 mile an hour average is 20 miles obviously. That's the next county.
No. I know nothing about it.Have they? Please provide a cite.
But they have accused him or rape he hasn't committed before, so......
Or a Jaguar perhaps.
Someone on Websleuths posited that it could have been him on the other end of the phonecall in question, having lent his phone to an accomplice in PdL. I don’t think being 30 minutes away necessarily lets him off the hook unless he can account for every minute of his actions that evening. In the same way that sceptics are fully prepared to believe that despite having multiple alibis Gerry managed to stride off in the night bold as brass with a dead body looking for an inconvenient bin the other side of town.
Ruder.
What was the question? Go on, I'll answer it. CBA scrolling back, I type too fast and think of loads of things at once, etc.
Still not answeredWhat was the question?
Have they? Please provide a cite.No. I'm not playing the old 'who's Mrs. Fenn' game again.
You’re forgetting the rape case that is being built against him also, do you reckon he “obviously “ didn’t do that either?
No. I'm not playing the old 'who's Mrs. Fenn' game again.You mean you refuse to provide a cite for the police accusing him of a rape he didn’t commit, just so’s we’re clear.
Tricky beasts, jaguars. Like tigers, its best to hang onto the tail and hope they go where you want to go.
Is there one, or is the press saying there is ?Ah yes when in doubt roll out the old “MSM invented the whole thing” argument.
Ah yes when in doubt roll out the old “MSM invented the whole thing” argument.
Or a Jaguar perhaps.
Perhaps MWT will reveal all ?{)(**
General, this is my question to you.The length of time for one. I know the wheels turn slowly, but it's unique this isn't it?
So you admit there are doubts.you’re the one doubting the veracity of the news reports, not me.
No. I know nothing about it.
But they have accused him or rape he hasn't committed before, so......
The length of time for one. I know the wheels turn slowly, but it's unique this isn't it?And these are the compelling reasons why you know he didn’t do it? Seriously?
And the apparent reliance on jailhouse snitches after 18 months of searching - that's desperation, not progress.
you’re the one doubting the veracity of the news reports, not me.
Just a reminder of the rape in question, from the victim herself
“My mind was blown when I read how he had attacked a woman in 2005, both the tactics and the methods he used, the tools he had with him, how well he had planned it out,” Ms Behan told The Guardian last year. “I puked, to be honest with you, as reading about it took me right back to my experience.”
I expect the Guardian invented her words, but hey, ho.
The length of time for one. I know the wheels turn slowly, but it's unique this isn't it?Applying your logic to the McCanns we can say they obviously didn’t do it. Length of time, and the apparent reliance on well, nothing much at all, not even snitches just a 60-80% witness statement and a couple of barky dogs.
And the apparent reliance on jailhouse snitches after 18 months of searching - that's desperation, not progress.
And these are the compelling reasons why you know he didn’t do it? Seriously?
100% certain its CB ? supposed to be a tat the perps on his arse which no one can confirm CB has. Why is she telling the press if theres an ongoing investigation.Supposed to be a tat the perps on his arse. My words exactly.
The prosecution works the other way, what compelling reasons are there CB was involved.I’m asking the General not thr prosecution in case you hadn’t noticed, he claims CB OBVIOUSLY didn’t do it, I wanted to know what was so obvious about it.
And these are the compelling reasons why you know he didn’t do it? Seriously?That's just the start.
Madeleine's parents agreed with you that it wasn't her, and they should know. That's also why the Germans can't use a video or photo showing Madeleine as evidence without asking her parents to confirm her identity.
We need a Cite for that. Otherwise it is just more misinformation.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839)
We need a Cite for that. Otherwise it is just more misinformation.Here's where he was linked to another 'abduction' of a young girl - Our survey said.....
He can't, that's why he hasn't. You can't answer an accusation without first being formally charged. I mean, you could, but that would not be advisable.
He may secretly be enjoying the attention though, you're right there, watching HCW dance around like a balloon, safe in the knowledge that he's got his alibi in his arse pocket. Who knows, he could've instructed Fulscher to surreptitiously tip MWT the wink.
Nope - but it is possible to have oneself eliminated from the inquiry by presenting cast iron evidence to that effect or even just irrefutable evidence.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839)
It's a press story, but we're agreed it's true, right?
Or maybe misinformation. Who knows.
....but again, you've already seen this
I don't think there's doubt that this rape occurred and there will be a police record record to that effect.He's going to have to ask Fulscher to compile an alibi database and deal with each allegation as they arise.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to lead to a charge against Brueckner remains to be seen.
I don't suppose he will have an alibi - why should he? - unless, for example, he can demonstrate he was in another country at the time.
Why would he want to at this stage ? Why would he not wait and see if he was to be charged before speaking ?He wouldn't. Here's why - if he starts batting back each allegation, and HCW has actually goaded him in to doing that this week, which is telling, then all he does is gives them additional information that they didn't have, does their job for them and gives them the opportunity to switch focus from dead ends and continue their efforts to pin the tail on the donkey elsewhere or as a result of false positives.
Exactly, he's in jail for awhile serving time for rape, Wolters is conducting an investigation via the media, CB is well aware no doubt, so why not enjoy his (CB) moments of infamy. The legend that CB killed Madeleine is writ.
Interestingly enough, Amaral tried to direct the legend. He set the wheels for it in motion by introducing, formulating and promoting the legend that Brueckner is a long haired patsy.Amaral, in his current, lucrative role as talking head for hire, probably gave them what he thought would make him the most money and be the most controversial. He pinned his colours to the mast in 2007, so of course he thinks CB is a patsy; anyone who is alleged to have abducted MM, in his opinion, didn't.
Haven't heard too much of that lately have we.
Wonder if MWT interviewed Amaral. I would certainly be interested in questioning resulting in his reasons for putting his head on the block in defence of a guy his investigation ignored in 2007.
Someone on Websleuths posited that it could have been him on the other end of the phonecall in question, having lent his phone to an accomplice in PdL. I don’t think being 30 minutes away necessarily lets him off the hook unless he can account for every minute of his actions that evening. In the same way that sceptics are fully prepared to believe that despite having multiple alibis Gerry managed to stride off in the night bold as brass with a dead body looking for an inconvenient bin the other side of town.
That's just the start.I’d say it was the start, middle and end of your not very convincing case that we can completely exonerate CB from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry's multiple alibis exist only if the witnesses who provided them also got the time right.Ditto any alibis provided for CB.
Amaral, in his current, lucrative role as talking head for hire, probably gave them what he thought would make him the most money and be the most controversial. He pinned his colours to the mast in 2007, so of course he thinks CB is a patsy; anyone who is alleged to have abducted MM, in his opinion, didn't.
Ironically, HCW inadvertently swelled the Amaral pension coffers exponentially, as he opened up all manner of opportunities to regurgitate what's been well documented for over a decade. It's an Infinite Ching Ching Train and Amaral will ride it as long as they keep paying him to.
I’d say it was the start, middle and end of your not very convincing case that we can completely exonerate CB from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.No exoneration required. Even Fulscher doesn't work to that particular burden of proof. He, and I, for the sake of the forum replies, merely have to introduce reasonable doubt. In my case, I just have to have the opinion of reasonable doubt, as that's the legal standard we are currently working to.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839)So rather than accusing him of rape, the police actually did their best to clear him from suspicion for this one.
It's a press story, but we're agreed it's true, right?
Or maybe misinformation. Who knows.
....but again, you've already seen this
Ditto any alibis provided for CB.Not necessarily. We've seen Gerry's phone records; we haven't seen CB's.
No exoneration required. Even Fulscher doesn't work to that particular burden of proof. He, and I, for the sake of the forum replies, merely have to introduce reasonable doubt. In my case, I just have to have the opinion of reasonable doubt, as that's the legal standard we are currently working to.you said “obviously” he didn’t do it. That is a categoric opinion based on not very much IMO. Turn it on its head - is there any possibility whatsoever in your opinion that CB s involved in Madeleine’s disappearance?
I know there's no jury, but we're not at trial.
Not necessarily. We've seen Gerry's phone records; we haven't seen CB's.Gerry’s ohone records have got nothing to do with his alibi for the Smithman sighting.
I read the Chapter in John Corners book that gunit directed me to.How you managed to deduce those two elements prior to reading Corner's book, frankly defies belief.
It makes me more convinced of his professionalism and credibility. He'd the prosecutor not an investigator. It confirms a couple of points I had already worked out.
First that he's the spokesman for thee investigation. The idea of 100% evidence therefore doesn't come from him but from the investigation.
The reason he couldn't answer all the questions re the phone is that he doesn't have all the information... That's held by the investigating team
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839)
It's a press story, but we're agreed it's true, right?
Or maybe misinformation. Who knows.
....but again, you've already seen this
Gerry’s ohone records have got nothing to do with his alibi for the Smithman sighting.Gerry's phone records place him in various locations (albeit with some margin of error) at various times. Or not.
Police investigating the possible involvement of prime Maddie suspect Brueckner today ruled him out as a suspect.So you agree he was in a pool of suspects that have been discounted? This is pivotal, so consider your answer.
A police spokesman told German newspaper Bild: "After comparing the information obtained, it can be said that Christian B was not in Grevenbroich at the time in the case of Claudia Ruf.
DNA tests were carried out on hundreds of men in the German town last year in a desperate hope for a lead in the case.
It is likely to take until the end of this year to complete screenings on the 2,400 samples.
German prosecutors believe Brueckner, 43, is the man responsible for the disappearance of Madeline McCann in 2007.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839
He was eliminated from the inquiry investigating Claudia's death along with a couple of thousand others.
The inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance has resulted in him becoming the Prime Suspect - which is an entirely different scenario which might eventually lead to him standing in the dock.
you said “obviously” he didn’t do it. That is a categoric opinion based on not very much IMO. Turn it on its head - is there any possibility whatsoever in your opinion that CB s involved in Madeleine’s disappearance?Yes.
Amaral, in his current, lucrative role as talking head for hire, probably gave them what he thought would make him the most money and be the most controversial. He pinned his colours to the mast in 2007, so of course he thinks CB is a patsy; anyone who is alleged to have abducted MM, in his opinion, didn't.
Ironically, HCW inadvertently swelled the Amaral pension coffers exponentially, as he opened up all manner of opportunities to regurgitate what's been well documented for over a decade. It's an Infinite Ching Ching Train and Amaral will ride it as long as they keep paying him to.
I think at the moment Amaral's absence from the "Infinite Ching Ching Train" is conspicuous.Probably earned too much for the fiscal year. His accountant has told him to cool it, probably. Or buy another villa.
Gerry's phone records place him in various locations (albeit with some margin of error) at various times. Or not.Totally irrelevant to the Smithman sighting and the point I was answering.
Yes.so, to recap: in your opinion he obviously didn’t do it but it’s possible he did, thanks for the clarification.
Maybe busy writing his memoirs.yes, because the last book was such a roaring success.
So you agree he was in a pool of suspects that have been discounted? This is pivotal, so consider your answer.the police didn’t accuse him though did they? The absolved him of any connection, when really they should have been doing their best to stitch him up, like they’re doing in the Maddie case, yah?
It's not a trap, but it is a trap.
On this forum... Those who seem concerned with the rights of CB are the ones who condone the torture of cipriano when she was a suspect
Maybe busy writing his memoirs.
No exoneration required. Even Fulscher doesn't work to that particular burden of proof. He, and I, for the sake of the forum replies, merely have to introduce reasonable doubt. In my case, I just have to have the opinion of reasonable doubt, as that's the legal standard we are currently working to.
I know there's no jury, but we're not at trial.
How you managed to deduce those two elements prior to reading Corner's book, frankly defies belief.
On this forum, those who don't condone the rights of CB support convicted child murderers, the Ciprianos.
Cipriano was a, suspect when beaten
so, to recap: in your opinion he obviously didn’t do it but it’s possible he did, thanks for the clarification.No. He didn't do it in my opinion, as there's plenty of reasonable doubt. You asked 'is there a chance he was involved?' That's a different position to 'it's possible he did it'.
Let's hope it's a bit more honest than The Truth of The Lie. Although I somewhat doubt that it would be.
Cipriano is a child murderer & you support her.
I don't support child murderers
I wouldn't read any such memoir, so contents would be of no concern to me.
You do if you support the Ciprianos.
And you do support the Ciprianos, & they're child murders.
While you support the beating of suspects to gain a confession. And then use that to stitch up other innocent parties.
You do if you support the Ciprianos.
And you do support the Ciprianos, & they're child murders.
No. He didn't do it in my opinion, as there's plenty of reasonable doubt. You asked 'is there a chance he was involved?' That's a different position to 'it's possible he did it'.Why is that chance only “slim” in your estimation? Genuinely interested to know how you’ve managed to weigh the chances of his involvement and also how you arrived at your apparent certainty that he did not kidnap Madeleine and murder her. Surely it’s not possible to rule someone out simply on the basis of the length of time a person is held in suspicion, nor on the basis that a couple of his shady mates have dobbed him in it. It is of course possible to shelf an investigation into someone on the basis of insufficient evidence but that’s something different, it doesn’t mean they obviously didn’t do it (as I’m sure you’d agree re: the McCanns).
'Involved' could mean anything, from being someone who points out an open door or window (probably not window), right through to occulation of a corpse, to disrupting the course of justice, to conspiracy, to aiding and abetting, to destroying evidence. Involved. Could mean almost anything and, given his obvious criminal activities in the environs, there's a chance he was involved. A slim chance.
Whatever.. I don't think they are.. But we've been through it before
Oh Riley!... I've got an extremely super-duper keen eye when it comes to identification and she is MOST DEFINITELY NOT Madeleine McCann, SOZ!...
I read the Chapter in John Corners book that gunit directed me to.
It makes me more convinced of his professionalism and credibility. He'd the prosecutor not an investigator. It confirms a couple of points I had already worked out.
First that he's the spokesman for thee investigation. The idea of 100% evidence therefore doesn't come from him but from the investigation.
The reason he couldn't answer all the questions re the phone is that he doesn't have all the information... That's held by the investigating team
Madeleine's parents agreed with you that it wasn't her, and they should know. That's also why the Germans can't use a video or photo showing Madeleine as evidence without asking her parents to confirm her identity.
A beating isn't as bad as the murder of a child which is what you support.
Why is that chance only “slim” in your estimation? Genuinely interested to know how you’ve managed to weigh the chances of his involvement and also how you arrived at your apparent certainty that he did not kidnap Madeleine and murder her. Surely it’s not possible to rule someone out simply on the basis of the length of time a person is held in suspicion, nor on the basis that a couple of his shady mates have dobbed him in it. It is of course possible to shelf an investigation into someone on the basis of insufficient evidence but that’s something different, it doesn’t mean they obviously didn’t do it (as I’m sure you’d agree re: the McCanns).
Nor does a beating find a murderer. But then that's The PJ for you.
Apparently I am not allowed to insult the biggest WUM on this Forum. Actually probably the only one. And thank God for that.
Yeah, you're not supposed to throw around personal insults.
Even when your ideas are ridiculed by me.
Of course, you could try being honest & admit that it's obvious Joana wasn't abducted, but none of the supporters will ever admit to that, even though it's absolutely true.
Being ridiculed by you can only be a point in anyone's favour.
You now sound as though you are getting angry. Oh Dear.
I think you mean Joh Clarke's book lol?
The public prosecutor's role in Germany is, as in Portugal, closely connected to police investigations.
"During the investigation of the facts in the preliminary proceedings, the police gather the necessary information and evidence on the alleged criminal offence under instructions from the public prosecutor’s office."
https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/criminal-procedure-law-in-germany/?lang=en#The-Preliminary-Proceedings
That suggests that the prosecutor does have all the information gathered by an investigation, unless there is a cite disproving it.
I don't support child murderersBy Spam's (imo trollish) logic Cipriano is an ex-child murderer anyway.
By Spam's (imo trollish) logic Cipriano is an ex-child murderer anyway.
Yes, she's served her sentence & I'm glad to see she's campaigning hard to find her abducted daughter whom she definitely didn't murder.
I don't use Facebook, has she set up a Find Joana page or a Go Fund Me?
There's a lot of McCann supporters out there who care about abducted children & will be willing to donate I'm sure.
By Spam's (imo trollish) logic Cipriano is an ex-child murderer anyway.
One might even expect McCann to cough up a bit for such a worthy cause.
One might even expect McCann to cough up a bit for such a worthy cause.
I can't see why not.
MWT believes the two disappearances are connected.
Maybe Wolters is investigating the link, but it needs to be kept top secret for some reason, unlike every other missing child case they seek to pin on Brueckner.
Don't do this. You are better than that.
Don't you see, it's yourself & the supporters that create this opportunity, by pretending to believe Joana was abducted.
You could stop it all now if you just admit it's obvious she wasn't.
Why don't you just do that?
Nor does a beating find a murderer. But then that's The PJ for you.
Apparently I am not allowed to insult the biggest WUM on this Forum. Actually probably the only one. And thank God for that.
You should be above that.
On this forum... Those who seem concerned with the rights of CB are the ones who condone the torture of cipriano when she was a suspect
I think you mean Joh Clarke's book lol?So quizzing Wolters in the phone info is to s certain extent avesste of time.
The public prosecutor's role in Germany is, as in Portugal, closely connected to police investigations.
"During the investigation of the facts in the preliminary proceedings, the police gather the necessary information and evidence on the alleged criminal offence under instructions from the public prosecutor’s office."
https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/criminal-procedure-law-in-germany/?lang=en#The-Preliminary-Proceedings
That suggests that the prosecutor does have all the information gathered by an investigation, unless there is a cite disproving it.
Don't do this. You are better than that.No she’s not.
I support the legal rights of everyone. They are all innocent until proven otherwise, even dispicable men like CB. This doesn't prevent me from questioning them. However I wouldn't risk leaving my children with CB
I think that Elli also believes in innocent until proven guilty
As for Leonor Cipriano, I was the FIRST to alert other posters about the other missing children in the Algarve and Porto regions, and I was the FIRST to fight for Leonor Cipriano on this and other forums.
I fought hard for her over the years and would welcome someone as passionate as me to form a group to support her personally. I am not organised enough, nor do I have the necessary skills to start such a group.
I agree with your statement generally though Dave.
I will continue to believe that The PJ Case against Leonor Cipriano and her brother was deeply flawed when it required beating confessions out of suspects. Even The Portuguese Court agreed that this is what happened. But let's only pay attention when it suits.There are plenty in Portugal who happen to agree with you, I remember reading a poll about it in some Portuguese paper years ago.
I will continue to believe that The PJ Case against Leonor Cipriano and her brother was deeply flawed when it required beating confessions out of suspects. Even The Portuguese Court agreed that this is what happened. But let's only pay attention when it suits.
There are plenty in Portugal who happen to agree with you, I remember reading a poll about it in some Portuguese paper years ago.Cite?
Ok, so the investigation was flawed.
But, you'd still have to believe the innocent mother didn't phone the police about her missing daughter etc etc etc as I've repeated.
It isn't reasonable to believe an innocent mother would do such a thing, so, it's obvious she lied about Joana not coming home from the shop, something else happened & she was involved.
Agreed?
There are plenty in Portugal who happen to agree with you, I remember reading a poll about it in some Portuguese paper years ago.
They were very poor. Did she have a phone?
Leonor also thought that Joana had gone visiting a relative in the nearby village and IIRC she went over there to check. PLease correct me if I am wrong about that.
I believe she notified one of the three police force offcers ( I think the GNR) on her way home at about midnight.
Please correct me if I am wrong about any of this.
Do you seriously expect any member of this forum to provide a cite when as a rule of thumb you ignore like requests.
Or are you still in the process of sourcing the one I requested from you this morning. Lol
Ok, so the investigation was flawed.
But, you'd still have to believe the innocent mother didn't phone the police about her missing daughter etc etc etc as I've repeated.
It isn't reasonable to believe an innocent mother would do such a thing, so, it's obvious she lied about Joana not coming home from the shop, something else happened & she was involved.
Agreed?
So quizzing Wolters in the phone info is to s certain extent avesste of time.
Msrk S seemed to find it a big deal he couldn't answer all the questions but it makes perfect sense
Cite?I don’t have one, so call me a liar by all means, but I know what I saw.
I don’t have one, so call me a liar by all means, but I know what I saw.
I don’t have one, so call me a liar by all means, but I know what I saw.
I saw it all as well. But we have too many Jonny Come Latelys these days. People who turned up for a laugh or a punch up.
I saw it too.
It wasn't true.
What wasn't true? The opinions of other Portuguese people?
Even one of The Judges disagreed with the verdict and ordered that to be put on record.
Good job there were two rational judges in the room.
I provided a cite in answer to a post which said;
"First that he's the spokesman for thee investigation. The idea of 100% evidence therefore doesn't come from him but from the investigation.
The reason he couldn't answer all the questions re the phone is that he doesn't have all the information... That's held by the investigating team"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12181.msg674937#msg674937
My cite showed that in Germany the prosecutor directs criminal investigations. They also assess the evidence and decide if and when a suspect can be charged.
Prosecutors are not 'spokespersons' and they do have all the information that has been gathered.
I'm not asking anyone for a cite, but if they wish to support their statement they're probably going to need one.
You could say that, but then you would. Two out of three is hardly definitive. It's a disgrace actually.
Of course it is. Would you argue the same if the decision had gone the other way ?
There is an odd number so that there is always a majority.
You could say that, but then you would. Two out of three is hardly definitive. It's a disgrace actually.
Not if they were all in agreement. But they weren't. And they must all have seen the same evidence.
This was the liberty of another human person who was sent to prison for sixteen years. Don't you think she was entitled to a Unanimous Verdict?
Yeah, I would say it because I'm being rational.
You're right.
That one judge was wrong to find them not guilty.
Another attack on personal opinions.
You could say that, but then you would. Two out of three is hardly definitive. It's a disgrace actually.
Not if they were all in agreement. But they weren't. And they must all have seen the same evidence.
This was the liberty of another human person who was sent to prison for sixteen years. Don't you think she was entitled to a Unanimous Verdict?
You could also say this is a "Justice" forum where we highlight cases of actual and probable miscarriages of Justice.
The proven torture to which Leonor Cipriano was subjected under interrogation and for which she was further punished with an addition to her sentence is an illustration of an Alice in Wonderland justice system.
Posters who condone first of all the torture then approve the judicial punishment meted out to the torture victim when she proved she had been systematically beaten into confession are probably posting on the wrong forum.
Yes, better a guilty person go free than an innocent person be incarcerated, that's why. 2 out of 3 indicates there was judicial doubt wrt to her guilt. Where there is doubt then a finding of not guilty or not proven should be given.
No I don't. Even in UK judges accept majority verdicts from juries.
You dodged the question - would you have been happy with 2 out of 3 in favour of acquittal and if so why ?
Yes, better a guilty person go free than an innocent person be incarcerated, that's why. 2 out of 3 indicates there was judicial doubt wrt to her guilt. Where there is doubt then a finding of not guilty should be given.
Who are you to dictate the workings of the Portuguese Judicial system?
Arrogant much?
It's up to the Portuguese how they run things in their country.
Don't like it, then don't go there.
No I don't. Even in UK judges accept majority verdicts from juries.
You dodged the question - would you have been happy with 2 out of 3 in favour of acquittal and if so why ?
Indeed, you can't argue with at - though I've no doubt some will 8(0(*never argue with a troll 8(0(*
Yes, better a guilty person go free than an innocent person be incarcerated, that's why. 2 out of 3 indicates there was judicial doubt wrt to her guilt. Where there is doubt then a finding of not guilty or not proven should be given.
never argue with a troll 8(0(*
Under British Law Two out of Three would result in a MisTrial. But then this wasn't British Law. Although The Judge in question was quite definite about his findings. Enough to demand that it be put on record.It would be interesting to see what the reaction on here would be to a confession beaten out of Bruckner. To be consistent the sceptic view would have to be that that was a fair cop, after all he would have admitted to being a child killer so would therefore deserve a good beating. That's the level of logic on display here.
It would be interesting to see what the reaction on here would be to a confession beaten out of Bruckner. To be consistent the sceptic view would have to be that that was a fair cop, after all he would have admitted to being a child killer so would therefore deserve a good beating. That's the level of logic on display here.
It would be interesting to see what the reaction on here would be to a confession beaten out of Bruckner. To be consistent the sceptic view would have to be that that was a fair cop, after all he would have admitted to being a child killer so would therefore deserve a good beating. That's the level of logic on display here.
Arse about face, as it were. But then I have never been an advocate of beating out a confession, not even for Breuckner.I don't know, I've never tried.
Beating a woman is so much more easy, don't you think.
I don't know, I've never tried.
Drifting very much off topic, but what did this beating consist of ? I have never heard the details ?
A cite would do if you don't want to go into graphic detail.
You have never heard the details? Gobsmacked.com
No, it's not a case I follow in any detail.
Best not then. It wasn't funny.
Fair enough, if you don't wish to divulge. T'was only morbid curiosity
Drifting very much off topic, but what did this beating consist of ? I have never heard the details ?
A cite would do if you don't want to go into graphic detail.
It is all over The Internet.There’s even a whole sub forum on here about it.
41 pages already and the bloody thing hasn’t even got a date yet!
How long is it going to take him? Or has he lost interest yet again?
It is all over The Internet.
Hmmm.
Now, any chance of you posting one in support of your opinion as I requested.
Do you have a cite for "Madeleine's parents agreed with you that it wasn't her" says she in the forlorn hope that either you will provide one or admit that you cannot because you don't have one just for a wee change.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12181.msg674921#msg674921
The following day we learned that the little girl was not Madeleine. In spite of her fair colouring, she was
the daughter of the woman carrying her in the picture.
page 293 madeleine
Perhaps the thread can get back on topic now. Wolters seems uninterested in any evidence that doesn't come from CB or his lawyer.
"Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/prosecutors-reject-claims-madeleine-mccann-25905370
I think he knows that the claim isn't being made by either of them. I recall MWT had an interview at the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. It will be interesting to see what was said.
Bruckner is biding his time. He hasn't been charged with any crime in relation to the McCann kid so doesn't have to say anything.
Bruckner is biding his time. He hasn't been charged with any crime in relation to the McCann kid so doesn't have to say anything.
You, I and Wolters know that. Wolters denies hearing alibi claims from Brueckner or his lawyer. That doesn't mean he hasn't heard the claims from someone else.
Wolters has spent the psst year or so interviewing all CBs known contacts... He's got to everyone first... CB has no alibi... Imo.. Wait and see
Everyone?
Wolters has spent the psst year or so interviewing all CBs known contacts... He's got to everyone first... CB has no alibi... Imo.. Wait and see
Why not just present the evidence to support your claims?
How about that?
Everything is on the forum. Just look back.
I am recovering from a serious break down precipitated by two posters on here and I am NOT Harrassing myself to search for things that are common knowledge.
I think at the moment Amaral's absence from the "Infinite Ching Ching Train" is conspicuous.
Sounds a little ominous for him, don'tcha think?
Hardly. It's the case that keeps on giving. Forever. He's got a great gig going, like Slade earning a few hundred grand each year sat on their arses for a crappy Christmas song being played.
Sounds a little ominous for him, don'tcha think?
Hardly. It's the case that keeps on giving. Forever. He's got a great gig going, like Slade earning a few hundred grand each year sat on their arses for a crappy Christmas song being played.What a lovely little fantasy.
He just has to sit in one of his villas and they come to him, week after week. He's probably got staff to manage his appointments. Then gets whisked off to all parts of Europe, all expenses paid, chats some guff about the case, picks up a cheque and b....rs off back to join his mates on the back 9.
You have no way of knowing who Wolters has interviewed or if MWT has found someone Wolters and the BKA didn't know about.
What a lovely little fantasy.I know, funny how good things happen to good people.
I know, funny how good things happen to good people.
We're agreed that he's earned it, so fair play to him I say.
I know, funny how good things happen to good people.
We're agreed that he's earned it, so fair play to him I say.
It's strange how those who denigrate Wolters have a lot of respect for amaralWho are 'those'? And why do you care?
Has he paid his debts yet, do you know.Who cares? I don't. I like seeing bouncebackability.
Has he paid his debts yet, do you know.
I do... Common sense.. Bit it does seem to be in short supply here.
For instance.. You have more faith in the Scottish Sun than the BKK
So it's your 'common sense' that you are relying on when you say that Wolters has interviewed all CB's known contacts? Did your 'common sense' tell you how he did that? Did he ship them all over to Germany, bearing in mind that he has no authorisation to interview people in Portugal or the UK? Is it possible that MWT found a contact unknown to Wolters? No, sorry, your 'common sense' can't provide any answers imo.
Thr BKK. have been to Portugal several times over the past two years interviewing all known contacts with German thoroughness.
If you think... Based on a report in the Scottish Sun that MWT had done better then you have no common sense IMO.
You haven't even heard what MWT has to say.
It's laughable. We will find out soon. I think there is no real alibi
I know, funny how good things happen to good people.We're agreed? Another little fantasy of yours, what are you currently on?
We're agreed that he's earned it, so fair play to him I say.
Thr BKK. have been to Portugal several times over the past two years interviewing all known contacts with German thoroughness.
If you think... Based on a report in the Scottish Sun that MWT had done better then you have no common sense IMO.
You haven't even heard what MWT has to say.
It's laughable. We will find out soon. I think there is no real alibi
Thr BKK. have been to Portugal several times over the past two years interviewing all known contacts with German thoroughness.
If you think... Based on a report in the Scottish Sun that MWT had done better then you have no common sense IMO.
You haven't even heard what MWT has to say.
It's laughable. We will find out soon. I think there is no real alibi
I think you're referring to the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police Office), abbreviated BKA. As far as I know, they have no jurisdiction in Portugal and are unable to interview it's residents, with or without 'German thoroughness'.
I don't know what MWT has found, but it's perfectly possible that he found something the Germans were unaware of.
My 'common sense' tells me that your claims about Wolters and the BKA are fantasies with no supporting evidence.
So it's your 'common sense' that you are relying on when you say that Wolters has interviewed all CB's known contacts? Did your 'common sense' tell you how he did that? Did he ship them all over to Germany, bearing in mind that he has no authorisation to interview people in Portugal or the UK? Is it possible that MWT found a contact unknown to Wolters? No, sorry, your 'common sense' can't provide any answers imo.
I think you're referring to the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police Office), abbreviated BKA. As far as I know, they have no jurisdiction in Portugal and are unable to interview it's residents, with or without 'German thoroughness'.
I don't know what MWT has found, but it's perfectly possible that he found something the Germans were unaware of.
My 'common sense' tells me that your claims about Wolters and the BKA are fantasies with no supporting evidence.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Presently Brueckner is serving a seven year sentence for a torture and rape perpetrated in a villa a short distance from the McCann apartment.
It is obvious that there is cooperation between both National police forces.
The trial took place in Germany.
The Portuguese cooperated by providing the evidence.
Why would the same cooperative system still not be in operation for Madeleine's case.
Perhaps the MWT documentary will reveal all.
Does it really have to be pointed out that SY don’t appear to have the same working hypothesis as the Germans?They don't matter to you, surely? Let's remind ourselves of SY's working hypothesis:
Or don’t SY’s conclusions matter any more?
They don't matter to you, surely? Let's remind ourselves of SY's working hypothesis:
"Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger".
I think you're referring to the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police Office), abbreviated BKA. As far as I know, they have no jurisdiction in Portugal and are unable to interview it's residents, with or without 'German thoroughness'.
I don't know what MWT has found, but it's perfectly possible that he found something the Germans were unaware of.
My 'common sense' tells me that your claims about Wolters and the BKA are fantasies with no supporting evidence.
Does it really have to be pointed out that SY don’t appear to have the same working hypothesis as the Germans?
Or don’t SY’s conclusions matter any more?
I think you're referring to the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police Office), abbreviated BKA. As far as I know, they have no jurisdiction in Portugal and are unable to interview it's residents, with or without 'German thoroughness'.
I don't know what MWT has found, but it's perfectly possible that he found something the Germans were unaware of.
My 'common sense' tells me that your claims about Wolters and the BKA are fantasies with no supporting evidence.
It's laughable... Here's some evidence of that. You give more credibility to a story in the. Scottish Sun than to the BKA.. That in anyones eyes shows no common sense.
If you want to believe the BKA have not been investigating in Portugal.. With the assistance of the Portuguese of course.. Then it showsvyour complete detachment to reality. If and when this programme is shown I will be oroven right... And you wrong
I don't know if MWT touched on it in his documentary filming ~ but I think it is pretty obvious that just as terrorism and paedophilia know no borders ~ police forces are having to follow suit.
The successful performance of the duties of the Bundeskriminalamt is guaranteed by more than 7.000 employees from 70 different professional groups, whose dedication and creativity ensure the BKA’s excellent reputation the world over as a competent partner in the fight against crime.
https://www.bka.de/EN/Home/home_node.html
Which rather makes your post a wee bit of a nonsense.
Or are you of the opinion that it is crime perpetrated against Madeleine McCann which is an exception. Why would that be do you think?
Now you're being more realistic. The BKA can achieve only what Operation Grange achieved in Portugal and what the PJ achieved in the UK; they can request the police force with jurisdiction to interview people on their behalf. To do that they need to supply the details of those they want to see interviewed.We will soon know if you are the class star or the class dunce... My moneys on dunce.
I think it's perfectly possible that MWT found someone who knew CB and who was unknown to the BKA. That person wasn't necessarily found in Portugal either.
Are you suggesting that the BKA has jurisdiction in Portugal?
We will soon know if you are the class star or the class dunce... My moneys on dunce.
Wolters says the reason everything takes so long is everything has to go through the pj..
Again..you are relying solely in a newspaper report for your facts. It said the case has crumbled.. Do you believe that too
We all know they don't.. Try to remember that
Please cut out the speculative personal comments. Thank you for acknowledging that the BKA, like every other foreign police force, cannot operate in Portugal without the cooperation and assistance of the PJ. I get my reports of what Wolters has said from exactly the same source as you; the media.
Are you suggesting that the BKA has jurisdiction in Portugal?
Please cut out the speculative personal comments. Thank you for acknowledging that the BKA, like every other foreign police force, cannot operate in Portugal without the cooperation and assistance of the PJ. I get my reports of what Wolters has said from exactly the same source as you; the media.
That's fine. The poster I was responding to seemed to be suggesting otherwise. I must have misunderstood.
I do not think for a minute that you misunderstood - however it is your prerogative to try to explain yourself. Just as it is your prerogative to discuss anything other than MWT - well, not really - but do let us gloss over that.
I admit I have trouble following your points at times.
Obviously you weren't saying that the BKA had jurisdiction in Portugal; that would be silly. So what were you saying?
Just to confirm you understand.. The BKA have been carrying out an investigation in Portugal
I admit I have trouble following your points at times.
Obviously you weren't saying that the BKA had jurisdiction in Portugal; that would be silly. So what were you saying?
Just to confirm you understand.. The BKA have been carrying out an investigation in Portugal
Now you're being more realistic. The BKA can achieve only what Operation Grange achieved in Portugal and what the PJ achieved in the UK; they can request the police force with jurisdiction to interview people on their behalf. To do that they need to supply the details of those they want to see interviewed.Well done to MWT for finding an ex of CB's who is prepared to give him an alibi, I'm sure that will make all the difference to the BKA's case. @)(++(*
I think it's perfectly possible that MWT found someone who knew CB and who was unknown to the BKA. That person wasn't necessarily found in Portugal either.
Well done to MWT for finding an ex of CB's who is prepared to give him an alibi, I'm sure that will make all the difference to the BKA's case. @)(++(*
What on earth information allows you to make such a preposterously puerile post. Please try to at least be sensible in your criticism.
MWT would NEVER dredge the bottom of the barrel like that - well I don't think he would, but there again I think he has on many previous occasions.
That's the whole point. The BKA will already have drawn up a complete picture of every friend he has.. Particularly around the time of the abduction.
They have questioned them several times in detail. I can't see how they have missed someone.. But gunit can. We will see who'd righrlt soon... If... The programme is aired
That's the whole point. The BKA will already have drawn up a complete picture of every friend he has.. Particularly around the time of the abduction.Even if MWT has found someone completely new I don't see how it changes anything. An alibi given by a girlfriend for a night 14 years ago ain't worth a hill of beans IMO unless it can be backed up with concrete evidence a bit harder to refute, eg: date-stamped CCTV footage.
They have questioned them several times in detail. I can't see how they have missed someone.. But gunit can. We will see who'd righrlt soon... If... The programme is aired
I don't know if MWT indulges in adulterated puerile personal, ill informed commentaries in his documentaries - I must check it out.
But I think he would be very silly to open his mouth and let his belly rumble before knowing what he's commenting on. We shall be able to make a judgement pretty soon when MWT's documentary is finally aired - fortunately we don't require to wait before forming an opinion on what you are saying in your posts as they are all without exception so self evident.
That's the whole point. The BKA will already have drawn up a complete picture of every friend he has.. Particularly around the time of the abduction.
They have questioned them several times in detail. I can't see how they have missed someone.. But gunit can. We will see who'd righrlt soon... If... The programme is aired
It was the beginning of August when we were first made aware of this. Is it ever going to happen?
Cite for questioning them several times in detail, ie who the questioners are and the one the questions were directed at, thanks in advance....................
It'll be a wasted request I know.
You think that's bad, try waiting 15 years to see some abduction evidence.
Cite for questioning them several times in detail, ie who the questioners are and the one the questions were directed at, thanks in advance....................
It'll be a wasted request I know.
It's been said several times by Wolters.. I could probably dig out the link but you thunk he's, a lying clown so not worth it.. Is it. But that's what he's done
I'd like you to find a post where I've intimated Wolters is a lying clown, however if you'd have said Boris that would be another thing..........................So every time you post about the "legend is writ" with regard to CB (which you have done numerous times now) who exactly are you holding responsible for writing that legend, and what do you mean by it?
I have made no 'adulterated puerile personal, ill informed commentaries' either, so I still don't understand your point.
I'd like you to find a post where I've intimated Wolters is a lying clown, however if you'd have said Boris that would be another thing..........................
The same posters who believe that Wolters really has the evidence he claims probably also believe that Johnson really did think the Downing Street party really was a ‘work thing’.And the most pathetic post of the week award goes to….Faithlilly!!!
Was I making a point 😁
Apart that is from making the attempt to nudge the thread into the topic determined for it which appears at the top of each Off Topic post.
I think the problem you may be having is that I understand the purpose of your posts perfectly.
The same posters who believe that Wolters really has the evidence he claims probably also believe that Johnson really did think the Downing Street party really was a ‘work thing’.
So despite people on here telling us CB doesn’t need to say a word in an attempt to clear his name, clearly he has been blabbing to MWT. Very interesting indeed…
What people have said is that no-one has to volunteer information to the police.No... Posters have been saying he doesn't have to provide an alibbi
So despite people on here telling us CB doesn’t need to say a word in an attempt to clear his name, clearly he has been blabbing to MWT. Very interesting indeed…
No... Posters have been saying he doesn't have to provide an alibbi
No... Posters have been saying he doesn't have to provide an alibbi
He doesn't have to.
He chose to provide one for MWT
What people have said is that no-one has to volunteer information to the police.Funnily enough the same people who endlessly castigate Kate McCann for not doing so on one occasion.
He doesn't have to.The question is - why?
He chose to provide one for MWT
No... Posters have been saying he doesn't have to provide an alibbiNot only that but the same posters have ridiculed the idea that anyone could provide an alibi 14 years after the event.
He doesn't have to.
He chose to provide one for MWT
Funnily enough CB may not trust Wolters and the BKA to thoroughly investigate evidence which may cast doubt on his guilt. Not only have they announced that they suspect him, Wolters has stated publicly that they believe him to be guilty.I wonder what words MWT used when he approached CB for information to make him think he was more trustworthy...? MWT has a reputation for going against the prevailing wind on many high profile cases, perhaps that was enough.
Funnily enough CB may not trust Wolters and the BKA to thoroughly investigate evidence which may cast doubt on his guilt. Not only have they announced that they suspect him, Wolters has stated publicly that they believe him to be guilty.
I wonder what words MWT used when he approached CB for information to make him think he was more trustworthy...? MWT has a reputation for going against the prevailing wind on many high profile cases, perhaps that was enough.
the fact that Wolters has made the statemnet supports the claim that he has it. AS I understand the German system put responsibility on the BKK to investigate evidence to support his innocence. Having said that if CB doesnt give them the information they cant do it. I still doubt there is any decent alibi
From the preview of Mark Williams Thomas forthcoming documentary Investigating The Prime Suspect produced for Drive TV
https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect
(Download Programme pdf)
Former detective Mark Williams-Thomas carries out the first active British TV investigation into German paedophile Christian B since he became prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance and, in a world exclusive, tests the account given by Christian B himself. The German authorities say they have evidence that Maddie is dead and that Christian B is guilty of her murder…but they also admit there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute him. In the deepest dive into his involvement yet, Mark uncovers new and exclusive information: revelations on the mobile phone number that links Christian B to the scene of Madeleine’s disappearance, and tracks down a known German paedophile he was communicating with. On the ground in both Portugal and Germany, Mark chases down every credible lead relating to Christian B - interviews with key players on both sides of the law, diving into the life and past crimes of Christian B. Christian communicates exclusive with Mark giving a detailed account of what he was doing and where he when Madeline disappeared. And Mark tracks down the alibi that had a holiday fling with Christian B the very week, that Madeleine disappeared. Was Prime Suspect Christian B responsible for abducting Madeleine? The co
EPISODE 1: THE CASE AGAINST CHRISTIAN B Mark was on the ground reporting a days after Madeleine disappeared, he re-visits the crime scene and examines the German Prosecutors evidence that they believe Christian B is responsible. He delves into his other offences and tracks down where he was living. A witness reveals that he fears he was in Christian B’s motorhome with Madeleine inside. Mark goes on the trail of videos allegedly showing Christian B’s sexual abuse.
EPISODE 2: TESTING THE EVIDENCE Mark track’s Christian B’s movements in Germany after Madeleine disappeared. He visits the sites of his child abuse offences, including the box factory where 8000 child abuse files were found and tracks down an alleged paedophile he was in communications with. Mark talks exclusively to the father of Inga Gehricke a 5 year girl who was abducted and also linked to Christian B. But then Mark reveals worrying weaknesses in the phone evidence linking Christian B to Madeleine’s disappearance; the crucial 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
EPISODE 3: TESTING THE ALIBI Christian B gives Mark a possible alibi revealing that he had a holiday fling with a German 18 year old girl the week of Madeleine’s disappearance. Mark tests this by tracking her down and speaking to her now husband. He is also tests the German authorities evidence further by examining the witness to an alleged confession made by Christian B and the significance of his vehicle being re-registered to a new owner the day after Madeleine disappeared. Christian writes to Mark with a detailed account of his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and Mark checks this against the known facts. Mark reaches his series conclusion about whether Christian B is responsible for Madeleine’s abduction and possible murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To do that surely its unconceivable not to question a suspect prior to declaring him a murderer to the world and his wife.
Weren't there reports of some sort of pre trial test to test the evidence, maybe this alibi forms part of that test and its proving problematical.
Anything he has said to MWT is admissible evidence
He has admitted he knows where he was on the date...so cant now say he cant remember
According to german sources on Websleuths Wolters is already aware of this witness.
So if his alibi is sound thats good for him. if it isnt..its bad.
According to the report MWT has spoken to the mans wife...not her. If she wont speak the statement is hearsay and inadmissible.
Just first thoughts but we need to wait and see the full facts first. It certainly doesnt look as though the case is crumbling
Quote - 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
The word that stands out there is MAY. Sorry I don't believe anything CB says. What about the girlfriend who stated CB said he had a 'horrible job to do tomorrow' the 'tomorrow' being the 3rd of May. He had a girlfriend, then he suddenly has a 'holiday fling' for a week. Don't believe it. IMO
As i keep on saying...It depends what evidence wolters has. CB said he wouldnt talk...he has now. That can only help to solve the case.
If HCW ha sthe evidence to solve the case he should be congrtaulated by everyone. He should be given the chance to get justice for maddie where others have failed
Quote - 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
The word that stands out there is MAY. Sorry I don't believe anything CB says. What about the girlfriend who stated CB said he had a 'horrible job to do tomorrow' the 'tomorrow' being the 3rd of May. He had a girlfriend, then he suddenly has a 'holiday fling' for a week. Don't believe it. IMO
I don't know what the bolded text means, really. I do know that;
"The so-called oral principle applies to the main hearing. Only facts and circumstances discussed orally as part of the main hearing may be the subject of the judgement. Furthermore, if the evidence of a fact is based on a person’s perception, § 250 StPO stipulates that this person must be questioned in the main hearing. The interrogation may not be replaced by reading out the minutes taken of an earlier interrogation or a statement."
https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/criminal-procedure-law-in-germany/?lang=en#The-Preliminary-Proceedings
That suggests that MWT would have to appear in court in Germany in order to testify if the prosecutors think he has evidence they want heard.
Indeed, it will be for the prosecution to prove where he was at the time of this phone call, not where he May have been.
As i keep on saying...It depends what evidence wolters has. CB said he wouldnt talk...he has now. That can only help to solve the case.
If HCW ha sthe evidence to solve the case he should be congrtaulated by everyone. He should be given the chance to get justice for maddie where others have failed
Quote - 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
The word that stands out there is MAY. Sorry I don't believe anything CB says. What about the girlfriend who stated CB said he had a 'horrible job to do tomorrow' the 'tomorrow' being the 3rd of May. He had a girlfriend, then he suddenly has a 'holiday fling' for a week. Don't believe it. IMO
if it can be shown taht CB has lied about where he was that will go against himYeh, I think that might be the problem; he doesn't need to lie about anything at this point, as he hasn't been asked. Probably because they've no idea where he was.
By providing the doubt that as to be overcome to prove beyond reasonable, CB may have played his hand just has Wolters as through the press, its up to Wolters et al to destroy it, can he/they ?
Did MWT approach CB or his legal team ? bit of clarity wouldn't go amiss.Are you asking me for clarity? I'm sure it will become clearer in the fullness of time...
Neither do I. Either CB is ying or Wolters is. We dont know for sure but some seem to want to beleive CB
Well we all know who you have chosen to believe, even though you don't know what his evidence is. I don't think Wolters has evidence placing CB in Luz between 9 and 10pm on 3rd May anyway, does he?
Did MWT approach CB or his legal team ? bit of clarity wouldn't go amiss.MWT climbed aboard the Infinite Ching Ching Train several years ago and now he's (probably / IMHO) managed to inveigle resources out of a production company / investor to develop a mini-series, for which there is a huge demand these days. The disappearance that keeps on giving.
MWT climbed aboard the Infinite Ching Ching Train several years ago and now he's (probably / IMHO) managed to inveigle resources out of a production company / investor to develop a mini-series, for which there is a huge demand these days. The disappearance that keeps on giving.
There's every chance he's got Amazon, Discovery or Netflix signed up, along with some syndication deal globally.
My point is, it doesn't matter who he interviews, where he goes, what he finds, it's not in his interest to crack the case; it's in his interests to provide some intrigue to sell the next series.
If he discovered anything that would crack the case, well he can shoot the goose today and make himself an overnight multi-millionaire and go public.
*all of the above is opinion of 'The General'. All rights reserved. No badgers were harmed in the production of this post. Toothpaste tubes are way smaller than the boxes they come in these days. There's someone for everyone except you.
Wolters says he now has enough evidence to charge..... Res ipsa loquitur
Ahh yes, my Ancient Sanskrit isn't what it was, but I make that 'shit or get off the pot, Hansie lad!'.
AMIRITE?
Depends what evidence Wolters has. I dont like CB....but i dont want him convicted of the MM case unless hes guilty. WE will have a better idea when we see the evidence Wolters has
Quote - 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
The word that stands out there is MAY. Sorry I don't believe anything CB says. What about the girlfriend who stated CB said he had a 'horrible job to do tomorrow' the 'tomorrow' being the 3rd of May. He had a girlfriend, then he suddenly has a 'holiday fling' for a week. Don't believe it. IMO
the fact that Wolters has made the statemnet supports the claim that he has it. AS I understand the German system put responsibility on the BKK to investigate evidence to support his innocence. Having said that if CB doesnt give them the information they cant do it. I still doubt there is any decent alibi
Wolters says he now has enough evidence to charge..... Res ipsa loquitur
I know what Wolters says. It's his actions which count, and he isn't acting as yet.
Quote - 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
The word that stands out there is MAY. Sorry I don't believe anything CB says. What about the girlfriend who stated CB said he had a 'horrible job to do tomorrow' the 'tomorrow' being the 3rd of May. He had a girlfriend, then he suddenly has a 'holiday fling' for a week. Don't believe it. IMO
I know what Wolters says. It's his actions which count, and he isn't acting as yet.And he's explained why
What makes you think a guy who shags kids & grannies wouldn't go cheating on his girlfriend?
What makes you think a guy who shags kids & grannies wouldn't go cheating on his girlfriend?
I know what Wolters says. It's his actions which count, and he isn't acting as yet.
Did I say he wouldn't go cheating on his girlfriend? What I said was it's a bit of a coincidence that he has a 'holiday fling' just before Madeleine went missing. His girlfriend said he told her he had a horrible job to do the next day, which was the 3rd of May. Now suddenly he has a holiday fling and lo and behold she is his alibi. Nope don't believe it.
I think Breuckner could have been purposefully setting up an alibi.
I think Breuckner could have been purposefully setting up an alibi.
If so the mighty BKA will see through it, she's not perjured herself though she's not under oath.
Still won't be long now, its taken 20 months since the appeal and nigh on 5 yrs since SY put CB's name to the BKA and we've arrived at this point, concrete indeed.
Clearly no urgency.Don't pretend to give a shit about them, it really doesn't become you.
Yes, I know Brueckner is banged up for several years, but will no one think of McCann ?
And he's explained why
Did I say he wouldn't go cheating on his girlfriend? What I said was it's a bit of a coincidence that he has a 'holiday fling' just before Madeleine went missing. His girlfriend said he told her he had a horrible job to do the next day, which was the 3rd of May. Now suddenly he has a holiday fling and lo and behold she is his alibi. Nope don't believe it.First couple of weeks in to the season. Makes sense to me. 'Freshers Week'.
And wolters has been collecting evidence to show he doesn't have one
Did I say he wouldn't go cheating on his girlfriend? What I said was it's a bit of a coincidence that he has a 'holiday fling' just before Madeleine went missing. His girlfriend said he told her he had a horrible job to do the next day, which was the 3rd of May. Now suddenly he has a holiday fling and lo and behold she is his alibi. Nope don't believe it.
From the preview of Mark Williams Thomas forthcoming documentary Investigating The Prime Suspect produced for Drive TV
https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect
(Download Programme pdf)
Former detective Mark Williams-Thomas carries out the first active British TV investigation into German paedophile Christian B since he became prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance and, in a world exclusive, tests the account given by Christian B himself. The German authorities say they have evidence that Maddie is dead and that Christian B is guilty of her murder…but they also admit there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute him. In the deepest dive into his involvement yet, Mark uncovers new and exclusive information: revelations on the mobile phone number that links Christian B to the scene of Madeleine’s disappearance, and tracks down a known German paedophile he was communicating with. On the ground in both Portugal and Germany, Mark chases down every credible lead relating to Christian B - interviews with key players on both sides of the law, diving into the life and past crimes of Christian B. Christian communicates exclusive with Mark giving a detailed account of what he was doing and where he when Madeline disappeared. And Mark tracks down the alibi that had a holiday fling with Christian B the very week, that Madeleine disappeared. Was Prime Suspect Christian B responsible for abducting Madeleine? The co
EPISODE 1: THE CASE AGAINST CHRISTIAN B Mark was on the ground reporting a days after Madeleine disappeared, he re-visits the crime scene and examines the German Prosecutors evidence that they believe Christian B is responsible. He delves into his other offences and tracks down where he was living. A witness reveals that he fears he was in Christian B’s motorhome with Madeleine inside. Mark goes on the trail of videos allegedly showing Christian B’s sexual abuse.
EPISODE 2: TESTING THE EVIDENCE Mark track’s Christian B’s movements in Germany after Madeleine disappeared. He visits the sites of his child abuse offences, including the box factory where 8000 child abuse files were found and tracks down an alleged paedophile he was in communications with. Mark talks exclusively to the father of Inga Gehricke a 5 year girl who was abducted and also linked to Christian B. But then Mark reveals worrying weaknesses in the phone evidence linking Christian B to Madeleine’s disappearance; the crucial 680 number may have been 35 kilometres away and that this number may not have belonged to Christian B, but a German friend of his.
EPISODE 3: TESTING THE ALIBI Christian B gives Mark a possible alibi revealing that he had a holiday fling with a German 18 year old girl the week of Madeleine’s disappearance. Mark tests this by tracking her down and speaking to her now husband. He is also tests the German authorities evidence further by examining the witness to an alleged confession made by Christian B and the significance of his vehicle being re-registered to a new owner the day after Madeleine disappeared. Christian writes to Mark with a detailed account of his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and Mark checks this against the known facts. Mark reaches his series conclusion about whether Christian B is responsible for Madeleine’s abduction and possible murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks yet again Misty, for bringing pertinent information to the forum without fear or favour.I agree - Misty's posts are the best!
In my opinion it is members such as you who are the life's blood of this forum with your invariably accurate and informative posts which go a long way to maintaining the reputation we should enjoy.
I agree - Misty's posts are the best!
Always well researched.
Always to be relied upon for accuracy.
Always unbiased.
You get the absolute truth from Misty whatever side of the board you are on whether it is to your liking or not .
Sickophanty rules OKYou're just jealous. 8(0(*
And you believe him. I, as a so-called sceptic, believe no-one.
I've explained. I don't believe you believe no one. You believe the statements are accurate... Yet you can't prove they are. It's very easy to catch you out
And you believe him. I, as a so-called sceptic, believe no-one.Good to know you don't believe Katerina Gaspar, Mrs Fenn, Martin Grime. Martin Smith. ETC.
Meanwhile, let's all hear it for Breuckner. A Convicted Paedophile and Rapist.
Not as easy as it is to catch you out. You can't prove the statements are not accurate, remember. What they are is evidence in an investigation. The evidence in the German investigation is unknown, so you are working solely on belief in what a prosecutor says, not on what he has.
How could it have been a Horrible Job if he was intending to abuse and or kill Madeleine for his own pleasure?
I wondered about that, I think he was working for someone else IMO
I wondered about that, I think he was working for someone else IMO
Meanwhile, let's all hear it for Breuckner. A Convicted Paedophile and Rapist.
I've never said I can prove the sftstements are not accurate... So that's a fall at the first fence for you.
Based on all the facts I find Wolters credible.... That's quite a reasonable position. Based in all the facts I don't find the alerts credible.. But you do. Yet you can't prove the alerts have value.
We shall see shortly who is the class star and who is the dunce
Employed as a hit man to kill a child?
Doesn't sound likely to me
Employed as a hit man to kill a child?Not to KILL a child necessarily.
Doesn't sound likely to me
But not a murderer which if Wolters is to be believed lies at the heart of this case.
That is your interpretation of a post which did not say that. Please have the courage of your conviction and own up to your own opinion without resorting to misrepresenting another's post.
How do you know he isn't a murderer?
How do you know he isn't a murderer?
I've never said I can prove the sftstements are not accurate... So that's a fall at the first fence for you.
Based on all the facts I find Wolters credible.... That's quite a reasonable position. Based in all the facts I don't find the alerts credible.. But you do. Yet you can't prove the alerts have value.
We shall see shortly who is the class star and who is the dunce
So your opinion of the statements was formed how? Did someone you believe tell you they weren't accurate? Wolters has talked the talk, but can he walk the walk? You think he can, I have doubts.What gives you the impression that MWT is looking at it from a neutral position and not from the position of making a series that will attract the most attention possible?
MWT may have information that hampers the German investigation, he may not. At least he's looking at it all from a neutral position, and I'm not convinced the German investigators have done that.
I don't feel the need to prove myself on here, that's been achieved elsewhere where it counts for something.
So your opinion of the statements was formed how? Did someone you believe tell you they weren't accurate? Wolters has talked the talk, but can he walk the walk? You think he can, I have doubts.
MWT may have information that hampers the German investigation, he may not. At least he's looking at it all from a neutral position, and I'm not convinced the German investigators have done that.
What gives you the impression that MWT is looking at it from a neutral position and not from the position of making a series that will attract the most attention possible?
According to the Mirror quoting Wolters he's not aware of the alibi, either he or his team are not very good investigators or the Mirror did not quote Wolters.
I wondered about that, I think he was working for someone else IMO
Employed as a hit man to kill a child?.
Doesn't sound likely to me
Oh! we know he is amongst your ilk and their minds.
So your opinion of the statements was formed how? Did someone you believe tell you they weren't accurate? Wolters has talked the talk, but can he walk the walk? You think he can, I have doubts.
MWT may have information that hampers the German investigation, he may not. At least he's looking at it all from a neutral position, and I'm not convinced the German investigators have done that.
I don't feel the need to prove myself on here, that's been achieved elsewhere where it counts for something.
Oh! we know he is amongst your ilk and their minds.
Not True.Did you even understand what that meant? I didn't.
Is he on some kind of piece work, the more viewing the better the pay ?I don't think you really understand how it works do you?
So your opinion of the statements was formed how? Did someone you believe tell you they weren't accurate? Wolters has talked the talk, but can he walk the walk? You think he can, I have doubts.Delusions of Grandma.
MWT may have information that hampers the German investigation, he may not. At least he's looking at it all from a neutral position, and I'm not convinced the German investigators have done that.
I don't feel the need to prove myself on here, that's been achieved elsewhere where it counts for something.
Please up your game to include facts.
How do you know anyone isn't?
Me, my sister in law, the milk man, even, dare I say it, the McCanns.
Nonetheless you KNOW Brueckner is not a murderer. But you are unable to give a specific reason for declaring that.
Par for the course!
Did you even understand what that meant? I didn't.
Delusions of Grandma.
I can only go by the evidence, & I don't know of any evidence he murdered anyone, other than alleged second hand confession, that provided no details of her alleged murder.
What evidence do you have that Maddie is even dead, BTW?
Or, where can it possibly count?Surely not the C-C-Cesspit?!
Gosh. You think she might not be.
Surely not the C-C-Cesspit?!
So your opinion of the statements was formed how? Did someone you believe tell you they weren't accurate? Wolters has talked the talk, but can he walk the walk? You think he can, I have doubts.
MWT may have information that hampers the German investigation, he may not. At least he's looking at it all from a neutral position, and I'm not convinced the German investigators have done that.
I don't feel the need to prove myself on here, that's been achieved elsewhere where it counts for something.
First... Translation is not an exact science
The statements are not verbatim
Kate has said there are mistakes... That's evidence
Colin Sutton said the room for error was enormous
I recall an article in the mail where Rebelo question ed their reliability
The mccanns could not read what they were signing
That's enough to cast doubt.
I find Wolters credible plus he is not speaking for himself.. He's speaking for the BKA investigation and there's not one word of dissent.
Everything he says is consistent.
You and others are going to look foolish if he does have this evidence.. Let's wait and see
Or, where can it possibly count?
I think most members are just interested in seeing where this alibi that MWT is exposing is going to go.
Anxiety, it there is any, is with supporters some of whom were doing their best to rubbish MWT early in this thread.
IMO
They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.
IMO.
They've been critisising the fact that Brueckner hasn't provided an alibi.
Now there appears to be one and they're still not happy. @)(++(*
They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.
IMO.
They do seem to want to desperately cling to the idea that the poor child was murdered by a vicious paedophile. I can see no other reason for their rubbishing of MWT.You are a complete ***** if you don’t mind me saying so and here is why: MWT believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, most likely a paedophile. He therefore does not subscribe to your view that her father dumped her in a bin. Got it?
IMO.
He's got a young nubile 18 yr old, he leaves her to abduct and kill a very young child, it all adds up.Maybe she was in on it.
You'd think that supporters would be pleased that an alibi which might clear him of all involvement has been forthcomingIf it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by his alibi that he was not involved I will be delighted. Hope that puts your mind at rest.
Innocent until proved guilty and all that.
In real life.You may have an A in English Literature A Level, you may even have a degree and PHD but as Piers Corbyn so brilliantly demonstrates, it doesn’t mean you have an ounce of common sense.
You may have an A in English Literature A Level, you may even have a degree and PHD but as Piers Corbyn so brilliantly demonstrates, it doesn’t mean you have an ounce of common sense.
Like educated doctors who can't imagine the dangers of leaving small children home alone you mean? I wasn't talking about common sense, actually, I was responding to a suggestion that someone might be shown to be a dunce. That's something I know I'm not.Yes, exactly like that, and you may not believe you’re a dunce but IMO based on the evidence of your performance on this forum and the way you assess evidence, or even your understanding of what constitutes evidence I think the jury’s still out on that verdict.
Yes, exactly like that, and you may not believe you’re a dunce but IMO based on the evidence of your performance on this forum and the way you assess evidence, or even your understanding of what constitutes evidence I think the jury’s still out on that verdict.
In your esteemed opinion? @)(++(*Yes, in the Real World my opinion is most highly esteemed 8(>((
Like educated doctors who can't imagine the dangers of leaving small children home alone you mean? I wasn't talking about common sense, actually, I was responding to a suggestion that someone might be shown to be a dunce. That's something I know I'm not.
Like educated doctors who can't imagine the dangers of leaving small children home alone you mean? I wasn't talking about common sense, actually, I was responding to a suggestion that someone might be shown to be a dunce. That's something I know I'm not.
What about if it turns out you have got everything wrong... What would that make you
Name calling is all they’ve got left in their arsenal….poor dears.
What about if it turns out you have got everything wrong... What would that make you
Trying to convince others you're right when the evidence is unavailable is a bit wearing, I expect.
Trying to convince others you're right when the evidence is unavailable is a bit wearing, I expect.
Name calling is all they’ve got left in their arsenal….poor dears.Ouch, withering!!
Like your support for the SC claiming insufficient evidence rather than no evidence.
I'm not trying to convince anyone as you should realise.... It's you trying to convince me I'm wrong.
Afaiac... There is no doubt that Wolters has, significant.. Concrete evidence he has not divulged. I dint care inn the slightest what you think ot believe. Some will not believe anything.... Whatever facts come out
You are a complete ***** if you don’t mind me saying so and here is why: MWT believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, most likely a paedophile. He therefore does not subscribe to your view that her father dumped her in a bin. Got it?
The SC were accused of misunderstanding the archiving dispatch. I have attempted to explain how they analysed it. That isn't supporting, it's explaining.
Always well researched.
Always to be relied upon for accuracy.
Always unbiased.
You get the absolute truth from Misty whatever side of the board you are on whether it is to your liking or not .
Is that right?
So, Misty, do you believe Joana was abducted?
Employed as a hit man to kill a child?
Doesn't sound likely to me
Thank you for your kind words and VS's too. There are many posters who, over my years on the forum, have provided higher quality input than mine.
Whilst not unbiased, I try to be accurate (don't always achieve it) but also to post items which induce further debate. The synopsis of MWT's forthcoming documentary has several discussion points so I opted to "dump & run" - people can deal with the post, not the poster.
So someone else hired him to abduct rape & murder Maddie?
He got paid to do it?
I wonder why someone would hire him to do that.
I don't know what happened to Joana. However imo the convictions of both Leonor & Joao were unsafe - shades of the Rudolf Rupp case which proved miscarriages of justice occur in bodyless homicide convictions.
Which imo the BKA won't venture into.
As wolters has said they have enough evidence to charge it looks like you are wrong
Thoughtless of me too Misty ~ I dropped my guard and forgot to take into account the adverse attention I would inevitably draw to you. Apologies for that, but things must have mellowed because we've both had a lot worse and survived;)
I was delighted with your original post because having been given a little more information it presented a perfect opportunity for members to discuss the preview of MWT documentary .
Unfortunately our forum isn't even in the running when it comes to informative discussion or debate and I have had to get my information from another place and interesting it is too but not as interesting as being able to contribute to civilised discussion here would be.
As wolters has said they have enough evidence to charge it looks like you are wrong
As wolters has said they have enough evidence to charge it looks like you are wrong
You never did qualify when it would happen when you said "soon" .
Wolters has said he's been hampered by the slow responses from the Portuguese. I dint want to get into pointless arguments
Is not pointless arguments what this Forum is all about?
Some of us know what we are talking about and some of us don't.
I can only admire your stoicism after all of the insults that you have taken. I haven't always behaved as well as you have.
You have always been honest Eleanor, warts and all…a quality clearly lacking in some.How patronising and insulting.
How patronising and insulting.
You have always been honest Eleanor, warts and all…a quality clearly lacking in some.
Faith thinks I'm dishonest... And impersonating someone.I know, she thinks I'm a dribbly old man - what this demonstrates is very poor judgement and a propensity to stick to a belief no matter what the evidence to the contrary. IMO.
I'm definitely honest.. And faith is definitely daft
How patronising and insulting.
Faith thinks I'm dishonest... And impersonating someone.
I'm definitely honest.. And faith is definitely daft
You are who you say you are. I have known that for a very long time. But I chose not to say so because it was given in confidence.
For the purpose of debate who we are in RL isn’t really very relevant….unless we have proven expertise in a relevant field.
That some have to remind us constantly, when there is no need, who they are, now that is odd.
For the purpose of debate who we are in RL isn’t really very relevant….unless we have proven expertise in a relevant field.
That some have to remind us constantly, when there is no need, who they are, now that is odd.
I am who I say I am. It never crossed my mind that I shouldn't be. Which is why I didn't care when Tony Bennett outed me.
But to attack the wife of Davel was a really nasty thing to do.
You mean like expertise in sedation.. Which I have.
It isn't me who keeps making reference to what I do. Stephen outed me and you have inferred I was a liar in your post today. Stop raising the point and it might go away.
Jassi mentioned it twice yesterday for no reason.
Having a background in Science... And with everything I di being evidence based... That also gives me expertise in assessing evidence... That's totally relevant. You on the other hand don't seem very good at it. Last week you claimed I couldn't be who Stephen said I was because that person.. According to your investigations.. Recently ran a half marathon.. Bonkers or what
That’s the thing. Stephen didn’t do that here, Davel brought it here.
Why?
Yawn.
I don't personally feel insulted. You take on the job or you don't. I did. I owe it to myself to keep my mouth shut on occasions, which I haven't always done.It wasn't you she was insulting, it was a sly dig at others, as usual.
I didn't have to take this on. But I do sometimes feel like a waste of space.
You try deciding if something should be Deleted when you are trying to be fair to the opinions of others.
Sadly, I could no longer be an ordinary Poster and so I stagger on. My choice and my hog tie. I brought this on myself at a time when I thought I was a smart arse.
A few others might like to think about this, but it might take them as long as it has taken me.
That’s the thing. Stephen didn’t do that here, Davel brought it here.
Why?
It wasn't you she was insulting, it was a sly dig at others, as usual.
Sadly, Stephen failed miserably after causing massive damage to this Forum along with Slarti. It took a while to see what they were up to because it was beyond the likes of me. But then John should have seen it and even he didn't.
Brietta and I do not do this. We both Report Posts up front. Neither of us go running to John, which cannot be said for some. Running to John behind the backs of other Moderators is a shit thing to do. But have at it if you may.
I sometimes wonder what some of you want, but it certainly isn't a level playing field.
As Stephen isn’t here to defend himself I suppose it’s easy to tranche him.
Davel began posting on the Amazon forum, where there were posters who really had come from science backgrounds. He was given his backside in a sling and slunk back here muttering darkly about being ‘outed’ and seeking succor from the usual suspects. He brought his supposed identity to this forum, no one else.
As to moderation and the standards that some adhere, or not, to I think this is neither the time nor the place.
Oh dear... You can't stop paying me attention.. Like someone repeatedly breaking wind and complaining about the smell.@)(++(*
No one on Amazon did what you say. The amazon forum closed down... That's why I came back here.
There was a glitch on Amazon which revealed my email address and hence my name. Stephen couldn't believe his luck and posted tsunts at me here. Having said that I don't expect you to get your facts right. What is your problem.. Why do you have this fixation
Oh dear... You can't stop paying me attention.. Like someone repeatedly breaking wind and complaining about the smell.
No one on Amazon did what you say. The amazon forum closed down... That's why I came back here.
There was a glitch on Amazon which revealed my email address and hence my name. Stephen couldn't believe his luck and posted tsunts at me here. Having said that I don't expect you to get your facts right. What is your problem.. Why do you have this fixation
I see invisible hands have determined that you need saving again.
Poor thing 8(8-))
I see invisible hands have determined that you need saving again.
Poor thing 8(8-))
Need saving... I've always faced my critics head on.. Appearing on the Wright Stuff where I silenced Kate Silverton... Then Trisha... Where I faced initial hostility but soon had the a audience eating out of my hand.
Don't think for a second you can intimidate me.... Im actually concerned about your mental state...
I don't really know. I only know that Tony Bennett thought it would show me up and somehow frighten me. Silly old fool. I don't frighten easily, if at all. And I certainly wasn't going to be frightened into changing my opinion.Ah but... How does your postman find you and all the rest without house numbers in this Macbeth of 15 stone hovels... That is the question?
But that one is lost now, although others do try. I am the only person on this Forum who is who she says she is, without fear. My address is on this Forum, given by me. Lann Georges, 56310. A Hamlet of about 15 houses and anyone will tell you wherein lives Madame Lang. Or Mitchell. Or Eccles.
Ah but... How does your postman find you and all the rest without house numbers in this Macbeth of 15 stone hovels... That is the question?
What invisible hands? Are you suggesting that this Forum is biased?
John rules around here. Or have you not noticed?
Need saving... I've always faced my critics head on.. Appearing on the Wright Stuff where I silenced Kate Silverton... Then Trisha... Where I faced initial hostility but soon had the a audience eating out of my hand.
Don't think for a second you can intimidate me.... Im actually concerned about your mental state...
Suggesting it? Never.
I’m stating it as an absolute fact.
John does not get involved with the day to day moderating.
I can never quite decide who you remind me most of…David Brent, Alan Patridge or Jay from the Inbetweeners…or perhaps a little smidgen of them all?
I can never quite decide who you remind me most of…David Brent, Alan Patridge or Jay from the Inbetweeners…or perhaps a little smidgen of them all?“ Name calling is all they’ve got left in their arsenal….poor dears”, remember who said that?
Wrong actually. I see everything that is deleted or moderated. The only time I intervene is when asked to do so or if there is a dispute between moderators.
Aii incredly talented.. You do realise they are actors
You are off topic... Do you think John should give me my own thread
After it’s deleted or moderated?
Both. All posts are visible to admins even after they are deleted.
As Stephen isn’t here to defend himself I suppose it’s easy to tranche him.
Davel began posting on the Amazon forum, where there were posters who really had come from science backgrounds. He was given his backside in a sling and slunk back here muttering darkly about being ‘outed’ and seeking succor from the usual suspects. He brought his supposed identity to this forum, no one else.
As to moderation and the standards that some adhere, or not, to I think this is neither the time nor the place.
They are characters.
Ricky Gervais, Steve Coogan and James Buckley are actors.
I believe the genre is called cringe comedy. It doesn't work for me; I get the cringe factor, but it doesn't make me laugh, it just irritates me. I think Norman Wisdom's Norman Pitkin was one of those characters too. Are we being told that Davel is a created character in the same vein?Don’t you think it’s your duty as a moderator to discourage rather than encourage off-topic name-calling and personal attacks?
Don’t you think it’s your duty as a moderator to discourage rather than encourage off-topic name-calling and personal attacks?
Yes we are off-topic. I see no name calling or personal attacks, however?You don’t? OK , let me explain. Faithlilly likened Davel to three TV characters by name, who you helpfully identified as being cringeworthy. Faithlilly was therefore attempting to insult Davel by naming him as like someone who makes her cringe. If I said that you and she reminded me of Hinge and Brackett, or had the intellectual acumen of Little and Large would that be ok or would that be “abusive “ and a personal attack which apparently is against forum rules? If it’s ok then, forthwith you shall be known as Large, and Faithlilly as Little.
I believe the genre is called cringe comedy. It doesn't work for me; I get the cringe factor, but it doesn't make me laugh, it just irritates me. I think Norman Wisdom's Norman Pitkin was one of those characters too. Are we being told that Davel is a created character in the same vein?Ahah... I've been rumbled. Faith has outed me as Steve Coogans latest character.. The series starts soon
You don’t? OK , let me explain. Faithlilly likened Davel to three TV characters by name, who you helpfully identified as being cringeworthy. Faithlilly was therefore attempting to insult Davel by naming him as like someone who makes her cringe. If I said that you and she reminded me of Hinge and Brackett, or had the intellectual acumen of Little and Large would that be ok or would that be “abusive “ and a personal attack which apparently is against forum rules? If it’s ok then, forthwith you shall be known as Large, and Faithlilly as Little.
Davel didn't seem to interpret Faith's comment as an insult, but if my comments upset him I apologise.
Cringe comedy is what this type of perfomance has been named. I do find it more cringeworthy than funny, but that's my personal reaction to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cringe_comedy
Davel didn't seem to interpret Faith's comment as an insult, but if my comments upset him I apologise.Of course he didn’t, he’s too smart to give her that satisfaction, but if you think Faithlilly’s comments were designed as anything other than an insult you really should reconsider your role as a moderator imo.
Cringe comedy is what this type of perfomance has been named. I do find it more cringeworthy than funny, but that's my personal reaction to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cringe_comedy
Of course he didn’t, he’s too smart to give her that satisfaction, but if you think Faithlilly’s comments were designed as anything other than an insult you really should reconsider your role as a moderator imo.
Of course he didn’t, he’s too smart to give her that satisfaction, but if you think Faithlilly’s comments were designed as anything other than an insult you really should reconsider your role as a moderator imo.
I would suggest that until we have all viewed the programme there is very little to add to what has already been said (all or most of it speculation anyway).
I agree. What interests me is that it will be an investigation which is unlikely to contain confirmation bias.Why have you come to that conclusion?
Why have you come to that conclusion?
I don't think MWT will be looking to confirm CB's guilt. I have got the impression that a lot of the media coverage has been leaning rowards that.Is it not possible that he made a programme determined to prove he isn't involved (just to be different) and therefore is still exhibiting confirmation bias, just in a different direction?
Is it not possible that he made a programme determined to prove he isn't involved (just to be different) and therefore is still exhibiting confirmation bias, just in a different direction?
No other mcCann documentary has stuck to portraying only the truth.Which ones have portrayed proven lies then?
I don't suppose this one will be any different.
IMO
Which ones have portrayed proven lies then?
I would say it's more a case of ignoring anything which doesn't support the abduction theory.such as?
https://youtu.be/ePUP1m2KsQY
In this Bild interview the interviewee posits exactly what I was saying which is that the “alibi” angle is likely simply a device for selling the documentary and is actually nothing of the sort.
Are you fluent in German then?No, but I did it to O Level and I’m good at reading English subtitles.
No, but I did it to O Level and I’m good at reading English subtitles.
https://youtu.be/ePUP1m2KsQY (https://youtu.be/ePUP1m2KsQY)A translated pdf attached with one minor paragraph dismissing the new MWT docu...
In this Bild interview the interviewee posits exactly what I was saying which is that the “alibi” angle is likely simply a device for selling the documentary and is actually nothing of the sort.
I didn't see any subtitles.you need to go look for them in the video, there is a way. I found it all by myself, see if you can too.
A translated pdf attached with one minor paragraph dismissing the new MWT docu...Did you ever read that translation of a Madonna interview back in the 90s? Literally the most hilarious thing I have ever read - this translation is a bit like that,
Did you ever read that translation of a Madonna interview back in the 90s? Literally the most hilarious thing I have ever read - this translation is a bit like that,The names are a bit out but most is passable considering it's a bot translation.
you need to go look for them in the video, there is a way. I found it all by myself, see if you can too.Jawohl, das ist easy venn you know how! 8(>((
Jawohl, das ist easy venn you know how! 8(>((
And if you don't ,being patronising helps the forum along nicely .
A video which most can't understand isn't going to be discussed, so it's a bit of a waste of time posting the link imo.I'm conversant in German, but I can't be arsed transcribing anything.
A video which most can't understand isn't going to be discussed, so it's a bit of a waste of time posting the link imo.Well I understood it because I figured out how to turn on the subtitles, I wrongly assumed most people on here were sufficiently intelligent to do the same, sorry for my presumption.
Well I understood it because I figured out how to turn on the subtitles, I wrongly assumed most people on here were sufficiently intelligent to do the same, sorry for my presumption.
So in the interests of cooperation you could write down how you did it.I will do later after my daughter’s graduation ceremony which I shall b attending shortly.
I will do later after my daughter’s graduation ceremony which I shall b attending shortly.
So in the interests of cooperation you could write down how you did it.Here's a simple solution to enable captions and change the language... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngf8vgrvdz4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngf8vgrvdz4)
So in the interests of cooperation you could write down how you did it.
1. Click on settings on video toolbar (see SS below)
2. Click on Subtitles/CC
3. Click on Autotranslate
4. Scroll down language options & click onto English.
1. Click on settings on video toolbar (see SS below)thanks Misty, you saved me the job.
2. Click on Subtitles/CC
3. Click on Autotranslate
4. Scroll down language options & click onto English.
In what VS ?Fashion
Fashion
Thank you.no problem, it’s been a proud day for us, I’m sure you know the feeling.
no problem, it’s been a proud day for us, I’m sure you know the feeling.
Joana was killed by her uncle, with the filthy wretch who claimed to be a mother to her conspiring to dispose of her corpse. Over a drunken, incestuous fumble on a minging couch in a hovel. End of. *&^%s
What rubbish Amaral spouted.Well, I suppose this day was inexorable, indelibly marked the nth of whenever. You seem to have me at a loss, dear Sadie. You have proved to be a worthy adversary, I will admit that much.
You are intelligent. I do not believe that you believe Amarals imaginative ramblings and blamings. You are not that niave, but quite a clever operator
I, therefore, have to wonder the reason that you are saying these awful things.
There has to be a reason.
Well, I suppose this day was inexorable, indelibly marked the nth of whenever. You seem to have me at a loss, dear Sadie. You have proved to be a worthy adversary, I will admit that much.Bye then.
I am indeed the agent provocateur you have alluded to many times. This goes way deeper than even you imagine. You have merely scratched the surface, alas I cannot elucidate further as dark forces are at work.
My plan has been scuppered, but the damage I have wrought has been considerable, the mission successful. Obfuscation, misinformation and diversion the order of the day. Suffice to say the motives for such deeds are legion.
So for now I will bid you a fond farewell. You alone saw through the mask of ineptitude. You alone quantified my real raison d'etre.
Do not try to find me, I am have already dissipated in to the ether from whence I emerged. So long.
Bye then.Are you off? Later tater
Are you off? Later taterNo, you issued a farewell in your post and I thought you were melting off into the ether never to be seen again? I knew it was too good to be true. Oh well, welcome back.
No, you issued a farewell in your post and I thought you were melting off into the ether never to be seen again? I knew it was too good to be true. Oh well, welcome back.Thanks. You too.
The German documentary makers seem upset at the idea that MWT might have found something they missed.I think the term 'documentary' is a somewhat grandiose title for what is nothing more than bandwagon jumping tittle tattle.
The German documentary makers seem upset at the idea that MWT might have found something they missed.Really, where is this upset being expressed? Do you seriously believe MWT has found a cast iron alibi?
I think the term 'documentary' is a somewhat grandiose title for what is nothing more than bandwagon jumping tittle tattle.Oh you've watched it already then? Interesting...
Oh you've watched it already then? Interesting...All of them. They're all shite. In fact they should change the genre name from 'Real Crime' to 'Shite'.
All of them. They're all shite. In fact they should change the genre name from 'Real Crime' to 'Shite'.You should get a job as a TV critic for a highbrow publication, like the Beano perhaps?
You should get a job as a TV critic for a highbrow publication, like the Beano perhaps?
You should get a job as a TV critic for a highbrow publication, like the Beano perhaps?I'm not surprised you think The Beano is highbrow, given the content of your posts.
Okay. Cut the insults.Spoilsport.
I'm not surprised you think The Beano is highbrow, given the content of your posts.When you are able to critique a programme you haven't even watched yet with a one word review I think you're probably in no position to put down my content, but now you come to mention it I did used to enjoy the Beano until it went all woke and horribly pc.
When you are able to critique a programme you haven't even watched yet with a one word review I think you're probably in no position to put down my content, but now you come to mention it I did used to enjoy the Beano until it went all woke and horribly pc.I'm able to critique them, and this is on topic, because if there was anything remotely groundbreaking then they'd have to alert the authorities.
I'm able to critique them, and this is on topic, because if there was anything remotely groundbreaking then they'd have to alert the authorities.I thought that the German documentary makers claimed they had alerted the authorities...?
So what we're left with is padding, establishing shots, 'interviews' with peripheral figures, conjecture, fluff, perhaps a smattering of strumpet and a load of rhetorical questions at the end in case, you know, a sequal.
I thought that the German documentary makers claimed they had alerted the authorities...?
Good Lord, if they did I doubt they'd permit it's broadcast. It would be killed.You can "safely assume" whatever you want, I shall wait and see what transpires.
So we can safely assume that they either didn't, or what they did disclose was a steaming pile of TV muck.
You can "safely assume" whatever you want, I shall wait and see what transpires.You could have come to that conclusion 5 posts ago. Never mind. At least we agree I'm right again.
You could have come to that conclusion 5 posts ago. Never mind. At least we agree I'm right again.
Cut it out, thats davel's tag.
You could have come to that conclusion 5 posts ago. Never mind. At least we agree I'm right again.You’re certainly deluded if you can read that into my post.
You’re certainly deluded if you can read that into my post.I can't even remember what we were discussing, but you're probably right.
I can't even remember what we were discussing, but you're probably right.I think it would be better for my mental health if I stopped feeding you as well, you are currently in danger of triggering my issues.
I think it would be better for my mental health if I stopped feeding you as well, you are currently in danger of triggering my issues.Makes sense.
Makes sense.OK, henceforth you can join Spam on My Naughty Step For Stinky Trolls. Bye bye. &^&*%
OK, henceforth you can join Spam on My Naughty Step For Stinky Trolls. Bye bye. &^&*%You won't see this post then.
According to a post on Websleuths MWT hasn't used his twitter account since the fifth of January at which time his tweet conveyed that he might have been suffering health issues. The poster thought that might be the explanation for his current silence.This?...
This?...This is a lesson many men only learn the hard way in my experience. I wish him well.
This?...
Email him and ask him.
mark.williams.thomas@itv.com
If MWT is ill then emailing him with intrusive questions would not be a good idea.I was actually thinking a message of support. Mental ill health in men is a silent epidemic, borne out by the current statistics
Please may I stress this.
Since when does sending an email become braveSending unsolicited mail or private messages is a bit stalkerish and intrusive IMO, particularly if you suspect the recipient is suffering from mental health issues. Obviously if you are a close personal friend offering support that's a different matter, but creepy IMO from a completely anonymous confrontational stranger. This happened to me recently so I know it to be true.
Since when does sending an email become braveWell just like with Martin Grime, you're happy to mooch through their bins, but not to actually engage.
Just a thought - does any-one know if the BKA have been allowed back into Portugal to re-interview?Do you think the Portuguese really want this case to be solved? All the indications are that they'd rather it wasn't imo.
Seems a bit extraordinary that investigative journalists can go nearly everywhere that takes their fancy - can interview anyone who will talk to them and record it all for posterity, but the forces of law and order who are trying to solve a crime are prevented from doing so, even if only temporarily.
That applies to the sample from 5A that the press tells us the Germans requested for retesting using modern techniques but were denied.
Much as SY were denied certain requests during their 2014 investigation.
Seems a strange way to conduct a case if you really want it to be solved.
Do you think the Portuguese really want this case to be solved? All the indications are that they'd rather it wasn't imo.
Well just like with Martin Grime, you're happy to mooch through their bins, but not to actually engage.
Do you think the Portuguese really want this case to be solved? All the indications are that they'd rather it wasn't imo.
I can understand the embarrassment it has caused given what the McCanns have been put through over the years as a direct result - what I cannot understand is that given the present circumstances they don't seem keen to atone for that by easing procedures and processes for foreign investigators.
The world now knows how dismal their attitude to crimes against women and children is - it is demonstrated already by the BKA having to intervene to mop up their mistakes or laissez-faire.
Madeleine's case will only 'go away' when it is solved or investigators have taken it as far as it will go - obstruction won't help, it will only exasperate things. It is stupid of them not to recognise that.
Your little world maybe.
Most of the world's population has no interest at all and have far more important things to concern them..
IMO
We know that police officers from one country have no right to interview citizens in another country. Therefore the BKA have not interviewed people in Portugal, let alone being allowed to re-interview them.
We know that police officers from one country have no right to interview citizens in another country. Therefore the BKA have not interviewed people in Portugal, let alone being allowed to re-interview them.
Just a thought - does any-one know if the BKA have been allowed back into Portugal to re-interview?
Seems a bit extraordinary that investigative journalists can go nearly everywhere that takes their fancy - can interview anyone who will talk to them and record it all for posterity, but the forces of law and order who are trying to solve a crime are prevented from doing so, even if only temporarily.
That applies to the sample from 5A that the press tells us the Germans requested for retesting using modern techniques but were denied.
Much as SY were denied certain requests during their 2014 investigation.
Seems a strange way to conduct a case if you really want it to be solved.
The rubbish you rely on is from the rags, not actually from the horses mouth, strange how an hair in the rape case was passed on and a supposed partial print is at the heart of another rape case, passed on so we're led to believe still you've scripted it rather well, who's your ghost writer.
The rubbish you rely on is from the rags, not actually from the horses mouth, strange how an hair in the rape case was passed on and a supposed partial print is at the heart of another rape case, passed on so we're led to believe still you've scripted it rather well, who's your ghost writer.
Do you know - I actually mused adding that caveat to my post - then I thought, why bother, it is just so obvious no-one is going to be so tiresome as to raise it again -again -again -again -yet again.
But there is always at least one 😁 isn't there.
I thought I saw something qbout the BKA re-interviewing people in Portugal. As I understand it, something can only be redone if if has been done previously.
In the same way the PJ did not interview the McCanns.. It. was done through a third party
Police can only directly interview a suspect in their own territory. Thus the PJ did directly interview the McCanns in Portugal while in the UK they were interviewed by the English police on behalf of the PJ.
Police can only directly interview a suspect in their own territory. Thus the PJ did directly interview the McCanns in Portugal while in the UK they were interviewed by the English police on behalf of the PJ.
The PJ interviewed the McCanns via an interpreter... That is not direct
It's an interesting point
It's an unimportant detail. The point is that the PJ can call people in Portugal in for questioning and foreign police forces can't. The PJ can decide which questions they want to ask, foreign police forces need to get their questions approved.
No its a very important detail because it could affect the accuracy of the answers... Fact
What that means is there may be mistakes in the statements... Fact..
In fact there is evidence there are.. Fact
'Could' doesn't mean 'does'. Is your evidence hearsay?
'Could' doesn't mean 'does'. Is your evidence hearsay?
'Could' doesn't mean 'does'. Is your evidence hearsay?The fact we have no way of verylfying the statements does mean we don't know if they are accurate
My post is 3 factual statements
In your opinion. Although Kate McCann raised the possibility that things had 'been lost in translation' she never mentioned any errors she discovered when she received the files. She also accused Control Risks of inaccuracies in the transcripts of their interviews (in English). I think she may have forgotten what she actually said.
In your opinion. Although Kate McCann raised the possibility that things had 'been lost in translation' she never mentioned any errors she discovered when she received the files. She also accused Control Risks of inaccuracies in the transcripts of their interviews (in English). I think she may have forgotten what she actually said.
To my astonishment, the interpreter became quite angry and suddenly interrupted, ‘What are you saying? That we interpreters can’t do our job? The interpreter will only have translated what you told her!’ I was staggered. Quite apart from the fact that in this instance she was wrong – this definitely wasn’t what I’d said – surely an interpreter is there to interpret, not to interfere in the process? My trust in her took a dive.
It's you that's got the facts wrong.. Again
Just a thought ~
on reading Jon Clarke's book "MY SEARCH FOR MADELEINE" he recounted a very chilling encounter with some of those surrounding a witness he had made an attempt to interview.
I felt 'threatened' for him and I was only reading about it from a distance not experiencing it first hand as he did. There is also a world of difference in using a notebook, as Jon was, with or without an accompanying digital voice recorder and using a video camera as MWT was.
I don't know how many might have been in his production team or if he was filming on his own but I believe he was tweeting about his progress along the way and updated that only the finishing touches required to be added.
Added to the personal problems he tweeted about one speculates if MWT met with a similar or worse situation as that experienced by Jon Clarke. I think that geographically he might have been in the same area where Jon experienced the vulnerability of his situation.
The German documentary is to be broadcast very soon (Monday I think?). But I think they may have had the advantage language and of numbers.
Jon Clarke was probably in and out without much fanfare but MWT advertised his presence so they knew that if he had done his homework he was on his way to them.
I think there are those who do not wish any light whatsoever being shed on Madeleine, what happened to her and who may have been involved and as Jon Clarke found out that sort of presence does exist.
Wonder if MWT encountered something similar.
Conspiracy theory nonsense then.
To my astonishment, the interpreter became quite angry and suddenly interrupted, ‘What are you saying? That we interpreters can’t do our job? The interpreter will only have translated what you told her!’ I was staggered. Quite apart from the fact that in this instance she was wrong – this definitely wasn’t what I’d said – surely an interpreter is there to interpret, not to interfere in the process? My trust in her took a dive.
It's you that's got the facts wrong.. Again
I don't think Kate remembered what she said in her initial statements. She was perfectly happy to believe that Telecino had a leaked copy of her 4th May statement even though the statement they quoted differed significantly from the original.
"Telecinco said Kate told police: "Gerry and I spoke for a couple of minutes and agreed to keep a closer watch over the children."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spanish-tv-station-claims-it-obtained-302312
That doesn't appear in her official statement.
I don't think Kate remembered what she said in her initial statements. She was perfectly happy to believe that Telecino had a leaked copy of her 4th May statement even though the statement they quoted differed significantly from the original."perfectly happy"? Really?? I'm sure she was over the moon and absolutely delighted to have this revelation leaked to the world. Not.
"Telecinco said Kate told police: "Gerry and I spoke for a couple of minutes and agreed to keep a closer watch over the children."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spanish-tv-station-claims-it-obtained-302312
That doesn't appear in her official statement.
I'm not interested what you THINK... I posted facts
She doesn't actually say what this alleged error was though.
Certainly not in that paragraph anyway.
So what was the error?
I don't think Kate remembered what she said in her initial statements. She was perfectly happy to believe that Telecino had a leaked copy of her 4th May statement even though the statement they quoted differed significantly from the original.
"Telecinco said Kate told police: "Gerry and I spoke for a couple of minutes and agreed to keep a closer watch over the children."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spanish-tv-station-claims-it-obtained-302312
That doesn't appear in her official statement.
"perfectly happy"? Really?? I'm sure she was over the moon and absolutely delighted to have this revelation leaked to the world. Not.
Happy to agree that it was her leaked statement. Only it wasn't.
What is this "thing" you have about Kate McCann. You really can't stop traducing this woman despite the pain she must be experiencing due to the undoubted fact three police forces are presently investigating a wanton paedophile as the prime suspect in her daughter's disappearance.
MWT is even making a documentary about him and has I believe interviewed the German Prosecutor amongst others to that end.
Happy to agree that it was her leaked statement. Only it wasn't.Can I have a cite for this apparent happy agreement please?
How would anyone know what Kate really feels about anything?
I suppose we'd just have to take her word for it.
Well, I reserve my right not to trust her, thanks.
It doesn’t require particularly high levels of emotional intelligence (or intelligence generally) to work out that a mother whose child’s disappearance is being treated by the police as a case of abduction and murder by paedophile isn’t going to be feeling 100% tip-top happy as Larry, but then maybe some people here genuinely aren’t able to work that out for themselves.
Can I have a cite for this apparent happy agreement please?
Are we to think that MWT has been threatened? It might explain the delay.
Spending a lot of time away from home comforts wandering around Europe following through on material for his documentary would have been very stressful anyway. And there is absolutely no doubt that some of Brueckner's friends must be very unsavoury people indeed.
Jon Clarke certainly felt very threatened on at least one occasion so who's to say the same thing didn't happen to MWT.
It would explain the delay but more than that it could explain his silence. If he really is ill, why not let people know .
So did he say who he felt threatened by ?
Yes he did - but this thread is about Mark Williams-Thomas and his documentary don't you know so why not think of an intriguing comment along those lines.
True saying right enough - You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
Or you could address the elephant in the room - Kate didn't question the claim that her statement had been leaked, even though it didn't quote it correctly.
There does seem to be a lot of misinformation doing the rounds at the moment. Fortunately some of us have heard it all before.
I don't understand why there is so much fuss about Breuckner. He will either be found guilty or he won't.
That is for sure.
As Davel has noted - the Germans have said they have enough evidence to lay charges. They have also told us why they are not doing so as yet.
Why there is so much angst about that - is one of life's mysteries.
Or you could address the elephant in the room - Kate didn't question the claim that her statement had been leaked, even though it didn't quote it correctly.Let’s start with the cite I asked for first.
I don't understand the double standards either. Breuckner is Innocent Until Proven Guilty while The McCanns remain Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
Mark S summed it up in his last podcast.Some sceptics have already worked out that the dogs can’t be right if Madeleine was still alive on the evening of 3rd May which is why they have gone to great lengths to invent a massively implausible conspiracy of her dying on the 29th April. For all sceptics however, what comes first is the dog alerts, for them it “proves” McCann involvement and literally nothing, not even a successful prosecution of a third party will ever change that mindset.
If CB is guilty then Grime and his dogs have to be wrong... Sceptics simply can't believe that is possible
Mark S summed it up in his last podcast.
If CB is guilty then Grime and his dogs have to be wrong... Sceptics simply can't believe that is possible
Let’s start with the cite I asked for first.
A cite you requested to deflect from the fact that you can't explain the difference between the 'leaked' and the actual statements imo.
A cite you requested to deflect from the fact that you can't explain the difference between the 'leaked' and the actual statements imo.It’s not my job to explain anything to you, it is however your job to supply cites when requested or to make it clear you are unable to and that your claim has no basis in fact.
Mark S summed it up in his last podcast.That's patently untrue. Firstly there's a scenario explaining both if you apply yourself to it. Secondly, he's not guilty.
If CB is guilty then Grime and his dogs have to be wrong... Sceptics simply can't believe that is possible
That's patently untrue. Firstly there's a scenario explaining both if you apply yourself to it. Secondly, he's not guilty.Thats what Mark S said.... If he is guilty the dogs are wrong....
Thats what Mark S said.... If he is guilty the dogs are wrong....No, 'if' he's guilty, then there's at least one scenario that fits with the dog alerts. You supporter types / logic deniers just don't want to hear it.
The one thing that can be said for McCann Supporters is that they are logical.The statements alone lack any rigor, never mind logic. And supporters simply swallowing that guff additionally defies all known logic.
There wasn't the time, the space or the motive for doing what they have been accused of.
No, 'if' he's guilty, then there's at least one scenario that fits with the dog alerts. You supporter types / logic deniers just don't want to hear it.
It's irrelevant anyway, he's not guilty.
The one thing that can be said for McCann Supporters is that they are logical.
There wasn't the time, the space or the motive for doing what they have been accused of.
The statements alone lack any rigor, never mind logic. And supporters simply swallowing that guff additionally defies all known logic.
While you appear to know nothing about anything.Your wind up game needs some work.
The statements alone lack any rigor, never mind logic. And supporters simply swallowing that guff additionally defies all known logic.
Supporters are, however, quite happy to accept the possibility that there was the time, the space and the motive for a stranger abduction. The PJ weren't convinced;The Met disagrees with the PJ's opinion, are you suggesting that they are as illogical as us stupid supporters?
(if) said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
The Met disagrees with the PJ's opinion, are you suggesting that they are as illogical as us stupid supporters?
The MET disagrees with the BKA also, comments ?They both agree that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger so....that's two police forces against one (and the latter seems, grudgingly, to have come round to that opinion too, despite what was written in the archiving report back in 2008).
They both agree that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger so....that's two police forces against one (and the latter seems, grudgingly, to have come round to that opinion too, despite what was written in the archiving report back in 2008).
I beg to differ.
it defise logic because it isnt true
you will find its you and other sceptics who have swallowed all the guff
Which bit of "they both believe she was abducted by a stranger" are you struggling to understand?
One thinks she dead, no sorry confident she's dead, the other sits on a fence .
I beg to differ.
Which bit of "they both believe she was abducted by a stranger" are you struggling to understand?2 out of 3 ain't bad.
You can differ as much as you like.......Wolters has proof the parents were not involved...that the dogs were wrong...that they have enough evidence to charge....you can deny all that but I look forward to your explanation when you are proved wrongAnd I yours.
The Met disagrees with the PJ's opinion, are you suggesting that they are as illogical as us stupid supporters?
The MET disagrees with the BKA also, comments ?
I have access to the evidence upon which the PJ's opinion was based. Imo they were referring to the time around Jane Tanner's sighting. Afaik, the only additional evidence uncovered by The Met was that which resulted in the abandonment of Jane Tanner's belief that she saw this abductor. That allowed the Met to find a new possible time for an abduction to take place. According to the group timeline, there was a 15 minute gap between 9.45 and 10pm.So you concede that there WAS potentially enough time for Madeleine to be abducted by a stranger and that therefore supporters are quite right to accept the possibility that there was the time, the space and the motive for a stranger abduction. So why bring it up in the first place? Either you accept there was the possibility or you don't. Which camp do you fall in, because you seemed to be ridiculing the concept of Stranger Abduction and supporters' acceptance of the possibility IMO.
Individual recollections weren't quite so specific, especially about the 10pm check by Kate McCann;
'Erm, I was aware she'd gone, erm, at what exact point, again, it's got to be between quarter to ten and ten o'clock, somewhere in that time period'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
So you concede that there WAS potentially enough time for Madeleine to be abducted by a stranger and that therefore supporters are quite right to accept the possibility that there was the time, the space and the motive for a stranger abduction. So why bring it up in the first place? Either you accept there was the possibility or you don't. Which camp do you fall in, because you seemed to be ridiculing the concept of Stranger Abduction and supporters' acceptance of the possibility IMO.
I don't consider the 15 minute gap to be a definite fact, given the inability of two of the witnesses to confirm it.I didn't mention "definite fact" in my post, I mentioned "possibility". Now have another go at answering. Bet you don't!
I have access to the evidence upon which the PJ's opinion was based. Imo they were referring to the time around Jane Tanner's sighting. Afaik, the only additional evidence uncovered by The Met was that which resulted in the abandonment of Jane Tanner's belief that she saw this abductor. That allowed the Met to find a new possible time for an abduction to take place. According to the group timeline, there was a 15 minute gap between 9.45 and 10pm.
Individual recollections weren't quite so specific, especially about the 10pm check by Kate McCann;
'Erm, I was aware she'd gone, erm, at what exact point, again, it's got to be between quarter to ten and ten o'clock, somewhere in that time period'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
I don't consider the 15 minute gap to be a definite fact, given the inability of two of the witnesses to confirm it.Basically, what you appear to be saying is that you don't consider it possible or even likely that there was any significant time period at all when Apartment 5 A wasn't being observed or occupied by a member of the Tapas Group between 8.30pm and 10pm, is that your position? That actually rather than being negligent parents, the Apartment was never left untended for more than a couple of minutes?
I don't consider the 15 minute gap to be a definite fact, given the inability of two of the witnesses to confirm it.If the case rests on this '15 minute' window of opportunity (pun intended), then it wouldn't even see the foyer of the office of the admin assistant to the CPS officer. It's a right old giggle this, honestly.
If the case rests on this '15 minute' window of opportunity (pun intended), then it wouldn't even see the foyer of the office of the admin assistant to the CPS officer. It's a right old giggle this, honestly.
It harks back to the good old days of the Birmingham 6, when shonky evidence was great evidence.
I'd ask you to enlighten us, but you couldn't illuminate a phone box with a light bulb up your arse.
You might think you are funny but you simply dont have a proper grasp of the evidenceThere's a movie quote in there somewhere.
Please refrain from attacking other members, the subject can be debated without the need to lower the tone of the discussion. Adminyou mean like this?
you mean like this?
“but you couldn't illuminate a phone box with a light bulb up your arse.”
Please refrain from attacking other members, the subject can be debated without the need to lower the tone of the discussion. AdminThank you, I agree wholeheartedly.
you mean like this?Glad you liked it.
“but you couldn't illuminate a phone box with a light bulb up your arse.”
It appears MWT has spoken to CB (the most libeled man of the 21st century) on several occasions, with the latter having penned an exhaustive list of his whereabouts on those fateful days when he didn't abduct anyone.
MWT has subsequently tested the list and has found that his alibi stacks up.
I think we can dismiss CB (they play chess most days during rec) as the abductor. Why? Well what's the chances of CB's ('lights out' isn't really a thing anymore, as they have light switches in their cells - human rights) list being completely independently corroborated and the phone evidence dismissed?
It's over guys. Talk about unlikely saviours.
It appears MWT has spoken to CB (the most libeled man of the 21st century) on several occasions, with the latter having penned an exhaustive list of his whereabouts on those fateful days when he didn't abduct anyone.
MWT has subsequently tested the list and has found that his alibi stacks up.
I think we can dismiss CB (they play chess most days during rec) as the abductor. Why? Well what's the chances of CB's ('lights out' isn't really a thing anymore, as they have light switches in their cells - human rights) list being completely independently corroborated and the phone evidence dismissed?
It's over guys. Talk about unlikely saviours.
But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....
What abduction? You may well ask.
Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.
But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....Imagine HCW's face when some tin pot producer of a half-baked documentary waltzes in to his office and presents 'sensational' new evidence that will crack it wide open. Three years of investigation down das Klosett. Imagine the embarrassment, having some TV crank finish the job.
What abduction? You may well ask.
Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.
Imagine HCW's face when some tin pot producer of a half-baked documentary waltzes in to his office and presents 'sensational' new evidence that will crack it wide open. Three years of investigation down das Klosett. Imagine the embarrassment, having some TV crank finish the job.
Clearly this wasn't the case, as they're considering an airing date for the latest in a long line of fluff pieces; nonsense. Isolate brain and open eyes. Disposable telly flotsam.
If you think that's what's going to happen you are even more deluded than I thought. In this instance once the programme is aired you will see just how deluded. Does it have a date.. Whats holding it upThey're probably, belatedly, checking that its content won't compromise legal process. Rather ironic given they've run roughshod across their own privacy laws with impunity.
They're probably, belatedly, checking that its content won't compromise legal process. Rather ironic given they've run roughshod across their own privacy laws with impunity.
They're probably, belatedly, checking that its content won't compromise legal process. Rather ironic given they've run roughshod across their own privacy laws with impunity.
But, he hasn't given an account of his whereabouts at the time of the abduction.....
What abduction? You may well ask.
Well, there definitely was an abduction, Wolters & Grange can prove it, but not publicly.
Wallace. New film out in 2025 so that’s something to look forward to.
Not quite the ring of Wallis and Gromit.
How could presenting facts do anything but support the legal processBy 'facts' you mean unverified conjecture that further impinges on 'fairness' of process that were all entitled to.
I agree they've run roughshod over their privacy laws.... Which suggests they have the proof you doubtI don't see it that way. I have almost no knowledge of German law, or indeed any law really, but they are surely giving CB, Fulscher and his legal team a free ride on the 'unfair trial' angle, evidence or no.
By 'facts' you mean unverified conjecture that further impinges on 'fairness' of process that were all entitled to.
To broadcast such conjecture - even more so.
Im talking about MWTSame applies, despite his background, albeit German authorities will have no influence over British made mockumentaries, granted.
Same applies, despite his background, albeit German authorities will have no influence over British made mockumentaries, granted.I doubt they are at all interested in documentaries. You seem to think MWT has come up with something significant...you are happy to believe him...although gh he hasnt said anything himself...just an article in the sun....what happened to your scepticism
I doubt they are at all interested in documentaries. You seem to think MWT has come up with something significant...you are happy to believe him...althlogh he hasnt said anythinh himself...just an article in the sun....what happened to your scepticismYou have me wrong again, but that's habitual now.
You have me wrong again, but that's habitual now.
I don't think any of this shower have got anything significant. Moreover, I don't care. I won't be watching.
And for German authorities to rubber stamp the airing of yet another MM fluff piece, well that means one of two things (if they do) - either they've looked at the content and decided it's worthless, or they're utterly idiotic and are bent on pressing on with their flagrant abuse of due process. What do we informally call it here in Blighty - a red notice? A press / media embargo.
You say none of this shower has anything significant....i agree...but you have said that CB has an alibi based on MWTs findingsNo, you've got that arse about face, the alibi existed before MWT came knocking. MWT has simply told us about it, probably because he asked and HCW hasn't.
No, you've got that arse about face, the alibi existed before MWT came knocking. MWT has simply told us about it, probably because he asked and HCW hasn't.
No, you've got that arse about face, the alibi existed before MWT came knocking. MWT has simply told us about it, probably because he asked and HCW hasn't.
There is no alibi if you believe the tabloids, even though they are reporting that there is an alibi, they then make it very clear there isn't one. It's nonsense. Literally.
Has MWT said he has an alibi that stacks up.. . I haven't heard him.... But you read it in the sun so you believe it... LolLol? How old are you? Lol?
Why does he need one, no ones put it to him he killed the girl yet, still won't be long, beyond reasonable doubt and all that, Wolters is certain.I didn’t say he needed an alibi, I was commenting on the bizarre news reports that he has one, the same reports which make it clear he doesn’t have one.
Lol? How old are you? Lol?
I looked up the production company for his new three parter and downloaded the series leaflet. You know, a bit of light research. In fact one Google search and a few clicks, you should try.
Would you like me to brief you on the contents of each episode, if that's a wee struggle for you?
https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-the-prime-suspect (https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-the-prime-suspect)
So what precisely does he say about the alibi... That it stacks up... What does that mean. Is it proof of his innocence.'Stack up' was my choice of vernacular, not his. I've no idea how he described the alibi, only that it looks like some random has come forward and provided one, which, to everyone's surprise, would seem to be plausible (my words, not theirs). Not only that, but veracity is added given that this particular person has no criminal record and appears to be a law abiding, married, normal member of society.
I can guarantee CB has no alibi that stands up to any scrutiny... We will see who is right. Me or MWT
'Stack up' was my choice of vernacular, not his. I've no idea how he described the alibi, only that it looks like some random has come forward and provided one, which, to everyone's surprise, would seem to be plausible (my words, not theirs). Not only that, but veracity is added given that this particular person has no criminal record and appears to be a law abiding, married, normal member of society.
No doubt MWT will elucidate further on how he stumbled upon this new contact and explain why she decided to remain incognito all this time - and why she's decided to make a statement to him now.
I personally don't care if it 'stacks up' or not, but if we're not taking her account at face value, then we certainly can't rely on the word of a couple of jailhouse snitches with everything to gain and nothing to lose, that's for sure.
Once again, flat earthers, you can't have it both ways.
Stack up is the word used in the Sun... So CB claims an alibi but you don't know what MWT thinks of it.Being maligned by an anonymous, lone voice on an obscure internet forum equates to not being maligned at all.
CB won't be found guilty on such weak evidence you suggest... Although I think they have more credibility than Grime and his dogs
Being maligned by an anonymous, lone voice on an obscure internet forum equates to not being maligned at all.
Besides, I don't think he will be found guilty because he will never face trial. Not a legal one anyway.
I personally don't care if it 'stacks up' or not, but if we're not taking her account at face value, then we certainly can't rely on the word of a couple of jailhouse snitches with everything to gain and nothing to lose, that's for sure.
Once again, flat earthers, you can't have it both ways.
Of it is shown that. CB is guilty then it follows that the two jailhouse snitches do have more credibility than the the alerts claimed by grime
See I thought you were your own voice, but no its from a crib sheet.
If the case rests on this '15 minute' window of opportunity (pun intended), then it wouldn't even see the foyer of the office of the admin assistant to the CPS officer. It's a right old giggle this, honestly.
It harks back to the good old days of the Birmingham 6, when shonky evidence was great evidence.
Just a thought from a poster on Websleuths who thinks that if the recent TV documentaries had produced any world shattering observations likely to impinge on Madeleine's case, it is highly unlikely broadcasting them would have been allowed.
The uncharacteristic silence from MWT might indicate that he actually did uncover something the police don't want shared at the moment.
Interesting.
So the German prosecutor can shoot his mouth off but the media can be silence. Very democratic.
So the German prosecutor can shoot his mouth off but the media can be silence. Very democratic.The media seems to have been quite noisy recently, but it’s only right that if new evidence has come to light which the police ask a reporter not to divulge in order to keep the investigation on track I wouldn’t view that as undemocratic, what an odd thing to suggest IMO.
The media seems to have been quite noisy recently, but it’s only right that if new evidence has come to light which the police ask a reporter not to divulge in order to keep the investigation on track I wouldn’t view that as undemocratic, what an odd thing to suggest IMO.
Well it seems there was nothing of interest to the prosecutors, so it's unlikely that they asked or instructed the documentary makers to withhold anything.Yes, because of course if they did want them to privately withhold something back that was critical to the case, they would of course then just give away that secrecy by making a statement telling everyone about it. Good logic.
Well it seems there was nothing of interest to the prosecutors, so it's unlikely that they asked or instructed the documentary makers to withhold anything.I thought we talking about the MWT documentary?
Well it seems there was nothing of interest to the prosecutors, so it's unlikely that they asked or instructed the documentary makers to withhold anything.
This is the Mark Williams Thomas thread ~ it may have escaped your notice we have not yet seen a frame of Mark Williams Thomas's much lauded documentary.I know. He hasn't. He's late to the party, but that doesn't matter. In fairness, once again, at least he's got up off his arse and 'investigated' to a greater or lesser degree and had the wherewithal to crank out another mockumentary for the mindless masses to absorb. All that anyone here has done, including my fat ass, is sneak up to a couple of windows and attempt to open the wrong type of blinds.
As stated in your opening post of 4th August last year
Mark Williams-Thomas is making a new programme which seems to be addressing the Madeleine McCann case. He has been filming in Portugal and Germany, so he seems to be looking at the latest theory that German Christan B is involved. Here is today's tweet;
"Last few days filming in Germany then break before final filming in UK & abroad . Been a mad schedule - but nothing new . Always the way visit some lovely countries but never get to see the sites."
Stranger things than MWT hitting the jackpot might actually have happened - who knows 😁
This is the Mark Williams Thomas thread ~ it may have escaped your notice we have not yet seen a frame of Mark Williams Thomas's much lauded documentary.
As stated in your opening post of 4th August last year
Mark Williams-Thomas is making a new programme which seems to be addressing the Madeleine McCann case. He has been filming in Portugal and Germany, so he seems to be looking at the latest theory that German Christan B is involved. Here is today's tweet;
"Last few days filming in Germany then break before final filming in UK & abroad . Been a mad schedule - but nothing new . Always the way visit some lovely countries but never get to see the sites."
Stranger things than MWT hitting the jackpot might actually have happened - who knows 😁
I know the name of the thread thank you. I was discussing a point raised by you;and then you swerved off topic by referring to the German documentary:
"The uncharacteristic silence from MWT might indicate that he actually did uncover something the police don't want shared at the moment."
I know. He hasn't. He's late to the party, but that doesn't matter. In fairness, once again, at least he's got up off his arse and 'investigated' to a greater or lesser degree and had the wherewithal to crank out another mockumentary for the mindless masses to absorb. All that anyone here has done, including my fat ass, is sneak up to a couple of windows and attempt to open the wrong type of blinds.
But there will be very little new to offer - apart from more detritus for CB's legal team to trawl through for libel and 'unfair process' evidence.
I know the name of the thread thank you. I was discussing a point raised by you;
"The uncharacteristic silence from MWT might indicate that he actually did uncover something the police don't want shared at the moment."
and then you swerved off topic by referring to the German documentary:
“Well it seems there was nothing of interest to the prosecutors, so it's unlikely that they asked or instructed the documentary makers to withhold anything.”. which has nothing to do with the MWT documentary.
Hmmm ~ didn't you notice - the theme of my post was quite specific in that MWT hasn't actually managed "to crank out another mockumentary for the mindless masses to absorb".You don't research anything at all do you? You're adept at cutting and pasting from your personal archive of supporter titbits, but actually checking anything beyond that is like walking through the wardrobe in to ferkin Narnia!
Maybe he "had the wherewithal". But the results of his endeavour haven't materialised to date.
One wonders did he have "mockumentary" makers block.
Or did he have some other type of block.
Interesting turn of phrase you employ in reference to a guy just doing his job to put a crust on the table.
Interesting turn of phrase you employ in the quest to uncover the fate of a little girl. Very revealing!
Oh - is that what you were doing.
One could be forgiven for the assumption your post referred to the German input which has been passed to the BKA and nothing to do with Mark Williams Thomas work which none of us have yet viewed.
But "heigh-ho!"
Even in my wildest dreams I can't imagine the Germans being able to interfere with a UK documentary....and that's the difference. But it's likely that the makers of the German fluffumentary ran it past HCW's office either under instruction or being cautious not to impinge on the investigation. If it's the latter, in hindsight, that was an act of unparalleled conceit.
Even in my wildest dreams I can't imagine the Germans being able to interfere with a UK documentary.Even in my wildest dreams I do not imagine that the BKA are operating in isolation.
...and that's the difference. But it's likely that the makers of the German fluffumentary ran it past HCW's office either under instruction or being cautious not to impinge on the investigation. If it's the latter, in hindsight, that was an act of unparalleled conceit.
Does it not occur that Mark Williams Thomas might actually be keen to assist in any which way he can "The Bundeskriminalamt places great emphasis on international co-operation in the field of law enforcement. The Bundeskriminalamt has well-established contacts with almost all the central police offices around the globe." https://www.bka.de/EN/OurTasks/Remit/InternationalFunctions/internationalfunctions_node.html as they go about their legitimate efforts to investigate the case of a missing British child. I think he might be keen to give them any assistance they may have sought from him.No. It's about money. IMMEAHO
Even in my wildest dreams I do not imagine that the BKA are operating in isolation.
Do you think they can censor an ITV programme?
Does it not occur that Mark Williams Thomas might actually be keen to assist in any which way he can "The Bundeskriminalamt places great emphasis on international co-operation in the field of law enforcement. The Bundeskriminalamt has well-established contacts with almost all the central police offices around the globe." https://www.bka.de/EN/OurTasks/Remit/InternationalFunctions/internationalfunctions_node.html as they go about their legitimate efforts to investigate the case of a missing British child. I think he might be keen to give them any assistance they may have sought from him.
Do you think they can censor an ITV programme?What ITV programme are you referring to? In my wildest dreams I can imagine a scenario in which a foreign police force asks a UK broadcaster nicely to hold off televising a programme which may be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation into a crime involving a UK national, is that a bit too wild for you to imagine?
What ITV programme are you referring to? In my wildest dreams I can imagine a scenario in which a foreign police force asks a UK broadcaster nicely to hold off televising a programme which may be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation into a crime involving a UK national, is that a bit too wild for you to imagine?
I didn't think 'asking nicely' is what was being proposed;It’s not what I was proposing, my point stands.
it is highly unlikely broadcasting them would have been allowed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12181.msg676579#msg676579
What ITV programme are you referring to? In my wildest dreams I can imagine a scenario in which a foreign police force asks a UK broadcaster nicely to hold off televising a programme which may be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation into a crime involving a UK national, is that a bit too wild for you to imagine?
I didn't think 'asking nicely' is what was being proposed;
it is highly unlikely broadcasting them would have been allowed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12181.msg676579#msg676579
Yet again you prove the inadvisability of cherry picking something out of context for the simple reason you invariability get it all wrong.
Just a thought from a poster on Websleuths who thinks that if the recent TV documentaries had produced any world shattering observations likely to impinge on Madeleine's case, it is highly unlikely broadcasting them would have been allowed.
The uncharacteristic silence from MWT might indicate that he actually did uncover something the police don't want shared at the moment.
Interesting.
Read things properly and make the attempt to be constructive for a change .
For some it is all negativity and shutting down on any original thought process and I imagine it would take thinking outside the box to imagine that Mark Williams Thomas might have an altruistic thought in his head.MWT hasn't posted about anything on Twitter since Jan 5th. 2022. Might the reason be that he's just ill?
On the other hand - there is no denying that the contact about his documentary with followers on social media has abruptly ended. There must be a reason for that and a request from the BKA is as good a supposition as any other ~ certainly it would be a good thought that his investigation had turned up something worthhile.
MWT hasn't posted about anything on Twitter since Jan 5th. 2022. Might the reason be that he's just ill?Fair point.
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas (https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas)
MWT hasn't posted about anything on Twitter since Jan 5th. 2022. Might the reason be that he's just ill?
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas (https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas)
Or he's having a break after a period of work. There's no reason to speculate that his silence is related to his upcoming TV series imo.Then stop doing it.
Then stop doing it.
I never started.You speculated he's just having a break after a period of work. We have no idea what's going on with MW-T apart from what he's told us which is that he is/was not in a good place mentally.
You speculated he's just having a break after a period of work. We have no idea what's going on with MW-T apart from what he's told us which is that he is/was not in a good place mentally.
MWT hasn't posted about anything on Twitter since Jan 5th. 2022. Might the reason be that he's just ill?
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas (https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas)
I think that is possible
If the programs are ready to roll, why should they be delayed by MWT's potential illness ?
Perhaps other pressures have been brought to bear.
Just supposing this Alibi proved to be false, or better still actually pointed to Brueckner being in Praia da Luz at the time, phone and all.Yes, that's another possibility. If the whole thrust of MW-T's programme is that the police have got hold of the wrong man but then he subsequently comes across new evidence or is advised of such that throws a brick through his programme's premise, then I would suggest there would need to be some serious re-editing going on at Screen Dog Productions.
No one would want to talk about it just now. Not Mark Williams Thomas or The German Prosecution Service.
Yes, that's another possibility. If the whole thrust of MW-T's programme is that the police have got hold of the wrong man but then he subsequently comes across new evidence or is advised of such that throws a brick through his programme's premise, then I would suggest there would need to be some serious re-editing going on at Screen Dog Productions.
I never thought that he might have been following the wrong premise but that certainly is a possibility particularly in the light of the German TV programmes.
Mark Williams Thomas is back and I am told has Tweeted that he has had time off due to mental health issues. Best wishes to him and I hope he has made a full recovery.
From what little we have heard Brueckner was supposedly somewhere else at the time and possibly miles away. But we don't actually know if he was. And no one appears to be able to prove that he was.
I suspect that if he was out and about to abduct Madeleine then he would have been setting up a scenario to try to prove that he was elsewhere. But for his phone, of course. No one takes a half hour long phone call on a borrowed phone.
It never ceases to amaze me that criminals don't realise that they can be tracked by their phones, even in those days. In fact, they are still doing it now.
More pertinent can Wolters prove where he was, the onus is not on CB , maybe if questioned then the onus will change, still won't be long now.
His phone took a 30 minute call in PDL, so if he wants to claim he was nowhere near there, the onus will be on him to give a convincing reason for how that happened.
His phone took a 30 minute call in PDL, so if he wants to claim he was nowhere near there, the onus will be on him to give a convincing reason for how that happened.
To who ? the BKA can't be that interested, they haven't questioned him about it some 18 months on. Reasonable doubt I'd venture.
Not really.Well they apparently have proof that he used that phone. And the excuse of losing the phone only works if he's confident they have no proof he used that phone again after that date. So yes, onus is still on him to give the Judge a convincing story.
First Wolters has to prove that Brueckner oened that phone.
If Brueckner then claimed that he lost his phone some time previous to that day, it would be up to Wolters to prove otherwise.
Might be difficult to do so many years after the event.
Yes, the BKA obviously. When they formally question him they have to show all their evidence. So you can't read anything into the fact that they haven't yet.
Well they apparently have proof that he used that phone. And the excuse of losing the phone only works if he's confident they have no proof he used that phone again after that date. So yes, onus is still on him to give the Judge a convincing story.
No it isn't.
The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor.
IMO
No it isn't.
The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor.
IMO
Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.
Then The Judges could very well decide that it was Brueckner using that phone on the available evidence. Why would he refuse to say if it wasn't him?
The onus of proof isn"t always absolute.
Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.
Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.
The reason why they wanted the person who phoned that number to come forward was to tell them who he or she was talking to. That means they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone belonged to Brueckner.Define "vicinity".
Even if it was Brueckner's phone the data they have places it within the area covered by the Vodaphone mast in PdL between 7.30 and 8pm. It doesn't place him near apartment 5A. It doesn't place him in the vicinity when Madeleine McCann disappeared, whatever time that happened.
I think you are placing more importance on the phone data in this case than it actually has.
The reason why they wanted the person who phoned that number to come forward was to tell them who he or she was talking to. That means they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone belonged to Brueckner.
Even if it was Brueckner's phone the data they have places it within the area covered by the Vodaphone mast in PdL between 7.30 and 8pm. It doesn't place him near apartment 5A. It doesn't place him in the vicinity when Madeleine McCann disappeared, whatever time that happened.
I think you are placing more importance on the phone data in this case than it actually has.
I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.Exactly. If CB offers no alternative explanation then it would be reasonable for a court of law to assume that he was indeed in possession of his phone at the time.
But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.
I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.
But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.
I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.
But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.
Not to sure of that, I remember commenting at the time, one of the true crimes following police investigations, 24 hrs in Police custody if memory serves, the police said the data meant nothing if the owner claimed his brother who also lived in the area in question said he used the phone, its not cut and dried by a long shot which to his chagrin Wolters is finding no doubt.
Doesn't change the fact that the onus still falls on the accused to prove they didn't have the phone. In your example, the brother would be required to testify that he was the one using the phone and the court would judge based on the credibility of his account. The court wouldn't just take the accused's word for it, otherwise everyone would just use that excuse. It's the same logic for any item belonging to the accused that has been placed at a crime scene. CB's hair on the cat excuse didn't go down too well with the judge so I think he'll need something better for this.
If CB has someone willing to testify they were using his phone, the judge may accept the account. But it doesn't appear anybody has come forward to put their hand up for that yet. Maybe Amaral will.
I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.
But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.
As the phone was unregistered then the BKA can't prove that it belonged to him imo.I think they have already proved it belonged to him imo.
As the phone was unregistered then the BKA can't prove that it belonged to him imo.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/mysterious-phone-call-holds-key-22403399
Hans Christian Wolters, Braunschweig public prosecutor, has discussed the development in the case on ITV documentary Madeleine McCann: The Hunt for the Prime Suspect.
"We're now looking for the other person who was on the call. We want to know what they talked about. But we also want the other person to tell us who they were talking to," says the German prosecutor.
"The data shows that the phone was there, not who used it. That's why the other person on the call would be so important to us.
"They could tell us who they spoke to, possibly our suspect. In that regard, it could result in a conviction."
Clearly not certain in 2020
Not necessarily. They might have thought he lent it to someone.
As the phone was unregistered then the BKA can't prove that it belonged to him imo.You don't know what the BKA can or cannot prove... You are speculating yet again
Channel 5 tonight about Sutcliife no mention of CB yet.Do we really need another programme about the Yorkshire Ripper I wonder....?
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/peter-sutcliffe-talks-openly-about-vile-murders-and-confesses-to-unsolved-crimes-in-new-documentary-3558063
Investigator Mark Williams-Thomas, who presents the Channel 5 documentary, said: “What we get here, for the very first time, is an insight into him being as truthful as he can be.
Do we really need another programme about the Yorkshire Ripper I wonder....?
https://www.wunschliste.de/serie/der-fall-maddie-auf-der-suche-nach-der-wahrheit
MWT's new documentary will start screening in Germany on 9th March 2022. Still no date from Channel 5 but it's supposed to be first broadcast on there.
Maybe it has more appeal to the German palate.Why would it when MWT appears intent on undermining the German investigation? I would have thought the main market for that sort of thing was here in the UK.
Why would it when MWT appears intent on undermining the German investigation? I would have thought the main market for that sort of thing was here in the UK.
Why is it in your opinion that MWT is trying to undermine the investigation .Because that seems to be the angle of his documentary - to cast doubt on the possible involvement of the German’s prime suspect.
Because that seems to be the angle of his documentary - to cast doubt on the possible involvement of the German’s prime suspect.
Where did I suggest it would have any effect on the investigation? MWT needs a new angle. It would appear his angle is that the Germans are wrong. That’s him publicly trying to undermine the investigation, whether it has any effect on it is highly unlikely, it is after all just a 3 part documentary on Channel 5.
That'll have a bearing on the investigation because ? no doubt what he has the BKA have .
Why would it when MWT appears intent on undermining the German investigation?
Where did I suggest it would have any effect on the investigation?
So when you write about undermining an investigation you don't really mean it.Do you understand the difference between trying to undermine the investigation and suceeding in undermining it? Obviously not.
Why would it when MWT appears intent on undermining the German investigation? I would have thought the main market for that sort of thing was here in the UK.
Apparently not.Does it really matter? Whatever the “compelling new evidence” is we will know about it prior to the programme being broadcast as it will be drip fed to the UK media anyway.
(https://i.imgur.com/4m2SCA8.png)
According to a poster on Web Sleuths, I don't think we are going to be seeing MWT's documentary any time soon.
The advertised date on the German RTL Crime programme has come and gone without it being broadcast or an explanation or a future date being given.
The synopsis for programmes one and two has gone and has been replaced with the notification that "Unfortunately for this series there is no spoiler at the moment".
MWT tweeted that he hadn't known about the German release date to begin with. Interesting nonetheless.
I thought it was due to be shown in March?
It was but it appears to have gone from the schedule , maybe MWT has uncovered something that the the German docu didn't.
Or it may compromise charges and trial.. They should not be interviewing and broadcasting re an ongoing case
I thought it was due to be shown in March?
Thats not stopped any one in the last 15 yrs.
I think the difference may be that in previous years they were still looking for a prime suspect. They've got one now so from all points of view they've got to be careful about exactly what they are broadcasting if it features him.
One wishes the McCanns had been given that level of respect.
In my opinion that German TV station has already broadcast more than they should have. Isn't that why there was a complaint?
I don't think Brueckner complained about anything in the documentary other than the slur of being accused of neglecting his dogs; apparently being accused of being a suspected child murderer didn't have the same resonance for him than might be expected of other people.Well surely you know the reason for this seemingly innocuous, inoffensive 'slur' being used by him (more likely his legal team)?
Well surely you know the reason for this seemingly innocuous, inoffensive 'slur' being used by him (more likely his legal team)?
It's pretty obvious and requires only a little abstraction.
Go on, give it a wee pop.
Yes it's because he can't make a complaint re the accusations of him being a murdering sadistic paedophile
Well surely you know the reason for this seemingly innocuous, inoffensive 'slur' being used by him (more likely his legal team)?
It's pretty obvious and requires only a little abstraction.
Go on, give it a wee pop.
Please think carefully about the tone of your missives prior to posting. In that way you will have the opportunity to amend offensive material prior to causing the offence engendered by the above.
It will also have the bonus of making the forum a far better and more welcoming experience.
Please think carefully about the tone of your missives prior to posting. In that way you will have the opportunity to amend offensive material prior to causing the offence engendered by the above.
It will also have the bonus of making the forum a far better and more welcoming experience.
I wonder what the General imagines is the going rate to hire a lowlife like Bruckner to abduct a child? He obviously knows all about this stuff and the exact state of Bruckner's bank balance so perhaps he can start furnishing us with some insider info on the subject.
Oh dear, how to go from McCann sceptic hero of the hour back to zero in one quick tweet. I wish he would do an indepth series on McCann trolls, that would be very interesting indeed... any sceptics here a member of this FB group?(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eaj4_WhWAAUuxeV?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I've seen it reported that Brueckner has retained British lawyers; does anyone know if this is true?
Oh dear, how to go from McCann sceptic hero of the hour back to zero in one quick tweet. I wish he would do an indepth series on McCann trolls, that would be very interesting indeed... any sceptics here a member of this FB group?
Why should anyone care about MWT's comments about a Facebook group?I find McCann sceptics are generally incredibly sensitive to criticism such as that levelled by MWT, so you tell me.
I find McCann sceptics are generally incredibly sensitive to criticism such as that levelled by MWT, so you tell me.
Well I don't think he was ever seen as a hero, so I don't suppose anyone cares what he says.A few sceptics seemed rather pleased at the prospect of him taking the wind out of the Germans' sails, so I think he was being bigged up by some in the sceptic community for a short while actually.
A few sceptics seemed rather pleased at the prospect of him taking the wind out of the Germans' sails, so I think he was being bigged up by some in the sceptic community for a short while actually.
Given what has been said, he may have some evidence to add to the mix. Until it's revealed it would be clutching at straws to regard him as a 'hero'. Those inclined to 'big up' Wolters could gain from waiting for his evidence imo.He will certainly be a hero to some if he has unearthed an alibi for CB for the night of 3rd May. Some people would take that as validation of their own sceptical beliefs, illogical though that might be.
I would have thought that a valid alibi would be an excellent thing if it would eliminate a suspect
None of us want a miscarriage of justice, surely ?
He will certainly be a hero to some if he has unearthed an alibi for CB for the night of 3rd May. Some people would take that as validation of their own sceptical beliefs, illogical though that might be.
Given what has been said, he may have some evidence to add to the mix. Until it's revealed it would be clutching at straws to regard him as a 'hero'. Those inclined to 'big up' Wolters could gain from waiting for his evidence imo.Wolters is spokesperson for the BKA official investigation. His statements therefore carry emweight commensurate with that office.. I think it's fair to say MWTs opinion carry little weight
Doubts are not illogical beliefs, they are a sensible reaction to unsubstantiated stories.I think you misunderstand. CB having an alibi does not mean the parents must have done it. That was the illogic I was referring to.
I would have thought that a valid alibi would be an excellent thing if it would eliminate a suspectAbsolutely right.
None of us want a miscarriage of justice, surely ?
If it nails a paedo, maybe it doesn't matter to some, seems as if an alibi would be unwelcome.Of course it matters, no one wants the wrong person going to jail for this crime, however it would be disappointing to know that the BKA had been barking up the wrong tree for so many years, and that justice for Madeleine would be knocked back more or less to square one.
I would have thought that a valid alibi would be an excellent thing if it would eliminate a suspect
None of us want a miscarriage of justice, surely ?
Wolters is spokesperson for the BKA official investigation. His statements therefore carry emweight commensurate with that office.. I think it's fair to say MWTs opinion carry little weight
I think you misunderstand. CB having an alibi does not mean the parents must have done it. That was the illogic I was referring to.
Do you really think people think so simplistically? I don't.Some people do, some people don’t. Find me one McCann sceptic who wouldn’t be cock-a-hoop at the BKA failing to find sufficient evidence against CB then when you have failed to do so, explain why this would be the case.
I was talking about evidence, not opinions. That's what counts, not what job people do.
I dont think you understand what evidence is... Its something that supports a proposition.I think it’s fair to say that HCW’s opinion is worth more than the sum total of opinions expressed on this forum regarding CB’s possible involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
You seem to think it makes no difference whether Wolters is spokesman for the BKA investigation... Involving over 100 policemen at some stages.. Or the local bin man.
His position gives him more credibility than the local bin man. The fact there has been absolutely no dissent from anyone involved in the investigation is evidence he's telling the truth.
Your proposal that his job makes no difference which would mean his statements have no more credibility than the local bin man is just plain daft... I don't think that requires an imo... Do you
I dont think you understand what evidence is... Its something that supports a proposition.
You seem to think it makes no difference whether Wolters is spokesman for the BKA investigation... Involving over 100 policemen at some stages.. Or the local bin man.
His position gives him more credibility than the local bin man. The fact there has been absolutely no dissent from anyone involved in the investigation is evidence he's telling the truth.
Your proposal that his job makes no difference which would mean his statements have no more credibility than the local bin man is just plain daft... I don't think that requires an imo... Do you
It's not about who's who, it's about evidence which proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.And its far more like that Wolters has it than the local bin man.. Again no imo needed.. But you disagree
Some people do, some people don’t. Find me one McCann sceptic who wouldn’t be cock-a-hoop at the BKA failing to find sufficient evidence against CB then when you have failed to do so, explain why this would be the case.
Unlike you, I don't flatter myself by thinking I know how other people think or how they might react.It’s nothing to do with self flattery and everything to do with accurate perception gained through experience. Read the posts on this forum by sceptics. Show me which ones are open minded to the idea that the Germans have got the right man in their sights. Point to those posts by sceptics which indicate that the writers would be pleased if the investigation results in a successful conviction. All I see from sceptics is ridicule and scorn for HCW and the German investigation. From this I can deduce that there would be much delight if the Germans announced they were closing the investigation into CB without pressing charges. It’s really not self-flattery to make this prediction as it’s pretty self-evident IMO.
It’s nothing to do with self flattery and everything to do with accurate perception gained through experience. Read the posts on this forum by sceptics. Show me which ones are open minded to the idea that the Germans have got the right man in their sights. Point to those posts by sceptics which indicate that the writers would be pleased if the investigation results in a successful conviction. All I see from sceptics is ridicule and scorn for HCW and the German investigation. From this I can deduce that there would be much delight if the Germans announced they were closing the investigation into CB without pressing charges. It’s really not self-flattery to make this prediction as it’s pretty self-evident IMO.
So in your opinion your perceptions are accurate? In other words you think you know what others are thinking and can predict their reactions. It seems to me I was right then.LOL. And you don’t always have to be right yourself? LOL. Yes I can predict the reaction from sceptics to the possible news that no chargrs are to be brought against CB and that the Germans have failed in their investigation. Only someone very new to this case and the history of online conflict about it would be unable to accurately predict it. I may be many things but very new to this case or ignorant of the online conflict I am not. You can choose to insult me and my intelligence in your reply but I know I am right, and I think deep down you know I am too… 8(>((
Other things I am able to accurately predict about various groups of people, not because I am arrogant and self-flattering but because I have basic intelligence and a grasp of the facts
1) Most supporters of the monarchy will be deeply upset when the Queen dies
2) Man City supporters will be ecstatic if their team wins the premiership and their ecstasy will be doubled if they do the double.
3)Most Labour voters hope Boris has to resign over Partygate and some will be having parties if this happens.
4) Most Ukranians will be very delighted when the Russians stop killing their people and get the fk out of their country.
With respect, those predictions aren't actually difficult ones. In my opinion your ability to read the minds of those you have labelled 'sceptics' aren't so simple. As one of those so labelled I can assure you that I'm interested in knowing what happened to Madeleine McCann and not in who's speculations are right.My point is that it is not remotely difficult to predict the reaction by the majority sceptics to the news that the Germans have abandoned their investigation into CB’s possible involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. How do you think the news would be greeted by CMOMM? By the 30,000+ strong Abduction or Scam FB page? By Isabelle McFadden and her “justice warriors” on Twitter? By Spam and the General? By Faithlilly and Jassi? Do me a favour and don’t take me for a complete fool. You would all be rubbing mine and Davel’s noses in it for a start. You would all be utterly smug and delighted. Admit it.
With respect, those predictions aren't actually difficult ones. In my opinion your ability to read the minds of those you have labelled 'sceptics' aren't so simple. As one of those so labelled I can assure you that I'm interested in knowing what happened to Madeleine McCann and not in who's speculations are right.Would you be interested and pleased to learn that the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance? What would a guilty verdict against a stranger abdutor say about all your diligent studying of the files and your conclusion that abduction was virtually impossible? Would you just accept it with good grace and humility? I hope one day we get to a position where these questions can finally be answered.
My point is that it is not remotely difficult to predict the reaction by the majority sceptics to the news that the Germans have abandoned their investigation into CB’s possible involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. How do you think the news would be greeted by CMOMM? By the 30,000+ strong Abduction or Scam FB page? By Isabelle McFadden and her “justice warriors” on Twitter? By Spam and the General? By Faithlilly and Jassi? Do me a favour and don’t take me for a complete fool. You would all be rubbing mine and Davel’s noses in it for a start. You would all be utterly smug and delighted. Admit it.
So now it's not all sceptics you can speak for, just 'the majority'. That's a step in the right direction. I'm not remotely interested in the reactions of others, I'm afraid, so I'll be leaving that to you. I have cautioned people not to get carried away since Brueckner was named as a suspect, but despite the lack of any evidence some have. If the case goes no further then people will have to come to terms with that. They may be reminded from time to time that their faith in the German investigation was misplaced, obviously. Not because people are pleased that they were right, but because those who put their faith in what they were told rather than waiting for evidence were wrong to do so.It isn't a matter of faith... You simply do not understand
So now it's not all sceptics you can speak for, just 'the majority'. That's a step in the right direction. I'm not remotely interested in the reactions of others, I'm afraid, so I'll be leaving that to you. I have cautioned people not to get carried away since Brueckner was named as a suspect, but despite the lack of any evidence some have. If the case goes no further then people will have to come to terms with that. They may be reminded from time to time that their faith in the German investigation was misplaced, obviously. Not because people are pleased that they were right, but because those who put their faith in what they were told rather than waiting for evidence were wrong to do so.Well you started with a false premise and were arguing a strawman then weren’t you? I’m not interested in what you’re not interested in, I am voicing my opinion and that is that sceptics would be utterly delighted if the investigation goes tits up for lack of the crucial killer piece of evidence that could put CB away for the crime of child abduction and murder. You might like to think you’re something special in that you claim not to be emotionally affected by outcomes in this case and that you are coming to it entirely objectively but having read the majority of your many thousands of posts on this forum I don’t happen to believe that no matter how much thou doth protest otherwise.
So now it's not all sceptics you can speak for, just 'the majority'. That's a step in the right direction. I'm not remotely interested in the reactions of others, I'm afraid, so I'll be leaving that to you. I have cautioned people not to get carried away since Brueckner was named as a suspect, but despite the lack of any evidence some have. If the case goes no further then people will have to come to terms with that. They may be reminded from time to time that their faith in the German investigation was misplaced, obviously. Not because people are pleased that they were right, but because those who put their faith in what they were told rather than waiting for evidence were wrong to do so.PS “despite the lack of any evidence” is a false claim and you need an IMO there, seems you’re above those now too.
Well you started with a false premise and were arguing a strawman then weren’t you? I’m not interested in what you’re not interested in, I am voicing my opinion and that is that sceptics would be utterly delighted if the investigation goes tits up for lack of the crucial killer piece of evidence that could put CB away for the crime of child abduction and murder. You might like to think you’re something special in that you claim not to be emotionally affected by outcomes in this case and that you are coming to it entirely objectively but having read the majority of your many thousands of posts on this forum I don’t happen to believe that no matter how much thou doth protest otherwise.
PS “despite the lack of any evidence” is a false claim and you need an IMO there, seems you’re above those now too.
It's been discussed many times and I've seen nothing which supports the stranger abduction theory imo.That’s because you simply don’t understand the meaning of the word evidence.
I'm as impressed by your posts as you appear to be with mine.If I ever thought you’d been impressed by any of my posts I’d really be insulted. @)(++(*
It's pure speculation, of course, but the only unexplained occurance of late is the non appearance of MWT's documentary. I wonder if it's possible that he found something significant?
The SAT one in no longer to be seen apparently.
MWT's saying nothing either. My thoughts are that if he found something significant he may, as an ex police officer, have felt duty bound to share it with the police. Especially if he found new evidence in a live investigation.
His programme is still waiting for a date.Yes, he said in April.
(https://i.imgur.com/Us1tL8i.png)
Yes, he said in April.
When, that tweet said TBC.He told me.
He told me.
He told me.
Hope you haven't been mislead someone on sleuths says he talks of June.
Hope you haven't been mislead someone on sleuths says he talks of June.Perhaps he did mislead me. I honestly don’t know. That’s what he said - April.
Perhaps he did mislead me. I honestly don’t know. That’s what he said - April.
He has now tweeted that it may be June before it's broadcast, Anthro.
https://www.mundoplus.tv/programacion/amc-crime-emitira-en-exclusiva-la-miniserie-madeleine-mccann-principal-sospechoso/
First episode due to be shown on May 3rd in Europe. No word from MWT yet on twitter as to broadcast date on Channel 5.
So much for the conspiracy that the BKA had it pulled because of charges in the air, ( on another forum)
So much for the conspiracy that the BKA had it pulled because of charges in the air, ( on another forum)
Coincidentally, it's the 15th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance and the Statute of Limitations for homicide should expire on the same day. Just saying, for the benefit of those who believe Madeleine died on or before 3/5/07.
Coincidentally, it's the 15th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance and the Statute of Limitations for homicide should expire on the same day. Just saying, for the benefit of those who believe Madeleine died on or before 3/5/07.
Doesn't make no odds if the reports of the PJ continuance are true.This whole statute nonsense has already been debunked - it's not set in stone given various circumstances.
Unashamedly brought over from sleuths. In Red , if Thomas knows of an alibi so does Wolters, that alibi must be strong for no one from the BKA have rubbished it.
In addition to this interview, throughout the 45 minutes of the three episodes , the investigator questions the prosecution's theory that Brueckner's phone places him near the apartments and reveals that one of the key witnesses against the pedophile is not a trustworthy person and that all the official statements he has made have always been with money involved. As a climax, in the last installment Williams-Thomas achieves the first interview granted by Brueckner -who had previously written some letters to some German media- and puts on the table and data that would completely turn the investigation upside down: the German pedophile He has an alibi for the day of the events.
https://www.larazon.es/internacional/20220421/b762dlq6ubdn7minpszawbgzli.html
Unashamedly brought over from sleuths. In Red , if Thomas knows of an alibi so does Wolters, that alibi must be strong for no one from the BKA have rubbished it.why hasn’t MWT shared this alibi with the authorities investigating CB then? Or has he, and they have found it unconvincing…?
In addition to this interview, throughout the 45 minutes of the three episodes , the investigator questions the prosecution's theory that Brueckner's phone places him near the apartments and reveals that one of the key witnesses against the pedophile is not a trustworthy person and that all the official statements he has made have always been with money involved. As a climax, in the last installment Williams-Thomas achieves the first interview granted by Brueckner -who had previously written some letters to some German media- and puts on the table and data that would completely turn the investigation upside down: the German pedophile He has an alibi for the day of the events.
https://www.larazon.es/internacional/20220421/b762dlq6ubdn7minpszawbgzli.html
The alibi must be strong you think... I certainly dontThere are no gradations of alibi; it either exists or it doesn't.
There are no gradations of alibi; it either exists or it doesn't.
edit: .....and we're about to find out if it does...in about 3 months.
An alibi from an ex jail bird will not be as valued as one by an upright citizenWell that's not quite true, Sadie. If, let's say, CB states that he was wakeboarding in Portimao with a well known personality at the time, the police will have to test the veracity of that alibi, whether he's a filthy child molester or not (CB, not the named person). He will be afforded exactly the same right as your 'upstanding citizen'
why hasn’t MWT shared this alibi with the authorities investigating CB then? Or has he, and they have found it unconvincing…?
BKA has interviewed the German "holiday fling" twice. She cannot account for Brueckner's whereabouts on 3rd May 2007. Source- Jon Clarke.Well that's that then. He's done for.
https://mmupodcast.buzzsprout.com/1887199/10465116-ep08-madeleine-mccann-the-chief-suspect
Well that's that then. He's done for.
Unless someone questions him and actually asks the man himself, of course.
The clock starts ticking again today, by the way. Portugali have now got 8 calendar months to charge - or not. Their rules, not mine.
CB was questioned (on Wednesday?) in Oldenburg jail by officials on behalf of PJ. He remained silent, as is his right. It would have been a good time to present his alibi unless he's relishing the thought of being transferred to Faro jail.Might be like being back at home.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/christian-brueckner-official-suspect-madeleine-mccann-case-portugal-arguido-b995627.html?fbclid=IwAR3N_SGgzWB-Hf2vGAkLzSREp96id6sFy6LETKm8MkH46PufwsQ6UrvqcoM
CB was questioned (on Wednesday?) in Oldenburg jail by officials on behalf of PJ. He remained silent, as is his right. It would have been a good time to present his alibi unless he's relishing the thought of being transferred to Faro jail.Looks like a very clever move by the Germans.. Questions by Germany on behalf of the Portuguese means he has no right to see evidence against him held by the Germans
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/christian-brueckner-official-suspect-madeleine-mccann-case-portugal-arguido-b995627.html?fbclid=IwAR3N_SGgzWB-Hf2vGAkLzSREp96id6sFy6LETKm8MkH46PufwsQ6UrvqcoM
Looks like a very clever move by the Germans.. Questions by Germany on behalf of the Portuguese means he has no right to see evidence against him held by the Germans
If he was questioned as an arguido he was, however, entitled to see the evidence upon which the Portuguese made him an arguido.
If he was questioned as an arguido he was, however, entitled to see the evidence upon which the Portuguese made him an arguido.strong indications of the practice of a crime yet you claim there is no evidence of an abduction, go figure..,
Looks like a very clever move by the Germans.. Questions by Germany on behalf of the Portuguese means he has no right to see evidence against him held by the GermansGenius. All that will achieve, if they ever get round to questioning him, would be for him to do a 'Kate'.
Genius. All that will achieve, if they ever get round to questioning him, would be for him to do a 'Kate'.
Genius. All that will achieve, if they ever get round to questioning him, would be for him to do a 'Kate'.
Genius. All that will achieve, if they ever get round to questioning him, would be for him to do a 'Kate'.
Odd that it's been claimed the case would collapse as he had, an alibi.. And sceptics such as yourself fell for itBesides, this wasn't German genius, HCW had no idea it was about to happen - from his own mouth - a direct quote.
If expectations aren't drummed up no-one will bother to watch the documentary. So it is hardly surprising that MWT would try to introduce something into the mix that others didn't.
The sticking ground for me about him allegedly having multiple alibi witnesses is that were it checked out and proved correct the police are duty bound to take it on board.
Even the Policia Judiciaria accepted that Gerry was seated at the tapas table when the alarm was raised - BKA would have done likewise therefore "end of".
But it isn't - it is business as before. Not only does he remain the the prime suspect for the Germans and the British the Portuguese are on side too - they have declared him arguido.
One of the Cardiff 3 Yusef Abdullahi had an alibi placing him on a ship eight miles away. Thirteen witnesses, some of whom did not know him previously, backed this story and yet the police ignored these witnesses, charged him and he was later convicted of the brutal slaying of Lynette White. Of course the conviction was later overturned.
In fact there are several connections between the Cardiff 3 case and Brueckner’s. The defendants were all known to the police and the witnesses who put them at the scene of the crime were also known to the police.
As to the arguido status, lest we forget the parents were also made arguidos.
I doubt if anyone would be happy if CB was convicted on such poor evidence... And I'm certain he wouldn't be. The difference in the cases is you are not taking into account wolters claims of concrete evidence. Until wee know what this is it's impossible to make any sort of conclusive judgementConcrete circumstantial evidence that he himself admits is not sufficient?
Concrete circumstantial evidence that he himself admits is not sufficient?
Besides, it reads like you've made a judgement, irrespective.
I've no more made a judgement than you have. It all depends on what evidence Wolters has'The difference in the cases is you are not taking into account wolters claims of concrete evidence'
'The difference in the cases is you are not taking into account wolters claims of concrete evidence'No.. I've judged it's unlikely that wolters evidence is not compelling.
Your words, not mine. You've judged that sceptics are wrong to doubt CB was involved because of the evidence HCW has.
'The difference in the cases is you are not taking into account wolters claims of concrete evidence'Many sceptics have judged hes not involved
Your words, not mine. You've judged that sceptics are wrong to doubt CB was involved because of the evidence HCW has.
Many sceptics have judged hes not involvedI like the unintentional Trumpism; 'many sceptics'. However, you said you hadn't made a judgement when you clearly had.
I like the unintentional Trumpism; 'many sceptics'. However, you said you hadn't made a judgement when you clearly had.
But let's move on, sir.
How many is many?"many sceptics" does not imply that there is a majority of sceptics in the court of public opinion.
I though us sceptics were considered very much a minority in the court of public opinion.
May 11th it seems.We’ll all be dead by then I expect. Happy Holiday!
ETA the link.
(https://i.imgur.com/kfL6TdA.png)
What we all have to do you see is to stop caring. Some of us already have. The rest will be history.
I never cared what MWT thought or did anyway. He's either got something interesting or he hasn't.
Like Wolters.. He has or he hasn't.. You seem to think he hasn't
I never cared what MWT thought or did anyway. He's either got something interesting or he hasn't.Whatever he’s got you’ll be disappointed because it 99.99% won’t be shocking new information pointing at the parents.
You blindly accept his word that he has.
Wanna buy a used car? Great runner, no need to test drive it or look under the hood, you can trust me.
Anyone who thinks I would blindly accept anything is a complete fool
Whatever he’s got you’ll be disappointed because it 99.99% won’t be shocking new information pointing at the parents.
Oh I see, so Wolters hasn't solved the case then IYO
Brueckner could be totally innocent & Maddie may not even have been abducted in the first place.
Acceptance and blind acceptance are two different things
It's about Brueckner, isn't it?It’s about the case isn’t it?
Such a big difference from the opening page to this Thread.
Mark Williams Thomas is a chancer who has so far got nothing right.
MWT tweeted this 10 mins ago...
Name changed for UK broadcast on 11 May on
@channel5_tv
- in UK is called .#MadeleineMccann :The Case Against Christian B
MWT tweeted this 10 mins ago...
Name changed for UK broadcast on 11 May on
@channel5_tv
- in UK is called .#MadeleineMccann :The Case Against Christian B
MWT says;
None of the supposed evidence against him stands up. No wonder over two years on, the German prosecutors have not charged him. I have no evidence Brueckner is responsible for the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10776129/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-claims-miles-away-having-sex-woman.html
Hes reached that decision based on the evidence against CB that is in the public domain. Depending on this alibi which may not stand up to scrutiny i dont see what convinces him that CB is innocent.Even from this distance and without having seen the programme it seems clear the so-called alibi is nothing of the sort.
I wonder why hes chosen to ignore the fact that Wolters claims he has more evidence
Hes reached that decision based on the evidence against CB that is in the public domain. Depending on this alibi which may not stand up to scrutiny i dont see what convinces him that CB is innocent.
I wonder why hes chosen to ignore the fact that Wolters claims he has more evidence
Hes reached that decision based on the evidence against CB that is in the public domain. Depending on this alibi which may not stand up to scrutiny i dont see what convinces him that CB is innocent.
I wonder why hes chosen to ignore the fact that Wolters claims he has more evidence
And I wonder why you’ve chosen, against all evidence, to ignore that Wolter has admitted that he has OT investigated Brueckner’s alibi?
You are wrong.. Wolters hasn't admitted any such thing. He's said CB hasn't given him any alibi. From what I can see Wolters, has thoroughly investigated all those CB was involved with around this time to preempt any alibi
Does any of those ‘Brueckner was involved with’ admit knowing where he was that night through personal experience?
If Brueckner hasn’t given Wolter an alibi how in the name of all that is holy can he disprove it?
Hes reached that decision based on the evidence against CB that is in the public domain. Depending on this alibi which may not stand up to scrutiny i dont see what convinces him that CB is innocent.
I wonder why hes chosen to ignore the fact that Wolters claims he has more evidence
Is there any reason to believe that it's of any more value than the so-called phone evidence?I would say absolutely....its illogical of MWT to totally ignore it and poor detective work
Does any of those ‘Brueckner was involved with’ admit knowing where he was that night through personal experience?If the so-called alibi is this 17 year old girl and her whereabouts on the timeline of events has already been checked and verified and it doesn't match what has come to light in MWT's programme then that's one way that this so-called cast iron alibi can be dismissed.
If Brueckner hasn’t given Wolter an alibi how in the name of all that is holy can he disprove it?
Is there any reason to believe that it's of any more value than the so-called phone evidence?Shirley if this alibi jives with the phone records and 'pings', then that's corroboration.
Shirley if this alibi jives with the phone records and 'pings', then that's corroboration.
When I say 'pings', I use the same measure of reliability afforded to the assertion he was 'in the vicinity'; the vicinity being the circle of intersection of the known towers in 2007.
Shirly it all depends on the details of the alibiWell we have the detail, if the Winnebago's rockin', don't come knockin'.
And I wonder why you’ve chosen, against all evidence, to ignore that Wolter has admitted that he has OT investigated Brueckner’s alibi?Bruckner's alibi was interviewed by the BKA according to the Mirror, prior to her being touted as his cast iron alibi.
Bruckner's alibi was interviewed by the BKA according to the Mirror, prior to her being touted as his cast iron alibi.
Like Davel you seem to be questioning your main man. My claim is straight from the man himself. Yours from a tabloid.You clearly didn’t understand my post. I said the BKA had interviewed her PRIOR to her being touted as CB’s alibi. Obviously she has not been interviewed since in the context of this ay-may-zing revelation. Do you seriously believe the BKA woukd have uncovered her id and NOT interviewed her when they did, or are you under the impression that they had no idea of her existence until this week?
Will you never learn?
Wolters says that Brueckner hasn't provided police with an alibi so by providing them to journalists ,Brueckner is just toying with people for his own amusement.typical pyschopath, loving the attention, cocky, arrogant, no wonder he is much loved by the resident trolls on here, I guess they see him as a kindred spirit.
IMO
typical pyschopath, loving the attention, cocky, arrogant, no wonder he is much loved by the resident trolls on here, I guess they see him as a kindred spirit.
MWT: “Despite poisonous rumours and speculation by people who lack real insight into the crime, there is no evidence at all against Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate.
They were clearly not involved in any way with her disappearance”.
Something I’m sure we can all agree on now. ?{)(**
The only people on this forum liking posts about how certain they are that a young child has been murdered by a vicious paedophile are your ilk. You couldn’t access the moral high ground with crampons lady.Not this again. Are you still under the bizarre impression that I and my “ilk” are glad that Madeleine was abducted and murdered by a paedophile? Are you really that stupid and/or nasty?
The only people on this forum liking posts about how certain they are that a young child has been murdered by a vicious paedophile are your ilk. You couldn’t access the moral high ground with crampons lady.
you have very easily accessed the immoral high ground. It seems highly likely maddie was abused and murdered by a vile paedophile....the truth can be unpleasant but we have to accept itThere must be a word for people who repeatedly twist the truth to score cheap, nasty points like she does, but I probably wouldn’t be allowed to use it on here.
you have very easily accessed the immoral high ground. It seems highly likely maddie was abused and murdered by a vile paedophile....the truth can be unpleasant but we have to accept it
Not this again. Are you still under the bizarre impression that I and my “ilk” are glad that Madeleine was abducted and murdered by a paedophile? Are you really that stupid and/or nasty?
There must be a word for people who repeatedly twist the truth to score cheap, nasty points like she does, but I probably wouldn’t be allowed to use it on here.
Not twisting, merely reporting.What, that I have no morals? That I am pleased Madeleine was abducted, raped and murdered? Tell you what, I don’t think even the Daily Sport would hire you as a reporter, so don’t give up the day job.
What, that I have no morals? That I am pleased Madeleine was abducted, raped and murdered? Tell you what, I don’t think even the Daily Sport would hire you as a reporter, so don’t give up the day job.
Oh do stop being a drama queen….it really doesn’t suit you….and for the umpteenth time I said unconcerned not pleased but it appears that you want to be offended so crack on.You did not say “unconcerned “ you said “like”. It is an accusation you have made several times before. You questioned my morals.
You did not say “unconcerned “ you said “like”. It is an accusation you have made several times before. You questioned my morals.
“The only people on this forum liking posts about how certain they are that a young child has been murdered by a vicious paedophile are your ilk. You couldn’t access the moral high ground with crampons lady”.
Tell me, exactly what is wrong with my morals?
‘Liked’ posts, not like Madeleine’s predicament. There is a difference.But you did comment. Perhaps you should not have. Perhaps finally you have learnt a lesson, that when people “like” a post such as a news article about developments in the case that it does not mean that they like the idea of Madeleine’s horrific death at the hands of a paedophile, nor does it mean that they are morally suspect. Perhaps you have learned this lesson, but most likely you have not. Oh well, until the next time you do it again (which you surely will) let’s consider the matter shelved….
As to your morals, generally, I don’t know you so can’t comment.
But you did comment. Perhaps you should not have. Perhaps finally you have learnt a lesson, that when people “like” a post such as a news article about developments in the case that it does not mean that they like the idea of Madeleine’s horrific death at the hands of a paedophile, nor does it mean that they are morally suspect. Perhaps you have learned this lesson, but most likely you have not. Oh well, until the next time you do it again (which you surely will) let’s consider the matter shelved….
If you only liked news articles in the case then your post may hold some merit but you don’t, so please don’t play coy with me. I didn’t see you ‘like’ any of the articles on MTW over the past couple of days, or in fact anything that wasn’t proclaiming Brueckner guilty. Further as you don’t seem to be able to stomach the truth…I did not say you liked the idea that Madeleine may have died at the hands of a viscous paedophile but that you were unconcerned. I’m not even sure it’s about absolving the parents of guilt any more but simply about being right. Madeleine is just collateral.Where to begin with this nonsensical rubbish? Firstly why are you monitoring my likes? You’ve gone from (allegedly) ignoring me to checking up on which posts I’m liking. You must be very bored. Secondly I quoted MWT twice when he said live on TV that the parents had been completely exonerated so take that as my tacit approval of his opinion. Here’s a newsflash for you: MWT also thinks Madeleine was abducted and murdered by a paedo so does that mean that everyone who “likes” articles on MWT is unconcerned by this, or does it just mean that they like the idea that the police may not have the right murderous paedo in their sights?
Where to begin with this nonsensical rubbish? Firstly why are you monitoring my likes? You’ve gone from (allegedly) ignoring me to checking up on which posts I’m liking. You must be very bored. Secondly I quoted MWT twice when he said live on TV that the parents had been completely exonerated so take that as my tacit approval of his opinion. Here’s a newsflash for you: MWT also thinks Madeleine was abducted and murdered by a paedo so does that mean that everyone who “likes” articles on MWT is unconcerned by this, or does it just mean that they like the idea that the police may not have the right murderous paedo in their sights?
And what do you mean by “unconcerned “? I believe that Madeleine was killed 15 years ago, it’s a bit late for my concern about her wellbeing now. What you appear to be doing is using my opinion about Brückner’s likely involvement and interpreting it as me being unconcerned about what he may have done to Madeleine. That is entirely twisted logic on your part, deliberately affected to try and make out that I am in some way the morally dubious one here. Nothing sickens and upsets me more than thoughts of what he may have done to that child apart from one thing - that he did it and may get away with it. The fact that you don’t seem concerned about him evading justice simply because you despise her parents and refuse to let go of the idiotic idea that they were complicit in her disappearance is (to me) far more morally questionable.
Simmer down missy. TBH I’m not the least bit concerned about your morality per se just a little surprised that you think that you have the right to judge other’s. People in glass houses.Said the woman who kicked this all off by questioning my morailty, something about crampons wasn’t it? (&^&
The only people on this forum liking posts about how certain they are that a young child has been murdered by a vicious paedophile are your ilk. You couldn’t access the moral high ground with crampons lady.
Am I SV 'ilk' ? It's not what this person may have done to Madeleine [that doesn't bear thinking about] but the fact that he will face justice and pay for what he did.
Am I SV 'ilk' ? It's not what this person may have done to Madeleine [that doesn't bear thinking about] but the fact that he will face justice and pay for what he did.
MWT is really p***** off...hes made a real fool of himself. How can he be sure CB is innocent when he hasnt seen all the evidence.
How can anyone be sure of anything when we haven't seen all the evidence, or indeed any evidence ?Agreed. A question one should be asking of the trolls on here, and of MWT himself.
How can anyone be sure of anything when we haven't seen all the evidence, or indeed any evidence ?
Because Wolters said so, & SY said so, & the McCanns said so.
I always accept without question anything anyone ever says.
Don't You?
The McCann's 'did it' because you said so.
You forgot because Amaral said so, and Tony Bennett, and all those people who don't have first hand access to all the facts and evidence. The ones saying that the McCanns didn't do it are the ones with ALL the evidence that has been so far gathered to date. Hard for some people to come to terms with but that's their problem.
The McCann's 'did it' because you said so.
How can anyone be sure of anything when we haven't seen all the evidence, or indeed any evidence ?
You forgot because Amaral said so, and Tony Bennett, and all those people who don't have first hand access to all the facts and evidence. The ones saying that the McCanns didn't do it are the ones with ALL the evidence that has been so far gathered to date. Hard for some people to come to terms with but that's their problem.
Now here's a dilemma. What a lark. MWT is convinced that The McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter but he says that Brueckner has an alibi.He does spout some bullshit, doesn't he?... whether on Bamber, Pistorius or Brueckner. So Madeleine awoke, walked and wandered straight into the arms of some other paedophile who couldn't believe his luck...
What to go for, I wonder?
He does spout some bullshit, doesn't he?... whether on Bamber, Pistorius or Brueckner. So Madeleine awoke, walked and wandered straight into the arms of some other paedophile who couldn't believe his luck...Don't knock it - it's a popular theory with the forum bosses on here ya know!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2921628/kate-gerry-madeleine-mccann-ex-cop-mark-williams-thomas-theory/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2921628/kate-gerry-madeleine-mccann-ex-cop-mark-williams-thomas-theory/)
Now here's a dilemma. What a lark. MWT is convinced that The McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter but he says that Brueckner has an alibi.It will be interesting to see if MWT puts forward an alternative suspect. Considering all the dedicated investigative work he's done I'm sure he'll be able to tell us who actually did dunnit (though I shan't hold my breath!)
What to go for, I wonder?
It will be interesting to see if MWT puts forward an alternative suspect. Considering all the dedicated investigative work he's done I'm sure he'll be able to tell us who actually did dunnit (though I shan't hold my breath!)
Are you questioning MWT’s judgment?He's obviously not a complete idiot as he can see what most intelligent people have been able to see for years (ie that the parents were not involved), but what I do question is his investigative ability to come up with an alternative suspect that supports his theory.
He does spout some bullshit, doesn't he?... whether on Bamber, Pistorius or Brueckner. So Madeleine awoke, walked and wandered straight into the arms of some other paedophile who couldn't believe his luck...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2921628/kate-gerry-madeleine-mccann-ex-cop-mark-williams-thomas-theory/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2921628/kate-gerry-madeleine-mccann-ex-cop-mark-williams-thomas-theory/)
Are you questioning MWT’s judgment?
He's obviously not a complete idiot as he can see what most intelligent people have been able to see for years (ie that the parents were not involved), but what I do question is his investigative ability to come up with an alternative suspect that supports his theory.
He's obviously not a complete idiot as he can see what most intelligent people have been able to see for years (ie that the parents were not involved), but what I do question is his investigative ability to come up with an alternative suspect that supports his theory.
But he does think they are liars, since he doesn't believe the window was open.
Good point, we’ll made.
He thinks The McCanns are liars but he doesn't think they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
Goodness me. Just how daft is he?
Isn’t it his investigative ability that brought him tote conclusion that the parents are innocent….or is he merely depending on faith?He, like most reasonable people (including now the PJ, the Met and the BKA) have weighed up the evidence and concluded that abduction is the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance. He only differs from the police wrt to exactly where Madeleine was abducted from, and who knows, he may actually turn out to be right (though I personally doubt it).
Good point, we’ll made.Is it? When has he claimed that the McCanns lied about the window?
Is it? When has he claimed that the McCanns lied about the window?
"The shutter was up & the window was open, I'm not lying about that." @)(++(*
https://youtu.be/Xg-md0DysMs?t=1369
Suggesting that she was lying about something else 8(0(*
He, like most reasonable people (including now the PJ, the Met and the BKA) have weighed up the evidence and concluded that abduction is the only plausible and logical explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance. He only differs from the police wrt to exactly where Madeleine was abducted from, and who knows, he may actually turn out to be right (though I personally doubt it).
So you do have faith in his investigative ability. Glad we got that on sorted out.Do you?
Do you?
What, the investigator who sat and talked to a murderer while his victim’s body lay above his head in the attic….of course.So you do have faith in his abilty, good glad we got that sorted.
So you do have faith in his abilty, good glad we got that sorted.
What, the investigator who sat and talked to a murderer while his victim’s body lay above his head in the attic….of course.
I like the gulp she does after saying it, even she found the story hard to swallow.
... then close the patio door behind her, then open and close the childproof gate at the top of the stairs, and finally open and close the garden gate.
I'm guessing that must be Tia Sharpe?
That's the only attic body I know, off the top of my head.
(apart from all the bodies in my attic obviously).
Didn't realise MWT interviewed him.
https://youtu.be/8E_dTHeeszA
https://youtu.be/8E_dTHeeszAWas he a cop with a search warrant when he conducted that interview? Did he give any indication that he believed that s..mbag was telling the truth at any point?
Was he a cop with a search warrant when he conducted that interview? Did he give any indication that he believed that s..mbag was telling the truth at any point?
You’re right….so he can still be the greatest investigator ever, can’t he?Strange logic. I’m not sure anyone thinks he is the greatest investigator ever but it does now seem you have some respect for his opinion (an opinion which includes the view that the parents have been completely exonerated by the way).I wouldn’t get too excited about his forthcoming documentary however, I think he already shot his load on the This Morning couch so to speak, so few if any earth shattering revelations to look forward to now.
Can’t wait for his debunking of the BKA’s case against Brueckner now. Thanks VS.
Strange logic. I’m not sure anyone thinks he is the greatest investigator ever but it does now seem you have some respect for his opinion (an opinion which includes the view that the parents have been completely exonerated by the way).I wouldn’t get too excited about his forthcoming documentary however, I think he already shot his load on the This Morning couch so to speak, so few if any earth shattering revelations to look forward to now.
I’m not guided by opinion but evidence and as I don’t watch This Morning I’ll just have to wait for the real deal to see how much respect he’s due.LOL, ok. I don’t watch This Morning either but someone kindly posted a clip of his interview on here plus it’s been widely reported and discussed on this forum, how his claims of explosive revelations in his documentary turned out to be something of a damp squib: an alibi that isn’t really an alibi and a claim that the phone used by Brückner was actually not his, both claims which HCW seemed quite at ease with when challenged about them by SF and which he appeared to dismiss as either untrue or irrelevant. Still I’m sure we will all be glued to the set when MWT’s programme is on, that after all is exactly what this is all about - getting bums on seats and audience figures for Channel 5..
LOL, ok. I don’t watch This Morning either but someone kindly posted a clip of his interview on here plus it’s been widely reported and discussed on this forum, how his claims of explosive revelations in his documentary turned out to be something of a damp squib: an alibi that isn’t really an alibi and a claim that the phone used by Brückner was actually not his, both claims which HCW seemed quite at ease with when challenged about them by SF and which he appeared to dismiss as either untrue or irrelevant. Still I’m sure we will all be glued to the set when MWT’s programme is on, that after all is exactly what this is all about - getting bums on seats and audience figures for Channel 5..
I’m more interested in SF’s claims that fibres connected to Madeleine have been found in Brueckner’s campervan…a claim that the news media, expect perhaps the real rags, have ignored. One of the biggest stories connected to this case for 15 years but no credible news service is reporting it. Why is that do you think? Has Miss F been sold a pup?You’re obviously not keeping up. They are all reporting it now, I even posted a link to the Guardian article about it earlier just for you! It’s also in the Telegraph and thr Times, so you may have to revise your pist. Also, I don’t believe SF mentioned fibres specifically - have you a cite?
You’re obviously not keeping up. They are all reporting it now, I even posted a link to the Guardian article about it earlier just for you! It’s also in the Telegraph and thr Times, so you may have to revise your pist. Also, I don’t believe SF mentioned fibres specifically - have you a cite?
I don’t tend to read newspapers…the front covers on Sky is usually enough for me. Are the reports saying ‘ the Sun has reported’ ? And of course you are right SF didn’t mention fibres, I appear to have got that from elsewhere, but to ‘something of Madeleine McCann’ so you can have that one for free.If you don’t read newspapers then you’re hardly best placed to ask why no credible news service is reporting the latest developments.
If you don’t read newspapers then you’re hardly best placed to ask why no credible news service is reporting the latest developments.
Then let me make it clearer. On none of the front covers of any of the credible print media is there any mention of a breakthrough in one of the biggest missing child cases in the world. If it was true, it would be.It was on the Times online front page yesterday with a big picture of Madeleine so I’m not sure what point you are making? Is it that they only put true thing on their covers and everything after that is probably just lies?
Hope that clarifies things.
It was on the Times online front page yesterday with a big picture of Madeleine so I’m not sure what point you are making? Is it that they only put true thing on their covers and everything after that is probably just lies?
It certainly wasn’t on the print version front page.I guess you have to take comfort where you can find it...
Anyhoo the point I’m dying to make is that if the ‘something from Madeleine McCann’ is true the news would be on every news channel, on the front pages of every newspaper…just like the ‘100% DNA match to Maddie’ was….but it’s not.
What appears to have happened is Miss F has been told by ‘a police source’, about the item, much as she was in 2007 and has run with it. Geez even Martin Brunt doesn’t seem interested and he’ll willingly fly of to Portugal for any old McCann related rubbish.
I guess you have to take comfort where you can find it...
Let’s just see, shall we?That's certainly always been my philosophy, shame more can't adopt it without always being so quick to judge.
That's certainly always been my philosophy, shame more can't adopt it without always being so quick to judge.
Now that did make me laugh VS. Well done.Always a pleasure to bring a smile to your otherwise sour countenance. ?{)(**
Always a pleasure to bring a smile to your otherwise sour countenance. ?{)(**
Charm really isn’t your forte, is it?Apparently not, I got a warning for my foul language. Such delicate flowers on this forum....
Apparently not, I got a warning for my foul language. Such delicate flowers on this forum....
I got a Warning for Inappropriate Language. Although I'm not sure what that means.Mine was for bad language. I think the word was pee eye double ess but I can't be certain. I think I'm going straight to hell, such a potty mouth am I.
Mine was for bad language. I think the word was pee eye double ess but I can't be certain. I think I'm going straight to hell, such a potty mouth am I.
Clarke having a right old dig at Williams-Thomas...Ooh, plenty in that article to keep Peter Mac in frothingly mad blog posts for another year at least!
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856 (https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856)
Clarke having a right old dig at Williams-Thomas...
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856 (https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856)
Don't get me wrong, MWT is either a bit of a plonker, or, judging by the whole Pistorius thing, if someone offers him enough dough he'll take their side for them publicly. But he seems to have done some half decent research with regard to Brueckner, chasing up his partial alibi, & has doubts about the Maddie window, whilst possibly not being able to say publicly what he genuinely believes.
His aim is to make investigative TV programmes. In my opinion he would be more aware of his need of a reputation than some. I also think he would be likely to share anything important with the police. Is it significant that Wolters seems more interested lately in proving that CB murdered Madeleine than in proving he abducted her?
His aim is to make investigative TV programmes. In my opinion he would be more aware of his need of a reputation than some. I also think he would be likely to share anything important with the police. Is it significant that Wolters seems more interested lately in proving that CB murdered Madeleine than in proving he abducted her?In way significant? Either way CB is the prime and only suspect.
Its not a matter of being interested its a matter of what evidence he has. wolters may well be able to prove murder...he doesnt need to prove abduction. MWT does not seem to have taken into account what other evidence Wolters says hes holding back. Seems really stupid to me to claim CB is not involved when he hasnt seen all the evidence
Bombshell evidence... or damp squib?wow, so many bombshells I feel like I've just escaped Mariupol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoRZ1-8dU8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoRZ1-8dU8k)
Bombshell evidence... or damp squib?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoRZ1-8dU8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoRZ1-8dU8k)
wow, so many bombshells I feel like I've just escaped Mariupol.
wow, so many bombshells I feel like I've just escaped Mariupol.
What bad taste.Thanks.
I agree with MWT's assessment of Wolters.
The fact that MWT has decided CB is innocent without asking Wolters what his concrete evidence is shows MWT to be a fool in my view
The fact that MWT has decided CB is innocent without asking Wolters what his concrete evidence is shows MWT to be a fool in my view
Prosecutor Wolters has declared someone guilty of murder, encouraged a trial by media but is showing no signs of bringing charges. It's his foolish behaviour which has triggered all the stories, gossip and speculation.Opinion as fact again.. Who are you to describe Wolters bevsbiour as foolish. He's explained why he hasn't charged CB... MWT doesn't seem to have all the facts.. That makes him s fool in any sensible persons book
Prosecutor Wolters has declared someone guilty of murder, encouraged a trial by media but is showing no signs of bringing charges. It's his foolish behaviour which has triggered all the stories, gossip and speculation.
Opinion as fact again.. Who are you to describe Wolters bevsbiour as foolish. He's explained why he hasn't charged CB... MWT doesn't seem to have all the facts.. That makes him s fool in any sensible persons book
Are you saying it's OK to breach a suspect's human rights so long as you explain why? I don't think it works like that.
Strange... But not strange that you are concerned about the human rights of CB but not the MCCanns.
CB has recourse to the ECHR if he wishes...so why doesn't he start an action against Wolters in thee German courts..
I don't think the McCanns' human rights were breached, so why would I be concerned?That shows how poor your judgement is imo
MWT documentary airs tonight.
It seems the proposed three part documentary will be a scheduled ninety minute programme.
I think it's in two parts;on the 11th and the 17th.
It appears to be a full 1hr 30mins run time tonight.
Looks like Williams-Thomas has blown Wolters three pieces of evidence against Brückner way out of the water. Let's say I'm not in the least surprised.I didn’t watch it, did he establish Bruckner’s alibi beyond doubt?
Looks like Williams-Thomas has blown Wolters three pieces of evidence against Brückner way out of the water. Let's say I'm not in the least surprised.
I didn’t watch it, did he establish Bruckner’s alibi beyond doubt?
It seems to me that the only evidence against CB is whatever it is that Wolters is refusing to talk about. As has been pointed out here previously the phone 'evidence' is of no use nor is the evidence that the Jaguar car was re-registered on 4th May.
CB's alibi isn't confirmed, but neither is his presence in PdL on the night of 3rd May. There's no forensic evidence connecting him to Madeleine either. Can a case be built based on CB's character and an accusation by a very dodgy witness? We shall see.
It seems to me that the only evidence against CB is whatever it is that Wolters is refusing to talk about. As has been pointed out here previously the phone 'evidence' is of no use nor is the evidence that the Jaguar car was re-registered on 4th May.
CB's alibi isn't confirmed, but neither is his presence in PdL on the night of 3rd May. There's no forensic evidence connecting him to Madeleine either. Can a case be built based on CB's character and an accusation by a very dodgy witness? We shall see.
It seems to me that the only evidence against CB is whatever it is that Wolters is refusing to talk about. As has been pointed out here previously the phone 'evidence' is of no use nor is the evidence that the Jaguar car was re-registered on 4th May.Your second paragraph fails to take into account that which you acquiesce in your first.
CB's alibi isn't confirmed, but neither is his presence in PdL on the night of 3rd May. There's no forensic evidence connecting him to Madeleine either. Can a case be built based on CB's character and an accusation by a very dodgy witness? We shall see.
The bombshells allegedly contained in this documentary appear to have rendered almost everybody completely speechless!
At least you have enough sense to say we'll see... Unlike MWT who has declared CB innnocent. That undeniable lack of judgement is staggering
You are pontificating from a position of total ignorance. You do not have a clue what evidence holds Brueckner in place as the prime suspect in Madeleine's case for the criminal investigators of the BKA ~ SY ~ the PJ.
Aligning yourself with a predatory sex offender based on a reality TV programme which has uncovered absolutely nothing really isn't a good look.
It was mostly already revealed in the Mail article.
The phone doesn't prove anything.
The Jag being reregistered was a red herring & a German woman was with him at times before & after May 3rd, up until the 10th. She can't be certain she was with him on the 3rd, but, maybe she just wants to give him a partial alibi because she likes defending rapists, murderers & paedophiles or something. That's possible I suppose.
There are those who are quite prepared to marry them if truth be told. SERIAL killer Levi Bellfield is engaged to a besotted female visitor who he plans to wed behind bars. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18537684/levi-bellfield-engaged-blonde/ History tells us that there are many who find such characters charismatic whatever their crimes.But Brueckners girl is currently married to some other feller.
His confidence could also be based on his serious doubt that the window was open. Because if it wasn't, then Maddie wasn't abducted.
He didn't cast doubt on the window in this docu.
Maybe he believes it now, or he'll say whatever in order to make a bit of lolly.
I know as much as you, Brietta, and you don't hesitate to pontificate. Have SY named CB as their prime suspect? Suspected of what? They don't seem to be claiming that a murder has been committed.
There's a difference which you don't seem to have grasped between 'Aligning yourself with a predatory sex offender' and questioning the naming of someone as a murderer without any visible evidence. Do you think MWT is aligning himself with CB too?
The alibi hasn't been confirmed but there is every possibility it might be. The fact that Brückner was definitely seeing this girl so far from Praia da Luz regularly each night during the the time that Madeleine disappeared renders it very unlikely he had anything to do with an abduction.
The alibi hasn't been confirmed but there is every possibility it might be. The fact that Brückner was definitely seeing this girl so far from Praia da Luz regularly each night during the the time that Madeleine disappeared renders it very unlikely he had anything to do with an abduction.
from what I have heard it has been checked out ...The Germans have spoken to her....MWT hasnt..
She cannot remember if she was with him on the 3rd.....some alibi
MWT did not set the heather alight with his documentary. In fact I think he systematically destroyed any credibility he might have enjoyed as he worked tortuously through the ninety minutes of it.
You are a member of a coterie which has spent fifteen years "questioning" the McCanns and the absolute lack of any evidence at all for justifying that has never seemed to bother you.
It rather says it all that your "questioning" is reserved for the spokesman for the forces of law and order investigating crimes against children and nary a "question" enters your mind concerning a proven predatory sex beast and a proven paedophile.
Says it all really.
I have to admire the way in which the 'proven sceptic fact' that a serial burglar was incapable of entering/exiting a dwelling through an unlocked ground floor window. Particularly since the MWT documentary shows him and a Portuguese researcher? standing underneath an outside villa wall which Brueckner scaled with ease to gain access to his prey.
Bearing in mind he had packed his workbag and brought it with with him as his rape victim details in her police statement and the statement she made for his trial. Proving this was not an opportunistic rape or a burglary gone wrong - it was planned.
its interesting that as regards the mccanns sceptics would not accept that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence. AS regards CB they seem to have done an about turn
I'm not a member of anything. I have indeed pointed out certain aspects of the McCanns evidence and behaviour which struck me as strange, and why not? I have never declared them guilty of any crime.
Brueckner's record suggests that he could have abducted and murdered Madeleine, but doesn't prove he did. The German prosecutor has, nevertheless, pronounced him guilty. The information he has released doesn't prove his guilt either. So it all rests on believing that the Germans have enough without any of that. If they do, then they need to charge him and submit their evidence for testing in a court of law imo.
There were enough 'indications' for the McCanns to be made arguido in order to ask them questions their answers to which may have incriminated them.
I don't know what 'indications' have led to Brueckner being made an arguido.
Are they strong enough to publicly name him as a murderer before he has even been questioned? I doubt it or the case would have progressed.
The alibi hasn't been confirmed but there is every possibility it might be. The fact that Brückner was definitely seeing this girl so far from Praia da Luz regularly each night during the the time that Madeleine disappeared renders it very unlikely he had anything to do with an abduction.Definitely?? According to whom?
There were enough 'indications' for the McCanns to be made arguido in order to ask them questions their answers to which may have incriminated them.
I don't know what 'indications' have led to Brueckner being made an arguido.
Are they strong enough to publicly name him as a murderer before he has even been questioned? I doubt it or the case would have progressed.
There were enough 'indications' for the McCanns to be made arguido in order to ask them questions their answers to which may have incriminated them.
I don't know what 'indications' have led to Brueckner being made an arguido.
Are they strong enough to publicly name him as a murderer before he has even been questioned? I doubt it or the case would have progressed.
There were enough 'indications' for the McCanns to be made arguido in order to ask them questions their answers to which may have incriminated them.Were the McCanns made arguidos on the basis of "strong indications of the practice of a crime?" I think not.
I don't know what 'indications' have led to Brueckner being made an arguido.
Are they strong enough to publicly name him as a murderer before he has even been questioned? I doubt it or the case would have progressed.
It seems to me that Brueckner endeavoured to set up an alibi for a planned abduction by telling this girlfriend that he was somewhere else on the 3rd of May. She initially appears to have believed him. And then balked at telling downright lies.
Not that any of this even remotely matters. Brueckner's Alibi is dodgy. A half decent Barrister will nail that.
Mark Williams Thomas has blown it again.
Were the McCanns made arguidos on the basis of "strong indications of the practice of a crime?" I think not.
When is the trial starting?
Sometime after the several others pending.
There were no indications which justified making the McCanns arguidps. It was done at a time when the PJ could do so without let or hindrance since no evidence was required.
The situation is entirely different for Brueckner. Portuguese law has changed and the requirement for firm evidence is required not a whim.
But you know that already. Just another slur, which is really tiresome even for you.
Since MWT ninety minute programme just doesn't go there - neither should you.
If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.
I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;
"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.
If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.were you unaware that the PJ rushed to make the McCanns arguidos when they did before the law changed?
I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;
"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.
It already has happened. And a long time ago.
You are remarkably ignorant for someone who appears to know it all.
were you unaware that the PJ rushed to make the McCanns arguidos when they did before the law changed?
Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.I think that you will find that your order of actions is backwards on.
Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.
If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.
I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;
"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.
I think that you will find that your order of actions is backwards on.
They were made arquidos and apart from the desperation at that, lies implicating them/Gerry/Kate were told to Gerry when Amaral called him in. for questioning
The Mccanns recognised that the situation was absolutely hopeless because of this ..... And they decided to leave.
Once again you got the order wrong, Gunit. IMO
You definitely have this propensity for being unable to post according to the topic of threads. Since this is the MWT thread might be worthwhile treating it accordingly.
You may consider that a "personal accusation aimed at you" - I consider it an irrefutable statement of fact.
Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.I hope this helps.
Very much 'on topic'; please present your evidence that the law relating to arguidos says that 'firm evidence' was required to constitute CB an arguido.
The same kind of evidence as that against the three men made arguido around the 10th anniversary I would presume.
Of course we all know how that worked out.
They phoned each other and were burglars. A bit like CB then, only they can't prove he was phoned.There has to be evidence of a crime committed before you can be made an arguido now, but not when the McCanns were made arguidos, however it seems that some people think that unless your surname is McCann anyone made an arguido in this case is bound to be innocent.
There has to be evidence of a crime committed before you can be made an arguido now, but not when the McCanns were made arguidos, however it seems that some people think that unless your surname is McCann anyone made an arguido in this case is bound to be innocent.
I’m watching this programme now. So far the thing that puzzles me is - the number that called the number purporting to br CB’s belonged to a paedophile based on the search history that MWT’s man uncovered. Well isn’t that a bit of a coincidence?!
It's finally dawned on gunit and other sceptics that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence. The archiving report released the arguido status and the case was shelved due to lack of evidence. So as Duarte claimed the archiving report was evidence of innocence.. The SC got it wrong
It could well be. There was no flurry of phone activity between the watcher, the lifter & the getaway driver at any point. If this was an organised pre-planned abduction to order, wouldn't you expect to see that?
Someone had to have warned Brueckner that Gerry was coming, enabling him to hide in time while the 9pm check was going on. Maybe they used radios or something.
A programme repeat complete with irritating adverts. Plenty of time to watch at leisure... it's there until 2027...I'm wondering if all the real bombshell revelations were left on the cutting room floor, after all, wasn't this supposed to be a 3 part 3 hour plus series?
https://www.channel5.com/show/madeleine-mccann-the-case-against-christian-b (https://www.channel5.com/show/madeleine-mccann-the-case-against-christian-b)
I'm wondering if all the real bombshell revelations were left on the cutting room floor, after all, wasn't this supposed to be a 3 part 3 hour plus series?Only one 90 minute episode now it seems, so the scissors must have been burning white hot with overuse.
Only one 90 minute episode now it seems, so the scissors must have been burning white hot with overuse.Yes, I mentioned that above. Now what are the chances of that eh? That the caller to the phone allegedly belonging to a rapist paedophile was another paedophile? Strange that MWT didn't ask himself the same question.
The only new revelation to me was at the beginning when a Brighton cyber security analyst? discovered that the 683 caller to Brueckner's 680 number had accessed paedophile websites on his phone. If I'm reading that correctly?
Only one 90 minute episode now it seems, so the scissors must have been burning white hot with overuse.
The only new revelation to me was at the beginning when a Brighton cyber security analyst? discovered that the 683 caller to Brueckner's 680 number had accessed paedophile websites on his phone. If I'm reading that correctly?
That's a fallacy;
"the absence of evidence fallacy occurs when someone uses a lack of evidence to try to “prove” something. Of course, the problem with this line of reasoning is that a lack of evidence is just that: a lack. You can’t use it to conclude anything; you could only conclude that we still don’t know about that thing.
https://blog.blueprintprep.com/lsat/flawctober-the-absence-of-evidence-fallacy/
I thought a different person had that number now than the one who had it in 2007? Hadn't it been reallocated?The incriminating info might have been hidden away in the phone's memory or elsewhere without the new user's knowledge?
I thought a different person had that number now than the one who had it in 2007? Hadn't it been reallocated?Still a bit of a coincidence, unless paedo searches on men's phones is a far more common phenomenon than they care to admit.
That's a fallacy;
"the absence of evidence fallacy occurs when someone uses a lack of evidence to try to “prove” something. Of course, the problem with this line of reasoning is that a lack of evidence is just that: a lack. You can’t use it to conclude anything; you could only conclude that we still don’t know about that thing.
https://blog.blueprintprep.com/lsat/flawctober-the-absence-of-evidence-fallacy/
so did Duarte claim the archiving report was evidence of innocence..which it was...or proof of innocence...which it wasnt....Having said that as this was a civil trial..proof does not mean absolute but on the balance of probabilities
Proof;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence,
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Proof;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence,
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Seems the police are miles away from being able to arrest Christian B.and yet some people have no trouble believing the McCanns could behave normally at dinner knowing their child had just died so…
His name has been circulating for a long time. However all the police can say is he's an official suspect.
The documentary seemed to say he was with someone miles away that night. However had the opportunity to abduct Madeleine a few hours earlier.
Be surprised he would be calm enough to commit the crime, then straight away go and meet someone else. Then again he was a serial criminal.
Thought the phone records were more conclusive. However the documentary seems to say it covers a 35 mile radious & Cristian B may not have been the user.the thing is, the documentary did not have access to all the evidence against CB.
Believe he could be guilty. But can't see him being charged.
Everything depends on what further evidence Wolters has. Wolters is really the only person who can give an informed opinion on CBs guilt. MWT can't.... And he should have realised this
What Wolters might have isn't sufficient to successfully prosecute Brueckner with.
So I wouldn't waste time worrying about it if I were you.
Fortunately I'm not you and not worried.
Wolters may well have sufficiemt evidence to prosecute....but has time to build the perfect case
Fortunately I'm not you and not worried.
Wolters may well have sufficiemt evidence to prosecute....but has time to build the perfect case
The documentary is now available on Youtube. https://youtu.be/D0F_zO5TXqY
Didn't documentary say Christian B was making good money at the time. From drug selling?
Therefore the theory it was originally a burglary & then escalated does not fit.
Then again his rape of a 72 year old woman does have similarities. He must have stalked the womens home & known she was alone. Then climbed over walls.
It all depends what evidence the Germans have that convinces them 100% that CB murdered Maddie
Thanks Anthro.
There is an interesting sequence which I would like to see again when MWT and another with him had to take off at a rate of knots to avoid mischief from what looked like individuals very much determined to have a go with them.
Apparently they weren't keen on answering any questions let alone searching ones.
Jon Clarke describes feeling similarly under threat when researching his documentary.(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/13apr8/Sun-29-04-08-Joaquim-Marques.JPG)https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SUSPECTS.htmNot to mention the early days when journalists met with similar responses. Seems the freedom of the press in Portugal is as highly respected as is taking violent measures to prevent door-stepping.
I found the fact that many of the paedophile videos found at the box factory included pictures of CB.
This makes a mockery of those who try to excuse his crimes
I found the fact that many of the paedophile videos found at the box factory included pictures of CB.
This mskes a mockery of those who try to excuse his crimes
What makes you think people try to excuse Brueckner's crimes? He should face the full force of the law just like any criminal imo. What he shouldn't have to endure is being portrayed as guilty by agents of the law despite not even being questioned or charged.
What makes you think people try to excuse Brueckner's crimes? He should face the full force of the law just like any criminal imo. What he shouldn't have to endure is being portrayed as guilty by agents of the law despite not even being questioned or charged.Are you unaware that there are people (even one or two on this forum) who have sought to minimise and downplay his crimes against children and the woman he raped by suggesting that what he did to the children wasn't that serious and that the woman might have invited him in for sex or that she had dementia? It's time you opened your eyes.
I dont think anything....I know as a fact.
Im more concerned about the case being solved than worrying about how CB feels about being portrayed as guilty. Wolters is governed by law so oif CB is innocent he can act..... perhaps Wolters wants taht and thats why hes doing it. If wolters can solve this case and bring the perp to justice he should have the full supprt of everyone...including you. he can face the full force of the law when its all played out.
You havent shown any sympathy for the beating Cipriano was proven to have taked at the hands of the PJ...quite hypocritical...no hustice for her against those that beat her
Wolters should adhere to the law. The case needs to be tested in a court of law, not in a trial by tabloid newspapers.
Amaral has said there was no medical evidence of rape..
Wolters should adhere to the law. The case needs to be tested in a court of law, not in a trial by tabloid newspapers.
I think it's a repeat from last week.
I think it's the second episode. Three one-hour episodes were reduced to two 90 minute episodes?Oh goody, perhaps all the real good stuff, the bombshells etc were left to this episode. I shall strap myself into my chair.
You are entitled to your opinion... and that's all it is.
For me... Let's see if he solves the case
I think it's the second episode. Three one-hour episodes were reduced to two 90 minute episodes?There's only one episode, now stagnant water under the bridge. Williams-Thomas' docu was a busted flush, I'm afraid.
There's only one episode, now stagnant water under the bridge. Williams-Thomas' docu was a busted flush, I'm afraid.
Much Ado About Nothing. But as ever. Mark Williams Thomas never accomplishes anything.It started off in a promising fashion with the discovery that Brueckner's alleged caller accessed paedophile websites on his phone, but then it was downstream all the way with a rehash of work that other investigators had previously achieved. MWT missed the boat... Slaps wrist, must refrain from these aquatic analogies.
It started off in a promising fashion with the discovery that Brueckner's alleged caller accessed paedophile websites on his phone, but then it was downstream all the way with a rehash of work that other investigators had previously achieved. MWT missed the boat... Slaps wrist, must refrain from these aquatic analogies.Yes I found it odd that he did not pursue that glaring revelation further. It was a paedophile that called the number purportedly used in PdL on the night of 3rd May by the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann but no follow up?! Why not?
Much Ado About Nothing. But as ever. Mark Williams Thomas never accomplishes anything.
Who? Mark Williams Thomas? No Alibi and just a load of convoluted rubbish designed to earn money from The Media.You never mentioned it.
I was actually prepared to listen to this, just in case. No one on this Forum has been as prepared as I to defend Brueckner's right to innocence. And look where that got me. Demodded after nine years. And Yes, I do mind. Although God knows why.
But it could be a measure of who I am.
Don't know about that, Eleanor. I think MWT has a history of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and none more so than this which bears no comparison to the revelations in recent German documentaries and Jon Clarke's investigative journalism.
He's been well and truly caught out this time round when real professionals have thrown their hats into the ring. I think the hype has been shown to be nothing more or less than disinformation already discarded by investigators prior to broadcast. Just sensationalism which played well for him in the past, but ultimately has let him and his audiences down badly.
You never mentioned it.
Interesting tweet by MWT;I doubt the Germans will allow themselves to be bossed about by MWT.
The British police have concerns about the German prosecutors continued media appearances & statements. Time for German prosecutor after 3 years of investigation & asserting that Christian B killed #MadeleineMccann to charge him or admit they juts don’t have the evidence.
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1525354474197458950?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I doubt the Germans will allow themselves to be bossed about by MWT.
I doubt the Germans will allow themselves to be bossed about by MWT.
Ah. Twitter. Now there's another thing.
But MWT has proved that there is No Alibi. So who knows?
Wolters hasn't accused Brueckner of 'the abduction', so he doesn't need an alibi for that.
No, Wolters is only sure Brueckner murdered Maddie, apparently, but he hasn't given a specific time or location for when & where the murder happened, so I don't really see how Brueckner can be expected to provide an alibi for that.
Yes I found it odd that he did not pursue that glaring revelation further. It was a paedophile that called the number purportedly used in PdL on the night of 3rd May by the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann but no follow up?! Why not?
Perhaps he wanted to leave something for the parent’s future PIs to investigate when the government funding is evidentially pulled?yep, you definitely do! @)(++(*
Who? Mark Williams Thomas? No Alibi and just a load of convoluted rubbish designed to earn money from The Media.
I was actually prepared to listen to this, just in case. No one on this Forum has been as prepared as I to defend Brueckner's right to innocence. And look where that got me. Demodded after nine years. And Yes, I do mind. Although God knows why.
But it could be a measure of who I am.
A programme advertised to last three hours ends up lasting 1.5 hours. I wonder why and what was discarded? Who decided; the lawyers or the authorities?I’m sure someone will ask him over on twitter. Whether or not he answers is another matter. Of course it could have been at the request of Channel 5 who, on reviewing all 3 hours, decided he was trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and asked him to edit it to make it less protracted and dull.
Hey, Elli, have you forgotten about my disinclination to accuse Brueckner? I have done that repeatedly because I cannot see anything that absolutely confirms that he did anything.Ah yes, just another psychic crank whose name should never grace the pages of a serious discussion forum such as this.
He has all the abilities and experience to have done the abduction and there seem to be pointers toward his being there, but you cant convict anyone on that. We just don't know.
- Psychic Matt James believes that the whole Brueckner thing is just a deliberately made cloud making device to hide what is actually going on. I think he may be right and that we are all a load of suckers.
- Operation Grange believe Madeleine to be missing, NOT murdered. They obviously are still very hopeful that Madeleine is alive
- Matt James (an extremely clever psychic) has always insisted she is alive and like me, thinks that she is pregnant.
Matt confirmed the place where I looked for Madeleine on the video I found where she was dancing in 2012. He had no knowledge of where I was thinking, or even that I was searching. Although tempted, I have never communicated with him. The whole world to search; it was just like finding a needle in a haystack and we both found it.
From the whole wide world, both of us found the same place ....... A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.
It seems that it was on the strength of this that OG contacted him and presumably still read and are in contact with him..
A programme advertised to last three hours ends up lasting 1.5 hours. I wonder why and what was discarded? Who decided; the lawyers or the authorities?Neither... Williams-Thomas was too late on the scene and saw that he'd been trumped by serious investigators, end of.
Ah yes, just another psychic crank whose name should never grace the pages of a serious discussion forum such as this.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james (https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james)
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719p25-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james (https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719p25-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james)
What other missing children has this blackbird-snapping saviour successfully discovered and in reality, recovered?
So the posters on missingmadeleine forum know more than Scotland Yard, do they ? 8(>((I couldn't give a flying fig what Matthew James or any other fruitloop thinks or says. Is MM full-term yet?
Have they solved any of his runes as SY and I have?
Matt James has some odd ideas, but his eye is superb as illustrated by his lovely pictures and there are gems amongst his work. He actually predicted that something big that would need his attention was coming on 3.5.7. which thousands must have seen. 3.5.7. being, of course, the date that Madeleine disappeared.
Right from day one, he has always very firmly stated that Madeleine is alive, This is something that the other recognised psychics have also stated. No question of her being dead.
Open your mind up Myster .... or are you concerned by what Matt is saying at present?
So the posters on missingmadeleine forum know more than Scotland Yard, do they ? 8(>((Complete and utter junk.
Have they solved any of his runes as SY and I have?
Matt James has some odd ideas, but his eye is superb as illustrated by his lovely pictures and there are gems amongst his work. He actually predicted that something big that would need his attention was coming on 3.5.7. which thousands must have seen. 3.5.7. being, of course, the date that Madeleine disappeared.
Right from day one, he has always very firmly stated that Madeleine is alive, This is something that the other recognised psychics have also stated. No question of her being dead.
Open your mind up Myster .... or are you concerned by what Matt is saying at present?
I’m sure someone will ask him over on twitter. Whether or not he answers is another matter. Of course it could have been at the request of Channel 5 who, on reviewing all 3 hours, decided he was trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and asked him to edit it to make it less protracted and dull.
So the posters on missingmadeleine forum know more than Scotland Yard, do they ? 8(>((
Have they solved any of his runes as SY and I have?
Matt James has some odd ideas, but his eye is superb as illustrated by his lovely pictures and there are gems amongst his work. He actually predicted that something big that would need his attention was coming on 3.5.7. which thousands must have seen. 3.5.7. being, of course, the date that Madeleine disappeared.
Right from day one, he has always very firmly stated that Madeleine is alive, This is something that the other recognised psychics have also stated. No question of her being dead.
Open your mind up Myster .... or are you concerned by what Matt is saying at present?
Ch 5 had 3 hours to fill, which suggests to me they intended to show the full three hours. Instead they repeated a programme six days after it's first showing. I don't think that's usual.I think Channel 5 repeats are very usual.
Wolters hasn't accused Brueckner of 'the abduction', so he doesn't need an alibi for that.
No, Wolters is only sure Brueckner murdered Maddie, apparently, but he hasn't given a specific time or location for when & where the murder happened, so I don't really see how Brueckner can be expected to provide an alibi for that.
Ok, so then what was MWT's ground-breaking documentary about?
about 90 minutes.
Ok. Unless it gets uploaded to YouTube, I doubt that I'll be able to watch it. Up in the Outer Hebrides and all that or wherever I'm alleged to be.
I'll save you the trouble.
Brueckner doesn't have a precise alibi for May 3rd, but that doesn't really matter anyway, because Wolters can't prove Maddie was actually abducted & murdered by him or anyone else for that matter.
So, Brueckner is winning, good for him. Well done Brueckner.
Ok. Unless it gets uploaded to YouTube, I doubt that I'll be able to watch it. Up in the Outer Hebrides and all that or wherever I'm alleged to be.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0F_zO5TXqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0F_zO5TXqY)
Thanks. So MWT had a nice holiday filming. And Wolters, if he has any solid evidence, is hardly likely to share it with the world before Brueckner.
I couldn't give a flying fig what Matthew James or any other fruitloop thinks or says. Is MM full-term yet?
Mark Williams Thomas has another mission on the go.
Former police detector Mark Williams-Thomas exposed Savile's crimes, which saw 19 arrests and seven prison convictions on the back of his investigation. Now, the same detective has warned that a "very significant" person is waiting to be exposed for similar crimes.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1677199/jimmy-savile-investigator-operation-yewtree-sexual-assault-cases-significant-person
Mark Williams Thomas is such a fibber. He did not expose Jimmy Savile. And now he appears to have dropped Brueckner's Alibi without a word of explanation.
Next we have some untouchable person who won't ever be exposed until he is dead. Dead is always a good one, of course. Mark Williams Thomas is a charlatan who has never proved anything.
Mark Williams Thomas is such a fibber. He did not expose Jimmy Savile. And now he appears to have dropped Brueckner's Alibi without a word of explanation.There is nothing to protect your reputation when you are dead and there are no safeguards to ensure that the charitable work you carried out in life will be disbursed with the legacy as willed by you among the charities supported by you in life after your death.
Next we have some untouchable person who won't ever be exposed until he is dead. Dead is always a good one, of course. Mark Williams Thomas is a charlatan who has never proved anything.
Dame Janet Smith's report on James Savile's activities makes sobering reading...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FHb08pc44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FHb08pc44)
Dame Janet Smith's report on James Savile's activities makes sobering reading...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FHb08pc44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FHb08pc44)
Well she was utterly convinced and convincing.
According to your posts you appear to find Amaral convinced and convincing.
As far as the "me too" version of justice is concerned my preference is for conclusions to be based on
- evidence and the rule of law
- evidence introduced by the prosecution in an open court
- evidence challenged by the defence in an open court
- evidence perused by a judge and a jury in an open court
- and all of that process to be conducted while the defendant is still alive
Did you read Dame Janet Smith's evidence?
It absolutely sickens me that some are still in denial over Saville’s crimes.
Put on trial and been convicted, was he?
Do you think that he didn’t do any of the horrendous things that he is accused of?
I don't know and nor do you.
Sometimes the weight of evidence tells it’s own story.
I met Saville once…he offered me his hand but I declined to shake it.
Odd individual.
Carl Beech seems to have done alright out of it. How many more like him were there?
He was handed an 18 year jail sentence…is that your idea of ‘alright’?
He was handed an 18 year jail sentence…is that your idea of ‘alright’?
Sometimes the weight of evidence tells it’s own story.Fraternising with a paedo were you?! Imagine if the McCanns had ever met Savile, we’d never have heard the end of it.
I met Saville once…he offered me his hand but I declined to shake it.
Odd individual.
Ah yes, the one who accused a VIP.You and most other sceptics - it’s one of your defining characteristics (a propensity to believe in wild conspiracies).
I wonder if he was a victim of the 'dirty tricks brigade' who seem to protect VIPs
And before you ask, yes I do believe in conspiracies where members of the 'Establishment' are concerned.
Ah yes, the one who accused a VIP.
I wonder if he was a victim of the 'dirty tricks brigade' who seem to protect VIPs
And before you ask, yes I do believe in conspiracies where members of the 'Establishment' are concerned.
Fraternising with a paedo were you?! Imagine if the McCanns had ever met Savile, we’d never have heard the end of it.
Carl Beech accused a whole string of people against whom there was no evidence. While he himself was a paedophile.
Well there was evidence against Savile.
Unfortunately we were simply at the same event. It wasn’t as if we had dinner with him or anything.Yeah, cos if you’d had dinner with him that would have really been incriminating wouldn’t it?
Yeah, cos if you’d had dinner with him that would have really been incriminating wouldn’t it?
It was you who mentioned fraternising with a paedo.er, no it was you you,mentioned it. You met him, you fraternised with him, not me. Ugh.
er, no it was you you,mentioned it. You met him, you fraternised with him, not me. Ugh.
‘Fraternising with a paedo’ was your rather coarse phraseology. I merely declined to shake Saville’s hand.Good to know, thanks for making me aware of this important information.
You are aware, aren’t you, that I believe that the parents having dinner with a latterly exposed paedophile is meaningless in terms of the case?
Good to know, thanks for making me aware of this important information.
Carl Beech accused a whole string of people against whom there was no evidence. While he himself was a paedophile.
Well there was evidence against Savile.
There may have been 'evidence'. But without proof that 'evidence' is worthless. As the exponent of the right to the presumption of innocence for a man of already bad character proven in the courts, one would have presumed you would have extended the belief in that right to encompass all.
Like what?
Like people who were sexually assaulted by him but were not taken seriously at the time. After all, who would possibly make such claims against one of the BBC's most high profile stars who did so much for charity. Savile was untouchable at the time and he knew it. He must have had half the country thinking he was something special but all along he was just a filthy letch with money and connections.
Like people who were sexually assaulted by him but were not taken seriously at the time. After all, who would possibly make such claims against one of the BBC's most high profile stars who did so much for charity. Savile was untouchable at the time and he knew it. He must have had half the country thinking he was something special but all along he was just a filthy letch with money and connections.A few on this forum are happy to close their eyes to Savile's appalling and despicable sexual abuse, and not just when he was a BBC employee...
Like people who were sexually assaulted by him but were not taken seriously at the time. After all, who would possibly make such claims against one of the BBC's most high profile stars who did so much for charity. Savile was untouchable at the time and he knew it. He must have had half the country thinking he was something special but all along he was just a filthy letch with money and connections.
A few on this forum are happy to close their eyes to Savile's appalling and despicable sexual abuse, and not just when he was a BBC employee...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/jimmy-savile-victims-leeds-general-infirmary-investigators (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/jimmy-savile-victims-leeds-general-infirmary-investigators)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/former-child-patients-recount-jimmy-savile-abuse-leeds-hospital (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/former-child-patients-recount-jimmy-savile-abuse-leeds-hospital)
A few on this Forum believe in the Presumption of Innocence, even for Brueckner. While some will never afford this basic fact of Law for The McCanns. This is downright hypocrisy.
The culture and structure of the BBC helped him too, apparently. His connections with the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister were useful too, I expect. He fooled them all.He was advising the Prince of Wales on public relations, ffs.
He was advising the Prince of Wales on public relations, ffs.
If the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence is ever breached I'm sure it will be discussed on this Forum. After all, we have constantly discussed an alleged breach. An unfounded allegation, by the way.
Well he was an expert at fooling folk, wasn't he.
I love the way in which you have fallen lock stock and barrel for media hype in much the same way Yewtree was swallowed whole.
How many aliases did "Nick" have when grubbing around for pay-outs funding his allegations subsequently found to be false and for which he did time.
That information is a simple matter of proven fact and I would have said that MWT has a sin to answer for had he not just followed hard on the heels of the police guided by Nick.
How many names did "Nick" go by in the day when his word was gospel, until the bubble burst.
By the way - I was wrong that he stole from Savile's charities with his award for in excess of £40,000. The sum he was awarded was only in excess of £20,000. Still, not bad for a day's work if it's there for the taking.
Was it only Beech who accused Saville of some of the most horrific child abuse possible?
I love the way in which you have fallen lock stock and barrel for media hype in much the same way Yewtree was swallowed whole.
How many aliases did "Nick" have when grubbing around for pay-outs funding his allegations subsequently found to be false and for which he did time.
That information is a simple matter of proven fact and I would have said that MWT has a sin to answer for had he not just followed hard on the heels of the police guided by Nick.
How many names did "Nick" go by in the day when his word was gospel, until the bubble burst.
By the way - I was wrong that he stole from Savile's charities with his award for in excess of £40,000. The sum he was awarded was only in excess of £20,000. Still, not bad for a day's work if it's there for the taking.
Beech made false allegations against Savile and managed to fraudulently claim £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That, imo, has nothing to do with whether Savile was guilty or innocent, it was just a chancer trying to jump on a bandwagon.
Were another 450 people lying too?
The Met stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Dame_Janet_Smith_review
Was it only Beech who accused Saville of some of the most horrific child abuse possible?
You would think so by some of the posts being made, wouldn't you? In fact at least 580 people were interviewed by the Met and many BBC employees gave evidence to Dame Janet Smith's probe into the BBC. His activities were carried out on BBC premises and her report found Savile had sexually abused 72 people and had raped eight people, including an eight-year-old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Dame_Janet_Smith_review
Posters supporting Savile as a way to denigrate MWT are doomed to fail imo.
I’m really not sure why, with all the evidence against him, some even attempt to defend him.
There really is something wrong with their moral compasses.
It's called Innocence Until Proven Guilty. You obviously only agree with that Statute of English Law when it applies to some. Where does Moral Compass come in to that?I'm afraid you're on a hiding to nothing wrt to Jimmy Savile and presumption of innocence IMO. He was never found guilty in a court but very clearly he was as guilty as sin. Let's not forget there have been numerous monsters in history who were never found guilty in court but who indisputably were - Fred West for example, Hitler for another (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law!)
Beech made false allegations against Savile and managed to fraudulently claim £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That, imo, has nothing to do with whether Savile was guilty or innocent, it was just a chancer trying to jump on a bandwagon.
Were another 450 people lying too?
The Met stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Dame_Janet_Smith_review
It's called Innocence Until Proven Guilty. You obviously only agree with that Statute of English Law when it applies to some. Where does Moral Compass come in to that?
Beech was not the only one fabricating false memories and contributing to documentaries devoted to destroying reputation while promoting that of the documentary maker.
I think if proper research is conducted it is evident that many false memories emerged as a direct result of the police practice of targeting individuals who might be eligible to victim compensation and a lot of compensation was paid as a result.
The media really has reneged on their contract to relay information and not forcing the agenda because it is profitable .
Given that after a three year investigation
"Operation Yewtree recorded 11 ‘accounts of crimes’ said to have been committed by Savile at Duncroft, 5 of which were reported to have happened in the years 1970 – 1973.
Operation Outreach has now conclusively decided that Savile didn’t set foot in Duncroft before the 21st January 1974."
8.1 The evidence reviewed by Operation Outreach shows that Jimmy Savile first visited Duncroft on 21 January 1974, and ceased visiting when the school closed in 1979 for a restructure of management.
So that is at least five 'false memories' Britain's most prolific paedophile wasn't responsible for or noted by Mark Williams Thomas in any of his exposes.
I'm afraid you're on a hiding to nothing wrt to Jimmy Savile and presumption of innocence IMO. He was never found guilty in a court but very clearly he was as guilty as sin. Let's not forget there have been numerous monsters in history who were never found guilty in court but who indisputably were - Fred West for example, Hitler for another (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law!)
The conclusion reached by Operation Outreach;
11.4 Surrey Police would like to thank all the victims who supported the
investigation. It was only with the support of victims that the Operation
Outreach investigation was able to search for the truth and uncover a large
number of offences against numerous pupils at Duncroft.
https://mandatenow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Operation-Outreach-29-4-2015-11186-link.pdf
Do you think I haven't read Operation Outreach? There isn't even 20 pages worth of it to justify the three years time and effort spent on it.
Savile was dead but other members of staff were questioned. How many prosecutions arose from that? and have you not yet worked out what Mark Willian Thomas' locus might have been in that.
Twenty pages on an investigation which took three years. Well that seems to have been productive and value for money in some circles.
I'm afraid you're on a hiding to nothing wrt to Jimmy Savile and presumption of innocence IMO. He was never found guilty in a court but very clearly he was as guilty as sin. Let's not forget there have been numerous monsters in history who were never found guilty in court but who indisputably were - Fred West for example, Hitler for another (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law!)
Beech was not the only one fabricating false memories and contributing to documentaries devoted to destroying reputation while promoting that of the documentary maker.
I think if proper research is conducted it is evident that many false memories emerged as a direct result of the police practice of targeting individuals who might be eligible to victim compensation and a lot of compensation was paid as a result.
The media really has reneged on their contract to relay information and not forcing the agenda because it is profitable .
Given that after a three year investigation
"Operation Yewtree recorded 11 ‘accounts of crimes’ said to have been committed by Savile at Duncroft, 5 of which were reported to have happened in the years 1970 – 1973.
Operation Outreach has now conclusively decided that Savile didn’t set foot in Duncroft before the 21st January 1974."
8.1 The evidence reviewed by Operation Outreach shows that Jimmy Savile first visited Duncroft on 21 January 1974, and ceased visiting when the school closed in 1979 for a restructure of management.
So that is at least five 'false memories' Britain's most prolific paedophile wasn't responsible for or noted by Mark Williams Thomas in any of his exposes.
Can a dead person be tried and found guilty in a court of law? Then Article 6:2 of the ECHR cannot apply to them as they can't be charged with an offence.
Thank you for that because I didn't know how to approach Duncroft. Anna Racoon or Susan Nundy, was a resident of Duncroft at the time. She was a friend of mine. And on her Blog she said that none of this happened. And that Jimmy Savile never did anything even remotely inappropriate to any of these vulnerable girls.
Can a dead person be tried and found guilty in a court of law? Then Article 6:2 of the ECHR cannot apply to them as they can't be charged with an offence.
A dead person cannot be prosecuted but there can be a trial of the facts.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2015/12/21/is-the-cps-really-considering-putting-a-dead-man-on-trial/
As an aside, I caught some of this story on Newsnight last night which formed part of a discussion about how difficult it is for the police to successfully convict accused rapists. A man was allowed to walk free because the woman may have been suffering from sexomnia at the time the alleged crime took place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63116989
In contrast, an old case in Germany highlighted how men could be convicted of rapes they didn't commit simply because the witness ("victim") appeared credible. I found this case when I was researching Johann Schwenn who, alongside Fulscher, is defending Brueckner. The mental health card appears to form part of some defences in rape cases.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justizirrtum_um_Ralf_Witte
I can only speculate on just how many of Savile's accusers were genuine victims. Those who weren't did nothing to help stop miscarriages of justice.
Anna Racoon was my initial source and sparked my interest. Particularly the Meirion Jones connection which seems to have been inspired by disappointment over his grandmother's will.
Till then I went with the flow of "the most prolific paedophile etc etc" Just part of my learning curve as far as the media is concerned.
Anna doesn't pretend to know the whole course of Savile's life but of the time, place and personalities involved in the episode of which she did have intimate knowledge she has provided proof - not opinion - but proof of the catastrophic lies perpetrated against him.
If memory serves me well the catalyst for Mark Williams Thomas's involvement was the chance seat beside Meirion Jones in a plane.
Defending Saville.
Just when you thought this forum couldn’t get any worse.
Defending Saville.
Just when you thought this forum couldn’t get any worse.
I'm quite disgusted, but also enlightened.
Defending Saville.Well some of its members have been defending a rapist and child molester for the last two years, why weren't you complaining then?
Just when you thought this forum couldn’t get any worse.
Fortunately, your opinion is of no value.
Fortunately, your opinion is of no value.
Here was I thinking you hung on my every word! @)(++(*
I'm quite disgusted, but also enlightened.
Well some of its members have been defending a rapist and child molester for the last two years, why weren't you complaining then?
Read the link for a change and find your disgust appropriate for those attempting to make money from fraudulent claims.
Be enlightened by the news that key evidence has somehow been 'lost' by the police. And be aware that a documentary maker was the mover and shaker of all of this unseemly inheritance grab.
This is how Savile's estate was plundered
Snip
However, inquiries by this newspaper have revealed:
- Mrs Robinson’s compensation claim is one of 211 filed under a scheme set up by the executors of Savile’s will, National Westminster Bank, and the law firm it has engaged to run it, Osborne Clarke.
- All aspects of these further claims are supposed to be totally secret, but many refer to events and times – for example, screenings of Top Of The Pops – which would appear to be impossible. The way the scheme works means they are subject to only the most cursory scrutiny.
- The lawyers who represent claimants will be paid between £11,000 and £16,000 for every claim they process. Under the scheme’s fixed ‘tariff’ of damages and legal fees, this means the lawyers will be paid up to ten times as much as victims. Next month, the scheme will be challenged in the Court of Appeal.
- The fees going to Osborne Clarke will take precedence over all other calls on Savile’s fast-shrinking estate. They have already taken £500,000 and submitted bills for a further £200,000 – still only a fraction of the sum they will eventually be due.
- What is left of the Savile estate is currently valued at about £3 million, and the payment of these fees will empty the pot. The only genuine victims likely to receive compensation are those abused at NHS hospitals or the BBC: in those cases, the burden will be transferred from the estate to tax and licence-fee payers. But this applies to less than half the claimants. The others will probably get nothing.
The Savile compensation scheme was first advertised in national newspapers. Claims are checked by a small group of ‘scrutineers,’ made up of members of Savile’s family, a few friends and former colleagues.
They are prevented from discussing claims so it’s impossible to establish their veracity.
The task is still harder because the police, who seized Savile’s diaries that recorded his movements for more than 20 years, say they have ‘lost’ them.
But it is clear that many of the allegations being processed are vague.
An analysis prepared for the Court of Appeal reveals that out of 211 claimants, eight say an incident of abuse took place at some time in a period lasting ten years or more.
Eighty say an incident occurred in a period of between two and ten years.
Sixty-one specify a year, and 62 both a year and a season.
There are claims by people who say they were assaulted at recordings of Top Of The Pops before it started in 1964, and others by those who describe assaults at the BBC TV Centre in London at recordings of programmes which were, in fact, filmed elsewhere.
One claimant described an assault by Savile in 1945, stating that he was a manager at a Mecca Ballroom. In 1945, Savile was 19 and a ‘Bevin boy’ miner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798457/how-savile-s-niece-s-demand-compensation-led-police-fraud-probe-daughter-says-story-false-211-claims-vast-payments-police-investigate.html
There is a difference between defending.... or just not being taken in by wolts claims.
I would never defend him .....just don't believe he abducted Maddie from day one.
You don't know who you are protecting is actually innocent ...do you.
Why would I be interested in an ad hoc scheme set up by Savile's relatives?
Let's put it this way - we know for a fact that neither have done time for abusing children as proved by some pornographic images amongst many; neither have done time for burglary or rape.
I don't think the same can be said for Brueckner, do you?
Why indeed 😒
Or put it another way
Not many have left babies alone and one goes missing....so we can't compare that.
Yet he was one of the hundreds and hundreds all in the Algarve...for anyone looking for a so-called abductor.
Even though there is no proof of abduction.
He doesn't have any uncorroborated/inconclusive DNA either, it seems
Any chance you could start having a go of paying lip service to the thread topic. Ta
Lip service ..... sorry B you only talk to the handWhat are you trying to say? That MWT thinks Madeleine was kidnapped, not abducted? *%87
Although The man who exposed Jimmy Savile thinks Madeleine McCann’s kidnapper is ‘absolutely’ still out there.
not the abductor it seems.
Former police officer Mark Williams-Thomas famously exposed the harrowing abuse inflicted by the Jim’ll Fix It star, and now claims another person of note has committed similar offences.
He was the leading investigator on the 2012 ITV Exposure documentary, The Other Side of Jimmy Savile.
The programme examined claims of child sex abuse and lead to the Metropolitan Police launching a criminal investigation into allegations.
Now, a decade later, he claims there are more monsters in our midst who are “untouchable” - including one elusive high-profile man.
He told i: “There is one very significant person who I've done everything to try and get prosecuted because he is clearly a child sex offender.
“To date the CPS won't prosecute. The police and I have tried really hard to get there.
“He will die in due course and then the floodgates will open in the same way they did with Savile. That's not right. But justice takes many different forms.”
https://www.thesun.ie/news/9499015/cop-uncovered-jimmy-saviles-another-vip-paedophile/
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion of posthumous justice being served out by Mark Williams Thomas.
How many children's lives are to be ruined by this alleged child abuser as Thomas sits on the fence like a huge media vulture waiting for his death before cashing in on him.
There must be a reason why the CPS haven't taken action. If it is a nefarious one as Thomas seems to imply he has the remedy in his own hands if he has the evidence he claims to get retribution from a living pervert, not a dead one.
There is still a publishing industry in Portugal with a thirst for "true crime" best sellers and freedom of expression holds a lot of sway there, I believe.
Just carry on. The only person being exposed imo is you.
It really has surprised me that anyone actually believes that Saville hasn’t committed the numerous attacks he has been accused of. Even if some have been motivated by money it is simply not tenable to believe that all those who accused him were.There's certainly more Savillophiles about than I would have assumed and almost certainly generates perplexity in them when considering the paradoxical stance on CB.
Anyone see the TOTP clip where he is surrounded by girls and obviously pinches oneof their bums at the very least.. If he does that on live TV... Then..According to the woman in question it was worse than a pinch on the bum.
Just carry on. The only person being exposed imo is you.
There's certainly more Savillophiles about than I would have assumed and almost certainly generates perplexity in them when considering the paradoxical stance on CB.
Each to their own, I suppose, but the moral high ground has just been taken back, ow's about that then? UrgUrgUrgUrgl
It's very strange. Disbelieving the victims, witnesses and the police in one case, despite the evidence and believing a prosecutor in another case despite no real evidence being offered. I suspect a deep seated bias.TBH, whilst I fully accept that Savile was a serial abuser, I’m surprised you have accepted it, considering your philosophy of “accept nothing, believe noone, check everything “. All the evidence against Savile is from witnesses, no real proof or forensics, there was also a financial incentive in identifying as a victim, you’d think your scepiticism would have well and truly kicked in, but no, you’ve appear to have accepted what you’ve been told unquestioningly. Interesting…
I'm defending The Right to The Presumption of Innocence for Savile and Brueckner. If that's okay with everyone.
And Fred West?
Just carry on. The only person being exposed imo is you.
Who is Fred West? I don't know anything about him. Was he tried and convicted of anything?
There's certainly more Savillophiles about than I would have assumed and almost certainly generates perplexity in them when considering the paradoxical stance on CB.
Each to their own, I suppose, but the moral high ground has just been taken back, ow's about that then? UrgUrgUrgUrg
It's very strange. Disbelieving the victims, witnesses and the police in one case, despite the evidence and believing a prosecutor in another case despite no real evidence being offered. I suspect a deep seated bias.
TBH, whilst I fully accept that Savile was a serial abuser, I’m surprised you have accepted it, considering your philosophy of “accept nothing, believe noone, check everything “. All the evidence against Savile is from witnesses, no real proof or forensics, there was also a financial incentive in identifying as a victim, you’d think your scepiticism would have well and truly kicked in, but no, you’ve appear to have accepted what you’ve been told unquestioningly. Interesting…Quite
I'm defending The Right to The Presumption of Innocence for Savile and Brueckner. If that's okay with everyone.
I'm not really interested in your desperate attempts to cast doubt on Savile's guilt nor your attempts to blacken Mark Williams-Thomas's name. Whether you like it or not enough evidence of Savile's guilt exists for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to pay his victims.
Did you miss John's admonition about abusive personal attacks on fellow members? Rhetorical question 😁
I'm not entirely sure I wish to trade in the rights won at Runnymede for Mark Williams Thomas's version of the pursuit and technique used for his version of "justice".
I know nothing about Saviles guilt and neither do you - he never had the opportunity to defend himself in open court.
Yes you do you just simply refuse to believe that his victim’s are telling the truth.
No wonder Saville’s child victims keep their abuse secret for so long. Yours is exactly the reaction they feared.
Everyone on this Forum is entitled to state their own opinion. Providing that it isn't Libellous. Although Libel seems to have gone by the board of late.
Some of the things said about MWT on here are very close to libel imo.
Some of the things said about MWT on here are very close to libel imo.People are being libelled on here all the time, I wouldn’t worry about it.
Some of the things said about MWT on here are very close to libel imo.
People are being libelled on here all the time, I wouldn’t worry about it.
To be libel it has to be untrue.Exactly.
I'm defending The Right to The Presumption of Innocence for Savile and Brueckner. If that's okay with everyone.
And Fred West?
You are displaying ignorance and contempt for the rule of law. Since when was the English judicial system usurped and replaced by mob rule and the diktat of a documentary film maker. Preferably post mortem.Big word salad - confuse mind.
Big word salad - confuse mind.
Saville - serial necrofile / paedophile. End of.
You're not defending the judicial system, you just think he was misunderstood.
It seems some think the 'UK's finest'; the Met, were wrong to believe the victims. Are they so easily fooled?The fish rots from the head. This isn't the ineptitude of the rank and file, it's the wholesale concealment of crimes by conspiracy to serve many ends.
Another docu. by guess who?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxy0vkXdGvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxy0vkXdGvM)
By who?Your favourite bete-noire, n'est-ce pas?
Your favourite bete-noire, n'est-ce pas?
I don't know what Bete Noire means.Your next door neighbour will know.
Your next door neighbour will know.
I'm my next door neighbour.That must be Ellie-no-mates.
That must be Ellie-no-mates.
O'Connor loves me. I think.I can understand that... sausage dogs are cute little creatures and so are Frenchies...
I can understand that... sausage dogs are cute little creatures and so are Frenchies...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6MpkvYiQoc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6MpkvYiQoc)
There is nothing even remotely cute about O'Connor. He is so much better than that. He is a dog for all seasons.Who, Mark Williams-Thomas?