UK Justice Forum

Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 07:04:24 PM

Title: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 07:04:24 PM
OK so it's taken OG 7 years and some 12 million to highlight this guy?

And those battered old cars just happen to still be in existence?

And he just happened to confide in a friend when the case was show on TV on the 10th anniversary of her disappearance? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 07:07:25 PM
OK so it's taken OG 7 years and some 12 million to highlight this guy?

And those battered old cars just happen to still be in existence?

And he just happened to confide in a friend when the case was show on TV on the 10th anniversary of her disappearance?
Something tells me you’re not buying the news from Germany.  What do you thinks going on then?  A pan-European effort to lull Pamela Fenn’s neice into a false sense of security?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 07:17:20 PM
Something tells me you’re not buying the news from Germany.  What do you thinks going on then?  A pan-European effort to lull Pamela Fenn’s neice into a false sense of security?

Possibly but I wouldn't shout about it.  Authorities may have have them under close surveillance with listening devices in an attempt to get the pair talking to each other.

How would this character know MM was home alone in the unsecured apartment?

https://www.9news.com.au/national/madeleine-mccann-german-suspect-a-scapegoat-portugal-detective-goncalo-amaral-claims-maddie-podcast/0ea5ef10-8717-4cfb-adea-a1c8baf2d357
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 07:20:12 PM
Possibly but I wouldn't shout about it.  Authorities may have have them under close surveillance with listening devices in an attempt to get the pair talking to each other.

How would this character know MM was home alone in the unsecured apartment?

https://www.9news.com.au/national/madeleine-mccann-german-suspect-a-scapegoat-portugal-detective-goncalo-amaral-claims-maddie-podcast/0ea5ef10-8717-4cfb-adea-a1c8baf2d357
Authorities may have who under surveillance? 
How would I know what this burglar-cum-rapist-cum-paedo knew?  How would you know what he did and didn’t know either?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 07:47:13 PM
Authorities may have who under surveillance?  My suspects.
How would I know what this burglar-cum-rapist-cum-paedo knew?  How would you know what he did and didn’t know either?

Were talking a sparsely populated area with a 'new' suspect who had two distinctive vehicles and made/received mobile calls in the area some 1/2 hours before MM went missing. He was a known burglar/drug dealer/sex offender.  OG have had some 7 years and 12 million and this is what they've come up with but no charges!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 07:50:49 PM
Were talking a sparsely populated area with a 'new' suspect who had two distinctive vehicles and made/received mobile calls in the area some 1/2 hours before MM went missing. He was a known burglar/drug dealer/sex offender.  OG have had some 7 years and 12 million and this is what they've come up with but no charges!
Holly.  Get real.  Your suspects are not under surveillance by the authorities.  Were you unaware that it is the German police who seem very confident they have id’ed the perpetrator?  And that they have been working on this for 3 years since receiving a tip off?  How do you think cases like this get solved anyway?  From armchair detectives sending them nonsense theories through the post?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 07:59:33 PM
Holly.  Get real.  Your suspects are not under surveillance by the authorities.  Were you unaware that it is the German police who seem very confident they have id’ed the perpetrator?  And that they have been working on this for 3 years since receiving a tip off?  How do you think cases like this get solved anyway?  From armchair detectives sending them nonsense theories through the post?

So why hasn't he been charged? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 08:02:42 PM
Holly.  Get real.  Your suspects are not under surveillance by the authorities.  Were you unaware that it is the German police who seem very confident they have id’ed the perpetrator?  And that they have been working on this for 3 years since receiving a tip off?  How do you think cases like this get solved anyway?  From armchair detectives sending them nonsense theories through the post?

A tip off?  You mean the suspect in a bar on the 10th anniversary supposedly telling a pal he knew about MM's disappearance?  So what happened then?  Why the 3 year gap? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: APRIL on June 04, 2020, 08:04:10 PM
Were talking a sparsely populated area with a 'new' suspect who had two distinctive vehicles and made/received mobile calls in the area some 1/2 hours before MM went missing. He was a known burglar/drug dealer/sex offender.  OG have had some 7 years and 12 million and this is what they've come up with but no charges!


Who or what are OG? Do you suspect the parents?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Caroline on June 04, 2020, 08:10:48 PM
So why hasn't he been charged?

You didn't actually send the police your theory?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 08:12:38 PM

Who or what are OG? Do you suspect the parents?

OG = Operation Grange, the name of the Met's operation for the investigation into the disappearance of MM.

No I don't believe the parents were involved other than their stupidity in leaving 3 small children alone night after night in an unsecured apartment. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 08:13:41 PM
You didn't actually send the police your theory?

Why not? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: APRIL on June 04, 2020, 08:21:44 PM
OG = Operation Grange, the name of the Met's operation for the investigation into the disappearance of MM.

No I don't believe the parents were involved other than their stupidity in leaving 3 small children alone night after night in an unsecured apartment.


That's something they will never NOT live with. Re this investigation. The Germans are known for thoroughness and precision.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 08:42:54 PM
So why hasn't he been charged?
Because they don’t have cast iron proof presumably.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 08:43:37 PM
A tip off?  You mean the suspect in a bar on the 10th anniversary supposedly telling a pal he knew about MM's disappearance?  So what happened then?  Why the 3 year gap?
How should I know?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 10:29:26 PM
Because they don’t have cast iron proof presumably.

But most cases don't have cast iron proof before charges are brought, just enough to convince a jury.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 10:33:15 PM
But most cases don't have cast iron proof before charges are brought, just enough to convince a jury.
Obviously they don’t feel they have enough of that then.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 10:38:47 PM
How should I know?

But enough to know my theory is naff?   
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 04, 2020, 10:52:40 PM
But enough to know my theory is naff?
Exactly.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Caroline on June 04, 2020, 10:57:10 PM
Why not?

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Caroline on June 04, 2020, 10:59:29 PM
So why hasn't he been charged?

They are given time to interview.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 04, 2020, 11:13:05 PM
They are given time to interview.

They're still appealing for info from the public  &%5y%
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2020, 02:23:12 AM
But most cases don't have cast iron proof before charges are brought, just enough to convince a jury.

Before a case gets anywhere near a jury the police have to place what evidence they have before ... in England and Wales, the the Crown Prosecution Service under the Director of Public Prosecutions ... in Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ... both of which are responsible for the prosecution of crime.

I believe both these bodies consider and must be satisfied as to the quality of evidence placed before them before allowing a proceeding to trial.
Therefore I would say most cases going to trial must be supported by substantial evidence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2020, 02:33:20 AM
But most cases don't have cast iron proof before charges are brought, just enough to convince a jury.

I think the rules for evidence will be no less stringent in Germany than under Scots Law or English and Welsh Law and at some stage a prosecutor will have input.

The police appeal has generated a good response.  With any luck there will be something there which will meet required legal standards to enable a prosecution.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 07:14:00 AM
Also, this guy isn’t going anywhere for the next six or seven years so the police are under no massive time pressure to build the case against him.  Slowly, slowly, catchee Monkey.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 07:44:17 AM
Before a case gets anywhere near a jury the police have to place what evidence they have before ... in England and Wales, the the Crown Prosecution Service under the Director of Public Prosecutions ... in Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ... both of which are responsible for the prosecution of crime.

I believe both these bodies consider and must be satisfied as to the quality of evidence placed before them before allowing a proceeding to trial.
Therefore I would say most cases going to trial must be supported by substantial evidence.

But the case has nothing to do with the UK legal system..

The victim is a British citizen.  The suspect a German citizen.  The crime was committed in Portugal.  Its the responsibility of the Portuguese to put together a case and arrange extradition.

How come we're not hearing from PJ?  Why a German prosecutor?

Where's the defence lawyer?  'My client denies any involvement' or 'My client does not wish to comment at this stage'. 

Defence lawyers might argue any trial has been prejudiced by media reports.

It doesn't ring true.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 07:46:28 AM
I think the rules for evidence will be no less stringent in Germany than under Scots Law or English and Welsh Law and at some stage a prosecutor will have input.

The police appeal has generated a good response.  With any luck there will be something there which will meet required legal standards to enable a prosecution.

The appeals back in the day generated a good response too! What quality info has the recent appeal generated? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 08:00:57 AM
It doesn't ring true imo.

A guy in the area with, we are told, a very dodgy past.  He supposedly made/received a tel call in the area some 2 hours before MM went missing.  Why is this surprising when he lived in the area?  And supposedly told a friend in a bar he knew what happened when MM appeared on TV. A bit like me and others thinking they know what happened then.  Oh and he re-registered his car to a.n.other but was still driving around in it.  Could be loads of reasons for doing this.  If it incriminated him then why not abandon or torch it?

None of it makes sense.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Myster on June 05, 2020, 08:07:12 AM
Sour grapes indeed, just because everyone else thinks your suspect is pure fantasy.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:11:13 AM
But the case has nothing to do with the UK legal system..

The victim is a British citizen.  The suspect a German citizen.  The crime was committed in Portugal.  Its the responsibility of the Portuguese to put together a case and arrange extradition.

How come we're not hearing from PJ?  Why a German prosecutor?

Where's the defence lawyer?  'My client denies any involvement' or 'My client does not wish to comment at this stage'. 

Defence lawyers might argue any trial has been prejudiced by media reports.

It doesn't ring true.
What do you think is going on then Holly?  Is it all some giant conspiracy being played out by actors and the media to distract us from Coronavirus?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:11:53 AM
The appeals back in the day generated a good response too! What quality info has the recent appeal generated?
It’s only been 24 hours FGS, how is anyone supposed to answer that just now?!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:15:26 AM
It doesn't ring true imo.

A guy in the area with, we are told, a very dodgy past.  He supposedly made/received a tel call in the area some 2 hours before MM went missing.  Why is this surprising when he lived in the area?  And supposedly told a friend in a bar he knew what happened when MM appeared on TV. A bit like me and others thinking they know what happened then.  Oh and he re-registered his car to a.n.other but was still driving around in it.  Could be loads of reasons for doing this.  If it incriminated him then why not abandon or torch it?

None of it makes sense.
You’re covering up a fair bit with your “dodgy past” comment.  The man sexually abused little girls.  He also meticulously planned and executed the brutal rape and torture of a woman in Praia da Luz less than two years before Madeleine disappeared.  He was definitely in the area the night Madeleine went missing and he re-registered his car thr very next day.  But none of this makes any sense to you?  Well let me tell you that nothing about your theory makes any sense to me (or any body else on this forum).
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 08:25:50 AM
Sour grapes indeed, just because everyone else thinks your suspect is pure fantasy.

Everyone?

A Sky report out Wed referred to a second lesser known theory that was "sensitive".  What was all that about? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:31:33 AM
Everyone?

A Sky report out Wed referred to a second lesser known theory that was "sensitive".  What was all that about?

Here’s the suspect’s “dodgy past” you glossed over in your summary

History of a sex offender
1992 Commits first known break-in.
1994 Given a two-year youth sentence for the sexual abuse of a child.
2005 He rapes and robs a 72-year-old American woman in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
May 3, 2007 He is in the resort on the night that Madeleine McCann vanishes. The next day he changes the ownership of his Jaguar to a different name.
2011 Found guilty in his absence of drug trafficking in Niebull, Germany, and sentenced to 21 months in prison.
2016 Jailed for abusing a girl and child abuse images offences.
2017 Extradited to Braunschweig. Jailed for 15 months for sexually abusing a child.
December 2019 Convicted of the 2005 rape and jailed for seven years.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
You’re covering up a fair bit with your “dodgy past” comment.  The man sexually abused little girls.  He also meticulously planned and executed the brutal rape and torture of a woman in Praia da Luz less than two years before Madeleine disappeared.  He was definitely in the area the night Madeleine went missing and he re-registered his car thr very next day.  But none of this makes any sense to you?  Well let me tell you that nothing about your theory makes any sense to me (or any body else on this forum).

You chose to omit the word very.

Please find the press reports relating to his past crimes.

The American woman was known to him in that she lived up the lane from him.

How would he know MM was home alone in the unsecured apartment? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:33:13 AM
Everyone?

A Sky report out Wed referred to a second lesser known theory that was "sensitive".  What was all that about?
You’re the only person I’ve heard referencing this comment - do you have a link to the report?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:34:39 AM
You chose to omit the word very.

Please find the press reports relating to his past crimes.

The American woman was known to him in that she lived up the lane from him.

How would he know MM was home alone in the unsecured apartment?
Whether or not he knew she was home alone is entirely irrelevant IMO.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 08:34:43 AM
Here’s the suspect’s “dodgy past” you glossed over in your summary

History of a sex offender
1992 Commits first known break-in.
1994 Given a two-year youth sentence for the sexual abuse of a child.
2005 He rapes and robs a 72-year-old American woman in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
May 3, 2007 He is in the resort on the night that Madeleine McCann vanishes. The next day he changes the ownership of his Jaguar to a different name.
2011 Found guilty in his absence of drug trafficking in Niebull, Germany, and sentenced to 21 months in prison.
2016 Jailed for abusing a girl and child abuse images offences.
2017 Extradited to Braunschweig. Jailed for 15 months for sexually abusing a child.
December 2019 Convicted of the 2005 rape and jailed for seven years.

Again you chose to omit the word very.

Please find the press reports relating to the trials and convictions. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 08:37:43 AM
Whether or not he knew she was home alone is entirely irrelevant IMO.

So it was coincidence then that the only British child ever abducted from a tourist destination was home alone in an unsecured apartment? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 08:40:07 AM
So it was coincidence then that the only British child ever abducted from a tourist destination was home alone in an unsecured apartment?
If it was an opportunistic break in of an apartment he intended to burgle and found her unattended then yes, why not?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: APRIL on June 05, 2020, 08:54:43 AM
You chose to omit the word very.

Please find the press reports relating to his past crimes.

The American woman was known to him in that she lived up the lane from him.

How would he know MM was home alone in the unsecured apartment?


Knowing nothing of this case beyond the basics, if a paedophile burglar enters a house intent on burglary, and finds a greater and more tempting prize, will he leave it there, or satisfy his craving for it? Incidentally, on Breakfast News, there has just been a German journo talking. The list of past crimes from thre suspect's teenage years, is lengthy.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 08:54:57 AM
If it was an opportunistic break in of an apartment he intended to burgle and found her unattended then yes, why not?

Another coincidence then?  No one reported any burglaries the night MM went missing.  He struck lucky in that the first apartment he happened upon was unsecured and contained a home alone sleeping child.  What then he placed MM in his distinctive stand out Jag or Campervan waiting in the immediate vicinity?  The sniffer dogs didn't track outside immediate vicinity.  And you ridicule my theory.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 09:01:27 AM

Knowing nothing of this case beyond the basics, if a paedophile burglar enters a house intent on burglary, and finds a greater and more tempting prize, will he leave it there, or satisfy his craving for it? Incidentally, on Breakfast News, there has just been a German journo talking. The list of past crimes from thre suspect's teenage years, is lengthy.

Where are the original press reports about these cases? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 05, 2020, 09:20:58 AM
Another coincidence then?  No one reported any burglaries the night MM went missing.  He struck lucky in that the first apartment he happened upon was unsecured and contained a home alone sleeping child.  What then he placed MM in his distinctive stand out Jag or Campervan waiting in the immediate vicinity?  The sniffer dogs didn't track outside immediate vicinity.  And you ridicule my theory.

Not often we're on the same page,but I'm with you on this,any way the guy has a simple defence,Silence,Didn't do  it,or I knocked her down(woke and wandered) and dumped her body in the undergrowth,the real reason for the digs in 2014?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2020, 09:36:53 AM
Also, this guy isn’t going anywhere for the next six or seven years so the police are under no massive time pressure to build the case against him.  Slowly, slowly, catchee Monkey.

Guess what VS ... he is appealing on a technicality regarding his European Arrest Warrant.  If his appeal is successful he could get out.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2020, 09:38:31 AM
But the case has nothing to do with the UK legal system..

The victim is a British citizen.  The suspect a German citizen.  The crime was committed in Portugal.  Its the responsibility of the Portuguese to put together a case and arrange extradition.

How come we're not hearing from PJ?  Why a German prosecutor?

Where's the defence lawyer?  'My client denies any involvement' or 'My client does not wish to comment at this stage'. 

Defence lawyers might argue any trial has been prejudiced by media reports.

It doesn't ring true.

Oh it is true enough.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2020, 09:53:05 AM
The appeals back in the day generated a good response too! What quality info has the recent appeal generated?

Name me ONE appeal organised and carried out by the Portuguese Judicial Police on Madeleine McCann's behalf.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: APRIL on June 05, 2020, 10:09:05 AM
Where are the original press reports about these cases?


Doesn't that depend on where they happened? Also to be taken into consideration is that his full name hasn't been released so even given I could fluently read any language but my own, how would I know of whom I was reading?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 11:00:14 AM

Doesn't that depend on where they happened? Also to be taken into consideration is that his full name hasn't been released so even given I could fluently read any language but my own, how would I know of whom I was reading?

Christian Bruckner:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner-fled-police-in-1995

His name will be the same in any foreign paper.  If you find anything upload and we can translate.  Should keep you amused for a few weeks.  Happy hunting  8((()*/
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 11:18:09 AM
Name me ONE appeal organised and carried out by the Portuguese Judicial Police on Madeleine McCann's behalf.


Wrong height Brie.  CAT has him as 1.78 metre/5' 8".  Papers have him as 6'.  The written description and efit don't appear to match. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 05, 2020, 11:34:24 AM
What do the Portuguese papers say:

- Publico - not a lot
- Diario de Noticias - not a lot
- Jornal de Noticias - I will upload for translation
- Correio de Manha - I will upload for translation
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 11:39:58 AM
OK so it's taken OG 7 years and some 12 million to highlight this guy?

And those battered old cars just happen to still be in existence?

And he just happened to confide in a friend when the case was show on TV on the 10th anniversary of her disappearance?


In just the same way Jeremy Bamber bragged; told Julie how he intended to kill his family — this other psychopath, the German, couldn't resist bragging to his drinking buddy as he possibly got slowly pissed. Ten years had passed, he thought he’d got away with it; didn’t dream his mate would go to the police, and didn’t think they’d pay much attention to hearsay even if he did.

He was brash and twisted enough to show his mate the video of him raping a 72-year-old woman, so clearly trusted him; thought he was thick and wouldn’t squeal; or was half pissed.

Oh, and those old Jags and camper vans are classics and go on until they fall to bits or are kept by enthusiasts.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
So why hasn't he been charged?


They know far more than they’ve let on, don’t believe naive

They haven’t charged him — yet.

I bet they will do, though...
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 11:54:44 AM
A tip off?  You mean the suspect in a bar on the 10th anniversary supposedly telling a pal he knew about MM's disappearance?  So what happened then?  Why the 3 year gap?


Once they get a lead they have to start collecting evidence — they don’t just barge in an arrest someone immediately
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:03:19 PM
But most cases don't have cast iron proof before charges are brought, just enough to convince a jury.


The German police have said they know Madeleine is dead, and have also said they know how she died.

They’re being very cagey with their information at the moment, but they obviously have enough to release mobile phones numbers and other information...they ideally want to find Madeleine’s body before charging him

They’ve forensically tested the car and van, but this psycho was crafty. He wouldn’t have put Madeleine’s body in the car.

In fact, I guarantee he didn’t hold her in his arms as he walked out the villa. He was a professional burglar FGS. He probably took a suitcase to rob holiday homes, and put Madeleine in that. How many people do you see walking around resorts with suitcases? Thousands.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:07:56 PM
But the case has nothing to do with the UK legal system..

The victim is a British citizen.  The suspect a German citizen.  The crime was committed in Portugal.  Its the responsibility of the Portuguese to put together a case and arrange extradition.

How come we're not hearing from PJ?  Why a German prosecutor?

Where's the defence lawyer?  'My client denies any involvement' or 'My client does not wish to comment at this stage'. 

Defence lawyers might argue any trial has been prejudiced by media reports.

It doesn't ring true.



Interpol, Holly, Interpol

They liaise together
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:18:51 PM
It doesn't ring true imo.

A guy in the area with, we are told, a very dodgy past.  He supposedly made/received a tel call in the area some 2 hours before MM went missing.  Why is this surprising when he lived in the area?  And supposedly told a friend in a bar he knew what happened when MM appeared on TV. A bit like me and others thinking they know what happened then.  Oh and he re-registered his car to a.n.other but was still driving around in it.  Could be loads of reasons for doing this.  If it incriminated him then why not abandon or torch it?

None of it makes sense.

The police now know the exact spot where he was when he took that call, and it wasn’t where he lived. He was our lurking...

And why do you insist on saying “supposedly” when things are FACTS?  You do the same with Psychopath Bamber.

There’s no “supposedly” about it: the police have the LOGS which PROVE he took a call at 7:32pm and exactly where he was. That’s not supposition

Had he burnt out the car that would have looked HIGHLY suspicious! Besides, he lived hand to mouth, so wouldn’t want to get rid of the few cheap assets he had.

You tell us why anyone would reregister their car into someone else’s name who lived in a different country the day after Maddie was killed? If you don’t think that’s highly suspicious you’re the only person on the planet who doesn’t.

Just give me one reason why he would do that?.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:27:15 PM
You chose to omit the word very.

Please find the press reports relating to his past crimes.

The American woman was known to him in that she lived up the lane from him.

How would he know MM was home alone in the unsecured apartment?


Because he was a professional burglar; watched holiday properties; saw parents coming and going...

Knew what time they’d be eating.
Plus, their apartment was right on the ROAD!

Couldn’t have been easier.

No-one knows at this stage, but he may have intended just burgling the apartment...then spotted Madeleine and took her instead. Opportunistic. He wouldn’t have stolen items too if he took Maddie by chance as he was a known burglar.

It’s very simple.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
Another coincidence then?  No one reported any burglaries the night MM went missing.  He struck lucky in that the first apartment he happened upon was unsecured and contained a home alone sleeping child.  What then he placed MM in his distinctive stand out Jag or Campervan waiting in the immediate vicinity?  The sniffer dogs didn't track outside immediate vicinity.  And you ridicule my theory.


Don’t be daft, Holly

He wouldn’t have pulled up in his car/van in the same street !

He’d have had it parked roads away...and wheeled her off inside his suitcase he used to collect cash, cards, cameras, phones, laptops, iPads, jewellery, clothing, documents

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:37:50 PM
Another coincidence then?  No one reported any burglaries the night MM went missing.  He struck lucky in that the first apartment he happened upon was unsecured and contained a home alone sleeping child.  What then he placed MM in his distinctive stand out Jag or Campervan waiting in the immediate vicinity?  The sniffer dogs didn't track outside immediate vicinity.  And you ridicule my theory.

How do you know the McCann’s apartment was the first one he tried to gain entry to?

You don’t. You’re assuming.

Maybe he couldn’t gain entry, or maybe there was nothing to steal...

He would have taken a case to load his stolen items, so of course the dogs wouldn’t have picked up Maddie’s scent if he stuffer her inside and locked it, then casually walked along the road
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 12:41:43 PM
Guess what VS ... he is appealing on a technicality regarding his European Arrest Warrant.  If his appeal is successful he could get out.


Yes, I read some of his past

He’s another Jeremy Bamber

In his last court case where he was convicted or raping an elderly woman, he jotted down notes and cross referenced them, telling his solicitor their were technicalities not being adhered to etc

He was also a self-styled playboy, apparently, despite being a tramp


Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 03:36:48 PM
Another coincidence then?  No one reported any burglaries the night MM went missing.  He struck lucky in that the first apartment he happened upon was unsecured and contained a home alone sleeping child.  What then he placed MM in his distinctive stand out Jag or Campervan waiting in the immediate vicinity?  The sniffer dogs didn't track outside immediate vicinity.  And you ridicule my theory.
Where is this coincidence?  It’s just one of those things.   How do you know it was the first apartment he happened upon that was unlocked?  It could have been the fourth or the fourteenth that day.  Who said he placed her in his car or campervan in the immediate vicinity?  A bunch of assumptions and yes I do ridicule your theory because it is ridiculous.  You have presumably heard of paedophiles abducting children from their beds before.  Do you think all those cases are simply ridiculous too?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 03:38:26 PM
Guess what VS ... he is appealing on a technicality regarding his European Arrest Warrant.  If his appeal is successful he could get out.
How horrendous for the poor woman who was so grotesquely abused if nothing else.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 05, 2020, 03:40:08 PM
Christian Bruckner:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner-fled-police-in-1995

His name will be the same in any foreign paper.  If you find anything upload and we can translate.  Should keep you amused for a few weeks.  Happy hunting  8((()*/
Why should anyone go on your wild goose chase?  What point are you trying to make?  Are you really of the opinion this guy and his crimes have all been made up?  SERIOUSLY??
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2020, 11:59:53 PM
Wrong height Brie.  CAT has him as 1.78 metre/5' 8".  Papers have him as 6'.  The written description and efit don't appear to match.


She was above him, looking down.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: steve_trousers on June 06, 2020, 12:22:12 AM
Sorry to be a pedant, but 1.78 is 5’ 10 not 5’8

Suddenly the height difference isn’t so marked.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 06, 2020, 06:24:11 AM

They know far more than they’ve let on, don’t believe naive

They haven’t charged him — yet.

I bet they will do, though...
Bet they dont,lack of evidence,it would have been done by now else.Is it the proper way to run an investigation? letting the press have him guilty before finding evidence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: ISpyWithMyEye on June 06, 2020, 07:04:00 AM
Bet they dont,lack of evidence,it would have been done by now else.Is it the proper way to run an investigation? letting the press have him guilty before finding evidence.


Time will tell...

But I think they know much more than they’re letting on. They’re not going to show all their cards in one go, and what they’ve shown already is extremely damning.

No-one knows what he told his mate when they were drinking in a bar and Madeleine’s photo came on the news. Drink loosens the tongue, and he may have said something about Maddie’s abduction that only the abductor could know. The police definitely believe she’s dead, and even know how she was killed. So how do they know that when they haven’t found her body?

It’s also strange that the little German girl who went missing five years ago from a holiday complex in woodland in Germany, and who’s never been found either, dogs never traced her scent either. The abductor obviously carried a case or large backpack coated with some kind of substance to prevent/disguise aromas from seeping out for digs to pick up. He sounds far more sophisticated than Bamber in his evil doings, but almost ALL murderers come unstuck somewhere because nothing is predictable.

I’d say in this evil psychopath’s case, where he was thick (in his panic) was reregistering his car the day after Maddie disappeared.

And despite having lived in Portugal almost 12 years he suddenly went back to Germany just a month or so after Maddie vanished. That’s not coincidence...
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on June 06, 2020, 08:05:51 AM
Why now indeed?

I don't believe for a minute that this guy evaded detection for over 13 years in what has become one of the most highlighted child disappearance cases in the world.

A lot of people would have come into contact with this latest suspect over the years so the PJ must have been aware of him at some stage. Indeed, former PJ coordinator in the case, Gonçalo Amaral, recently spoke of a false flag German suspect which he already ruled out of the investigation. So why now?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 08:11:29 AM
Why now indeed?

I don't believe for a minute that this guy evaded detection for over 13 years in what has become one of the most highlighted child disappearance cases in the world.

A lot of people would have come into contact with this latest suspect over the years so the PJ must have been aware of him.
Eh?  Why not?  Someone knows what happened to Madeleine therefore someone has successfully evaded detection for 13 years, why can’t it be this guy?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on June 06, 2020, 08:24:42 AM
Does anyone really believe for a second that this suspect sat in a bar drinking beers with a pal suddenly reveals that he abducted Madeleine McCann back in 2007?  IMO it is more likely that he parted with the information that he was around Praia da Luz at the time of the disappearance but little else.  Someone has conveniently joined up the dots in my view in an attempt to implicate this guy knowing that he has a history of sexual assaults and would be an easy target.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 08:33:21 AM
Does anyone really believe for a second that this suspect sat in a bar drinking beers with a pal suddenly reveals that he abducted Madeleine McCann back in 2007?  IMO it is more likely that he parted with the information that he was around Praia da Luz at the time of the disappearance but little else.  Someone has conveniently joined up the dots in my view in an attempt to implicate this guy knowing that he has a history of sexual assaults and would be an easy target.
As a policeman yourself have you never once encountered an example of one criminal boasting to another about their involvement in an unsolved crime?  It’s hardly an unheard of phenomenon, I’m very surprised you would prefer to believe that the police are involved in some sort of conspiracy to deceive us.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 06, 2020, 08:34:00 AM
Does anyone really believe for a second that this suspect sat in a bar drinking beers with a pal suddenly reveals that he abducted Madeleine McCann back in 2007?  IMO it is more likely that he parted with the information that he was around Praia da Luz at the time of the disappearance but little else.  Someone has conveniently joined up the dots in my view in an attempt to implicate this guy knowing that he has a history of sexual assaults and would be an easy target.

Alcohol loosens the tongue... And he didn't admit to abducting her afaik... He said he knew what happened to her.
He also admitted to raping someone and showed a recording of it... Hardly normal behaviour
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 08:36:28 AM
It’s interesting how some people here like to pick and choose which bits of these latest revelations to believe in, in order to hold on tightly to their own theories about what happened.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 06, 2020, 08:58:20 AM

The German police have said they know Madeleine is dead, and have also said they know how she died.

They’re being very cagey with their information at the moment, but they obviously have enough to release mobile phones numbers and other information...they ideally want to find Madeleine’s body before charging him

They’ve forensically tested the car and van, but this psycho was crafty. He wouldn’t have put Madeleine’s body in the car.

In fact, I guarantee he didn’t hold her in his arms as he walked out the villa. He was a professional burglar FGS. He probably took a suitcase to rob holiday homes, and put Madeleine in that. How many people do you see walking around resorts with suitcases? Thousands.

Of course that is pure speculation, but to carry on in the same vein: How many tourists do you see walking around with suitcases that make screaming toddler noises?   
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 09:07:06 AM
The police now know the exact spot where he was when he took that call, and it wasn’t where he lived. He was our lurking...

And why do you insist on saying “supposedly” when things are FACTS?  You do the same with Psychopath Bamber.

There’s no “supposedly” about it: the police have the LOGS which PROVE he took a call at 7:32pm and exactly where he was. That’s not supposition

Had he burnt out the car that would have looked HIGHLY suspicious! Besides, he lived hand to mouth, so wouldn’t want to get rid of the few cheap assets he had.

You tell us why anyone would reregister their car into someone else’s name who lived in a different country the day after Maddie was killed? If you don’t think that’s highly suspicious you’re the only person on the planet who doesn’t.

Just give me one reason why he would do that?.

How do you know that ?
The limited number of masts restricted location accuracy to a broad area around PDL, rather than the greater accuracy possible today - or so I've read.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 06, 2020, 09:14:48 AM


It’s also strange that the little German girl who went missing five years ago from a holiday complex in woodland in Germany, and who’s never been found either, dogs never traced her scent either. The abductor obviously carried a case or large backpack coated with some kind of substance to prevent/disguise aromas from seeping out for digs to pick up. He sounds far more sophisticated than Bamber in his evil doings, but almost ALL murderers come unstuck somewhere because nothing is predictable.



Do you trust in scent tracker dogs but not cadaver and blood scent dogs?

I certainly agree that the circumstantial evidence is credible and needs following.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 06, 2020, 09:18:51 AM
Eh?  Why not?  Someone knows what happened to Madeleine therefore someone has successfully evaded detection for 13 years, why can’t it be this guy?

This guy hasn't evaded detection though. Detectives were aware of him in 2008. There was a reporter yesterday who wrote "over the years...his name kept cropping up".
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 09:32:24 AM
This guy hasn't evaded detection though. Detectives were aware of him in 2008. There was a reporter yesterday who wrote "over the years...his name kept cropping up".

Certainly Grange knew about him early in their investigation. They spent a huge amount of effort on 600 persons of interest. Surely they didn't pass him by without thorough investigation?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on June 06, 2020, 09:51:57 AM
It doesn't ring true imo.

A guy in the area with, we are told, a very dodgy past.  He supposedly made/received a tel call in the area some 2 hours before MM went missing.  Why is this surprising when he lived in the area?  And supposedly told a friend in a bar he knew what happened when MM appeared on TV. A bit like me and others thinking they know what happened then.  Oh and he re-registered his car to a.n.other but was still driving around in it.  Could be loads of reasons for doing this.  If it incriminated him then why not abandon or torch it?

None of it makes sense.


What about his twitter messages,  saying he wanted to abduct something small to keep for days?

They have all this evidence against him,  but unless they get some solid proof that he was there near where Madeleine went missing they don't have anything that will stand up in court.  He'll deny everything,  he'll say he didn't carry out what he said on twitter, that he was lying when he told his friend he knew what happened to Madeleine.  Unfortunately none of this will get him convicted.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 09:52:46 AM
This guy hasn't evaded detection though. Detectives were aware of him in 2008. There was a reporter yesterday who wrote "over the years...his name kept cropping up".
He has avoided being arrested for the crime of Madeleine’s abduction for 13 years though hasn’t he?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 09:54:16 AM
Certainly Grange knew about him early in their investigation. They spent a huge amount of effort on 600 persons of interest. Surely they didn't pass him by without thorough investigation?
Grange have questions to answer IMO as do the PT police who could have nailed him in the early days meaning there never needed to have been an Operation Grange.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 06, 2020, 10:09:45 AM
Certainly Grange knew about him early in their investigation. They spent a huge amount of effort on 600 persons of interest. Surely they didn't pass him by without thorough investigation?

There is a good explanation for that excellently posted by Eleanor on another thread ...

Quote

This is a Portuguese Investigation.  As we have been frequently reminded.  Operation Grange had No Jurisdiction.  They weren't even allowed to interview anyone.  So how could they pursue anything independently?

Meanwhile, this supposed Suspect was locked up in Germany and only Portugal had the Legal Right to approach this person.  Who will charge him if there is sufficient evidence and where will he be tried?  Will he be made Arguido with a right to refuse to answer any questions?

It's not looking good, Folks.

God, what a mess.  Portugal had tabs on him in the beginning and decided that he wasn't involved despite 12 Years of criminal activity.  Did Portugal even interview him?

And I think we can kiss goodbye to any Forensics after all this time.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg596817#msg596817


Says it all really.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 10:14:13 AM
There is a good explanation for that excellently posted by Eleanor on another thread ...

Quote

This is a Portuguese Investigation.  As we have been frequently reminded.  Operation Grange had No Jurisdiction.  They weren't even allowed to interview anyone.  So how could they pursue anything independently?

Meanwhile, this supposed Suspect was locked up in Germany and only Portugal had the Legal Right to approach this person.  Who will charge him if there is sufficient evidence and where will he be tried?  Will he be made Arguido with a right to refuse to answer any questions?

It's not looking good, Folks.

God, what a mess.  Portugal had tabs on him in the beginning and decided that he wasn't involved despite 12 Years of criminal activity.  Did Portugal even interview him?

And I think we can kiss goodbye to any Forensics after all this time.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg596817#msg596817


Says it all really.

So how did Grange manage to reduce '600 persons of interest' to 'one last lead'?

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: VIXTE on June 06, 2020, 10:42:40 AM

Don’t be daft, Holly

He wouldn’t have pulled up in his car/van in the same street !

He’d have had it parked roads away...and wheeled her off inside his suitcase he used to collect cash, cards, cameras, phones, laptops, iPads, jewellery, clothing, documents

It is possible that he was in the apartment before.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8660431/madeleine-mccann-mother-kate-abduction-kidnapper-previous-attempt/
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 06, 2020, 10:53:45 AM
It’s interesting how some people here like to pick and choose which bits of these latest revelations to believe in, in order to hold on tightly to their own theories about what happened.

Talking of picking and choosing you appear to believe  everything in the tabloid about Christian P?  I bet you didn't feel quite the same when the tabloids claimed the McCanns sold MM to pay off their debts?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461601.mccanns-win-pound550k-payout-and-apologies-for-libels/

The latest revelations?  You mean a lot of unsubstantiated claims in the tabloid pres? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 10:56:50 AM
Talking of picking and choosing you appear to believe  everything in the tabloid about Christian P?  I bet you didn't feel quite the same when the tabloids claimed the McCanns sold MM to pay off their debts?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461601.mccanns-win-pound550k-payout-and-apologies-for-libels/

The latest revelations?  You mean a lot of unsubstantiated claims in the tabloid pres?
Perhaps you could provide the cites I asked for instead of asking me stupid questions?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 06, 2020, 11:09:36 AM
Guess what VS ... he is appealing on a technicality regarding his European Arrest Warrant.  If his appeal is successful he could get out.

And if charges are ever brought against CP over MM's disappearance, and I can't see a scrap of evidence for this, his defence lawyers will rightfully assert a fair trial is impossible based on all the press reporting:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4507991
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 11:10:45 AM
And if charges are ever brought against CP over MM's disappearance, and I can't see a scrap of evidence for this, his defence lawyers will rightfully assert a fair trial is impossible based on all the press reporting:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4507991
He won't be tried in the UK.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 06, 2020, 11:21:20 AM
He won't be tried in the UK.

I doubt he will be tried period.  Article 6, HR, right to a fair trial.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 11:26:27 AM
I doubt he will be tried period.  Article 6, HR, right to a fair trial.
Oh well never mind, perhaps the police can fall back on plan B and go after your suspects instead then.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 11:44:16 AM
Plan B might be something along the lines of- We cannot progress prosecution of our prime suspect and are not looking at any other person.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 06, 2020, 11:48:24 AM
I doubt he will be tried period.  Article 6, HR, right to a fair trial.

Article 6 wont necessarily stop him being tried. He might try as others have. The police had no choice but to release his name in order to trace those thay want to interview. You act as though its a foregone conclusion.

the case you have highlighted...did you read it. The verdict was overturned due to the withholding of witness satetements by the prosecution...that was the main reason. The judge also said the press coverage was sensational...innaccurate  and misleading.  Is that true in this case.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 06, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
Article 6 wont necessarily stop him being tried. He might try as others have. The police had no choice but to release his name in order to trace tthose thay want to interview. You act as though its a foregone conclusion.

Which police force named him and put out the image? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 06, 2020, 12:02:43 PM
Which police force named him and put out the image?

i doubt it matters...is the coverage of him sensational...innaccurate or misleading...as it wa sin the case you linked to
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 06, 2020, 12:08:20 PM
i doubt it matters...is the coverage of him sensational...innaccurate or misleading...as it wa sin the case you linked to

You said the police had no choice but to name him in order to trace those they want to interview.  I asked which police force named him and put out the image?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 06, 2020, 12:32:15 PM
You said the police had no choice but to name him in order to trace those they want to interview.  I asked which police force named him and put out the image?

you tell me..
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on June 06, 2020, 01:24:51 PM
I take it those reporters trotting around the Algarve will have to stay home for a fortnight when they return. Why they feel the need to be there, where nothing is happening, I can't imagine.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 01:30:34 PM
I take it those reporters trotting around the Algarve will have to stay home for a fortnight when they return. Why they feel the need to be there, where nothing is happening, I can't imagine.
"Nothing to see here, move along, move along".
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 01:34:06 PM
I take it those reporters trotting around the Algarve will have to stay home for a fortnight when they return. Why they feel the need to be there, where nothing is happening, I can't imagine.

They might just get back before quarantine is imposed
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
Whether or not he knew she was home alone is entirely irrelevant IMO.

There is no evidence of anybody going through the bedroom window that he reportedly used. I want new DNA tests - now that is relevant!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 01:50:55 PM

Because he was a professional burglar; watched holiday properties; saw parents coming and going...

Knew what time they’d be eating.
Plus, their apartment was right on the ROAD!

Couldn’t have been easier.

No-one knows at this stage, but he may have intended just burgling the apartment...then spotted Madeleine and took her instead. Opportunistic. He wouldn’t have stolen items too if he took Maddie by chance as he was a known burglar.

It’s very simple.

There is no evidence of a burglar or anybody going through the bedroom window as he reportedly used. You cannot convict somebody without evidence!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 01:56:02 PM
Alcohol loosens the tongue... And he didn't admit to abducting her afaik... He said he knew what happened to her.
He also admitted to raping someone and showed a recording of it... Hardly normal behaviour

Alcohol also fuels boasts and BS!  If they know what happened then why haven't they recovered the body?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 06, 2020, 01:57:37 PM
Plan B might be something along the lines of- We cannot progress prosecution of our prime suspect and are not looking at any other person.

I'll tell you what.  I bet he won't do anything like this again.  And nor will he get a new identity.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 06, 2020, 02:00:03 PM
I'll tell you what.  I bet he won't do anything like this again.  And nor will he get a new identity.

I think a committed paedophile will always strike again, given the chance. It’s a compulsion they have no control over.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 02:01:01 PM
Alcohol also fuels boasts and BS!  If they know what happened then why haven't they recovered the body?

I've no doubt he did 'know all about her'
It's no secret that he was in the area and  would have seen and heard about what was going on. Everybody and their cat in PDL 'knew all about it'.
Doesn't mean he had anything to do with it though.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 02:01:31 PM
There is no evidence of anybody going through the bedroom window that he reportedly used. I want new DNA tests - now that is relevant!
Direct your demands at the police, not me.  How do you think DNA tests are going to help bang up your chosen suspect anyway?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on June 06, 2020, 02:12:51 PM
I think a committed paedophile will always strike again, given the chance. It’s a compulsion they have no control over.

If he is freed no doubt he will strike again.   
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 02:19:40 PM
Direct your demands at the police, not me.  How do you think DNA tests are going to help bang up your chosen suspect anyway?

Nobody knows what it will reveal until it's actually done. Less gossip and more action is required in this case!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: kizzy on June 06, 2020, 02:24:51 PM
makes you wonder why it was ignored all those years ago - before the german girl went missing.


Why you can trust Sky News
German authorities reportedly ignored warnings from their own police seven years ago that suspect Christian B could have abducted and killed Madeleine McCann.

A report from detectives monitoring Christian B identified him as a key suspect in the Madeleine mystery, but it was ignored by Germany's Federal Criminal Office, according to news magazine Der Spiegel.

The 2013 police report was triggered after British detectives made a new appeal in the Madeleine case on a German Crimewatch-style TV show.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 06, 2020, 02:26:13 PM
If he is freed no doubt he will strike again.

No doubt.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 02:49:19 PM
Nobody knows what it will reveal until it's actually done. Less gossip and more action is required in this case!
. Think about it.  You want DNA tests done to prove the McCanns dunnit, yet the McCanns DNA would have been all over that apartment anyway so what do you think it would prove? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 03:14:20 PM
They will be required to do new DNA tests if they are going to charge this German. They need evidence!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 03:17:31 PM
They will be required to do new DNA tests if they are going to charge this German. They need evidence!
That is why the police have gone public with this information - to gain more evidence.  Not all evidence is DNA related and a conviction does not rest solely on DNA evidence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on June 06, 2020, 03:24:20 PM
But the case has nothing to do with the UK legal system..

The victim is a British citizen.  The suspect a German citizen.  The crime was committed in Portugal.  Its the responsibility of the Portuguese to put together a case and arrange extradition.

How come we're not hearing from PJ?  Why a German prosecutor?

Where's the defence lawyer?  'My client denies any involvement' or 'My client does not wish to comment at this stage'. 

Defence lawyers might argue any trial has been prejudiced by media reports.

It doesn't ring true.

In Portugal??
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 03:31:10 PM
That is why the police have gone public with this information - to gain more evidence.  Not all evidence is DNA related and a conviction does not rest solely on DNA evidence.

New DNA tests are required. Bring it on  ?>)()<
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 03:33:57 PM
New DNA tests are required. Bring it on  ?>)()<
Yes dear, I don't know why you're being all smug about it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 03:35:26 PM
New DNA tests are required. Bring it on  ?>)()<

According to the media holes are being dug at his former residences, presumably in the expectation of finding some incriminating evidence. I expect they dismantling the properties with the same aim.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on June 06, 2020, 03:46:32 PM
There is no evidence of anybody going through the bedroom window that he reportedly used. I want new DNA tests - now that is relevant!

New DNA tests of whom and where?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 04:36:15 PM
Obviously you start with evidence at apartment 5A where the child went missing from if they believe the German abducted her.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 04:38:38 PM
Obviously you start with evidence at apartment 5A where the child went missing from if they believe the German abducted her.
No meaningful forensic evidence was collected by the PJ - but you knew that already.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 05:01:02 PM
There was evidence collected on curtains, behind the sofa, hairs so don't spread nonsense!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 05:04:14 PM
There was evidence collected on curtains, behind the sofa, hairs so don't spread nonsense!
Where is this evidence now, and what mysterious DNA profiles did it reveal at the time it was first analysed?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 05:52:00 PM
National Institute of Forensic Medicine (INML) in Coimbra. DNA testing has advanced since 2007. What are you scared of? New DNA testing should be done without question!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 06:10:55 PM
National Institute of Forensic Medicine (INML) in Coimbra. DNA testing has advanced since 2007. What are you scared of? New DNA testing should be done without question!
Did I say I was scared?  I assure you I’m not scared.  Why on earth would I be scared? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on June 06, 2020, 06:11:25 PM
National Institute of Forensic Medicine (INML) in Coimbra. DNA testing has advanced since 2007. What are you scared of? New DNA testing should be done without question!


Possibly but Surely some  of the samples will have degraded or been destroyed by the original process.  And the chances of getting new material 13 years on is Franky remote.

So what are your thoughts on what dna testing should be done at this stage and to what purpose. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 06:19:49 PM
Did I say I was scared?  I assure you I’m not scared.  Why on earth would I be scared?

Why are you questioning it? That is evidence from the crime scene.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 06, 2020, 07:12:58 PM
Why are you questioning it? That is evidence from the crime scene.
Why am I not allowed to question it?  Why does asking questions about the DNA mean I’m scared?  Any DNA found in the apartment could only prove incriminating if it is linked to people not in the McCann group so why do you suppose I would be scared exactly?  You’re not making much sense.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on June 06, 2020, 08:08:25 PM
I wonder what samples still exist? On 21st August the FSS wrote to LP setting out the policy on samples, which they referred to as perishable and non-perishable samples. The perishable samples would only be kept if the defence requested it within 21 days. As there was no defence because there was no defendant I expect those samples are long gone.

The non-perishable samples would have been returned to LP, but whether they kept them isn't known.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

I don't know what the policy was in Portugal regarding retention of samples.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 08:16:53 PM
To add further complication, the FSS no longer exists following privatisation of the Forensic service, so any samples they did retain could now be anywhere.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 06, 2020, 08:38:57 PM
Institute president Francisco Brizida, said afterwards: “I have the certainty they went away very happy.”

“The tonic of the meeting was about the possibility of the tests on samples collected in 2007 being re-done.

“The British police wanted clarification on the examinations the institute had carried out during the early stages of the inquiry in the areas of genetics and biology.

“We talked about non-identified material that was collected in Madeleine’s apartment.

“I can’t say for sure new DNA tests that didn’t yield a conclusive result in 2007 could now yield an objective result.

“But technology nowadays allows us to go further than years ago in areas like genetic markers.

“Several possibilities are open. One could be that British police do the tests in Britain with British technology and another that the institute does them.

“But that’s an area in which the institute does not have the last word. There’s a situation of judicial cooperation and a new international letter of request would be necessary.”


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/hair-strands-during-original-madeleine-mccann-investigation-never-dna-matched-9825210.html
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 06, 2020, 09:50:07 PM
They will be required to do new DNA tests if they are going to charge this German. They need evidence!


Wonder if Perlin's offer still stands?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 06, 2020, 09:52:09 PM

Wonder if Perlin's offer still stands?

The Germans might be interested, though Britain will avoid like the plague as it wasn't devised by them IMO
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 06, 2020, 09:59:12 PM

Time will tell...

But I think they know much more than they’re letting on. They’re not going to show all their cards in one go, and what they’ve shown already is extremely damning.

No-one knows what he told his mate when they were drinking in a bar and Madeleine’s photo came on the news. Drink loosens the tongue, and he may have said something about Maddie’s abduction that only the abductor could know. The police definitely believe she’s dead, and even know how she was killed. So how do they know that when they haven’t found her body?

It’s also strange that the little German girl who went missing five years ago from a holiday complex in woodland in Germany, and who’s never been found either, dogs never traced her scent either. The abductor obviously carried a case or large backpack coated with some kind of substance to prevent/disguise aromas from seeping out for digs to pick up. He sounds far more sophisticated than Bamber in his evil doings, but almost ALL murderers come unstuck somewhere because nothing is predictable.

I’d say in this evil psychopath’s case, where he was thick (in his panic) was reregistering his car the day after Maddie disappeared.

And despite having lived in Portugal almost 12 years he suddenly went back to Germany just a month or so after Maddie vanished. That’s not coincidence...

How do you know its not a coincidence?

The guy is being investigated to the umpth degree by the brit press but yet not one piece of evidence can link him to the disappearance save in the supporters eye's who desperately want it to be him.
He was in Luz at the time so what,so were three other people who the PJ made arguido's in 2014 at the behest of OG,who were found to have nothing to do with it,this'll be the same. Iminent arrest's were the headlines then,Madeleine is the gift that keeps giving and by gad don't the brit press love it.
There are appeals for info,clearly there is not enough if any evidence against him,OG are still of a mind that it is a missing persons investigation,not a murder enquiry.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 06, 2020, 11:20:00 PM
How do you know its not a coincidence?

The guy is being investigated to the umpth degree by the brit press but yet not one piece of evidence can link him to the disappearance save in the supporters eye's who desperately want it to be him.
He was in Luz at the time so what,so were three other people who the PJ made arguido's in 2014 at the behest of OG,who were found to have nothing to do with it,this'll be the same. Iminent arrest's were the headlines then,Madeleine is the gift that keeps giving and by gad don't the brit press love it.
There are appeals for info,clearly there is not enough if any evidence against him,OG are still of a mind that it is a missing persons investigation,not a murder enquiry.

I'm a "supporter" who really, really doesn't want him to have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
He is being investigated by a current police investigation.
There must be a reason.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 12:47:41 AM
I'm a "supporter" who really, really doesn't want him to have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
He is being investigated by a current police investigation.
There must be a reason.

So were the parents at one point and no charges were brought. There must have been a reason for that too. Why is this different?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 07, 2020, 07:25:32 AM
So were the parents at one point and no charges were brought. There must have been a reason for that too. Why is this different?

I should have added that in my opinion this is different.
The main reason I think it is different is because of this man's violent and very disturbing paedophilic past and that he is being investigated by several police forces.

Off topic I know but your avatar is quite grotesque. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 07:55:02 AM
I should have added that in my opinion this is different.
The main reason I think it is different is because of this man's violent and very disturbing paedophilic past and that he is being investigated by several police forces.

Off topic I know but your avatar is quite grotesque. In my opinion.

The avatar is totally out of place in my opinion.  "Grotesque" sums it up entirely, bearing in mind that Johnson is not my favourite person it gives a very bad impression ... and not of him.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:13:46 AM
I'm a "supporter" who really, really doesn't want him to have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
He is being investigated by a current police investigation.
There must be a reason.

He no more removed Madeleine from 5a than Rasputin did imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 07, 2020, 09:17:49 AM
He no more removed Madeleine from 5a than Rasputin did imo.

You seem utterly convinced about that.
I'm amazed you can be so emphatic.
No doubt whatsoever?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 09:21:49 AM
You seem utterly convinced about that.
I'm amazed you can be so emphatic.
No doubt whatsoever?

Are you not utterly convinced about certain things ?  eg Religion, innocence of McCanns
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 09:27:00 AM
He no more removed Madeleine from 5a than Rasputin did imo.
And obviously your opinion counts for a whole lot more than the three police forces who have him as their chief suspect.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 07, 2020, 09:29:43 AM
Are you not utterly convinced about certain things ?  eg Religion, innocence of McCanns

Not either of those but barrier does seem to be about the this latest suspect.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:31:51 AM
You seem utterly convinced about that.
I'm amazed you can be so emphatic.
No doubt whatsoever?

If there was evidence of such,the first we would have known would be charges,there's nowt to say he did,simples.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:35:52 AM
Not either of those but barrier does seem to be about the this latest suspect.

The MET in the past have been at pains to point out they will not give a running commentary,no change now either,the press are running the investigation,he's a suspect nothing more nothing less,nothing concrete to link him.
Unfortunately for him he'll be forever tainted by the link to this mystery whatever the outcome.
Can he expect Bilton of the beeb to turn up and stick the furry mike under his nose like the previous suspects?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 09:37:14 AM
If there was evidence of such,the first we would have known would be charges,there's nowt to say he did,simples.
Tell us all the reasons upon which you can confidently rule him out as thr perp.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 09:38:14 AM
The MET in the past have been at pains to point out they will not give a running commentary,no change now either,the press are running the investigation,he's a suspect nothing more nothing less,nothing concrete to link him.
Unfortunately for him he'll be forever tainted by the link to this mystery whatever the outcome.
Can he expect Bilton of the beeb to turn up and stick the furry mike under his nose like the previous suspects?
Gosh, sounds like you’re actually sorry for the guy. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:39:57 AM
Tell us all the reasons upon which you can confidently rule him out as thr perp.

Evidence,evidence,evidence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 09:40:43 AM
The MET in the past have been at pains to point out they will not give a running commentary,no change now either,the press are running the investigation,he's a suspect nothing more nothing less,nothing concrete to link him.
Unfortunately for him he'll be forever tainted by the link to this mystery whatever the outcome.
Can he expect Bilton of the beeb to turn up and stick the furry mike under his nose like the previous suspects?

Not while he's in prison  ?{)(**

Regarding Grange, what have they actually said, opposed to what media has said they've said ? You know how these things can be spun.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:41:29 AM
Gosh, sounds like you’re actually sorry for the guy.

Not in the least,but no matter his past,he enjoys the presumption of innocence in this case like the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 09:43:54 AM
Not in the least,but no matter his past,he enjoys the presumption of innocence in this case like the rest of the world.
Indeed but if publicising his suspect status brings in the evidence necessary to secure a conviction why would you object to that?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 07, 2020, 09:44:14 AM
The MET in the past have been at pains to point out they will not give a running commentary,no change now either,the press are running the investigation,he's a suspect nothing more nothing less,nothing concrete to link him.
Unfortunately for him he'll be forever tainted by the link to this mystery whatever the outcome.
Can he expect Bilton of the beeb to turn up and stick the furry mike under his nose like the previous suspects?

How "unfortunate " it is that this poor man will now be "tainted".
I think his past has tainted him.
Sorry but my sympathy is with his victims.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Not while he's in prison  ?{)(**

Regarding Grange, what have they actually said, opposed to what media has said they've said ? You know how these things can be spun.

Good point is there a written statement attributed to a real person rather than the nameless spokesman.

Ah! yes here.

http://news.met.police.uk/news/operation-grange-update-and-appeal-403826

DCI Mark Cranwell, from Operation Grange said :

“Following our appeal for information yesterday, I want to thank those members of the public who have contacted us. As of 16:00hrs today, Thursday 4 June 2020 we have received over 270 calls and emails into the Incident Room.

“We are pleased with the information coming in, and it will be assessed and prioritised.

“We continue to urge anyone with information to come forward and speak with us.”

To re-cap :

Detectives leading enquiries into the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann have made a new public appeal for information.


It is now 13 years since Madeleine was reported missing during a family holiday in Portugal and the team of officers leading the Met’s investigation, known as Operation Grange, made a public appeal on Wednesday, 3 June, linked to a significant new line of enquiry.

Met detectives working with German authorities have identified a man currently imprisoned in Germany as a suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance.

This man is white and in 2007 is believed to have had short blond hair, possibly fair. He was about 6ft in height with a slim build. He is 43-years-old, but in 2007 may have looked between 25 to early 30s.

We have established that he lived on and off in the Algarve between 1995 and 2007. He is connected to the area of Praia da Luz and surrounding regions, and spent some short spells in Germany.

This individual, who we will not identify, is currently in prison in Germany for an unrelated matter.

The Operation Grange team is revealing details of two vehicles which the suspect is known to have had access to and used around the time of Madeleine’s disappearance.

The first vehicle is a distinctive VW T3 Westfalia campervan. It is an early 1980s model, with two tone markings, a white upper body and a yellow skirting. It had a Portuguese registration plate.

The suspect had access to this van from at least April 2007 until sometime after May 2007. It was used in and around the area of Praia da Luz.

We believe he was living in this van for days, possibly weeks, and may have been using it on 3 May 2007.

We are appealing for anyone who may have seen it in or around Praia da Luz on 3 May, the night Madeleine went missing, the days before, or weeks following the disappearance.

The second vehicle is a 1993 British Jaguar, model XJR 6, with a German number plate and registered in Germany.

This car is believed to have been in the Praia da Luz and surrounding areas in 2006 and 2007. The car was originally registered in the suspect’s name. On 4 May 2007, the day after Madeleine’s disappearance, the car was re-registered to someone else in Germany.

To re-register the car in Germany you don’t have to have the car in the country or region. We believe the car was still in Portugal and would like information if you saw it.

The Met is asking if anyone saw these cars together or individually during the spring and summer of 2007. Both of these vehicles are now held by the German authorities.

Detectives are also appealing for information about two mobile phone numbers, one of which is believed to have been used by the suspect on the day of Madeleine’s disappearance.

The first number is +351 912 730 680. Extensive enquiries have led investigators to believe the suspect was using this number and received a call, starting at 7.32pm and finishing at 8.02pm on 3 May 2007. This call was received in the area of Praia da Luz.

The second mobile number is +351 916 510 683. This number is the phone number that made this call. We know the person was not in the area of Praia da Luz.

Investigators believe the person who made this call is a highly significant witness and are appealing for them to get in touch.

The Operation Grange team is also asking anyone if they recognise these numbers. Did you ever call them? Do you have them in your phone, an old phone or your electronic contacts?

At 7.15pm UK time on Wednesday, 3 June, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) will also broadcast an appeal on German channel ZDF.

There is a £20,000 Met reward for information leading to the conviction of the person or persons responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Detective Chief Inspector Mark Cranwell, who leads Operation Grange, said:

“It’s more than 13 years since Madeleine went missing and none of us can imagine what it must be like for her family, not knowing what happened or where she is.

“Following the ten- year anniversary, the Met received information about a German man who was known to have been in and around Praia da Luz. We have been working with colleagues in Germany and Portugal and this man is a suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance.

“The Met conducted a number of enquiries and in November 2017 engaged with the BKA who agreed to work with the Met.

“Since then a huge amount of work has taken place by both the Met, the BKA and the Polícia Judiciária.

“While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.

“Our job as detectives is to follow the evidence, maintain an open mind and establish what happened on that day in May 2007.

“Please contact us without delay so we can get answers for Madeleine’s family.”

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy said:

“Madeleine’s disappearance has attracted huge international interest. We are appealing for the public to help us establish what happened.

“We are committed to do everything we can to establish what happened and to find Madeleine.”

Speaking in support of yesterday’s appeal, Kate and Gerry McCann said:

“We welcome the appeal yesterday regarding the disappearance of our daughter, Madeleine.

“We would like to thank the police forces involved for their continued efforts in the search for Madeleine.

“All we have ever wanted is to find her, uncover the truth and bring those responsible to justice. We will never give up hope of finding Madeleine alive but whatever the outcome may be, we need to know, as we need to find peace.

“We will be making no further comment regarding the appeal.

“We would like to thank the general public for their ongoing support and encourage anyone who has information directly related to the appeal, to contact the police. Thank you.”

The Operation Grange incident room can be contacted via 0207 321 9251 or operation.grange@met.police.uk
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:46:30 AM
From the article.

While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.

“Our job as detectives is to follow the evidence, maintain an open mind and establish what happened on that day in May 2007.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 07, 2020, 09:47:47 AM
From the article.

While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.

“Our job as detectives is to follow the evidence, maintain an open mind and establish what happened on that day in May 2007.

You are not maintaining an open mind as far as this suspect is concerned!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 09:53:28 AM
From the article.

While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.

“Our job as detectives is to follow the evidence, maintain an open mind and establish what happened on that day in May 2007.

Which, to me, suggests that they still  really  don't know what happened that night.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:54:56 AM
You are not maintaining an open mind as far as this suspect is concerned!

They clearly have nothing on him entering 5a,the appeal doesn't even cover that.They're more interested in vehicles and phone call's.
What actual evidence is there that a stranger entered 5a on the night of 3/05/2007?
Woke and wandered if anything imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 09:55:57 AM
Which, to me, suggests that they still  really  don't know what happened that night.

Yep:

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy said:

“Madeleine’s disappearance has attracted huge international interest. We are appealing for the public to help us establish what happened.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 09:56:55 AM
The MET in the past have been at pains to point out they will not give a running commentary,no change now either,the press are running the investigation,he's a suspect nothing more nothing less,nothing concrete to link him.
Unfortunately for him he'll be forever tainted by the link to this mystery whatever the outcome.
Can he expect Bilton of the beeb to turn up and stick the furry mike under his nose like the previous suspects?

Quite frankly I simply cannot believe what is being said in some of the posts regarding this man and his proven criminal record.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
Could you give an example of what you don't believe ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 10:03:32 AM
You are not maintaining an open mind as far as this suspect is concerned!

Absolutely not.  I wonder how crimes would be solved if the police just didn't bother for fear of upsetting suspects.

Mind you, I feel as if I am witnessing an extraordinary phenomenon here and the more posts I read the more intrigued I become at the mind set being put so unashamedly on display.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 10:03:42 AM
I should have added that in my opinion this is different.
The main reason I think it is different is because of this man's violent and very disturbing paedophilic past and that he is being investigated by several police forces.

Off topic I know but your avatar is quite grotesque. In my opinion.

The man’s violent past is of no importance if the clues are not there to tie him to a Madeleine’s disappearance, much the same as her parents.

And as to my avatar, I agree it is grotesque but then so is 60,000 dead people due to the incompetence of Johnson.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 10:05:52 AM
Absolutely not.  I wonder how crimes would be solved if the police just didn't bother for fear of upsetting suspects.

Mind you, I feel as if I am witnessing an extraordinary phenomenon here and the more posts I read the more intrigued I become at the mind set being put so unashamedly on display.

Do you not agree this german who the MET choose not to name should not enjoy the presumption of innocence in regard to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 10:06:10 AM
Could you give an example of what you don't believe ?

Just read back and take your pick ... starting with the thread title :)
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 10:08:17 AM
Absolutely not.  I wonder how crimes would be solved if the police just didn't bother for fear of upsetting suspects.

Mind you, I feel as if I am witnessing an extraordinary phenomenon here and the more posts I read the more intrigued I become at the mind set being put so unashamedly on display.

I love the smell of faux outrage in the morning.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 10:08:53 AM
Just read back and take your pick ... starting with the thread title :)

I will do a quick check of the title thread, but as our views often diverge, checking anything else would be a waste of time if you don't explain your stance on this.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 10:18:13 AM
Evidence,evidence,evidence.
What evidence rules him out then?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 10:23:54 AM
It's irrefutable evidence to conclusively link him Madeleine that is required.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 10:24:20 AM
He no more removed Madeleine from 5a than Rasputin did imo.
As Rasputin was dead at the time why do you think it’s as likely to have been him as the suspect who was not only alive but also in the vicinity at the time and who had means, motive and opportunity?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 10:26:06 AM
It's irrefutable evidence to conclusively link him Madeleine that is required.
Didn’t seem to bother a lot of people when there was no irrefutable evidence linking Gerry to the disposal of Madeleine’s body, or DP to child abuse as I recall, now you all are having a fit of the vapours about irrefutable evidence.  Hilarious!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 10:29:32 AM
Hardly the vapours. There will be no charges without evidence, irrespective of people's view on this guy.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 10:37:47 AM
Hardly the vapours. There will be no charges without evidence, irrespective of people's view on this guy.
Nothing like stating the obvious.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 10:42:00 AM
Nothing like stating the obvious.

Well, I find that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 10:44:47 AM
Didn’t seem to bother a lot of people when there was no irrefutable evidence linking Gerry to the disposal of Madeleine’s body, or DP to child abuse as I recall, now you all are having a fit of the vapours about irrefutable evidence.  Hilarious!

This was inevitable.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 10:50:34 AM
Well, I find that some people are a bit slow on the uptake.
Who here is unaware that evidence is required in order to bring charges?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: mrswah on June 07, 2020, 10:52:44 AM
I have read more on this case in the last few days than I have in the last few years, so i'd be the first to admit I'm not an expert on it.

I have no idea whether the new suspect is the "right guy" or not, but his extensive list of exceedingly  nasty "form", together with the fact that the German police are very interested, does, at least, ring some alarm bells.

I cannot understand the continuing bad feeling towards Kate and Gerry McCann. As far as I can see, there has never been any evidence that they had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. Why on earth would they have wanted the case kept in the public eye all these years, if they had anything to hide?

I thought "victim blaming" was a big "no no"  these days. As far as I can see, the McCanns are victims, as they  lost their child.  I realise they did make a mistake in leaving their children alone, but they are not the only parents to have done so.  Very few have to serve a life sentence as a result, as they are having to do.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 11:01:31 AM
I have read more on this case in the last few days than I have in the last few years, so i'd be the first to admit I'm not an expert on it.

I have no idea whether the new suspect is the "right guy" or not, but his extensive list of exceedingly  nasty "form", together with the fact that the German police are very interested, does, at least, ring some alarm bells.

I cannot understand the continuing bad feeling towards Kate and Gerry McCann. As far as I can see, there has never been any evidence that they had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. Why on earth would they have wanted the case kept in the public eye all these years, if they had anything to hide?

I thought "victim blaming" was a big "no no"  these days. As far as I can see, the McCanns are victims, as they  lost their child.  I realise they did make a mistake in leaving their children alone, but they are not the only parents to have done so.  Very few have to serve a life sentence as a result, as they are having to do.

Too much egg on too many faces.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 07, 2020, 11:22:30 AM
You are not maintaining an open mind as far as this suspect is concerned!

No they keep an open mind if they don't know what happened. You cannot blame a crime on a person you don't like. He could be involved but you need evidence! Who saw his distinctive campervan that night? Who saw that suspect that week? The PJ found nothing on this suspect in connection to Madeleine's disappearance. They have a phone call and a name - he talked to a Catering manager and this German worked in catering from reports so how is that related to abduction? They have stored apartment 5A evidence which obviously needs to be looked at again.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 11:24:49 AM
I really, really don’t get this.

If Brueckner is guilty of Madeleine’s abduction then she is almost certainly dead, and in the most horrific circumstances. It is the worse outcome for anyone interested in the case. Surely we should all be hoping against hope that this man is not the abductor ? Why is a young child’s death being used to settle old scores ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Erngath on June 07, 2020, 11:33:55 AM
I really, really don’t get this.

If Brueckner is guilty of Madeleine’s abduction then she is almost certainly dead, and in the most horrific circumstances. It is the worse outcome for anyone interested in the case. Surely we should all be hoping against hope that this man is not the abductor ? Why is a young child’s death being used to settle old scores ?

I really, really don't get.how you can twist  posts to suit whichever insult you choose to make.
Not one person would hope that this recent suspect is the person who abducted Madeleine.
I and others have expressed their hopes that she did not die in the hands of this evil man.
Dreadful  accusation to make
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 07, 2020, 11:35:52 AM
I really, really don’t get this.

If Brueckner is guilty of Madeleine’s abduction then she is almost certainly dead, and in the most horrific circumstances. It is the worse outcome for anyone interested in the case. Surely we should all be hoping against hope that this man is not the abductor ? Why is a young child’s death being used to settle old scores ?

He certainly is not guilty without evidence. He went through the window but left no trace. He had a distinctive campervan that nobody spotted  *%87
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 07, 2020, 11:36:15 AM
I really, really don’t get this.

If Brueckner is guilty of Madeleine’s abduction then she is almost certainly dead, and in the most horrific circumstances. It is the worse outcome for anyone interested in the case. Surely we should all be hoping against hope that this man is not the abductor ? Why is a young child’s death being used to settle old scores ?

I hope against hope that Maddie still alive but it's unlikely.  Maddies fate is determined and we can't change it.  In that respect I hope this man isn't guilty... But he may well be. We have to wait and see what happens next.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 12:14:40 PM
I hope against hope that Maddie still alive but it's unlikely.  Maddies fate is determined and we can't change it.  In that respect I hope this man isn't guilty... But he may well be. We have to wait and see what happens next.

A pragmatic approach.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 12:16:40 PM
What evidence rules him out then?

Prosecutors look for evidence to prosecute,which is clearly lacking here,hence the appeals.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 12:17:22 PM
I have read more on this case in the last few days than I have in the last few years, so i'd be the first to admit I'm not an expert on it.

I have no idea whether the new suspect is the "right guy" or not, but his extensive list of exceedingly  nasty "form", together with the fact that the German police are very interested, does, at least, ring some alarm bells.

I cannot understand the continuing bad feeling towards Kate and Gerry McCann. As far as I can see, there has never been any evidence that they had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. Why on earth would they have wanted the case kept in the public eye all these years, if they had anything to hide?

I thought "victim blaming" was a big "no no"  these days. As far as I can see, the McCanns are victims, as they  lost their child.  I realise they did make a mistake in leaving their children alone, but they are not the only parents to have done so.  Very few have to serve a life sentence as a result, as they are having to do.
8@??)(
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 12:19:17 PM
Prosecutors look for evidence to prosecute,which is clearly lacking here,hence the appeals.
You haven’t answered the question.  You have decided he’s about as likely to have committed the crime as a dead monk from the 19th century.  That means you must have some very strong evidence to convince you that he didn’t do it.  What is it?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 07, 2020, 12:22:02 PM
You haven’t answered the question.  You have decided he’s about as likely to have committed the crime as a dead monk from the 19th century.  That means you must have some very strong evidence to convince you that he didn’t do it.  What is it?

Maybe it''s because of that glaring absence of any real abduction evidence, save for the fact that Maddie disappeared.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2020, 12:23:01 PM
You haven’t answered the question.  You have decided he’s about as likely to have committed the crime as a dead monk from the 19th century.  That means you must have some very strong evidence to convince you that he didn’t do it.  What is it?

Simples,no one has any concrete evidence he entered 5a,until such time,I'll maintain his presumption of innocence,knocked her down and disposed of is another matter.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 12:26:21 PM
Simples,no one has any concrete evidence he entered 5a,until such time,I'll maintain his presumption of innocence,knocked her down and disposed of is another matter.
Again, you are missing the point.  Your previous statement comparing his likely involvement with that of Rasputin would seem to me to indicate that you think the likelihood of his involvement is close to zero.  Would you say the same about Gerry McCann, being as likely as Rasputing to have hidden her body?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 12:27:24 PM
The Portuguese press broke the news that Christian Brueckner was given the information by an Ocean Club employee that the McCann apartment was left unlocked.

Snip
PORTUGAL
Ocean Club employee reported McCann habits to suspect Maddie's abduction
08:37 by  SATURDAY0
PJ and the German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable assets in their homes.

The suspect's goal was to carry out a robbery, but he saw the children and decided to take the older one.

Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007.
It is one of the devices that were activated in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl is that the PJ managed to connect the contact.
A former employee of the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos, had it on his personal agenda and revealed who it belonged to: a 30-year-old German, who lived nearby and had no known profession.
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie?ref=DET_relacionadas_portugal
___________________________________________________________

Amigo do Ocean Club dá rotinas sobre ingleses
•   Correio da Manhã Weekend
•   7 Jun 2020
•   TÂNIA LARANJO NOTÍCIA EXCLUSIVA DA EDIÇÃO EM PAPEL
Menina inglesa desapareceu de um aldeamento turístico na praia da Luz 2 Christian Brueckner, de 43 anos, é suspeito do crime 3 Maddie tinha 3 anos
Onúmero de telemóvel de Christian Brueckner existe no processo desde 2007. É um dos aparelhos que foram acionados nas imediações do aldeamento de onde desapareceu Madd...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie?ref=HP_PrimeirosDestaques





Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 12:29:07 PM
The Portuguese press broke the news that Christian Brueckner was given the information by an Ocean Club employee that the McCann apartment was left unlocked.

Snip
PORTUGAL
Ocean Club employee reported McCann habits to suspect Maddie's abduction
08:37 by  SATURDAY0
PJ and the German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable assets in their homes.

The suspect's goal was to carry out a robbery, but he saw the children and decided to take the older one.

Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007.
It is one of the devices that were activated in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl is that the PJ managed to connect the contact.
A former employee of the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos, had it on his personal agenda and revealed who it belonged to: a 30-year-old German, who lived nearby and had no known profession.
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie?ref=DET_relacionadas_portugal
___________________________________________________________

Amigo do Ocean Club dá rotinas sobre ingleses
•   Correio da Manhã Weekend
•   7 Jun 2020
•   TÂNIA LARANJO NOTÍCIA EXCLUSIVA DA EDIÇÃO EM PAPEL
Menina inglesa desapareceu de um aldeamento turístico na praia da Luz 2 Christian Brueckner, de 43 anos, é suspeito do crime 3 Maddie tinha 3 anos
Onúmero de telemóvel de Christian Brueckner existe no processo desde 2007. É um dos aparelhos que foram acionados nas imediações do aldeamento de onde desapareceu Madd...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie?ref=HP_PrimeirosDestaques
Again, I always suspected this was done with the help of an insider tip-off. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 12:56:34 PM
Again, I always suspected this was done with the help of an insider tip-off.

As more information becomes available it couldn't be made any clearer that Scotland Yard took exactly the right course of action when they interviewed burglars and Ocean Club employees as part of their investigative strategy.

That was the profile they were working to because they knew the evidence was that Madeleine had been abducted.

Correio da Manhã have also picked up on the importance of the phone calls made in the village that night.  One only has to read the files to see whose phones and whose calls commanded the absolute attention of the Portuguese investigation.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 07, 2020, 01:05:01 PM
As more information becomes available it couldn't be made any clearer that Scotland Yard took exactly the right course of action when they interviewed burglars and Ocean Club employees as part of their investigative strategy.

That was the profile they were working to because they knew the evidence was that Madeleine had been abducted.

Correio da Manhã have also picked up on the importance of the phone calls made in the village that night.  One only has to read the files to see whose phones and whose calls commanded the absolute attention of the Portuguese investigation.

People use mobile phones every day, that doesn't mean that Maddie was abducted.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: kizzy on June 07, 2020, 03:28:21 PM
I would be.  But then there has been far too much of that associated with The PJ.

We can only be thankful that it didn't happen to Kate McCann.

I didn't think that would happen for one minute there were too many people involved - the mccs made sure of that
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: sadie on June 07, 2020, 03:46:38 PM
There is no evidence of a burglar or anybody going through the bedroom window as he reportedly used. You cannot convict somebody without evidence!

Where does it say that CK CB went thru the window of 5A ?   Have you made that up ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 07, 2020, 03:53:38 PM
Where does it say that CK went thru the window of 5A ?   Have you made that up ?

No I have not made it up! Reports said he used the window in previous break-ins. There was no evidence of anybody passing through the McCann bedroom window.

Madeleine McCann suspect 'climbed through open windows in holiday flats', rape trial told
Christian Brueckner, in jail for raping a 72-year-old woman

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-climbed-through-22144222
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 03:57:02 PM
No I have not made it up! Reports said he used the window in previous break-ins. There was no evidence of anybody passing through the McCann bedroom window.

Madeleine McCann suspect 'climbed through open windows in holiday flats', rape trial told
Christian Brueckner, in jail for raping a 72-year-old woman

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-climbed-through-22144222

An off the wall thought.
Following his successful Rape of an elderly woman, could he have bee scoping out Mrs Fenn as a possible victim ? She did report a burglary attempt in early 2007
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: kizzy on June 07, 2020, 03:57:58 PM
My main concern on all this s not about confession s who he is what he has done - he is a nasty piece of work

It is if he is going to end up a scapegoat the way things are going - It gets less credible by the day.

Going back to Basics Why would a 6ft man climb out a window - if he had been watching he'd know the drill.

Straight in and out through the door - PJ would have his DNA/fingerprints.

Going back to basics again - there is not one shred of evidence of abduction or him being in there.

As gmcc said nothing valuable was stolen - yet amongst other things he was a thief, not an abductor
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 04:01:51 PM
An off the wall thought.
Following his successful Rape of an elderly woman, could he have bee scoping out Mrs Fenn as a possible victim ? She did report a burglary attempt in early 2007

Oh My God.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 07, 2020, 04:04:49 PM
Oh My God.

Why that reaction ?

He's clearly a despicable person with form for that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 04:29:07 PM
About what?  Who is being nasty to whom at the moment?

I am only delighted to discover that you all believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty, albeit a bit late in the day.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been away for a while but the  ‘I told you so’ gloating of some over the last couple of days has absolutely sickened me to my stomach. Post after post of supporters trying to convince anyone reading that the police definitely have their ‘finger on the pulse’ and that this man’s guilt is almost a done deal. Are you really all forgetting that if Brueckner is guilty then the parents are most certainly innocent but a small child has almost certainly died in horrific circumstances. No one is a winner here but to read some posts you wouldn’t know that.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 07, 2020, 04:45:23 PM
Maybe it’s because I’ve been away for a while but the  ‘I told you so’ gloating of some over the last couple of days has absolutely sickened me to my stomach. Post after post of supporters trying to convince anyone reading that the police definitely have their ‘finger on the pulse’ and that this man’s guilt is almost a done deal. Are you really all forgetting that if Brueckner is guilty then the parents are most certainly innocent but a small has almost certainly died in horrific circumstances. No one is a winner here but to read some posts you wouldn’t know that.

I don't believe that it is a done deal, but then nor do I understand your outrage.  Nor have I seen any gloating.  Only some shock and horror offered in defence of a dreadful article.

We, the Supporters, have been forced to deal with dreadful things said about The McCanns and mostly handled this with some grace.  This is what this Forum is all about.

By the way, we still have no proof that Madeleine is dead.  And we won't be discussing Horrific Circumstances.

Thank You, in advance.  I won't be having it, no matter what.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 05:00:41 PM
Maybe it’s because I’ve been away for a while but the  ‘I told you so’ gloating of some over the last couple of days has absolutely sickened me to my stomach. Post after post of supporters trying to convince anyone reading that the police definitely have their ‘finger on the pulse’ and that this man’s guilt is almost a done deal. Are you really all forgetting that if Brueckner is guilty then the parents are most certainly innocent but a small child has almost certainly died in horrific circumstances. No one is a winner here but to read some posts you wouldn’t know that.
And you have the gall to talk of faux outrage.  What a load of it just there ^^^   
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 05:06:45 PM
I don't believe that it is a done deal, but then nor do I understand your outrage.  Nor have I seen any gloating.  Only some shock and horror offered in defence of a dreadful article.

We, the Supporters, have been forced to deal with dreadful things said about The McCanns and mostly handled this with some grace.  This is what this Forum is all about.

By the way, we still have no proof that Madeleine is dead.  And we won't be discussing Horrific Circumstances.

Thank You, in advance.  I won't be having it, no matter what.

I’m sorry Eleanor but the parents are not your relatives or your friends..they are strangers whose image has been fed to you through the prism of the media and PR companies, they’re absolutely nothing to do with you so why would you have to ‘deal’ with dreadful things said about them ?

And with the greatest respect if you can’t see the gloating then you really aren’t looking hard enough.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 07, 2020, 05:52:34 PM
I’m sorry Eleanor but the parents are not your relatives or your friends..they are strangers whose image has been fed to you through the prism of the media and PR companies, they’re absolutely nothing to do with you so why would you have to ‘deal’ with dreadful things said about them ?

And with the greatest respect if you can’t see the gloating then you really aren’t looking hard enough.

By proxy, all those who have supported the McCanns' version of events online over the years have been labelled morally bankrupt & paedophile enablers. If this horrific scenario proves to be the true & final conclusion to the case then supporters won't have to look into their souls & question personal judgement & comments about the misfortune of others. We didn't hope for this probable outcome but it's always been there, bubbling just under the surface.
How will you justify your judgement or will you (like Martin Grime) just "move on" because it let you down?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 05:58:53 PM
Mark Williams-Thomas
@mwilliamsthomas
·
19h
Update: the individual named extensively as being user of the mobile number that called the suspect has been spoken with & states he has never had that number, nor ever been visited by police.  The name is very common in Portugal.  #MadeleineMcCann
___________________________________


Mark Williams-Thomas
@mwilliamsthomas
Update: an additional user  a female has been linked to the mobile number released by the police that called the suspect on the evening #MadeleineMcCann vanished. It is certainly a concern why police had not identified these people
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 06:11:28 PM
By proxy, all those who have supported the McCanns' version of events online over the years have been labelled morally bankrupt & paedophile enablers. If this horrific scenario proves to be the true & final conclusion to the case then supporters won't have to look into their souls & question personal judgement & comments about the misfortune of others. We didn't hope for this probable outcome but it's always been there, bubbling just under the surface.
How will you justify your judgement or will you (like Martin Grime) just "move on" because it let you down?

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that I would want or need to justify my judgement...to who...you ?

I was able to objectively evaluate the evidence and find the parents wanting because protecting them were never my main focus. Can you truly say the same ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 06:13:42 PM
“Objectively evaluate the evidence” - LOL.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 07, 2020, 06:17:42 PM
You seem to be under the erroneous impression that I would want or need to justify my judgement...to who...you ?

I was able to objectively evaluate the evidence and find the parents wanting because protecting them were never my main focus. Can you truly say the same ?

To yourself, Faith, no-one else. You, like most of us, never saw all the evidence.
You appear imo to have never had any hope for Madeleine, the little girl who truly mattered in this sorry mess.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 07, 2020, 06:21:31 PM
To yourself, Faith, no-one else. You, like most of us, never saw all the evidence.
You appear imo to have never had any hope for Madeleine, the little girl who truly mattered in this sorry mess.

What use is hope?

Will 'hope' ever bring Maddie back?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 07, 2020, 06:23:32 PM
Mark Williams-Thomas
@mwilliamsthomas
·
19h
Update: the individual named extensively as being user of the mobile number that called the suspect has been spoken with & states he has never had that number, nor ever been visited by police.  The name is very common in Portugal.  #MadeleineMcCann
___________________________________


Mark Williams-Thomas
@mwilliamsthomas
Update: an additional user  a female has been linked to the mobile number released by the police that called the suspect on the evening #MadeleineMcCann vanished. It is certainly a concern why police had not identified these people

Possibly it's important to have confirmation that CB was in possession of his phone at 8pm that night in case he claimed it had been stolen.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 07, 2020, 06:27:57 PM
What use is hope?

Will 'hope' ever bring Maddie back?
Hope is healthier for the mind & soul than constant despair.
Sadly it appears such hope for Madeleine may well not have come to fruition. Does that make you happy?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 07, 2020, 06:31:43 PM
Hope is healthier for the mind & soul than constant despair.
Sadly it appears such hope for Madeleine may well not have come to fruition. Does that make you happy?

There's no despair on my part.

I'm just being realistic, no amount of hoping is going to bring Maddie back.

Name one person that has ever been resurrected by hope.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 06:35:45 PM
To yourself, Faith, no-one else. You, like most of us, never saw all the evidence.
You appear imo to have never had any hope for Madeleine, the little girl who truly mattered in this sorry mess.

You are right Misty I’ve never had any hope that Madeleine was alive. I have however always hoped that her fate was painless and that she knew little about it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2020, 06:40:55 PM
Possibly it's important to have confirmation that CB was in possession of his phone at 8pm that night in case he claimed it had been stolen.

I'm sure that would be his main line of defence regarding the phone evidence.  The police can prove his phone was there but can they prove he was there with it.

I am intrigued about the phone number.  It seems to have been transferred to other users.  My only experience of that was when trying to use an old mobile I hadn't used for a while I discovered that its number had been given to someone else.  So unless the subscriber had hung onto the number since 2007 and transferred it to each new phone the police will have a monumental task in tracking it.
So much easier had it been done in 2007 with a near local's phone who had a recent Portuguese criminal record.

They seem to be going for people who knew the number and the subscriber from 2007.  Have I got that right or do you need to sort me out on it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 06:41:20 PM
Hope is healthier for the mind & soul than constant despair.
Sadly it appears such hope for Madeleine may well not have come to fruition. Does that make you happy?

Acceptance brings with it mental peace.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: kizzy on June 07, 2020, 06:52:05 PM
To yourself, Faith, no-one else. You, like most of us, never saw all the evidence.
You appear imo to have never had any hope for Madeleine, the little girl who truly mattered in this sorry mess.

have never had any hope for Madeleine, the little girl who truly mattered in this sorry mess.

How can you have hope when you don't believe the abduction theory - don't you get that
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 07, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Who is wrong? The German was investigated in 2007 and nothing was found and 13 years later they now know he did it. Without evidence? Jez was walking the streets and others were out and about (Totman, Moyes, Carpenters, checkers etc.) and nobody spotted him. They can't even place his vehicle in Luz that night. A phone call is evidence of abduction  *%87

They are clearly desperate but some good may come from it - they will be made to conduct new tests on actual evidence! 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on June 07, 2020, 10:52:38 PM
This latest turn of events worries me. This German suspect is undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, apparently he carried a gun at times in Portugal so that he would be seen as a hard man. His actual crimes are appalling for sure but there is NOTHING that we currently know of which connects him to Madeleine's disappearance.

What concerns me is the fact that the Germans have decided to convict him even before any evidence of his involvement has been found. They haven't even done any ground work yet they chose to go public with this suspect. Had this guy not been incarcerated and unable to defend himself I doubt very much if the Germans would have dared do what they have done.

Are the Germans attempting to undermine Operation Grange because it most certainly looks like it?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 10:54:06 PM
This latest turn of events worries me. This German suspect is undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, apparently he carried a gun at times in Portugal so that he would be seen as a hard man. His actual crimes are appalling for sure but there is NOTHING that we currently know if which connects him to Madeleine's disappearance.

What concerns me is the fact that the Germans have decided to convict him even before any evidence of his involvement has been found. They haven't even done any ground work yet they chose to go public with this suspect. Had this guy not been incarcerated and unable to defend himself I doubt very much if the Germans would have dared do what they have done.

Are the Germans attempting to undermine Operation Grange because it most certainly looks like it?
Why do you think they would want to do that?  You do know there is more to this that has yet to come out don’t you?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on June 07, 2020, 11:12:42 PM
Why do you think they would want to do that?  You do know there is more to this that has yet to come out don’t you?

I don't believe there is otherwise they wouldn't have gone public. We have seen these events played out previously with several other suspects and they all came to nothing despite the big headlines.

In my view, the Germans are grasping at straws.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 11:19:37 PM
I don't believe there is otherwise they wouldn't have gone public. We have seen these events played out previously with several other suspects and they all came to nothing despite the big headlines.
Never on this scale before.  There have been media reports of video footage and/or statements describing Madeleine’s dead body /death and who knows what else.  It’s hardly likely that the police have told us every last detail of what they have on this man IMO. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on June 07, 2020, 11:28:07 PM
Never on this scale before.  There have been media reports of video footage and/or statements describing Madeleine’s dead body /death and who knows what else.  It’s hardly likely that the police have told us every last detail of what they have on this man IMO.

The problem is that they will have a lot on him but nothing in respect of Madeleine McCann or René Hasée or any other missing child for that matter.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 11:29:00 PM
I don't believe there is otherwise they wouldn't have gone public. We have seen these events played out previously with several other suspects and they all came to nothing despite the big headlines.

In my view, the Germans are grasping at straws.

Indeed John but oh how some people want to believe it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 07, 2020, 11:33:07 PM
I'm sure that would be his main line of defence regarding the phone evidence.  The police can prove his phone was there but can they prove he was there with it.

I am intrigued about the phone number.  It seems to have been transferred to other users.  My only experience of that was when trying to use an old mobile I hadn't used for a while I discovered that its number had been given to someone else.  So unless the subscriber had hung onto the number since 2007 and transferred it to each new phone the police will have a monumental task in tracking it.
So much easier had it been done in 2007 with a near local's phone who had a recent Portuguese criminal record.

They seem to be going for people who knew the number and the subscriber from 2007.  Have I got that right or do you need to sort me out on it.

It's entirely possible the number was re-assigned more than once after May 2007 but the only reason for suspicion would be if that number had only one or two calls logged in its records on & around May 2007. I'd happily accept DS's explanation if it wasn't for his resemblance to the Smith's efit. IIRC I also looked at him in relation to Steven Cova.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2020, 11:41:25 PM
It's entirely possible the number was re-assigned more than once after May 2007 but the only reason for suspicion would be if that number had only one or two calls logged in its records on & around May 2007. I'd happily accept DS's explanation if it wasn't for his resemblance to the Smith's efit. IIRC I also looked at him in relation to Steven Cova.

Funny that. I’d happily accept GMcC’s explanation if it wasn’t for his resemblance to the Smith efit
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 07, 2020, 11:46:41 PM
Funny that. I’d happily accept GMcC’s explanation if it wasn’t for his resemblance to the Smith efit

Brace yourself...(where have we heard something like this before?)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396289/Christian-Brueckner-said-make-corpse-disappear-quickly-discussing-Madeleine-McCann.html
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 07, 2020, 11:54:12 PM
The problem is that they will have a lot on him but nothing in respect of Madeleine McCann or René Hasée or any other missing child for that matter.
What about the images and narratives about Madeleine’s body?  And who know what else may be in the process of being uncovered?  The investigation is ongoing.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 07, 2020, 11:59:35 PM
What about the images and narratives about Madeleine’s body?  And who know what else may be in the process of being uncovered?  The investigation is ongoing.

They don't have images or proof of Madeleine's body. OG is still calling it a missing person case.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 08, 2020, 12:00:08 AM
Brace yourself...(where have we heard something like this before?)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396289/Christian-Brueckner-said-make-corpse-disappear-quickly-discussing-Madeleine-McCann.html

That is pathetic! Many believe Madeleine is dead.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2020, 12:00:21 AM
Brace yourself...(where have we heard something like this before?)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396289/Christian-Brueckner-said-make-corpse-disappear-quickly-discussing-Madeleine-McCann.html

I hope they all talked to the police before the papers.

This man is no doubt a horrendous individual but the fact that he claimed Madeleine was dead and speculated how her body might have been disposed of....remember there had been talk of the Cipriano woman feeding her daughter to pigs...while abhorrent to some does not make him guilty of any part in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Being fed to pigs, statements describing her death, pictures of her body....is there nothing you wouldn’t wish on this poor child just to prove Brueckner’s guilt ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 12:02:19 AM
They don't have images or proof of Madeleine's body. OG is still calling it a missing person case.
They may have something which can’t be proved as it is not forensically testable but simply resembles her.  I shudder to think, it’s all too horrible. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 12:03:55 AM
I hope they all talked to the police before the papers.

This man is no doubt a horrendous individual but the fact that he claimed Madeleine was dead and speculated how her body might have been disposed of....remember there had been talk of the Cipriano woman feeding her daughter to pigs...while abhorrent to some does not make him guilty of any part in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Being fed to pigs, statements describing her death, pictures of her body....is there nothing you wouldn’t wish on this poor child just to prove Brueckner’s guilt ?
Stop making these disgusting allegations, have you no shame at all?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2020, 12:10:19 AM
I hope they all talked to the police before the papers.

This man is no doubt a horrendous individual but the fact that he claimed Madeleine was dead and speculated how her body might have been disposed of....remember there had been talk of the Cipriano woman feeding her daughter to pigs...while abhorrent to some does not make him guilty of any part in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Being fed to pigs, statements describing her death, pictures of her body....is there nothing you wouldn’t wish on this poor child just to prove Brueckner’s guilt ?

Stop assuming you know what I am thinking. I have no desire whatsoever to predicate CB's guilt or Madeleine's fate & am just bringing fast-breaking news reports to the forum. It may be that he was paid to abduct Madeleine then forced to dispose of her in a manner of chilling coincidence. I don't know....things may not be as cut & dried as the press are making out. Certainly much of this information is sourced from Germany.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2020, 12:17:44 AM
Stop assuming you know what I am thinking. I have no desire whatsoever to preempt CB's guilt or Madeleine's fate & am just bringing fast-breaking news reports to the forum. It may be that he was paid to abduct Madeleine then forced to dispose of her in a manner of chilling coincidence. I don't know....things may not be as cut & dried as the press are making out. Certainly much of this information is sourced from Germany.



With the greatest respect can I suggest that if you do not intend to look as if you are preempting Brueckner’s guilt that you perhaps be a little more circumspect with what you post.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2020, 12:24:56 AM
I don’t have to assume Misty...it’s laid out in your posts in black and white.

With the greatest respect can I suggest that if you do not intend to look as if you are preempting Brueckner’s guilt that you perhaps be a little more circumspect with what you post.

I don't write the press reports, Faith & I'm sure you've never been slow in posting any media which is suggestive of the parents' guilt.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 12:46:33 AM
Please note
Gratuitous accusation made against other members will result in posts being wiped.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 08:07:03 AM
Please note
Gratuitous accusation made against other members will result in posts being wiped.
Could you wipe them then please?  I find accusations that anyone here is actively wishing and hoping Madeleine was killed by this paedophile an absolute disgrace and a complete falsehood.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on June 08, 2020, 08:33:50 AM
Could you wipe them then please?  I find accusations that anyone here is actively wishing and hoping Madeleine was killed by this paedophile an absolute disgrace and a complete falsehood.

If it’s any consolation I didn’t read the post(s) like that.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2020, 08:48:25 AM
Could you wipe them then please?  I find accusations that anyone here is actively wishing and hoping Madeleine was killed by this paedophile an absolute disgrace and a complete falsehood.
That paedophile is not a member is he?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2020, 08:52:01 AM
I don't write the press reports, Faith & I'm sure you've never been slow in posting any media which is suggestive of the parents' guilt.

As I have said before, I believe Madeleine was the victim of an accident. It would have been quick and she would have known little about it.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2020, 10:09:35 AM
That paedophile is not a member is he?

Would it matter if he was?  He is a Convicted Paedophile, albeit so far not proven guilty of abducting Madeleine McCann.

In so far as I am aware, No Supporter here has expressed a hope that Madeleine was killed by this obvious low life.  Quite the opposite in fact. Although the accusation from Sceptics doesn't surprise me at all.

For once we all appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet.  Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

However, it is not part of my remit to Delete Opinions, providing that this is all they are.  So have a care, Folks.  Or I will be Deleting.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: mrswah on June 08, 2020, 10:22:27 AM
This latest turn of events worries me. This German suspect is undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, apparently he carried a gun at times in Portugal so that he would be seen as a hard man. His actual crimes are appalling for sure but there is NOTHING that we currently know of which connects him to Madeleine's disappearance.

What concerns me is the fact that the Germans have decided to convict him even before any evidence of his involvement has been found. They haven't even done any ground work yet they chose to go public with this suspect. Had this guy not been incarcerated and unable to defend himself I doubt very much if the Germans would have dared do what they have done.

Are the Germans attempting to undermine Operation Grange because it most certainly looks like it?

Is it true that they haven't done any groundwork though?  This suspect has been known to the police since 2017, and I very much doubt we know everything they have discovered about him.

IMO, the police have gone public now because they don't have enough evidence to charge him, and they are hoping that someone will provide it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2020, 10:33:10 AM
Is it true that they haven't done any groundwork though?  This suspect has been known to the police since 2017, and I very much doubt we know everything they have discovered about him.

IMO, the police have gone public now because they don't have enough evidence to charge him, and they are hoping that someone will provide it.

I agree.
I don't think the German police who seem to have been landed with the lead in this have divulged any more than they have had to and it seems to have jogged memories.  So with any luck some of the information sent in will make sense and might provide a breakthrough to more than one of the cases the police are looking at with fresh eyes.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2020, 10:35:30 AM
Would it matter if he was?  He is a Convicted Paedophile, albeit so far not proven guilty of abducting Madeleine McCann.

In so far as I am aware, No Supporter here has expressed a hope that Madeleine was killed by this obvious low life.  Quite the opposite in fact. Although the accusation from Sceptics doesn't surprise me at all.

For once we all appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet.  Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

However, it is not part of my remit to Delete Opinions, providing that this is all they are.  So have a care, Folks.  Or I will be Deleting.

‘ Although the accusation from Sceptics doesn't surprise me at all.’

I really did think you were above this kind of linear thinking Eleanor.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on June 08, 2020, 10:40:25 AM
Is it true that they haven't done any groundwork though?  This suspect has been known to the police since 2017, and I very much doubt we know everything they have discovered about him.

IMO, the police have gone public now because they don't have enough evidence to charge him, and they are hoping that someone will provide it.

I'm assuming that Brueckner is the 'last lead' that Grange have mentioned over the past few years.
They've never given any  further information  until now and I suspect they are only doing it now because they have no other option.
 The media is full of  fanciful stories, some of which might have some truth and perhaps police will be able to tease some useful information from it all
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2020, 10:41:04 AM
Is it true that they haven't done any groundwork though?  This suspect has been known to the police since 2017, and I very much doubt we know everything they have discovered about him.

IMO, the police have gone public now because they don't have enough evidence to charge him, and they are hoping that someone will provide it.

In My Opinion this is all on a hiding to nothing.  There are already Jurisdiction Problems, and since there is no chance of Bruckner falling down any Police Station Stairs, they aren't going to get a confession.

I just hope that he stays locked up for a very long time.

And that Madeleine is still alive and unharmed.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2020, 10:43:30 AM
‘ Although the accusation from Sceptics doesn't surprise me at all.’

I really did think you were above this kind of linear thinking Eleanor.

It was inevitable from some, Faith.  But thanks for the compliment.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2020, 10:55:09 AM
In My Opinion this is all on a hiding to nothing.  There are already Jurisdiction Problems, and since there is no chance of Bruckner falling down any Police Station Stairs, they aren't going to get a confession.

I just hope that he stays locked up for a very long time.

And that Madeleine is still alive and unharmed.

I echo your hope Eleanor that he stays locked up for a long time.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 08, 2020, 11:13:10 AM
I'm assuming that Brueckner is the 'last lead' that Grange have mentioned over the past few years.
They've never given any  further information  until now and I suspect they are only doing it now because they have no other option.
 The media is full of  fanciful stories, some of which might have some truth and perhaps police will be able to tease some useful information from it all

OG were working on their final lead in 2015 from reports. This guy didn't come to their attention until 2017.

April 2016
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Anthro on June 08, 2020, 04:40:40 PM
It's entirely possible the number was re-assigned more than once after May 2007 but the only reason for suspicion would be if that number had only one or two calls logged in its records on & around May 2007. I'd happily accept DS's explanation if it wasn't for his resemblance to the Smith's efit. IIRC I also looked at him in relation to Steven Cova.

Luis Barros was a waiter at the Tapas, who also worked at the Mill, and said there were 20 diners on half board at the Tapas. He also said that he had to seek authorisation from his manager Steven Cova to make a block reservation for the T9. Steven Cova was the Angolan catering manager who had left at 8pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2020, 04:50:01 PM
If it’s any consolation I didn’t read the post(s) like that.
Of course you didn’t.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on June 17, 2020, 09:27:14 AM
Why now? He was eligible for parole on the drug-peddling charge last week, and there have apparently been legal complications over the rape charge: his EAW that got him extradited from Italy only related to the drugs charge.

"... He is currently serving an unrelated sentence for drug trafficking in the northern German city of Kiel.

German court documents show that he has served two-thirds of that sentence and can be considered for parole from Sunday onwards.

But even if a judge decides to release him on probation for the drugs offence, he will remain in custody over the rape case.

Brueckner appealed over that conviction to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, which referred it to the European Court of Justice.

He claims his extradition to Germany under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was unlawful because it related to the drug charge rather than the rape.

Brueckner had fled to Italy and was found in Milan in September 2018.

Under the principle of “specialty”, extradited people can normally only be prosecuted for the crime for which the EAW was granted."

(This link isn't the original I'd read, but appears to have copied the same info.)
https://corporatedispatch.com/new-suspect-in-madeleine-mccann-case-also-investigated-over-missing-german-girl/

"...The man, named by German media as Christian Brueckner, is believed to be a rapist who was jailed in December for raping a 72-year-old American woman in Portugal.

The attack happened in Praia da Luz in September 2005, a year-and-a-half before Madeleine went missing nearby.

He denied the crime and has launched a legal challenge against his conviction that will be considered by the European Court of Justice.

It received the case on 8 May and The Independent understands that as it was filed under the “urgent preliminary ruling procedure”, a decision will be made between three and six months from that date.

The Braunschweiger Zeitung reported that the man’s defence lawyer called for him to be acquitted during the trial and appealed to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice.

The man is challenging the evidence and witness testimony against him and accuses the German authorities of violating international law and making legal errors during his extradition.

He was transferred to Germany under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) relating to a different criminal offence.

Under the principle of “specialty”, extradited people can normally only be prosecuted for the crime for which the EAW was granted.

The rule does not apply in all circumstances and the requesting country can ask the extraditing judicial authority for consent to change or add offences.

The Federal Court of Justice referred the issue to the European Court of Justice in April.

If judges find that German authorities made a legal error, the man’s conviction could be overturned and the case will have to restart.

German suspect identified in Madeleine McCann disappearance

German officials said the man being investigated over Madeleine’s disappearance had a criminal history including sexual offences and child sexual abuse and was serving a prison sentence, but did not give further details.

He is believed to be the same man convicted in December of raping the American woman in Portugal in 2005."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-german-suspect-rape-conviction-appeal-christian-brueckner-a9548886.html
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on June 17, 2020, 11:22:07 AM
Luis Barros was a waiter at the Tapas, who also worked at the Mill, and said there were 20 diners on half board at the Tapas. He also said that he had to seek authorisation from his manager Steven Cova to make a block reservation for the T9. Steven Cova was the Angolan catering manager who had left at 8pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.

I don't think Barros worked at the Tapas?

Barman Millenium Restaurant

Place of Work: Ocean Club

He has worked at the Ocean Club for 14 years, always at the Millenium which is the only restaurant in the OC that serves breakfast.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Anthro on June 17, 2020, 03:24:01 PM
I don't think Barros worked at the Tapas?

Barman Millenium Restaurant

Place of Work: Ocean Club

He has worked at the Ocean Club for 14 years, always at the Millenium which is the only restaurant in the OC that serves breakfast.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm
Thank you for the correction.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2021, 04:43:21 AM
They clearly have nothing on him entering 5a,the appeal doesn't even cover that.They're more interested in vehicles and phone call's.
What actual evidence is there that a stranger entered 5a on the night of 3/05/2007?
Woke and wandered if anything imo.
If they could just lay their hands on the missing hairs from the bed and check if his haplotype was one of the ones in the flat, the investigation might move one step further to finding out.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on November 18, 2021, 05:55:42 AM
If they could just lay their hands on the missing hairs from the bed and check if his haplotype was one of the ones in the flat, the investigation might move one step further to finding out.
DNA ruled Tractorman out, that's suggestive of DNA gathered and analysed , with Wolters admitting no forensics to link CB either, it's dead in the water save his (CB) bestest mates dobbing him in.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 18, 2021, 07:28:42 AM
DNA ruled Tractorman out, that's suggestive of DNA gathered and analysed , with Wolters admitting no forensics to link CB either, it's dead in the water save his (CB) bestest mates dobbing him in.
Do you have a link to DNA ruling out Tractorman please?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on November 23, 2021, 07:05:53 PM

Has it ever occurred to any of you that this is going nowhere when it comes to the culpability of The McCanns?

There is nothing that any of you can do.  It was a ghastly cock up from day one.  So even if there was some culpability then it has been long lost.

Amaral was utterly useless while fighting his own demons.  What on earth was he doing in charge of this case?

Portugal has way too much to answer for in the light of what Amaral had already done.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 23, 2021, 10:42:00 PM
DNA ruled Tractorman out, that's suggestive of DNA gathered and analysed , with Wolters admitting no forensics to link CB either, it's dead in the water save his (CB) bestest mates dobbing him in.

I don't recall anything about DNA ruling him out, but you hardly need DNA to distinguish between a hair from a black person and a white one in any case.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 24, 2021, 09:21:47 PM
I don't recall anything about DNA ruling him out, but you hardly need DNA to distinguish between a hair from a black person and a white one in any case.

IIRC it was reported he had been ruled out as being the tanned smelly man with the fetish for getting into bed with white British girls.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on November 25, 2021, 06:03:07 AM
 ?8)@)-)
I don't recall anything about DNA ruling him out, but you hardly need DNA to distinguish between a hair from a black person and a white one in any case.
Why bring race into it, a hair is a hair, how was the hair described as coming from a particular ethnic group ? the only way that could be done is though forensic analysis .
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2021, 07:08:36 AM
?8)@)-)Why bring race into it, a hair is a hair, how was the hair described as coming from a particular ethnic group ? the only way that could be done is though forensic analysis .
What hair is this?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on November 25, 2021, 10:23:42 AM
What hair is this?
Post 255 by carana.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 25, 2021, 11:14:55 AM
Post 255 by carana.
Carana posted
If they could just lay their hands on the missing hairs from the bed and check if his haplotype was one of the ones in the flat, the investigation might move one step further to finding out.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11593.msg670918#msg670918

I think you have gone off on a tangent with this one.

Carana quite clearly is referencing the hairs collected from apartment 5A which are unidentified.  We have no idea what forensic samples if any, were recovered from the scene of any other outrages.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2021, 11:48:06 AM
Post 255 by carana.
Post 256 by you - still not had a reply.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 26, 2021, 01:48:47 PM
?8)@)-)Why bring race into it, a hair is a hair, how was the hair described as coming from a particular ethnic group ? the only way that could be done is though forensic analysis .

In the absence of roots to test for nuclear DNA, MtDNA analysis would provide a broad ethnic group (but not the identity of an individual), but an examination under a microscope of a Negroid/African hair would show the different structure.

(And NB: earlier I was referring the hairs that sent AWOL from her bed.)


Racial Determination

A human hair can be associated with a particular racial group based on established models for each group. Forensic examiners differentiate between hairs of Caucasoid (European ancestry), Mongoloid (Asian ancestry), and Negroid (African ancestry) origin, all of which exhibit microscopic characteristics that distinguish one racial group from another. Head hairs are generally considered best for determining race, although hairs from other body areas can be useful. Racial determination from the microscopic examination of head hairs from infants, however, can be difficult, and hairs from individuals of mixed racial ancestry may possess microscopic characteristics attributed to more than one racial group.

The identification of race is most useful as an investigative tool, but it can also be an associative tool when an individual’s hairs exhibit unusual racial characteristics.

Caucasoid (European)
Hairs of Caucasoid or Caucasian origin can be of fine to medium coarseness, are generally straight or wavy in appearance, and exhibit colors ranging from blonde to brown to black. The hair shafts of Caucasian hairs vary from round to oval in cross section and have fine to medium-sized, evenly distributed pigment granules.

Mongoloid (Asian)
Hairs of Mongoloid or Asian origin are regularly coarse, straight, and circular in cross section, with a wider diameter than the hairs of the other racial groups. The outer layer of the hair, the cuticle, is usually significantly thicker than the cuticle of Negroid and Caucasian hairs, and the medulla, or central canal, is continuous and wide. The hair shaft, or cortex, of Mongoloid hair contains pigment granules that are generally larger in size than the pigment granules of Caucasian hairs and which often appear to be grouped in patchy areas within the shaft. Mongoloid hair can have a characteristic reddish appearance as a product of its pigment.

Negroid (African)
Hairs of Negroid or African origin are regularly curly or kinky, have a flattened cross section, and can appear curly, wavy, or coiled. Negroid pigment granules are larger than those found in Mongoloid and Caucasian hair and are grouped in clumps of different sizes and shapes. The density of the pigment in the hair shaft may be so great as to make the hair opaque. A Negroid hair shaft exhibits variation or apparent variation in diameter because of its flattened nature and the manner in which it lies on the microscope slide. Twisting of the hair shaft, known as buckling, can be present, and the hair shaft frequently splits along the length.


https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric1.htm


Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2021, 02:42:50 PM
In the absence of roots to test for nuclear DNA, MtDNA analysis would provide a broad ethnic group (but not the identity of an individual), but an examination under a microscope of a Negroid/African hair would show the different structure.

(And NB: earlier I was referring the hairs that sent AWOL from her bed.)


Racial Determination

A human hair can be associated with a particular racial group based on established models for each group. Forensic examiners differentiate between hairs of Caucasoid (European ancestry), Mongoloid (Asian ancestry), and Negroid (African ancestry) origin, all of which exhibit microscopic characteristics that distinguish one racial group from another. Head hairs are generally considered best for determining race, although hairs from other body areas can be useful. Racial determination from the microscopic examination of head hairs from infants, however, can be difficult, and hairs from individuals of mixed racial ancestry may possess microscopic characteristics attributed to more than one racial group.

The identification of race is most useful as an investigative tool, but it can also be an associative tool when an individual’s hairs exhibit unusual racial characteristics.

Caucasoid (European)
Hairs of Caucasoid or Caucasian origin can be of fine to medium coarseness, are generally straight or wavy in appearance, and exhibit colors ranging from blonde to brown to black. The hair shafts of Caucasian hairs vary from round to oval in cross section and have fine to medium-sized, evenly distributed pigment granules.

Mongoloid (Asian)
Hairs of Mongoloid or Asian origin are regularly coarse, straight, and circular in cross section, with a wider diameter than the hairs of the other racial groups. The outer layer of the hair, the cuticle, is usually significantly thicker than the cuticle of Negroid and Caucasian hairs, and the medulla, or central canal, is continuous and wide. The hair shaft, or cortex, of Mongoloid hair contains pigment granules that are generally larger in size than the pigment granules of Caucasian hairs and which often appear to be grouped in patchy areas within the shaft. Mongoloid hair can have a characteristic reddish appearance as a product of its pigment.

Negroid (African)
Hairs of Negroid or African origin are regularly curly or kinky, have a flattened cross section, and can appear curly, wavy, or coiled. Negroid pigment granules are larger than those found in Mongoloid and Caucasian hair and are grouped in clumps of different sizes and shapes. The density of the pigment in the hair shaft may be so great as to make the hair opaque. A Negroid hair shaft exhibits variation or apparent variation in diameter because of its flattened nature and the manner in which it lies on the microscope slide. Twisting of the hair shaft, known as buckling, can be present, and the hair shaft frequently splits along the length.


https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric1.htm

Thanks for that, Carana.

It was your meticulous work carried out in a much earlier thread in the effort to explain DNA as simply as possible to the forum which gave me an inkling of understanding of the way in which it had been misinterpreted in Madeleine's case.

With absolutely no disrespect intended to present members it also suggested to me that a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

Take for example the total inability of the Amaral team (and later, numerous internet detectives) to understand that the hair found in Burgau had nothing to do with anyone in the McCann group.

DNA is a complex science for most of us and should not be bandied about on internet fora by folk who demonstrate even less understanding of it than I have.

I think you epitomise the intended ethos of this forum.  Always straight and to the point and always well researched.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 26, 2021, 05:58:56 PM
Aw, thank you!

I didn't understand it much in the beginning either. It was someone on 3A who started trying to explain and then I found some high school sites with lots of exercises.

That Amaral and co didn't understand it is one thing, but he kept on spouting rubbish as if he did.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 26, 2021, 06:44:01 PM
Thanks for that, Carana.

It was your meticulous work carried out in a much earlier thread in the effort to explain DNA as simply as possible to the forum which gave me an inkling of understanding of the way in which it had been misinterpreted in Madeleine's case.

With absolutely no disrespect intended to present members it also suggested to me that a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

Take for example the total inability of the Amaral team (and later, numerous internet detectives) to understand that the hair found in Burgau had nothing to do with anyone in the McCann group.

DNA is a complex science for most of us and should not be bandied about on internet fora by folk who demonstrate even less understanding of it than I have.

I think you epitomise the intended ethos of this forum.  Always straight and to the point and always well researched.

The result for the two hairs found in found in Bergau was;

"The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline."

The hairs found in 5A were subjected to the same tests, and the results were similarly worded;

"The Haplotype identified by the letter O. present in 2 samples, and identical to that of Russell James O'Brien (RJB), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodlines."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

The only difference I can see is that Jane wasn't expected to be in Bergau, while it was known that Russell was in 5A. There's no difference in the forensic tests and results.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2021, 07:37:48 PM
Aw, thank you!

I didn't understand it much in the beginning either. It was someone on 3A who started trying to explain and then I found some high school sites with lots of exercises.

That Amaral and co didn't understand it is one thing, but he kept on spouting rubbish as if he did.

Unfortunately I think he is still at it and using his latest literary rehash to keep the pot boiling.

I still don't know enough to work it out for myself;  I rely on reputable sources.  Pity Amaral didn't think to do that before he went off at a tangent.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 26, 2021, 08:23:38 PM
Unfortunately I think he is still at it and using his latest literary rehash to keep the pot boiling.

I still don't know enough to work it out for myself;  I rely on reputable sources.  Pity Amaral didn't think to do that before he went off at a tangent.
Talking of which why has no one bothered to translate the latest opus I wonder…?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2021, 08:30:39 PM
The result for the two hairs found in found in Bergau was;

"The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline."

The hairs found in 5A were subjected to the same tests, and the results were similarly worded;

"The Haplotype identified by the letter O. present in 2 samples, and identical to that of Russell James O'Brien (RJB), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodlines."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

The only difference I can see is that Jane wasn't expected to be in Bergau, while it was known that Russell was in 5A. There's no difference in the forensic tests and results.

Nor was she.

Nor was her hair.

Although neither you nor Amaral evidence any understanding of the science, Francisco Corte-Real certainly knows how to interpret a combination of alleles and multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome.

Read the files ~ the forensic results are there for all to see ~ the hair found in Burgau had the same haplotype as Jane Tanner but the Institute proved without a shadow of doubt that it is not Jane's hair - it belongs to someone else.

Anyway, thankyou for proving the point of my previous post that indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing particularly when opinions based on it are insisted upon.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 26, 2021, 08:37:04 PM
Nor was she.

Nor was her hair.

Although neither you nor Amaral evidence any understanding of the science, Francisco Corte-Real certainly knows how to interpret a combination of alleles and multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome.

Read the files ~ the forensic results are there for all to see ~ the hair found in Burgau had the same haplotype as Jane Tanner but the Institute proved without a shadow of doubt that it is not Jane's hair - it belongs to someone else.


Anyway, thankyou for proving the point of my previous post that indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing particularly when opinions based on it are insisted upon.

I don't think you can provide a cite for the enlarged text.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2021, 09:13:20 PM
I don't think you can provide a cite for the enlarged text.

You really must do something about the constant innuendo which typify your posts. Jane Tanner was never in Burgau and if you had ever read the files with any true understanding you would be aware of that.

Now toddle off back to groundhog day and have a look at the requisite pages starting with 4175 ~ then from pages 4325 to 4328.  The information is there, it was never in question

By the way ~ please note that I have complied with your request for a cite unlike ignoring it as you tend to frequently do.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2021, 06:20:32 AM
You really must do something about the constant innuendo which typify your posts. Jane Tanner was never in Burgau and if you had ever read the files with any true understanding you would be aware of that.

Now toddle off back to groundhog day and have a look at the requisite pages starting with 4175 ~ then from pages 4325 to 4328.  The information is there, it was never in question

By the way ~ please note that I have complied with your request for a cite unlike ignoring it as you tend to frequently do.

It's your words which I'm questioning. I don't think it was possible to prove that the hairs found in Bergau didn't belong to Jane Tanner, that can't be done with Mitochondrial DNA.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 27, 2021, 09:00:05 AM
You really must do something about the constant innuendo which typify your posts. Jane Tanner was never in Burgau and if you had ever read the files with any true understanding you would be aware of that.

Now toddle off back to groundhog day and have a look at the requisite pages starting with 4175 ~ then from pages 4325 to 4328.  The information is there, it was never in question

By the way ~ please note that I have complied with your request for a cite unlike ignoring it as you tend to frequently do.

Do you have a link for any of those sections of the files?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 10:56:18 AM
Do you have a link for any of those sections of the files?

Are you referring to "4175 ~ then from pages 4325 to 4328"

               ARE YOU FOR REAL
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2021, 11:01:35 AM
Do you have a link for any of those sections of the files?

This was in the PJ's final report;

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Unfortunately, the pages quoted are not in the released files, so it's not possible to check what was actually said. Maybe the PJ misunderstood the reply to their question.


Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 11:11:28 AM
It's your words which I'm questioning. I don't think it was possible to prove that the hairs found in Bergau didn't belong to Jane Tanner, that can't be done with Mitochondrial DNA.

What is it you fail to understand about - "a mitochondrial DNA profile is not unique and objectively identifying a particular person".

Jane and Murat come to that, share their mitochondrial DNA with "the population group 'West Eurasia', which comprises the populations of Europe".

I think attempting to make spin out of that one really is beyond incorrigible.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 11:24:28 AM
This was in the PJ's final report;

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Unfortunately, the pages quoted are not in the released files, so it's not possible to check what was actually said. Maybe the PJ misunderstood the reply to their question.

OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS
PROCESSO VOLUME 16A   Page 4325  - the information quoted is in the files and I don't think the PJ had any difficulty understanding what Corte Real told them.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4325.jpg)
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2021, 12:04:00 PM
What is it you fail to understand about - "a mitochondrial DNA profile is not unique and objectively identifying a particular person".

Jane and Murat come to that, share their mitochondrial DNA with "the population group 'West Eurasia', which comprises the populations of Europe".

I think attempting to make spin out of that one really is beyond incorrigible.

I completely understand that mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to identify individuals. My point was that it can't be used to eliminate them either.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2021, 12:05:31 PM
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS
PROCESSO VOLUME 16A   Page 4325  - the information quoted is in the files and I don't think the PJ had any difficulty understanding what Corte Real told them.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4325.jpg)

I see nothing there which proves the hairs belonged to someone other than Jane Tanner?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 27, 2021, 12:12:42 PM
Are you referring to "4175 ~ then from pages 4325 to 4328"

               ARE YOU FOR REAL

Yes I am for real. Those pages are missing from the link I use. That is why I asked for the link you used so I could check for myself.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 27, 2021, 12:23:53 PM
Has it ever occurred to any of you that this is going nowhere when it comes to the culpability of The McCanns?

There is nothing that any of you can do.  It was a ghastly cock up from day one.  So even if there was some culpability then it has been long lost.

Amaral was utterly useless while fighting his own demons.  What on earth was he doing in charge of this case?

Portugal has way too much to answer for in the light of what Amaral had already done.

I actually believe Colin Sutton has a valid point when he says that "relationships change" and "science moves forward".  That might at some point in the future provide a breakthrough. It's a long shot - but still a possibility.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 12:31:27 PM
I completely understand that mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to identify individuals. My point was that it can't be used to eliminate them either.

The sceptic strategy of attempting to slur using deliberate or otherwise misrepresentation of whatever takes the current fancy is an indication that nothing coming from that stable is to be respected or trusted and that includes opinion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 27, 2021, 12:33:54 PM
The sceptic strategy of attempting to slur using deliberate or otherwise misrepresentation of whatever takes the current fancy is an indication that nothing coming from that stable is to be respected or trusted and that includes opinion.

But what G-Unit stated is factually correct.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 12:37:01 PM
Yes I am for real. Those pages are missing from the link I use. That is why I asked for the link you used so I could check for myself.

                ❔❔     How sweet of the internet to give me my own exclusive access  ❤                 ❔❔
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 12:41:13 PM
I actually believe Colin Sutton has a valid point when he says that "relationships change" and "science moves forward".  That might at some point in the future provide a breakthrough. It's a long shot - but still a possibility.

Wasn't he right about that.
Relationships between Brueckner and many of his friends have indeed undergone monumental changes of late.  Just as predicted.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 12:49:17 PM
But what G-Unit stated is factually correct.

The information Corte Real gave to the investigators is correct and is the only meaningful one.  Gunit's interpretation of it is her own.

The same information was given from Birmingham regarding another misinterpreted sample by Corte Real's professional counterpart who pointed out that he and many of his lab colleagues shared the same characteristics.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2021, 01:25:23 PM
The sceptic strategy of attempting to slur using deliberate or otherwise misrepresentation of whatever takes the current fancy is an indication that nothing coming from that stable is to be respected or trusted and that includes opinion.
I'm just asking for evidence which upholds your opinion that it was PROVED that the hairs found in Burgau belonged to someone other than Jane Tanner.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2021, 02:28:43 PM
I'm just asking for evidence which upholds your opinion that it was PROVED that the hairs found in Burgau belonged to someone other than Jane Tanner.

If you are going to ignore Cortes Real ~ nothing I post will make one slight bit of difference to your entrenched view.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2021, 04:12:03 PM
If you are going to ignore Cortes Real ~ nothing I post will make one slight bit of difference to your entrenched view.

What did he (?) say then? I don't read portuguese.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 27, 2021, 09:21:39 PM
                ❔❔     How sweet of the internet to give me my own exclusive access  ❤                 ❔❔

I'm sure you don't get special privileges... so you could just post the link. Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 27, 2021, 09:38:01 PM
I understand less about the specifics of their mtDNA forensic system than the nuclear system (where it's clear which "bits" of the genome are examined and how many).

IMO, confusion was created by saying that the result corresponded to x "or an individual of the same maternal bloodline". While it is true that mtDNA is inherited via the mother to all the children, the EMPOP database first went online in 2006 and - IMO - was comparatively in its infancy for forensic purposes.

For example, Kate shares the same haplotype as one of the first GNR officers on the scene (Jose Roque)... yet I have seen nothing to date to suggest that they are siblings.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4175.jpg

In their database, there were 8 separate maternal lines with the same haplotype as JT's out of their nascent database of 3000 ish.

The EMPOP mtDNA database

On October 16, 2006, release I of the EMPOP database went online [Parson 2007b]. It is an IT based, open platform for comparison and storage of mtDNA sequence data and comprises 5173 mtDNA sequences from worldwide populations contributed by laboratories that had successfully participated in collaborative exercises. 4527 sequences are forensic data (high quality sequences), 646 sequences in the database are validated sequence data from publications, where raw data are not available. Literature-derived sequences have been carefully inspected with several methods of phylogenetic evaluation. The majority of the 5173 sequences derive from Western Eurasian populations, smaller datasets from East Asian, South East Asian and Subsahara African (meta)populations. Ongoing sampling and analysis is continuously increasing the number of samples and worldwide regions covered. Three PhD students at the Innsbruck Institute of Legal Medicine wo
rk in this field investigating populations currently underrepresented not only in in the EMPOP database.
https://genomics.gmi.tirol/projects/empop/

On the West Eurasia categories:

More than three-quarters of the present-day European mtDNA gene pool most likely comes from indigenous Mesolithic or Palaeolithic ancestors. In addition Neolithic immigrants, who brought the first forms of agriculture to the hunter-gatherer dominated European landscape, ~8,000 years ago play an important part of today’s mtDNA pool of modern humans in West Eurasia [Richards 2000].
https://genomics.gmi.tirol/projects/empop/west-eurasia/





Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2021, 09:29:44 AM
I understand less about the specifics of their mtDNA forensic system than the nuclear system (where it's clear which "bits" of the genome are examined and how many).

IMO, confusion was created by saying that the result corresponded to x "or an individual of the same maternal bloodline". While it is true that mtDNA is inherited via the mother to all the children, the EMPOP database first went online in 2006 and - IMO - was comparatively in its infancy for forensic purposes.

For example, Kate shares the same haplotype as one of the first GNR officers on the scene (Jose Roque)... yet I have seen nothing to date to suggest that they are siblings.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4175.jpg

In their database, there were 8 separate maternal lines with the same haplotype as JT's out of their nascent database of 3000 ish.

The EMPOP mtDNA database

On October 16, 2006, release I of the EMPOP database went online [Parson 2007b]. It is an IT based, open platform for comparison and storage of mtDNA sequence data and comprises 5173 mtDNA sequences from worldwide populations contributed by laboratories that had successfully participated in collaborative exercises. 4527 sequences are forensic data (high quality sequences), 646 sequences in the database are validated sequence data from publications, where raw data are not available. Literature-derived sequences have been carefully inspected with several methods of phylogenetic evaluation. The majority of the 5173 sequences derive from Western Eurasian populations, smaller datasets from East Asian, South East Asian and Subsahara African (meta)populations. Ongoing sampling and analysis is continuously increasing the number of samples and worldwide regions covered. Three PhD students at the Innsbruck Institute of Legal Medicine wo
rk in this field investigating populations currently underrepresented not only in in the EMPOP database.
https://genomics.gmi.tirol/projects/empop/

On the West Eurasia categories:

More than three-quarters of the present-day European mtDNA gene pool most likely comes from indigenous Mesolithic or Palaeolithic ancestors. In addition Neolithic immigrants, who brought the first forms of agriculture to the hunter-gatherer dominated European landscape, ~8,000 years ago play an important part of today’s mtDNA pool of modern humans in West Eurasia [Richards 2000].
https://genomics.gmi.tirol/projects/empop/west-eurasia/

My question still remains unanswered. Was it true that  the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was able to prove  that the hair that was found in Burgau, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belonged to someone else?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2021, 10:03:14 AM
The sceptic strategy of attempting to slur using deliberate or otherwise misrepresentation of whatever takes the current fancy is an indication that nothing coming from that stable is to be respected or trusted and that includes opinion.

I'm casting doubt on something said by the PJ. I thought that was acceptable in certain circles?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 28, 2021, 01:42:55 PM
My question still remains unanswered. Was it true that  the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was able to prove  that the hair that was found in Burgau, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belonged to someone else?

Unless I've missed or forgotten something, I can't find where the INML positively excluded that hair as belonging to JT. Corte Real's letter /fax confirms the clarification eventually made by the lab that 8 maternal bloodlines in the database were identical to JT's.

However, none of the blood traces in the Burgau flat corresponded to any of the profiles they'd been given to compare them with, nor have I come across anything in the files that would corroborate her ever having been there
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm#p13p3476



Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2021, 02:08:29 PM
Unless I've missed or forgotten something, I can't find where the INML positively excluded that hair as belonging to JT. Corte Real's letter /fax confirms the clarification eventually made by the lab that 8 maternal bloodlines in the database were identical to JT's.

However, none of the blood traces in the Burgau flat corresponded to any of the profiles they'd been given to compare them with, nor have I come across anything in the files that would corroborate her ever having been there
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm#p13p3476

I agree, but can find nothing which supports the PJ's claim that "the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else"
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:12:14 PM
I agree, but can find nothing which supports the PJ's claim that "the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else"
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.


Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2021, 03:33:52 PM
I'm casting doubt on something said by the PJ. I thought that was acceptable in certain circles?

In this instance the PJ did their investigative job properly.

They noticed something they thought strange regarding DNA information from hair samples.

They did not speculate or jump to conclusions; they sought expert advice from the director of the Portuguese Institute to clarify the matter.

As Carana pointed out in one of her posts ~ the science of DNA was still very much in its infancy in 2007.

The PJ understood and accepted the scientific advice given by the Institute.  This enabled them to progress to the next stage of the investigation.
Had Amaral's team conducted themselves in like professional fashion peoples' lives would have been so much less complicated and it could only have benefitted Madeleine's case.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:46:43 PM
Brietta is correct in the Corte Real affirmed that the haplotype wasn't exclusive to JT (or even anyone in her own maternal bloodline). However, it wasn't the INML that stated that it couldn't have been hers, but the chief PJ inspector in the final report who came to that conclusion - presumably, as there was nothing to link a) her to the place, nor, more importantly, b) Madeleine.

I'm not sure anyone in the PJ at the time knew much about DNA in general, let alone mtDNA, and so spotting a haplotype consistent with JT's probably jumped out at them, but at least the post-Amaral team sought clarification.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:57:49 PM
In this instance the PJ did their investigative job properly.

They noticed something they thought strange regarding DNA information from hair samples.

They did not speculate or jump to conclusions; they sought expert advice from the director of the Portuguese Institute to clarify the matter.

As Carana pointed out in one of her posts ~ the science of DNA was still very much in its infancy in 2007.

The PJ understood and accepted the scientific advice given by the Institute.  This enabled them to progress to the next stage of the investigation.
Had Amaral's team conducted themselves in like professional fashion peoples' lives would have been so much less complicated and it could only have benefitted Madeleine's case.

DNA had been around for a while in forensics, including in Portugal, by then, but my suspicion is that mtDNA was less known. MtDNA was, of course, already well known in medical research way before Madeleine disappeared.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 28, 2021, 04:09:10 PM
To the credit of the Portuguese, as I have pointed out more than once, the INML's DNA analysis system (two slightly overlapping kits, in fact) examined far more areas than the UK's.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2021, 04:23:39 PM
DNA had been around for a while in forensics, including in Portugal, by then, but my suspicion is that mtDNA was less known. MtDNA was, of course, already well known in medical research way before Madeleine disappeared.
Thanks, Carana.
The sciences are not my strong point.

Which is one reason why I find it extraordinary that Amaral's team didn't do what Rebelo's team did when scientific clarification was required.  If one doesn't know there is absolutely no shame in asking someone who does and I think the Portuguese Institute under Real was pretty competent.


Just read your post above.  I was aware that the Portuguese scientists are very professional (probably from reading your posts).  I think the FSS got the main job perhaps because of capacity and expense but certainly not as a reflection on capability.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 28, 2021, 05:00:34 PM
Thanks, Carana.
The sciences are not my strong point.

Which is one reason why I find it extraordinary that Amaral's team didn't do what Rebelo's team did when scientific clarification was required.  If one doesn't know there is absolutely no shame in asking someone who does and I think the Portuguese Institute under Real was pretty competent.


Just read your post above.  I was aware that the Portuguese scientists are very professional (probably from reading your posts).  I think the FSS got the main job perhaps because of capacity and expense but certainly not as a reflection on capability.

I'm not sure that the Portuguese lab could have analysed such a small sample.. LCN. DNA.  LCN is not accepted as evidence in Portuguese courts because of it's perceived unreliability.  ..
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2021, 05:52:12 PM
I'm not sure that the Portuguese lab could have analysed such a small sample.. LCN. DNA.  LCN is not accepted as evidence in Portuguese courts because of it's perceived unreliability.  ..

Off the top of my head, I think we have had our own problems (Omagh).

It's an interesting thought if LCN is not accepted in the Courts why would the Portuguese have the facility of testing for it.

It is only recently I learned it wasn't.  I thought the FSS did the testing because at the time it was very new and they led the field in its study.

DNA really is a complicated subject and as a result might I say, a poorly understood one by laypeople to boot.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2021, 06:12:20 PM
Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.


The PJ's words, as I said. Whether that's what the report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine said is what I'm interested in.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2021, 06:18:00 PM
The PJ's words, as I said. Whether that's what the report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine said is what I'm interested in.

The PJ's words are the conclusion reached after analysing the scientific data sent to them in response to the request sent to them by the PJ.

Why is it you seem to be struggling with assimilating that as the PJ did?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2021, 07:49:08 PM
The PJ's words are the conclusion reached after analysing the scientific data sent to them in response to the request sent to them by the PJ.

Why is it you seem to be struggling with assimilating that as the PJ did?

If I understand correctly what can be discovered from mitochondrial DNA, then the PJ were mistaken.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 29, 2021, 01:16:16 AM
Thanks, Carana.
The sciences are not my strong point.

Which is one reason why I find it extraordinary that Amaral's team didn't do what Rebelo's team did when scientific clarification was required.  If one doesn't know there is absolutely no shame in asking someone who does and I think the Portuguese Institute under Real was pretty competent.


Just read your post above.  I was aware that the Portuguese scientists are very professional (probably from reading your posts).  I think the FSS got the main job perhaps because of capacity and expense but certainly not as a reflection on capability.


In some interview or other, from memory, Amaral stated that he wanted the UK to do deal with the forensics so that the Portuguese couldn't be accused of having screwed up. That might have been part of the reasoning, the other possibly being the sheer cost if, as I suspect, the UK offered to pay for it.

Nothing ever bothered me about the work the FSS did on the case. And I thought Lowe's attempt to explain the basics of DNA was a thoughtful gesture. Unfortunately, it seems to have still gone over the heads of Team Amaral.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 29, 2021, 02:04:24 AM

In some interview or other, from memory, Amaral stated that he wanted the UK to do deal with the forensics so that the Portuguese couldn't be accused of having screwed up. That might have been part of the reasoning, the other possibly being the sheer cost if, as I suspect, the UK offered to pay for it.

Nothing ever bothered me about the work the FSS did on the case. And I thought Lowe's attempt to explain the basics of DNA was a thoughtful gesture. Unfortunately, it seems to have still gone over the heads of Team Amaral.

Maybe he was still smarting over the fiasco of the initially harvested forensics.  It would have been unfair to blame the Institute for that.  The lab could only get a result if the officers collecting the traces didn't mess that up which I believe they did.  Although finding confirmation of that is like finding hens' teeth.

Maybe it was the expense.  Portugal had never seen a case like this one and by any standards the costs were huge..

I agree about Lowe making the attempt to clarify the information from the lab.  Unfortunately he just had no conception of what he was dealing with and thus the saga took wings based not so much on what he actually said but on what people wanted it to say.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 09:50:26 AM
If I understand correctly what can be discovered from mitochondrial DNA, then the PJ were mistaken.

This is what the PJ were told;

Reply Francisco Corte Real ref. 4325 about hapotype S
In response to your letter referred to above, we would like to inform you that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person. We would like to point out that after consulting the database of sequences of the mitochondrial DNA control region, EMPOP database, the results obtained allowed the identification of 8 haplotypes identical to haplotype S (no difference) in a universe of 3850 samples from the "West Eurasia" population group, which includes the European populations.

Given that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person, the PJ , in the Final Report; made a statement which the evidence did NOT support;

"This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

There's no reason to suspect that Jane Tanner visited the Burgau apartment, but there's no evidence which rules out that possibility beyond reasonable doubt.


Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 29, 2021, 10:05:37 AM
This is what the PJ were told;

Reply Francisco Corte Real ref. 4325 about hapotype S
In response to your letter referred to above, we would like to inform you that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person. We would like to point out that after consulting the database of sequences of the mitochondrial DNA control region, EMPOP database, the results obtained allowed the identification of 8 haplotypes identical to haplotype S (no difference) in a universe of 3850 samples from the "West Eurasia" population group, which includes the European populations.

Given that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person, the PJ , in the Final Report; made a statement which the evidence did NOT support;

"This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

There's no reason to suspect that Jane Tanner visited the Burgau apartment, but there's no evidence which rules out that possibility beyond reasonable doubt.

Let us transfer the scenario from an apartment in Burgau to an apartment in Luz where a hypothetical hair is recovered bearing the same haplotype carried by Brueckner.

Would your argument then be that the hair represented reasonable doubt of Brueckner's presence in the location in Luz from which the hair had been recovered.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 11:42:15 AM
Let us transfer the scenario from an apartment in Burgau to an apartment in Luz where a hypothetical hair is recovered bearing the same haplotype carried by Brueckner.

Would your argument then be that the hair represented reasonable doubt of Brueckner's presence in the location in Luz from which the hair had been recovered.

All it would show is what all the other mitochondrial DNA findings showed; that the hair was from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

It would certainly not prove that Brueckner was ever in 5A because no exact match is possible using mitochondrial DNA, despite the PJ's mistaken claim.





Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 29, 2021, 12:22:37 PM
All it would show is what all the other mitochondrial DNA findings showed; that the hair was from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

It would certainly not prove that Brueckner was ever in 5A because no exact match is possible using mitochondrial DNA, despite the PJ's mistaken claim.

EXACTLY.  Sharing a haplotype proves nothing.  It can certainly be used to slur a person though as had been done by sceptics ad nauseam with Jane Tanner an endeavour which your recent posts suggest is an aberration you intend to perpetuate.

I find your posts extraordinary as you argue against the science - argue against the PJ conclusion using the science - and mystifyingly against yourself as you seem stuck in sceptic shibbolethland.
I have never encountered such an exhibition of meaningless obduracy - it really is in a class of its own.

Quote from: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:12:14 PM
Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.

The whole point is that the hair found in Burgau is scientifically proven not to be Jane Tanner's ~ I await your next post with more justification to the contrary.
I am sure it will be fascinating.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
EXACTLY.  Sharing a haplotype proves nothing.  It can certainly be used to slur a person though as had been done by sceptics ad nauseam with Jane Tanner an endeavour which your recent posts suggest is an aberration you intend to perpetuate.

I find your posts extraordinary as you argue against the science - argue against the PJ conclusion using the science - and mystifyingly against yourself as you seem stuck in sceptic shibbolethland.
I have never encountered such an exhibition of meaningless obduracy - it really is in a class of its own.

Quote from: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:12:14 PM
Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.

The whole point is that the hair found in Burgau is scientifically proven not to be Jane Tanner's ~ I await your next post with more justification to the contrary.
I am sure it will be fascinating.

I find it unreal that the lack of evidence underpinning the statement in the Final Report seems to have escaped your notice.

It wasn't possible to scientifically prove that the hairs found in Burgau were not Jane Tanner's, so it's not possible that Francisco Corte Real said that in his report.

The PJ seem to have either misunderstood what he said or misrepresented it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 29, 2021, 05:06:12 PM
I find it unreal that the lack of evidence underpinning the statement in the Final Report seems to have escaped your notice.

It wasn't possible to scientifically prove that the hairs found in Burgau were not Jane Tanner's, so it's not possible that Francisco Corte Real said that in his report.

The PJ seem to have either misunderstood what he said or misrepresented it.

Hmmmm ~ any idea what the PJ misunderstood or misrepresented from the following information ~

From the PJ files...
The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.


4358 to 4361 Information re Haplotype-S with rest results
16-Processo 16; PDF page 4358

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FORENSIC SERVICES

Processo no.2007/000565/PT-B
Processo no.2007/000244/CR-B5,B6
Processo no. 2007/000226/LX-BC1
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

Here we have a another hair from Burgau - only in this instance the sequence is confirmed as matching Robert Murat's mtDNA.

What on earth do you make of that one.  I can hardly wait for your answer which I am sure will be illuminating.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 07:35:11 PM
Hmmmm ~ any idea what the PJ misunderstood or misrepresented from the following information ~

From the PJ files...
The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.


4358 to 4361 Information re Haplotype-S with rest results
16-Processo 16; PDF page 4358

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FORENSIC SERVICES

Processo no.2007/000565/PT-B
Processo no.2007/000244/CR-B5,B6
Processo no. 2007/000226/LX-BC1
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

Here we have a another hair from Burgau - only in this instance the sequence is confirmed as matching Robert Murat's mtDNA.

What on earth do you make of that one.  I can hardly wait for your answer which I am sure will be illuminating.

None of the mtDNA results proved that anyone was or was not in a particular place.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2021, 07:46:53 PM
None of the mtDNA results proved that anyone was or was not in a particular place.
Much like the dog alerts then, completely inconclusive.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 08:40:02 PM
Much like the dog alerts then, completely inconclusive.

In forensic science, inconclusive means that the scientist is unable to say whether someone should be included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence. mtDNA results are always inconclusive in that sense. The PJ were wrong to say that;

 the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2021, 08:53:39 PM
In forensic science, inconclusive means that the scientist is unable to say whether someone should be included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence. mtDNA results are always inconclusive in that sense. The PJ were wrong to say that;

 the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
I think it’s fair to say the PJ struggled to understand quite a lot of things.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 29, 2021, 09:03:29 PM
None of the mtDNA results proved that anyone was or was not in a particular place.

Then was it just yet another mega FAIL for the PJ.

Did they not compare a known sample of Jane's hair with that found in Burgau prior to carrying out mtDNA analysis / testing.

mtDNA testing destroys the hair tested making it impossible to then compare an individual’s actual profile with the original hair sample.



 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 10:21:16 PM
Then was it just yet another mega FAIL for the PJ.

Did they not compare a known sample of Jane's hair with that found in Burgau prior to carrying out mtDNA analysis / testing.

mtDNA testing destroys the hair tested making it impossible to then compare an individual’s actual profile with the original hair sample.

Yes, you were wrong to believe the PJ on this occasion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 29, 2021, 10:55:39 PM
Much like the dog alerts then, completely inconclusive.

It wasn't the alerts that were inconclusive. The alerts are indicative. They successfully indicated where human cellular material (blood, imo) might be found. In this case that is exactly what happened. It was the analysis of the DNA evidence that was "inconclusive".
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2021, 11:04:16 PM
It wasn't the alerts that were inconclusive. The alerts are indicative. They successfully indicated where human cellular material (blood, imo) might be found. In this case that is exactly what happened. It was the analysis of the DNA evidence that was "inconclusive".
What conclusively did the alerts tell us wrt to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2021, 11:18:59 PM
What conclusively did the alerts tell us wrt to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

What has anything told us wrt the disappearance? There is, as yet, nothing definitive, just theories imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on November 29, 2021, 11:25:15 PM
It wasn't the alerts that were inconclusive. The alerts are indicative. They successfully indicated where human cellular material (blood, imo) might be found. In this case that is exactly what happened. It was the analysis of the DNA evidence that was "inconclusive".
It was not the analysis which was inconclusive - it was the evidence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 29, 2021, 11:27:13 PM
What has anything told us wrt the disappearance? There is, as yet, nothing definitive, just theories imo.

Yes but you haven't seen the evidence Wolters has.

But then he hasn't seen the evidence I have either.

So we're even.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2021, 11:47:40 PM
What has anything told us wrt the disappearance? There is, as yet, nothing definitive, just theories imo.
And yet some still insist that the dog alerts are conclusive evidence of parental involvement, why do you think that is?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on November 30, 2021, 01:42:17 AM
And yet some still insist that the dog alerts are conclusive evidence of parental involvement, why do you think that is?

I would hazard a guess that they believe cadaverine and/or blood plus a missing child leads them to conclude Madeleine died in the apartment and presume that the parents were involved. They neglect the fact that the DNA analysis was "inconclusive" so presently there is no conclusive evidence to prove parental involvement.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 05:38:51 AM
And yet some still insist that the dog alerts are conclusive evidence of parental involvement, why do you think that is?

Some still insist that an alleged open window and shutters is evidence of stranger abduction. People believe what they want to believe.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 07:23:53 AM
Some still insist that an alleged open window and shutters is evidence of stranger abduction. People believe what they want to believe.
So you must surely agree the dog alerts tell us nothing wrt to what happened to Madeleine and are therefore an irrelevance as I have stated on many an occasion.  Hurrah!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 08:02:11 AM
So you must surely agree the dog alerts tell us nothing wrt to what happened to Madeleine and are therefore an irrelevance as I have stated on many an occasion.  Hurrah!

They aren't conclusive evidence or an irrelevance. Neither are the alleged open window and shutters.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 08:40:40 AM
They aren't conclusive evidence or an irrelevance. Neither are the alleged open window and shutters.
The dog alerts have clearly been ruled an irrelevance by at least two police forces, imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 09:37:53 AM
The dog alerts have clearly been ruled an irrelevance by at least two police forces, imo.

Perhaps because they are investigating stranger abduction. It's not clear why they are doing that. Maybe one day they'll be required to explain.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 10:33:53 AM
Perhaps because they are investigating stranger abduction. It's not clear why they are doing that. Maybe one day they'll be required to explain.
Perhaps because that is the way the evidence is pointing?  Either that or both police forces are a) completely stupid or b) conspiring in a pan-European cover up to protect the McCanns.  Which do you think is the most likely?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 10:56:53 AM
Perhaps because that is the way the evidence is pointing?  Either that or both police forces are a) completely stupid or b) conspiring in a pan-European cover up to protect the McCanns.  Which do you think is the most likely?

That's what they might have to explain one day.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
That's what they might have to explain one day.
Which do you think is the most likely?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 11:40:34 AM
Which do you think is the most likely?

It doesn't matter what I think, but I don't see strong evidence pointing to abduction. Consequently I don't understand why the remit for Operation Grange was to investigate an abduction.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 11:49:25 AM
It doesn't matter what I think, but I don't see strong evidence pointing to abduction. Consequently I don't understand why the remit for Operation Grange was to investigate an abduction.
Of course it doesn’t matter what you think and as you know far less than the professionals  investigsting the case that’s hardly surprising , however I’m just interested to know why you think two police forces are treating the case as one of abduction by a stranger.  You must have some opinion on the matter, I simply don’t believe anyone who says they don’t.  So what’s your opinion?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2021, 12:03:56 PM
They aren't conclusive evidence or an irrelevance. Neither are the alleged open window and shutters.

I think the alleged dog alerts are less indicative than you think
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 01:28:41 PM
Of course it doesn’t matter what you think and as you know far less than the professionals  investigsting the case that’s hardly surprising , however I’m just interested to know why you think two police forces are treating the case as one of abduction by a stranger.  You must have some opinion on the matter, I simply don’t believe anyone who says they don’t.  So what’s your opinion?

How can I know why, when no evidence has been shared?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 01:49:27 PM
How can I know why, when no evidence has been shared?
You can certainly have an opinion on which is most likely -that both forces are 1) following the evidence, 2) completely stupid, or 3) colluding in a massive conspiracy.  IMO 1 is the most likely, what’s your opinion? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 04:46:31 PM
You can certainly have an opinion on which is most likely -that both forces are 1) following the evidence, 2) completely stupid, or 3) colluding in a massive conspiracy.  IMO 1 is the most likely, what’s your opinion?

Are those the only possibilities you can think of? I don't subscribe to any of them.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2021, 05:11:09 PM
Are those the only possibilities you can think of? I don't subscribe to any of them.
Suggest some more credible reasons then.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on November 30, 2021, 07:18:35 PM
It doesn't matter what I think, but I don't see strong evidence pointing to abduction. Consequently I don't understand why the remit for Operation Grange was to investigate an abduction.

Wouldn't the initial scoping exercise have examined that possibility?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2021, 07:51:16 PM
Wouldn't the initial scoping exercise have examined that possibility?

There was no definitive evidence of abduction to find imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2021, 08:05:02 PM
There was no definitive evidence of abduction to find imo.

there was no definitive evidence susan pillay was murdered..comnclusions can be reached a sto what is most likely despite no definitive evidence
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 30, 2021, 08:07:18 PM
There was no definitive evidence of abduction to find imo.

If there was, this evidence proved two things, that someone definitely abducted Madeleine, & that, that person(s) was definitely unknown to the McCanns.

Short of a written letter by the abductor saying he did it & definitely doesn't know the McCanns I'm not sure what this evidence could be.

Maybe forum members have some suggestions?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 30, 2021, 08:24:53 PM
there was no definitive evidence susan pillay was murdered..comnclusions can be reached a sto what is most likely despite no definitive evidence

Yes, & like the dog alerts in that case incriminated Gilroy, the dog alerts in the McCann case incriminate..... Brueckner????!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2021, 09:02:22 PM
Yes, & like the dog alerts in that case incriminated Gilroy, the dog alerts in the McCann case incriminate..... Brueckner????!

Mark Harrison gave the game away when he first says the alerts may indicate where a body has been and then says no inferenve can be drawn from them
The defence always like an expert witness who contradicts himself..
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 30, 2021, 09:11:28 PM
Mark Harrison gave the game away when he first says the alerts may indicate where a body has been and then says no inferenve can be drawn from them
The defence always like an expert witness who contradicts himself..

In Scotland the police see a dog alert & conclude that might indicate the presence of cadaver.

English police look at alerts & conclude abduction is the only logical & plausible scenario apparently.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2021, 09:34:30 PM
In Scotland the police see a dog alert & conclude that might indicate the presence of cadaver.

English police look at alerts & conclude abduction is the only logical & plausible scenario apparently.

Looks like the English police are right.. I'm looking forward
 to the explanation from Grime when the evidence is, revealed that proves Maddue did not die in the, apartment
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 30, 2021, 09:39:14 PM
Looks like the English police are right.. I'm looking forward
 to the explanation from Grime when the evidence is, revealed that proves Maddue did not die in the, apartment

I know, you're looking forward to the trial.

So am I, Brueckner's defence team have over 8000 sightings of a living Maddie to present as evidence, so it's going to be a long trial.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 07:06:25 AM
Looks like the English police are right.. I'm looking forward
 to the explanation from Grime when the evidence is, revealed that proves Maddue did not die in the, apartment

I think you'll wait a long time for that, because Grime never claimed she did.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2021, 07:16:52 AM
Are those the only possibilities you can think of? I don't subscribe to any of them.
Suggest some more credible reasons then - please.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 07:26:26 AM
I think you'll wait a long time for that, because Grime never claimed she did.

Grime claimed that Eddie only alerted to things McCann.. He claimed Eddies behavior changed significantly on entering 5a... He claims that where Eddie alerts no one has ever turned out subsequently to be alive.  Thsts a strange claim but he made it.

Grime used the video of Eddie alerting in Luz to impress Lenny Harper

Wolters has proof MM did not die in the apt... Imo

Grime has never commented on Amarals claims.. That's something I would criticise him for
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 08:10:19 AM
Grime claimed that Eddie only alerted to things McCann.. He claimed Eddies behavior changed significantly on entering 5a... He claims that where Eddie alerts no one has ever turned out subsequently to be alive.  Thsts a strange claim but he made it.

Grime used the video of Eddie alerting in Luz to impress Lenny Harper

Wolters has proof MM did not die in the apt... Imo

Grime has never commented on Amarals claims.. That's something I would criticise him for

Grime didn't need to claim that Eddie only alerted to things McCann, the fact is that's the truth. If a dog handler says his dog's behaviour changed why disbelieve him? He knows his dog and you don't. Do you know of anyone turning up alive following alerts by Eddie? If not, then Grime was probably telling the truth.

Your determination to slur Grime is clear but unfounded imo. As to your claims with regard to Wolters; they are getting increasingly desperate imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2021, 08:21:11 AM
Grime didn't need to claim that Eddie only alerted to things McCann, the fact is that's the truth. If a dog handler says his dog's behaviour changed why disbelieve him? He knows his dog and you don't. Do you know of anyone turning up alive following alerts by Eddie? If not, then Grime was probably telling the truth.

Your determination to slur Grime is clear but unfounded imo. As to your claims with regard to Wolters; they are getting increasingly desperate imo.
This thread is about the motivations wrt to Grange and the German investigation pursuing stranger abduction, specifically Brückner. Can you please answer my on-topic question, asked twice now.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 08:24:56 AM
Grime didn't need to claim that Eddie only alerted to things McCann, the fact is that's the truth. If a dog handler says his dog's behaviour changed why disbelieve him? He knows his dog and you don't. Do you know of anyone turning up alive following alerts by Eddie? If not, then Grime was probably telling the truth.

Your determination to slur Grime is clear but unfounded imo. As to your claims with regard to Wolters; they are getting increasingly desperate imo.

We only have Grimes opinion that Eddie alerted to scents he was trained for... Im not convinced by his claims.  Many posters share that view on the alleged alert to cuddle cat.

I've already listed the evidence that causes me to doubt the alerts.. I don't recall you supplying any evidence that questions the credibility of Wolters.

The fact that you feel the TRUE statements I make cast a slur on Grime supports my opinion
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 08:29:19 AM
Grime didn't need to claim that Eddie only alerted to things McCann, the fact is that's the truth. If a dog handler says his dog's behaviour changed why disbelieve him? He knows his dog and you don't. Do you know of anyone turning up alive following alerts by Eddie? If not, then Grime was probably telling the truth.

Your determination to slur Grime is clear but unfounded imo. As to your claims with regard to Wolters; they are getting increasingly desperate imo.

Grimes claim of no one turning up alive shows to me his wrak understanding of what constitutes reliable evidence

He's claiming weak anectdotal evidence to support the alerts.. That's laughable imo
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 09:12:59 AM
We only have Grimes opinion that Eddie alerted to scents he was trained for... Im not convinced by his claims.  Many posters share that view on the alleged alert to cuddle cat.

I've already listed the evidence that causes me to doubt the alerts.. I don't recall you supplying any evidence that questions the credibility of Wolters.

The fact that you feel the TRUE statements I make cast a slur on Grime supports my opinion

Wolters won't be the first to make claims for which he doesn't have evidence. Remember AC Rowley?
AC Mark Rowley said parental involvement had been covered by the original Portuguese investigation. The recent Supreme Court decision made it clear this is not the case.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 01, 2021, 09:53:43 AM
There was no definitive evidence of abduction to find imo.

I was thinking of considering potential parental / T7 involvement first as in "clearing the ground under their feet". Jim Gamble initially thought Gerry might have been involved (cf "never too late"), but changed his mind.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 01, 2021, 09:56:33 AM
Looks like the English police are right.. I'm looking forward
 to the explanation from Grime when the evidence is, revealed that proves Maddue did not die in the, apartment

Grime has already covered his back,  he said the scents could be ancient.

Handler Martin said the dogs' sensitive noses could have been picking scents from long before the McCanns stayed at the apartment or used the car.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 10:13:43 AM
Wolters won't be the first to make claims for which he doesn't have evidence. Remember AC Rowley?
AC Mark Rowley said parental involvement had been covered by the original Portuguese investigation. The recent Supreme Court decision made it clear this is not the case.

I think it's you who is soundding desperate.  Wolters jas said clearly he has concrete evidence Maddie is dead... He says he now has enough evidence to charge.. Your state if denial is laughable imo.  The more Information I find Re Grime and Harrison the more I feel the alerts are total junk
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 10:22:09 AM

Martin Grime had retired from The Police Force and was working on setting up a business and I don't think he much cared how he did it.

He earned 96 Thousand Pounds in Jersey which was a good start for finding nothing and convicting no one.

Has he ever worked in Britain since?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 11:00:22 AM
I think it's you who is soundding desperate.  Wolters jas said clearly he has concrete evidence Maddie is dead... He says he now has enough evidence to charge.. Your state if denial is laughable imo.  The more Information I find Re Grime and Harrison the more I feel the alerts are total junk

Rowley clearly said the Portuguese investigation had dealt with the question of parental involvement, but it hadn't.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 11:06:24 AM
Martin Grime had retired from The Police Force and was working on setting up a business and I don't think he much cared how he did it.

He earned 96 Thousand Pounds in Jersey which was a good start for finding nothing and convicting no one.

Has he ever worked in Britain since?

He has. The Bob Rose case in 2009/10.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 11:16:29 AM
He has. The Bob Rose case in 2009/10.

Where the diog allegedly alerted to the smell of death... No. Physical evidence found.  It was humans who found the body
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 01, 2021, 11:29:17 AM
Rowley clearly said the Portuguese investigation had dealt with the question of parental involvement, but it hadn't.

Tavares clearly said that the dog alerts met the definition of murder and the McCanns were constituted arguidos on the strength of that speculation.

What a pity no-one thought to hang fire and wait for the forensic reports to be returned from Birmingham which would have given evidence of the true value of the alerts.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 11:31:29 AM
He has. The Bob Rose case in 2009/10.

But not since then?  I can't find anything to do with Bob Rose.  So what was that?

I am finding it mortally hard to understand how you come to your assumptions when there is nothing against The McCanns.

I am making no judgements on Breuckner although he is a far more likely candidate.

Free Speech isn't A Right, much as I suspect you would like to think so.

There is quite a lot about thee and me that is very similar.  How come I went one way and you went another?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2021, 11:35:54 AM
Martin Grime had retired from The Police Force and was working on setting up a business and I don't think he much cared how he did it.

He earned 96 Thousand Pounds in Jersey which was a good start for finding nothing and convicting no one.

Has he ever worked in Britain since?
Yes, he has done a few “Train Your Puppy” workshops recently.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Myster on December 01, 2021, 11:49:26 AM
But not since then?  I can't find anything to do with Bob Rose.  So what was that?

This...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817)

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099)

But I think you'd rather read about ten little piddlers...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10257739/My-house-chaos-Sausage-dog-gives-birth-TEN-puppies-leaving-owner-gobsmacked.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10257739/My-house-chaos-Sausage-dog-gives-birth-TEN-puppies-leaving-owner-gobsmacked.html)
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 12:04:16 PM
Yes, he has done a few “Train Your Puppy” workshops recently.

Would he like to have a go with The Rotten Little Shit?  But I'm not having him shouted at.  Poor little soul.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 12:17:36 PM
Where the diog allegedly alerted to the smell of death... No. Physical evidence found.  It was humans who found the body

Yes. Eddie alerted, humans dug there.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 12:20:59 PM
Yes. Eddie alerted, humans dug there.

No.. Not what I've read... The murderer took the police to the location
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 12:22:23 PM
This...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817)

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099)

But I think you'd rather read about ten little piddlers...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10257739/My-house-chaos-Sausage-dog-gives-birth-TEN-puppies-leaving-owner-gobsmacked.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10257739/My-house-chaos-Sausage-dog-gives-birth-TEN-puppies-leaving-owner-gobsmacked.html)

The perpetrator told them where the body was for heaven's sake.  O'Connor could have found that one.

O'Connor was the short haired runt of a litter of eight.  No one wanted him, which is why I got him cheap.  And why he finished up with such a ridiculous name.  They ran out of the letter "O" you see.  That weird thing that The French do that tells you how old a dog is.  I was going to call him Omega but I liked his given name.

Piddler?  I don't know why. and I don't care.  He is the best loved dog in the Universe.  Little Shit.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 12:45:38 PM

So no great work to be had in England.  But poor old Eddie who was never going to be a spot on Cadaver Dog because he had been taught too many other tricks.

Martin Grime evaded the truth of what Eddie was.  Meanwhile, Keela found nothing.

This was not a good thing to do.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 01:06:08 PM
No.. Not what I've read... The murderer took the police to the location

You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 01, 2021, 01:11:26 PM
You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.
Name one single inaccuracy or lie used to "denigrate" Martin Grime by "McCann supporters" please.  If you are unable to do so I suggest your accusation in your post is false and must be removed.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2021, 01:11:53 PM
You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.


I think we all know why that is   8(0(*
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 01:13:38 PM
You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 01:13:54 PM
Name one single inaccuracy or lie used to "denigrate" Martin Grime by "McCann supporters" please.  If you are unable to do so I suggest your accusation in your post is false and must be removed.

Ok, just yesterday Davel suggested Grime claimed the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartment.

That was a lie.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 01, 2021, 01:15:00 PM

I think we all know why that is   8(0(*

When did the truth become derogatory?

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 01:22:05 PM
You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.

Truths require cites..

You said was still being called upon after Jersey and Luz.
You have quoted one case... In which the report I read said the perp led them to the grave.. In this case Grine said Eddie didn't bark..but he still clains an alert.. I don't accept that Eddie alerted to the body without evudence

Grime is an expert dog trainer....that's it.  Harrison dreamed up alerts as intelligence and that's what I think interested Stockhouse. 

Grime seems to have one fan in the FBI.. Stockhouse... So to claim the FBI thought highly of him has nothing to support it.
He claims to be.. A special advisor... Then The special advisor to the FBI.. I've seen nothing to support these claims

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 01:23:24 PM
Ok, just yesterday Davel suggested Grime claimed the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartment.

That was a lie.

I never said that... I won't call you a liar... You are just mistaken again
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 01:26:09 PM

"Looks like the English police are right.. I'm looking forward
 to the explanation from Grime when the evidence is, revealed that proves Maddue did not die in the, apartment
"

The implication is pretty clear here.

When did Grime claim Maddie died in the apartment?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 01:55:28 PM
You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.

The UK Governing Body on Dogs refused to comment about Martin Grime.

Unless you can tell me otherwise.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 01, 2021, 01:55:57 PM
You need to accept some truths.

Martin Grime was still being called upon by UK police forces after PdL and Jersey.
He was highly thought of and used by the FBI.
His knowledge and advise is sought by UK universities.
The only people afaik who denigrate him are McCann supporters.

Could you refresh my memory re being called upon by the UK  police forces post Jersey?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 02:20:10 PM
"Looks like the English police are right.. I'm looking forward
 to the explanation from Grime when the evidence is, revealed that proves Maddue did not die in the, apartment
"

The implication is pretty clear here.

When did Grime claim Maddie died in the apartment?

So now you are saying it's your opinion that I implied it..
You're wrong again.

Everything I've said about grime is factual... It's not my fault that some oosters see these posts as a slur
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 02:26:24 PM
 
I don't remember the name of the organisation who licensed Police Dogs in UK, but they refused to comment on Eddie and Keela because these two dogs no longer had such a licence.  It had run out by then.  The licence of these two dogs no longer existed.  Apparently Martin Grime knew better how to do this himself.

America is welcome to Martin Grime, although America isn't half daft when it comes to Cadaver Dogs.

Martin Grime was a seven day wonder in America with his frightfully dreadful English accent.  But it didn't last.

What ever it was that he said he did such terrible damage because some people just picked out the bits they wanted to believe.  And ignored the things they didn't want to know.



Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 02:27:35 PM
So now you are saying it's your opinion that I implied it..
You're wrong again.

Everything I've said about grime is factual... It's not my fault that some oosters see these posts as a slur

Sorry, my mistake.

You were obviously suggesting Grime claimed Maddie was alive.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 02:36:37 PM
Sorry, my mistake.

You were obviously suggesting Grime claimed Maddie was alive.

No.  That is not what Davel said.  So just pack it in.  Or else.

I am not much of a Moderator these days, but I can certain sure deal with you and your obfuscations, you silly Pratt.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 02:46:21 PM
No.  That is not what Davel said.  So just pack it in.  Or else.

I am not much of a Moderator these days, but I can certain sure deal with you and your obfuscations, you silly Pratt.

You live in France don't you Eleanor.

Out of interest, is your life so in peril there you need to attempt to cross the channel by dinghy, or is the continent really not so bad?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 04:15:01 PM
You live in France don't you Eleanor.

Out of interest, is your life so in peril there you need to attempt to cross the channel by dinghy, or is the continent really not so bad?

Well now, do you really want to know?

My life in France is better than you will ever get.

And France does offer these people if only working is a good idea.

I had this for twenty odd years and had a good life.

So I can't be doing with their problems or what any of you think of France
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
Well now, do you really want to know?

My life in France is better than you will ever get.

And France does offer these people if only working is a good idea.

I had this for twenty odd years and had a good life.

So I can't be doing with their problems or what any of you think of France

I like France, it's a beautiful country, it's just the French that spoil it imo
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 01, 2021, 04:19:25 PM

I don't remember the name of the organisation who licensed Police Dogs in UK, but they refused to comment on Eddie and Keela because these two dogs no longer had such a licence.  It had run out by then.  The licence of these two dogs no longer existed.  Apparently Martin Grime knew better how to do this himself.

America is welcome to Martin Grime, although America isn't half daft when it comes to Cadaver Dogs.

Martin Grime was a seven day wonder in America with his frightfully dreadful English accent.  But it didn't last.

What ever it was that he said he did such terrible damage because some people just picked out the bits they wanted to believe.  And ignored the things they didn't want to know.

The difficulty with cadaver dogs is that like their human masters, they have shortcomings and the odd bad day too.

That said, they are an excellent investigative tool if properly trained and deployed.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 04:23:58 PM
The difficulty with cadaver dogs is that like their human masters, they have shortcomings and the odd bad day too.

That said, they are an excellent investigative tool if properly trained and deployed.
I absolutely agree.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 04:39:32 PM
I like France, it's a beautiful country, it's just the French that spoil it imo

The French have better manners than you could even dream of.  You are a dickhead by comparison.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 04:52:40 PM
The French have better manners than you could even dream of.  You are a dickhead by comparison.

Well pardon your French, that's some lovely manners right there.

And a very good day to you too & I mean that very, very sincerely.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 05:15:21 PM
The difficulty with cadaver dogs is that like their human masters, they have shortcomings and the odd bad day too.

That said, they are an excellent investigative tool if properly trained and deployed.

Eddie was never a Cadaver Dog.  That was the problem.  He was a Victim Recovery Dog who was in some way Enhanced  which was never explained to anyone beyond what Martin Grime thought.

It was a terrible thing that he did for his own agrandisment.  Much glory I hope it gained for him.  This was one very nasty man.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 05:19:58 PM
Well pardon your French, that's some lovely manners right there.

And a very good day to you too & I mean that very, very sincerely.

I am not French.  Sorry about that.  I deal with dickheads like you as it comes.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2021, 05:35:54 PM
The difficulty with cadaver dogs is that like their human masters, they have shortcomings and the odd bad day too.

That said, they are an excellent investigative tool if properly trained and deployed.

I wonder whether supporters would sing a different tune if the dogs had targeted someone other than McCann - say Murat's property or a camper van ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 05:46:15 PM
I wonder whether supporters would sing a different tune if the dogs had targeted someone other than McCann - say Murat's property or a camper van ?

I dont think the dogs targetted anything.... So the answers no
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 05:51:12 PM
I wonder whether supporters would sing a different tune if the dogs had targeted someone other than McCann - say Murat's property or a camper van ?

But they didn't.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2021, 05:59:07 PM
But they didn't.

No, funny that - only McCann property.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 06:21:27 PM
No, funny that - only McCann property.

The McCann Property?  Goodness me.  You mean that The McCanns killed Madeleine and left cadaver odour?  Do me a favour.  How stupid do you think we all are?

In the meantime how stupid are you?  Even you can't believe this
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2021, 06:27:04 PM
The McCann Property?  Goodness me.  You mean that The McCanns killed Madeleine and left cadaver odour?  Do me a favour.  How stupid do you think we all are?

In the meantime how stupid are you?  Even you can't believe this

No, I don't believe they killed her, but that she died that night, I have no doubt.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 06:33:52 PM

I don't remember the name of the organisation who licensed Police Dogs in UK, but they refused to comment on Eddie and Keela because these two dogs no longer had such a licence.  It had run out by then.  The licence of these two dogs no longer existed.  Apparently Martin Grime knew better how to do this himself.

America is welcome to Martin Grime, although America isn't half daft when it comes to Cadaver Dogs.

Martin Grime was a seven day wonder in America with his frightfully dreadful English accent.  But it didn't last.

What ever it was that he said he did such terrible damage because some people just picked out the bits they wanted to believe.  And ignored the things they didn't want to know.

A seven day wonder in America? Three years and eleven months he spent under contract to the FBI! What on earth his accent has to do with anything I don't know.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 01, 2021, 06:43:37 PM
Eddie was never a Cadaver Dog.  That was the problem.  He was a Victim Recovery Dog who was in some way Enhanced  which was never explained to anyone beyond what Martin Grime thought.

It was a terrible thing that he did for his own agrandisment.  Much glory I hope it gained for him.  This was one very nasty man.

The Enhanced bit if I recall correctly related to Eddie's training using human cadavers in America.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 01, 2021, 07:23:19 PM
No, funny that - only McCann property.
Amazing... You have to wonder why Grime called Eddie back 3 times after he ignored it twice even though he didn't  realise the only car with the maddie posters on belonged to the mccanns
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 07:28:00 PM
The Enhanced bit if I recall correctly related to Eddie's training using human cadavers in America.

At what point in time did this happen?  Can you tell me that?

You are just as required as the rest of us to Cites.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2021, 07:58:46 PM
The Enhanced bit if I recall correctly related to Eddie's training using human cadavers in America.

And Victim Recovery Dogs are "trained to search for and detect human remains." (https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/operational-support/dog-section/#:~:text=Victim%20Recovery%20Dogs.,articles%20with%20blood%20on%20them.)

A rose by any other name....
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Anthro on December 01, 2021, 08:10:52 PM
No, I don't believe they killed her, but that she died that night, I have no doubt.
If Wolters is correct, Madeleine died within a couple of days since her disappearance. Why are you sure ‘she died that night’?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 08:18:23 PM
And Victim Recovery Dogs are "trained to search for and detect human remains." (https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/operational-support/dog-section/#:~:text=Victim%20Recovery%20Dogs.,articles%20with%20blood%20on%20them.)

A rose by any other name....

Could be a Dandelion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 01, 2021, 08:23:15 PM
At what point in time did this happen?  Can you tell me that?

You are just as required as the rest of us to Cites.

Attracta dog helps FBI to track killer
Published: August 22, 2006

The sniffer dog that helped detectives jail evil killer Trevor Hamilton has just returned from assisting the FBI with a murder probe in America.
Six-year-old English springer spaniel Eddie’s career took off internationally shortly after he returned to Ulster for a third time to help in the hunt for missing Arlene Arkinson.
Eddie helped police nail Hamilton after the victim-recovery dog found blood from Attracta Harron (63) on a mat from Hamilton’s burnt-out Hyundai car.
He burned it the day that he murdered the retired librarian.
Eddie found her body in a shallow grave in April 2003.
Martin Grime, Eddie’s handler at the Dog Unit attached to South Yorkshire Police Station, today told how he has returned to Tyrone to search for Arlene (15).
She went missing after leaving a disco in Bundoran, Co Donegal, on August 13 1994.
Police have recently been concentrating their search in her native Castlederg in Tyrone, where it is thought she was murdered.
Mr Grime said today: “We were over earlier this year and three times in total since the Attracta Harron case.
“With the Attracta investigation we came over for a week and on the last day, before we came back to the UK, we decided we would search the car. The stuff Eddie found was then taken away for forensic examination.
“Then when a search area was identified Eddie found the body as well. As far as the Arlene case goes, however, there has been nothing to date.”
Eddie has just returned from the US where he has been helping the FBI in a murder case.
Mr Grime said: “Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience.
“I do some training with him every day.”
Hamilton (23) received Ulster’s longest prison sentence after he was jailed for life for the murder of Mrs Harron.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 08:24:13 PM
If Wolters is correct, Madeleine died within a couple of days since her disappearance. Why are you sure ‘she died that night’?

Jassi believes that The McCanns killed Madeleine that night.  Christ knows what Jassi thinks The McCanns did with her body.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 08:28:46 PM
Attracta dog helps FBI to track killer
Published: August 22, 2006

The sniffer dog that helped detectives jail evil killer Trevor Hamilton has just returned from assisting the FBI with a murder probe in America.
Six-year-old English springer spaniel Eddie’s career took off internationally shortly after he returned to Ulster for a third time to help in the hunt for missing Arlene Arkinson.
Eddie helped police nail Hamilton after the victim-recovery dog found blood from Attracta Harron (63) on a mat from Hamilton’s burnt-out Hyundai car.
He burned it the day that he murdered the retired librarian.
Eddie found her body in a shallow grave in April 2003.
Martin Grime, Eddie’s handler at the Dog Unit attached to South Yorkshire Police Station, today told how he has returned to Tyrone to search for Arlene (15).
She went missing after leaving a disco in Bundoran, Co Donegal, on August 13 1994.
Police have recently been concentrating their search in her native Castlederg in Tyrone, where it is thought she was murdered.
Mr Grime said today: “We were over earlier this year and three times in total since the Attracta Harron case.
“With the Attracta investigation we came over for a week and on the last day, before we came back to the UK, we decided we would search the car. The stuff Eddie found was then taken away for forensic examination.
“Then when a search area was identified Eddie found the body as well. As far as the Arlene case goes, however, there has been nothing to date.”
Eddie has just returned from the US where he has been helping the FBI in a murder case.
Mr Grime said: “Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience.
“I do some training with him every day.”
Hamilton (23) received Ulster’s longest prison sentence after he was jailed for life for the murder of Mrs Harron.

Blimmin Hell.  That one threw me.  Jolly good show.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2021, 08:58:48 PM
Jassi believes that The McCanns killed Madeleine that night.  Christ knows what Jassi thinks The McCanns did with her body.

On the contrary, I don't think McCann killed her, though she did die.

IMO
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 01, 2021, 09:03:36 PM
On the contrary, I don't think McCann killed her, though she did die.

IM

So why dispose of her body?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2021, 09:21:28 PM
So why dispose of her body?

Because the cause or manner of her death would have implicated them in something they wished to avoid, therefore she had to disappear without trace - which she did.


IMO.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2021, 10:56:12 PM
Because the cause or manner of her death would have implicated them in something they wished to avoid, therefore she had to disappear without trace - which she did.


IMO.
And how did they achieve that in your view?  It’s not easy to make a dead body disappear forever especially in the middle of a holiday village when you don’t have a car or any tools for disposal.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 01, 2021, 11:34:07 PM

Yes, there were no bins at all in PDL.
And if she had gone in the trash the binmen would have seen her for sure, like Corrie Mckeague.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2021, 11:48:48 PM
“She had to disappear without trace”.  Throwing a body in someone else’s bin is not trying very hard is it?  Did they know in advance the bins would be emptied before the next time the bin owner came to use it?  Why traipse through town to find a bin?  Weren’t there any nearby that eould have done just as well seeing as how putting a body in a bin is apparently a full proof method of getting rid of a body so that it is never found? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 12:05:28 AM
“She had to disappear without trace”.  Throwing a body in someone else’s bin is not trying very hard is it?  Did they know in advance the bins would be emptied before the next time the bin owner came to use it?  Why traipse through town to find a bin?  Weren’t there any nearby that eould have done just as well seeing as how putting a body in a bin is apparently a full proof method of getting rid of a body so that it is never found?

As much as you dislike it, it's not uncommon for bodies & body parts to end up in the landfill.

Quite a logical & plausible way to dispose of a body really.

Isn't that what you asked for?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 12:16:00 AM
https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/buried-secrets-bodies-lost-in-a-landfill-leave-unanswered-questions-for-everyone
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2021, 06:08:09 AM
Yes, there were no bins at all in PDL.
And if she had gone in the trash the binmen would have seen her for sure, like Corrie Mckeague.
Now if it's found that CB( and it's a possibility) tossed Smithmans swag bag in a bin the idea would have traction even among the supporters .
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 07:08:16 AM
Now if it's found that CB( and it's a possibility) tossed Smithmans swag bag in a bin the idea would have traction even among the supporters .

It actually seems rather common, a quick google search yields lots of results of bodies found in landfill.

That's the ones they found anyway, so how many get through undetected?

If a full grown man like Corrie McKeague can enter landfill never to be found, a 4 year old child has even less chance of being spotted.


Laconia man’s body found in Lewiston landfill 12 days after his fiancee’s body turned up in N.H. landfill
https://www.sunjournal.com/2021/11/04/remains-found-at-lewiston-landfill-identified-as-laconia-man/


Body of dismembered missing girl, 19, found in landfill two days after she vanished
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11471602/body-of-missing-girl-19-found-in-landfill/

Homicide victim’s body found after months-long search at massive landfill

https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/homicide-victim-s-body-found-after-months-long-search-at-massive-landfill-1.5571539?cache=.

Three arrested over body found at landfill site

https://www.heart.co.uk/westmids/news/local/three-arrested-over-body-found-landfill-site/

Body of missing 5-year-old Nevaeh Adams found in SC landfill months after her mother’s murder

https://www.nbc12.com/2019/10/22/police-body-missing-year-old-nevaeh-adams-found-landfill/


Those are the ones that enter landfill, one wonders how many get incinerated undetected.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 07:09:49 AM
It really is a wonder that all murderers don’t dispose of their victims in the dustbin seeing as how it is deemed (by some) the most efficient and safest way of getting rid of a corpse without ever being found out.

Plus, given how common it is it’s a wonder the PJ weren’t down the local dump digging  on 4th May.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 07:32:22 AM
It really is a wonder that all murderers don’t dispose of their victims in the dustbin seeing as how it is deemed (by some) the most efficient and safest way of getting rid of a corpse without ever being found out.

Plus, given how common it is it’s a wonder the PJ weren’t down the local dump digging  on 4th May.

It isn't fool proof, but undoubtedly, sometimes it works.

I know it"s uncomfortable for you to hear a logical & plausible explanation of how Maddie's body could be disposed of, but you'll just have to suck it up I'm afraid.
Bodies get dumped in bins & aren't always found
It's a fact.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 07:52:08 AM
So why dispose of her body?

Because someone thought they would be blamed? That would have been a disaster from a personal, public, financial, professional and family perspective.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 08:07:26 AM
I agree Madeleine’s body could have been disposed of in a bin, I just don’t believe that it is plausible or logical to think that her killer, undisguised, would carry her uncovered body through a holiday resort when people are still out and about, knowing he’d be seen and could be identified as the child’s father at a later date, all to find a bin on the other side of town, when others exist far closer at hand.  Tha is not doing all you can to ensure the body disappears without trace,whch was the original suggestion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 08:11:54 AM
Because someone thought they would be blamed? That would have been a disaster from a personal, public, financial, professional and family perspective.
What absolute rubbish.. Imo
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 08:17:25 AM
Nor is it plausible or logical to let everyone know your child is missing moments before or moments after you’ve very publicly disposed of her corpse.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 08:18:27 AM
Because someone thought they would be blamed? That would have been a disaster from a personal, public, financial, professional and family perspective.
And what happened to the McCanns wasn’t anyway?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 08:44:31 AM
And what happened to the McCanns wasn’t anyway?

Not in the way it would have been if they were blamed for something. That would have adversely affected their jobs, their relationships with family members, their ability to work, pay a large mortgage and care for their other children and their public images.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 08:59:42 AM
I agree Madeleine’s body could have been disposed of in a bin, I just don’t believe that it is plausible or logical to think that her killer, undisguised, would carry her uncovered body through a holiday resort when people are still out and about, knowing he’d be seen and could be identified as the child’s father at a later date, all to find a bin on the other side of town, when others exist far closer at hand.  Tha is not doing all you can to ensure the body disappears without trace,whch was the original suggestion.

So how do all these bodies end up in landfill?

Do the people putting them in bins all go in disguise?

You refuse to believe Gerry could open carry his daughter, even though a witness thought he met him open carrying his daughter.

Funny that.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:02:06 AM
Nor is it plausible or logical to let everyone know your child is missing moments before or moments after you’ve very publicly disposed of her corpse.

It's a very good distraction, you send everyone searching in one direction whilst you head in the opposite.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 02, 2021, 09:05:03 AM
So which is it then,   dumping in bin or carrying to the beach?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:05:42 AM
So which is it then,   dumping in bin or carrying to the beach?

Ask Gerry, but he'll only tell you it was abduction.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 02, 2021, 09:11:08 AM
Ask Gerry, but he'll only tell you it was abduction.

I don't believe for one minute that Gerry would have dumped his daughters body in a bin.  Neither do I believe he miraculously  hid her away where no one could find her.   Gerry was sitting at the table when the alarm was raised,  before that he had been laughing and joking eating his dinner,  none of which would have been possible if he had disposed of his daughters body,  no human being could behave in such a way unless they are a Pyschopath.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:12:41 AM
I don't believe for one minute that Gerry would have dumped his daughters body in a bin.  Neither do I believe he miraculously  hid her away where no one could find her.   Gerry was sitting at the table when the alarm was raised,  before that he had been laughing and joking eating his dinner,  none of which would have been possible if he had disposed of his daughters body,  no human being could behave in such a way unless they are a Pyschopath.

Believe what you like, it doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:14:22 AM


Can someone remind me how many people witnessed Brueckner & his getaway vehicle?

What's that?  No one?

Oh right, can't be possible then.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 09:19:08 AM
I don't believe for one minute that Gerry would have dumped his daughters body in a bin.  Neither do I believe he miraculously  hid her away where no one could find her.   Gerry was sitting at the table when the alarm was raised,  before that he had been laughing and joking eating his dinner,  none of which would have been possible if he had disposed of his daughters body,  no human being could behave in such a way unless they are a Pyschopath.

No matter what we believe, Police detectives will attest that people do all sorts of unexpected and unbelievable things.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:31:57 AM

Suggest Brueckner could have carried Maddie through the street, no problem, the streets were quiet so no one would notice.

Suggest Gerry could have carried Maddie through the streets, suddenly PDL becomes a heaving metropolis full of eagle eyed tourists & thus becomes impossible.

That seems to be the opinion here.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 09:35:10 AM
Because someone thought they would be blamed? That would have been a disaster from a personal, public, financial, professional and family perspective.

But they were blamed.
Which was as intended - " a disaster from a personal, public, financial, professional and family perspective" but much , much, much more than that - it was a total disaster for Madeleine the little girl the Policia Judiciaria in their incompetence forgot.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 10:04:10 AM
But they were blamed.
Which was as intended - " a disaster from a personal, public, financial, professional and family perspective" but much , much, much more than that - it was a total disaster for Madeleine the little girl the Policia Judiciaria in their incompetence forgot.

There's a difference between being suspected and actually being blamed. It's called evidence and if there was evidence attached to a body it wasn't available.

The disaster was less than it would have been if blame could have been demonstrated; that could have led to reputational, financial and professional ruin and the break up of family relationships.

Madeleine didn't receive the level of protection she was entitled to expect from her parents, remember, before the PJ had even heard of her.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 10:20:28 AM
Not in the way it would have been if they were blamed for something. That would have adversely affected their jobs, their relationships with family members, their ability to work, pay a large mortgage and care for their other children and their public images.

Before the image was polished to "Justice for Maddie" et al ~ the figure under sceptic attack was not the couple struggling as you say with normal family life.


Leicester Mercury

'Disgraceful' hate group on Facebook poking fun at Madeleine McCann

Friday, April 30, 2010

Thousands of people have joined a sickening "hate group" on Facebook which pokes fun at missing Madeleine McCann.

The page on the social networking website has about 6,500 "fans", several of whom have posted obscene jokes about the little girl.

Others have directed abuse at her parents, Gerry and Kate.
             
                  ::::    ::::    ::::    ::::    ::::

In one entry, the person writes: "(This) seems to be the place people have chosen for disrespectful Maddie jokes, and I LIKE it!!"
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/disgraceful-hate-group-on-facebook-poking-fun-30-0-t8170.html
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 10:26:00 AM
No matter what we believe, Police detectives will attest that people do all sorts of unexpected and unbelievable things.

Very true ~ and Amaral has managed to invent quite a few without any shred of anything approaching reasoned thought or evidence.

Mind you ~ not all aberrations are "unexpected" or "unbelievable" if one takes Cristovao's criminal career into consideration.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 10:31:33 AM
There's a difference between being suspected and actually being blamed. It's called evidence and if there was evidence attached to a body it wasn't available.

The disaster was less than it would have been if blame could have been demonstrated; that could have led to reputational, financial and professional ruin and the break up of family relationships.

Madeleine didn't receive the level of protection she was entitled to expect from her parents, remember, before the PJ had even heard of her.

The point is they were blamed - and they were blamed without evidence and since we are on the subject - the only serial divorcee and breaker up of families in this equation is Amaral.


Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 02, 2021, 10:40:56 AM
Suggest Brueckner could have carried Maddie through the street, no problem, the streets were quiet so no one would notice.

Suggest Gerry could have carried Maddie through the streets, suddenly PDL becomes a heaving metropolis full of eagle eyed tourists & thus becomes impossible.

That seems to be the opinion here.

Someone certainly did as an Irish family met him.  As times goes by it appears more than likely that the young girl being carried was indeed Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 11:03:22 AM
Someone certainly did as an Irish family met him.  As times goes by it appears more than likely that the young girl being carried was indeed Madeleine McCann.

It's always been the most likely sighting to me. They saw a child closely matching Maddie's description, whilst Jane Tanner saw some legs & feet, allegedly.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 11:07:09 AM
The point is they were blamed - and they were blamed without evidence and since we are on the subject - the only serial divorcee and breaker up of families in this equation is Amaral.

They were suspects based on circumstancial evidence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 11:34:59 AM
Not in the way it would have been if they were blamed for something. That would have adversely affected their jobs, their relationships with family members, their ability to work, pay a large mortgage and care for their other children and their public images.
You don't think they were blamed for something or that their lives were turned upside down in such a way that affected all aspects of their relationships and careers?  Wow, where were you?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 11:47:23 AM
Someone certainly did as an Irish family met him.  As times goes by it appears more than likely that the young girl being carried was indeed Madeleine McCann.
I'm curious to know why you think the passage of time makes it more likely that it was Madeleine? 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 12:05:34 PM
You don't think they were blamed for something or that their lives were turned upside down in such a way that affected all aspects of their relationships and careers?  Wow, where were you?

They didn't lose their jobs, their remaining children, their house or their family support. All of them would have been endangered if guilt had been proved. It's a powerful motive.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 12:05:55 PM
They were suspects based on circumstancial evidence.

Unless you can point it out - NO they were not!  They were blamed on NO evidence whatsoever.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 12:18:30 PM
They didn't lose their jobs, their remaining children, their house or their family support. All of them would have been endangered if guilt had been proved. It's a powerful motive.

Their lives were irrevocably shattered as were the lives of family and friends yet you and other sceptics think nothing at all of attempting to increase their burden.
Pathetic that!  a bit like getting pleasure from pulling the wings off a butterfly.

She said: "I used to have thoughts like we'll get wiped out in the car on the motorway. So it would just happen, we'd all be gone, and the pain would be away."   Kate McCann
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 12:19:36 PM
They didn't lose their jobs, their remaining children, their house or their family support. All of them would have been endangered if guilt had been proved. It's a powerful motive.
You can dream up anything and say it's s powerful motive but you don't have any real evidence to support it..... And no one has claimed that any such evidence ecusts.
Yet when CB is, strongly suspected and Wolters, says he has the evidence to support it you cry foul.
It's totally hilarious.. Hypocritical
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 02, 2021, 12:26:55 PM
Please, no more, you'll have me sobbing into my handkerchief at this rate.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 01:19:25 PM
Their lives were irrevocably shattered as were the lives of family and friends yet you and other sceptics think nothing at all of attempting to increase their burden.
Pathetic that!  a bit like getting pleasure from pulling the wings off a butterfly.

She said: "I used to have thoughts like we'll get wiped out in the car on the motorway. So it would just happen, we'd all be gone, and the pain would be away."   Kate McCann

I wouldn't have likened either of the McCanns to fragile butterflies.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 02:49:25 PM
They didn't lose their jobs, their remaining children, their house or their family support. All of them would have been endangered if guilt had been proved. It's a powerful motive.
Err, guilt proved of what crime exactly did you have in mind?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 02:50:35 PM
I wouldn't have likened either of the McCanns to fragile butterflies.
And of course you know them both so well.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 02, 2021, 03:49:32 PM
I'm curious to know why you think the passage of time makes it more likely that it was Madeleine?

By virtue of the simple fact that the man the Smiths saw has never come forward despite all the appeals to do so and the police enquiries.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 02, 2021, 03:53:14 PM
Unless you can point it out - NO they were not!  They were blamed on NO evidence whatsoever.

No I strongly disagree Brietta and on hindsight maybe you could reconsider the post. There was indeed a lot of evidence, albeit circumstantial, that the McCanns were involved thus why they became the focus of the investigation at one point. Indeed, their conduct was not conducive to a claim of innocence so they did themselves no favours there.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2021, 04:59:37 PM
By virtue of the simple fact that the man the Smiths saw has never come forward despite all the appeals to do so and the police enquiries.
Pathfinder and myself have said this for years, identify Smithman it'll go along way to solving the mystery.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 05:30:15 PM
By virtue of the simple fact that the man the Smiths saw has never come forward despite all the appeals to do so and the police enquiries.
And how do you know a) he didn’t come foward at the time as Totman did but got filed in the bin along with Totman’s statement and b) that he hasn’t come forward since the Crimeatch appeal?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 02, 2021, 05:39:57 PM
And how do you know a) he didn’t come foward at the time as Totman did but got filed in the bin along with Totman’s statement and b) that he hasn’t come forward since the Crimeatch appeal?

I would think that had he come forward the McCann publicity hound would have been on it straight away.   8((()*/
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 05:43:27 PM
And of course you know them both so well.

About as well as anyone else here.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 06:25:15 PM
I would think that had he come forward the McCann publicity hound would have been on it straight away.   8((()*/
Why?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 06:26:01 PM
No I strongly disagree Brietta and on hindsight maybe you could reconsider the post. There was indeed a lot of evidence, albeit circumstantial, that the McCanns were involved thus why they became the focus of the investigation at one point. Indeed, their conduct was not conducive to a claim of innocence so they did themselves no favours there.

I seldom make a post without having taken as much care as possible to substantiate everything in it and if there has been one iota of verifiable evidence against the McCanns for any one of the slurs made against them, I have yet to see it.

What is it about the propaganda that it outweighs the fact that the Public Prosecutor did not find any evidence to prosecute one or other or both.

THE INNOCENCE OF THE MCCANN
MP thinks it's likely Maddie died. But you don't know what happened. Parents were careless, although they did not abandon their children
2011-08-05
The Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) admits in the document that ends the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, that the most likely scenario, for what happened on the night of May 3, is a dramatic end - maddie's death.

A fatality that, despite the thousands of diligences, remains without guilt and at the same time a mystery.

Maddie's parents were charged in the course of the investigations, but now the MP explains why he does not accuse them of any crime and attributes them innocence.

According to the document, consulted by PortugalDiário after the case has been made public on Monday, it is not possible to impute to the McCann any crime because, for example, at the time of the facts, they were not inside the apartment;  the couple's behaviour was also taken into account and their stance, up to the date of the facts and subsequently, was considered normal, according to the testimonies.

However, one of the most important factors for the couple's innocence were the results of the trace analyses, found in the apartment of praia da Luz and in the trunk of renault rented, more than 20 days after the
disappearance.

The tests proved inconclusive, meaning it was not possible to determine that the fluids found are maddie's.

In explaining the non-accusation to the couple, the MP explains that the analysis of the phone calls also revealed no evidence and that the advance warning, which allegedly was made to the media [in an alleged call to Sky News] instead of the police, was not confirmed.

To be true... Where's the body?
The final order of the process even puts the hypothesis that eventually the McCann are responsible for the death of the child.
However, he considers that many questions are lacking:
how,
where,
when,
by what means,
with the help of whom
and what they have done to the body in such a short time?
Questions that are difficult to answer, especially if we take into account, according to the MP, that the McCann only knew the vicinity of the village and had no contacts or friends in Portugal.

Despite the manifest innocence of the couple, the MP considers that the crimes, equated at the beginning of the process, are not to rule out given the degree of probability, namely, homicide.
However, there is no evidence to bring it to conclusions beyond the assumption.

Heavy penalty for the carelessness of the children About the McCann weighed even the cross of having neglected the safety of the children.

Evidence of negligence or abandonment was considered, but after 14 months... Disregarded.
The Prosecution Explains Why.
This type of crime has to set up deed for the victim and danger to life.
Now, according to the MP, Maddie's parents did not act in bad faith, since it was not predictable that when they came on holiday to the beach of Light something bad could happen.
The MP also claims that it was not required to put the possibility of kidnapping, since there is no history of such a crime at the scene.
It is also pointed out that, despite the carelessness of the parents, the minors were always watched: the document stresses, moreover, that the McCann are already atoning for the penalty of their sin with the disappearance of their daughter.

Case prescribes in 2022 The MP argues that its decision does not correspond to a definitive and/or irreversible closure of the investigation.
The case should not be prescribed before May 2022.
Little past 4.30pm on Monday when more than 40 journalists - half Of British - who had already requested consultation of the case, received the DVDs with about 30,000 pages, divided into 67 volumes, with ades, reports, letters rogatory, exchanged emails and translated documents.

With no evidence that the McCann couple committed any crime, the MP ordered the filing of the case.
On July 21, Kate and Gerry, along with Robert Murat, were raised as defendants.
https://tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/maddie/a-inocencia-dos-mccann

It is not possible to subscribe to the existence of evidence against them (innuendo and misrepresentations just do not count) when the Portuguese Prosecutor has stated publicly that there is no evidence against them. 
It has to be one or the other.
The Philpott's https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/02/derby-house-fire-evil-philpotts did themselves no favours;  the McCanns didn't seek favours their prime concern has always been doing their best to find their daughter which seems to have been sufficient to keep sceptic hounds snapping at their heels.  Causing the reports "The parents of Madeleine McCann say they believe there are people in Portugal and Britain who do not want their daughter to be found, ahead of the third anniversary of her disappearance.
Madeleine's mother Kate says some people would be "greatly embarrassed" if her daughter was found."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8653794.stm
I think there is plenty of evidence to justify that thought.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 06:26:22 PM
About as well as anyone else here.
So not at all then, but you still feel qualified to assess the strength of their mental health.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 06:48:06 PM
So not at all then, but you still feel qualified to assess the strength of their mental health.

I was replying to someone who likened them to butterflies having their wings pulled off. I reserve the right to disagree.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 07:00:12 PM
I was replying to someone who likened them to butterflies having their wings pulled off. I reserve the right to disagree.
And I reserve the right to point out that your observation is not based on personal experience and is therefore quite irrelevant.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 07:13:03 PM
I was replying to someone who likened them to butterflies having their wings pulled off. I reserve the right to disagree.

Few are more vulnerable than the parents of a missing child.  There is something decidedly odd about sceptics who sought to to exploit the fragility of those who are at their lowest ebb.

Did sceptics really think nothing of toying with the vulnerability of bereft parents ~ or was it done with malice a forethought.

I think pulling the wings off a butterfly is a pretty apt analogy of what they were about ~ glad you picked up on it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 02, 2021, 07:53:38 PM
I seldom make a post without having taken as much care as possible to substantiate everything in it and if there has been one iota of verifiable evidence against the McCanns for any one of the slurs made against them, I have yet to see it.

What is it about the propaganda that it outweighs the fact that the Public Prosecutor did not find any evidence to prosecute one or other or both.
.

There's a very wide gulf between having circumstantial evidence as against having a sufficiency of evidence which could sustain a guilty verdict in any court of law. There is a lot of inculpatory circumstantial evidence in this case ranging from the Smiths sighting to the dog alerts. There's no denying it and as most of us here have spent over ten years discussing it all in depth, I'm certainly not going to dissect it all again.

One final point. It could be argued that Kate McCanns refusal to answer questions when interviewed as an official suspect did her no favours. I don't know many mothers of missing children who would behave in such a manner unless they had something to hide and/or were protecting someone.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 07:56:07 PM
Few are more vulnerable than the parents of a missing child.  There is something decidedly odd about sceptics who sought to to exploit the fragility of those who are at their lowest ebb.

Did sceptics really think nothing of toying with the vulnerability of bereft parents ~ or was it done with malice a forethought.

I think pulling the wings off a butterfly is a pretty apt analogy of what they were about ~ glad you picked up on it.

Unlike fragile butterflies the McCanns had weapons which they used spread their message and to silence and intimidate those who disagreed with it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 08:03:19 PM
I would think that had he come forward the McCann publicity hound would have been on it straight away.   8((()*/

The most probable reason he hasn't come forward imo is because there has never been an appeal in Portugal... Can you believe it.

We also know the average Portuguese doesn't trust the police and would be reluctant to get involved for fear of getting batterd into a confession
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 08:18:15 PM
There's a very wide gulf between having circumstantial evidence as against having a sufficiency of evidence which could sustain a guilty verdict in any court of law. There is a lot of inculpatory circumstantial evidence in this case ranging from the Smiths sighting to the dog alerts. There's no denying it and as most of us here have spent over ten years discussing it all in depth, I'm certainly not going to dissect it all again.

One final point. It could be argued that Kate McCanns refusal to answer questions when interviewed as an official suspect did her no favours. I don't know many mothers of missing children who would behave in such a manner unless they had something to hide and/or were protecting someone.

I think you are talking absolute rubbish.. The dog alerts are not evidential and the so Smith I D is totally unreliable.  He said he wouldn't even recognise the man again.

The PJ said the main evidence against the McCanns was the dogs.. Amaral said the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartment.. What an incompetent bunch of fools
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 08:23:52 PM
I think you are talking absolute rubbish.. The dog alerts are not evidential and the so Smith I D is totally unreliable.  He said he wouldn't even recognise the man again.

The PJ said the main evidence against the McCanns was the dogs.. Amaral said the alerts proved Maddie died in the apartment.. What an incompetent bunch of fools

It's reliability isn't the issue.

The question of whether or not it's evidence is the debate here.

And since witness statements are evidence, it is evidence.....against the McCanns no less.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 08:30:21 PM


Interestingly, Davel is convinced with the authenticity & reliability of the evidence against Brueckner.

Without even knowing what it is.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 08:40:27 PM
There's a very wide gulf between having circumstantial evidence as against having a sufficiency of evidence which could sustain a guilty verdict in any court of law. There is a lot of inculpatory circumstantial evidence in this case ranging from the Smiths sighting to the dog alerts. There's no denying it and as most of us here have spent over ten years discussing it all in depth, I'm certainly not going to dissect it all again.

One final point. It could be argued that Kate McCanns refusal to answer questions when interviewed as an official suspect did her no favours. I don't know many mothers of missing children who would behave in such a manner unless they had something to hide and/or were protecting someone.
Same old same old John.. Kate, was absolutely right to stop andwering questions from a police force that didn't understand the bssics and eete looking fir sn excuse to arrest her as they knew they couldn't best her into a confession
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 08:55:20 PM

Interestingly, Davel is convinced with the authenticity & reliability of the evidence against Brueckner.

Without even knowing what it is.
I am convinced Wolters has the evidence he claims... Absolutely..
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2021, 09:05:40 PM
It's reliability isn't the issue.

The question of whether or not it's evidence is the debate here.

And since witness statements are evidence, it is evidence.....against the McCanns no less.
You are wrong yet again.. The question is.. By John.. Who claims there is lots if evidence against the McCann's and that's, why they became suspects.. Its tiresome to keep having to correct your mistakes
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 09:07:13 PM
There’s apparently plenty of witness statement evidence against Brückner if the wealth of reports in the media are anything to go by.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 02, 2021, 09:13:42 PM
By virtue of the simple fact that the man the Smiths saw has never come forward despite all the appeals to do so and the police enquiries.

It's possible that:

- he was indeed the person carrying Madeleine;

- he did come forward, but whatever he said to whomever got lost in the general chaos;

- he was carrying his own child, but was in an illegal (e.g. work) situation and chose not to come forward;

- he was carrying the child of, e.g. his mistress whilst on vacation (awkward);

- he was carrying his own child, but didn't speak the language / didn't follow the media / didn't realise that it could have been him.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:21:33 PM
You are wrong yet again.. The question is.. By John.. Who claims there is lots if evidence against the McCann's and that's, why they became suspects.. Its tiresome to keep having to correct your mistakes

Oh I see, so you're not disagreeing that there's evidence against the McCanns (that would obviously be ridiculous, because there is), it's the amount you're disputing.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:24:44 PM
It's possible that:

- he was indeed the person carrying Madeleine;

- he did come forward, but whatever he said to whomever got lost in the general chaos;

- he was carrying his own child, but was in an illegal (e.g. work) situation and chose not to come forward;

- he was carrying the child of, e.g. his mistress whilst on vacation (awkward);

- he was carrying his own child, but didn't speak the language / didn't follow the media / didn't realise that it could have been him.

The worlds most publicised missing persons case, occurs whilst he's in PDL, doesn't ever see the news about it.

I suppose he could have been Amish.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 09:28:58 PM
There’s apparently plenty of witness statement evidence against Brückner if the wealth of reports in the media are anything to go by.

Yes I've seen the statements & they're very convincing, what with all these witnesses leaving it about 6 years to come forward.

So what happened?

Were they less than convinced by the evidence themselves or perhaps they lapsed into comas?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 09:45:19 PM
Unlike fragile butterflies the McCanns had weapons which they used spread their message and to silence and intimidate those who disagreed with it.
The McCann message is "FIND MADELEINE!".  What do you think it is.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 09:53:22 PM
The worlds most publicised missing persons case, occurs whilst he's in PDL, doesn't ever see the news about it.

I suppose he could have been Amish.

The Smiths didn't realise that they may have witnessed something of significance until thirteen days after the event.

They are not Amish - unless you know to the contrary.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 10:04:50 PM
The Smiths didn't realise that they may have witnessed something of significance until thirteen days after the event.

They are not Amish - unless you know to the contrary.
One of them didn’t realise for 3 months that the man he saw was the most famous father of a missing child in the world at the time.  Must have been in a coma or perhaps he was just highly suggestible.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 10:14:34 PM

They didn't find anything particularly suspicious about the sighting, apart from the man appearing not to want to speak.

They presumed at the time it was a father & daughter.

Of course, this sighting should have been in the forefront of their minds & they should have gone to the police immediately with their non suspicion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 10:16:48 PM
One of them didn’t realise for 3 months that the man he saw was the most famous father of a missing child in the world at the time.  Must have been in a coma or perhaps he was just highly suggestible.

Brueckner tells his friend he abducted raped & murdered Maddie, maybe even shows him a photograph of her corpse.

Brueckner's friend goes 'meh' & watches the TV or something.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 02, 2021, 10:19:20 PM
The McCann message is "FIND MADELEINE!".  What do you think it is.

I think it's a bit more complex than that.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 02, 2021, 10:29:58 PM
I wonder whether supporters would sing a different tune if the dogs had targeted someone other than McCann - say Murat's property or a camper van ?

I'm not quite sure why nearly every thread, whatever the OP, ends up with the dogs.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2021, 11:01:56 PM
They didn't find anything particularly suspicious about the sighting, apart from the man appearing not to want to speak.

They presumed at the time it was a father & daughter.

Of course, this sighting should have been in the forefront of their minds & they should have gone to the police immediately with their non suspicion.

They couldn't go to the police could they.  Well not until after they had a family conference to discuss whether or not they had dreamed the whole thing.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2021, 11:11:55 PM
I'm not quite sure why nearly every thread, whatever the OP, ends up with the dogs.
This thread is so off topic I don’t know what the point is of even having separate threads, we may as well have just one where the same tired, tiresome arguments get trotted out day in, day out.  Focusing  on the dogs and the Smiths seems to provide comfort to those who can’t bear the thought that the McCanns aren’t being investigated for Madeleine’s disappearance and that someone else is the prime suspect.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 02, 2021, 11:19:39 PM
They couldn't go to the police could they.  Well not until after they had a family conference to discuss whether or not they had dreamed the whole thing.

Then they decided to go to the police & lie about it all.

Just fancied a quick trip back to Portugal to waste a day in a police station committing a criminal offence.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 03, 2021, 09:04:21 AM
There's a very wide gulf between having circumstantial evidence as against having a sufficiency of evidence which could sustain a guilty verdict in any court of law. There is a lot of inculpatory circumstantial evidence in this case ranging from the Smiths sighting to the dog alerts. There's no denying it and as most of us here have spent over ten years discussing it all in depth, I'm certainly not going to dissect it all again.

One final point. It could be argued that Kate McCanns refusal to answer questions when interviewed as an official suspect did her no favours. I don't know many mothers of missing children who would behave in such a manner unless they had something to hide and/or were protecting someone.



Or they had a Police Officer who was hell bent on framing them.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 09:08:10 AM
Then they decided to go to the police & lie about it all.

Just fancied a quick trip back to Portugal to waste a day in a police station committing a criminal offence.

They actually did a reconstitution, didn't they. They showed the PJ where each of them crossed paths with the man, judging by the photos.

That would have been a problem for McCann, Tanner and Wilkins, when all three pointed to different parts of the road where they encountered each other.

Jane Tanner;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.

Jes Wilkins;

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.

Gerry McCann;

After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction...
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 09:16:05 AM



Or they had a Police Officer who was hell bent on framing them.

Framing them? Isn't that a bit old hat now? No-one invented the circumstantial evidence which aroused suspicion.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 09:48:42 AM
Framing them? Isn't that a bit old hat now? No-one invented the circumstantial evidence which aroused suspicion.
Do you know what's REALLY old hat?  Your previous post.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 03, 2021, 09:54:57 AM
They actually did a reconstitution, didn't they. They showed the PJ where each of them crossed paths with the man, judging by the photos.

That would have been a problem for McCann, Tanner and Wilkins, when all three pointed to different parts of the road where they encountered each other.

Jane Tanner;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.

Jes Wilkins;

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.

Gerry McCann;

After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction...

I know I've posted this before, however as we seem to keep going around in circles in the absence of any major news...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm

Ten different witnesses can have ten different recollections of the same event. During their own version of a Crimewatch-style reconstruction (why do people still call it a "reconstitution"?), Jane and Gerry agreed to disagree. According to JT's rog, the UK police walked her through a cognitive interview. I'm not sure if the others were.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 10:00:25 AM

Why did Jane need a cognitive interview but no one else did?

Is she cognitively impaired?

Maybe the trauma of seeing some shins & feet had got to her.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 10:05:11 AM
I don't know about JT, but there sure seems to be some cognitive impairment in evidence on this forum. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 10:10:35 AM

To be fair to Jane, she did believe the man was walking away from the apartment when he was actually walking towards it.
So yeah, she's probably retarded.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 03, 2021, 10:10:41 AM
Framing them? Isn't that a bit old hat now? No-one invented the circumstantial evidence which aroused suspicion.

In your opinion
.The idea of using the alerts to gather intelligence was made up by Mark Harrison. Both Grime and Harrison the alerts had no evidential value or reliability so you are wrong to claim they are circumstantial evidence. 

I don't think there was any alett to cadaver and no one can prove me wrong.. In fact many experts would agree that was a possibility.
The question arises as to why Grime felt it necessary to write such a supportive account iof the alerts then say no evidential value.  The pair of them really didn't have a clue how reliable the alerts were with Harrison clearly contradicting himself.
Grimes claims of Eddies history  misled the PJ imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 03, 2021, 10:16:31 AM
Why did Jane need a cognitive interview but no one else did?

Is she cognitively impaired?

Maybe the trauma of seeing some shins & feet had got to her.

Perhaps because at the time, she was the only person in the group and in the immediate vicinity who may have encountered her being taken away?

Oh and on cognitive interviews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 10:21:33 AM
Perhaps because at the time, she was the only person in the group and in the immediate vicinity who may have encountered her being taken away?

Oh and on cognitive interviews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview

Yeah, she didn't though.

She saw a man walking in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 10:24:54 AM


The description of Jane's abductor guy is uncannily similar to Brueckner.

I think this might be the concrete evidence against him, that's why Jane's keeping quiet, she'll be star witness at the trial, which I believe could be starting any day now.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 10:33:16 AM
I know I've posted this before, however as we seem to keep going around in circles in the absence of any major news...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm

Ten different witnesses can have ten different recollections of the same event. During their own version of a Crimewatch-style reconstruction (why do people still call it a "reconstitution"?), Jane and Gerry agreed to disagree. According to JT's rog, the UK police walked her through a cognitive interview. I'm not sure if the others were.

A reconstitution is different from a reconstruction. The former replays the events described in their statements using the original people involved. It's private, part of the investigation and it tests the feasability of the statements. The latter uses actors and is used for public appeals.

You saw 'agree to disagree' I saw no such thing. I saw a complete disregard for and overruling of a witness's opinion. 

Jane Tanner said;

That could have been that for me because the pyjamas I really tried to, it was in the interview the next day when they really pushed me you know I think you call it cognitive interview or whatever,

If by 'next day' she means 4th May, no UK police were present.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 03, 2021, 10:57:30 AM
Perhaps because at the time, she was the only person in the group and in the immediate vicinity who may have encountered her being taken away?

Oh and on cognitive interviews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview

Therefore based on research, the foundation on which so much sceptic belief is based - "inconsistencies" - was always fundamentally flawed.

Suspicion could have been raised had everyone at the tapas table given an identical word perfect account of events and not by individuals honestly recounting events as they remembered them.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 03, 2021, 11:02:36 AM
Framing them? Isn't that a bit old hat now? No-one invented the circumstantial evidence which aroused suspicion.

I think you might very well have done just that.  Unless you provide a list of what aroused the initial suspicion.

List please, you must surely have one.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 03, 2021, 11:05:40 AM
Therefore based on research, the foundation on which so much sceptic belief is bases - "inconsistencies" - was always fundamentally flawed.

Suspicion could have been raised had everyone at the tapas table given an identical word perfect account of events and not by individuals honestly recounting events as they remembered them.

There is only one consistency, Madeleine disappeared , the rest is noise.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 11:37:06 AM
There is only one consistency, Madeleine disappeared , the rest is noise.
Do your bit and keep quiet then.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 03, 2021, 11:40:43 AM
There is only one consistency, Madeleine disappeared , the rest is noise.

Nope - it is a wee bit more complex than that and you really could not make it up.  From the disappearance of a wee girl in 2007 and her parents' struggle against all the odds to find her, we have reached a stage in 2021 where a guy ignored by the police in 2007 is now the prime suspect in the disappearance.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 11:56:47 AM
Nope - it is a wee bit more complex than that and you really could not make it up.  From the disappearance of a wee girl in 2007 and her parents' struggle against all the odds to find her, we have reached a stage in 2021 where a guy ignored by the police in 2007 is now the prime suspect in the disappearance.

So are the Germans taking the lead on the case now?

I can't find any mention of Brueckner being Operation Grange Prime suspect, or the PJ's.

So what's going on?

Is it now an official joint investigation?

Why did Grange need a further grant to cover 2022 when the case is now solved & Brueckner is being charged any minute now?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 12:06:30 PM
I think you might very well have done just that.  Unless you provide a list of what aroused the initial suspicion.

List please, you must surely have one.

I have already posted the problems with the testimony of McCann, Tanner & Wilkins, which the PJ wanted to clarify during a reconstitution;

The physical, real and effective proximity
between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

It seems the PJ weren't prepared, like Dave Edgar was, to accept different versions of the tale. Jane Tanner made police statements as to where the two men were speaking, and this 'reconstruction' ignored her opinion and that of Jes Wilkins. No wonder Gerry McCann became the spokesman; he was quite prepared to overrule other witnesses when it suited him.

Here he is overruling most of his friend's testimonies;

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 03, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
I have already posted the problems with the testimony of McCann, Tanner & Wilkins, which the PJ wanted to clarify during a reconstitution;

The physical, real and effective proximity
between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

It seems the PJ weren't prepared, like Dave Edgar was, to accept different versions of the tale. Jane Tanner made police statements as to where the two men were speaking, and this 'reconstruction' ignored her opinion and that of Jes Wilkins. No wonder Gerry McCann became the spokesman; he was quite prepared to overrule other witnesses when it suited him.

Here he is overruling most of his friend's testimonies;

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Is that the sum of your oft stated "evidence"!!!

You are reliant on non verbatim statements to sustain your prejudices ... really not good enough.

And what on earth are your meanderings about a chance encounter on the street all about.

Jane was there.  She saw the two men in conversation.  They did not see her.   So what!

There is no evidence of anything there barring extreme bias.  I asked for evidence - please post some.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 03, 2021, 12:57:35 PM
Framing them? Isn't that a bit old hat now? No-one invented the circumstantial evidence which aroused suspicion.

In your opinion
.The idea of using the alerts to gather intelligence was made up by Mark Harrison. Both Grime and Harrison the alerts had no evidential value or reliability so you are wrong to claim they are circumstantial evidence. 

I don't think there was any alett to cadaver and no one can prove me wrong.. In fact many experts would agree that was a possibility.
The question arises as to why Grime felt it necessary to write such a supportive account iof the alerts then say no evidential value.  The pair of them really didn't have a clue how reliable the alerts were with Harrison clearly contradicting himself.
Grimes claims of Eddies history  misled the PJ imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 01:15:29 PM
So are the Germans taking the lead on the case now?

I can't find any mention of Brueckner being Operation Grange Prime suspect, or the PJ's.

So what's going on?

Is it now an official joint investigation?

Why did Grange need a further grant to cover 2022 when the case is now solved & Brueckner is being charged any minute now?

Oh do shut up.  You never come up with anything.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 01:39:35 PM
Oh do shut up.  You never come up with anything.

Charming.

And a very good day to you too.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 01:53:36 PM
Charming.

And a very good day to you too.

Fortunately, I think that you are of no consequence.  And therefor to be ignore.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 01:55:56 PM
Fortunately, I think that you are of no consequence.  And therefor to be ignore.

Oh right, that must be why you read my posts.
Because you're ignoring them.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 02:10:32 PM
Is that the sum of your oft stated "evidence"!!!

You are reliant on non verbatim statements to sustain your prejudices ... really not good enough.

And what on earth are your meanderings about a chance encounter on the street all about.

Jane was there.  She saw the two men in conversation.  They did not see her.   So what!

There is no evidence of anything there barring extreme bias.  I asked for evidence - please post some.

It's merely a part of the circumstantial evidence which has been ignored and criticised. It has nothing to do with non verbatim statements or with prejudices, which I take exception to. You know as well as I that there was circumstantial evidence, because you've spent years trying to deny it's existence using the same old tired arguments.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 03, 2021, 02:27:13 PM
It's merely a part of the circumstantial evidence which has been ignored and criticised. It has nothing to do with non verbatim statements or with prejudices, which I take exception to. You know as well as I that there was circumstantial evidence, because you've spent years trying to deny it's existence using the same old tired arguments.

You evidence that you have absolutely no conception of what constitutes evidence let alone circumstantial evidence.

Which is why you are unable to provide any examples in support of your prejudices.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 02:31:17 PM
It's merely a part of the circumstantial evidence which has been ignored and criticised. It has nothing to do with non verbatim statements or with prejudices, which I take exception to. You know as well as I that there was circumstantial evidence, because you've spent years trying to deny it's existence using the same old tired arguments.
If the PJ doubted JT's truthfulness or accuracy that's purely down to Portuguese incompetence and the inability for one force (The GNR) to communicate efficiently with the other (PJ).  Trotman came forward at the time and was ignored as the police preferred to believe the worst of JT and the Tapas group. And for this Jane et al are STILL being dragged through the mud by the likes of yourself. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 03, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
A reconstitution is different from a reconstruction. The former replays the events described in their statements using the original people involved. It's private, part of the investigation and it tests the feasability of the statements. The latter uses actors and is used for public appeals.

You saw 'agree to disagree' I saw no such thing. I saw a complete disregard for and overruling of a witness's opinion. 

Jane Tanner said;

That could have been that for me because the pyjamas I really tried to, it was in the interview the next day when they really pushed me you know I think you call it cognitive interview or whatever,

If by 'next day' she means 4th May, no UK police were present.

I can't say I've come across the term in English in a policing context, except in Maddie forumland, possibly by people whose mother tongue wasn't English.



Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 04:49:58 PM
It's merely a part of the circumstantial evidence which has been ignored and criticised. It has nothing to do with non verbatim statements or with prejudices, which I take exception to. You know as well as I that there was circumstantial evidence, because you've spent years trying to deny it's existence using the same old tired arguments.

The same old tired arguments are only yours.  There are no other others.  You have proof of nothing.

And your comments are now coming close to Libel.  Which I will fight if I must.

Never underestimate me. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 05:16:05 PM
The same old tired arguments are only yours.  There are no other others.  You have proof of nothing.

And your comments are now coming close to Libel.  Which I will fight if I must.

Never underestimate me. 

Yeah, with respect Eleanor,  I think you're being a bit selective with the whole moderation thing here.

Your response to suspected libel, is to post personal insults?

I think you'll find that's against forum rules.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 05:36:06 PM
 @)(++(* Don’t you just love it when the forum WUM who has had more warnings than the rest of us put together suddenly becomes a stickler for the rules?  Priceless!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 05:37:06 PM
@)(++(* Don’t you just love it when the forum WUM who has had more warnings than the rest of us put together suddenly becomes a stickler for the rules?  Priceless!

I thought you were in favour of equality, now all of a sudden you oppose it?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 05:40:50 PM


So can we all just call each other nasty things with impunity now?

Or is it only Eleanor that's permitted?

I think we need some clarification on this issue.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 05:56:03 PM
Yeah, with respect Eleanor,  I think you're being a bit selective with the whole moderation thing here.

Your response to suspected libel, is to post personal insults?

I think you'll find that's against forum rules.

Try me.  Report my Comment.

I have no comprehension of your prose, if you can call it that.  Speaking English might help.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 06:00:37 PM

So can we all just call each other nasty things with impunity now?

Or is it only Eleanor that's permitted?

I think we need some clarification on this issue.

Indeed we do.  Try speaking English for a start.  Your English is abysmal.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 06:03:22 PM
Try me.  Report my Comment.

I have no comprehension of your prose, if you can call it that.  Speaking English might help.

You seem to comprehend everything else I've posted recently, but you're struggling now.

You're telling me to report you, so obviously you understand what I said, but you're also saying you don't.

Have you had a stroke?

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 06:13:19 PM
You seem to comprehend everything else I've posted recently, but you're struggling now.

You're telling me to report you, so obviously you understand what I said, but you're also saying you don't.

Have you had a stroke?

I largely ignore you.  Or is that what bothers you?

What is a stroke?  I don't understand this.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 06:35:50 PM
I can't say I've come across the term in English in a policing context, except in Maddie forumland, possibly by people whose mother tongue wasn't English.

Different names for different processes.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 06:49:06 PM
Different names for different processes.
Perhaps you could supply a cite to prove your point?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 06:50:36 PM
Taken from Websleuths and certainly worth a watch.  This guy (no idea who he is) seems to be describing a certain someone to a tee, and this was back in 2007

https://youtu.be/IdMZluF6Qcc
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 06:51:31 PM
The same old tired arguments are only yours.  There are no other others.  You have proof of nothing.

And your comments are now coming close to Libel.  Which I will fight if I must.

Never underestimate me.  You are one very nasty woman who lies to make a point.

Personal insults, as you know, are against forum rules. Your insult is also untrue. It's a fact that three people disagreed about the location of a meeting between two of them on 3rd May 2007. Jane Tanner definitely changed what she said here;

JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

To what she said here;

I thought they were sort of more near the little alleyway.  I think sort of”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

She moved the two men 20 feet south, away from the gate.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 06:53:09 PM
Different names for different processes.

And so easy to use when it suits you.

I never Report any of your opposing Comments.  So why do you feel the need to do so to me?

Gunit has just reported me for insulting her.  If only.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 03, 2021, 06:54:38 PM
And so easy to use when it suits you.

I never Report any of your opposing Comments.  So why do you feel the need to do so to me?

Gunit has just reported me for insulting her.  If only.

You called her a very nasty woman & a liar FFS.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 03, 2021, 06:55:22 PM
Personal insults, as you know, are against forum rules. Your insult is also untrue. It's a fact that three people disagreed about the location of a meeting between two of them on 3rd May 2007. Jane Tanner definitely changed what she said here;

JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

To what she said here;

I thought they were sort of more near the little alleyway.  I think sort of”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

She moved the two men 20 feet south, away from the gate.
Who cares?  No one of any consequence.  Time to get out of the jungle and accept the war is over.  Truly.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 06:56:52 PM
You called her a very nasty woman & a liar FFS.

Good.  I am glad that you got that one right.  Report me.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 06:59:10 PM
Perhaps you could supply a cite to prove your point?

In Portugal as in France;

In French criminal law, the reconstitution is a reconstruction of all or part of a crime involving the accused and/or witnesses and takes place at the scene of the crime.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2013.784294
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
In Portugal as in France;

In French criminal law, the reconstitution is a reconstruction of all or part of a crime involving the accused and/or witnesses and takes place at the scene of the crime.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2013.784294

And you know nothing of French Criminal Law.  When was the last time you saw a reconstitution or a reconstruction in France?

Your statement is just bullshit.  The words don't even mean the same thing.

And No One in French Law is obliged to do this.

This was a bad one, Sweetie.  Pick another European Country.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 03, 2021, 07:48:19 PM
In Portugal as in France;

In French criminal law, the reconstitution is a reconstruction of all or part of a crime involving the accused and/or witnesses and takes place at the scene of the crime.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2013.784294

What's the equivalent term in Anglophone countries that don't involve public appeals?

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 08:15:19 PM
And you know nothing of French Criminal Law.  When was the last time you saw a reconstitution or a reconstruction in France?

Your statement is just bullshit.  The words don't even mean the same thing.

And No One in French Law is obliged to do this.

This was a bad one, Sweetie.  Pick another European Country.

I think you'll find you are wrong.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 08:47:01 PM
I think you'll find you are wrong.

Prove it.  Give me such a case.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 09:07:55 PM
Prove it.  Give me such a case.

No. I already provided a cite.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Carana on December 03, 2021, 09:09:07 PM
In Portugal as in France;

In French criminal law, the reconstitution is a reconstruction of all or part of a crime involving the accused and/or witnesses and takes place at the scene of the crime.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2013.784294

I'm aware of that, but why call it a "reconstitution" in English? lol
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Eleanor on December 03, 2021, 09:11:08 PM
I think you'll find you are wrong.

What are you trying to do?  Another Country?  Somewhere  else now.  I see.

Just push it off somewhat elsewhere
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2021, 10:03:03 PM
I'm aware of that, but why call it a "reconstitution" in English? lol

To emphasise the fact that it shouldn't be confused with the reconstructions used for appeal purposes.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 04, 2021, 12:20:14 AM
Taken from Websleuths and certainly worth a watch.  This guy (no idea who he is) seems to be describing a certain someone to a tee, and this was back in 2007

https://youtu.be/IdMZluF6Qcc
Thanks for that VS
Yet another heartbreaking example of missed opportunity here.

Madeleine could have been just a few hundred yards away from where she disappeared but by 9th of June the Portuguese police still hadn't carried out a house to house inquiry to eliminate the possibility.

Who Police Should Target In Madeleine Hunt - 09 June 2007
The trail seems to have gone cold, but police in Portugal continue to search for missing Madeleine McCann. Former Scotland Yard detective Supt Michael Hames talked to Sky's crime correspondent Martin Brunt about the most likely lines of inquiry.

The perpetrator was most likely local or lived within a 5Klm radius and had already offended against children.

The Policia Judiciaria just did not carry out an adequate investigation into Madeleine's disappearance - and that was obvious from early days.
Present investigations into the "scapegoat" who fitted the profile back then and who fits it even more so with the passage of time tends to point to that.

In line with the topic ~ I think the question "Why now?" really should be "Why not then?"



Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 04, 2021, 11:00:57 AM
Not to have done house to house is appalling.   When Madeleine wasn't found on the night of 3rd of May,  straight away alarm bells should have rang and straight away the area should have been red alert,  going house to house is a basic part of Police policy.   Check al Paedophhiles in the area,  top priority.   Someone knocked on CB's door got no answer and didn't go back!!!   Did they know he was a Paedophile?    They should have.   Then the phone list,  his number was on that list yet it wasn't investigated.   Amaral was too busy immersed in his theory that the McCann's were guilty.  Just ordinary Police work would have maybe if CB is the man responsible,  have found who was responsible IMO.  For gods sake a Paedophile who scarpers to another area of Portugal then goes back to Germany just after Madeleine disappears how much of a alarm bell do you need.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 04, 2021, 12:13:56 PM
Not to have done house to house is appalling.   When Madeleine wasn't found on the night of 3rd of May,  straight away alarm bells should have rang and straight away the area should have been red alert,  going house to house is a basic part of Police policy.   Check al Paedophhiles in the area,  top priority.   Someone knocked on CB's door got no answer and didn't go back!!!   Did they know he was a Paedophile?    They should have.   Then the phone list,  his number was on that list yet it wasn't investigated.   Amaral was too busy immersed in his theory that the McCann's were guilty.  Just ordinary Police work would have maybe if CB is the man responsible,  have found who was responsible IMO.  For gods sake a Paedophile who scarpers to another area of Portugal then goes back to Germany just after Madeleine disappears how much of a alarm bell do you need.

I wonder how many houses are in PdL? Door to door enquiries were made at 443 of them, so house to house visits were carried out.

Known paedophiles were investigated.

Huge resources were committed.

I find it unfair and inexcusable to constantly accuse the Portuguese of inadequacy. Especially when the inadequacy of parental care and supervision is constantly excused and/or ignored. Is a fair balanced view of the disappearance too much to expect?

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 04, 2021, 12:35:39 PM
I wonder how many houses are in PdL? Door to door enquiries were made at 443 of them, so house to house visits were carried out.

Known paedophiles were investigated.

Huge resources were committed.

I find it unfair and inexcusable to constantly accuse the Portuguese of inadequacy. Especially when the inadequacy of parental care and supervision is constantly excused and/or ignored. Is a fair balanced view of the disappearance too much to expect?


Obviously CB a known Paedophile was not investigated he was allowed to skip back to Germany,  even though his phone number was on the list and showed he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club at the time Madeleine disappeared

Why bring up parental care?   It doesn't matter how Madeleine disappeared whether the parents were there or not Madeleine deserved to have a well organised investigation,  too many things were overlooked IMO
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Brietta on December 04, 2021, 01:13:11 PM
Not to have done house to house is appalling.   When Madeleine wasn't found on the night of 3rd of May,  straight away alarm bells should have rang and straight away the area should have been red alert,  going house to house is a basic part of Police policy.   Check al Paedophhiles in the area,  top priority.   Someone knocked on CB's door got no answer and didn't go back!!!   Did they know he was a Paedophile?    They should have.   Then the phone list,  his number was on that list yet it wasn't investigated.   Amaral was too busy immersed in his theory that the McCann's were guilty.  Just ordinary Police work would have maybe if CB is the man responsible,  have found who was responsible IMO.  For gods sake a Paedophile who scarpers to another area of Portugal then goes back to Germany just after Madeleine disappears how much of a alarm bell do you need.

Mrs Fenn - the flat directly above No5 - was not visited.

Mr & Mrs Moyes - the flat directly above that  - were not visited.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on December 04, 2021, 01:34:37 PM

Obviously CB a known Paedophile was not investigated he was allowed to skip back to Germany,  even though his phone number was on the list and showed he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club at the time Madeleine disappeared

Why bring up parental care?   It doesn't matter how Madeleine disappeared whether the parents were there or not Madeleine deserved to have a well organised investigation,  too many things were overlooked IMO

Surely if the children were not left alone the risk of harm is reduced considerably. If there was an abduction between 9:15 and 10pm it certainly would not have happened if the parents were there, imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 04, 2021, 01:40:38 PM

Obviously CB a known Paedophile was not investigated he was allowed to skip back to Germany,  even though his phone number was on the list and showed he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club at the time Madeleine disappeared

Why bring up parental care?   It doesn't matter how Madeleine disappeared whether the parents were there or not Madeleine deserved to have a well organised investigation,  too many things were overlooked IMO

Once again CB is described as a known paedophile, despite no evidence that he was known. Nor is it known if or when he returned to Germany. There were many unknown phone numbers on those lists and all of them made calls on 2nd, 3rd or 4th May.

With adequate care Madeleine could have been protected. You prefer to ignore that but it's relevant whether you like it or not. The PJ's investigation was as good as it could be and it's not the only one that hasn't found answers; some with more resources than those in Portugal.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 04, 2021, 01:55:28 PM
Surely if the children were not left alone the risk of harm is reduced considerably. If there was an abduction between 9:15 and 10pm it certainly would not have happened if the parents were there, imo.

I agree.. But there are more factors involved.  I'm not looking to make excuses for them but they believed it was an incredibly safe place.. But it wasn't.  There seems to have been s lot of unreported crime... It seems the apartments were regularly burgled.. A place wher criminals felt they could get away with things
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 04, 2021, 02:00:21 PM
Once again CB is described as a known paedophile, despite no evidence that he was known. Nor is it known if or when he returned to Germany. There were many unknown phone numbers on those lists and all of them made calls on 2nd, 3rd or 4th May.

With adequate care Madeleine could have been protected. You prefer to ignore that but it's relevant whether you like it or not. The PJ's investigation was as good as it could be and it's not the only one that hasn't found answers; some with more resources than those in Portugal.

You seem to want to ignore the PJs failings. The PJ failed massively when they were there in the days after the crime and missed opportunities.
Was it Granged idea for the McCann's to do the TV appeal in Germany.  If it was then they deserve a lot of credit if the case is solved.  The pj don't do appeals... A bunch if fools
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 04, 2021, 02:00:24 PM
I agree.. But there are more factors involved.  I'm not looking to make excuses for them but they believed it was an incredibly safe place.. But it wasn't.  There seems to have been s lot of unreported crime... It seems the apartments were regularly burgled.. A place wher criminals felt they could get away with things

No child abductions though
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 04, 2021, 02:14:18 PM
No child abductions though
And no children falling of a sofa and dying... In fact that doesn't seem to have happened anywhere in the world.. Ever
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 04, 2021, 02:16:25 PM
Once again CB is described as a known paedophile, despite no evidence that he was known. Nor is it known if or when he returned to Germany. There were many unknown phone numbers on those lists and all of them made calls on 2nd, 3rd or 4th May.

With adequate care Madeleine could have been protected. You prefer to ignore that but it's relevant whether you like it or not. The PJ's investigation was as good as it could be and it's not the only one that hasn't found answers; some with more resources than those in Portugal.
So do you think alleged parental neglect excuses the PJ for their poor performance then?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 04, 2021, 02:26:57 PM
And no children falling of a sofa and dying... In fact that doesn't seem to have happened anywhere in the world.. Ever

Murders happen a lot though.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 04, 2021, 03:44:26 PM
Once again CB is described as a known paedophile, despite no evidence that he was known. Nor is it known if or when he returned to Germany. There were many unknown phone numbers on those lists and all of them made calls on 2nd, 3rd or 4th May.

With adequate care Madeleine could have been protected. You prefer to ignore that but it's relevant whether you like it or not. The PJ's investigation was as good as it could be and it's not the only one that hasn't found answers; some with more resourcetorys than those in Portugal.


Didn't he tell the Portuguese  Police he had history of child abuse?

Amaral was only interested in the McCann's phone calls.

A man was entering apartments and getting into bed with children and the parents were in the apartment,  he could have taken one of those children.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictures-prove-portuguese-police-knew-22378521

It is now clear police failed to trace, interview and eliminate a local child sex offender.

"Had they done so, Brueckner would have been flagged up as a significant person of interest and potential forensic evidence obtained from his campervan.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Lace on December 04, 2021, 03:46:12 PM
Surely if the children were not left alone the risk of harm is reduced considerably. If there was an abduction between 9:15 and 10pm it certainly would not have happened if the parents were there, imo.

So what has that got to do with the investigation.   I know Amaral kept repeating 'the parents left the children,  did he then think he didn't have to bother?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 04, 2021, 04:01:14 PM

If they didn't, why should anyone else?

Sounds fair enough to me.

Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Anthro on December 04, 2021, 04:08:04 PM
Once again CB is described as a known paedophile, despite no evidence that he was known. Nor is it known if or when he returned to Germany.

CB told Portuguese police that he had a sexual offence against him. He also travelled to Sylt, via Germany, during late May 2007 to deal drugs etc. with Alexander Zaspel.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 04, 2021, 04:28:51 PM

Obviously CB a known Paedophile was not investigated he was allowed to skip back to Germany,  even though his phone number was on the list and showed he was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club at the time Madeleine disappeared

Why bring up parental care?   It doesn't matter how Madeleine disappeared whether the parents were there or not Madeleine deserved to have a well organised investigation,  too many things were overlooked IMO

Yet multi millions of British money in the guise of Operation Grange never made a connection, maybe just maybe there isn't one to make.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 04, 2021, 05:11:16 PM
Yet multi millions of British money in the guise of Operation Grange never made a connection, maybe just maybe there isn't one to make.
Why are they working with the Germans on this now then?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on December 05, 2021, 11:27:44 AM
So what has that got to do with the investigation.   I know Amaral kept repeating 'the parents left the children,  did he then think he didn't have to bother?

Well I would imagine that any investigation will consider that Madeleine came to harm at a time when her parents were not present. It therefore gives the investigation a focus within certain time frames.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 05, 2021, 11:33:28 AM
Why are they working with the Germans on this now then?

International cooperation? Operation Grange are still investigating a missing person, apparently, not a murdered one.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 05, 2021, 01:05:41 PM
Why are they working with the Germans on this now then?


They are ? in what way can OG help investigate CB, is there any indication he visited the UK ?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 05, 2021, 01:33:02 PM

They are ? in what way can OG help investigate CB, is there any indication he visited the UK ?

It probably involves the dark web & Brueckner sharing images with British paedophiles gangs or something.

Madeleine's case is just the tip of the iceberg remember, part of a broader organisation involved in snatching children to order.

I've lost count of the number of young girls who get abducted every week in this country & I'm glad the police are putting a stop to it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2021, 01:36:05 PM

They are ? in what way can OG help investigate CB, is there any indication he visited the UK ?
Yes they are:

Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".

She said a small team of Met Police investigators continued to work "very closely" with police in Germany and Portugal.

"We will continue until the time that it is right, either because much more light has been thrown on this or somebody has been brought to justice," she said.

"Or if we feel we have exhausted all possible opportunities. We're not at any of those stages at the moment, and the team continues."

Despite the close co-operation, she said she did not expect "every single piece of material to be shared with us".

"I'm sure they're sharing the relevant things at the relevant times with us," Dame Cressida said.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 05, 2021, 01:37:00 PM

Has anyone been keeping up with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial?

I think it's only a matter of time before she drops Brueckner in it.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2021, 01:38:49 PM
Sneering at attempts by international co-ordinated police attempts to smash online paedophile networks is not a good look IMO, in fact there's something sinister about it IMO, almost as if the sneerer has a vested interest in the police failing at their jobs. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 05, 2021, 01:47:06 PM
Sneering at attempts by international co-ordinated police attempts to smash online paedophile networks is not a good look IMO, in fact there's something sinister about it IMO, almost as if the sneerer has a vested interest in the police failing at their jobs.

Oh no, I've tarnished my image on anonymous social media.

Whatever will I do?

I suppose I could just continue to say I believe Madeleine wasn't abducted in the first place, I've seen no real evidence she was & so her disappearance has absolutely no connection to paedophile gangs.

Yes, I think I'll just do that.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2021, 02:00:55 PM
It's a good job the grown ups are in charge of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance IMO and not the petulant tantrum-prone anonymous mind-of-a-toddler types that lurk in forums such as this, spitting their dummies out when others don't conform to their world view and opinions. 
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 05, 2021, 02:03:43 PM
It's a good job the grown ups are in charge of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance IMO and not the petulant tantrum-prone anonymous mind-of-a-toddler types that lurk in forums such as this, spitting their dummies out when others don't conform to their world view and opinions. 

Isn't that what you're doing?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 05, 2021, 02:03:59 PM
Yes they are:

Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".

She said a small team of Met Police investigators continued to work "very closely" with police in Germany and Portugal.

"We will continue until the time that it is right, either because much more light has been thrown on this or somebody has been brought to justice," she said.

"Or if we feel we have exhausted all possible opportunities. We're not at any of those stages at the moment, and the team continues."

Despite the close co-operation, she said she did not expect "every single piece of material to be shared with us".

"I'm sure they're sharing the relevant things at the relevant times with us," Dame Cressida said.

It seems they're not convinced the Germans are going to be successful. She includes the possibility that 'more light' could be thrown on the matter without anyone being 'brought to justice.'
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 05, 2021, 02:05:20 PM
Isn't that what you're doing?

There's a lot of that about imo.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2021, 02:09:06 PM
There's a lot of that about imo.
I'm glad you can see it too.  The resident WUM has been on overdrive these last 48 hours and it's getting extremely tiresome.  He is impossible to ignore as he pounces on every post I make with his infantile observations, however I think I have done well not to engage with him directly.  Is this the level of discourse we should be aiming for on this forum I wonder...?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: jassi on December 05, 2021, 02:12:09 PM
It seems they're not convinced the Germans are going to be successful. She includes the possibility that 'more light' could be thrown on the matter without anyone being 'brought to justice.'

That would very much depend on where the light was being thrown and what was being revealed  - IMO
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2021, 02:14:43 PM
It seems they're not convinced the Germans are going to be successful. She includes the possibility that 'more light' could be thrown on the matter without anyone being 'brought to justice.'
That's beside the point.  It's clear that the British and German police are working together which could only be possible if they were pursuing the same ends.  IMO.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 05, 2021, 02:19:15 PM
I'm glad you can see it too.  The resident WUM has been on overdrive these last 48 hours and it's getting extremely tiresome.  He is impossible to ignore as he pounces on every post I make with his infantile observations, however I think I have done well not to engage with him directly.  Is this the level of discourse we should be aiming for on this forum I wonder...?

I hate to have to make an infantile observation here but the forum has an ignore function so it's not actually impossible to ignore someone.

It's also possible to read something you disagree with & not have a total fit about it.

But anyway, give yourself a pat on the back for being able to exercise restraint, like most grown ups can.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2021, 03:02:46 PM
Anyway, why now?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Billy Whizz Fan Club on December 05, 2021, 06:59:25 PM
That would very much depend on where the light was being thrown and what was being revealed  - IMO

Does the light come from the lamp on the table in 5A... or from outside because the shutters are up?!
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 05, 2021, 07:03:44 PM
That would very much depend on where the light was being thrown and what was being revealed  - IMO

Dicks a master at hiding it under her Bushel.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: John on December 07, 2021, 02:17:03 PM
That's beside the point.  It's clear that the British and German police are working together which could only be possible if they were pursuing the same ends.  IMO.

How can they be when the Brits say she could still be alive while the Germans are adamant that she is dead.  *%6^
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 07, 2021, 02:21:47 PM
How can they be when the Brits say she could still be alive while the Germans are adamant that she is dead.  *%6^
Well let's see.....both forces could be convinced that Bruckner lifted her and are trying to gather more evidence to secure a convicition, but one force may have evidence that she is dead which at the moment they are not able to share with the other force, leading the other force to continue to consider the possibility that she may still be alive.  Not difficult to work out is it?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 07, 2021, 03:13:00 PM
Well let's see.....both forces could be convinced that Bruckner lifted her and are trying to gather more evidence to secure a convicition, but one force may have evidence that she is dead which at the moment they are not able to share with the other force, leading the other force to continue to consider the possibility that she may still be alive.  Not difficult to work out is it?

Well then, what a ridiculous waste of resources, all for the sake of not sharing information.

Are the Germans worried Cressida Dick will run to the press with the evidence?
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 07, 2021, 10:55:17 PM
How can they be when the Brits say she could still be alive while the Germans are adamant that she is dead.  *%6^

This has been explained several times.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2021, 05:21:21 PM
How can they be when the Brits say she could still be alive while the Germans are adamant that she is dead.  *%6^

From someone who has followed closely what Wolters has said.. He agrees with the Met.. He has no proof Maddie is dead
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: G-Unit on December 08, 2021, 05:44:21 PM
From someone who has followed closely what Wolters has said.. He agrees with the Met.. He has no proof Maddie is dead

Despite his rather strong statements in the beginning;

‘I can’t tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.’

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/09/madeleine-mccann-investigators-100-sure-prime-suspect-killed-her-15392191/#:~:text=%E2%80%98I%20can%E2%80%99t%20tell%20you%20on%20which%20basis%20we%20assume%20she%20is%20dead.%20But%20for%20us%2C%20there%E2%80%99s%20no%20other%20possibility.%20There%20is%20no%20hope%20she%20is%20alive.%E2%80%99
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2021, 08:04:11 PM
Despite his rather strong statements in the beginning;

‘I can’t tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.’

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/09/madeleine-mccann-investigators-100-sure-prime-suspect-killed-her-15392191/#:~:text=%E2%80%98I%20can%E2%80%99t%20tell%20you%20on%20which%20basis%20we%20assume%20she%20is%20dead.%20But%20for%20us%2C%20there%E2%80%99s%20no%20other%20possibility.%20There%20is%20no%20hope%20she%20is%20alive.%E2%80%99

You obviously havent followed what he has said...that statement shows no contradiction to anything he has said...read it again. i wont repeat what I have deduced he is alludibng tooo ...but it fits perfectly
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: The General on December 14, 2021, 01:52:24 PM
You obviously havent followed what he has said...that statement shows no contradiction to anything he has said...read it again. i wont repeat what I have deduced he is alludibng tooo ...but it fits perfectly
OK, haven't done this for a while, but let's break this down:

The 'I can't tell you' bit doesn't mean he doesn't know, he knows (or thinks he knows), but he can't say.
The next, it's pretty unequivocal - she's dead. He has something physical that proves it, but not forensic...hmmm
SY....they're not so sure, but Dick says she hasn't seen all the evidence, so hey, how would I know.....but it's still missing persons, which is typical, blithe, self-serving, police semantics.

I can confirm she's dead too. 99.999% of these cases of this length go the same way. So I'll bet on dead.
Title: Re: Why now?
Post by: barrier on December 14, 2021, 06:30:52 PM
OK, haven't done this for a while, but let's break this down:

The 'I can't tell you' bit doesn't mean he doesn't know, he knows (or thinks he knows), but he can't say.
The next, it's pretty unequivocal - she's dead. He has something physical that proves it, but not forensic...hmmm
SY....they're not so sure, but Dick says she hasn't seen all the evidence, so hey, how would I know.....but it's still missing persons, which is typical, blithe, self-serving, police semantics.

I can confirm she's dead too. 99.999% of these cases of this length go the same way. So I'll bet on dead.


Before the world knew her name poor lass.