Author Topic: Why now?  (Read 29839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline misty

Re: Why now?
« Reply #210 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.

Offline misty

Re: Why now?
« Reply #211 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?

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #212 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why now?
« Reply #213 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.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #214 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.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why now?
« Reply #215 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.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline kizzy

Re: Why now?
« Reply #216 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

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why now?
« Reply #217 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! 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 10:44:27 PM by John »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline John

Re: Why now?
« Reply #218 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?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 11:00:44 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #219 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?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline John

Re: Why now?
« Reply #220 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.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 11:23:41 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #221 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. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline John

Re: Why now?
« Reply #222 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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why now?
« Reply #223 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.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline misty

Re: Why now?
« Reply #224 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.