Author Topic: Why now?  (Read 29851 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #480 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #481 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why now?
« Reply #482 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why now?
« Reply #483 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..

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why now?
« Reply #484 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

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #485 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.
"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 Carana

Re: Why now?
« Reply #486 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.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #487 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #488 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #489 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?
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #490 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.
"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 Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #491 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.
"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 Venturi Swirl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #492 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.
"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 Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #493 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #494 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.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.