Why now?

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

There is only one consistency, Madeleine disappeared , the rest is noise.

Do your bit and keep quiet then.

[Brietta]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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?

[G-Unit]

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

[Brietta]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

Oh do shut up.  You never come up with anything.

Charming.

And a very good day to you too.

[Eleanor]

Charming.

And a very good day to you too.

Fortunately, I think that you are of no consequence.  And therefor to be ignore.