Who had the motive for Maddie's disappearance.

[faithlilly]

You’re a bit of a sleaze for blatantly lying to this forum IMO.  I think actually it’s called libel.

Let him sue me then.

That will be tasty.

[Venturi Swirl]

Let him sue me then.

That will be tasty.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but of course you have no shame as has been evidenced over the many years you’ve been posting false information (aka blatant lies) online.

[faithlilly]

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but of course you have no shame as has been evidenced over the many years you’ve been posting false information (aka blatant lies) online.

Says the moral vacuum.

Tidy.

[Venturi Swirl]

Says the moral vacuum.

Tidy.

Projection. Ugly.

[G-Unit]

Obviously you did not bother to read Sadie's post building on VS's post quoting the description of the watcher witnessed by many outside the McCann apartment prior to May 3 2007.

At least two of whom have identified the man they witnessed as Brueckner and who knows how many others.

From what we have seen in the press it is obvious that

• the Portuguese police had Brueckner's photograph in their possession five days after Madeleine's abduction.
  
• the Portuguese police knew his name
• the Portuguese police were actively looking for Brueckner in connection with Madeleine's abduction.[/b]
  
  So despite Brueckner being firmly on the radar of the Portuguese police it seems he was never found or was actively looked for.
  
  Why wasn't he?  Somebody, somewhere within the Portuguese judiciary police was interested enough or knew enough about him to include him in the inquiry almost at inception.
  

When looking for motives I think it would be worthwhile if a thorough investigation was carried out into the early days anomalies such as this very glaring one.  Particularly in relation and conjunction with the latest spate of Amaral lies which once again seeks to knock Brueckner off radar much as he was in 2007.

We don't know if the press reports are true though, do we?

[faithlilly]

We don't know if the press reports are true though, do we?

These are the same newspapers that where sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds by the parents themselves for printing false stories.

What was it Mark Rowley himself said :

“ There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.”

[G-Unit]

These are the same newspapers that where sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds by the parents themselves for printing false stories.

What was it Mark Rowley himself said :

“ There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.”

It's certainly not wise to rely on what they print.

[Venturi Swirl]

It's certainly not wise to rely on what they print.

It’s a feature of conspiracy theorists that they tend to reject any news that appears in the “MSM” as fake, especially any news which doesn’t support their own beliefs.

[faithlilly]

It’s a feature of conspiracy theorists that they tend to reject any news that appears in the “MSM” as fake, especially any news which doesn’t support their own beliefs.

Are you suggesting that Mark Rowley is a conspiracy theorist?

[Venturi Swirl]

Are you suggesting that Mark Rowley is a conspiracy theorist?

No, I am not.  Mark Rowley is a very sensible policeman who is quite convinced that Madeleine was abducted, though you probably reject that fact because being a conspiracy theorist you probably think he’s engaging in some twisted subterfuge or deception.

[faithlilly]

No, I am not.  Mark Rowley is a very sensible policeman who is quite convinced that Madeleine was abducted, though you probably reject that fact because being a conspiracy theorist you probably think he’s engaging in some twisted subterfuge or deception.

On newspaper stories we obviously agree. I’m sure he’ll certainly also be aware of individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases.

[Venturi Swirl]

On newspaper stories we obviously agree. I’m sure he’ll certainly also be aware of individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases.

Yes, I wonder what Amaral’s total earning to date have been for all the false stories he’s given the media about CB.  I don’t suppose Rowley is much impressed by his shenanigans, nor those of the leaky Portugese police who also probably made a small fortune from the press over the years the sleazy b’stards.

[Venturi Swirl]

I wonder how much Colin Sutton was paid for his interview when he dissed Op Grange.  Loads I bet. And probably msde it up for extra cash, the sleazeball.

This isn’t libellous btw, is it?  If it’s ok to say it about Sillence then why not Sutton?

[faithlilly]

Yes, I wonder what Amaral’s total earning to date have been for all the false stories he’s given the media about CB.  I don’t suppose Rowley is much impressed by his shenanigans, nor those of the leaky Portugese police who also probably made a small fortune from the press over the years the sleazy b’stards.

I thought you didn’t care much for ‘whataboutery’.

[Venturi Swirl]

I thought you didn’t care much for ‘whataboutery’.

I simply responded to your observation about individuals being paid for their stories in high profile cases.  The only one we know for certain cashed in in on Madeleine’s disappearance with the media is Amaral because he proudly set his price, the self-enriching sleazeball.