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: Angelo222 on April 08, 2021, 03:22:57 PM
-
Everything that comes out of his mouth is bull. He has nothing now and never had anything. His continued torture of Maddie's parents with his "I have evidence she is dead" narrative is appalling.
-
Everything that comes out of his mouth is bull. He has nothing now and never had anything. His continued torture of Maddie's parents with his "I have evidence she is dead" narrative is appalling.
Unfortunately what he is saying is almost certainly true....its not his fault if he has concrete evidence of abduction and murder.
-
Unfortunately what he is saying is almost certainly true....its not his fault if he has concrete evidence of abduction and murder.
At the moment he CLAIMS evidence but discloses none.
I'm saying he has none, & the onus is on Wolters to prove his assertion, not for Brueckner to prove him wrong.
-
At the moment he CLAIMS evidence but discloses none.
I'm saying he has none, & the onus is on Wolters to prove his assertion, not for Brueckner to prove him wrong.
I find him credible and you not...
-
I find him credible and you not...
Do you find the evidence he has credible?
-
If you listen to it she says the dog alerts are very strong evidence....she hasnt got a clue but is a leading amaral supporter. If you want to beleive someone who obviously hasnt a clue its up to you
What do you actually know about wolt's credability.
At the moment, perhaps he has no idea what he is going to do.
Or have a clue what is next move is going to be..
-
What do you actually know about wolt's credability.
At the moment, perhaps he has no idea what he is going to do.
Or have a clue what is next move is going to be..
I've explained it all before... I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone... We will see
-
I haven't seen supporters saying CB is guilty...
No, you just find that Wolters, his evidence you never seen & his conclusion Brueckner killed Maddie is credible.
Which is totally different, right.
-
No one here has said Brückner is guilty.
-
He’s in prison for raping an old lady, where do you think he should be exactly?
Not in solitary for something he didn't do.
-
Not in solitary for something he didn't do.
Is he in there because they think he did the crime or for his own protection? Perhaps if he was let out of solitsry his days would be numbered, would that be preferable?
-
Is he in there because they think he did the crime or for his own protection? Perhaps if he was let out of solitsry his days would be numbered, would that be preferable?
What would be preferable is if Wolters hadn't declared Brueckner guilty.
-
What would be preferable is if Wolters hadn't declared Brueckner guilty.
He hasn’t.
-
He hasn’t.
He quite clearly has.
@ 17:32 Wolters says "Because of our evidence we have to say that Madeleine is dead and she was murdered by our suspect"
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast
-
He quite clearly has.
@ 17:32 Wolters says "Because of our evidence we have to say that Madeleine is dead and she was murdered by our suspect"
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast
I don't see he would say that unless he was sure
-
I don't see he would say that unless he was sure
He's none too sure of a fair trial.
-
I don't see he would say that unless he was sure
He seemed sure when he said that CB's phone pinged a mast belonging to the Ocean Club. When challeged he admitted that;
he wasn't 100% sure that the phone was in CB's possession on 3rd May 2007.
he didn't realise that the mast belonged to a mobile phone company, not to the Ocean Club.
he didn't know what radius the mast covered.
-
He seemed sure when he said that CB's phone pinged a mast belonging to the Ocean Club. When challeged he admitted that;
he wasn't 100% sure that the phone was in CB's possession on 3rd May 2007.
he didn't realise that the mast belonged to a mobile phone company, not to the Ocean Club.
he didn't know what radius the mast covered.
A rather silly point imo... Im sure he's aware masts are owned by phone companies and his use of the word belonged was just poor English.
I think you simply can't accept that stranger abduction seems to be what actually happened
-
A rather silly point imo... Im sure he's aware masts are owned by phone companies and his use of the word belonged was just poor English.
I think you simply can't accept that stranger abduction seems to be what actually happened
Stranger abduction has been claimed for years but evidence in support of the claim hasn't been provided as yet.
-
Stranger abduction has been claimed for years but evidence in support of the claim hasn't been provided as yet.
What is your theory?
You must have one don't you?
-
A rather silly point imo... Im sure he's aware masts are owned by phone companies and his use of the word belonged was just poor English.
I think you simply can't accept that stranger abduction seems to be what actually happened
Wolters needs to 100% certain and then some, its arguably the worlds biggest mystery, not being sure isn't going to cut the mustard, ergo no arrest's.
-
What is your theory?
You must have one don't you?
She refuses to say what it is but I recall she recently liked a post in which it was stated (as a matter of fact not opinion) that Amaral solved the case in 2007. I think that tells us all we need to know about her theory.
-
He quite clearly has.
@ 17:32 Wolters says "Because of our evidence we have to say that Madeleine is dead and she was murdered by our suspect"
https://omny.fm/shows/they-ve-taken-her/maddies-dead?in_playlist=they-ve-taken-her!podcast
He’s stating his opinion of the evidence and what it points to, not that he has been declared guilty.
-
Stranger abduction has been claimed for years but evidence in support of the claim hasn't been provided as yet.
I would say stranger abduction has always been the most likely based on the existing evidence
-
I would say stranger abduction has always been the most likely based on the existing evidence
Aye but from the street outside, not from the apartment.
-
Would sceptics (of Wolters) say that they were in a better position than Wolters to pronounce on Brückner’s involvement or otherwise, and if so why?
-
He seemed sure when he said that CB's phone pinged a mast belonging to the Ocean Club. When challeged he admitted that;
he wasn't 100% sure that the phone was in CB's possession on 3rd May 2007.
he didn't realise that the mast belonged to a mobile phone company, not to the Ocean Club.
he didn't know what radius the mast covered.
Clearly his investigators haven't been any where near the PJ to find out what the phone mast situ was at the time.
-
I would say stranger abduction has always been the most likely based on the existing evidence
Maybe, maybe not, what is Wolters certain of, now's your chance to big him up, thread title "what exactly is Wolters sure of", have a good listen to his interview with Saunokonoko he's not sure on much.
-
What is your theory?
You must have one don't you?
Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.
Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.
-
Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.
Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.
So does that mean you dismiss out right the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed?
-
Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.
Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.
Very hard to determine just what he is sure of, no body, no body parts, no forensics, its the words attributed to a snitch imo.Still getting untoward 12 months of telling the world, won't be long now, except I wonder if he regrets the publicity, intimating he's not certain a fair trial can be had.
-
So does that mean you dismiss out right the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed?
Almost certainly imo, even Wolters never claims his suspect has done that.
-
Almost certainly imo, even Wolters never claims his suspect has done that.
Almost certainly what?
-
So does that mean you dismiss out right the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed?
It could have happened, but I see no reason why it should be the only possibility.
-
It could have happened, but I see no reason why it should be the only possibility.
There can only be one explanation for the disappearance, indeed there IS only one plausible, logical explanation IMO and this is borne out by the complete absence of a plausible, logical alternative explanation fitting all the known facts put forward by anyone commentating on the case in the last 14 years.
-
It could have happened, but I see no reason why it should be the only possibility.
I don't see it as being the only possibility... Has anyone said it is... But I think its regarded as by far the most likely
-
There can only be one explanation for the disappearance, indeed there IS only one plausible, logical explanation IMO and this is borne out by the complete absence of a plausible, logical alternative explanation fitting all the known facts put forward by anyone commentating on the case in the last 14 years.
As you say, in your opinion the stranger abduction theory is plausible and logical. That's fine, but it is still only an opinion not a fact, just as Wolters' story remains an opinion unless he can find sufficient evidence to charge his suspect.
-
As you say, in your opinion the stranger abduction theory is plausible and logical. That's fine, but it is still only an opinion not a fact, just as Wolters' story remains an opinion unless he can find sufficient evidence to charge his suspect.
As my opinion appears to be shared by at least two police forces investigating the disappearance I think it is a pretty credible opinion. No police force appears to be actively investigating the "fell off a sofa and carried to a hiding place by Dad" theory which would tend to suggest that this theory has been discounted.
-
As you say, in your opinion the stranger abduction theory is plausible and logical. That's fine, but it is still only an opinion not a fact, just as Wolters' story remains an opinion unless he can find sufficient evidence to charge his suspect.
As I understand Wolters has near enough proof of murder so abduction can be proven without CB being charged.
Its an opinion but the opinion of the German prosecution dept... That carries more weight than others
-
As I understand Wolters has near enough proof of murder so abduction can be proven without CB being charged.
Its an opinion but the opinion of the German prosecution dept... That carries more weight than others
No.
The right to the presumption of innocence being an absolute until proven otherwise means there is no proof of abduction involving Brueckner.
-
No.
The right to the presumption of innocence being an absolute until proven otherwise means there is no proof of abduction involving Brueckner.
Was it ever thus.
-
No.
The right to the presumption of innocence being an absolute until proven otherwise means there is no proof of abduction involving Brueckner.
Read the post again... I never said there was.
-
Read the post again... I never said there was.
I did, you claim abduction can be proven without charge.
That's incorrect, if Brueckner murdered Maddie (we must presume he didn't) then all that shows is he murdered Maddie.
It doesn't demonstrate he or anyone else actually abducted Maddie, since the McCanns could have sold her instead.
-
As my opinion appears to be shared by at least two police forces investigating the disappearance I think it is a pretty credible opinion. No police force appears to be actively investigating the "fell off a sofa and carried to a hiding place by Dad" theory which would tend to suggest that this theory has been discounted.
I'd be more impressed if the police had been able to explain their reasons for taking the investigative path they have chosen.
-
I'd be more impressed if the police had been able to explain their reasons for taking the investigative path they have chosen.
Perhaps you could be patient or do you think they owe you an explanation now before the case has been closed or solved?
-
I'd be more impressed if the police had been able to explain their reasons for taking the investigative path they have chosen.
Taking this path makes perfect sense to me.. It shows they have eliminated the parents..
-
I did, you claim abduction can be proven without charge.
That's incorrect, if Brueckner murdered Maddie (we must presume he didn't) then all that shows is he murdered Maddie.
It doesn't demonstrate he or anyone else actually abducted Maddie, since the McCanns could have sold her instead.
Ah but if they'd sold her that would mean that dogs DO lie, tsk.
-
Taking this path makes perfect sense to me.. It shows they have eliminated the parents..
Path of least resistance.
-
Path of least resistance.
The path where the evidence leads... The problem for those who doubt the McCanns is all the evidence supporting their opinion is bunkum...
All my opinion.. And that of the investigating police forces it seems
-
The path where the evidence leads... The problem for those who doubt the McCanns is all the evidence supporting their opinion is bunkum...
All my opinion.. And that of the investigating police forces it seems
A investigating force, not "the" .
-
Taking this path makes perfect sense to me.. It shows they have eliminated the parents..
Yet, when asked, A C Rowley admitted that they hadn't.
-
Ah but if they'd sold her that would mean that dogs DO lie, tsk.
And maybe they didn't sell her.
Perhaps Maddie left the apartment of her own accord, waved down the passing motorist, Brueckner, & told him this was the 4th time this week her parents had abandoned her without explanation & could she go & live with him instead.
-
And maybe they didn't sell her.
Perhaps Maddie left the apartment of her own accord, waved down the passing motorist, Brueckner, & told him this was the 4th time this week her parents had abandoned her without explanation & could she go & live with him instead.
And that scenario would still mean the dogs told porkies, can't be right.
-
Yet, when asked, A C Rowley admitted that they hadn't.
He didnt
-
Yet, when asked, A C Rowley admitted that they hadn't.
Erm, so he said when asked "no, we haven't eliminated the parents"? Have you got a cite?
-
Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.
Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.
You presume what didn't happen to Madeleine but remain unable to articulate what might have, despite the fact that all the investigators since 2013 have been investigating stranger abduction finally settling on a prime suspect in 2017. Fair enough.
You really haven't a clue about what evidential leads Wolters et al have been working on. Because since Amaral's unfortunate revelations in 2019 and 2020 to the media which led to Brueckner's introduction to the world stage investigators have been running a very tight ship.
No one has been saying a word and that says to me some very sensitive investigations are in progress
-
You presume what didn't happen to Madeleine but remain unable to articulate what might have, despite the fact that all the investigators since 2013 have been investigating stranger abduction finally settling on a prime suspect in 2017. Fair enough.
You really haven't a clue about what evidential leads Wolters et al have been working on. Because since Amaral's unfortunate revelations in 2019 and 2020 to the media which led to Brueckner's introduction to the world stage investigators have been running a very tight ship.
No one has been saying a word and that says to me some very sensitive investigations are in progress
So you think I should, like you, place my faith in the police having got it right; so long as I don't put my faith in the first police to investigate the case, of course. I might be tempted if the police never got things wrong, but they do sometimes. Especially when they're instructed what to investigate before they even start.
-
So you think I should, like you, place my faith in the police having got it right; so long as I don't put my faith in the first police to investigate the case, of course. I might be tempted if the police never got things wrong, but they do sometimes. Especially when they're instructed what to investigate before they even start.
I don't put my faith in anything... I go with the evidence. We know the initial investigation that so many sceptics have faith in didn't understand the evidence. We will see what evidence Wolters does produce and that's what he will be judged on
-
So you think I should, like you, place my faith in the police having got it right; so long as I don't put my faith in the first police to investigate the case, of course. I might be tempted if the police never got things wrong, but they do sometimes. Especially when they're instructed what to investigate before they even start.
I fail to understand the need some have to malign the McCanns and treat indulging in it with the same contempt I have for the presumption Scotland Yard entered Madeleine's case after it had been reviewed without exercising due diligence.
Such a notion is risible.
Who do you think "instructed" the Germans. Me ... I rather go with the notion that they have been following the evidence much as I have credence for Scotland Yard doing likewise. It is what investigators do and I think it has now gone far beyond the Portuguese dictating the terms of what can and can't be done.
-
In their attempts to stitch up The McCanns did The Portuguese Investigation actually find anything?
-
I fail to understand the need some have to malign the McCanns and treat indulging in it with the same contempt I have for the presumption Scotland Yard entered Madeleine's case after it had been reviewed without exercising due diligence.
Such a notion is risible.
Who do you think "instructed" the Germans. Me ... I rather go with the notion that they have been following the evidence much as I have credence for Scotland Yard doing likewise. It is what investigators do and I think it has now gone far beyond the Portuguese dictating the terms of what can and can't be done.
You can believe the Met exercised due diligence if you wish, although offering some evidence supporting your belief seems to be beyond you.
-
You can believe the Met exercised due diligence if you wish, although offering some evidence supporting your belief seems to be beyond you.
Toi aussi, Madame.
-
You can believe the Met exercised due diligence if you wish, although offering some evidence supporting your belief seems to be beyond you.
The only evidence they didn’t that you can proffer is the say so of some bitter old ex cop which isn’t much better imo.
-
The only evidence they didn’t you that can proffer is the say so of some bitter old ex cop which isn’t much better imo.
Can anyone translate this for me?
-
Can anyone translate this for me?
Try reading it.
-
Can anyone translate this for me?
The only evidence they didn’t that you can proffer is the say so of some bitter old ex cop which isn’t much better imo.
-
The only evidence they didn’t that you can proffer is the say so of some bitter old ex cop which isn’t much better imo.
Thanks.
I was a bit stuck on the original you that part.
-
Thanks.
I was a bit stuck on the original you that part.
Yeah, it was a mistake, I inserted a “that” in the sentence after writing it and put it in the wrong place, I do apologise.
-
The only evidence they didn’t that you can proffer is the say so of some bitter old ex cop which isn’t much better imo.
I think you mean the say so of a successful Met detective, now retired. As someone who understood the nature of such investigations and how they should be conducted his views are credible imo. They certainly have more value than the blind faith and rhetoric relied on and used by some.
-
I think you mean the say so of a successful Met detective, now retired. As someone who understood the nature of such investigations and how they should be conducted his views are credible imo. They certainly have more value than the blind faith and rhetoric relied on and used by some.
Sadly he failed to mention from whom he got his information.
-
I think you mean the say so of a successful Met detective, now retired. As someone who understood the nature of such investigations and how they should be conducted his views are credible imo. They certainly have more value than the blind faith and rhetoric relied on and used by some.
You do like to pick and choose who you believe don’t you, why should this successful Met detective be any more credible than any other successful Met detective, or succesful German prosecutor for that matter? You appear to believe Sutton without question but doubt everything that Wolters says for example.
-
You do like to pick and choose who you believe don’t you, why should this successful Met detective be any more credible than any other successful Met detective, or succesful German prosecutor for that matter? You appear to believe Sutton without question but doubt everything that Wolters says for example.
Sutton had never worked on Madeleine's case and had absolutely no idea how it was conducted. I doubt very much if he had any real idea of how absurdly obdurate some of the Portuguese counter parts were capable of being.
Brueckner was a work in progress for Wolters which Madeleine became part of. Confirmed photographic evidence was that Brueckner abused children. Madeleine and Praia da Luz then became the focus of part of a wider reaching German investigation.
Therefore approaching Madeleine's case from a different angle and with fresh eyes was as a result of investigating available evidence involving the Praia da Luz rapist.
Madeleine's parents did not feature ... but Brueckner became prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance as a result of evidence + investigation = suspicion.
-
You do like to pick and choose who you believe don’t you, why should this successful Met detective be any more credible than any other successful Met detective, or succesful German prosecutor for that matter? You appear to believe Sutton without question but doubt everything that Wolters says for example.
It was obvious to anyone with a brain that Operation Grange were taking an unusual approach to this case by concentrating on just one possible scenario; stranger abduction. Once their remit was released it seemed that the crime had been identified before the investigation began. Sutton merely confirmed what many had already suspected.
-
It was obvious to anyone with a brain that Operation Grange were taking an unusual approach to this case by concentrating on just one possible scenario; stranger abduction. Once their remit was released it seemed that the crime had been identified before the investigation began. Sutton merely confirmed what many had already suspected.
And he told you exactly what you wanted to hear, that’s why you believe him unquestioningly.
-
The whole World is conspiring to protect The McCanns. Excepting Portugal who only managed to find zilch with which to charge them despite the humungous efforts of their best detective ever.
-
Sutton had never worked on Madeleine's case and had absolutely no idea how it was conducted. I doubt very much if he had any real idea of how absurdly obdurate some of the Portuguese counter parts were capable of being.
Brueckner was a work in progress for Wolters which Madeleine became part of. Confirmed photographic evidence was that Brueckner abused children. Madeleine and Praia da Luz then became the focus of part of a wider reaching German investigation.
Therefore approaching Madeleine's case from a different angle and with fresh eyes was as a result of investigating available evidence involving the Praia da Luz rapist.
Madeleine's parents did not feature ... but Brueckner became prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance as a result of evidence + investigation = suspicion.
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.
-
So you think I should, like you, place my faith in the police having got it right; so long as I don't put my faith in the first police to investigate the case, of course. I might be tempted if the police never got things wrong, but they do sometimes. Especially when they're instructed what to investigate before they even start.
Especially when they're instructed what to investigate before they even start.
Well said. G
This IMO is why this case will never be solved
-
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.
Oh dear, wasn't he briefed by the High Ups to treat this as a stranger abduction then, as per Colin Sutton's revelation?
-
It was obvious to anyone with a brain that Operation Grange were taking an unusual approach to this case by concentrating on just one possible scenario; stranger abduction. Once their remit was released it seemed that the crime had been identified before the investigation began. Sutton merely confirmed what many had already suspected.
Anyone with a braon.....LOL. Do you really beleive that those who dont agree with you are somehow intellectually inferior.
As I recall this was doscussed extensively and the remit was not drawn up until after the review of all the evidence and after the actual investigation had started. You are also making an assumption thta if evidence came to light implicating the McCanns they would not be investigated.
Its the Germans who appear to be leading the investigation..they had no such remit but are convinced MM was mudered. before casting aspersions on others intellect perhaps you should look at your own
-
Anyone with a braon.....LOL. Do you really beleive that those who dont agree with you are somehow intellectually inferior.
As I recall this was doscussed extensively and the remit was not drawn up until after the review of all the evidence and after the actual investigation had started. You are also making an assumption thta if evidence came to light implicating the McCanns they would not be investigated.
Its the Germans who appear to be leading the investigation..they had no such remit but are convinced MM was mudered. before casing aspersions on others intellect perhaps you should look at your own
they had no such remit but are convinced MM was mudered.
Lol.... the Germans have only come to the conclusion G.A. did it seems - apart from G.A. saying it was an accident
-
they had no such remit but are convinced MM was mudered.
Lol.... the Germans have only come to the conclusion G.A. did it seems - apart from G.A. saying it was an accident
Do you really believe that?
-
It was obvious to anyone with a brain that Operation Grange were taking an unusual approach to this case by concentrating on just one possible scenario; stranger abduction. Once their remit was released it seemed that the crime had been identified before the investigation began. Sutton merely confirmed what many had already suspected.
Everything about Madeleine's case was unusual. Primarily the fact that investigating her disappearance had been left to her parents and whatever monies they were able to raise to fund their investigation.
Followed by the Scotland Yard investigators having to regularly go cap in hand for the finance to keep their investigation active even to this latest phase involving what has been discovered regarding Brueckner.
The German investigation by contrast just continues without such financial encumbrance for as long as investigative opportunities exist.
Doesn't it make you proud to be British 😢
-
Everything about Madeleine's case was unusual. Primarily the fact that investigating her disappearance had been left to her parents and whatever monies they were able to raise to fund their investigation.
Followed by the Scotland Yard investigators having to regularly go cap in hand for the finance to keep their investigation active even to this latest phase involving what has been discovered regarding Brueckner.
The German investigation by contrast just continues without such financial encumbrance for as long as investigative opportunities exist.
Doesn't it make you proud to be British 😢
The McCanns chose to take matters into their own hands from day one, when they decided to spend the night phoning home and spreading their theory to friends and family. No-one left it to them at all.
I think the idea of Operation Grange going "cap in hand" to the Home Office for funding is not how it works;
When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police.
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
-
Everything about Madeleine's case was unusual. Primarily the fact that investigating her disappearance had been left to her parents and whatever monies they were able to raise to fund their investigation.
Followed by the Scotland Yard investigators having to regularly go cap in hand for the finance to keep their investigation active even to this latest phase involving what has been discovered regarding Brueckner.
The German investigation by contrast just continues without such financial encumbrance for as long as investigative opportunities exist.
Doesn't it make you proud to be British
I don't know if that is strictly true Brie. Former Everest double glazing owner and the owner of Sale Sharks rugby team Brian Kennedy paid for the private detectives Método3 based in Madrid and other costs. It is my understanding that the Madeleine Fund has not made any substantial contribution to the investigation, indeed, the McCanns are on record stating that the Fund will be used after police investigation ceases.
In my opinion, the only significant time money has been drawn from the Fund was to pay the McCanns own personal costs and to fund their failed campaign against Gonçalo Amaral. You can also add to that compensation due to Amaral in lieu of lost book sales following the failed libel case against him.
-
I don't know if that is strictly true Brie. Former Everest double glazing owner and the owner of Sale Sharks rugby team Brian Kennedy paid for the private detectives Método3 based in Madrid and other costs. It is my understanding that the Madeleine Fund has not made any substantial contribution to the investigation, indeed, the McCanns are on record stating that the Fund will be used after police investigation ceases.
In my opinion, the only significant time money has been drawn from the Fund was to pay the McCanns own personal costs and to fund their failed campaign against Gonçalo Amaral. You can also add to that compensation due to Amaral in lieu of lost book sales following the failed libel case against him.
Dont think thats at all true...The fund as I understand paid Halligan substantial amounts and Im not aware of any compensation being paid to Amaral.
-
Dont think thats at all true...The fund as I understand paid Halligan substantial amounts and Im not aware of any compensation being paid to Amaral.
My mistake, forgot about Halligen.
-
I don't know if that is strictly true Brie. Former Everest double glazing owner and the owner of Sale Sharks rugby team Brian Kennedy paid for the private detectives Método3 based in Madrid and other costs. It is my understanding that the Madeleine Fund has not made any substantial contribution to the investigation, indeed, the McCanns are on record stating that the Fund will be used after police investigation ceases.
In my opinion, the only significant time money has been drawn from the Fund was to pay the McCanns own personal costs and to fund their failed campaign against Gonçalo Amaral. You can also add to that compensation due to Amaral in lieu of lost book sales following the failed libel case against him.
From the Portuguese archiving of Madeleine's case in 2008 the only active investigation into her disappearance was being relentlessly driven by her parents.
Public generosity to Madeleine's Fund was always the least part of it. The majority funding consisting of income from Kate's best seller "madeleine" for which purpose it was written and various libel settlements from the McCanns and their friends.
The fact remains that until the McCanns constant campaigning on behalf of Madeleine bore the fruit of her case being taken up officially by Scotland Yard in 2013 ... only her parents efforts had kept her case alive.
But such was the resistance to any meaningful investigation into this little girl's disappearance by a very active lobby that even the Scotland Yard investigation was subject to what I think were unique financial constraints. Bearing in mind that Madeleine's was a viable and active case which was still returning evidence as late as 2017 and to the beginning of this year when Scotland Yard submitted a request for further funding.
In my opinion the answer to the question asked in the thread title is ~ "Wolters is sure that as long as investigative opportunities into criminal activities are present to be worked and followed, his investigation will be financed by the German State.
I do not think the investigation being conducted by Scotland Yard enjoys the same surety.
-
The McCanns chose to take matters into their own hands from day one, when they decided to spend the night phoning home and spreading their theory to friends and family. No-one left it to them at all.
I think the idea of Operation Grange going "cap in hand" to the Home Office for funding is not how it works;
When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police.
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/
That post is pure sceptic shibboleth and how it relates to the thread topic is a a bit of a mystery to me.
-
My mistake, forgot about Halligen.
That is often the problem.
-
Prosecutor disputes claim McCann suspect to be charged with Irish woman’s rape
Christian Brückner is chief suspect in child’s disappearance and for assault of Hazel Behan
Conor Lally
A German prosecutor has said media reports which claimed the chief suspect for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann would soon face charges for the rape of an Irish woman in Portugal are “not correct”.
Christian Brückner is suspected of attacking Hazel Behan, then 20-years-old, in her apartment in Praia da Rocha on the Algarve in June, 2004. A stranger broke into her home and subjected her to a violent ordeal over several hours.
The scene of the attack, at Praia da Rocha, on the then hotel worker was a 30-minute drive from where Madeleine (3) was abducted, in Praia da Luz, while on a family holiday in May, 2007. Brückner lived in the area for 12 years, which covered the times of the British child’s disappearance and the attacks on Ms Behan and an elderly American woman, who was raped in Praia da Luz in September, 2005.
Reports in the media, initially in Britain on Sunday and in Ireland on Monday, quoted German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters suggesting Brückner would likely be charged with the rape of Ms Behan and that this would happen within about three months.
However, when contacted by The Irish Times, Mr Wolters, the lead prosecutor in the case, said that “unfortunately” the reports this weekend were “not correct”. He took issue with both the certainty attributed to him that the suspect would be charged with the rape of Ms Behan and also the time frame attributed to him for those charges.
“I did not say that we would charge Christian B in the case of Hazel B in the next three months,” he said, using the versions of the suspect’s and victim’s names that has been used by prosecutors, who do not use full names.
“In fact, the investigation is ongoing and will probably continue for several months. Currently it is not foreseeable whether there will be an indictment.”
Brückner, a 43-year-old German, has been convicted of the rape of a 72-year-old American woman in Praia da Luz in 2005 and is now serving a seven-year term in Germany for that crime. As he serves his sentence, he is being investigated for other crimes, including the abduction of Madeleine McCann who police believe was murdered.
Brückner is also being investigated for the rape of Ms Behan, who has waived her anonymity and spoken a number of times in the media about the ordeal she was subjected to. She contacted the police last year when she heard about Brückner’s conviction for the attack on the 72-year-old American woman.
“My mind was blown when I read how he had attacked a woman in 2005, both the tactics and the methods he used, the tools he had with him, how well he had planned it out,” Ms Behan told The Guardian last year. “I puked, to be honest with you, as reading about it took me right back to my experience.”
Ms Behan, who lives in Ireland with her family, made a complaint to the Met Police last year as Scotland Yard’s inquiry into the child’s disappearance is working alongside the German investigation into all of Brückner’s alleged crimes.
The details Ms Behan supplied resulted in her case being reopened. Brückner was also named last year as the chief suspect in the Madeleine McCann case.
Ms Behan has been very critical of the Portuguese police’s investigation of the attack but information she has given to the police, including about birth marks on her attacker’s legs, appears to match Brückner.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/prosecutor-disputes-claim-mccann-suspect-to-be-charged-with-irish-woman-s-rape-1.4554429
-
Is this yet more Sun bullshit blown out of all proportion simply to get headlines ahead of her 18th birthday?
Madeleine McCann cops receive ‘significant’ new info on suspect Christian B ahead of her 18th birthday
MADELEINE McCann cops have been handed "significant" new information in the hunt to find her on prime suspect Christian B.
It comes ahead of Madeleine's 18th birthday later this month.
Detectives in Germany have reportedly been given new leads into the suspect's background.
They have raised fresh hopes of more clues into the disappearance of the British youngster 14 years ago.
A source close to the case said: “Police in Germany have obtained new details which relate to the period in the late 1990s and early 2000’s when Christian B lived in Germany and the Algarve.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14837775/madeleine-mccann-cops-new-info-christian-b-suspect/
-
Is this yet more Sun bullshit blown out of all proportion simply to get headlines ahead of her 18th birthday?
Madeleine McCann cops receive ‘significant’ new info on suspect Christian B ahead of her 18th birthday
MADELEINE McCann cops have been handed "significant" new information in the hunt to find her on prime suspect Christian B.
It comes ahead of Madeleine's 18th birthday later this month.
Detectives in Germany have reportedly been given new leads into the suspect's background.
They have raised fresh hopes of more clues into the disappearance of the British youngster 14 years ago.
A source close to the case said: “Police in Germany have obtained new details which relate to the period in the late 1990s and early 2000’s when Christian B lived in Germany and the Algarve.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14837775/madeleine-mccann-cops-new-info-christian-b-suspect/
Which is at odd's with this.
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1431577/Madeleine-McCann-update-disappearance-This-Morning-ITV-video
-
Full interview with former DCI Sue Hill here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXVHA_-i7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXVHA_-i7U)
-
Full interview with former DCI Sue Hill here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXVHA_-i7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXVHA_-i7U)
Well she seems quite convinced Madeleine was abducted. I guess the McCanns are pulling her strings as well.
-
Yes, I was just going to say, she made it to about the 4 minute mark before stating abduction as fact.
Obviously from that point on I was obliged to stop watching the video altogether & begin sending her hate mail.
-
Yes, I was just going to say, she made it to about the 4 minute mark before stating abduction as fact.
Obviously from that point on I was obliged to stop watching the video altogether & begin sending her hate mail.
Disgusting that “This Morning” doesn’t have the same stringent rules about stating IMO and providing cites as this forum . Sue Hill wouldn’t last two minutes on here without G-Unit coming down on her like a ton of bricks.
-
Disgusting that “This Morning” doesn’t have the same stringent rules about stating IMO and providing cites as this forum . Sue Hill wouldn’t last two minutes on here without G-Unit coming down on her like a ton of bricks.
Well, if I had been in the studio during that interview, let's say as a camera man or something, I would have immediately dropped tools & confronted the woman on the issue, demanding that she either present her evidence or add IMO's. It might well have cost me my job but we can't just have people going around making facts up as it suits them & so enforcing the rigid rule of IMO's when mentioning abduction is a hill I'm quite prepared to die on.
-
Well, if I had been in the studio during that interview, let's say as a camera man or something, I would have immediately dropped tools & confronted the woman on the issue, demanding that she either present her evidence or add IMO's. It might well have cost me my job but we can't just have people going around making facts up as it suits them & so enforcing the rigid rule of IMO's when mentioning abduction is a hill I'm quite prepared to die on.
You’re an internet t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶ warrior not a real life crusader so stop pretending you’d be prepared to die for your beliefs, it doesn’t suit you.
-
Well she seems quite convinced Madeleine was abducted. I guess the McCanns are pulling her strings as well.
Did she work on Operation Grange? I don't recall her name being mentioned.
-
Did she work on Operation Grange? I don't recall her name being mentioned.
I don’t know, so what? Do you think Operation Grange have information that had she access to it it, would make her realise it wasn’t an abduction after all? Colin Sutton never worked on Operation Grange but that doesn’t stop hos word being taken as gospel by some.
-
I don’t know, so what? Do you think Operation Grange have information that had she access to it it, would make her realise it wasn’t an abduction after all? Colin Sutton never worked on Operation Grange but that doesn’t stop hos word being taken as gospel by some.
I have formed the impression you welcome what she said but reject what Sutton said.
-
I have formed the impression you welcome what she said but reject what Sutton said.
I have formed the impression that you are completely incapable of answering any of my questions.
-
Disgusting that “This Morning” doesn’t have the same stringent rules about stating IMO and providing cites as this forum . Sue Hill wouldn’t last two minutes on here without G-Unit coming down on her like a ton of bricks.
@)(++(*
Do you honestly think she would have been allowed on this morning if she didn't believe the abduction story.
-
@)(++(*
Do you honestly think she would have been allowed on this morning if she didn't believe the abduction story.
Do you understand that the McCanns are protected by libel law..... Just the same as anyone else in the country... They do not have special protection
-
Full interview with former DCI Sue Hill here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXVHA_-i7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXVHA_-i7U)
Sue Hill had this to say back in 2017.
Sue Hill, a former Metropolitan Police Senior Detective, told hosts that because of a lack of resources, long-standing investigations such as the search for Madeleine need to be called off
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3075702/good-morning-britain-that-hunt-for-missing-madeleine-mccann-is-a-waste-of-taxpayers-money-karen-danczuk/
-
Sue Hill had this to say back in 2017.
Sue Hill, a former Metropolitan Police Senior Detective, told hosts that because of a lack of resources, long-standing investigations such as the search for Madeleine need to be called off
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3075702/good-morning-britain-that-hunt-for-missing-madeleine-mccann-is-a-waste-of-taxpayers-money-karen-danczuk/
Changed her tune then, has she?
-
Changed her tune then, has she?
Nah, its all noise for the sake of it, she was a former MPSD in 2017 and still is today, join the dots, 2017, 10th year since the disappearance, this year the girls would be 18th birthday.
-
According to an ex Met Chief Inspector Wolters has nothing concrete, he only has reasonable suspicion based on CB's past and circumstantial evidence.
"Ex-chief inspector Mick Neville, who founded the Met Police’s Central Forensic Image Team in 2012, believes officers are just hoping for a confession from Brueckner.
He told the Daily Star: “If there’s any [evidence] worthy of charging him, we would have known about it by now.
“There’s nothing, there’s no tangible evidence whatsoever connecting him to the crime."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-only-hope-24090479
-
According to an ex Met Chief Inspector Wolters has nothing concrete, he only has reasonable suspicion based on CB's past and circumstantial evidence.
"Ex-chief inspector Mick Neville, who founded the Met Police’s Central Forensic Image Team in 2012, believes officers are just hoping for a confession from Brueckner.
He told the Daily Star: “If there’s any [evidence] worthy of charging him, we would have known about it by now.
“There’s nothing, there’s no tangible evidence whatsoever connecting him to the crime."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-only-hope-24090479
Its in the Star so may not be true... I doubt like us hrs followed Wolters statements closely.. If he has... Hes an idiot. Simon Foy... Ex SY.. Doesnt agree with him
-
According to an ex Met Chief Inspector Wolters has nothing concrete, he only has reasonable suspicion based on CB's past and circumstantial evidence.
"Ex-chief inspector Mick Neville, who founded the Met Police’s Central Forensic Image Team in 2012, believes officers are just hoping for a confession from Brueckner.
He told the Daily Star: “If there’s any [evidence] worthy of charging him, we would have known about it by now.
“There’s nothing, there’s no tangible evidence whatsoever connecting him to the crime."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-only-hope-24090479
IMO Ferrari should have asked Dick did she expect the BKA to arrest and question CB over Madeleine's murder, he fudged it.
-
Its in the Star so may not be true... I doubt like us hrs followed Wolters statements closely.. If he has... Hes an idiot. Simon Foy... Ex SY.. Doesnt agree with him
Anyone who doesn't follow Wolters is an idiot according to you.
-
Its in the Star so may not be true... I doubt like us hrs followed Wolters statements closely.. If he has... Hes an idiot. Simon Foy... Ex SY.. Doesnt agree with him
There are quite a few ex Met people pontificating about the case. Obviously those that people agree with are 'clever' and those they disagree with are 'idiots'.
It would be interesting to know what Wolters actually said in his own language about his evidence, as Neville suggests it was mistranslated.
-
There are quite a few ex Met people pontificating about the case. Obviously those that people agree with are 'clever' and those they disagree with are 'idiots'.
It would be interesting to know what Wolters actually said in his own language about his evidence, as Neville suggests it was mistranslated.
He has spoken in English and German...reported in German.
If you read my post properly you will see I haven't called Neville an idiot. If you want to be sure what he said read a German newspaper.
Funny how you are suddenly concerned with mistranslations.
I'm suggesting the star has misreported or Neville is not familiar with all wolters statements
-
How can Neville possibly say there is no tangible evidence connecting CB to MM... What does he know that we dont
-
He has spoken in English and German...reported in German.
If you read my post properly you will see I haven't called Neville an idiot. If you want to be sure what he said read a German newspaper.
Funny how you are suddenly concerned with mistranslations.
I'm suggesting the star has misreported or Neville is not familiar with all wolters statements
Main suspect in Madeleine McCann case
Three more trials await the alleged murderer Christian B.
May 15, 2021
"If a sufficient suspicion of wrongdoing is confirmed in several cases, it must be examined whether a joint indictment would be appropriate," says Christian Wolters, spokesman for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office. Christian B.'s lawyer declined to comment on the investigation. The investigation is expected to continue for several months.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/auf-den-mutmasslichen-moerder-von-maddie-christian-b-warten-noch-drei-weitere-verfahren-4760330.html
-
According to an ex Met Chief Inspector Wolters has nothing concrete, he only has reasonable suspicion based on CB's past and circumstantial evidence.
"Ex-chief inspector Mick Neville, who founded the Met Police’s Central Forensic Image Team in 2012, believes officers are just hoping for a confession from Brueckner.
He told the Daily Star: “If there’s any [evidence] worthy of charging him, we would have known about it by now.
“There’s nothing, there’s no tangible evidence whatsoever connecting him to the crime."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-only-hope-24090479
I wonder how much he got paid for that little story by the Daily Star then.... 8(0(*
-
I feel it is no coincidence that Wolters has spoken out about new evidence just as OG has got it's begging bowl out for more funding.
-
I feel it is no coincidence that Wolters has spoken out about new evidence just as OG has got it's begging bowl out for more funding.
What a very strange observation.
-
What a very strange observation.
Think so, can the BKA go it alone ?
-
Think so, can the BKA go it alone ?
I don’t know what you are talking about.
-
I don’t know what you are talking about.
Nor does anyone else.
-
Nor does anyone else.
Infamy, infamy, she's got it infamy.
-
Infamy, infamy, she's got it infamy.
What a pillock. No true brains to put together? But who cares?
-
What a pillock. No true brains to put together? But who cares?
Either you go or I'm banned so...............
https://youtu.be/Nr64DrUZGCE
-
Either you go or I'm banned so...............
https://youtu.be/Nr64DrUZGCE
Sorry, Not interested.
-
How can Neville possibly say there is no tangible evidence connecting CB to MM... What does he know that we dont
Surely his remark can just be taken at face value i.e. there is no tangible evidence connecting CB to MM. It seems likely that's correct imho, otherwise CB would have been charged weeks ago.
-
Surely his remark can just be taken at face value i.e. there is no tangible evidence connecting CB to MM. It seems likely that's correct imho, otherwise CB would have been charged weeks ago.
There are deveral reasons why CB has not been charged.. One being HVW is concerned about double jeopardy... But you been away and have missed a lot.
-
There are deveral reasons why CB has not been charged.. One being HVW is concerned about double jeopardy... But you been away and have missed a lot.
Another reason being there is actually a lack of evidence. That seems a reasonable assumption in my opinion. I've been away and nothing has changed! The useful stooge is openly declared guilty as no-one is going to leap to the defence of a sick paedophile, but there are no charges and no concrete evidence is presented.
-
Another reason being there is actually a lack of evidence. That seems a reasonable assumption in my opinion. I've been away and nothing has changed! The useful stooge is openly declared guilty as no-one is going to leap to the defence of a sick paedophile, but there are no charges and no concrete evidence is presented.
No McCann Supporter has declared Brueckner to be guilty, so please be careful of what you say.
You are basically talking nonsense. And we already have enough of that.
-
Surely his remark can just be taken at face value i.e. there is no tangible evidence connecting CB to MM. It seems likely that's correct imho, otherwise CB would have been charged weeks ago.
You can only hope for your agenda to be fulfilled because nothing you post isn't knowledge based for a certainty . It is risible to suppose that the Germans are about to keep every Tom Dick or Harry up to speed with the evidence of goodness knows how many active cases being pursued against Brueckner.
They are probably spoiled for choice about which one to charge him with first.
Whatever strategy they are working to it seems Brueckner blinked first when he apparently approached the media to break his silence to complain.
It seems the "long drink in Hell" didn't take as long to be poured as his lawyer thought 😁
-
What do we know for sure?
We know that at the beginning of June there was no plan to charge Brueckner in the near future. Wolters is quoted as saying;
“We hope we can solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, although this will take several months."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-could-solved-24261708
So despite his claims that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner killed her it remains a suspicion, not a fact.
We also know that prosecutors are breaching a suspect's human rights when they declare them guilty before they are charged and tried.
Brueckner has now made it clear that he's aware of this, so even if he's charged he has a reason to apply to the ECHR if found guilty.
-
What do we know for sure?
We know that at the beginning of June there was no plan to charge Brueckner in the near future. Wolters is quoted as saying;
“We hope we can solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, although this will take several months."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-could-solved-24261708
So despite his claims that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner killed her it remains a suspicion, not a fact.
We also know that prosecutors are breaching a suspect's human rights when they declare them guilty before they are charged and tried.
Brueckner has now made it clear that he's aware of this, so even if he's charged he has a reason to apply to the ECHR if found guilty.
It may well be a fact that Maddie is dead... Thats how it appears to me... But lots of evidence but no proof CB is the perp.
You think CB has acase re the ECHR.... So you must accept the McCanns do
-
What do we know for sure?
We know that at the beginning of June there was no plan to charge Brueckner in the near future. Wolters is quoted as saying;
“We hope we can solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, although this will take several months."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-could-solved-24261708
So despite his claims that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner killed her it remains a suspicion, not a fact.
We also know that prosecutors are breaching a suspect's human rights when they declare them guilty before they are charged and tried.
Brueckner has now made it clear that he's aware of this, so even if he's charged he has a reason to apply to the ECHR if found guilty.
You really don't half make me smile when noting your strenuous defensive efforts on behalf of Brueckner who is a proven rapist and paedophile when it comes to consideration of his human rights.
Conversely you have suggested that Kate and Gerry McCann's appeal to the ECHR in protection of theirs "would suggest a pathological desire to be proved right." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7160.msg332433#msg332433
What pathological desire is your suggestion for Brueckner - you must surely have one
-
It may well be a fact that Maddie is dead... Thats how it appears to me... But lots of evidence but no proof CB is the perp.
You think CB has acase re the ECHR.... So you must accept the McCanns do
Thinking the McCanns have any rights might be a step too far for many sceptics.
-
What do we know for sure?
We know that at the beginning of June there was no plan to charge Brueckner in the near future. Wolters is quoted as saying;
“We hope we can solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, although this will take several months."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-could-solved-24261708
So despite his claims that Madeleine is dead and Brueckner killed her it remains a suspicion, not a fact.
We also know that prosecutors are breaching a suspect's human rights when they declare them guilty before they are charged and tried.
Brueckner has now made it clear that he's aware of this, so even if he's charged he has a reason to apply to the ECHR if found guilty.
So funny how he might get away with that when The McCanns were not afforded the same courtesy by the likes of you, don't you think?
But probably not. Each to his own. But I won't be banking on Brueckner although you might.
Let's hear it for Brueckner. You are beginning to appal me when I actually believed that you were capable of being half reasonable.
-
It may well be a fact that Maddie is dead... Thats how it appears to me... But lots of evidence but no proof CB is the perp.
You think CB has acase re the ECHR.... So you must accept the McCanns do
Absolutely. But apparently not for G Unit.
-
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;
Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
-
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;
Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
We have confirmation that Amaral leaked damaging stories to the media throughout his tenure until he was sacked having been caught in the act.
Wolters has not sneakily 'leaked' anything to anyone's detriment as Amaral did. In his search for information he has been honest and above board. The complete antithesis of Amaral and his antics 😁
-
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;
Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
I remember a quite lengthy exchange with ICHTT whereby law enforcement are free to release information if it forms a necessary part of a criminal investigation. Wolters neefed info from the public re CB. Has Wolters said anything that is untrue. Wolters was asked the question... Do his statements prejudice CB right to a fair trial...... His reply was he expects the Judge not to be influenced.
So if CB is convicted on overwhelming evidence can he claim although obviously guilty as sin... He didnt get a fair trial... I cant really see thst happening.
-
We have confirmation that Amaral leaked damaging stories to the media throughout his tenure until he was sacked having been caught in the act.
Wolters has not sneakily 'leaked' anything to anyone's detriment as Amaral did. In his search for information he has been honest and above board. The complete antithesis of Amaral and his antics 😁
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
-
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;
Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
What? Are you crackers?
-
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
I dont think its as plain and simple as you believe. The Greek authorities have made statemrnts re the guilt of the helicopter pilot re his wifes death...can he now claim he cannot get a fair trial
-
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
And Amaral never did that. Okay. I don't personally care. But Amaral is a Convicted Liar. And will always be a Liar. He presented himself to a Portuguese Court and then Lied. Meanwhile you support this man and then suggest that Wolters is somehow wanting.
-
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
Yet, Mr Wolters has not named Brückner as per German judicial practice. He’s been approached by different media entities to give his insight and progression of and on the case. He is not liable/responsible for public opinion re. Brückner. My opinion.
-
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
Does that mean anyone who is named and pictured as a wanted person in any crime by the police has had their human rights breached? Will all these people be able to take their cases to the ECHR when caught?
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/these-are-the-uks-most-wanted-fugitives-as-brit-added-to-interpol-list-180725
-
Yet, Mr Wolters has not named Brückner as per German judicial practice. He’s been approached by different media entities to give his insight and progression of and on the case. He is not liable/responsible for public opinion re. Brückner. My opinion.
This of course is debatable. German Law can sort this one. I don't really care about how they do this. But I am having some difficulty in understanding how Germany can indict someone who might have committed a crime in Portugal, beyond the fact that Brueckner is German.
Is this legally possible? Can another country do this just because he is a national?
-
This of course is debatable. German Law can sort this one. I don't really care about how they do this. But I am having some difficulty in understanding how Germany can indict someone who might have committed a crime in Portugal, beyond the fact that Brueckner is German.
Is this legally possible? Can another country do this just because he is a national?
Its the fact that the crime is Murder and CB is german.
-
Does that mean anyone who is named and pictured as a wanted person in any crime by the police has had their human rights breached? Will all these people be able to take their cases to the ECHR when caught?
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/these-are-the-uks-most-wanted-fugitives-as-brit-added-to-interpol-list-180725
No.
-
No.
Why not?
-
privilege”.
Absolute privilege is effectively a public policy defence which is designed to protect defamatory allegations made in certain situations, for example, statements made in court during or as part of legal proceedings; fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of such proceedings by the press and statements made, and documents created, in the course of a police criminal investigation.
-
Police officers named John Canaan as the man they believe abducted and murdered Suzy Lamplugh. Has he taken his case to the ECHR yet because of his human rights breach?
-
Its the fact that the crime is Murder and CB is german.
So if it wasn't Murder then The Germans couldn't do this?
I shall say no more.
-
So if it wasn't Murder then The Germans couldn't do this?
I shall say no more.
It applies to sexual offences too.. But thsts about. It.
Thsts why the UK was able to convict Gary Glitter for crimes abroad
-
It applies to sexual offences too.. But thsts about. It.
Thsts why the UK was able to convict Gary Glitter for crimes abroad
Are you telling me that unless the Germans go for murder or sexual abuse then they can't do anything to this man?
This is only important in so far as I understand The Law.
-
Are you telling me that unless the Germans go for murder or sexual abuse then they can't do anything to this man?
This is only important in so far as I understand The Law.
Only certain crimes give the Germans jurisdiction... Thats about it.
-
Police officers named John Canaan as the man they believe abducted and murdered Suzy Lamplugh. Has he taken his case to the ECHR yet because of his human rights breach?
Did they?
-
Did they?
Why do you think they didn't.
Estate agent Miss Lamplugh was declared dead, presumed murdered, after going missing in July 1986 at the age of 25.
In 2002, police named John Cannan as their prime suspect.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-56400140
-
Did they?
yes.
-
Sound familiar?
“In November 2002, Cannan complained via his solicitors about the police publicly naming him, saying he was "devastated and distressed". He again denied killing Lamplugh.[5] His solicitor complained about a lack of presumption of innocence and that the prison service had withheld letters Cannan had tried to send to national newspapers regarding the allegations”.[28]
-
If John Canaan is guilty then why hasn't he been arrested?
-
If John Canaan is guilty then why hasn't he been arrested?
Because circumstantial evidence (even strong circumstantial evidence) isn’t usually enough to guarantee a conviction. I expect you believe him innocent, not just of Suzy’s disappearance but of all his other convictions for rape and murder. YAWN.
-
Sound familiar?
“In November 2002, Cannan complained via his solicitors about the police publicly naming him, saying he was "devastated and distressed". He again denied killing Lamplugh.[5] His solicitor complained about a lack of presumption of innocence and that the prison service had withheld letters Cannan had tried to send to national newspapers regarding the allegations”.[28]
He has brought at least one civil action against the authorities for breaching his human rights.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/suzy-lamplugh-murder-suspect-john-15495812
-
He has brought at least one civil action against the authorities for breaching his human rights.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/suzy-lamplugh-murder-suspect-john-15495812
Have you read the article... Its for prison conditions and does not support your argument
-
Have you read the article... Its for prison conditions and does not support your argument
Our understanding of the article's meaning clearly differs.
-
Because circumstantial evidence (even strong circumstantial evidence) isn’t usually enough to guarantee a conviction. I expect you believe him innocent, not just of Suzy’s disappearance but of all his other convictions for rape and murder. YAWN.
Of course I think he is innocent of involvement of Suzy's disappearance.
He hasn't been found guilty.
-
Our understanding of the article's meaning clearly differs.
So what do you understand.. Or not understand.. The complaint was about from the article..
Cannan racked up the massive bill complaining about his jail conditions, seeking early release and accusing authorities of breaching his human rights
I cant see how this applies to the POI.. explain
-
He has brought at least one civil action against the authorities for breaching his human rights.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/suzy-lamplugh-murder-suspect-john-15495812
And how did he get on?
-
Of course I think he is innocent of involvement of Suzy's disappearance.
He hasn't been found guilty.
But you apply your presumption of innocence selectively so your opinion is utterly worthless IMO.
-
And how did he get on?
I've no idea. I do, however, have some insight;
The police took the unusual step of naming Cannan as the only suspect, even though the Crown Prosecution Service does not have enough evidence to take the case to court...
Thoughts on the case: 'The media has tried and convicted my client with no presumption of innocence.
In my experience - and that of everyone present at the press conference - this is an unprecedented move by the police.
There is no way my client could ever get a fair trial after all this publicity, and we've lodged a formal complaint with the police.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/38457.article
Clearly the matter would be raised again if Cann was ever arrested and charged.
-
I've no idea. I do, however, have some insight;
The police took the unusual step of naming Cannan as the only suspect, even though the Crown Prosecution Service does not have enough evidence to take the case to court...
Thoughts on the case: 'The media has tried and convicted my client with no presumption of innocence.
In my experience - and that of everyone present at the press conference - this is an unprecedented move by the police.
There is no way my client could ever get a fair trial after all this publicity, and we've lodged a formal complaint with the police.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/38457.article
Clearly the matter would be raised again if Cann was ever arrested and charged.
Obviously his solicitor would say that wouldn't he? That's what he's paid for. I'd like to know how the formal complaint was addressed and what was the outcome.
-
I've no idea. I do, however, have some insight;
The police took the unusual step of naming Cannan as the only suspect, even though the Crown Prosecution Service does not have enough evidence to take the case to court...
Thoughts on the case: 'The media has tried and convicted my client with no presumption of innocence.
In my experience - and that of everyone present at the press conference - this is an unprecedented move by the police.
There is no way my client could ever get a fair trial after all this publicity, and we've lodged a formal complaint with the police.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/38457.article
Clearly the matter would be raised again if Cann was ever arrested and charged.
Might be raised but it doesnt mean it would be successful.
You are making an assumption
-
Obviously his solicitor would say that wouldn't he? That's what he's paid for. I'd like to know how the formal complaint was addressed and what was the outcome.
There's a very interesting case ALLENET DE RIBEMONT v. FRANCE where the ECHR found the French authorities guilty of breaching the presumption of innocence during a press conference.
"Freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.
2. Content of the statements complained of
39. Like the applicant, the Commission considered that the remarks made by the Minister of the Interior and, in his presence and under his authority, by the police superintendent in charge of the inquiry and the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, were incompatible with the presumption of innocence. It noted that in them Mr Allenet de Ribemont was held up as one of the instigators of Mr de Broglie’s murder."
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57914%22]}
-
There's a very interesting case ALLENET DE RIBEMONT v. FRANCE where the ECHR found the French authorities guilty of breaching the presumption of innocence during a press conference.
"Freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.
2. Content of the statements complained of
39. Like the applicant, the Commission considered that the remarks made by the Minister of the Interior and, in his presence and under his authority, by the police superintendent in charge of the inquiry and the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, were incompatible with the presumption of innocence. It noted that in them Mr Allenet de Ribemont was held up as one of the instigators of Mr de Broglie’s murder."
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57914%22]}
And this has what to do with the convicted criminal Canaan's complaint to the police? Do you have any information on how that one played out?
-
There's a very interesting case ALLENET DE RIBEMONT v. FRANCE where the ECHR found the French authorities guilty of breaching the presumption of innocence during a press conference.
"Freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.
2. Content of the statements complained of
39. Like the applicant, the Commission considered that the remarks made by the Minister of the Interior and, in his presence and under his authority, by the police superintendent in charge of the inquiry and the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, were incompatible with the presumption of innocence. It noted that in them Mr Allenet de Ribemont was held up as one of the instigators of Mr de Broglie’s murder."
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57914%22]}
There is no didpute that article 6 can be enforced in some cases but you made a blanket statement that police officerd are not allowed to express an opinion of guilt begore s convviction.. You are clearly wrong as has been shown
-
There is no didpute that article 6 can be enforced in some cases but you made a blanket statement that police officerd are not allowed to express an opinion of guilt begore s convviction.. You are clearly wrong as has been shown
Nothing has been shown except that police officers and prosecutors need to be careful about what they say because they can be accused of breaching a suspect's human rights by endangering his/her right to a fair trial.
It cost France 100,000 FRF plus vat when their police officers were found to have breached the human rights of ALLENET DE RIBEMONT by the ECHR.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57914%22]}
-
Nothing has been shown except that police officers and prosecutors need to be careful about what they say because they can be accused of breaching a suspect's human rights by endangering his/her right to a fair trial.
It cost France 100,000 FRF plus vat when their police officers were found to have breached the human rights of ALLENET DE RIBEMONT by the ECHR.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57914%22]}
You seem to be moving your goal posts all the time.
First it was not allowed
Now its... Have to be careful
I would agree with.... Have to be careful... And Im sure Wolters realises that. In the case you quoted the suspect was not even tried for the offence.... And I wonder how much evidence they had against him.
Its interesting thst dome here have taken the SCs words as suggesting ng the McCanns might be guilty... That would be an abuse of article 6 would it not
-
You seem to be moving your goal posts all the time.
First it was not allowed
Now its... Have to be careful
I would agree with.... Have to be careful... And Im sure Wolters realises that. In the case you quoted the suspect was not even tried for the offence.... And I wonder how much evidence they had against him.
Its interesting thst dome here have taken the SCs words as suggesting ng the McCanns might be guilty... That would be an abuse of article 6 would it not
Whether Wolters was careful enough remains to be seen. He has been accused by the suspect and his lawyer, but unless the case is submitted to the ECHR eventually we won't know.
What matters in the McCann case is how the ECHR interpret the Portuguese SC judges words, not how 'dome here' have interpreted them. I wonder which words are being questioned?
-
Whether Wolters was careful enough remains to be seen. He has been accused by the suspect and his lawyer, but unless the case is submitted to the ECHR eventually we won't know.
What matters in the McCann case is how the ECHR interpret the Portuguese SC judges words, not how 'dome here' have interpreted them. I wonder which words are being questioned?
So now you have backtracked and conceded that there is no clear breach when you initially posted..
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
-
So now you have backtracked and conceded that there is no clear breach when you initially posted..
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
That was and is my opinion, yes.
-
That was and is my opinion, yes.
You need to add imo to yout post
-
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
I have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.
-
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;
Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.
-
Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.
Amaral didn't meet either of the McCanns in person while he was co-ordinator of the PJ investigation. Source - Kate McCann's book.
-
Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.
As far as I’m aware Amaral had zero information on Brückner so how does that give him an advantage over Wolters?
-
As far as I’m aware Amaral had zero information on Brückner so how does that give him an advantage over Wolters?
One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.
-
One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.
It may well be that the Germans have proof stranger abduction is a proven fact..
-
Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.
Amaral thinks the dogs proved Maddie died in the apartment...that to me is gross ignrance and proves his incompetence. Wolters has a massive advantage over Amaral.. Wolters is intelligent and understands the evidence.. Imo
-
I have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.
I think that post is going to come back to make you look rather foolish
-
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.
What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
You are stating your opinion as fact... It isnt
-
One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.
No, they are proceeding on the basis that it is the only plausible, logical scenario.
-
I have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.
I find your position very puzzling. You claim to believe Madeleine was abducted (albeit after she woke and wandered) yet you appear to believe that the idea that the culprit is Bruckener is laughable and a sham. So do you believe another hitherto unidentified paedo/rapist type happened to be loitering in the area that night then?
-
No, they are proceeding on the basis that it is the only plausible, logical scenario.
And 15 years & £15 million later there's still no evidence to support it.
-
No, they are proceeding on the basis that it is the only plausible, logical scenario.
Or, in the case of Operation Grange, they have simply followed their remit without bothering to question it.
-
I find your position very puzzling. You claim to believe Madeleine was abducted (albeit after she woke and wandered) yet you appear to believe that the idea that the culprit is Bruckener is laughable and a sham. So do you believe another hitherto unidentified paedo/rapist type happened to be loitering in the area that night then?
The presumption of paedophiles.
Why does it always have to be a paedo that took Maddie, in McCann supporter world?
What evidence is there paedophiles were involved in Maddie's disappearance?
-
Aww, my little Spammy stalker only responds to my posts - deeply flattered... 8**8:/:
-
And 15 years & £15 million later there's still no evidence to support it.
IN YOUR OPINION
-
Or, in the case of Operation Grange, they have simply followed their remit without bothering to question it.
Ridiculous notion IMO. We have tested this argument before and as I recall you came unstuck over it - do you want to pursue it all over again?
-
IN YOUR OPINION
What evidence is there Maddie was abducted?
-
The presumption of paedophiles.
Why does it always have to be a paedo that took Maddie, in McCann supporter world?
What evidence is there paedophiles were involved in Maddie's disappearance?
If your child disappeared without trace in the middle of the night from an unlocked apartment in the middle of a holiday resort with the window left open (not as you'd left it) your most likely explanation would be...? Oh wait, you're a Spam, the answer is bound to be idiotic, so why am I even asking?
-
What evidence is there Maddie was abducted?
Y-A-W-N. The evidence that exists, you don't accept, it's pointless going through it all again for the millionth time.
-
Aww, my little Spammy stalker only responds to my posts - deeply flattered... 8**8:/:
Why on earth would you think that by replying to your posts I'm stalking you?
If I was stalking you I'd be outside your house, following you home from work, rifling through your bins & stealing your knickers off the washing line.
-
Y-A-W-N. The evidence that exists, you don't accept, it's pointless going through it all again for the millionth time.
What evidence?
-
Why on earth would you think that by replying to your posts I'm stalking you?
If I was stalking you I'd be outside your house, following you home from work, rifling through your bins & stealing your knickers off the washing line.
Aha, so it IS you then, thanks for confirming.
-
If your child disappeared without trace in the middle of the night from an unlocked apartment in the middle of a holiday resort with the window left open (not as you'd left it) your most likely explanation would be...? Oh wait, you're a Spam, the answer is bound to be idiotic, so why am I even asking?
If someone stole my kids I'd be grateful.
I hate children.
-
What evidence?
The evidence that points to abduction. The evidence you refuse to countenance because you have a visceral hatred of the McCanns and believe with every fibre of your being that they are liars who hid their child's body. That evidence.
-
If someone stole my kids I'd be grateful.
I hate children.
I rest my case.
-
The presumption of paedophiles.
Why does it always have to be a paedo that took Maddie, in McCann supporter world?
What evidence is there paedophiles were involved in Maddie's disappearance?
CB happens to be a Paedophile, he lived near to 5a, he abused children and spoke about abducting something small on the dark web. Does that not make you wonder?
-
I have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.
Wolters has said he won't give specifics as he doesn't want CB concocting a story, he said he wants to make sure he has a solid case before he questions him.
-
One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.
The first investigation came to the conclusion the McCann's were guilty based on the dog evidence. Amaral was sure the dogs alerted to cadaver, he was also convinced that the DNA evidence was Madeleine's.
Operation Grange did a review of the case and found numerous leads, that hadn't been pursued due to the fact Amaral was sure the McCann's were guilty.
As for not questioning the McCann's all that was done by the Portuguese Police.
-
CB happens to be a Paedophile, he lived near to 5a, he abused children and spoke about abducting something small on the dark web. Does that not make you wonder?
No, because being a paedophile & looking at kid porn doesn't automatically make one a child abductor.
Most paedophiles abuse family, friends children or just drop their pants in the playground.
They don't all go around abducting children.
How many children did Jimmy & Gary Glitter abduct?
-
The first investigation came to the conclusion the McCann's were guilty based on the dog evidence. Amaral was sure the dogs alerted to cadaver, he was also convinced that the DNA evidence was Madeleine's.
Operation Grange did a review of the case and found numerous leads, that hadn't been pursued due to the fact Amaral was sure the McCann's were guilty.
As for not questioning the McCann's all that was done by the Portuguese Police.
I had to double check I hadnt written this post. What you have posted is so blatantly true and obvious Im shocked some posters cant or more likely wont see it
-
Or, in the case of Operation Grange, they have simply followed their remit without bothering to question it.
On the presumption that Colin Sutton is your source for the above post - please allow me to direct you to an article on a blog which has a negative and critical opinion of Kate and Gerry and their determined efforts to find out the facts regarding Madeleine's disappearance ~
Snip
We recommend that our readers do what we did and Google Collin Sutton for the period between April 20 2017 to April 30 2017.
The period before the Daily Mail article above was published. The reader will be surprised.
Let’s start with him pointing a finger at an Ocean Club employee.
This was done in the article by Brianne Tojl for Daily Australia on April 23 2017, “Is there a secret witness to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Investigators believe employee at the Portugal resort may have evidence that could solve the case”:
“Scotland Yard police officer Colin Sutton revealed to Sunday Night evidence suggests a worker at the Ocean Club Resort could solve the case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4437410/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-resort-employee-disappearance.html
There is an employee, somebody who worked within the Ocean Villa complex who has some information or some knowledge that may be of assistance,' he said.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4435038/amp/Did-Madeleine-McCann-wander-accident.html
Based on what is such a statement made?
Note he uses the word “evidence”.
How did he know of it and who told him?
If he got this from Operation Grange, is it a standard procedure for the Met to leak to its retired officers information of ongoing investigations?
Especially in an ongoing one that only has 4 officers dedicated to it and is highly sensitive politically to the point of reporting directly to Whitehall?
Hardly likely. And if that is not the case as all indicates it isn’t, who is he running errands for?
Please note (those who Googled like we did will have seen that) at this time he defended that the most likely scenario was the human trafficking gang.
He did this in the MailOnline article on Apr 22 2017 by Katie French “Did Madeleine McCann wander off and have an accident? Was she stolen to order? Or was it a burglary gone wrong? Detective lays out theories about her disappearance”:
“Colin Sutton said 'most likely' scenario was she was taken by human traffickers”
But behold, in that same article he also says this:
“He said those closest to Maddie, including her parents, would have been the first line of inquiry for police.
But he added he believed Portuguese police appeared make this their only line of investigation early on in the probe.
He said: 'By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.'”
Yes, please read it again.
He is criticising the PJ for doing what he would a few days later criticise Operation Grange for not having done: focusing on the McCanns.
If one thinks the Mail misrepresented Sutton on this, this same thing was said in the original article from the Mirror and the mirrored one in the Sun.
In the Mirror:
“I can understand why the Portuguese police asked questions about the McCanns and the Tapas Seven.
As uncomfortable as it is, the first place I would have started looking is their group.
Without any other information to go on, the most likely scenario when a three-year-old girl disappears into thin air is that someone close to her knows what happened.
However, the police do appear to have decided quite quickly that was the only line of investigation they were going to take.
By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.”
And in the Sun:
“Sutton said those close to Maddie - her parents and their friends - would be his first port of call as a detective.
But he said Portuguese cops appeared make this their only line of investigation early on in the probe.
He said: "By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route."”
Note, this is a man, who we would learn a few days after, that before he was the beholder of the information given to him years before, that Operation Grange was supposedly biased against the McCanns and instead of praising the PJ for focusing on the couple, he criticises it.
Criticises the PJ for having done just what he would propose instead of going off on wild goose chases which anyone who has just glanced at the PJ Files knows that all pointed to the couple.
But let’s continue.
This same man, who is then supposedly the “exclusive” beholder of the information of this bias of looking away from the couple, which is something that to him rots away the honesty and objectivity of Operation Grange has this to say in the Daily Star article by Michael Havis on Apr 24 2017, ““MADELEINE McCann may have been kidnapped-to-order for a wealthy buyer, an ex-Scotland Yard detective claims.”:
“Colin Sutton, formerly of the Met Police, told the Mirror: "The Mauritania line is certainly a possibility and needs to be looked at.
"If someone wanted to get a three-year-old child into Africa it’s the obvious route. The infrastructure and contacts for people smuggling are clearly there."”
The man who would muster up the courage to denounce Operation Grange’s bias is helping it by promoting a theory that everyone knows to be ridiculous.
And, be prepared to be baffled, the man who, sorry to repeat ourselves, says Operation Grange is biased in favour of the McCanns, has this to say about what he thinks of the guilt the McCanns may have in the Daily Star article by Douglas Patient article of April 23 2017, “Madeleine McCann: Top detective reveals what he believes REALLY happened”:
“The ex-Metropolitan Police officer said there is no evidence the couple or their friends had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.”
No evidence?
So, one has to conclude, he has read the files! Otherwise, how could he make such a statement?
And what does he believe “REALLY happened”, as stated in the headline? This:
“And nearly 10 years on, he fears the case will never be solved and the only hope may be a death-bed confession.
(…)
"But unless someone comes forward and tells us what really happened, then I’m afraid I don’t think we’ll ever know," he continued.
"It remains and may always remain the greatest mystery of our generation."” Textusa
Note, all of the above refers to the period we mentioned, the last 10 days of last April. Just before he came in, opened the saloon doors to be the new hero in town.
-
How many children have been abducted by paedophiles in the UK or Portugal since 2007?
There's April Jones I can think of, I'll give you that for starters.
Anyone know of any more?
-
How many children have been abducted by paedophiles in the UK or Portugal since 2007?
There's April Jones I can think of, I'll give you that for starters.
Anyone know of any more?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11827479/child-snatch-gangs-kidnapping-kids-sell-sex-slaves-paedophiles/
-
According to Missing Children Europe, 250,000 children vanish every year in the EU alone. That's a staggering one child disappearing every two minutes.
Of this criminal abductions make up just 0.4% of that number - equating to 1,000 children a year.
.............
Vanishingly small.
Hardly worth worrying about.
-
snip/
On the presumption that Colin Sutton is your source for the above post - please allow me to direct you to an article on a blog which has a negative and critical opinion of Kate and Gerry and their determined efforts to find out the facts regarding Madeleine's disappearance ~
Colin Sutton merely confirmed my opinion about Operation Grange's remit, which I held long before he spoke out.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6036.msg230197;topicseen#msg230197
-
More children are killed or seriously injured every year in road traffic accidents than are abducted by paedophiles.
Statistically then, John's theory that a motorist ran over Maddie is more likely to have happened than abduction by a paedophile.
-
More children are killed or seriously injured every year in road traffic accidents than are abducted by paedophiles.
Statistically then, John's theory that a motorist ran over Maddie is more likely to have happened than abduction by a paedophile.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488654/Why-Portugal-haven-paedophiles--disturbing-backcloth-Madeleine-case.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488654/Why-Portugal-haven-paedophiles--disturbing-backcloth-Madeleine-case.html
What on earth has child abuse in an orphanage got to do with Madeleine's disappearance?
Were workers at the orphanage known to break into holiday apartments & abduct kids?
-
More children are killed or seriously injured every year in road traffic accidents than are abducted by paedophiles.
Statistically then, John's theory that a motorist ran over Maddie is more likely to have happened than abduction by a paedophile.
By your logic no child would ever be abducted by a paedophile then.
-
No, because being a paedophile & looking at kid porn doesn't automatically make one a child abductor.
Most paedophiles abuse family, friends children or just drop their pants in the playground.
They don't all go around abducting children.
How many children did Jimmy & Gary Glitter abduct?
Imagine you're a paedophile without easy access to vulnerable children who has a deep seated desire to rape and torture a small child. How are you going to do that without abducting one? As far as I know JS used his fame and position to molest children that parents and authorities entrusted him with, and GG took advantage of child prostitutes. Neither applies in the case of CB because as far as I know he was neither a trusted, well known member of the PdL community, nor to the best of my knowledge was there a ready supply of small children being pimped out by their parents in the area.
-
Imagine you're a paedophile without easy access to vulnerable children who has a deep seated desire to rape and torture a small child. How are you going to do that without abducting one? As far as I know JS used his fame and position to molest children that parents and authorities entrusted him with, and GG took advantage of child prostitutes. Neither applies in the case of CB because as far as I know he was neither a trusted, well known member of the PdL community, nor to the best of my knowledge was there a ready supply of small children being pimped out by their parents in the area.
Didn't he nonce his girlfriends kid? I thought I read that somewhere.
That's how, you get 'in' with a single mother, she leaves you to babysit while she nips out to score sniff & bobs your uncle.
-
Colin Sutton merely confirmed my opinion about Operation Grange's remit, which I held long before he spoke out.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6036.msg230197;topicseen#msg230197
As Wolters, SY and P D Carmo confirmed mine... And they are the ones with access to the investigation evidence
-
Didn't he nonce his girlfriends kid? I thought I read that somewhere.
That's how, you get 'in' with a single mother, she leaves you to babysit while she nips out to score sniff & bobs your uncle.
less easy to get away with torturing and raping them to death though isn't it?
-
less easy to get away with torturing and raping them to death though isn't it?
Crikey. Who said anything about raping anyone to death?
I was only musing over simple molestation & you've made the mental leap to death by sex.
Well, that's enough internet for me today.
-
Crikey. Who said anything about raping anyone to death?
I was only musing over simple molestation & you've made the mental leap to death by sex.
Well, that's enough internet for me today.
Oh dear, I appear to have upset someone who claims to have watched The Serbian Film, that's some going. We were talking about child abduction, which when perpetrated by a stranger is usually carried out for one reason only and often ends in death of the child, particularly when the child is very small. CB has allegedly claimed he wanted to rape and torture a small thing, presumably a child, that is something more than molestation, I'm sure even you would agree.
-
Oh dear, I appear to have upset someone who claims to have watched The Serbian Film, that's some going. We were talking about child abduction, which when perpetrated by a stranger is usually carried out for one reason only and often ends in death of the child, particularly when the child is very small. CB has allegedly claimed he wanted to rape and torture a small thing, presumably a child, that is something more than molestation, I'm sure even you would agree.
But that's raping & then murdering a child.
Not technically raping them to death, which you suggested.
There's clear a distinction here.
Whilst I imagine an adult male penis would cause some rather serious internal injuries when wielded in a small infant & which then, if left untreated, might lead to the demise of said infant. I somehow doubt that's what really occurs during the average paedo murder. I think it's more likely they rape first & then murder them by other means.
-
But that's raping & then murdering a child.
Not technically raping them to death, which you suggested.
There's clear a distinction here.
Whilst I imagine an adult male penis would cause some rather serious internal injuries when wielded in a small infant & which then, if left untreated, might lead to the demise of said infant. I somehow doubt that's what really occurs during the average paedo murder. I think it's more likely they rape first & then murder them by other means.
Can you be tortured to death? If so let me re-write it for pedants with a penchant for dwelling on specific lurid details
"less easy to get away with raping and torturing them to death though isn't it?"
There we go - now you can actually address the point rather than making capital out of my slightly arse-about- face sentence.
Except you won't of course.