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: Holly Goodhead on October 06, 2020, 07:25:29 PM
-
Since the official appeals on 3rd/4th June re MM's disappearance:
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg601327#msg601327
the tabloid press has outed suspect Christian B and press coverage has been unrelenting.
It now seems lawyers have stepped in and perhaps unsurprisingly coverage has ceased:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12752763/madeleine-mccann-suspect-brit-lawyers-clear-name-no-income/
-
Not sure scared is the word, cautious after paying out to others in the past should and seems to have reigned them in.
-
Not sure scared is the word, cautious after paying out to others in the past should and seems to have reigned them in.
Yes cautious is the word. Think I probably got carried away having read so much sensationalised tabloid press coverage!
-
A scholarly publication.
https://www.academia.edu/22931251/Media_justice_Madeleine_McCann_intermediatization_and_trial_by_media_in_the_British_press_Theoretical_Criminology_16_4_395_416
-
A scholarly publication.
https://www.academia.edu/22931251/Media_justice_Madeleine_McCann_intermediatization_and_trial_by_media_in_the_British_press_Theoretical_Criminology_16_4_395_416
We know the parents were monstered by several publication and they were compensated for the damage caused. It’s only fair that if Brueckner was not involved in Madeleine’s disappearance he is compensated in the same way. Agreed ?
-
Have The Media actually told any lies about him.
See existing Topic.
-
Have The Media actually told any lies about him.
See existing Topic.
I think that’s what the lawyers are for.
-
What on earth would the media be running scared about?
-
Since the official appeals on 3rd/4th June re MM's disappearance:
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg601327#msg601327
the tabloid press has outed suspect Christian B and press coverage has been unrelenting.
It now seems lawyers have stepped in and perhaps unsurprisingly coverage has ceased:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12752763/madeleine-mccann-suspect-brit-lawyers-clear-name-no-income/
No, in short, they're not running scared and, although I'm ashamed to admit I opened the link to that rag, I think they're just as Machiavellian and morally corrupt as ever. Note that they posted CB's picture directly above that of MM. That's not coincidental or even incidental, that's purposeful editing, designed to continue to push the link between the two.
-
We know the parents were monstered by several publication and they were compensated for the damage caused. It’s only fair that if Brueckner was not involved in Madeleine’s disappearance he is compensated in the same way. Agreed ?
Of course. Wolters said that he will not publicly comment on the case until next year.
-
Of course. Wolters said that he will not publicly comment on the case until next year.
The damage is already done.
-
Of course. Wolters said that he will not publicly comment on the case until next year.
That's if he still has a job.
-
The damage is already done.
Damage to Brückner? I would think he brought it upon himself.
-
That's if he still has a job.
I think you are underestimating Wolters’ and the BKA’s work ethic.
-
Damage to Brückner? I would think he brought it upon himself.
Was he ever branded a murderer before ?
-
Was he ever branded a murderer before ?
No. And that gives me hope (or not, given the context) that he possibly sold Madeleine on. His close friends believe he sold her.
-
No. And that gives me hope (or not, given the context) that he possibly sold Madeleine on. His close friends believe he sold her.
His close friends will say anything as long as the tabloids are paying.
-
His close friends will say anything as long as the tabloids are paying.
And yet, they are claiming they didn’t get any payment. In Brückner’s world, who do you expect to be part of his circle? Just because they may have a clandestine agenda, does not mean they don’t have valuable and important information about their friend.
-
His close friends will say anything as long as the tabloids are paying.
And yet, they are claiming they didn’t get any payment. In Brückner’s world, who do you expect to be part of his circle? Just because they may have a clandestine agenda, does not mean they don’t have valuable and important information about their friend.
-
And yet, they are claiming they didn’t get any payment. In Brückner’s world, who do you expect to be part of his circle? Just because they may have a clandestine agenda, does not mean they don’t have valuable and important information about their friend.
Cite for claim about payment please ?
A simple question. Do you believe Amaral less because of his conviction?
-
Cite for claim about payment please ?
A simple question. Do you believe Amaral less because of his conviction?
Amaral’s conduct and what I think of him, have reference to the police force in my country who conduct themselves in a similar manner. A simple question. Why do you doubt Wolters and BKA?
-
Amaral’s conduct and what I think of him, have reference to the police force in my country who conduct themselves in a similar manner. A simple question. Why do you doubt Wolters and BKA?
Not what I asked.
As to why I doubt Wolter. Simple, it’s been over four months since he claimed that he had evidence that Madeleine had been killed and Brueckner was involved yet Brueckner hasn’t been arrested never mind charged. No judicial system I have ever come across has failed to charge the accused at the first opportunity if, as Wolter claimed, they have concrete evidence against Brueckner.
BTW if Madeleine was sold, as you believe, isn’t her welfare being put at risk by Wolter by not questioning Brueckner ?
-
His close friends will say anything as long as the tabloids are paying.
Are you insinuating that Brueckner's close friends are being paid by the tabloids? If so you will require a cite.
-
Are you insinuating that Brueckner's close friends are being paid by the tabloids? If so you will require a cite.
I’m not insinuating, I’m stating it as a fact. As to a cite I’ll gladly provide one when you show a smidgen of evenhandedness and ask Anthro for a cite for her claim that Brueckner’s friends weren’t being paid for their stories.
-
Not what I asked.
As to why I doubt Wolter. Simple, it’s been over four months since he claimed that he had evidence that Madeleine had been killed and Brueckner was involved yet Brueckner hasn’t been arrested never mind charged. No judicial system I have ever come across has failed to charge the accused at the first opportunity if, as Wolter claimed, they have concrete evidence against Brueckner.
BTW if Madeleine was sold, as you believe, isn’t her welfare being put at risk by Wolter by not questioning Brueckner ?
Wolter was betting on someone coming forward to incriminate Brueckner with damning info but it hasn't happened. He's looking stupid now as are those who swallowed his claims. Any decent detective who had discovered the truth about a missing child would have confided in their parents by now but again, this hasn't happened. The McCanns, if innocent, are still in the dark.
-
I’m not insinuating, I’m stating it as a fact. As to a cite I’ll gladly provide one when you show a smidgen of evenhandedness and ask Anthro for a cite for her claim that Brueckner’s friends weren’t being paid for their stories.
Please provide a cite for your claim, thankyou
-
Wolter was betting on someone coming forward to incriminate Brueckner with damning info but it hasn't happened. He's looking stupid now as are those who swallowed his claims. Any decent detective who had discovered the truth about a missing child would have confided in their parents by now but again, this hasn't happened. The McCanns, if innocent, are still in the dark.
Brueckner is a convicted paedophile; he is a convicted rapist; he is a versatile career criminal willing to turn his hand to anything from theft to drug dealing to name but two.
At the moment he is considered innocent of anything to do with Madeleine McCann and that is the official actual fact of the matter. Why are you so keen to question the innocence of Madeleine's parents against whom there was never a shred of evidence of wrongdoing off any sort. In particular absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing regarding Madeleine
They were crucified by the tabloids where in my opinion Brueckner was not and I have not seen a post which backs up the question of the tabloids running scared.
-
Brueckner is a convicted paedophile; he is a convicted rapist; he is a versatile career criminal willing to turn his hand to anything from theft to drug dealing to name but two.
At the moment he is considered innocent of anything to do with Madeleine McCann and that is the official actual fact of the matter. Why are you so keen to question the innocence of Madeleine's parents against whom there was never a shred of evidence of wrongdoing off any sort. In particular absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing regarding Madeleine
They were crucified by the tabloids where in my opinion Brueckner was not and I have not seen a post which backs up the question of the tabloids running scared.
Brueckner is a nasty piece of work and unfit to be released into society I agree but his connection with Madeleine's disappearance is extremely tenuous and in my view hangs by a very thin thread. It will indeed be interesting to see what develops in the weeks and months ahead.
-
Brueckner is a nasty piece of work and unfit to be released into society I agree but his connection with Madeleine's disappearance is extremely tenuous and in my view hangs by a very thin thread. It will indeed be interesting to see what develops in the weeks and months ahead.
Do you believe that Wolters is a Maverick who is giving statements and interviews without permission from his superiors?
Do you believe that he is making such damming pronouncements about CB and Madeleine's fate with only the evidence you describe as "a very thin thread"?
-
Do you believe that Wolters is a Maverick who is giving statements and interviews without permission from his superiors?
Do you believe that he is making such damming pronouncements about CB and Madeleine's fate with only the evidence you describe as "a very thin thread"?
What else can it be but a thin thread, imo he was hoping for more - started the ball rolling and it has obviously stopped.
It seems to me everything walters says has to be taken as proof he has something ...it isn't.
GA is slated by some for doing the exact same as what CWH is doing.
GA speaks from documented police files....What is Wolters speaking from imo uncorroborated evidence.
-
What else can it be but a thin thread, imo he was hoping for more - started the ball rolling and it has obviously stopped.
It seems to me everything walters says has to be taken as proof he has something ...it isn't.
GA is slated by some for doing the exact same as what CWH is doing.
GA speaks from documented police files....What is Wolters speaking from imo uncorroborated evidence.
Sorry.
You haven't answered the questions I asked.
-
Sorry.
You haven't answered the questions I asked.
Do you believe that Wolters is a Maverick who is giving statements and interviews without permission from his superiors?
Well it seems to me thats what they do, worry about the consequences later.
It's not exactly statemented...its only words where now it seems he - has shut up.
-
Do you believe that Wolters is a Maverick who is giving statements and interviews without permission from his superiors?
Well it seems to me thats what they do, worry about the consequences later.
It's not exactly statemented...its only words where now it seems he - has shut up.
So you do believe he is a Maverick who is giving interviews and making statements which are extremely damning about CB and Madeleine's fate without his statements, interviews being approved by a higher authority.
"Well it seems to me that's what they do, worry about the consequences"........
I don't understand what you mean.
Who is "they" and you believe they worry or don't worry about the consequences.
-
And yet, they are claiming they didn’t get any payment. In Brückner’s world, who do you expect to be part of his circle? Just because they may have a clandestine agenda, does not mean they don’t have valuable and important information about their friend.
In my opinion a constant theme has been that the McCanns should be believed because there's nothing in their past which suggests they might be guilty of wrongdoing.
At the same time Amaral's conviction for perjury has been used to suggest he is a liar and therefore should not be believed.
Now we have a pair of criminals accusing another criminal of wrongdoing, but being believed by some. I think that's inconsistent and illogical.
-
Do you believe that Wolters is a Maverick who is giving statements and interviews without permission from his superiors?
Do you believe that he is making such damming pronouncements about CB and Madeleine's fate with only the evidence you describe as "a very thin thread"?
Whatever Wolters was doing he seems to have stopped. What he has done in my opinion is to publicly accuse someone of murder, despite admitting he hasn't enough evidence to lay charges against them.
I can just imagine the fuss if José de Magalhaes e Menezes had publicly accused the McCanns of staging an abduction while admitting he didn't have enough evidence to charge them.
-
Whatever Wolters was doing he seems to have stopped. What he has done in my opinion is to publicly accuse someone of murder, despite admitting he hasn't enough evidence to lay charges against them.
I can just imagine the fuss if José de Magalhaes e Menezes had publicly accused the McCanns of staging an abduction while admitting he didn't have enough evidence to charge them.
Sorry.
You have not answered the questions which I put to John.
And JDMeM didn't make that public acusations.
Did he?
So why you mention something which never occurred is rather puzzling.
-
Sorry.
You have not answered the questions which I put to John.
Who are Wolter's superiors?
-
Who are Wolter's superiors?
I cannot name them.
I assume he does.
Does he?
-
I cannot name them.
I assume he does.
Does he?
Unless you can explain who Wolter's superiors are, how can you hypothesise about whether he has acted with or without their approval? The fact is that he has made public announcements that he is investigating a murder and that he believes his suspect committed that murder. Even if he had irrefutable evidence (which he doesn't) such a public statement by a member of the Judiciary is not allowed imo.
-
Unless you can explain who Wolter's superiors are, how can you hypothesise about whether he has acted with or without their approval? The fact is that he has made public announcements that he is investigating a murder and that he believes his suspect committed that murder. Even if he had irrefutable evidence (which he doesn't) such a public statement by a member of the Judiciary is not allowed imo.
So why was he allowed to make such a public announcement?
You obviously believe he is a Maverick who calls a press conference and makes damning and extremely grave accusations against CB and dire statements about Madeleine's fate.
You have answered my question.
Thank you.
-
So why was he allowed to make such a public announcement?
You obviously believe he is a Maverick who calls a press conference and makes damning and extremely grave accusations against CB and dire statements about Madeleine's fate.
You have answered my question.
Thank you.
Who was going to stop him making public announcements? You seem to be assuming he was given permission, but you don't know if he needed permission or not.
If he didn't need permission he decided what he was going to say and it was to issue an accusation which at the same time he admitted he couldn't prove. In my opinion that probably isn't allowed. It may be why he has suddenly stopped speaking.
-
So why was he allowed to make such a public announcement?
You obviously believe he is a Maverick who calls a press conference and makes damning and extremely grave accusations against CB and dire statements about Madeleine's fate.
You have answered my question.
Thank you.
Well, for a start what's with all this Maverick got to do with it, unless you mean HCW played all his cards.
HCW, it seems to me has started something he can't finish seems it could now be damage limitation to his career why he has gone silent.
There are, it seems more questions than answers for why he did what he did imo
-
Who was going to stop him making public announcements? You seem to be assuming he was given permission, but you don't know if he needed permission or not.
If he didn't need permission he decided what he was going to say and it was to issue an accusation which at the same time he admitted he couldn't prove. In my opinion that probably isn't allowed. It may be why he has suddenly stopped speaking.
So you believe he is a Maverick who calls press conferences , makes grave accusations against CB and dreadful statements about Madeleine`s fate, all based on a very thin thread.
As I said thank you for your answer.
-
So you believe he is a Maverick who calls press conferences , makes grave accusations against CB and dreadful statements about Madeleine`s fate, all based on a very thin thread.
As I said thank you for your answer.
Just to be clear I don't believe Wolters is a Maverick; that's your description. I have no idea why he decided to do as he did but I do think he went too far.
-
Just to be clear I don't believe Wolters is a Maverick; that's your description. I have no idea why he decided to do as he did but I do think he went too far.
Perhaps he just knows more than you do about the evidence he has
-
Perhaps he just knows more than you do about the evidence he has
He has publicly admitted that it isn't enough. What more do I need to know?
-
Please provide a cite for your claim, thankyou
I refer you to my previous post.
-
Perhaps he just knows more than you do about the evidence he has
Then at least arrest and question Brueckner.
This thing about keeping his powder dry is absolute nonsense.
I have never seen a criminal case conducted in this way and I hope I never will again.
-
He has publicly admitted that it isn't enough. What more do I need to know?
Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.
I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.
-
Then at least arrest and question Brueckner.
This thing about keeping his powder dry is absolute nonsense.
I have never seen a criminal case conducted in this way and I hope I never will again.
I have no knowledge of how Germany conducts criminal investigations.
I assume HCW does know and is acting within .the.correct procedure.
We are not privy to all the details of the investigations.
Perhaps other cases of missing children are.also being investigated'
-
Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.
I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.
Sceptics aren’t definite that Brueckner isn’t involved they have simply seen no evidence of his involvement. Isn’t that how things should be ?
How do you explain that Brueckner hasn’t been questioned yet ?
-
I have no knowledge of how Germany conducts criminal investigations.
I assume HCW does know and is acting within .the.correct procedure.
We are not privy to all the details of the investigations.
Perhaps other cases of missing children are.also being investigated'
And that’s it in a nutshell...you have no knowledge and agreed we aren’t privy to all the details of the case but one thing we do know for absolute certain, no matter what country’s judicial system the crime was committed under, if you have the concrete evidence that Wolter claims he has then Brueckner, legally, would have to be arrested and questioned, if only to defend himself against false accusations.
-
Sceptics aren’t definite that Brueckner isn’t involved they have simply seen no evidence of his involvement. Isn’t that how things should be ?
How do you explain that Brueckner hasn’t been questioned yet ?
I don't.
Why should I?
-
Sceptics aren’t definite that Brueckner isn’t involved they have simply seen no evidence of his involvement. Isn’t that how things should be ?
How do you explain that Brueckner hasn’t been questioned yet ?
And therein lies your problem.
Just because you have not seen any evidence does not mean there is none.
-
And that’s it in a nutshell...you have no knowledge and agreed we aren’t privy to all the details of the case but one thing we do know for absolute certain, no matter what country’s judicial system the crime was committed under, if you have the concrete evidence that Wolter claims he has then Brueckner, legally, would have to be arrested and questioned, if only to defend himself against false accusations.
However HCW has certainly more knowledge of German judicial procedure than I do , and perhaps more knowledge than you.
Therefore he may be acting within guideline and procedure?
If not, he will no doubt face some consequences.
-
His close friends will say anything as long as the tabloids are paying.
How do you know they received payment?
Have I missed the details of this?
-
Brueckner is a nasty piece of work and unfit to be released into society I agree but his connection with Madeleine's disappearance is extremely tenuous and in my view hangs by a very thin thread. It will indeed be interesting to see what develops in the weeks and months ahead.
I agree with every word of that post, John.
I have posted a cite on one of the threads to the effect that Scotland Yard have been on Brueckner's case since the tenth anniversary.
They developed that line of inquiry from information passed to them routinely by the German police. Who were already interested in him regarding the case of five year old Inga, who vanished in 2015.
The Portuguese police have also been on his case since the tenth anniversary. "... after the suspect had made a "disturbing comment" in a bar in Germany, as they were watching TV news coverage of the 10th anniversary of Madeleine going missing.
Since that time, the official said Portuguese police have been making house-to-house enquiries speaking to those that knew him between 1996 and 2007.
Christian B was later extradited from Portugal to Germany on drugs charges."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52935728
Making him a person of interest and worthy of investigation by three national police forces. That he is still of interest to all three and indeed the prime suspect three years down the line speaks volumes for me.
If he is guilty of abducting Madeleine he has had thirteen years to erase evidence which given his wandering lifestyle would have been difficult for the police to make sense of even at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007.
Bearing in mind that Amaral told us Brueckner was eliminated from the inquiry at that time (2007)
although he omitted to say why. But the present police will have access to that information.
I too think it will take months before we hear much more from official sources. For example it will be necessary to sort through and collate the added information arising from the recent appeals for information.
-
Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.
I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.
Seems that goes both ways..who knows we may end up with 2 shelved cases.
-
I agree with every word of that post, John.
I have posted a cite on one of the threads to the effect that Scotland Yard have been on Brueckner's case since the tenth anniversary.
They developed that line of inquiry from information passed to them routinely by the German police. Who were already interested in him regarding the case of five year old Inga, who vanished in 2015.
The Portuguese police have also been on his case since the tenth anniversary. "... after the suspect had made a "disturbing comment" in a bar in Germany, as they were watching TV news coverage of the 10th anniversary of Madeleine going missing.
Since that time, the official said Portuguese police have been making house-to-house enquiries speaking to those that knew him between 1996 and 2007.
Christian B was later extradited from Portugal to Germany on drugs charges."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52935728
Making him a person of interest and worthy of investigation by three national police forces. That he is still of interest to all three and indeed the prime suspect three years down the line speaks volumes for me.
If he is guilty of abducting Madeleine he has had thirteen years to erase evidence which given his wandering lifestyle would have been difficult for the police to make sense of even at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007.
Bearing in mind that Amaral told us Brueckner was eliminated from the inquiry at that time (2007)
although he omitted to say why. But the present police will have access to that information.
I too think it will take months before we hear much more from official sources. For example it will be necessary to sort through and collate the added information arising from the recent appeals for information.
Probably. It's not as if there is any urgency, as OG have demonstrated for several years now.
-
Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.
I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.
If by that you mean me (I'm a sceptical person, but I certainly don't see myself as a sceptic as defined by many supporters), I don't know if CB is involved or not.
As to evidence he should have enough to prove that his statements are true before he makes them. By his own admission he hasn't got that evidence.
-
If by that you mean me (I'm a sceptical person, but I certainly don't see myself as a sceptic as defined by many supporters), I don't know if CB is involved or not.
As to evidence he should have enough to prove that his statements are true before he makes them. By his own admission he hasn't got that evidence.
I don't.know if he.is involved in Madeleine`s abduction but he does present as someone who is much more likely to be than Madeleine`s own parents.
In my opinion
-
Posts completed for the day.
Many more than usual.
Going out to meet up with our youngest son and family for an early dinner in a restaurant celebrating his birthday.
The only place we can meet.
Fortunately they are a family of four......any more and they would be left behind.
We had this booked........and as all pubs and restaurants shut tomorrow.......again......going to enjoy.
Such is life at the moment.
Have a nice evening all.
-
What else can it be but a thin thread, imo he was hoping for more - started the ball rolling and it has obviously stopped.
It seems to me everything walters says has to be taken as proof he has something ...it isn't.
GA is slated by some for doing the exact same as what CWH is doing.
GA speaks from documented police files....What is Wolters speaking from imo uncorroborated evidence.
True he has used police files from the botched investigation which he led to malign the McCanns over a period of years and until the present, day but these were overwritten when proper diligences were introduced to the case by an efficient team who had to take over as a result of his incompetence.
That Policia Judiciaria team examined the evidence and concluded there was none which supported any suspicion against Kate and Gerry.
Quite incomprehensible why the man who was sacked because of his loose tongue to a journalist and who wasted precious time vilifying Madeleine's parents in leaks to the tabloids throughout his botched investigation has become the cheer leader for (scapegoat) Brueckner.
No I don't think the tabloids are running scared and most definitely not as far as Brueckner is concerned. But it does draw into contrast the different behaviours employed by Amaral against Madeleine's parents and his defence of rapist and paedophile Brueckner.
Quite inexplicable to me.
-
In my opinion a constant theme has been that the McCanns should be believed because there's nothing in their past which suggests they might be guilty of wrongdoing.
At the same time Amaral's conviction for perjury has been used to suggest he is a liar and therefore should not be believed.
Now we have a pair of criminals accusing another criminal of wrongdoing, but being believed by some. I think that's inconsistent and illogical.
It is not a suggestion - it is a fact that Amaral is a convicted liar.
perjury
/ˈpəːdʒ(ə)ri/
nounLAW
the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.
"he claimed two witnesses at his trial had committed perjury"
Similar:
lying under oath - violation of an oath - forswearing oneself - making false statements - wilful falsehood - mendacity.
-
It is not a suggestion - it is a fact that Amaral is a convicted liar.
perjury
/ˈpəːdʒ(ə)ri/
nounLAW
the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.
"he claimed two witnesses at his trial had committed perjury"
Similar:
lying under oath - violation of an oath - forswearing oneself - making false statements - wilful falsehood - mendacity.
Who cares? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather he backed his men as opposed to throwing them under the wagon. None of us know what they've collectively been through. They've probably seen more depravity in a day's police work than we see in a lifetime.
He still has their respect and trust, even to this day no doubt, and in law enforcement or the military there's few things more important.
Perjury? Pffft, that's a token gesture. Move along.
-
Who cares? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather he backed his men as opposed to throwing them under the wagon. None of us know what they've collectively been through. They've probably seen more depravity in a day's police work than we see in a lifetime.
He still has their respect and trust, even to this day no doubt, and in law enforcement or the military there's few things more important.
Perjury? Pffft, that's a token gesture. Move along.
&^^&*
-
I don't.
Why should I?
You don’t of course have to but it would only be manners when other members answer your queries.
-
And therein lies your problem.
Just because you have not seen any evidence does not mean there is none.
Of course it doesn’t but as we haven’t seen any there really is nothing to say Brueckner is involved.
-
True he has used police files from the botched investigation which he led to malign the McCanns over a period of years and until the present, day but these were overwritten when proper diligences were introduced to the case by an efficient team who had to take over as a result of his incompetence.
That Policia Judiciaria team examined the evidence and concluded there was none which supported any suspicion against Kate and Gerry.
Quite incomprehensible why the man who was sacked because of his loose tongue to a journalist and who wasted precious time vilifying Madeleine's parents in leaks to the tabloids throughout his botched investigation has become the cheer leader for (scapegoat) Brueckner.
No I don't think the tabloids are running scared and most definitely not as far as Brueckner is concerned. But it does draw into contrast the different behaviours employed by Amaral against Madeleine's parents and his defence of rapist and paedophile Brueckner.
Quite inexplicable to me.
There's no need for anyone to defend Brueckner, because there's no known evidence connecting him to Madeleine McCann.
-
True he has used police files from the botched investigation which he led to malign the McCanns over a period of years and until the present, day but these were overwritten when proper diligences were introduced to the case by an efficient team who had to take over as a result of his incompetence.
That Policia Judiciaria team examined the evidence and concluded there was none which supported any suspicion against Kate and Gerry.
Quite incomprehensible why the man who was sacked because of his loose tongue to a journalist and who wasted precious time vilifying Madeleine's parents in leaks to the tabloids throughout his botched investigation has become the cheer leader for (scapegoat) Brueckner.
No I don't think the tabloids are running scared and most definitely not as far as Brueckner is concerned. But it does draw into contrast the different behaviours employed by Amaral against Madeleine's parents and his defence of rapist and paedophile Brueckner.
Quite inexplicable to me.
Quite incomprehensible why the man who was sacked because of his loose tongue to a journalist and who wasted precious time vilifying Madeleine's parents in leaks to the tabloids throughout his botched investigation
Dont be too sure that HCW wont turn out just the same ......as your words IMO
-
Who cares? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather he backed his men as opposed to throwing them under the wagon. None of us know what they've collectively been through. They've probably seen more depravity in a day's police work than we see in a lifetime.
He still has their respect and trust, even to this day no doubt, and in law enforcement or the military there's few things more important.
Perjury? Pffft, that's a token gesture. Move along.
8((()*/
-
Then at least arrest and question Brueckner.
This thing about keeping his powder dry is absolute nonsense.
I have never seen a criminal case conducted in this way and I hope I never will again.
John Canaan is the chief suspect in the Suzi Lamplugh case,the police have even questioned him,yet with out the evidence to prosecute,Wolters can't even get that far.
-
Whatever Wolters was doing he seems to have stopped. What he has done in my opinion is to publicly accuse someone of murder, despite admitting he hasn't enough evidence to lay charges against them.
I can just imagine the fuss if José de Magalhaes e Menezes had publicly accused the McCanns of staging an abduction while admitting he didn't have enough evidence to charge them.
I can just imagine the fuss if José de Magalhaes e Menezes had publicly accused the McCanns of staging an abduction while admitting he didn't have enough evidence to charge them. Gunit
Hmmmm ~ didn't you notice that is precisely what Amaral has been doing relentlessly for over thirteen years. Even writing a book and having a video made just to reinforce his point.
The tabloids printed lies against the McCanns as though they were the truth. But just because Brueckner has not received the scathing press they suffered does not signal to me that anyone is running scared.
Perhaps the tabloids are sensibly waiting for the next stage in revelations yet to come.
-
Who cares? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather he backed his men as opposed to throwing them under the wagon. None of us know what they've collectively been through. They've probably seen more depravity in a day's police work than we see in a lifetime.
He still has their respect and trust, even to this day no doubt, and in law enforcement or the military there's few things more important.
Perjury? Pffft, that's a token gesture. Move along.
You are joking of course.
1. He was happy to undermine The Cipriano case by telling lies. To try and get them a longer jail sentence. But that is OK by you, is it?
2. Oh and then there was an assortment of lies in his "O Enigma writings" as pointed out at the time.
3. And there was the lie told to Gerry on the day that he and Kate were taken in for separate questioning. Gerry knew that it was a total lie and it must have been at that stage Gerry realised that they were definitely being stitched up.
4. Various other lies blaming the Mccanns with absolutely no proof, which I am sure other posters will be able to detail
5. And of course, the Courts found him out with lies that criminalized him. Deliberate PERJURY and by a senior PJ Officer. Disgusting.
6. And I ask myself, why did he authorise the changing of Processos 809 which was compiled by PJ officers on the spot up in Porto. He negated that in order to produce another Processos 807-808, which was full of dis/misinformation. The original Processos 809 was about a man (Anglo-Portuguese(?)), who took a taxi from near Campanha (Porto) railway station carrying a little girl who appeared to be sleeping at mid-day. This was on the morning of the 4th May 2007. The taxi driver dropped them off near ?79 Rua Andre de Castro, in Vila Nova de Gaia, also Porto, but on the other side of the river Douro.
So much detail was changed in the later 808-809 807-808 Processos and much of it was wrong.. I went there and checked it out. I think that S.I.L also has done some checking and found that what I said was correct. I have seen it written by him somewhere, maybe on here when I was in hospital, or maybe on his blog. It was good to see him agreeing with me.
Amaral even changed the railway station from Campanha in Porto to the railway station in Vila Nova de Gaia, also Porto. Why did he do this? FGS the Taxi driver knew which station he was picked up at.
I think I counted 5 facts that he altered from the original. Why?
7. Then there were the sightings up near Porto/ Giumares areas. Some of these he 'disallowed'. with excuses such as: 'Given by an old lady' etc.
8. Why weren't the multiple sightings from Malta/ Gozo given any publicity ?
There were 29 [Twenty Nine!] sightings in all, but only people who delved into that pathway, really deeply, found them. I initially only came across them from trying to puzzle out the writing and runes from Matt James. He mentioned them on his site. Why didn't Amaral, as far as I know, investigate them at all? I never heard him mention them and 29 of them !
Sorry to keep going on Gen (Sir) but do you still find Amaral a truthful man that you can trust?
I just can't understand why he ignored things that he should have delved into and why he changed Processos
Definitely NOT a man to be trusted IMO based upon these facts.
One last thing: You say that he has his mens respect and trust ... hahahah!
His wife publicly complained that his officers did not give him the usual send off after his last day at the PJ Office. I wonder why?
All the above is either my opinion or fact. Most is fact
-
I can just imagine the fuss if José de Magalhaes e Menezes had publicly accused the McCanns of staging an abduction while admitting he didn't have enough evidence to charge them. Gunit
Hmmmm ~ didn't you notice that is precisely what Amaral has been doing relentlessly for over thirteen years. Even writing a book and having a video made just to reinforce his point.
The tabloids printed lies against the McCanns as though they were the truth. But just because Brueckner has not received the scathing press they suffered does not signal to me that anyone is running scared.
Perhaps the tabloids are sensibly waiting for the next stage in revelations yet to come.
Precisely. Amaral has been relentlessly attacked for over thirteen years too. Wolters has less evidence to support his accusations than Amaral had, but he's lauded and believed. That's hypocritical imo.
-
You are joking of course.
1. He was happy to undermine The Cipriano case by telling lies. To try and get them a longer jail sentence. But that is OK by you, is it?
2. Oh and then there was an assortment of lies in his "O Enigma writings" as pointed out at the time.
3. And there was the lie told to Gerry on the day that he and Kate were taken in for separate questioning. Gerry knew that it was a total lie and it must have been at that stage Gerry realised that they were definitely being stitched up.
4. Various other lies blaming the Mccanns with absolutely no proof, which I am sure other posters will be able to detail
5. And of course, the Courts found him out with lies that criminalized him. Deliberate PERJURY and by a senior PJ Officer. Disgusting.
6. And I ask myself, why did he authorise the changing of Processos 809 which was compiled by PJ officers on the spot up in Porto. He negated that in order to produce another Processos 807-808, which was full of dis/misinformation. The original Processos 809 was about a man (Anglo-Portuguese(?)), who took a taxi from near Campanha (Porto) railway station carrying a little girl who appeared to be sleeping at mid-day. This was on the morning of the 4th May 2007. The taxi driver dropped them off near ?79 Rua Andre de Castro, in Vila Nova de Gaia, also Porto, but on the other side of the river Douro.
So much detail was changed in the later 808-809 807-808 Processos and much of it was wrong.. I went there and checked it out. I think that S.I.L also has done some checking and found that what I said was correct. I have seen it written by him somewhere, maybe on here when I was in hospital, or maybe on his blog. It was good to see him agreeing with me.
Amaral even changed the railway station from Campanha in Porto to the railway station in Vila Nova de Gaia, also Porto. Why did he do this? FGS the Taxi driver knew which station he was picked up at.
I think I counted 5 facts that he altered from the original. Why?
7. Then there were the sightings up near Porto/ Giumares areas. Some of these he 'disallowed'. with excuses such as: 'Given by an old lady' etc.
8. Why weren't the multiple sightings from Malta/ Gozo given any publicity ?
There were 29 [Twenty Nine!] sightings in all, but only people who delved into that pathway, really deeply, found them. I initially only came across them from trying to puzzle out the writing and runes from Matt James. He mentioned them on his site. Why didn't Amaral, as far as I know, investigate them at all? I never heard him mention them and 29 of them !
Sorry to keep going on Gen (Sir) but do you still find Amaral a truthful man that you can trust?
I just can't understand why he ignored things that he should have delved into and why he changed Processos
Definitely NOT a man to be trusted IMO based upon these facts.
One last thing: You say that he has his mens respect and trust ... hahahah!
His wife publicly complained that his officers did not give him the usual send off after his last day at the PJ Office. I wonder why?
All the above is either my opinion or fact. Most is fact
Matthew James? I'm afraid I can't take anyone who listens to such charlatans seriously. Here's just one of his flights of fancy, dated July 2007. We know now it wasn't something which was going to happen to the McCanns in connection with Madeleine;
Choosing the photograph above of Madeleine McCann, who I call the Shining Star, for 'photographic psychometry' ... to gain a sense or any impressions of what is around her. Immediately I saw an event which I can only glean to be 'of the future' .... Kate McCann wearing a white top flinging her arms out to catch a running little girl in her arms. Kate has a handbag with shoulder strap (can this be confirmed??) which had to be put on the ground moments before. Kate's face is smiling; there are tears in her eyes. Gerry appears to be crying too.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james
-
Matthew James? I'm afraid I can't take anyone who listens to such charlatans seriously. Here's just one of his flights of fancy, dated July 2007. We know now it wasn't something which was going to happen to the McCanns in connection with Madeleine;
Choosing the photograph above of Madeleine McCann, who I call the Shining Star, for 'photographic psychometry' ... to gain a sense or any impressions of what is around her. Immediately I saw an event which I can only glean to be 'of the future' .... Kate McCann wearing a white top flinging her arms out to catch a running little girl in her arms. Kate has a handbag with shoulder strap (can this be confirmed??) which had to be put on the ground moments before. Kate's face is smiling; there are tears in her eyes. Gerry appears to be crying too.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james
I must admit I've read none of Matthew James views or opinions, so you may be correct in naming him a charlatan.
Do you think him to be as well known as Richard D Hall who has many fans and followers.
Would you label him as a charlatan and not take seriously anyone who shares his views .
-
Who cares? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather he backed his men as opposed to throwing them under the wagon. None of us know what they've collectively been through. They've probably seen more depravity in a day's police work than we see in a lifetime.
He still has their respect and trust, even to this day no doubt, and in law enforcement or the military there's few things more important.
Perjury? Pffft, that's a token gesture. Move along.
Quite a predictable response justifying torture of a prisoner while in custody and in my opinion a shameful one.
Now that you have got that off your chest ~ what is your opinion of whether or not the tabloids are running scared, it is the thread topic after all.
-
Quite a predictable response justifying torture of a prisoner while in custody and in my opinion a shameful one.
Now that you have got that off your chest ~ what is your opinion of whether or not the tabloids are running scared, it is the thread topic after all.
I think its more you have to get it off your chest with your constant criticism of GA it was wrong but that should be that, he is no different IMO to police as a whole. IMO
It's only similar to the torture/greif the famlys of Hillsborough went through because of all the lies from David Duckenfield, as a South Yorkshire police chief superintendent
He also admitted at the inquests that even as the event was descending into horror and death, he had infamously lied, telling Graham Kelly, then secretary of the Football Association, that Liverpool fans were to blame,
The tabloids were running stories everyday on CB month in month out, it could be quite possible in my opinion that they could have had the German equivalent to Carter Ruck on there back... for them to be so qiet
-
Quite a predictable response justifying torture of a prisoner while in custody and in my opinion a shameful one.
Now that you have got that off your chest ~ what is your opinion of whether or not the tabloids are running scared, it is the thread topic after all.
I take your apparent indignation as a ringing endorsement of my stance.
If you care to read further up the thread you'll see my stance on 'the media running scared'; they're not. As usual the thread title is loaded with bias and purposely leading.
-
John Canaan is the chief suspect in the Suzi Lamplugh case,the police have even questioned him,yet with out the evidence to prosecute,Wolters can't even get that far.
Canaan is a man convicted of sexual offences and murder and currently I believe a long term guest of Her Majesty.
Do you suggest the police should have ignored evidence which in their opinion might have connected him to another murder?
-
Quite the opposite.
As barrier has indicated, UK Police questioned this man while in prison, in contrast to Wolters, who appears not to have questioned Brueckner.
-
I must admit I've read none of Matthew James views or opinions, so you may be correct in naming him a charlatan.
Do you think him to be as well known as Richard D Hall who has many fans and followers.
Would you label him as a charlatan and not take seriously anyone who shares his views .
I assume people only quote those who they deem worthy of being quoted. I googled Matthew James and I would neither pay attention to his fantasies nor quote him.
I haven't taken much notice of Richard D Hall and have never quoted him, so cannot comment. Is he a "Psychic Medium" who reads the runes and offers psychic consultations on the telephone too?
-
I assume people only quote those who they deem worthy of being quoted. I googled Matthew James and I would neither pay attention to his fantasies nor quote him.
I haven't taken much notice of Richard D Hall and have never quoted him, so cannot comment. Is he a "Psychic Medium" who reads the runes and offers psychic consultations on the telephone too?
He possibly does but I couldn't really say
.... one way or another.
He makes dreadful accusations against the families of those killed in the Manchester bombings and equally offensive videos about other terrorist killings.
He has made many videos about Madeleine`s disappearance and is held in high regard by many sceptics who refer to his theories.
Would you dismiss the views of anyone who quotes his theories?
Sorry, I'm going to be busy but may rejoin the debate later.
-
Precisely. Amaral has been relentlessly attacked for over thirteen years too. Wolters has less evidence to support his accusations than Amaral had, but he's lauded and believed. That's hypocritical imo.
Amaral had NO evidence to support any of his hare brained theories. Can you name just one piece of what he claimed as evidence in justification for making the McCanns arguios that stood up to professional scrutiny in the cold light of day?
You do not have a clue what evidence Wolters has to inform his opinion; I think it would be a good idea for you to wait and see just where the evidence he has to hand may take him.
Is it Wolters some think the press is 'running' scared from?
-
He possibly does but I couldn't really say
.... one way or another.
He makes dreadful accusations against the families of those killed in the Manchester bombings and equally offensive videos about other terrorist killings.
He has made many videos about Madeleine`s disappearance and is held in high regard by many sceptics who refer to his theories.
Would you dismiss the views of anyone who quotes his theories?
Sorry, I'm going to be busy but may rejoin the debate later.
Is that a fact ?
On what do you base that assumption ?
-
Canaan is a man convicted of sexual offences and murder and currently I believe a long term guest of Her Majesty.
Do you suggest the police should have ignored evidence which in their opinion might have connected him to another murder?
Quite the opposite.
As barrier has indicated, UK Police questioned this man while in prison, in contrast to Wolters, who appears not to have questioned Brueckner.
Like wot Jassi said innit,along with the fact Wolters is sure he's your man.
-
I must admit I've read none of Matthew James views or opinions, so you may be correct in naming him a charlatan.
Do you think him to be as well known as Richard D Hall who has many fans and followers.
Would you label him as a charlatan and not take seriously anyone who shares his views .
I can come up with many labels which I think categorise Richard Hall.
From what I have seen of Matthew James blog, I think that at the least he is good hearted and a wonderful photographer who has a bit of a following in his niche.
I do not know enough about him to categorically label him a charlatan.
-
I think its more you have to get it off your chest with your constant criticism of GA it was wrong but that should be that, he is no different IMO to police as a whole. IMO
It's only similar to the torture/greif the famlys of Hillsborough went through because of all the lies from David Duckenfield, as a South Yorkshire police chief superintendent
He also admitted at the inquests that even as the event was descending into horror and death, he had infamously lied, telling Graham Kelly, then secretary of the Football Association, that Liverpool fans were to blame,
The tabloids were running stories everyday on CB month in month out, it could be quite possible in my opinion that they could have had the German equivalent to Carter Ruck on there back... for them to be so qiet
Possibly Carter Ruck might have offices in Germany but I don't think your analysis of the situation is correct.
Please can you tell me who and what you think may be 'scaring' the tabloids?
-
I can come up with many labels which I think categorise Richard Hall.
From what I have seen of Matthew James blog, I think that at the least he is good hearted and a wonderful photographer who has a bit of a following in his niche.
I do not know enough about him to categorically label him a charlatan.
I can come up with many labels which I think categorise Richard Hall.
RDH GA say Maddie is dead. etc etc....yet HCW is saying maddie is dead ...yet that is ok.
Well, it seems obvious in my opinion that would go for anyone who does not agree with the abduction. or the mccs version if what happened ...you may even end up HCW to your list of it turns out he has no proof Maddie is dead. imo it just seems a bit like double standards to me B imo.
-
Possibly Carter Ruck might have offices in Germany but I don't think your analysis of the situation is correct.
Please can you tell me who and what you think may be 'scaring' the tabloids?
Well at a guess ..lible action.
-
Well at a guess ..lible action.
That is interesting. Which tabloids do you think might fear libel action and what libel do you think they may have printed.
-
He possibly does but I couldn't really say
.... one way or another.
He makes dreadful accusations against the families of those killed in the Manchester bombings and equally offensive videos about other terrorist killings.
He has made many videos about Madeleine`s disappearance and is held in high regard by many sceptics who refer to his theories.
Would you dismiss the views of anyone who quotes his theories?
Sorry, I'm going to be busy but may rejoin the debate later.
In my opinion anyone who claims psychic powers is a charlatan as I don't believe in such things. I have already said I don't know much about Richard D Hall, but I assume he's offering his opinions, based on the evidence available, unlike people like James who claim to be able to 'see' things.
As I've said before, I'm a sceptical person, but I'm not a member of the wider 'sceptic' group which, imo, exists only in the imaginations of those who support the McCanns.
If someone quoted Richard D Hall I would look at the evidence he is using and react accordingly. I may or may not agree with what he says.
-
In my opinion anyone who claims psychic powers is a charlatan as I don't believe in such things. I have already said I don't know much about Richard D Hall, but I assume he's offering his opinions, based on the evidence available, unlike people like James who claim to be able to 'see' things.
As I've said before, I'm a sceptical person, but I'm not a member of the wider 'sceptic' group which, imo, exists only in the imaginations of those who support the McCanns.
If someone quoted Richard D Hall I would look at the evidence he is using and react accordingly. I may or may not agree with what he says.
I would agree with that.
-
Amaral had NO evidence to support any of his hare brained theories. Can you name just one piece of what he claimed as evidence in justification for making the McCanns arguios that stood up to professional scrutiny in the cold light of day?
You do not have a clue what evidence Wolters has to inform his opinion; I think it would be a good idea for you to wait and see just where the evidence he has to hand may take him.
Is it Wolters some think the press is 'running' scared from?
There was no professional scrutiny of the fact that both McCanns deleted all evidence of their calls and texts up to the disappearance of their daughter.
I don't need to know what evidence Wolters has to know that he is endangering Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence by accusing him of committing a crime before he has been arrested, questioned or charged. All I need to know is that he admits he hasn't got enough to prove his accusations are correct.
It might be worth mentioning that Amaral wasn't a police officer when he published his book, he was a civilian giving an opinion. Wolters is an active member of the German Judiciary involved in the investigation and his statements have caused a trial by media. imo, which could well affect any 'real' trial.
-
There was no professional scrutiny of the fact that both McCanns deleted all evidence of their calls and texts up to the disappearance of their daughter.
I don't need to know what evidence Wolters has to know that he is endangering Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence by accusing him of committing a crime before he has been arrested, questioned or charged. All I need to know is that he admits he hasn't got enough to prove his accusations are correct.
It might be worth mentioning that Amaral wasn't a police officer when he published his book, he was a civilian giving an opinion. Wolters is an active member of the German Judiciary involved in the investigation and his statements have caused a trial by media. imo, which could well affect any 'real' trial.
excellent post
-
There was no professional scrutiny of the fact that both McCanns deleted all evidence of their calls and texts up to the disappearance of their daughter.
I don't need to know what evidence Wolters has to know that he is endangering Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence by accusing him of committing a crime before he has been arrested, questioned or charged. All I need to know is that he admits he hasn't got enough to prove his accusations are correct.
It might be worth mentioning that Amaral wasn't a police officer when he published his book, he was a civilian giving an opinion. Wolters is an active member of the German Judiciary involved in the investigation and his statements have caused a trial by media. imo, which could well affect any 'real' trial.
Pray tell eactly why exactly you think the McCann phone calls bore any relevance at the time in 2007 and worth having a mention now in 2020.
Although I must agree with you that there was no professional scrutiny at the time. Don't forget it was Amaral's team who were ecstatic about which masts were pinged between Luz and the airport then back again.
Interesting you should mention 'trial by media'.
Let's start with the tabloids which crucified the McCanns with lies and innuendo. How has Brueckner fared with them? What lies have they told about him? do you think they are lying about his convictions for paedophilia or his conviction for rape.
Then there is social media with blogs entitled ...
McCann: Abuse of Power articles
Ambassador Interference- PJ will NOT get Madeleine's clothes
Biased judge failed to protect Madeleine’s interests
Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 meet PJ detectives
Brian Kennedy: charity started 23 July 08
Brian Kennedy contacts witness Mr Smith
Britains massive cover-up of paedophilia
British lawyers refuse to defend Gonçalo Amaral
British Media and Manipulation
Clarence Mitchell lied under oath?
Clarence Mitchell threatens Mr Amaral
Clarence Mitchell, Freud Communications and Tony Blair
Clarence Mitchell: An Ongoing Profile
Clarence Mitchell: The gloves are off!
Clarence Mitchell: The Inside Man?
David Payne suspected of paedophilia
Detectives' hunt for Madeleine 'was illegal'
Ex Portuguese police chief claims that Gerry McCann hid the body of Madeleine McCann on the beach
For whom was Clarence Mitchell working?
Furious McCanns & Clarence 'spinner' Mitchell Threat Gonçalo Amaral .... Again
Gerry McCann laughed during drama at the PJ
Gerry McCann made images of Madeleine on the night of the crime
Gerry McCann stealing NHS resources?
Gerry McCann, COMARE and the government
Gonçalo Amaral: “Madeleine is dead; where she is buried, I do not know"
Gordon Brown discusses McCann case with Portuguese Prime Minister
Gordon Brown has Gonçalo Amaral removed from investigation when he was "close to finding Maddie"
Gordon Brown suggests changes to fraudulent “Findmadeleine” campaign strategy
Government agency monitoring peoples blogs
Government interference in McCann case
Government spokesman, Clarence Mitchell: The gloves are off!
Health authories and councils get power to ‘spy’ on your e-mail and net use
Home Office refused to give PJ information about Gerry's credit cards
How The Madeleine Case Supported the Extension of Amber Alert System and the EU's Prüm Treaty To The Remaining 27 Member States - And How Downing Street Obliged
Jon Corner & McCann-Erickson
Judge and Jury?
Kate McCann forced political pressure on the investigation
Kate Mccann's fingerprints all over fake break in attempt
Kate McCann: My struggle to control ‘very difficult’ Madeleine
Kate tried everything to accuse Robert Murat
Kate's secrets: Staged Walks
Leicester hospitals link to fraudulent Find Madeleine Fund
Leicester police allowed Russell O'Brien to read his wifes statement before questioning
Leicestershire Constabulary's unlawful link to fraudulent McCann fund
Let's hold a Madeleine Day for the whole world - June 3 2007
Lori Campbell: Kate McCann was given a Do-It-Yourself guide to policing by UK cops
Madeleine McCann's Human Rights - and the ensuing Abuse of those Rights
Madeleine McCann: Ward of Court
Madeleine, the McCanns, Family Justice and the Family Courts
McCann detectives become multimillionaires - Correio da Manhã
McCanns are guilty
McCanns contacted witness who incriminated Gerry McCann
McCanns link in Barry George case
McCanns refuse reconstruction
McCanns to get away with homicide
McCanns use Maddie fund to pay mortgage
McCanns use of famous people angers police
McCanns: A web of deceit
McCanns: Accept our version of events or else...
Menwith Hill - the original Big Brother
Microchip identification for children
Mortgage payments made from Fund
Murat libel settlement
No body means no conviction of the McCanns, admits prosecutor
Pat Perkins
PJ admits children were drugged (Pt)
Police files reveal McCanns and Tanner's lies
Portuguese Attorney General Office Hides List of Brits Paedo
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith visit Leicester Police Station
Private investigators working at Praia da Luz in May 2007
Public prosecutors office was not informed about Leicestershire Police decision
Question 41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
Silence of the McCanns
Standing ovation for Gerry McCann at Police Bravery Awards
Susan Healy confirms that Gerry said how important it was that everyone accept it as an abduction straight away
The (fraudulent) Fund
The McCann Connections
The McCanns, Control Risks Group and Risk Assessment in the 'New Morocco'
The McCanns: Guilty as hell!
The true story about the inflatable billboard
The truth of the matter is that the McCanns did lie
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Richard Branson
UK Ambassador denies contacts between Governments about Madeleine's case
University Hospitals Leicester links directly to McCanns fraudulent fund
Who framed Robert Murat?
Who's who in Team McCann?
Why Madeleine is dead
Witnesses Heard by The PJ in the Maddie Case Were Sounded Out by the McCanns
Posted by Jill Havern - CMOMM
With eager please to SHARE
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Labels: McCann abuse of power articles
A lot of hard work goes on in many hundreds but I think it is closer to many, many, many thousands of such internet links set up specifically to abuse the McCann family with which you obviously have shared beliefs does not impugn McCann rights
Can you direct me to a single feed of such malice and vilification being directed at Brueckner. Or even what the the tabloids have printed which promotes thought they are scared of something.
-
There was no professional scrutiny of the fact that both McCanns deleted all evidence of their calls and texts up to the disappearance of their daughter.
I don't need to know what evidence Wolters has to know that he is endangering Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence by accusing him of committing a crime before he has been arrested, questioned or charged. All I need to know is that he admits he hasn't got enough to prove his accusations are correct.
It might be worth mentioning that Amaral wasn't a police officer when he published his book, he was a civilian giving an opinion. Wolters is an active member of the German Judiciary involved in the investigation and his statements have caused a trial by media. imo, which could well affect any 'real' trial.
Amaral continues to do what he has done since the day of Madeleine's disappearance and in my opinion that is to show up his incompetence with his unprofessional behaviour in self promoting interviews.
He really never misses a trick when it comes to a Portuguese interviewer and audience in my opinion. Don't the Portuguese have any Paxmans or Neils around. Although I get the impression that future interviewer might not be as deferential.
Snip
They continue, thus, there are developments in this case in which the former inspector of the Judicial Police (PJ) who took over the case 13 years ago told Jornal do Centro that there is still a lot to unravel.
In an exclusive interview recently given to Jornal do Centro , the former inspector of the PJ and former coordinator of the investigation, the Viseense Gonçalo Amaral, said that the German suspect was nothing more than a new almost perfect suspect and that he could be a "scapegoat".
“As the couple [McCann] says that he was a pedophile from the first hour, a pedophile must be found. The suspect was in the Algarve, as well as a hundred other pedophiles ”.
In early June, authorities had announced that Christian Brueckner was the new prime suspect in the disappearance and possible murder of Madeleine McCann, a case that has never been closed until now. The suspect, 43, resided in Portugal between 1996 and 2007. Authorities believe Maddie is dead and that it was Christian Brueckner who killed her.
https://www.jornaldocentro.pt/online/sociedade/caso-maddie-policia-alema-faz-investigacao-na-casa-do-alemao-que-goncalo-amaral
Worth bearing in mind that Madeleine's investigation is a cold case come very much alive with a realistic prime suspect at its centre.
What is it you think the civilian Amaral is doing with his many interventions and inferences regarding Madeleine's parents at the centre if it is not impugning their rights?
Amaral has invested a lot of his life and his undoubted reputation in ensuring Madeleine's parents have been scapegoated for over thirteen years while being allowed to turn his sins into virtues by quite a following.
Do you think the tabloids are running scared of that?
-
Matthew James? I'm afraid I can't take anyone who listens to such charlatans seriously. Here's just one of his flights of fancy, dated July 2007. We know now it wasn't something which was going to happen to the McCanns in connection with Madeleine;
Choosing the photograph above of Madeleine McCann, who I call the Shining Star, for 'photographic psychometry' ... to gain a sense or any impressions of what is around her. Immediately I saw an event which I can only glean to be 'of the future' .... Kate McCann wearing a white top flinging her arms out to catch a running little girl in her arms. Kate has a handbag with shoulder strap (can this be confirmed??) which had to be put on the ground moments before. Kate's face is smiling; there are tears in her eyes. Gerry appears to be crying too.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james
Matt James a charlatan? Scotland yard have been in touch with him anyway. But then YOU would know better than S.Y. wouldn't you ? (&^&
The address you gave us doesn't seem to work
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james
(https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james)
-
There was no professional scrutiny of the fact that both McCanns deleted all evidence of their calls and texts up to the disappearance of their daughter.
I don't need to know what evidence Wolters has to know that he is endangering Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence by accusing him of committing a crime before he has been arrested, questioned or charged. All I need to know is that he admits he hasn't got enough to prove his accusations are correct.
It might be worth mentioning that Amaral wasn't a police officer when he published his book, he was a civilian giving an opinion. Wolters is an active member of the German Judiciary involved in the investigation and his statements have caused a trial by media. imo, which could well affect any 'real' trial.
You have started your post with an outdated shibboleth which should have been long since abandoned by anyone giving it serious thought.
n my opinion it is used solely to impugn Madeleine's parents.
Don't you think by doing so you might be in danger of abusing the McCann right to the presumption of innocence of which you are accusing Wolters.
Or is it OK to do so because they are the McCanns and not career criminals like the present prime suspect?
Do you think the tabloids are running scared of libelling them yet again?
-
Matt James a charlatan? Scotland yard have been in touch with him anyway. But then YOU would know better than S.Y. wouldn't you ? (&^&
The address you gave us doesn't seem to work
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james
(https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james)
Now that is worrying.
-
excellent post
Thank you Kizzy.
-
I can come up with many labels which I think categorise Richard Hall.
From what I have seen of Matthew James blog, I think that at the least he is good hearted and a wonderful photographer who has a bit of a following in his niche.
I do not know enough about him to categorically label him a charlatan.
Being as my life has been largely science based, I never believed in psychics, mediums etc. But I was astounded when I finally unravelled one of his rune collections and found that he had worked out (I know not how but I guess it was psychic) exactly what I had worked out from months of hard work using normal methods.
I now can understand some bits of his runes. Anyone who dismisses his Madeleine output' willy-nilly is losing out IMHO, but 'by gad' the runes take some understanding. From the bits that I understand, it seems that we are both largely going along virtually the same route with much of our thinking on the Madeleine case.
As you say Brie, his photographs are fabulous.
-
Pray tell eactly why exactly you think the McCann phone calls bore any relevance at the time in 2007 and worth having a mention now in 2020.
Although I must agree with you that there was no professional scrutiny at the time. Don't forget it was Amaral's team who were ecstatic about which masts were pinged between Luz and the airport then back again.
Interesting you should mention 'trial by media'.
Let's start with the tabloids which crucified the McCanns with lies and innuendo. How has Brueckner fared with them? What lies have they told about him? do you think they are lying about his convictions for paedophilia or his conviction for rape.
Then there is social media with blogs entitled ...
McCann: Abuse of Power articles
Ambassador Interference- PJ will NOT get Madeleine's clothes
Biased judge failed to protect Madeleine’s interests
Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 meet PJ detectives
Brian Kennedy: charity started 23 July 08
Brian Kennedy contacts witness Mr Smith
Britains massive cover-up of paedophilia
British lawyers refuse to defend Gonçalo Amaral
British Media and Manipulation
Clarence Mitchell lied under oath?
Clarence Mitchell threatens Mr Amaral
Clarence Mitchell, Freud Communications and Tony Blair
Clarence Mitchell: An Ongoing Profile
Clarence Mitchell: The gloves are off!
Clarence Mitchell: The Inside Man?
David Payne suspected of paedophilia
Detectives' hunt for Madeleine 'was illegal'
Ex Portuguese police chief claims that Gerry McCann hid the body of Madeleine McCann on the beach
For whom was Clarence Mitchell working?
Furious McCanns & Clarence 'spinner' Mitchell Threat Gonçalo Amaral .... Again
Gerry McCann laughed during drama at the PJ
Gerry McCann made images of Madeleine on the night of the crime
Gerry McCann stealing NHS resources?
Gerry McCann, COMARE and the government
Gonçalo Amaral: “Madeleine is dead; where she is buried, I do not know"
Gordon Brown discusses McCann case with Portuguese Prime Minister
Gordon Brown has Gonçalo Amaral removed from investigation when he was "close to finding Maddie"
Gordon Brown suggests changes to fraudulent “Findmadeleine” campaign strategy
Government agency monitoring peoples blogs
Government interference in McCann case
Government spokesman, Clarence Mitchell: The gloves are off!
Health authories and councils get power to ‘spy’ on your e-mail and net use
Home Office refused to give PJ information about Gerry's credit cards
How The Madeleine Case Supported the Extension of Amber Alert System and the EU's Prüm Treaty To The Remaining 27 Member States - And How Downing Street Obliged
Jon Corner & McCann-Erickson
Judge and Jury?
Kate McCann forced political pressure on the investigation
Kate Mccann's fingerprints all over fake break in attempt
Kate McCann: My struggle to control ‘very difficult’ Madeleine
Kate tried everything to accuse Robert Murat
Kate's secrets: Staged Walks
Leicester hospitals link to fraudulent Find Madeleine Fund
Leicester police allowed Russell O'Brien to read his wifes statement before questioning
Leicestershire Constabulary's unlawful link to fraudulent McCann fund
Let's hold a Madeleine Day for the whole world - June 3 2007
Lori Campbell: Kate McCann was given a Do-It-Yourself guide to policing by UK cops
Madeleine McCann's Human Rights - and the ensuing Abuse of those Rights
Madeleine McCann: Ward of Court
Madeleine, the McCanns, Family Justice and the Family Courts
McCann detectives become multimillionaires - Correio da Manhã
McCanns are guilty
McCanns contacted witness who incriminated Gerry McCann
McCanns link in Barry George case
McCanns refuse reconstruction
McCanns to get away with homicide
McCanns use Maddie fund to pay mortgage
McCanns use of famous people angers police
McCanns: A web of deceit
McCanns: Accept our version of events or else...
Menwith Hill - the original Big Brother
Microchip identification for children
Mortgage payments made from Fund
Murat libel settlement
No body means no conviction of the McCanns, admits prosecutor
Pat Perkins
PJ admits children were drugged (Pt)
Police files reveal McCanns and Tanner's lies
Portuguese Attorney General Office Hides List of Brits Paedo
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith visit Leicester Police Station
Private investigators working at Praia da Luz in May 2007
Public prosecutors office was not informed about Leicestershire Police decision
Question 41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
Silence of the McCanns
Standing ovation for Gerry McCann at Police Bravery Awards
Susan Healy confirms that Gerry said how important it was that everyone accept it as an abduction straight away
The (fraudulent) Fund
The McCann Connections
The McCanns, Control Risks Group and Risk Assessment in the 'New Morocco'
The McCanns: Guilty as hell!
The true story about the inflatable billboard
The truth of the matter is that the McCanns did lie
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Richard Branson
UK Ambassador denies contacts between Governments about Madeleine's case
University Hospitals Leicester links directly to McCanns fraudulent fund
Who framed Robert Murat?
Who's who in Team McCann?
Why Madeleine is dead
Witnesses Heard by The PJ in the Maddie Case Were Sounded Out by the McCanns
Posted by Jill Havern - CMOMM
With eager please to SHARE
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Labels: McCann abuse of power articles
A lot of hard work goes on in many hundreds but I think it is closer to many, many, many thousands of such internet links set up specifically to abuse the McCann family with which you obviously have shared beliefs does not impugn McCann rights
Can you direct me to a single feed of such malice and vilification being directed at Brueckner. Or even what the the tabloids have printed which promotes thought they are scared of something.
You asked for one example and I gave it to you.
Nobody was discussing the McCanns or social media, so I've no idea what the relevance of your list is. I think the media have come very close to conducting a trial. Ignoring the reserve which is expected in Germany, they have named Brueckner, reported on his past offenses and repeated all kinds of accusations against him by his friends, neighbours and aquaintances. Added to what Brueckner has said, it is very difficult to see any sign of balanced reporting.
Then they stopped dead and said nothing. Not even the Sun! Was their last story on 25th September when they
said;
It has also emerged Christian B has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him in his bid to prove his innocence - but it's not yet known who's footing the bill.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12773229/madeleine-mccann-body-prosecute-suspect-murder/
Has the UK legal team taken action?
-
Matt James a charlatan? Scotland yard have been in touch with him anyway. But then YOU would know better than S.Y. wouldn't you ? (&^&
The address you gave us doesn't seem to work
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james
(https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7719-a-new-madeleine-picture-matt-james)
Do you have evidence that Scotland yard have been in touch with Matt James in connection with the McCann case?
-
Do you have evidence that Scotland yard have been in touch with Matt James in connection with the McCann case?
Matthew James has said so and he also confirmed contact with Madeleine’s family. His blog is no longer available, though.
-
Matthew James has said so and he also confirmed contact with Madeleine’s family. His blog is no longer available, though.
Do you or Sadie have a cite ? If not it forum rules that you both withdraw your claim.
-
Of course, the police have taken this Mathew James' visions quite seriously.
They too believe Maddie is alive and well, hence the reason why they've been digging in search of her corpse.
-
Matthew James has said so and he also confirmed contact with Madeleine’s family. His blog is no longer available, though.
I'm sorry, but someone claiming something happened isn't what I call evidence. So many in this case have claimed to have done something but have never proved it imo.
I can point you at a blog;
http://mara-gamiel4.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine
He sounds like a typical supporter to me.
-
I can come up with many labels which I think categorise Richard Hall.
RDH GA say Maddie is dead. etc etc....yet HCW is saying maddie is dead ...yet that is ok.
Well, it seems obvious in my opinion that would go for anyone who does not agree with the abduction. or the mccs version if what happened ...you may even end up HCW to your list of it turns out he has no proof Maddie is dead. imo it just seems a bit like double standards to me B imo.
Maddie could well be dead, but RDH makes out she died several days before HCW would have her dying. Big difference there.
-
Do you or Sadie have a cite ? If not it forum rules that you both withdraw your claim.
I think for the purposes of this discussion that is sufficient. One can contact SY but it takes a bit more for SY to reply.
-
You asked for one example and I gave it to you.
Nobody was discussing the McCanns or social media, so I've no idea what the relevance of your list is. I think the media have come very close to conducting a trial. Ignoring the reserve which is expected in Germany, they have named Brueckner, reported on his past offenses and repeated all kinds of accusations against him by his friends, neighbours and aquaintances. Added to what Brueckner has said, it is very difficult to see any sign of balanced reporting.
Then they stopped dead and said nothing. Not even the Sun! Was their last story on 25th September when they
said;
It has also emerged Christian B has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him in his bid to prove his innocence - but it's not yet known who's footing the bill.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12773229/madeleine-mccann-body-prosecute-suspect-murder/
Has the UK legal team taken action?
I moved on from the really tired and outmoded prejudices still dear to many hearts. Please do not attempt to dictate what you think the content of my posts should consist of.
That is for me to decide ~ not you.
Exactly what is it that you think connects the ancient sceptic shibboleth about McCann phones to the tabloids running scared from something or other ?
Worth remembering is that just now it seems Brueckner's phone is centre stage and who was speaking into it in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance on the third.
-
You asked for one example and I gave it to you.
Nobody was discussing the McCanns or social media, so I've no idea what the relevance of your list is. I think the media have come very close to conducting a trial. Ignoring the reserve which is expected in Germany, they have named Brueckner, reported on his past offenses and repeated all kinds of accusations against him by his friends, neighbours and aquaintances. Added to what Brueckner has said, it is very difficult to see any sign of balanced reporting.
Then they stopped dead and said nothing. Not even the Sun! Was their last story on 25th September when they
said;
It has also emerged Christian B has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him in his bid to prove his innocence - but it's not yet known who's footing the bill.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12773229/madeleine-mccann-body-prosecute-suspect-murder/
Has the UK legal team taken action?
I very much doubt it.
-
Do you or Sadie have a cite ? If not it forum rules that you both withdraw your claim.
Good luck with that one.
Aren't you the member who only yesterday has set precedent by firmly denying my request for a cite from you - not once but twice ?
Why do you think you as a member are entitled to the courtesy you have denied a forum moderator ?
Don't bother answering on this thread because I shall delete any off topic posts on sight but please do not demand cites from other members when you quite obviously and firmly think you are exempt from following forum rules yourself.
-
I'm sorry, but someone claiming something happened isn't what I call evidence. So many in this case have claimed to have done something but have never proved it imo.
I can point you at a blog;
http://mara-gamiel4.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine
He sounds like a typical supporter to me.
The link you provided is not available. To me, Matthew James’ blog entries should be considered holistically. Giving a nugget of what he has posted, does not position his views contextually. My opinion.
-
Do you or Sadie have a cite ? If not it forum rules that you both withdraw your claim.
His site/blog is no longer available. Thus, your demand to withdraw a claim, is null and void.
-
His site/blog is no longer available. Thus, your demand to withdraw a claim, is null and void.
Do you need a blog belonging to the man to verify that he has been in touch with people? You say he says so. My reply is of course he does. Is there no independant evidence?
I have linked to his blog. The link works for me, I've no idea why it doesn't work for you.
http://mara-gamiel4.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine
-
Do you need a blog belonging to the man to verify that he has been in touch with people? You say he says so. My reply is of course he does. Is there no independant evidence?
I have linked to his blog. The link works for me, I've no idea why it doesn't work for you.
http://mara-gamiel4.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine
It worked for me.
-
From yesterday’s Der Spiegel (the rest of the article is behind the paywall). Doesn’t seem like they are running very scared of anything (warning comtains graphic content
Braunschweig, June 2013. Anja K. and her daughter visit a man whom she met through the Chat2000 internet portal. Christian B. lives with two dogs in the back room of a run-down kiosk in Braunschweig. Much did not go with him, only once they physically got closer, Anja K. will later tell the police. You got to know him as a child and animal lover.
DISPLAY
When she is back home that evening, she sends him a text message: "We arrived safely, it was nice again, the time with you is good for me! You are also someone special to me. I am happy to know you . "
For the daughter, four years old, the visit was a nightmare. When the police searched the kiosk next summer, they discovered a digital camera. In addition to hundreds of pictures and videos with child pornography, photos of that visit are also stored on the SD card. One shows the daughter with her legs spread in a meadow, B. has pushed her underpants to one side and is touching the girl's vagina. Another shows the girl climbing a tree, while B. is holding his erect penis in the picture.
-
From yesterday’s Der Spiegel (the rest of the article is behind the paywall). Doesn’t seem like they are running very scared of anything (warning comtains graphic content
Braunschweig, June 2013. Anja K. and her daughter visit a man whom she met through the Chat2000 internet portal. Christian B. lives with two dogs in the back room of a run-down kiosk in Braunschweig. Much did not go with him, only once they physically got closer, Anja K. will later tell the police. You got to know him as a child and animal lover.
DISPLAY
When she is back home that evening, she sends him a text message: "We arrived safely, it was nice again, the time with you is good for me! You are also someone special to me. I am happy to know you . "
For the daughter, four years old, the visit was a nightmare. When the police searched the kiosk next summer, they discovered a digital camera. In addition to hundreds of pictures and videos with child pornography, photos of that visit are also stored on the SD card. One shows the daughter with her legs spread in a meadow, B. has pushed her underpants to one side and is touching the girl's vagina. Another shows the girl climbing a tree, while B. is holding his erect penis in the picture.
Bloody Hell.
-
Are we to assume these pictures are taken by Brueckner, or is someone else behind the camera ?
-
Bloody Hell.
I hope so,its my preferred destination,met too many goody two shoes to want to meet them again.
-
From yesterday’s Der Spiegel (the rest of the article is behind the paywall). Doesn’t seem like they are running very scared of anything (warning comtains graphic content
Braunschweig, June 2013. Anja K. and her daughter visit a man whom she met through the Chat2000 internet portal. Christian B. lives with two dogs in the back room of a run-down kiosk in Braunschweig. Much did not go with him, only once they physically got closer, Anja K. will later tell the police. You got to know him as a child and animal lover.
DISPLAY
When she is back home that evening, she sends him a text message: "We arrived safely, it was nice again, the time with you is good for me! You are also someone special to me. I am happy to know you . "
For the daughter, four years old, the visit was a nightmare. When the police searched the kiosk next summer, they discovered a digital camera. In addition to hundreds of pictures and videos with child pornography, photos of that visit are also stored on the SD card. One shows the daughter with her legs spread in a meadow, B. has pushed her underpants to one side and is touching the girl's vagina. Another shows the girl climbing a tree, while B. is holding his erect penis in the picture.
Thanks for sharing, VS. This information is next level re. Brückner, Seyferth, Bushing and someone called Robert M.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8439393/Christian-Brueckners-friend-convicted-sexually-abusing-eight-year-old-girl.html
-
I hope so,its my preferred destination,met too many goody two shoes to want to meet them again.
Well the German tabloids don't appear to have any qualms about letting people know what kind of individual Brueckner is.
Or will it be alleged that he is being scapegoated for this horrific abuse (for which I believe he has been convicted), because he certainly is has been convicted of abusing one girlfriend's little girl.
He may or he may not have had a part in Madeleine's abduction but is it worth anyone taking the risk by word or by deed of condoning or aiding and abetting such a creature.
-
Well the German tabloids don't appear to have any qualms about letting people know what kind of individual Brueckner is.
Or will it be alleged that he is being scapegoated for this horrific abuse (for which I believe he has been convicted), because he certainly is has been convicted of abusing one girlfriend's little girl.
He may or he may not have had a part in Madeleine's abduction but is it worth anyone taking the risk by word or by deed of condoning or aiding and abetting such a creature.
He is a vile creature by any standard but is there anything at all connecting him to Madeleine?
-
Matthew James has said so and he also confirmed contact with Madeleine’s family. His blog is no longer available, though.
Matt James writings are not easy IMO to go through despite an index on the RH Side of many of his pages. I have no intention of spending maybe hours going through everything, but I can assure you that he reported that SY had been in touch with him.
I would hope that by now you would realise that I have integrity, and accept my word, but it is up to you.
Seems that Anthro, who has total integrity IMO, has also seen that SY have been in touch. If you don't believe us, why don't you email or phone Matt James and ask?
-
He is a vile creature by any standard but is there anything at all connecting him to Madeleine?
The German police seem to think so, but I expect they’re just mad, or rubbish at their jobs, or acting on the orders of the UK government.
-
He is a vile creature by any standard but is there anything at all connecting him to Madeleine?
That's for the police to find out and I think they're working hard to do that. But he certainly fits the profile for one of the options for what happened to Madeleine.
-
He is a vile creature by any standard but is there anything at all connecting him to Madeleine?
According to HCW enough evidence to show he killed MM
-
In my opinion anyone who claims psychic powers is a charlatan as I don't believe in such things. I have already said I don't know much about Richard D Hall, but I assume he's offering his opinions, based on the evidence available, unlike people like James who claim to be able to 'see' things.
As I've said before, I'm a sceptical person, but I'm not a member of the wider 'sceptic' group which, imo, exists only in the imaginations of those who support the McCanns.
If someone quoted Richard D Hall I would look at the evidence he is using and react accordingly. I may or may not agree with what he says.
Unfortunately for you ...you cannot dictate how others see you and others see you as part of the sceptic group.
Im a sceptical person too and I'm more of a supporter of justice than simply a supporter of the McCanns
-
Well the German tabloids don't appear to have any qualms about letting people know what kind of individual Brueckner is.
Or will it be alleged that he is being scapegoated for this horrific abuse (for which I believe he has been convicted), because he certainly is has been convicted of abusing one girlfriend's little girl.
He may or he may not have had a part in Madeleine's abduction but is it worth anyone taking the risk by word or by deed of condoning or aiding and abetting such a creature.
Is it worth taking the risk of going after a wrong un when the real perpetrator roams free?
-
Is it worth taking the risk of going after a wrong un when the real perpetrator roams free?
According to HCW he has enough evidence to show CB is the perp
-
According to HCW he has enough evidence to show CB is the perp
When he presents that evidence then we'll decide whether he is right. Till then he could just be bluffing.
-
When he presents that evidence then we'll decide whether he is right. Till then he could just be bluffing.
We wont decide anything of any importance...the courts will. To suggest hes bluffing in a country with such strict privacy laws is ridiculous imo.
In this case Cb has every right to sue for libel if he feels this isnt true. His very vocal lawyer has not suggested he will...I wonder why
-
When he presents that evidence then we'll decide whether he is right. Till then he could just be bluffing.
Correct. Until Brueckner is charged, tabloid gossip is all rather irrelevant.
-
Correct. Until Brueckner is charged, tabloid gossip is all rather irrelevant.
Irelevant to you...in your opinion...forum rules anyone
Im not talking about tabloid gossip but direct statements from teh German Prosecutor
-
We wont decide anything of any importance...the courts will. To suggest hes bluffing in a country with such strict privacy laws is ridiculous imo.
In this case Cb has every right to sue for libel if he feels this isnt true. His very vocal lawyer has not suggested he will...I wonder why
So strict the suspects name was allowed to be broadcast.
-
So strict the suspects name was allowed to be broadcast.
I think you will find it was broadcast outside germany...apart from CBs own lawyer.
-
Correct. Until Brueckner is charged, tabloid gossip is all rather irrelevant.
Wolters has seen fit to announce to the world that he knows Madeleine McCann is dead and that CB did it. At the same time he's admitted that he can't prove it.
Even if he thought he could prove it, the decision isn't his to make, it's up to the courts to decide if someone is guilty of a crime, not the prosecutor. Prosecutors have taken cases to the courts before and failed to get a conviction.
-
Wolters has seen fit to announce to the world that he knows Madeleine McCann is dead and that CB did it. At the same time he's admitted that he can't prove it.
Even if he thought he could prove it, the decision isn't his to make, it's up to the courts to decide if someone is guilty of a crime, not the prosecutor. Prosecutors have taken cases to the courts before and failed to get a conviction.
And that is why he hasn't taken it to court yet - he obviously wants to ensure a conviction which means putting together a watertight case, and to do that he needs that clinching piece of evidence. It would be a very bad or quite mad prosecutor who would put his job on the line for absolutely no reason by announcing something of the magnitude he has without a shred of supporting evidence, and quite amazing that if he was either of those things that he is still in a job 4 months later. Does the buck stop with him, or is he answerable to others?
-
Wolters has seen fit to announce to the world that he knows Madeleine McCann is dead and that CB did it. At the same time he's admitted that he can't prove it.
Even if he thought he could prove it, the decision isn't his to make, it's up to the courts to decide if someone is guilty of a crime, not the prosecutor. Prosecutors have taken cases to the courts before and failed to get a conviction.
Wolters has every right to say what he likes within German law and I'm sure he understands that law better than you do.
His lawyer does not seem to be taking or threatening any legal action against him
-
Is it worth taking the risk of going after a wrong un when the real perpetrator roams free?
Possibly the wrong thread for your post but they all do seem to end up on a theme anyway.
I do not think the tabloids are running scared from either Brueckner or his lawyer.
In my opinion they don't need to make it up for the very simple reason that the more you hear about this man the more you realise you could not make it up because it would take a very sick mind indeed to plumb the depths of his depravity.
In the circumstances I think the tabloids have grasped the implications of the investigation and the search which has led to this man's door. So no worries for the tabloids because they really do not need to sensationalise information which is already sensational.
Given the trail of damage Brueckner has left in his wake I think those victims we know about and those we do not know about I imagine would agree with you that it is awful when a real perpetrator is allowed to roam free because the 'wrong un' was pursued instead.
Which for Brueckner's victims from 2007 onwards might excite their interest in why according to Amaral, Brueckner - a paedophile of record - was dismissed from the investigation by the Judicial police and allowed to continue his one man crime wave throughout Europe, but in particular in the Algarve.
Please do not attempt to whitewash this man Amaral has decreed is a scapegoat because it would seem a history of chasing 'the wrong un' left this man free to conduct his horrible crime wave unfettered.
If he didn't have anything to do with Madeleine's case he certainly made up for it before and after while Amaral and his friends in the Portuguese police looked the other way.
-
Wolters has seen fit to announce to the world that he knows Madeleine McCann is dead and that CB did it. At the same time he's admitted that he can't prove it.
Even if he thought he could prove it, the decision isn't his to make, it's up to the courts to decide if someone is guilty of a crime, not the prosecutor. Prosecutors have taken cases to the courts before and failed to get a conviction.
Amaral made great use of the tabloids to 'prove' his mania against the McCanns even when he was a civilian.
You are saying here in your post that - the decision isn't his to make - it's up to the courts to decide if someone is guilty of a crime
How do you reconcile what you are saying when it is in relation the the German prosecutor with Amaral saying and acting on exactly the same thing with regard to Kate and Gerry McCann.
The difference being the prosecutor has evidence while Amaral had none.