IMO if the dogs were able to track Madeleine to the car park 5 days later she must have been walking in bare feet to leave skin cells on the ground. I struggle to think molecules remain in the air all of that time. They must be evaporating from something solid on the actual ground.
Barefoot in the car park - that suggests to me she got out of bed and walked there.
I saw this new video pop up on YT and I think it must be fairly recent. "Posted Oct 26, 2020" and on the whole it seems a pretty balanced summary.Attention Supporters: Don't read the comments.
Did it take 5 days to bring the tracker dogs to Praia da Luz? Mentioned https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1007 more than 3/4 the way through.
Davel might have a bit to say about the Cadaver dogs.
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw "Meet (most of!) the suspects in the Madeleine McCann case"
Not a bad job over all IMO.
Attention Supporters: Don't read the comments.Nothing we haven't read a million times before. Sceptics are nothing if not dully predictable. It's like a Pavlovian reaction. Mention "McCanns" and the online hate mob start barking about dogs.
Attention Supporters: Don't read the comments.
When ? whats the timescale for it to happen ?Do you mean what time did she get out of bed? Well it could be before 9:30. Matthew finds the bedroom door wider, so it may have been moved by Madeleie. She could have been hiding in the apartment and dead scared by someone she doesn't recognise at night. Sits there quietly until Mathew goes back to the Tapas Restaurant.
I saw this new video pop up on YT and I think it must be fairly recent. "Posted Oct 26, 2020" and on the whole it seems a pretty balanced summary.
Did it take 5 days to bring the tracker dogs to Praia da Luz? Mentioned https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1007 more than 3/4 the way through.
Davel might have a bit to say about the Cadaver dogs.
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw "Meet (most of!) the suspects in the Madeleine McCann case"
Not a bad job over all IMO.
Attention Supporters: Don't read the comments.You mean the comments on the Youtube video. Look if we get the answer I'll post something there.
Do you mean what time did she get out of bed? Well it could be before 9:30. Matthew finds the bedroom door wider, so it may have been moved by Madeleie. She could have been hiding in the apartment and dead scared by someone she doesn't recognise at night. Sits there quietly until Mathew goes back to the Tapas Restaurant.
In my theory, Russell also checks the apartment and that makes Madeleine escape out the front door. I'm sure they know she got out of the apartment on her own, but they just didn't know where she went after that.
But the snifffer dogs even 5 days later could tell she went towards the Tapas Restaurant and then toward the car park. That tells me she was unable to open the door to the Tapas area.
Russell gets back to the table just moments before Kate does her check. So IMO timescale is 9:45 - 9:50 or so.
re the dogs...She starts by saying the dogs had helped solve 200 cases...which of course is lies....but sceptics want to beleive it.I noticed she said "helped" rather than "solved" 200 cases. Maybe Eddie has helped on that number of cases.
I noticed she said "helped" rather than "solved" 200 cases. Maybe Eddie has helped on that number of cases.
Not another dog thread. ?8)@)-)The point that surprised me was that it took 5 days to get tracker dogs on the ground at Praia da Luz. That is a long time IMO.
The point that surprised me was that it took 5 days to get tracker dogs on the ground at Praia da Luz. That is a long time IMO.Please don't be criticising the Portuguese authorities - they did a smashing job. No, really.
I noticed she said "helped" rather than "solved" 200 cases. Maybe Eddie has helped on that number of cases.
I noticed she said "helped" rather than "solved" 200 cases. Maybe Eddie has helped on that number of cases.
You need to listen again.. She says help solve..Superb. Amazing powers. Good doggo....WOOF!
Accuracy is very important
The true figure I think is less than 5...may be 2 ..
But she says more than 200
The point that surprised me was that it took 5 days to get tracker dogs on the ground at Praia da Luz. That is a long time IMO.
That's not true, as anyone who has read the PJ Files will know.
So another load of tripe?
That's not true, as anyone who has read the PJ Files will know.I think it is true, didn't the real specialist dogs arrive 5 days later. Before that they had guard dogs and untrained tracker dogs. So do you count the early ones?
There's a lot of it aboutI know where it comes from.
So another load of tripe.She says the McCanns were cleared. That 's good isn't it?
She says the McCanns were cleared. That 's good isn't it?
That won't go down well.
That won't go down well.The people who write the comments don't really show signs they have listened to what they say. They have made up their minds ad say the same things over and over again.
She says the McCanns were cleared. That 's good isn't it?
Is it really of any importance what this person says.. What credibility or authority does she have.Nearly 50,000 views It would take a while to clock that up here.
It's of no importance
But but.. earlier on today you said it was all a load of tripe.
Nearly 50,000 views It would take a while to clock that up here.
I think it is true, didn't the real specialist dogs arrive 5 days later. Before that they had guard dogs and untrained tracker dogs. So do you count the early ones?
Unless you familiarise yourself with the evidence you will find yourself thinking people are telling the truth when they're not.
That applies to many.. The most important being amaral and the PJ
You guys had an end of year audit and still have some Amaral names left in the allocation? haven't seen his name for a day or two.
You guys had an end of year audit and still have some Amaral names left in the allocation? haven't seen his name for a day or two.
Superb. Amazing powers. Good doggo....WOOF!Pavlov response in action.
The people who write the comments don't really show signs they have listened to what they say. They have made up their minds ad say the same things over and over again.Touching widows without their permission could get you into a lot of trouble, just ask Bruckner.
"They could afford to get a babysitter", "why didn't they get a baby sitter?" Very few are saying the McCanns did it, but "they allowed it to happen".
I doubt if Kate said she "didn't touch the widows", I thought she said "they never opened them".
Sorry something totally different to what you are discussing. At 2.35 on that video it shows a side view of CB what struck me was his hair is how Jane described the man she saw. Hair down the back of his neck but a lot of hair at the top. It could look quite dark too at night.Longish hair doesn't go down the back of his neck though. It's cut close to the nape and the wooden panelling behind gives the illusion that it's long, as in the JT sketch...
If a poster mentions lies it's not my fault that amaral springs to mind
Amaral hasn't had much to say recently.
Doesn't need to, the legend is writ, the legend being CB wot dunnit, perfect patsy forever, the one who dunnit even if not enough evidence emerges to try him. You have your abductor what more do you want.
Not My Abductor. Don't put words into my mouth. You have just picked on the wrong Supporter. How very silly is that?
Doesn't need to, the legend is writ, the legend being CB wot dunnit, perfect patsy forever, the one who dunnit even if not enough evidence emerges to try him. You have your abductor what more do you want.
Ee won't have the abductor until we see you the evidence
He'll not release the evidence imo, what was known of the three amigos back in 2014, what led to the digs prior to their questioning?
No one said there was strong evidence against the 3 amigos.
Wolters, will have to reveal his evidence eventually... Both to SY and the parents.
Doesn't need to, the legend is writ, the legend being CB wot dunnit, perfect patsy forever, the one who dunnit even if not enough evidence emerges to try him. You have your abductor what more do you want.Do you have any idea how bitter and twisted you sound?
Meaningless really. ..About as bad as 42,000 posts on the forum?
Sorry something totally different to what you are discussing. At 2.35 on that video it shows a side view of CB what struck me was his hair is how Jane described the man she saw. Hair down the back of his neck but a lot of hair at the top. It could look quite dark too at night.Worth another look 2.35 you say. I'll get the URL later.
You're stuck in a time loop, its moved on or not as the case maybe. Still if he means so much.......We are still celebrating Christmas!
About as bad as 42,000 posts on the forum?
About as bad as 42,000 posts on the forum?Says the man whose proud of watching thousands of episodes of coronation street.
Careful Rob.I've rounded it down in his favour.
I once received a warning for posting someone's forum statistics.
Says the man whose proud of watching thousands of episodes of coronation street.
Are you trying to discourage posting.. Is that your idea of supporting the forum. The forum is nothing without posts... Are you trying to ruin it.
I've rounded it down in his favour.
I might not be that far behind you. I bet I've started more threads than you? Threads are what make the forum not the same old posts day after day.
Says the man whose proud of watching thousands of episodes of coronation street.You be careful what you say about my beloved!
Are you trying to discourage posting.. Is that your idea of supporting the forum. The forum is nothing without posts... Are you trying to ruin it.
I think I've contributed a lot to the forum and the fact you have so little respect for that shows how little you care about the forumI think you started it.
Why do you have to continually disrupt by posting personal attacks and starting petty arguments... Just how insecure are you
You be careful what you say about my beloved!
I think you started it.
I criticised the video.. not you. Have another lookSame difference I said the video was OK. It is one of the best-balanced views I've heard for a long time.
Same difference I said the video was OK.
Same difference I said the video was OK. It is one of the best-balanced views I've heard for a long time.
No it's not the same.. I criticised the video... You criticised me. I was going to say I had zero respect for you but zero would be too high... It would have to be a negative number. Grow up... You are like a kid in the playgroundDid I criticise you? I don't believe that. And look you've got back-up.
You need an imo.. In that postNo, I don't.
Did I criticise you? I don't believe that. And look you've got back-up.No, I don't.It's your opinion it's balanced..
What is wrong with this video? That is the question. OK G-unit seems to think they are wrong about when they brought the sniffer dogs in. Maybe that will need double checking.
It's your opinion it's balanced..Does Eleanor agree with the video? You can tell it is my opinion therefore I don't need to say IMO.
Eleanor realise you are disrupting again
And the dogs have helped solve 200 cases... Total bullBut what does "Helped" mean. They could still have helped even if the crime remains unsolved.
Does Eleanor agree with the video? You can tell it is my opinion therefore I don't need to say IMO.
But what does "Helped" mean. They could still have helped even if the crime remains unsolved.
Does Eleanor agree with the video? You can tell it is my opinion therefore I don't need to say IMO.
But what does "Helped" mean. They could still have helped even if the crime remains unsolved.
They haven't even been involved in 200 cases
Its total bull
Worth another look 2.35 you say. I'll get the URL later.For the whole video: https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw "Meet (most of!) the suspects in the Madeleine McCann case"
37 Cases they were involved in. And they didn't solve all of those. How many times do we have to read this?
Did Martin Grime confirm that number?
Did Martin Grime confirm that number?
I think you need to check your understanding of English... She says helped solve... That's solved... Not unsolvedHow can we be sure? What is the expression for the situation where a case remained unsolved? Has he helped on any unsolved cases? Surely that still comes under the umbrella of "helped solve" as in "helped to solve", in that their intention was to solve the cases they worked on?
What number?Either Amaral's number or Davel's number.
Apart from stating that Forensic Evidence is necessary to confirm Alerts, I don't think Martin Grime has ever confirmed anything.
How can we be sure? What is the expression for the situation where a case remained unsolved? Has he helped on any unsolved cases? Surely that still comes under the umbrella of "helped solve" as in "helped to solve", in that their intention was to solve the cases they worked on?
Either Amaral's number or Davel's number.
How can we be sure? What is the expression for the situation where a case remained unsolved? Has he helped on any unsolved cases? Surely that still comes under the umbrella of "helped solve" as in "helped to solve", in that their intention was to solve the cases they worked on?It's not my number it's south Yorkshire police's number... As anyone who has followed the case on this forum will know
Either Amaral's number or Davel's number.
It's not my number it's south Yorkshire police's number... As anyone who has followed the case on this forum will know
I think you need to check your understanding of English... She says helped solve... That's solved... Not unsolvedSo by that definition, he can't say he helped solve the McCann case for at the moment it remains unsolved and Eddie has passed on, RIP.
If he's help solve a case then that case is solved... What part of that is difficult for you to understandMy question was to do with cases he worked on that remain unsolved. Described those?
It's not my number it's south Yorkshire police's number... As anyone who has followed the case on this forum will knowAnd Yorkshire police know it all do they?
So by that definition, he can't say he helped solve the McCann case for at the moment it remains unsolved and Eddie has passed on, RIP.
My question was to do with cases he worked on that remain unsolved. Described those?
Would she have had to say, "Eddie has helped on 200 solved and unsolved cases"?
And Yorkshire police know it all do they?
If he's help solve a case then that case is solved... What part of that is difficult for you to understandI can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain unsolved?
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain unsolved?
If "you help fix a car" does that mean the car was fixed, and only fixed?
"He helped dig the garden". Does that mean to the very end, and none was left to be finished another day?
I'm not really interested in what you accept or understand... I did try to help you with the facts.. As has Eleanor... But if you want to live in ignorance that's your choiceYou apparently speak a different language than I do.
You apparently speak a different language than I do.
Do I?
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain unsolved?
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain untried?
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain under appeal?
This is ridiculous, Rob. You are asking the impossible.It's not the number that I'm interested in but the expression Davel would use to described cases in these states.
Make a Freedom of Information Request to The South Yorkshire Police who owned Eddie.
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain unsolved?None of that makes any sense at all..
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain untried?
I can't accept that sorry. For what do you say for his cases overall, did he "help" on cases that remain under appeal?
None if that makes any sense at all..When can you only say a crime is solved?
When can you only say a crime is solved?
When can it be said "a case is solved"?
1. When the culprit pleads guilty?
2. Or is found guilty and he doesn't lodge an appeal?
3. Or when there is no chance of a false confession?
4. Or when the culprit refuses to take a polygraph or lawyers up.
When can you only say a crime is solved?
When can it be said "a case is solved"?
1. When the culprit pleads guilty?
2. Or is found guilty and he doesn't lodge an appeal?
3. Or when there is no chance of a false confession?
4. Or when the culprit refuses to take a polygraph or lawyers up.
What do you think?I'm not sure if you can ever be certain.
I think most sensible people understand what a solved case isI've seen plenty of cases where the police seem to accept the case was solved but a trial never confirmed it.
Another thread goes down the rabbit hole.It might have been a Mole hole!
I've seen plenty of cases where the police seem to accept the case was solved but a trial never confirmed it.
Think what you ike.. I'm not interestedThat is why I'm asking you.
Imo.. You dont have a clue
That is why I'm asking you.
But you aren't understanding, Rob.Precisely
But you aren't understanding, Rob.I haven't seen any attempt to answer my question. Criticism of my intellect is not a valid answer IMO.
I haven't seen any attempt to answer my question. Criticism of my intellect is not a valid answer IMO.
"Case Closed? How 'Solved' Murder Stats Are Misleading
Homicide clearance rates don't always mean what they seem to mean.
MIKE MACIAG | APRIL 2015"
Touches on some aspects of the problem:
"There are many reasons why clearance data vary so much from one city to another. The most common way for a case to be cleared is if a suspect is arrested or charged, but the FBI also allows for clearances by “exceptional means” when charges are not filed. Sometimes this is because a suspect has died or witnesses decline to testify, but different departments might clear cases this way under a litany of circumstances. It’s another reason why it’s difficult to draw conclusions from the numbers. “I don’t think it’s a measure that law enforcement wants people to really study,” says John Boulahanis, a Southeastern Louisiana University professor.
Boulahanis researched Chicago’s murder clearance data from the 1980s and 1990s and found that “exceptional clearances” accounted for as much as 20 percent of the cleared caseload in any given year. What stood out to him was that the majority of these cases were labeled “barred to prosecution,” meaning that police had identified their suspect, but prosecutors declined to authorize an arrest. Examining the individual cases revealed that cleared murders were disproportionately more likely to be barred to prosecution if they involved African-American victims or occurred in police districts on the crime-plagued South Side of the city. Closing cases this way not only boosts an agency’s clearance rate, but also means that prosecutors don’t handle as many of the tougher cases that can take a toll on their conviction rates."
https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-murder-clearance-rates-misleading.html
What is wrong with this video? That is the question. OK G-unit seems to think they are wrong about when they brought the sniffer dogs in. Maybe that will need double checking.
You sound like you don't know who is right. The answer lies in the files so you don't need to wonder; check for yourself.Oneday I will. But from memory, we'd done that already and it was debatable as to whether the dogs used were suitable or capable, and whether their findings meant anything. It is unresolvable unless they discover a body in the process IMO.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, Rob. I don't think there is anything wrong with your intellect.I do make mistakes at times. I wouldn't say I was the best at comprehension. I got through university but only just. I wasn't an honours student.
Did you happen to notice the word cleared rather than solved"Cleared" but no one is charged in many cases. So it becomes "cleared as far as the police are concerned", but the public would consider the case unresolved as no one is ever convicted.
"Cleared" but no one is charged in many cases. So it becomes "cleared as far as the police are concerned", but the public would consider the case unresolved as no one is ever convicted.
So if a cadaver dog was involved in those cases did the dog help to solve the case or not? The answer is lost in the paperwork IMO.
In that case the dogs didn't help.But Martin Grime as an advocate for the use of cadaver dogs would most likely want to count that as a positive outcome. So we get the difference between 37 or 200 cases "helped solve".
As you rightly pointed out, they aren't much use unless they find a body.
But Martin Grime as an advocate for the use of cadaver dogs would most likely want to count that as a positive outcome. So we get the difference between 37 or 200 cases "helped solve".
Martin Grime charges an awful lot of money for what he does.He would have counted that as about 10 positive cases IMO based on the number of times Eddie barked.
He was paid £96,000 for his efforts on Jersey, but sadly didn't find anything useful at all.
He would have counted that as about 10 positive cases IMO based on the number of times Eddie barked.
But Martin Grime as an advocate for the use of cadaver dogs would most likely want to count that as a positive outcome. So we get the difference between 37 or 200 cases "helped solve".
The dogs were never involved in 200 cases.. Only 37I doubt that. Cite please.
I doubt that. Cite please.
Oneday I will. But from memory, we'd done that already and it was debatable as to whether the dogs used were suitable or capable, and whether their findings meant anything. It is unresolvable unless they discover a body in the process IMO.
Casting aspersions on dog's capabilities is habitual for some. In my opinion it has more to do with a narrative they want to uphold than with the dog's actual suitabilities and capabilities. Tracker dogs use scent to track a live individual, not a body btw.Telling the truth about the dogs seems to annoy you.. It's obvious why
Casting aspersions on dog's capabilities is habitual for some. In my opinion it has more to do with a narrative they want to uphold than with the dog's actual suitabilities and capabilities. Tracker dogs use scent to track a live individual, not a body btw.
I doubt that. Cite please.
Telling the truth about the dogs seems to annoy you.. It's obvious why
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8032.msg411622#msg411622
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11844.msg632150#msg632150
Casting aspersions on dog's capabilities is habitual for some. In my opinion it has more to do with a narrative they want to uphold than with the dog's actual suitabilities and capabilities. Tracker dogs use scent to track a live individual, not a body btw.I'm not stupid.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11844.msg632150#msg632150
Your cite was Eleanor - I'll be damned!
Have you read the one from John? The one with your name underneath.I did start but it was a bit long winded. I'll try again.
I did start but it was a bit long winded. I'll try again.
I'm not reading all the individual cases.
But he backs down a bit 200 cases could be 200 case searches.
Casting aspersions on dog's capabilities is habitual for some. In my opinion it has more to do with a narrative they want to uphold than with the dog's actual suitabilities and capabilities. Tracker dogs use scent to track a live individual, not a body btw.So Madeleine didn’t die in the apartment then?
How can you expect to know what is going on if you don't read Comments?Since becoming a moderator my main focus is making sure the posts meet the forum rules rather than their content.
So Madeleine didn’t die in the apartment then?That would depend on what theory you prefer.
Good posts re-tracker dogs used in the McCann case:Wolters is sure Maddie is murdered by CB... Should we, dispute that..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10879.msg544652#msg544652
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10879.msg544685#msg544685
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10879.msg544711#msg544711
I think from that G-unit was arguing that the dogs may not have been tracking Madeleine's scent at all. A claim that can't be proven at all at this point in time.
The GNR officers were satisfied it was Madeleine's scent (training). I wonder why we should dispute that without evidence to the contrary.
Wolters is sure Maddie is murdered by CB... Should we, dispute that..
We should question everything... Not accept things blindly
But isn’t that exactly what you are doing?
Wolter says he that he has concrete evidence, neither you nor, allegedly, Cressida Dick has seen that evidence....yet you believe it wholeheartedly. Isn’t that the very definition of blind faith? That faith seems to be based on nothing more than the assumption that he wouldn’t over-egg the evidence.
If I’m wrong tell me exactly what has convinced you that Wolter’s evidence is as solid as he claims?
I believe Wolters has concrete evidence.. Not blindly... But based on several factors which I have already explained. Why should I continually repeat this for your benefit. It's not important to me whether you accept it ir not.
If the PJ announced they had concrete evidence of the mccanns involvement I would see that as highly significant and not simply dismiss it
You have given no credible reason why you believe him other than....why would he lie.
To be clear...I’m not accusing him of lying per se but he wouldn’t be the first legal official who has become so fixated on a suspect that he can’t see the wood for the trees and totally skews an investigation because of it.
we've had heaps of threads about Wolters etc. Relate that to the video and we'll discuss it or otherwise, it is off-topic. and I'll delete it. OK for the next 8 hours I'm sleeping so you might get away with it for a while.
No I have other reasons which if you had read previous posts you would understand.. I'm not going to repeat them because it's pointless
I and others have read your previous posts and have seen nothing but blind faith to underpin your belief. We can’t all be wrong, surely?
I saw this new video pop up on YT and I think it must be fairly recent. "Posted Oct 26, 2020" and on the whole it seems a pretty balanced summary.
Did it take 5 days to bring the tracker dogs to Praia da Luz? Mentioned https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1007 more than 3/4 the way through.
Davel might have a bit to say about the Cadaver dogs.
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw "Meet (most of!) the suspects in the Madeleine McCann case"
Not a bad job over all IMO.
CB is discussed in the video and therefore relates to itDiscuss what is said about Wolters or CB in the video. Not the same old rubbish that we've heard a hundred times already.
The commentators are American, so it is possible they have gotten "Scottland Yard" mixed up with the Scottish police. I never noticed that myself. It is rather a minor error in the scheme of things.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/New_Scotland_Yard_sign_3.jpg/116px-New_Scotland_Yard_sign_3.jpg)Going back to the opening post: I don't place too much reliance on a commentary which in the intro at 1:15 manages to confuse the involvement of Police Scotland with the English police based on the wording of a sign.
Such an obvious inaccuracy doesn't bode well for the quality of the rest of the information contained therein; but as the video makers state ~
Pinned by True Crime Recaps
True Crime Recaps
1 month ago (edited)
German police are working around the clock trying to prove that Christian B. is responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but Portuguese investigators insist they’re wrong. Who do YOU think did it?
... it is apparent that any discussion regarding prime suspect Brueckner is very much ON TOPIC.
Discuss what is said about Wolters or CB in the video. Not the same old rubbish that we've heard a hundred times already.
The commentators are American, so it is possible they have gotten "Scottland Yard" mixed up with the Scottish police. I never noticed that myself. It is rather a minor error in the scheme of things.
I don't want Davel discussing his reliance on HCW's evidence in this thread. It is IMO off-topic unless he finds somewhere in the video it brings up this issue.
Please do not insult members Rob.
It may be minor to you; but to me and anyone else who knows anything at all about Madeleine's case it is an elementary factual error like so many other factoids produced by amateurs masquerading as influencers.This video may explain why there have been so many USA based internet users joining the McCann sites lately. For too long it has just been a UK based discussion. Some factoids may be slightly out, It wasn't the Scottish police but the Leicestershire police department. I'm from NZ and that means very little to me TBH. It doesn't really change the case.
I'm criticising his posts, not the member.
Please do not insult members Rob.
Discuss what is said about Wolters or CB in the video. Not the same old rubbish that we've heard a hundred times already.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/New_Scotland_Yard_sign_3.jpg/116px-New_Scotland_Yard_sign_3.jpg)Going back to the opening post: I don't place too much reliance on a commentary which in the intro at 1:15 manages to confuse the involvement of Police Scotland with the English police based on the wording of a sign.
Such an obvious inaccuracy doesn't bode well for the quality of the rest of the information contained therein; but as the video makers state ~
Pinned by True Crime Recaps
True Crime Recaps
1 month ago (edited)
German police are working around the clock trying to prove that Christian B. is responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but Portuguese investigators insist they’re wrong. Who do YOU think did it?
... it is apparent that any discussion regarding prime suspect Brueckner is very much ON TOPIC.
And we've discussed the dogs a thousand timesBut not so often the tracker dogs that arrive 5 days after Madeleine went missing??? Was that true?
I'm not stupid.
So Madeleine didn’t die in the apartment then?
Is this statement correct? It is from the above mentioned pinned comment. "Can they prove Christian Brueckner murdered Maddie before the statute of limitations runs out?"
Was there a limit on the time to charge for murder?
I'm criticising his posts, not the member.
Only in Portugal.
But not so often the tracker dogs that arrive 5 days after Madeleine went missing??? Was that true?
according to Gunit no....and she says the files support her
May I point out that the files are available for any interested person to read. It's hard for me to understand how people who claim to be interested in the case don't seem to be interested in scrutinising the evidence.
Sorry, but I don't follow the mysterious workings of your mind.You say we should not cast aspersions on the dogs abilities. You say "Tracker dogs use scent to track a live individual, not a body btw". Tracker dogs tracked Madeleine leaving the apartment up to a certain point. I'm sure with this help I have now provided you can follow the mysterious workings of my mind.
I have no idea why you gave that response to my post.I was responding to the remark "Tracker dogs use scent to track a live individual, not a body btw." Which I slightly disagreed with, for there could be a body at the end of the track, but I know what you mean. They are tracking someone presumably alive walking/running away.
Only in Portugal.Does anyone know what the Statute of Limitations is for murder in Portugal then? I didn't think there was one TBH. We'll have to look that up.
according to Gunit no....and she says the files support herI gave you the quotes.
Does anyone know what the Statute of Limitations is for murder in Portugal then? I didn't think there was one TBH. We'll have to look that up.
Does anyone know what the Statute of Limitations is for murder in Portugal then? I didn't think there was one TBH. We'll have to look that up.
The video is full of mistakes. It doesn't mention that HCW claims he has concrete evidence Maddiebis dead and CB killed herThe video tries to limit itself to facts.
...snip ....
All of which has led to discussion of an idiotic video produced by individuals who really do not have a clue what they are on about. Very much the standard as far as such videos are concerned.
I wonder if Jes Wilkins knows he doesn't exist? Must be true ... that's what the video says.
The video is full of mistakes. It doesn't mention that HCW claims he has concrete evidence Maddiebis dead and CB killed her
The video tries to limit itself to facts.
What I posted is a fact...a very important fact...read it again.
It is a fact that Wolter said he had the evidence. It is not a fact that he actually does. That you blindly believe it doesn’t make it a fact.what I posted is a fact wheras your post is merely your opinion....at least I know the difference between fact and opinion
what I posted is a fact wheras your post is merely your opinion.
It is not a fact. You are incorrect.
you neeed to read the post again...what I posted was fact
It is not fact. That Wolter said he had evidence is fact. That he actually has it is not.
The video is full of mistakes. It doesn't mention that HCW claims he has concrete evidence Maddiebis dead and CB killed her
my post is factual
As a Rob said the video only reports facts. It is not a proven fact that Wolter has the evidence he says.
Robs wrong...as are you...it gets a lot wrong. Neither of you an bear to hear what wolters has to say
The video tries to limit itself to facts.
People can claim anything. The proof of the pudding and all that.
You’ve been sold a pup but can’t bear to admit it.
Jez Wilkins doesn't exist. That's a miracle. Where do they say that?
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw
Next time I'll put the URL in the title!
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=711 "At the same time Jane .....
The video doesn't mention Jes Wilkins by name. Is that why you say "Jes Wilkins doesn't exist"?
Your posts are of very poor quality ...all opinion and no facts
No it isn't ... the commentator says to camera ... 11:50 >... "but he didn't exist" in rebuttal of Jane, Gerry and the apparently non-existent Jes's evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps next time you refer a video to the forum, would it be possible for you to find one which doesn't insult our intelligence with elementary errors such as Night Calpol.
It is an amateurishly produced video riddled with mistakes from start to finish and really should not be given the oxygen of publicity on a forum like ours which aims to be as accurate as possible.
Did you read my cite on double jeopardy in Germany. Seems things aren’t as clear cut regarding charging Brueckner as Wolter’s would have us believe.
Perhaps its apoor idea that Moderators are able to Ok their own threads. It's resulted in some absolute rubbish imo...any more from Stan?
I read it but prefer the opinion of the Prosecutor rather than an anonymous poster with a severe case of confirmation bias
have you listened to it...it says the polie saw the video of the rape. Its fairly poor on factsIs that right? You should back this with the URL since you're a genius.
Is that right? You should back this with the URL since you're a genius.
No it isn't ... the commentator says to camera ... 11:50 >... "but he didn't exist" in rebuttal of Jane, Gerry and the apparently non-existent Jes's evidence to the contrary.She does not say the words "but he didn't exist". You are making that up. The two places are in the same location.
Perhaps next time you refer a video to the forum, would it be possible for you to find one which doesn't insult our intelligence with elementary errors such as Night Calpol.
It is an amateurishly produced video riddled with mistakes from start to finish and really should not be given the oxygen of publicity on a forum like ours which aims to be as accurate as possible.
Its right and it appears you have posted this video and havent even watched it.....so how can you have an opinion on itI find it so interesting that we all heard different things being said in the video. I can't say I'm hearing it perfectly and when you say something I question that too.
I find it so interesting that we all heard different things being said in the video. I can't say I'm hearing it perfectly and when you say something I question that too.
Have we discussed "Helge" on the forum? Personally I was a bit surprised by what she is saying here for it wasn't my strong point.
5.59.....she claims the police checked out the video...no mistake
Have we discussed "Helga" on the forum? Personally I was a bit surprised by what she is saying here for it wasn't my strong point.
What is Helga's name? Is he mentioned on our forum?
The point is the whole video is full of errorsThat is BS and you know it. Helge seems to have had a video of CB abusing another girl, not the rape victim. So far it was close. Something I didn't understand. Maybe I still don't. Why did Helge have this video in the first place?
That is BS and you know it. Helge seems to have had a video of CB abusing another girl, not the rape victim. So far it was close. Something I didn't understand. Maybe I still don't. Why did Helge have this video in the first place?Stop talking rubbish.. It talks about the video of the rape.. You absolutely don't seem to have a clue about anything
Are you two watching the same video ?
Stop talking rubbish.. It talks about the video of the rape.. You absolutely don't seem to have a clue about anythingI have explained that, but did Helge have another video of another potential rape?
You would think not... It's just Robs confusion thats the problemI'm sure Davel's posts are causing confusion here.
Where abouts on the video does it say that police have seen the rape video - time position ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg619361;topicseen#msg619361 in this post Davel quotes G-unit but as usual, doesn't actually comment on the post being quoted.Listen to the video..the lead up about the rape video and you might understand
He says:
"As I've already explained it will be the material/concrete and other circumstantial evidence will potentially convict CB.... It was always going to be an informer that helped solve the case imo"
I find that particularly interesting as Davel uses the same expression as was used yesterday, helped solve.
I have explained that, but did Helge have another video of another potential rape?
I'm sure Davel's posts are causing confusion here.
Where abouts on the video does it say that police have seen the rape video - time position ?We had done that.
We had done that.
I have deduced from the posts by G-unit and Faithlilly that:
Helge seems to have had a video of CB abusing another girl, which was not the rape he was charged with.
The video starts talking about Helge at 3:49.
have you listened to it...it says the polie saw the video of the rape. Its fairly poor on factsWrite down the exact phrase you hear her say from the video please.
Write down the exact phrase you hear her say from the video please.
5.59...they checked out the video and arrested him for the 2005 rapeI'll try and do a transcript:
I read it but prefer the opinion of the Prosecutor rather than an anonymous poster with a severe case of confirmation bias who doesnt seem to know the difference between opinion and fact
I have to say that I agree with this.I'm not your friend any more.
It is possible she was confused as to which video the police saw in 2017. Most people are, I'm one of them.
To clarify:-How did you work all that out?
No police force saw the videos of any rapes carried out by CB.
The video Helge B saw portrayed the rape of an Italian-speaking older woman & a young girl tied to a post.
No video was seen by Helge B or Manfred S portraying the rape of the 72yr old victim DM in Luz, the crime for which CB was convicted in December 2019 in Germany.
To clarify:-
No police force saw the videos of any rapes carried out by CB.
The video Helge B saw portrayed the rape of an Italian-speaking older woman & a young girl tied to a post.
No video was seen by Helge B or Manfred S portraying the rape of the 72yr old victim DM in Luz, the crime for which CB was convicted in December 2019 in Germany.
To clarify:-To clarify the names:
No police force saw the videos of any rapes carried out by CB.
The video Helge B saw portrayed the rape of an Italian-speaking older woman & a young girl tied to a post.
No video was seen by Helge B or Manfred S portraying the rape of the 72yr old victim DM in Luz, the crime for which CB was convicted in December 2019 in Germany.
To clarify the names:I thought you were clarifying?
"Helge Busching and another friend Manfred Seyferth knew Christian B from when they all lived in Praia da Luz, the Portuguese resort where Madeleine was on holiday.
Source https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/)
"the name of suspect Christian Brueckner"
Helga Busching "claims Brueckner told him he was involved in abducting Maddie while they were talking at a kite festival in Orgiva, Spain, in 2008". https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8720485/Witness-helped-launch-Madeleine-McCann-investigation-says-Christian-Brueckner-guilty.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8720485/Witness-helped-launch-Madeleine-McCann-investigation-says-Christian-Brueckner-guilty.html)
"Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said last week that his client was 'innocent' of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.
I thought you were clarifying?Clarify the spelling of their names, if I want to do a Google search.
"Portuguese police failed to crack the case at the time but Christian B was arrested 12 years later when two pals reported him after finding disturbing films in his home.We all understand that... And that's why the video you posted is wrong
They said the films, which have never been found, showed him raping and torturing the elderly victim.
DNA sample taken from a hair at the scene helped convict him and he was jailed for seven years last December."
From https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11800974/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-victim/
the films, which have never been found
"Portuguese police failed to crack the case at the time but Christian B was arrested 12 years later when two pals reported him after finding disturbing films in his home.
They said the films, which have never been found, showed him raping and torturing the elderly victim.
DNA sample taken from a hair at the scene helped convict him and he was jailed for seven years last December."
From https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11800974/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-victim/
the films, which have never been found
"Portuguese police failed to crack the case at the time but Christian B was arrested 12 years later when two pals reported him after finding disturbing films in his home.
They said the films, which have never been found, showed him raping and torturing the elderly victim.
DNA sample taken from a hair at the scene helped convict him and he was jailed for seven years last December."
From https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11800974/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-victim/
the films, which have never been found
But we know they existed
"Portuguese police failed to crack the case at the time but Christian B was arrested 12 years later when two pals reported him after finding disturbing films in his home.
They said the films, which have never been found, showed him raping and torturing the elderly victim.
DNA sample taken from a hair at the scene helped convict him and he was jailed for seven years last December."
From https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11800974/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-victim/
the films, which have never been found
But we know they existed
Did his ex pals testify under oath that they had indeed seen the film?
But we know they existed
I'm not your friend any more.
We know that his 'pals' said they existed. Just as someone said that they heard two people on holiday making disturbing comments about Madeleine McCann.If you have followed the case you would understand why. His pals went to the police with details of the rape..where did they get these details from... It could only be the video. How did they know the rape had been filmed..
They are convicted criminals so can't be believed - isn't that how it goes ?
If you have followed the case you would understand why. His pals went to the police with details of the rape..where did they get these details from... It could only be the video. How did they know the rape had been filmed..
Was it ? There’s certainly no film of it. The film they found was of two entirely different people.
If the authorities don't have this video, how can we be sure it existed in the first place ?It’s very simple to work out, see if you can...
We all understand that... And that's why the video you posted is wrongBut did Brueckner have more than one video? Could there be a video of another sexual abuse scene?
But did Brueckner have more than one video? Could there be a video of another sexual abuse scene?
Not one of the rape of the 72 year old.But apparently it was the one hair at the scene that becomes the main evidence against him. As Davel has cited.
After the two burglars reported the material to the police, the investigators sifted through all the old cases from the region - and came across the American. Although the American had not recognized him, a body hair was the German's undoing. This was found on the victim's sheets.
However, the footage never appeared after that. The men said they left the videotapes in a motor home. The vehicle was later scrapped. The investigators saw no reason to doubt the statements of the witnesses. Especially since the procedure described resembles the descriptions of the American.
https://www.blick.ch/ausland/deutscher-43-vergewaltigte-72-jaehrige-so-brutal-ist-der-verdaechtige-im-fall-maddie-id15920819.html
It is a fact that Moderators automatically approve their own Threads. There is no choice about it. So it isn't their fault.But there is actually nothing wrong with this thread. That is my point.
I believe it would be better left to someone else.
But apparently it was the one hair at the scene that becomes the main evidence against him. As Davel has cited.
If you have followed the case you would understand why. His pals went to the police with details of the rape..where did they get these details from... It could only be the video. How did they know the rape had been filmed..His friend said Christian B. spoke about the crime first (at some festival), then later they found the tape IIRC.
Ah yes...the hair.So was that hair kept as evidence by the Portuguese police all that time?
His friend said Christian B. spoke about the crime first (at some festival), then later they found the tape IIRC.
cite requiredI don't claim it as a fact, see I say IIRC (if I recall correctly).
But there is actually nothing wrong with this thread. That is my point.
I never said there was anything wrong with this Thread. And someone would have approved it anyway.Do you remember this post from Davel? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11844.msg632435#msg632435
And since there is nothing to be done about the current system short of leaving All Approvals to John or Admin then no doubt it will continue.
No one on this Forum wants to have to wait even 24 Hours for John or Admin to have the time.
Do you remember this post from Davel? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11844.msg632435#msg632435i think thats quite areasonable post...imo some of your recent threads have been very poor quality...remember stan...how is he...and i still think the Myasia thread has no place on this forum
His friend said Christian B. spoke about the crime first (at some festival), then later they found the tape IIRC.In this article:
In this article:
"In a redacted statement seen by The Sun, he claims Christian B, 43, told him he was involved in her 2007 abduction.
Busching said the revelation emerged in 2008 when they were at a kite festival in Orgiva, Spain."
So my memory wasn't that good. It was the revelation of his involvement with Madeleine McCann that was associated with the Kite Festival in Orgiva, Spain.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
Do you remember this post from Davel? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11844.msg632435#msg632435
i think thats quite areasonable post...imo some of your recent threads have been very poor quality...remember stan...how is he...and i still think the Myasia thread has no place on this forum
thank you RobThe question remains when did Helge Busching and his friend steal the video camera and see Christian B's rape tapes? Was it before or after Madeleine McCann went missing?
Rob isn't the only one.
The question remains when did Helge Busching and his friend steal the video camera and see Christian B's rape tapes? Was it before or after Madeleine McCann went missing?
The question remains when did Helge Busching and his friend steal the video camera and see Christian B's rape tapes? Was it before or after Madeleine McCann went missing?
according to the mail..You can just about guarantee that that is BS. No one keeps the same tape in a video camera for 10 years IMO.
Manfred S. told the broadcaster that when Brueckner was jailed for diesel theft in 2015, he took the opportunity to rob his home with another friend.
He says they discovered a video camera there which had on its tape footage of Brueckner raping the elderly woman.
"Busching and Seyferth are said to have stolen a video camera in Christian B’s home while he was in jail for theft. They contacted police after seeing the images and told them it was Christian B."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
They didn't contact the police immediately; wasn't it 13 years later?
You can just about guarantee that that is BS. No one keeps the same tape in a video camera for 10 years IMO.
The question remains when did Helge Busching and his friend steal the video camera and see Christian B's rape tapes? Was it before or after Madeleine McCann went missing?
It was when Brueckner was in prison in Portugal for diesel theft, so before.
your opinion...he was convicted partly on that evidence....fact
Is there a transcript of the trial and prosecution case so we can judge for ourselves, asking for a cite would be futile.
No there isnt and thats why I see it as futile to claim CB was convicted only on the evidence of the hair.
So you know nothing then, thats another cleared up .
So was that hair kept as evidence by the Portuguese police all that time?
It is a fact that Moderators automatically approve their own Threads. There is no choice about it. So it isn't their fault.
I believe it would be better left to someone else.
No there isnt and thats why I see it as futile to claim CB was convicted only on the evidence of the hair.
In my opinion the provenance of the chain of evidence wasn't challenged if Brueckner suggested that his pubic hair could have been carried into the victim's bed by her cat which he stroked in passing her villa.
Which raises two questions for meJust doing his homework?
- how did he know she owned a cat
- how did he know it was that particular cat
Or did she actually own a cat?
your opinion...he was convicted partly on that evidence....factIMO It wouldn't be a first that someone's conviction was partly based on the testimony of witnesses or even expert witnesses that were less than honest.
To clarify:-
No police force saw the videos of any rapes carried out by CB.
The video Helge B saw portrayed the rape of an Italian-speaking older woman & a young girl tied to a post.
No video was seen by Helge B or Manfred S portraying the rape of the 72yr old victim DM in Luz, the crime for which CB was convicted in December 2019 in Germany.
IMO It wouldn't be a first that someone's conviction was partly based on the testimony of witnesses or even expert witnesses that were less than honest.
IMO It wouldn't be a first that someone's conviction was partly based on the testimony of witnesses or even expert witnesses that were less than honest.
I think you need to do a lot more research...start with the Michael stone case. AFAIAA all police forces use informers...most who come from a criminal background...imo...although cites supporting this have already been posted
hi misty...when you have time could you please supply a cite to support your claimIt would be multiple citations followed by analysis. Are you going to accept it?
I think you need to do a lot more research...start with the Michael stone case. AFAIAA all police forces use informers...most who come from a criminal background...imo...although cites supporting this have already been postedDo you really think Brueckner left that incriminating video in his video camera for 10 years? That is beyond belief IMO.
It would be multiple citations followed by analysis. Are you going to accept it?
I don’t think one needs to be Sherlock Holmes to work out who gave you the warnings tbh...Please leave her alone. Leave the Moderators to do their work in peace. Love etc. Without hate, free of Karma.
could you let misty answer the post....cites are required...not excusesI was correcting your English - there won't be one cite but multiple citations and analysis.
Please leave her alone. Leave the Moderators to do their work in peace. Love etc. Without hate, free of Karma.
I was correcting your English - there won't be one cite but multiple citations and analysis.
thats fine but without a cite it cant be claimed as a fact. It really is simpleWas it ever claimed as a fact?
Was it ever claimed as a fact?
yesI think Misty presented her analysis. Was it Faithlilly who quoted it? VS objected to it. And we argue the validity of it.
I think Misty presented her analysis. Was it Faithlilly who quoted it? VS objected to it. And we argue the validity of it.
I didnt argue anything..try and get your facts right... I merely asked for a citeIf you agreed with it would you still ask for a cite?
If you agreed with it would you still ask for a cite?
I think Misty presented her analysis. Was it Faithlilly who quoted it? VS objected to it. And we argue the validity of it.I objected to Faithlilly using another member’s post (which in itself contained no cite) to try and make a point.
I objected to Faithlilly using another member’s post (which in itself contained no cite) to try and make a point.But did you think Misty's analysis to be wrong? I admit I couldn't tell if it was right or wrong as I don't follow the news about CB that intently.
Please leave her alone. Leave the Moderators to do their work in peace. Love etc. Without hate, free of Karma.What’s the big deal? I simply said it’s pretty obvious who handed out the warning, why so sensitive?
I was correcting your English - there won't be one cite but multiple citations and analysis.
What’s the big deal? I simply said it’s pretty obvious who handed out the warning, why so sensitive?I might think you are talking about me and get all hateful again.
I think you take this far too seriously......Moderators have tried o intimidate me...and they have come and gone...thats a fact ...not opinion
I'm not the one taking things too seriously and making snide comments about someone.
snide comments... ive had a mod tell me he hates me ...LOLLove thy enemies.
snide comments... ive had a mod tell me he hates me ...LOLNot to worry, I'll keep a place in hell for you if I pass on first.
It was when Brueckner was in prison in Portugal for diesel theft, so before. IMOWhat I read it was after not before Madeleine went missing. It seems a story poorly told. For what is the point of timing something by when CB is in prison, as there might be more than one occurrance.
I think you take this far too seriously......Moderators have tried o intimidate me...and they have come and gone...thats a fact ...not opinionOne daY WE MAY SAY THE SAME FOR YOU. He was here for a while but now he's gone.
I didnt argue anything..try and get your facts right... I merely asked for a cite
I was the first to do so. But if she's not here to read the request what can we do?
I dont think its true...why is it that when im asked to provide a cite my post is altered...but when I ask for a cite it creates a50 post discussion. Just ask misty to provide a cite
I was the first to do so. But if she's not here to read the request what can we do?
I was the first to do so. But if she's not here to read the request what can we do?
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118
*snipped*
Crucial evidence from the two witnesses was their story of breaking into Christian B's house and stealing homemade videos of him raping several victims, though not the American widow.
But the court was not shown the videos and one of the witnesses told the judges the tapes had been destroyed in a caravan blaze.
Mr Fulscher said: "What makes it worse is that the witnesses weren't questioned for long. The whole case took only three days.
"I would have spent three days just questioning one of the witnesses. The videos were not shown in court, where they are is a mystery."
===============================================================
This information comes from CB's current lawyer, Fulscher.
German & Portuguese police combined to look at unsolved rape cases on the Algarve during the period before CB came out of jail in 2006, which is what led them to the DM case.
My concern is why no DNA evidence was ever harvested from the rope, bedding, clothing or reported hair which PJ retained. The forensic evidence in the Behan rape was also destroyed around 5-6 weeks before Madeleine was taken. 2 unsolved rapes, 2 missing children, all within the space of 3 years which fell under the jurisdiction of the same set of PJ officers.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118
*snipped*
Crucial evidence from the two witnesses was their story of breaking into Christian B's house and stealing homemade videos of him raping several victims, though not the American widow.
But the court was not shown the videos and one of the witnesses told the judges the tapes had been destroyed in a caravan blaze.
Mr Fulscher said: "What makes it worse is that the witnesses weren't questioned for long. The whole case took only three days.
"I would have spent three days just questioning one of the witnesses. The videos were not shown in court, where they are is a mystery."
===============================================================
This information comes from CB's current lawyer, Fulscher.
German & Portuguese police combined to look at unsolved rape cases on the Algarve during the period before CB came out of jail in 2006, which is what led them to the DM case.
My concern is why no DNA evidence was ever harvested from the rope, bedding, clothing or reported hair which PJ retained. The forensic evidence in the Behan rape was also destroyed around 5-6 weeks before Madeleine was taken. 2 unsolved rapes, 2 missing children, all within the space of 3 years which fell under the jurisdiction of the same set of PJ officers.
They don't seem to have convinced Brunt that they have the right man, do they?
They don't seem to have convinced Brunt that they have the right man, do they?
Is Martin Brunt's opinion important do you think?
As a professional crime journalist he's probably better informed than the 'experts' on here - IMO
Brenda Leyland as well?
They don't seem to have convinced Brunt that they have the right man, do they?
To clarify:-
No police force saw the videos of any rapes carried out by CB.
The video Helge B saw portrayed the rape of an Italian-speaking older woman & a young girl tied to a post.
No video was seen by Helge B or Manfred S portraying the rape of the 72yr old victim DM in Luz, the crime for which CB was convicted in December 2019 in Germany.
I don't know because he didn't say... But who cares, what Brunt thinks. To me it seems blindingly obvious that Wolters has some pretty serious, evidence which as I showed yesterday will be disclosed once CB is questioned
Some very interesting times, ahead
Wolters will not question CB at all unless he gets more evidence;
"We have found nothing in the past three months to make us think we've got the wrong suspect, but the evidence we have now is the same we had when we made our first appeal on 3 June...
"We have had hundreds of calls - 400 to us and hundreds to Scotland Yard - but we haven't got the information we need to charge Christian B. But there are some clues that make us hopeful our investigation will be more successful," he added.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118
Thats your opinion ......my opinion is that at some stage he will accept the evidence they have and question.
I dont think you can take what is in a news article as fact. I found Brunts article quite unimpressive and it is 3 months old.
I don't know if Wolters will question Brueckner, but I hope he does. And I don't see how he can't, eventually.
Not questioning Brueckner will get him absolutely nowhere, so what difference will it make?
Wolters will not question CB at all unless he gets more evidence;Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian Brueckner, 43, WILL be questioned by police, German prosecutors say
"We have found nothing in the past three months to make us think we've got the wrong suspect, but the evidence we have now is the same we had when we made our first appeal on 3 June...
"We have had hundreds of calls - 400 to us and hundreds to Scotland Yard - but we haven't got the information we need to charge Christian B. But there are some clues that make us hopeful our investigation will be more successful," he added.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118
if he questions him he will have to arrest him and therefore disclose all his evidence...this is what he doesnt want to do at the moment.
Then as wolters has said...he will only question him when he is ready to charge him in order to give him as little time as possible to make counter arguments
Hi misty...dare I ask where your info re this video came from?
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/madeleine-mccann-german-prisoner-identified-as-suspect-18.542225/page-10#post-16356431 (DLK79) - this corroborates what had previously been posted.
I would need to search for the original German news report on the forum but there are 22 threads on Websleuths about CB.
Thats....this one seems to be saying the film is of the rape of the american woman...the german papers we ahve seen refer to the american woman...its all a bit confusing....not that any of it really matters, the court didnt seem to have any doubt of CBs guilt.
You need to read it again. Only the MO was similar.
At the moment. He has got plenty of time.
So eventually, if nothing else is found, Arrest him, Charge him and take it to Court. If Brueckner refuses to speak or make a plea then it will not look good.
What else to be done if there is no further Evidence?
I don't suppose he is going to say anything until he knows what he is being charged with.
In a similar situation, would you ?
We all understand that... And that's why the video you posted is wrongWrong in what aspect. We need specifics here.
According to his Lawyer it appears to be a bit more serious than that, I believe.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/madeleine-mccann-german-prisoner-identified-as-suspect-18.542225/page-10#post-16356431 (DLK79) - this corroborates what had previously been posted.I’d like to see that because every German newspaper report I have seen about Christian B which refernces the video claims that the American woman features in the video. If they are wrong then that means there is another seventy. year old rape victim of CB’s who has yet to be identified.
I would need to search for the original German news report on the forum but there are 22 threads on Websleuths about CB.
How would they know which person was being raped and what their age was? The question that is going in my head is, were the camera operators the ones who later destroyed the video evidence.
Did his ex pals testify under oath that they had indeed seen the film?
How would which person was being raped and what their age was? The question that is going in my head is, were the camera operators the ones who later destroyed the video evidence.
How would which person was being raped and what their age was? The question that is going in my head is, were the camera operators the ones who later destroyed the video evidence.
There were no camera operatorsHow do you know that?
I’d like to see that because every German newspaper report I have seen about Christian B which refernces the video claims that the American woman features in the video. If they are wrong then that means there is another seventy. year old rape victim of CB’s who has yet to be identified.
There were no camera operators
Under forum rules, if you don't provide cites your original posts can be deleted. (I'd better go back and do it before they get re-quoted.)
The first part, how was the victim identified, by those that allegedly saw the film ?
Delete if you wish... If it makes your sad little life any better
Don't you know... I do
Get a room, you two.
Bit muddled that Rob, but I think I know what you mean.Thanks edited version: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11844.msg632834#msg632834
How would they know who was the victim was and her age?
There were no camera operators
Remind the reader then.It doesn't seem to be appreciated when I bring useful information to the forum so I'll pass on that.
Delete if you wish... If it makes your sad little life any betterThanks, mate. I'll remember that.
Don't you know... I doTell us then. Don't keep us in suspenders.
Tell us then. Don't keep us in suspenders.
Thanks, mate. I'll remember that.
Tell us then. Don't keep us in suspenders.
Tell us then. Don't keep us in suspenders.
Show some respect and I mightThat's quite provocative Davel.
That's quite provocative Davel.
No it isntWe'll see what the other's say. The jury is out for deliberation at the moment.
We'll see what the other's say. The jury is out for deliberation at the moment.
Who caresYou do. You're as sensitive as a ....
It might mean they just made that bit up.Bit of a coincidence then.
You do. You're as sensitive as a ....Not sure what makes you imagine you can offer me any advice... I haven't seen any wisdom in any of your posts
""You're too sensitive."
It's a statement I've heard all my life. Depending on the context, it's either meant as an insult or offered as well-meaning feedback. Regardless of the intention, I'm always left with the same feelings: Toughen up. Be stronger. Bury your emotions. Be different than who you are." https://www.thegoodtrade.com/features/am-i-too-sensitive
You mean there was no zoom in for the money shot ?Inappropriate.
Inappropriate.
You mean there was no zoom in for the money shot ?If only the judge could see a video. I wonder if a video is what HCW is holding onto.
If only the judge could see a video.
If only the judge could see a video.
If only the judge could see a video. I wonder if a video is what HCW is holding onto.
In what way ? It was a porn video. They usually build up to a climaxIt was a video of a serious sexual assault against an old woman by a violent assailant and you are making a joke of it. Inappropriate.
It was a video of a serious sexual assault against an old woman by a violent assailant and you are making a joke of it. Inappropriate.
Obviously didn't need to... Guilty verdictRight how far through the video have we got?
She's saying the hidden cellar was 15 feet underground That is seriously deep IMO. Are you guys still measuring things in feet and inches?
15 feet! Is that to the top or to the floor level of this cellar? I find this incredible. What was CB doing with such a deep cellar?
When was that dug? https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=419
Maybe it was there before he went there.So supposedly the small shed would hide the ladder that dropped down into the air-raid shelter. Would that work in an air raid. The shed could get knocked over and you wouldn't be able to access the entrance any longer.
I suggested, a while ago, that it might have been an air raid shelter.
So supposedly the small shed would hide the ladder that dropped down into the air-raid shelter. Would that work in an air raid. The shed could get knocked over and you wouldn't be able to access the entrance any longer.
There might not have been a shed there during the war, just an underground bunker, or maybe there was once a house on top.I think it would show some sort of "intentionality".
Who knows. Is it important ?
I can't see that Brueckner would have dug it out in his spare time.
What game are you playing... I'm not going to join in with your silly games so it's best if you go and play with yourselfIt is against the rules to comment on bad spelling. It was accidental and I thought quite funny so I left it.
I think it would show some sort of "intentionality".
If it was built in the 2nd WW then it wasn't CB who built it. Things in the bunker suggest to me it had recently used. So where was the access way? Certainly, if a child was dropped into it as I imagine it, there would be no escape once the ladder was withdrawn. Could it only be withdrawn by someone from above? Doesn't sound like an effective shelter to me.
It is against the rules to comment on bad spelling. It was accidental and I thought quite funny so I left it.
Lighten up.Bit coincidental if it never existed, but do carry on taking the piss out of a violent rape, it’s the kind of observation we have come to expect from you.
From what Misty says, it might never have existed.
Bit coincidental if it never existed, but do carry on taking the piss out of a violent rape, it’s the kind of observation we have come to expect from you.
Did it say access by ladder ?It hasn't really said. When I saw the digger there it makes me think the soil above it was well compacted.
I reckon a ladder could be taken down into the bunker as well as lifted out.
An bunker 15 ft underground sounds vastly superior to some of the British air raid shelters
snip/The media reported it, and you know it.
"About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep."
So that part of the video is wrong IMO."
Many people say what they want to be true rather than what is true. There has been a lot of that in this case. That's why cites and familiarity with the PJ files is so important in my opinion. Sometimes it's due to carelessness, but there seems to be other times when it's deliberate imo. Who started the rumour that Mr Smith had changed his mind about who he saw on 3rd May, for example? It became a much quoted 'truth', but I've never seen a reliable cite for it.
snip/
"About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep."
So that part of the video is wrong IMO."
Many people say what they want to be true rather than what is true. There has been a lot of that in this case. That's why cites and familiarity with the PJ files is so important in my opinion. Sometimes it's due to carelessness, but there seems to be other times when it's deliberate imo. Who started the rumour that Mr Smith had changed his mind about who he saw on 3rd May, for example? It became a much quoted 'truth', but I've never seen a reliable cite for it.
G-unit you ought to listen and watch this documentary "When our minds play tricks on us | DW Documentary" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmlXY-hzgm0 What is discussed in there should make you change your mind about your view on Martin Smith's identification, whether he changed his mind or not makes no differences it was totally unreliable in the first place.
That whole section of Martin Smith's statement should not have been allowed to be included in the PJ file.
OG certainly didn’t think there was anything wrong with Martin Smith’s recall as at one point they thought his photo fit could possibly be the abductor.Tell me, do you honestly believe what you've just written? There were two photofits and they weren't really that similar. I think they were asking us to stop thinking Tannerman was the most important person in this case.
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1020 She starts talking about other sightings.I wasn't able to find a post discussing old vans in the PJ files. Any offers of help?
When saw talks about a tourist seeing an old van the image goes to a van like the one previously owned by Christian B (admittedly with a big question mark over it). Was the description as accurate as of that? Does anyone know how to locate the statements from these other tourists described in this section of the video?
Remembered Tamsin ---- http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/T_M_S_AGE_12.htm Title of document "T.M.S. AGED12" (They certainly don't make it easy!)
Nothing about an old van in that statement.
I don't think her e-fit looks that alike CB.
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1020 (https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1020) She starts talking about other sightings.Or does it?...
When saw talks about a tourist seeing an old van the image goes to a van like the one previously owned by Christian B (admittedly with a big question mark over it). Was the description as accurate as of that? Does anyone know how to locate the statements from these other tourists described in this section of the video?
Remembered Tamsin ---- http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/T_M_S_AGE_12.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/T_M_S_AGE_12.htm) Title of document "T.M.S. AGED12" (They certainly don't make it easy!)
Nothing about an old van in that statement.
I don't think her e-fit looks that alike CB.
https://youtu.be/eBWsaJwBbxw?t=1020 She starts talking about other sightings.
When saw talks about a tourist seeing an old van the image goes to a van like the one previously owned by Christian B (admittedly with a big question mark over it). Was the description as accurate as of that? Does anyone know how to locate the statements from these other tourists described in this section of the video?
Remembered Tamsin ---- http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/T_M_S_AGE_12.htm Title of document "T.M.S. AGED12" (They certainly don't make it easy!)
Nothing about an old van in that statement.
I don't think her e-fit looks that alike CB.
What is the point in posting a video that brings nothing new and seems to contain countless errors.. Isnt it more than a little pointless
It's a good example of the misinformation and confusion surrounding this case. Books, videos and media stories have all contained mistakes which mislead imo.
It's a good example of the misinformation and confusion surrounding this case. Books, videos and media stories have all contained mistakes which mislead imo.
The trouble only rests with deciding which ones.
Tell me, do you honestly believe what you've just written? There were two photofits and they weren't really that similar. I think they were asking us to stop thinking Tannerman was the most important person in this case.
Refocus the time frame from 9:15 to closer to 10:00 PM.
It's a good example of the misinformation and confusion surrounding this case. Books, videos and media stories have all contained mistakes which mislead imo.
To be fair I think there are mistakes in most of them but we dint need them We have a professional investigation that says the parents are innocent and the evidence points to CB
I think much of it is deliberate, depending upon the bias of individual producers and authors.
As you have pointed out previously, it's perfectly reasonable to question the opinions of professionals.
And how much they think they can get away with before the parents send in the lawyers.
It's quite noticeable that there is no threat of legal action from CBs lawyers
I don't think they would dare.
It's quite noticeable that there is no threat of legal action from CBs lawyers
It is but you don't agree as I recall. It really does depend in the evidence.. That's what counts
It depends on what is being questioned. Opinions are formed about evidence, and it's those opinions which should be questioned imo. The Germans seem to have decided to believe the evidence of some very dodgy witnesses.
It depends on what is being questioned. Opinions are formed about evidence, and it's those opinions which should be questioned imo. The Germans seem to have decided to believe the evidence of some very dodgy witnesses.Based on blind faith, in your opinion, or perhaps there is something else? Do you agree that you don't know the full picture and are simply speculating?
Based on blind faith, in your opinion, or perhaps there is something else? Do you agree that you don't know the full picture and are simply speculating?
As are we all. Some are placing their faith in Wolters having something more, but he admits that whatever it is it doesn't justify an arrest.
As are we all. Some are placing their faith in Wolters having something more, but he admits that whatever it is it doesn't justify an arrest.Speculating is pointless. Give the German investigation the benefit of the doubt and wait and see what pans out. instead of making (largely critical) pronouncements about what you think is going on behind the scenes. IMO.
Speculating is pointless. Give the German investigation the benefit of the doubt and wait and see what pans out. instead of making (largely critical) pronouncements about what you think is going on behind the scenes. IMO.
It is, but there's plenty of it going on, mostly by those who are keen to believe that the latest suspect is the perpetrator imo.
It is, but there's plenty of it going on, mostly by those who are keen to believe that the latest suspect is the perpetrator imo.I’m not, if that comment was aimed at me? I take it all at face value and don’t suppose to know what is going on behind the scenes of this investigation.
speculation based on evidence
What evidence?
Evidence...that which supports a proposition...there is quite a lot that impliactes him
Really? Perhaps you could identify this evidence that implicates him?
You are aware of it and are just playing a silly game. I'm saying evidence...not proof
I would like to know which evidence you are referring to nevertheless.
all the evidence in the public domain which you are fully aware of...testimonies from friends for instance.All your so-called evidence could all just be coincidental.
you may think its unreliable but that isn't the point. its evidence and it would be up to a court to decide if it wa srelaible not an armchair detective
All your so-called evidence could all just be coincidental.
Or perhaps constructed by media to paint a worse picture than is the truth.Or perhaps it’s all part of a cunning plot stitiched together by the police authorities of three countries to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security before they finally pounce on them and cart them off to jail.
Or perhaps it’s all part of a cunning plot stitiched together by the police authorities of three countries to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security before they finally pounce on them and cart them off to jail.
All your so-called evidence could all just be coincidental.
All your so-called evidence could all just be coincidental.
If they have concrete evidence to support it then its the evidence thats convincing not the testimony. The evidence supports the testimony....you are seeing this testimony in isolation...the Germans are taking all the evidence together
As the police in the Michael Stone did?
Did stone give evidence
It isn't so called evidence...it's evidenceYes it is, until it is tested it maybe so-called evidence.
all the evidence in the public domain which you are fully aware of...testimonies from friends for instance.
you may think its unreliable but that isn't the point. its evidence and it would be up to a court to decide if it wa srelaible not an armchair detective
Thank you. Is the testimony from friends all of it or is there more?
Thank you. Is the testimony from friends all of it or is there more?Don't rush him. He has to finish his cup of tea so he can read the tea leaves.
Yes it is, until it is tested it maybe so-called evidence.
I accept there are facts like his current convictions.
that he got a phone call on the night Madeleine went missing.
That he changed his car's ownership the following day.
Yes it is, until it is tested it maybe so-called evidence.
I accept there are facts like his current convictions.
that he got a phone call on the night Madeleine went missing.
That he changed his car's ownership the following day.
That's not been confirmed has it?Well, it might fall into the undisputed facts category.
Don't rush him. He has to finish his cup of tea so he can read the tea leaves.
Now that made me laugh.
Lots more as you are fully aware
Not sure why that’s important.If it’s so obvious then why is he still in prison and why aren’t you devoting all your spare time trying to get his conviction overturned rather than spending it casting doubt on the McCanns?
The police in the Stone case were sure they had the evidence to prove Stone committed murder. The CPS allowed charges to be lodged. It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense that he was not guilty.
Like Brueckner Stone, with his past convictions, was easy to paint as a perpetrator. Lessons should be learned.
You are probably on a similar wavelength to robWrong thread. You should be posting on the psychic thread when talking of "wavelength".
Wrong thread. You should be posting on the psychic thread when talking of "wavelength".
Not sure why that’s important.
The police in the Stone case were sure they had the evidence to prove Stone committed murder. The CPS allowed charges to be lodged. It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense that he was not guilty.
Like Brueckner Stone, with his past convictions, was easy to paint as a perpetrator. Lessons should be learned.
Wrong thread. You should be posting on the psychic thread when talking of "wavelength".
And so should you when talking about Reading Tea Leaves.Have tea leaves been mentioned before? I thought they had.
No its the correct english word....nothing to do with psychics. The only reason I would post on that thread is to ridicule those who beleive...another hate post coming no doubtIn the background was the 60 minutes documentary on CB and Fredrick F, CB's lawyer, if you are forgetful, said "Holy water can ordered as a long drink in Hell". What a strange thing to say. It might make the stay a bit more bearable though.
Have tea leaves been mentioned before? I thought they had.
In the background was the 60 minutes documentary on CB and Fredrick F, CB's lawyer, if you are forgetful, said "Holy water can ordered as a long drink in Hell". What a strange thing to say. It might make the stay a bit more bearable though.
https://youtu.be/Pvqu9Wd388c?t=2151
Perhaps you should find out more details about the case...if he gave evidence for instance. How much more dont you know. According to the BBC report the Judges gave an explanation after the second trial as to why they found him guilty. Have you read it....I doubt it
I think Eleanor may have thought I found your post goading...which I did....and was conerned another pointless spat might start
I’m sorry but did I say whether Stone gave evidence or not or did I say that it wasn’t important?
There was no forensic link between the murder and Stone.
There was no eye witness testimony.
The witness testimony there was was easily discredited.
I’m sure another judge would have said similar when the Birmingham Six unsuccessfully appealed against their conviction in 1987. Of course we all know how that turned out"
I think Eleanor may have thought I found your post goading...which I did....and was concerned another pointless spat might startYou know it is pointless for you to start arguing with me! You are incapable of going the distance.
He didnt say that...he said before his client would speak you would be able to order holy water as along drink in hell....it may be German expression...I had one part in the wrong order. "you would be able to order holy water as a long drink in hell" or "Holy water can ordered as a long drink in Hell" Significantly different??
Eleanor obviously knows you too well and how easy you are to rile.
You know it is pointless for you to start arguing with me! You are incapable of going the distance.
I had one part in the wrong order. "you would be able to order holy water as a long drink in hell" or "Holy water can ordered as a long drink in Hell" Significantly different??
Another poor judgement call. Eleanor knows me far better than you think.....I certainly wasnt riled during the recent nastiness towards me.....Read the words belowThat is the funniest thing you've ever said. In general, you have a very limited sense of humour. (if any at all IMO).
That is the funniest thing you've ever said.
It is like
Below is List of things that Davel has got right:
Your first post towards me was goading...Im not going to get involved in a babyish argument with you. Ive already spoken to John about your behaviourWell, I hope he has a better sense of humour than you do.
I’m sorry but did I say whether Stone gave evidence or not or did I say that it wasn’t important?There was no forensic evidence that Joana Cipriano was murdered at home
There was no forensic link between the murder and Stone.
There was no eye witness testimony.
The witness testimony there was was easily discredited.
I’m sure another judge would have said similar when the Birmingham Six unsuccessfully appealed against their conviction in 1987. Of course we all know how that turned out"
You didnt answer the question which leads me to beleive you dont know. You list the evidence which you claim shows him innocent but not the evidence the court used to find him guilty.
The lack of alibi has only just been raised today.....I wonder what else there is.
I think Eleanor may have thought I found your post goading...which I did....and was conerned another pointless spat might start
Obviously you put two and two together and made five but don’t worry we’ll make mistakes.
The main thrust of the evidence was the now discredited witness testimony.
BTW was the BBC programme you mentioned this one ?
‘ In May and June 2017, the case was scrutinised in The Chillenden Murders, a two-part BBC Two programme in which a team of independent experts re-examined the evidence.[6] The Telegraph summarised the television programme by stating, "According to the BBC, new details, uncovered during the making of the documentary, raise the possibility that the wrong man may have been convicted."[19] Two of the legal experts who took part in the programme – prominent defence barrister Stephen Kamlisch and legal expert Sheryl Nwosu – believe there are significant doubts regarding the conviction and are now working on Stone's behalf to have the case re-examined with the aim of launching a third appeal against the conviction.’
Eleanor obviously knows you too well and how easy you are to rile.
I was.I was trying to make Davel laugh. Does he do such a thing?
This is not true? Please don't profess to know how I feel.Now that does sound like a spat coming on!
More poor judgement....Ive no doubt there MAY be a miscarriage of justice... I would just like to see ALL the evidence....did stone give any...you dont know...didnt take me long to work that out. The fact is Stone may well be guilty. I just dont have enough information ...and it seems you dont either...to give a valid opinionWhy are you guys discussing the Stone case here on this most valued thread?
I was trying to make Davel laugh. Does he do such a thing?
Now that does sound like a spat coming on!
Why are you guys discussing the Stone case here on this most valued thread?
I was.
I dont think you could make me laugh...we are on different wavelengths.
I do laugh...i've got quite a wicked sense of humour.
I dont think you could make me laugh...we are on different wavelengths.Make a joke then, show me.
I do laugh...i've got quite a wicked sense of humour.
Do you believe Davel is really that immature?
Rob is not the problem. I remember him having spats like that with Stephen. I’m afraid he causes trouble then hides behind your or Brietta’s skirts.
Way above the likes of most. You and me both. Some of the shite on here is hilarious, but nearly always unintended. That's the funny bit.
water of a ducks back..lolAre you playing with your rubber duckie?
I actually "inadvertantly " made one yesterday in apost to Rob...but he completely missed it...if he had seen it he would have gone ballistic...way over his headCite demanded.
Do you believe Davel is really that immature?
Rob is not the problem. I remember him having spats like that with Stephen. I’m afraid he causes trouble then hides behind your or Brietta’s skirts.
Make a joke then, show me.
I was thinking of the first line, Three Englishmen walk into a bar ....
Or maybe Three Englishmen, all infected with coronavirus, walk into a bar ....
Finish the joke in the current environment?
No, I don't. Davel doesn't hide anywhere.Girls just wanna have fun. https://youtu.be/PIb6AZdTr-A
Strange how we have just had another relatively peaceful afternoon, don't you think.
The first thing you need to learn about humour is that it is spontaneous... your attempt at a doesnt have anyThree Englishmen, all infected with coronavirus, walk into a bar ...
Three Englishmen, all infected with coronavirus, walk into a bar ...
Didn't make any difference the bars were already empty!
not funny at allYou got no sense of humour. Right, tell us a joke.
The first thing you need to learn about humour is that it is spontaneous... your attempt at a doesnt have anyIt isn't easy to make up a joke.
I'm more of a spontaneous situation comic...the joke comes a part of th econversation...for instance...I love nice clothes and will only wear designer labels..... get all my clothes fron TK MaxIt is a regional joke, We don't have TK Max shops in NZ but we certainly have plenty of other Charity shops for you to choose from.
you probably dont get that one Rob
It isn't easy to make up a joke.It is a regional joke, We don't have TK Max shops in NZ but we certainly have plenty of other Charity shops for you to choose from.
really i'm quite careful with money....used to do all my shopping at the pound shop then switched to the 99p shop.......found it was slightly better valueHave you forgotten I'm no good at maths?
TK Max is a UK shop that sells off designer labels cheaplySo you didn't get my joke?
Have you forgotten I'm no good at maths?
So you didn't get my joke?
TK Max is a UK shop that sells off designer labels cheaplyJust the labels, nothing else?
I understood your joke but it wasnt funnyThat is your problem, not mine.
Just the labels, nothing else?
That is your problem, not mine.
I actually "inadvertantly " made one yesterday in apost to Rob...but he completely missed it...if he had seen it he would have gone ballistic...way over his headHave you provided my Cite yet? You seem to be slow.
sorry...are you stilling telling jokes or are you seious now...difficult to tellThat's more like it. Now you are getting the groove.
TK Max is a UK shop that sells off designer labels cheaplyThere was a firm in NZ that attached "Made in NZ" labels to their garments, and they got into trouble. The labels were made in NZ but the garments were made in Bangladesh.
I actually "inadvertantly " made one yesterday in apost to Rob...but he completely missed it...if he had seen it he would have gone ballistic...way over his headI want to see this post so I can report you to Eleanor. Or are you going to ask for a lawyer to be present?
I want to see this post so I can report you to Eleanor. Or are you going to ask for a lawyer to be present?
Cant seem to find it now...never mind...im not impressed with lawyers....I would represent myselfYes OK, I've seen how you work, you'd put the judge and jury to sleep by saying the same thing over a thousand times.
Yes OK, I've seen how you work, you'd put the judge and jury to sleep by saying the same thing over a thousand times.
No, I don't. Davel doesn't hide anywhere.
Strange how we have just had another relatively peaceful afternoon, don't you think.
Im quite highbrow when it comes to culture... I absolutely adore opera...seen all the great ones live...my favourite is The Phantom
I thought The Phantom was a 1996 film.
The Phantom isn’t technically an opera but a musical. Operas very rarely have spoken words between songs but are sung all the way through.
There's no technicality about it..it's not an opera
There's no technicality about it..it's not an opera
And your idea of humour is to tell people you think it is an opera? Then you laugh if they believe you? Not a shared joke then.
I think you've missed the point...I'm actually making fun of myself...that's what humour is all about.
Now that’s funny.Of course it is..it's Alan Partridge type humour..it's something he might say
I think it's my humour that's made me so attractive to the ladies.
I think you've missed the point...I'm actually making fun of myself...that's what humour is all about.
You Devil you. I didn't know that.
You're opening yourself to ridicule, but who is supposed to laugh?We all do...it's quite pleasant ..you should try it
You mean you couldn’t tell?
Well, he is quite good looking you know.
Please Eleanor...leave the jokes to me
We all do...it's quite pleasant ..you should try it
Although I do sometimes check the others are laughing with me not at me
I think you've missed the point...I'm actually making fun of myself...that's what humour is all about.You don't need to try so hard. It'll come naturally.
I think it's my humour that's made me so attractive to the ladies.He longer has to carry a blow-up doll along with him in his designer labeled suitcase.
I love how you’re all so fascinated by Davel, he must feel very flattered by all the attention he’s getting this evening.Right, pick on VS time now? You definitely have a sense of humour. I find you are often making fun of situations, emphasising the irony. Quite often I have to read your posts twice just to make sure there isn't libel in them.
I do hope they don't lie to you.
I'm happy to laugh at myself..it's an important qualityI prefer "Happy Davel".
He longer has to carry a blow-up doll along with him in his designer labeled suitcase.
I love how you’re all so fascinated by Davel, he must feel very flattered by all the attention he’s getting this evening.
You sound a little jealous.
You sound a little jealous.You sound a little goady. But yes, I'm very jealous that you're not all ganging up on me and trying to put me down, in fact I'm really upset about it.
You sound a little jealous.
I think VS is being ironic Rob...Agreed.