UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Rossb on July 06, 2022, 02:05:44 PM
-
Forgive me if i have posted against the rules regarding the subject matter, but for heavens sake has anyone came across anti mccann groups such as facebook and forums then get blocked for asking straight forward questions, to me logic is out of the window. Same stories pop up everyday.
-
Forgive me if i have posted against the rules regarding the subject matter, but for heavens sake has anyone came across anti mccann groups such as facebook and forums then get blocked for asking straight forward questions, to me logic is out of the window. Same stories pop up everyday.
Your thread may not be in the correct place, I'll enquire. In answer to your question any site has the right to make their own rules whatever their subject matter. It sounds like they decided you wern't asking straight forwatd questions to me, even though you think you are.
-
Absolutley not, questioning is questioning my friend. I never once got upset but gave an opinion and up straight facts of cases which people mis construed. My point is i am neutral but i challenege those as you do who claim 100 percent innocent or guilty
-
Absolutley not, questioning is questioning my friend. I never once got upset but gave an opinion and up straight facts of cases which people mis construed. My point is i am neutral but i challenege those as you do who claim 100 percent innocent or guilty
Maybe you are neutral, but you're just not convincing others. Perhaps they don't understand your posts or they don't want to.
-
Your thread may not be in the correct place, I'll enquire. In answer to your question any site has the right to make their own rules whatever their subject matter. It sounds like they decided you wern't asking straight forwatd questions to me, even though you think you are.
What absolute biased junk from you. Do you really not understand that these groups think anyone who questions their beliefs...howver polite...will be labelled a troll and banned. you really do show your true colours.
i read poultons twitter...its very enlightening how poor her understanding is. Perlin claims he can seperate the complex sample which could show that Maddies DNA was found in the scenic. She hers this as he can show Maddie had been in the scenic..he doesnt correct her. she then goes on to say the FFS had 2000 cases looked at and implies it was for errors. What the fool doesnt realise was the cases were looked at because presence of minute quantities of DNA had been used to show someones presence..it doesnt.
It came to a head at the Omaghah bombing trial where the judge threw the case out..despite Hoeys DNA being found which implicated him. Experts argued that touch/LCN DNA does not prove presence.
All the DNA in the McCann case is LCN...not admissible in portuguese courts based on its reliability
-
Absolutley not, questioning is questioning my friend. I never once got upset but gave an opinion and up straight facts of cases which people mis construed. My point is i am neutral but i challenege those as you do who claim 100 percent innocent or guilty
Im convinced maddie was abducted and her death was not covered up by the parents...but Its impossible to be 100% sure...Ive never claimed that. Sceptics problem is they dont understand the evidence
-
Yes Mr Gray, i have been looking at various fb sites and forums and i must say this one is good in terms of balance. What i will say is i think its highly unlikely the parents were involved. I am glad we sort of see this way, reason being as if we look at fb, twitter, other forums more vitriol is put forward. So i tried to discuss evrd, timelines etc. But why i posted this thread is because i feel i get more vitriol than anyone who is pro!
-
What absolute biased junk from you. Do you really not understand that these groups think anyone who questions their beliefs...howver polite...will be labelled a troll and banned. you really do show your true colours.
i read poultons twitter...its very enlightening how poor her understanding is. Perlin claims he can seperate the complex sample which could show that Maddies DNA was found in the scenic. She hers this as he can show Maddie had been in the scenic..he doesnt correct her. she then goes on to say the FFS had 2000 cases looked at and implies it was for errors. What the fool doesnt realise was the cases were looked at because presence of minute quantities of DNA had been used to show someones presence..it doesnt.
It came to a head at the Omaghah bombing trial where the judge threw the case out..despite Hoeys DNA being found which implicated him. Experts argued that touch/LCN DNA does not prove presence.
All the DNA in the McCann case is LCN...not admissible in portuguese courts based on its reliability
I've experienced my share of vitriol here and. although I've never posted there, from a pro McCann forum. I don't retaliate in kind or accuse people of posting junk.
-
Forgive me if i have posted against the rules regarding the subject matter, but for heavens sake has anyone came across anti mccann groups such as facebook and forums then get blocked for asking straight forward questions, to me logic is out of the window. Same stories pop up everyday.
Sceptic pages and forums are absolutely terrified of straight forward logical thinking and questioning of their beliefs, that’s undoubtedly why you were banned (and probably ridiculed and belittled before you were banned). It’s happened to us all at some time or other in the last 15 years.
-
I've experienced my share of vitriol here and. although I've never posted there, from a pro McCann forum. I don't retaliate in kind or accuse people of posting junk.
If a poster posts junk what's wrong with pointing it out
-
Maybe you are neutral, but you're just not convincing others. Perhaps they don't understand your posts or they don't want to.
Maybe you don't want to. Or maybe you don't like the question.
Someone Approved this Thread.
-
Okay, Who Approved this Thread? It obviously wasn't Gunit.
-
If a poster posts junk what's wrong with pointing it out
Why is it junk to point out that groups and forums have every right to reject posters if they wish? No-one can join a group and insist that their opinion trumps it's member's opinions.
-
Okay, Who Approved this Thread? It obviously wasn't Gunit.
Why? Would you expect me to censor the thread? Not my style Eleanor.
-
Why? Would you expect me to censor the thread? Not my style Eleanor.
Did you Approve this Thread. And if so, why?
-
Did you Approve this Thread. And if so, why?
More to the point, why not?
-
More to the point, why not?
Okay. Why Not?
-
Okay. Why Not?
Well you thought I might not, but don't seem able to explain why.
-
Well you thought I might not, but don't seem able to explain why.
You have just been rather unpleasant to New Member. And I didn't like that.
-
Why is it junk to point out that groups and forums have every right to reject posters if they wish? No-one can join a group and insist that their opinion trumps it's member's opinions.
Is that what our new member is doing?
-
You have just been rather unpleasant to New Member. And I didn't like that.
I have not.
-
Is that what our new member is doing?
Why don't you ask our new member? (who isn't new actually)
-
Why is it junk to point out that groups and forums have every right to reject posters if they wish? No-one can join a group and insist that their opinion trumps it's member's opinions.
You need to read your own posts and remind yourself of what you have posted. You are now claiming the poster insisted their opinions were superior. It's junk because your post is trying to deny the truth. These sceptic groups refuse to allow other members to have their own opinions.
Anyone supporting justice is ridiculed and accused of being a paid shill/sock. Imo that's because most sceptics to a certain extent are daft with a poor understanding of the evidence. Dissent is simply not tolerated
-
Why don't you ask our new member? (who isn't new actually)
You’re the one making the accusation.
-
You need to read your own posts and remind yourself of what you have posted. You are now claiming the poster insisted their opinions were superior. It's junk because your post is trying to deny the truth. These sceptic groups refuse to allow other members to have their own opinions.
Anyone supporting justice is ridiculed and accused of being a paid shill/sock. Imo that's because most sceptics to a certain extent are daft with a poor understanding of the evidence. Dissent is simply not tolerated
you have hit the nail very precisely on the head.
-
Why don't you ask our new member? (who isn't new actually)
What do you mean he isn’t new? He or she joined in January and has made 8 posts since then. That’s new in my book. Are you claiming they are a sock puppet?
-
You need to read your own posts and remind yourself of what you have posted. You are now claiming the poster insisted their opinions were superior. It's junk because your post is trying to deny the truth. These sceptic groups refuse to allow other members to have their own opinions.
Anyone supporting justice is ridiculed and accused of being a paid shill/sock. Imo that's because most sceptics to a certain extent are daft with a poor understanding of the evidence. Dissent is simply not tolerated
There are at least two sides to every story. The story being told is that of someone being blocked just for politely asking questions. What's the other side (s)? You don't know, but you're happy to believe what you're being told. I don'r think that's a very balanced approach.
-
There are at least two sides to every story. The story being told is that of someone being blocked just for politely asking questions. What's the other side (s)? You don't know, but you're happy to believe what you're being told. I don'r think that's a very balanced approach.
I believe it because I've seen it many times with my own eyes
I don't think you understand what a balanced approach is.
Why do you feel the need to pretend this doesnt happen
-
I believe it because I've seen it many times with my own eyes
I don't think you understand what a balanced approach is.
Why do you feel the need to pretend this doesnt happen
So you believe anyone who complains about anti-McCann groups. What about those who complain about pro-McCann groups? Are they telling the truth?
-
So you believe anyone who complains about anti-McCann groups. What about those who complain about pro-McCann groups? Are they telling the truth?
I haven't seen that in pro McCann groups
-
I haven't seen that in pro McCann groups
Nor me neither.
-
There are at least two sides to every story. The story being told is that of someone being blocked just for politely asking questions. What's the other side (s)? You don't know, but you're happy to believe what you're being told. I don'r think that's a very balanced approach.
It certainly happened to me. I was bum clenchingly polite on a sceptic site but I was shut down within a couple of days for daring to suggest that the most plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance was that she was abducted.
-
It certainly happened to me. I was bum clenchingly polite on a sceptic site but I was shut down within a couple of days for daring to suggest that the most plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance was that she was abducted.
I never so much as got to make a comment and I was a goner.
-
Perhaps I will sign up to CMOMM again as an experiment just to see how long I last this time…
-
I haven't seen that in pro McCann groups
There's one forum in particulat who's members have attacked me despite me never having been a member of it or wanting to be. Do you need links?
-
There's one forum in particulat who's members have attacked me despite me never having been a member of it or wanting to be. Do you need links?
The salient point is that you have never joined that forum so we don’t know if you would be banned after expressing your “doubts” or not do we?
-
Thanks for the replies, i am still figuring out who to use this for quotation lf others replies, i forgot to add that ive been blocked from around 7 sites. I thought it was pertinent ro bring up because its still happening all over. This isnt balanced and can hardly be challenging others who believe the parents had somethinf to do with the disapperance. Those making the accusations should be well questioned despite what thwory may arise against.
Yes i did join a while back and the thread was gerry a mason (another pointless accuastion)
But ive been working abroad and im back to newcastle now so hopefully should have more time on my hands.
-
The salient point is that you have never joined that forum so we don’t know if you would be banned after expressing your “doubts” or not do we?
I've got more sense than to join a forum where all the members clearly reject my views. All opinions are allowed here, but many groups and forums welcome only those who share their views. I've never been banned from CMOMM but I've never challenged their beliefs because I realised there was no point. I came here instead.
-
I've got more sense than to join a forum where all the members clearly reject my views. All opinions are allowed here, but many groups and forums welcome only those who share their views. I've never been banned from CMOMM but I've never challenged their beliefs because I realised there was no point. I came here instead.
so are you now accepting the point that anti forums like CMOMM ban anyone who voices their belief that Madeleine was abducted?
-
so are you now accepting the point that anti forums like CMOMM ban anyone who voices their belief that Madeleine was abducted?
No. They will, however, like some here, not be interested in revisiting the subject. I know some here tend to see the subject as closed and say 'We've already discussed that years ago'. The CMOMM site is well-organised and to be fair their views are all available if people are prepared to read them.
-
I've got more sense than to join a forum where all the members clearly reject my views. All opinions are allowed here, but many groups and forums welcome only those who share their views. I've never been banned from CMOMM but I've never challenged their beliefs because I realised there was no point. I came here instead.
So you finally admit the truth..... What took you so long.
Sonia Poulton has said she might invite some people with opposing views on to her show to discuss the case.. I've offered my services. You seem to support those who want to spout junk unchallenged... I think that's a pretty poor idea.
I'm happy to defend my opinions in an open debate... That makes me better than them
-
So you finally admit the truth..... What took you so long.
Sonia Poulton has said she might invite some people with opposing views on to her show to discuss the case.. I've offered my services. You seem to support those who want to spout junk unchallenged... I think that's a pretty poor idea.
I'm happy to defend my opinions in an open debate... That makes me better than them
If I supported people who want to spout junk unchallenged I wouldn't be here challenging people. I have no wish to be a lone voice in any forum.
-
If I supported people who want to spout junk unchallenged I wouldn't be here challenging people. I have no wish to be a lone voice in any forum.
You support any forum which wants to stop anyone questioning their views.. Which may well be junk.
You have posted on WS where your views make you a lone voice. Your views were quickly challenged and you haven't replied. That's good open debate... That's what's important in a free society. Closed groups promoting one view unchallenged is bad for society.
-
You support any forum which wants to stop anyone questioning their views.. Which may well be junk.
You have posted on WS where your views make you a lone voice. Your views were quickly challenged and you haven't replied. That's good open debate... That's what's important in a free society. Closed groups promoting one view unchallenged is bad for society.
It's one thing to support something and quite another to accept the way things are. The last unanswered comment on WS was that the presumption of innocence applies only in court. Anyone who has knowledge of the ECHR case law knows that that is nonsense.
-
It's one thing to support something and quite another to accept the way things are. The last unanswered comment on WS was that the presumption of innocence applies only in court. Anyone who has knowledge of the ECHR case law knows that that is nonsense.
If we all accepted the way things were there would be no progress in the world. On websleuths you are free to question anything...thats the difference
-
It's one thing to support something and quite another to accept the way things are. The last unanswered comment on WS was that the presumption of innocence applies only in court. Anyone who has knowledge of the ECHR case law knows that that is nonsense.
The presumption of Innocence does only legally apply In Court. Prior to that it is Libel.
-
If we all accepted the way things were there would be no progress in the world. On websleuths you are free to question anything...thats the difference
On any forum it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Does WS allow abuse of other members?
-
No. They will, however, like some here, not be interested in revisiting the subject. I know some here tend to see the subject as closed and say 'We've already discussed that years ago'. The CMOMM site is well-organised and to be fair their views are all available if people are prepared to read them.
Well you are wrong then, IMO.
-
The presumption of Innocence does only legally apply In Court. Prior to that it is Libel.
It is also applied to investigations by the ECHR;
However, the principle of presumption of innocence does not prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf
-
It is also applied to investigations by the ECHR;
However, the principle of presumption of innocence does not prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf
Wolters must obviously feel what he is doing is necessary..
His decision.
It's a possibility he could solve another 5 or 6 cases, the PJ didn't even bother to investigate.. But people such as you want to knock him.. Lol
-
It is also applied to investigations by the ECHR;
However, the principle of presumption of innocence does not prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf
Does this apply to The McCanns do you think? Or may you go on suggesting that The McCanns are in some way culpable without a scrap of proof?
You frequently Libel The McCanns even only with Innuendo. You should pay attention to what Anthony Bennett did. He was convicted on Innuendo. Although you probably aren't that important.
-
On any forum it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Does WS allow abuse of other members?
I think everyone knows you are wrong. Not sure what you keep wanting to flog a dead horse
-
Wolters must obviously feel what he is doing is necessary..
His decision.
It's a possibility he could solve another 5 or 6 cases, the PJ didn't even bother to investigate.. But people such as you want to knock him.. Lol
This is what it is really all about. The PJ did nothing, other than accuse The McCanns, while a German Paedophile was rampaging around totally unchecked.
Or would anyone like to argue this point? But probably not.
The PJ were utterly incompetent probably due to being stupid, but then you can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse .
Too many years of being subservient to a Dictator.
-
Does this apply to The McCanns do you think? Or may you go on suggesting that The McCanns are in some way culpable without a scrap of proof?
You frequently Libel The McCanns even only with Innuendo. You should pay attention to what Anthony Bennett did. He was convicted on Innuendo. Although you probably aren't that important.
Thanks for the concern, but I don't need your advice thanks. What was Bennett convicted of?
-
Thanks for the concern, but I don't need your advice thanks. What was Bennett convicted of?
Innuendo to Defame. Silly pillock. That cost him a fair few bob.
-
Innuendo to Defame. Silly pillock. That cost him a fair few bob.
Do you have any evidence that Bennett was convicted of that and not of Contempt of Court?
-
To g unit, websleuths does not even recognise my email. I cant sign up and if you seen what the fb groups from haverns lot done, you would be astonished my friend.
-
To g unit, websleuths does not even recognise my email. I cant sign up and if you seen what the fb groups from haverns lot done, you would be astonished my friend.
Come back when you have evidence of a direct connection between The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann on facebook and webslueths.
PS I'm not your friend.
-
Come back when you have evidence of a direct connection between The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann on facebook and webslueths.
PS I'm not your friend.
Lol, its called courtesy.
I physically can not as i got blocked. Someome poated a photo of me on the comment section it was diagusting what the person done. Jill havern was admin, blocked me. So i cant prove it if im blocked. Word of advice, im npt your friend either its just a saying. Get yourself on youtube only ro look at the vitriol. It doesnt become a debate but a slagging off contest. Cmomm r the same, same old stuff.
-
Lol, its called courtesy.
I physically can not as i got blocked. Someome poated a photo of me on the comment section it was diagusting what the person done. Jill havern was admin, blocked me. So i cant prove it if im blocked. Word of advice, im npt your friend either its just a saying. Get yourself on youtube only ro look at the vitriol. It doesnt become a debate but a slagging off contest. Cmomm r the same, same old stuff.
Best to remain as anonymous as possible on the internet- no pictures and no personal details.
Anyone who does otherwise is asking for trouble.
IMO
The other piece of advice I would give is not to get worked up about this case. It's not as if any input will affect the outcome.
-
Best to remain as anonymous as possible on the internet- no pictures and no personal details.
Anyone who does otherwise is asking for trouble.
IMO
The other piece of advice I would give is not to get worked up about this case. It's not as if any input will affect the outcome.
I agree but with it being a fb group i am the real person its just someone went through my fb which is real obvs and posted a photo of me in the comment section of a missing child, disgusting. Then i get blocked because i messaged jill havern asking her to do something about it and got ignored and blocked.
-
I agree but with it being a fb group i am the real person its just someone went through my fb which is real obvs and posted a photo of me in the comment section of a missing child, disgusting. Then i get blocked because i messaged jill havern asking her to do something about it and got ignored and blocked.
Anthony Bennett outed me due to my Email Address. But he picked on the wrong person if he thinks he intimidated me.
-
I see FB as a real danger to privacy. That's why I don't use it - ever.
-
I see FB as a real danger to privacy. That's why I don't use it - ever.
My privacy has gone.
I am reaping the results of that privately. Pretty awful, the spite and revenge. An inadequate person is doing it and I feel sorry for him.
I have never been a member of FB
-
I see FB as a real danger to privacy. That's why I don't use it - ever.
I don't use FB myself as a rule but for those who do, I think it is a wonderful means of communication if used properly.
For example there are really interesting and informative groups particularly concerning local history and the history of surrounding towns etc - lost dogs and cats - general information
I think the problem arises because of deliberate corruption by corrupt people as has been outlined here and as can be seen by the number of innocuous groups which can only be accessed by becoming a member.
Interesting that you should bring up the issue of privacy. Already referred to in this morning's posts is a group which has actually gone out of its way to invade the privacy of others "CMOMM is the social media extension of the CMOMM forum".
Anyone remember the sick diplomas in McCann hatred? promoted by yet another well known facebooker and video editor who uses all means possible to keep the flames of hatred burning high and bright.
One certainly doesn't require a facebook account to become victim to privacy invasions ... they remain today as they always were and as they were created to be. One of their most horrid attributes being the pretence and the aberration of cynically using Madeleine's name to put whatever obstacles they can muster to deny her the justice her family - BKA - SY - and now even the PJ seek for her.
In my opinion - all seriously sick!
-
My privacy has gone.
I am reaping the results of that privately. Pretty awful, the spite and revenge. An inadequate person is doing it and I feel sorry for him.
I have never been a member of FB
I thought I wasn't a member of FaceBook, but apparently I am.
I don't know how that happened.
-
One post taken from random regarding Brueckner with reference to his Hitler comments ~
"It makes me wonder how long the cover-up will be maintained.
I can't help thinking that it's because of social media groups such as this one, who keep questioning the story of the McCanns and their pals about what really happened in PDL, that the UK government, police etc., feel they have to take the focus off the McCanns and maintain the charade.
If so, we're all doing a great job because at least it keeps the topic alive and not allows it to be forgotten and, more importantly, not allow what really happened to an innocent young child to be ever forgotten."
The question arises - is a mentality which allows a post such as that to be seriously made, more to be pitied than laughed at?
-
I don't use FB myself as a rule but for those who do, I think it is a wonderful means of communication if used properly.
For example there are really interesting and informative groups particularly concerning local history and the history of surrounding towns etc - lost dogs and cats - general information
I think the problem arises because of deliberate corruption by corrupt people as has been outlined here and as can be seen by the number of innocuous groups which can only be accessed by becoming a member.
Interesting that you should bring up the issue of privacy. Already referred to in this morning's posts is a group which has actually gone out of its way to invade the privacy of others "CMOMM is the social media extension of the CMOMM forum".
Anyone remember the sick diplomas in McCann hatred? promoted by yet another well known facebooker and video editor who uses all means possible to keep the flames of hatred burning high and bright.
One certainly doesn't require a facebook account to become victim to privacy invasions ... they remain today as they always were and as they were created to be. One of their most horrid attributes being the pretence and the aberration of cynically using Madeleine's name to put whatever obstacles they can muster to deny her the justice her family - BKA - SY - and now even the PJ seek for her.
In my opinion - all seriously sick!
Exactly
He is very worried and the only consolation he can get is trying to take his evenge out on me. Very sick. I feel so sorry for him, but he caused his problems himself .
-
I thought I wasn't a member of FaceBook, but apparently I am.
I don't know how that happened.
I have to wonder if someone signed me up using my only Email Address.
-
Come back when you have evidence of a direct connection between The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann on facebook and webslueths.
PS I'm not your friend.
Gosh, flashback to Primary School there...
-
Anthony Bennett outed me due to my Email Address. But he picked on the wrong person if he thinks he intimidated me.
You're words are mine, i feel the same, g unit seems to wamt forensic proof.
-
You're words are mine, i feel the same, g unit seems to wamt forensic proof.
There's plenty of people who'll believe whatever they're told. I'm not one of them.
-
There's plenty of people who'll believe whatever they're told. I'm not one of them.
You do seem to think you’re rather special don’t you?
-
You do seem to think you’re rather special don’t you?
Because I don't take people at face value? That makes me sensible, imo, not special.
-
Because I don't take people at face value? That makes me sensible, imo, not special.
No, because IMO you see yourself as superior (ie more sensible) than people who you perceive “believe everything they are told”. Who are these people, exactly and why does being suspicious of everything you are told make you more sensible? If you are told for example that a disease could kill you and that getting a vaccine will lower that possibility do you immediately suspect it’s fake news and carry out your own scientific investigation? Is that the sensible approach iyo? Do you think people who view abduction as the only logical and plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance are simply sheeple who’ll believe everything they are told? Are you more sensible (ie superior) than me iyo?
-
No, because IMO you see yourself as superior (ie more sensible) than people who you perceive “believe everything they are told”. Who are these people, exactly and why does being suspicious of everything you are told make you more sensible? If you are told for example that a disease could kill you and that getting a vaccine will lower that possibility do you immediately suspect it’s fake news and carry out your own scientific investigation? Is that the sensible approach iyo? Do you think people who view abduction as the only logical and plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance are simply sheeple who’ll believe everything they are told? Are you more sensible (ie superior) than me iyo?
There's nasty and there's nice. In my opinion.
-
No, because IMO you see yourself as superior (ie more sensible) than people who you perceive “believe everything they are told”. Who are these people, exactly and why does being suspicious of everything you are told make you more sensible? If you are told for example that a disease could kill you and that getting a vaccine will lower that possibility do you immediately suspect it’s fake news and carry out your own scientific investigation? Is that the sensible approach iyo? Do you think people who view abduction as the only logical and plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance are simply sheeple who’ll believe everything they are told? Are you more sensible (ie superior) than me iyo?
Well I don't think I'm special, but you obviously find the workings of my mind fascinating. 8(>((
-
Well I don't think I'm special, but you obviously find the workings of my mind fascinating. 8(>((
I find the workings of many people’s minds quite fascinating- I wouldn’t take that as a compliment however. 8(0(*
-
There's plenty of people who'll believe whatever they're told. I'm not one of them.
My opinion of your posts is that you have totally failed to understand the available evidence.
-
I find the workings of many people’s minds quite fascinating- I wouldn’t take that as a compliment however. 8(0(*
Why would you imagine I would?
-
My opinion of your posts is that you have totally failed to understand the available evidence.
I have seen no evidence of unfair treatment by the CMOMM forum or fb page.
-
I have seen no evidence of unfair treatment by the CMOMM forum or fb page.
I'm talking about your ability to understand the evidence in the case in general. You criticise others for simply believing what they are told as though you are in someway superior jwhen in reality.. Imo.. You simply don't understand the evidence. You seem to think others believe in abduction purely because the mccanns said so.. Ridiculous
-
I'm talking about your ability to understand the evidence in the case in general. You criticise others for simply believing what they are told as though you are in someway superior jwhen in reality.. Imo.. You simply don't understand the evidence. You seem to think others believe in abduction purely because the mccanns said so.. Ridiculous
I get the impression she understands quite well, that there isn't any evidence Maddie was abducted, other than, because the McCanns said so. That, & because Busching said so, & because Wolters said so & SY said so.
I mean, other than that, what evidence is there?
-
I have seen no evidence of unfair treatment by the CMOMM forum or fb page.
Your experience of CMOMM is not that of many others; for example the opening post on this thread referring in general to cultists of this type "Forgive me if i have posted against the rules regarding the subject matter, but for heavens sake has anyone came across anti mccann groups such as facebook and forums then get blocked for asking straight forward questions, to me logic is out of the window. Same stories pop up everyday."
Interesting you single out this particular outlet to defend while ignoring and condoning the concept embodied and embedded in the general hatred. I think it all rather sad that sites such as those highlighted in the OP still have their adherents peddling their wares despite current events and the change of focus these have dictated.
-
I'm talking about your ability to understand the evidence in the case in general. You criticise others for simply believing what they are told as though you are in someway superior jwhen in reality.. Imo.. You simply don't understand the evidence. You seem to think others believe in abduction purely because the mccanns said so.. Ridiculous
Ok your starter for 10, its simple, what evidence is there that a stranger was in 5a and took Madeleine out .
-
Why would you imagine I would?
Because once again you seemed quite pleased with yourself and the idea that I might find the workings of your mind "fascinating".
-
I have seen no evidence of unfair treatment by the CMOMM forum or fb page.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I get the impression she understands quite well, that there isn't any evidence Maddie was abducted, other than, because the McCanns said so. That, & because Busching said so, & because Wolters said so & SY said so.
I mean, other than that, what evidence is there?
Clarence also said the McCann said so : Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out of the window as their means of escape and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything."
-
I'm talking about your ability to understand the evidence in the case in general. You criticise others for simply believing what they are told as though you are in someway superior jwhen in reality.. Imo.. You simply don't understand the evidence. You seem to think others believe in abduction purely because the mccanns said so.. Ridiculous
Your ability to understand the evidence in general doesn't impress me either. I just can't be bothered telling you every 5 minutes.
-
Ok your starter for 10, its simple, what evidence is there that a stranger was in 5a and took Madeleine out .
An open window and raised shutter and a missing child.
The fact you have based your ideology on the slurring of the witness to that is neither here nor there and only signifies proof positive you have no concept of what is actually going on in the world today.
-
I get the impression she understands quite well, that there isn't any evidence Maddie was abducted, other than, because the McCanns said so. That, & because Busching said so, & because Wolters said so & SY said so.
I mean, other than that, what evidence is there?
It's quite obvious you are not here to have a serious discussion ..plenty of evidence to support abduction.. I've posted before. Perhaps you should get back to your daily fix of imagining your hero masturbating whilst watching young children play. As I recall that's the sort of thing you said you enjoy
-
Your ability to understand the evidence in general doesn't impress me either. I just can't be bothered telling you every 5 minutes.
Answer a straight question - do you think Davel and I have formed the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted purely because others have said this happened? I've been told a million times that the parents dunnit too, so how come I haven't succumbed to their influence? How do you account for it?
-
Your ability to understand the evidence in general doesn't impress me either. I just can't be bothered telling you every 5 minutes.
What evidence would that be?
You have seen none.
The investigators who have and hold the evidence understand it all perfectly and it has led them all to place Brueckner as prime suspect in the crimes against Madeleine McCann.
-
An open window and raised shutter and a missing child.
The fact you have based your ideology on the slurring of the witness to that is neither here nor there and only signifies proof positive you have no concept of what is actually going on in the world today.
So because the McCanns said the window was open, it definitely was open, was it?
Really no way to confirm that is there.
It's quite possible Kate opened it, if it even was open, I mean, her prints were on it, & not Brueckners.
But then, Kate also said the curtains blew open, so that must have definitely happened too, because she said so.
-
Your experience of CMOMM is not that of many others; for example the opening post on this thread referring in general to cultists of this type "Forgive me if i have posted against the rules regarding the subject matter, but for heavens sake has anyone came across anti mccann groups such as facebook and forums then get blocked for asking straight forward questions, to me logic is out of the window. Same stories pop up everyday."
Interesting you single out this particular outlet to defend while ignoring and condoning the concept embodied and embedded in the general hatred. I think it all rather sad that sites such as those highlighted in the OP still have their adherents peddling their wares despite current events and the change of focus these have dictated.
I speak as I find and the 'outlet' was criticised. That's why I mentioned it. Most forums and fb groups have rules and eject those who don't abide by them. So what?
-
An open window and raised shutter and a missing child.
The fact you have based your ideology on the slurring of the witness to that is neither here nor there and only signifies proof positive you have no concept of what is actually going on in the world today.
Wouldn't it be better as a senior mod to talk of the actual subject rather than slur posters.
-
An open window and raised shutter and a missing child.
Crime scene photo of alleged open window and shutter wouldn't go amiss, thanks in advance.
Oh I know CB's got it along with the picture of Madeleine.
-
Answer a straight question - do you think Davel and I have formed the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted purely because others have said this happened? I've been told a million times that the parents dunnit too, so how come I haven't succumbed to their influence? How do you account for it?
I have no idea how your minds work, just as you appear to have no idea how mine works.
-
I speak as I find and the 'outlet' was criticised. That's why I mentioned it. Most forums and fb groups have rules and eject those who don't abide by them. So what?
Meaning you gotta believe The McCanns Done It. Or else. I know of course because I was banned from CMoMM having said nothing at all.
-
I have no idea how your minds work, just as you appear to have no idea how mine works.
I know how your mind works - you told us. You don't accept anything that you are told, which according to you makes you sensible. So what does that make me? Am I sensible or not, in your opinion?
-
I speak as I find and the 'outlet' was criticised. That's why I mentioned it. Most forums and fb groups have rules and eject those who don't abide by them. So what?
Doesn't matter how much evidence is supplied your mind is closed. You have referred to CMOMM as a good source if information.. Lol
-
Crime scene photo of alleged open window and shutter wouldn't go amiss, thanks in advance.
Oh I know CB's got it along with the picture of Madeleine.
Yeah & he's shitting bricks because Wolters has it now.
-
Meaning you gotta believe The McCanns Done It. Or else. I know of course because I was banned from CMoMM having said nothing at all.
Its becoming that way on here, be sceptical , beware.
-
Doesn't matter how much evidence is supplied your mind is closed. You have referred to CMOMM as a good source if information.. Lol
You're words are mine mr grey. They actually (cmomm) thought they cracked it by saying she died earlier in week. Sending evidence to the police 😅😅😅😅 im still on one fb group, thank christ its not admin by JH
-
Its becoming that way on here, be sceptical , beware.
Rubbish. That is just not happening. Don't Libel anyone and don't Insult anyone and you will be fine.
-
Rubbish. That is just not happening. Don't Libel anyone and don't Insult anyone and you will be fine.
Best people stop accusing Brueckner of murder then really.
-
Doesn't matter how much evidence is supplied your mind is closed. You have referred to CMOMM as a good source if information.. Lol
Should I put my trust in Wolters, like you? He's supplied no evidence at all.
-
Should I put my trust in Wolters, like you? He's supplied no evidence at all.
Apparently Brietta is starting to doubt him.
I wonder if she'll ever tell us why?
-
Best people stop accusing Brueckner of murder then really.
I haven't accused Brueckner and nor has anyone else on this forum.
-
I haven't accused Brueckner and nor has anyone else on this forum.
Yes you have, you're saying Brueckner could have dumped Maddies body on the way to Germany, are you not?
-
Yes you have, you're saying Brueckner could have dumped Maddies body on the way to Germany, are you not?
Do you know what "Could Have" means?
-
Do you know what "Could Have" means?
The McCanns could have dumped Maddies body along a road somewhere.
I can say that can I?
That's not accusing them?
-
Should I put my trust in Wolters, like you? He's supplied no evidence at all.
Wolters has supplied evidence... Why can't you understand that. Not only that he says he has evidence that convinceshim and would convince you thst CB murdered Maddie. No one in the German investigation has contradicted him.
I think it's highly unlikely Wolters is lying.. I think that's a sensible belief.. That makes me the sensible one
-
Wolters has supplied evidence... Why can't you understand that. Not only that he says he has evidence that convinceshim and would convince you thst CB murdered Maddie. No one in the German investigation has contradicted him.
I think it's highly unlikely Wolters is lying.. I think that's a sensible belief.. That makes me the sensible one
Don't forget you're attempting to have a sensible debate with someone who doesn't believe there's any evidence that smoking causes cancer... *%87
-
Wolters has supplied evidence... Why can't you understand that. Not only that he says he has evidence that convinceshim and would convince you thst CB murdered Maddie. No one in the German investigation has contradicted him.
I think it's highly unlikely Wolters is lying.. I think that's a sensible belief.. That makes me the sensible one
Flimsy hearsay & Brueckner talking rubbish about destroying the concrete evidence.
Real solid stuff isn't it.
-
Your experience of CMOMM is not that of many others; for example the opening post on this thread referring in general to cultists of this type "Forgive me if i have posted against the rules regarding the subject matter, but for heavens sake has anyone came across anti mccann groups such as facebook and forums then get blocked for asking straight forward questions, to me logic is out of the window. Same stories pop up everyday."
Interesting you single out this particular outlet to defend while ignoring and condoning the concept embodied and embedded in the general hatred. I think it all rather sad that sites such as those highlighted in the OP still have their adherents peddling their wares despite current events and the change of focus these have dictated.
Your words are mine brietta, two comments on youtube you get accused of being a paid shill or pro mccann, fb groups block you amd those forums which are 'trying' to prove guilt on mccqnns behalf. They contradict themselves by saying we welcome ideas (but only if its guilt)
-
Wolters has supplied evidence... Why can't you understand that. Not only that he says he has evidence that convinceshim and would convince you thst CB murdered Maddie. No one in the German investigation has contradicted him.
I think it's highly unlikely Wolters is lying.. I think that's a sensible belief.. That makes me the sensible one
Wolters hasn't supplied evidence. Misinformation, yes. For example there was no mobile mast belonging to the Ocean Club and Brueckner's alleged phone pinging that mast on 3rd May 2007 doesn't place him in at or in the Ocean Club.
-
Wolters hasn't supplied evidence. Misinformation, yes. For example there was no mobile mast belonging to the Ocean Club and Brueckner's alleged phone pinging that mast on 3rd May 2007 doesn't place him in at or in the Ocean Club.
Just off somewhere on a false alibi.
-
Wolters hasn't supplied evidence. Misinformation, yes. For example there was no mobile mast belonging to the Ocean Club and Brueckner's alleged phone pinging that mast on 3rd May 2007 doesn't place him in at or in the Ocean Club.
Wolters has suplied witness statements...Wolters has supplied evidence of a 30 min phonecal involving a phone belonging to CB ..
That is evidence....you are wrong and obviously dont understand what evidence is
-
Wolters has suplied witness statements...Wolters has supplied evidence of a 30 min phonecal involving a phone belonging to CB ..
That is evidence....you are wrong and obviously dont understand what evidence is
What does the phone call prove exactly & where can I read the statements Wolters has supplied?
-
What does the phone call prove exactly & where can I read the statements Wolters has supplied?
seems like youve given up with the no evidence rubbish and moved on to what does the evidence prove...lose one argument so start another one..lol
-
Just off somewhere on a false alibi.
Is it false though?
The girl didn't say she wasn't with him, only that she couldn't remember if she was.
So, she could have been with him, & even if she wasn't, so what?
That would mean he must have been out murdering Maddie, would it?
-
seems like youve given up with the no evidence rubbish and moved on to what does the evidence prove...lose one argument so start another one..lol
Well it's such rubbish evidence I've dismissed it as evidence, & a court would do the same, which is why in my opinion Brueckner isn't being charged.
-
Well it's such rubbish evidence I've dismissed it as evidence, & a court would do the same, which is why in my opinion Brueckner isn't being charged.
you can dismiss what you like but the FACT is iys evidence, enough to raise suspicion and warrant further investigation. Wolters says he has more...concrete evidence. I think he has...you dont..we will have to wait and see
-
you can dismiss what you like but the FACT is iys evidence, enough to raise suspicion and warrant further investigation. Wolters says he has more...concrete evidence. I think he has...you dont..we will have to wait and see
You'll be waiting a long time, Matey, for the foreseeable future actually, but maybe there will be charges after that.
You can always hope can't you.
-
Should I put my trust in Wolters, like you? He's supplied no evidence at all.
Ah, but then he does say he has concrete evidence, not just this flimsy weak ass, tenuous & inadmissible stuff he's revealed like the phonecall that doesn't prove anything & hearsay, & you'd have to be mad not to believe him.
So, that's all folks really, Brueckner murdered Maddie & that's the end of that.
No point the McCanns hoping Maddie is still alive, she's definitely dead, however, they don't seem to have shut down their webpage yet.
I wonder why they haven't done that?
They can't doubt Wolters, surely, I mean, they'd have to be barking mad.
-
Wolters has suplied witness statements...Wolters has supplied evidence of a 30 min phonecal involving a phone belonging to CB ..
That is evidence....you are wrong and obviously dont understand what evidence is
What witness statements has Wolters supplied? A phone ALLEGEDLY belonging to CB pinged with an incoming call. A lot of other phones did too. So what?
-
What witness statements has Wolters supplied? A phone ALLEGEDLY belonging to CB pinged with an incoming call. A lot of other phones did too. So what?
The phone ping places Brueckner directly outside Maddie's window between 7:30pm & 8:00pm.
Maddie wasn't abducted until gone 9:00, so I'm not sure what Brueckner might have got up to during that spare hour but Wolters probably knows.
-
What witness statements has Wolters supplied? A phone ALLEGEDLY belonging to CB pinged with an incoming call. A lot of other phones did too. So what?
An incoming phone call from a paedophile according to MWT....
-
An incoming phone call from a paedophile according to MWT....
From outside of Luz.
It was probably the leader of the paedophile abduction ring, giving Brueckner his orders & instructions.
But then, after the ultimately successful abduction of Maddie, leaving as they did, no trace behind, they decided not to abduct anymore children in a similar manner ever again.
-
Who identified the caller and when ?
-
An incoming phone call from a paedophile according to MWT....
That's nothing to do with Wolters - he was hoping the caller would confirm it was CB he spoke to.
-
Who identified the caller and when ?
I think the number was reallocated to someone else, who was thought to be dodgy by MWT's investigator. He wasn't the caller on 3rd May, it was the number of a burner phone then as I understood it.
-
That's nothing to do with Wolters - he was hoping the caller would confirm it was CB he spoke to.
As if a known paedo is going to do that.
-
I think the number was reallocated to someone else, who was thought to be dodgy by MWT's investigator. He wasn't the caller on 3rd May, it was the number of a burner phone then as I understood it.
You are merely speculating.
-
As if a known paedo is going to do that.
Exactly, poor old Wolters is left stabbing in the dark isn't he, but don't worry, the phone call is totally irrelevant, abduction is already proven if you have concrete murder evidence, as Wolters most definitely has, allegedly.
-
What witness statements has Wolters supplied? A phone ALLEGEDLY belonging to CB pinged with an incoming call. A lot of other phones did too. So what?
its evidence...you need to understand what teh word means
-
its evidence...you need to understand what teh word means
I understand evidence. What matters is whether it adds knowledge. No details of those statements then?
-
What witness statements has Wolters supplied? A phone ALLEGEDLY belonging to CB pinged with an incoming call. A lot of other phones did too. So what?
I have never been of the opinion that the vitriol driving the many, many, many, many, many, many, ubiquitous social media platforms set up solely to slur the family of a missing child could ever have been justified in any way whatsoever.
There is now firm evidence suggesting that the founding concept of the cult has been entirely wrong from start to finish yet there are those still in denial.
It used to be called "Brainwashing" and I believe it is incredibly difficult to overcome. I think that is "So what?"
-
I have never been of the opinion that the vitriol driving the many, many, many, many, many, many, ubiquitous social media platforms set up solely to slur the family of a missing child could ever have been have been justified in any way whatsoever.
There is now firm evidence suggesting that the founding concept of the cult has been entirely wrong from start to finish yet there are those still in denial.
It used to be called "Brainwashing" and I believe it is incredibly difficult to overcome. I think that is "So what?"
Such as?
-
I understand evidence. What matters is whether it adds knowledge. No details of those statements then?
The investigation have all the evidence that matters to them. As far as you and other social media pundits are concerned you will be told like the rest of us when the judicial system determines the time is right.
As I see it the evidence that it may add to the 'knowledge' of some is likely to remain nothing more a faint hope.
Just so long as it informs the judiciary though.
-
I understand evidence. What matters is whether it adds knowledge. No details of those statements then?
You've said no evidence.. The witness statements from his associatesvare all evidence... So you don't understand what evidence is. It's opinion whether those statements add to knowledge and I would say they clearly do.
The transcripts from the Dark Web chat are evidence.. Where he details what he would like to do to a young child and how he could get away with it if he destroyed the evidence.
-
You've said no evidence.. The witness statements from his associatesvare all evidence... So you don't understand what evidence is. It's opinion whether those statements add to knowledge and I would say they clearly do.
The transcripts from the Dark Web chat are evidence.. Where he details what he would like to do to a young child and how he could get away with it if he destroyed the evidence.
He said he'd already done it.
MM was the reply.
....and if Brueckner told this other paedo he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence then he must have, because he said so, except he forgot to destroy the video/photo/finger painting of Maddie, or he kept hold of it for posterity, since he wasn't going to carry out any further abductions & murders anymore.
-
You've said no evidence.. The witness statements from his associatesvare all evidence... So you don't understand what evidence is. It's opinion whether those statements add to knowledge and I would say they clearly do.
The transcripts from the Dark Web chat are evidence.. Where he details what he would like to do to a young child and how he could get away with it if he destroyed the evidence.
Based on what?
Brueckner never being charged with murdering Maddie?
-
Based on what?
Brueckner never being charged with murdering Maddie?
I'm not interested in discussing anything with a poster who is avsel confessed wum. What you think is of no importance
-
All this time has now lapsed and Wolters is no further forward than he was at the beginning of his claims.
I think the guy is a chancer.
-
I'm not interested in discussing anything with a poster who is avsel confessed wum. What you think is of no importance
Yet you still keep replying.
-
All this time has now lapsed and Wolters is no further forward than he was at the beginning of his claims.
I think the guy is a chancer.
How do you know this?
-
All this time has now lapsed and Wolters is no further forward than he was at the beginning of his claims.
I think the guy is a chancer.
Perhaps you are just not following things as close as I am.
I find him very credible. He says there is a link between the American snd Behan rape... And the maffie case... That could be an important point
-
How do you know this?
Obviously he isn't otherwise Madeleine's parents would have been told.
-
Perhaps you are just not following things as close as I am.
I find him very credible. He says there is a link between the American snd Behan rape... And the maffie case... That could be an important point
He comes across as a very arrogant man, not someone I would believe easily.
-
Obviously he isn't otherwise Madeleine's parents would have been told.
When was the last time they updated you on what they have or have not been told? Is it not possible to make progress in a case without getting to the point of actually being able to press charges?
-
He comes across as a very arrogant man, not someone I would believe easily.
He comes across as very earnest and sincere to me, unlike someone like Amaral for example who fits your description exactly IMO
-
All this time has now lapsed and Wolters is no further forward than he was at the beginning of his claims.
I think the guy is a chancer.
We were t old he had no evidence in the Behan case... Looks like CB has been given 5000 pages of it.. Charges to follow soon..
-
All this time has now lapsed and Wolters is no further forward than he was at the beginning of his claims.
I think the guy is a chancer.
No no, Wolters recently told Sandra F he has new information, new facts & evidence.
Brueckner will be charged just after the rape case, he's blatantly mocking Wolters & challenging him to do it now I know, but Wolters just needs time to get these other cases out of the way first.
-
No no, Wolters recently told Sandra F he has new information, new facts & evidence.
Brueckner will be charged just after the rape case, he's blatantly mocking Wolters & challenging him to do it now I know, but Wolters just needs time to get these other cases out of the way first.
Just clocking up the jail time I expect.
-
He comes across as a very arrogant man, not someone I would believe easily.
Strange.. He comes across as very capable man to me..
-
Strange.. He comes across as very capable man to me..
Just not capable of bringing charges against Brueckner regarding Maddie, that's all. Other than that he's great I'm sure.
-
All this time has now lapsed and Wolters is no further forward than he was at the beginning of his claims.
I think the guy is a chancer.
He is a senior prosecutor, yes police can get things wrong, but no time wasted on something if there was nothing there John. No way a foreign bka would involve themselves for a citizen of their country committing crimes in europe if their was no substance to it. In another post i said they have more than we know. However until that comes to light we shall then analyse.
-
He comes across as a very arrogant man, not someone I would believe easily.
its reported at one stage he had 100 men on the case...sounds like a serious investigation with the full backing of the BKA
-
its reported at one stage he had 100 men on the case...sounds like a serious investigation with the full backing of the BKA
Not having much luck though are they.
-
Where's the funding for these 100 men coming from?
What's the benefit to Germany that it's willing to shell out all those Euros on something that took place outside of their jurisdiction ?
-
Where's the funding for these 100 men coming from?
What's the benefit to Germany that it's willing to shell out all those Euros on something that took place outside of their jurisdiction ?
A very good question. Why spend all that money on what some perceive as a wild goose chase at best, a pan-European conspiracy at worse? Maybe, just maybe, the Germans are intent on solving serious sexual and violent crimes and putting perpetrators away where they can't hurt anyone else, crazy thought I know.
-
He comes across as very earnest and sincere to me, unlike someone like Amaral for example who fits your description exactly IMO
In the end, a handful of police officers were charged with torture, but eventually acquitted. But in 2009, Amaral was charged with perjury in connection to a cover-up of the beating. “What I found was like the Spanish police of the '70s,” said Peribañez of Portuguese authorities in the Netflix docu-series. “[Amaral] acted and he worked like he was the sheriff of the town. ‘This is my town, I do whatever I want,’” he added.
Arrogant exactly!!
-
Where's the funding for these 100 men coming from?
What's the benefit to Germany that it's willing to shell out all those Euros on something that took place outside of their jurisdiction ?
Perhaps they are ashamed of their countryman and trying to make amends for a ghastly cock up by Portugal.
And then of course, perhaps they don't want Brueckner running around loose and committing more sexually deviant crimes.
-
Where's the funding for these 100 men coming from?
What's the benefit to Germany that it's willing to shell out all those Euros on something that took place outside of their jurisdiction ?
We're there actually 100 men working on the case or do we have to believe that just because someone said so?
...and what about the women, are there no female officers in the BKA?
I can only assume they are both rubbish at solving Maddie's murder & misogynistic.
-
We're there actually 100 men working on the case or do we have to believe that just because someone said so?
...and what about the women, are there no female officers in the BKA?
I can only assume they are both rubbish at solving Maddie's murder & misogynistic.
you can beleive what you want...its of no importance
-
Where's the funding for these 100 men coming from?
What's the benefit to Germany that it's willing to shell out all those Euros on something that took place outside of their jurisdiction ?
wolters has said that unlike SY his spending on the case is not limited. perhaps he just ddoesnt like people raping multiple times...murdering and torturing a chilld.....and laughing that he can get away with it
-
you can beleive what you want...its of no importance
Well it obviously matters to you, you keep replying.
-
wolters has said that unlike SY his spending on the case is not limited. perhaps he just ddoesnt like people raping multiple times...murdering and torturing a chilld.....and laughing that he can get away with it
Or maybe Brueckners laughing because he just didn't do it.
That's possible isn't it.
-
Well it obviously matters to you, you keep replying.
poor logic...have you had your daily fix today...imagining what your hero does to women and little children....I seem to recall you saying you enjoy thinking about it
-
Or maybe Brueckners laughing because he just didn't do it.
That's possible isn't it.
not according to Wolters...and thats who the question was about
-
poor logic...have you had your daily fix today...imagining what your hero does to women and little children....I seem to recall you saying you enjoy thinking about it
Well you'd be completely wrong about that then wouldn't you.
I said I enjoyed thinking about him performing sex acts on himself, & I obviously really meant it because everything anyone ever says is always absolutely true isn't it.
-
not according to Wolters...and thats who the question was about
Great, well just get back to me when he can actually prove anything won't you.
-
poor logic...have you had your daily fix today...imagining what your hero does to women and little children....I seem to recall you saying you enjoy thinking about it
The great irony in this is the projection, that it's you who is the one fixated in the idea of abuse images of Maddie, aren't you, not me, matey, that's your own fertile imagination.
-
The great irony in this is the projection, that it's you who is the one fixated in the idea of abuse images of Maddie, aren't you, not me, matey, that's your own fertile imagination.
I have no fixation and it's not my imagination..
-
its reported at one stage he had 100 men on the case...sounds like a serious investigation with the full backing of the BKA
Probably or should be translating the Portuguese files, that number is not that far above reports of combined civilian staff and officers working for OG at one stage.
-
Probably or should be translating the Portuguese files, that number is not that far above reports of combined civilian staff and officers working for OG at one stage.
The answer doesn't lie in the files
-
I have no fixation and it's not my imagination..
Oh right so there are definitely Maddie images are there?
Maybe Wolters should let someone know, like the McCanns or a judge or something.
-
The answer doesn't lie in the files
Course it does, where on earth do you think the ping data he referred to originated from, or do you suppose he picked a number at random and said yeah that one was used for 30 minutes .
-
Course it does, where on earth do you think the ping data he referred to originated from, or do you suppose he picked a number at random and said yeah that one was used for 30 minutes .
The ping data is not the important concrete evidence
-
The ping data is not the important concrete evidence
Agreed it doesn't put CB in Luz and that is a major obstacle for Hans , apart from that zilch, his concrete is mere words.
-
Agreed it doesn't put CB in Luz and that is a major obstacle for Hans , apart from that zilch, his concrete is mere words.
Believe what you like. I think his words are highly significant... We are 100% certain CB murdered MM
-
Believe what you like. I think his words are highly significant... We are 100% certain CB murdered MM
Just can't prove it though, but that's not important.
Just so long as Wolters said so, that's all that matters, that's an equal substitute for a successful criminal prosecution.
-
Just can't prove it though, but that's not important.
Just so long as Wolters said so, that's all that matters, that's an equal substitute for a successful criminal prosecution.
You don't know he can't prove it.. That's just your imagination.
-
You don't know he can't prove it.. That's just your imagination.
I do, based on the evidence.
The evidence being, Brueckner isn't being charged, not today, not tomorrow, next year or even once hell freezes over.
-
I do, based on the evidence.
The evidence being, Brueckner isn't being charged, not today, not tomorrow, next year or even once hell freezes over.
In your imagination
-
In your imagination
In reality.
I mean, when is he being charged exactly?
Brueckner is so terrified by the prospect that he's calling Wolters bluff.
-
In reality.
I mean, when is he being charged exactly?
Brueckner is so terrified by the prospect that he's calling Wolters bluff.
Lol
-
Lol
Oh I see, it's a double bluff is it.
Brueckner actually did commit this pre planned one off abduction & murder & then gave up doing anymore after that.
Any idea why he only abducted & murdered Maddie & didn't abduct & murder any other children, even though he enjoyed the experience greatly & was keen to do it again?
-
Oh I see, it's a double bluff is it.
Brueckner actually did commit this pre planned one off abduction & murder & then gave up doing anymore after that.
Any idea why he only abducted & murdered Maddie & didn't abduct & murder any other children, even though he enjoyed the experience greatly & was keen to do it again?
Lol
-
More barmy logic on display from the WUM, problem is I think he’s being serious this time.
-
Lol
Do you really think it's appropriate to be 'laughing out loud' when discussing such a serious & sensitive subject as the abduction rape & murder of an innocent 3 year old girl?
Brietta & I are disgusted by such levity.
-
Do you really think it's appropriate to be 'laughing out loud' when discussing such a serious & sensitive subject as the abduction rape & murder of an innocent 3 year old girl?
Brietta & I are disgusted by such levity.
Are you the front end of a fool or the back end
-
More barmy logic on display from the WUM, problem is I think he’s being serious this time.
Is it?
Brueckner enjoyed abducting & murdering a child, he was very good at it, he got away with it, so why didn't he do it again?
Any suggestions?
-
Is it?
Brueckner enjoyed abducting & murdering a child, he was very good at it, he got away with it, so why didn't he do it again?
Any suggestions?
He may have
-
He may have
Any particular missing children in mind?
Any similar abductions you can think of?
-
Are you the front end of a fool or the back end
I think you mean a donkey. Although donkeys probably are nicer creatures. Spammy is just a joke. If he did but know it.
-
Any particular missing children in mind?
Any similar abductions you can think of?
Didn't get many takers on this one.
-
Any particular missing children in mind?
Any similar abductions you can think of?
You haven't been paying attention ..thousands according to skeptics
-
You haven't been paying attention ..thousands according to skeptics
yep, none of them middle class white and cute which is why the police never bothered to spend millions investigating their disappearance.
-
I have no idea what either of you are talking about in your non answer to the question.
So let's try asking again.
Can you think, do you know of, any other missing children Brueckner might have abducted ,or did he just quit the habit after Maddie & Joana?
-
I have no idea what either of you are talking about in your non answer to the question.
So let's try asking again.
Can you think, do you know of, any other missing children Brueckner might have abducted ,or did he just quit the habit after Maddie & Joana?
According to your sceptic mates thousands every year and no one bothers looking for them
-
According to your sceptic mates thousands every year and no one bothers looking for them
here’s a few that have been specifically linked to Bruckner
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/10-unsolved-child-abduction-murder-22392123
-
According to your sceptic mates thousands every year and no one bothers looking for them
Well it's all right, now Wolters has solved the case & Maddie is definitely dead the McCanns don't need to keep the fund going anymore, they can shut it down now & donate the remaining balance to help find other missing people.
-
here’s a few that have been specifically linked to Bruckner
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/10-unsolved-child-abduction-murder-22392123
Well that's interesting
Inga Gehricke, Brueckner has been ruled out.
Renee Hasee was male, but I suppose, maybe Brueckner could be bi.
Tristan Brubach another boy, they checked him out apparently, not much happening there though.
Peggy Knobloch, at least it's a girl again this time, but as the article says, there is no evidence linking Brueckner to the crime.
Carola Titze, nothing going on there either.
Joana Cipriano, well, what can I say 'lol' & all that.
Louise Kerton, no evidence linking Brueckner to the crime again.
Hazel Behan, wasn't abducted by Brueckner.
Monika Pawlak, they didn't find anything there either.
-
here’s a few that have been specifically linked to Bruckner
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/10-unsolved-child-abduction-murder-22392123
Scroll half way down to Joana Cipriano.
Her stepdad, Leando Silva is such a gutzy guy; I really like him.
He fought for Leanor and Amaral beat him up so that he was hospitalized for a few days.
Then he warned the Mccanns about what had happened in the Joana case to his "wife" Leanor. How she had been tortured and fitted up. I'm thinking he was lucky he didn't get another beating up
Now he is standing up to authority again and expressing his thoughts, and I think he could possibly be right
[/list]
Such a gutzy guy - and after all there were a number of pointers that seem to indicate he could have done it
Totally feasible. He seems to have pointers to the possibility that he did that. Once again Joana appears to have been abducted to oder
Brueckner has
1. A black saloon car
Black saloon car noticed cruising around Joanas village before hand
2. Has camper vans and sleeps in off site places in it.
Camper van was noticed with man in it parked there for several days. The van left coinciding with Joana going missing
3. Was around at the time IIRC.
This needs checking, but I think it is so
4. Has a history of *liking* children and abusing them.
Well known fact
5. The camper van speculatively thought to have been used to abduct Madeleine was abandoned in a field in PdL
Anyone know where?
6. He lived very close.
Whether he was living in the house he rented or in the run down villa, he was only about 7 miles away
Breuckner has quite a few pointers to the possibility of his being Joanas abductor.
BUT there is no defining clue, so NO PROOF. He must be considered innocent without any.
I wonder who might have been the guy who ordered her?(if that was the case)
.................................................................
From the picture of Joana walking in Zinat alongside a woman dressed in female clothes who was carrying Madeleine, Joana is still alive or was in 2007/8. Her minimal and unusual calves are the same as Joanas. Also her feet and peculiar ankles are Joanas. Then again the temples are unusual and are Joanas as is the general look of the little girl.
Madeleine lives. Joana lives.
I have another reason to believe Joana still lives, but it is not rock solid so I shall never disclose it
Admin: Please leave this up fr a while as it counters WS's post, but then place elsewhere preferably in the Madeleine forum. Otherwise in the Joana Forum. TY
-
Where is Madeleine here?!!!...
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/3-year-old-bouchra-benaissa-her-mother-697540b (https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/3-year-old-bouchra-benaissa-her-mother-697540b)
-
Scroll half way down to Joana Cipriano.
Her stepdad, Leando Silva is such a gutzy guy; I really like him.
He fought for Leanor and Amaral beat him up so that he was hospitalized for a few days.
Then he warned the Mccanns about what had happened in the Joana case to his "wife" Leanor. How she had been tortured and fitted up. I'm thinking he was lucky he didn't get another beating up
Now he is standing up to authority again and expressing his thoughts, and I think he could possibly be right
[/list]
Such a gutzy guy - and after all there were a number of pointers that seem to indicate he could have done it
I wonder who might have been the guy who ordered her?(if that was the case)
.................................................................
From the picture of Joana walking in Zinat alongside a woman dressed in female clothes who was carrying Madeleine, Joana is still alive or was in 2007/8. Her minimal and unusual calves are the same as Joanas. Also her feet and peculiar ankles are Joanas. Then again the temples are unusual and are Joanas as is the general look of the little girl.
Madeleine lives. Joana lives.
I have another reason to believe Joana still lives, but it is not rock solid so I shall never disclose it
Admin: Please leave this up fr a while as it counters WS's post, but then place elsewhere preferably in the Madeleine forum. Otherwise in the Joana Forum. TY
The german profiler said he could potentially be a serial killer. People are forgetting its german files and evidence that we just dont have.
-
The german profiler said he could potentially be a serial killer. People are forgetting its german files and evidence that we just dont have.
Well, anyone could potentially be a serial killer, I could potentially be a serial killer, but Wolters hasn't mentioned anything about Brueckner being a serial killer. The newspapers like the idea though, Jon Clarke probably does.
But, he's be investigated over Inga, for example, ruled out & Wolters hasn't mentioned anything about a string of murders he can actually link to Brueckner in any way. Definitely not the Joana case, he hasn't said a word about that. But who knows, maybe that will be Wolters next big announcement, once Brueckner is convicted for murdering Maddie, which doesn't appear to be happening anytime in the foreseeable future.[/list]
-
The german profiler said he could potentially be a serial killer. People are forgetting its german files and evidence that we just dont have.
I think the German files are the only ones that matter. Bearing in mind that we know the Germans worked closely with the Brits over a period of years and latterly the Portuguese who, having seen the evidence are now firmly on board too.[/list]
-
I think the German files are the only ones that matter. Bearing in mind that we know the Germans worked closely with the Brits over a period of years and latterly the Portuguese who, having seen the evidence are now firmly on board too.[/list]
It gives some credentials to the german that even the portuguese are on board and listening.
-
I think you mean a donkey. Although donkeys probably are nicer creatures. Spammy is just a joke. If he did but know it.
Yet no one is prepared to pull his post's apart by pointing out the flaws, maybe there aren't any in his arguments.
-
Yet no one is prepared to pull his post's apart by pointing out the flaws, maybe there aren't any in his arguments.
I've pointed out the flaws in his posts.. Over and over again
-
I've pointed out the flaws in his posts.. Over and over again
Seriously, a LOL, is pointing out flaws !
-
It gives some credentials to the german that even the portuguese are on board and listening.
They are not only listening they are acting on the evidence and have made him an arguido.
-
Seriously, a LOL, is pointing out flaws !
Please don't make a fool of yourself.. Spam is, posting the same things.. That have already been answered... Over and over again.. If you can't see that you must be blind
-
Yet no one is prepared to pull his post's apart by pointing out the flaws, maybe there aren't any in his arguments.
The WUM's posts are not worth pulling apart, they have no substance and are uusually based on entirely illogical presumptions such as - CB has no criminal history of murder therefore he cannot be a murderer, or if he abducted and murdered once then he MUST have done the same again afterwards.
-
The WUM's posts are not worth pulling apart, they have no substance and are uusually based on entirely illogical presumptions such as - (1) CB has no criminal history of murder therefore he cannot be a murderer, or (2) if he abducted and murdered once then he MUST have done the same again afterwards.
(1) When did I say that?
(2) He doesn't seem to have committed anymore murders, no one can actually link him to any, Wolters certainly can't. So, it appears it was just the one abduction & murder for Brueckner, I don't see why you'd have a problem with that, isn't that a good thing, that he only murdered Maddie & not a string of other kids?
-
(1) When did I say that?
(2) He doesn't seem to have committed anymore murders, no one can actually link him to any, Wolters certainly can't. So, it appears it was just the one abduction & murder for Brueckner, I don't see why you'd have a problem with that, isn't that a good thing, that he only murdered Maddie & not a string of other kids?
The belgium case years ago, something about accidental death with a woman i think maybe 17 or so. A profile is built up from his origins of accusations.
-
(1) When did I say that?
(2) He doesn't seem to have committed anymore murders, no one can actually link him to any, Wolters certainly can't. So, it appears it was just the one abduction & murder for Brueckner, I don't see why you'd have a problem with that, isn't that a good thing, that he only murdered Maddie & not a string of other kids?
Is it not a concern that CB may well have been paid by someone else to abduct and murder a child and that co-conspirator is currently an unidentified entity, free to operate elsewhere?
-
Is it not a concern that CB may well have been paid by someone else to abduct and murder a child and that co-conspirator is currently an unidentified entity, free to operate elsewhere?
I’m afraid you’re asking the wrong person there - Spam doesn’t do concern, particularly not when it comes to child welfare.
-
Is it not a concern that CB may well have been paid by someone else to abduct and murder a child and that co-conspirator is currently an unidentified entity, free to operate elsewhere?
Is there evidence pointing to that possibility?
-
Is there evidence pointing to that possibility?
Until he is charged, and all info is released
-
Until he is charged, and all info is released
I don't think the German system is all that open.
-
Is it not a concern that CB may well have been paid by someone else to abduct and murder a child and that co-conspirator is currently an unidentified entity, free to operate elsewhere?
Why should anyone pay someone else to abduct and then kill ? Are you thinking grudge against McCann or a snuff movie ?
-
I don't think the German system is all that open.
Exactly no police force will give every bit of evidence or detail away. Do i think its cb i have no idea. But im honest enough not to give a 100 percent belief system.
-
I’m afraid you’re asking the wrong person there - Spam doesn’t do concern, particularly not when it comes to child welfare.
Poor old Spammy. What a terrible time he must have had. No, I really mean it. I didn't have much fun as a child, but I grew up always hoping.
-
I don't think the German system is all that open.
And nor should it be. Only The Judges need to know what actually happened.
-
Why should anyone pay someone else to abduct and then kill ? Are you thinking grudge against McCann or a snuff movie ?
There are a few possibilities, Jassi. IMO if CB had committed an abduction/murder solely for self-gratification,with no outside involvement, his behaviour would have continued to escalate as he escaped justice. Little evidence has been produced in that vein, bar the reported accidental killing of an ex-girlfriend on an unknown date.
Once again I will say that imo he is deeply disturbed by Madeleine's case.
-
And nor should it be. Only The Judges need to know what actually happened.
Are not court procedures in the public domain in Germany ?
-
There are a few possibilities, Jassi. IMO if CB had committed an abduction/murder solely for self-gratification,with no outside involvement, his behaviour would have continued to escalate as he escaped justice. Little evidence has been produced in that vein, bar the reported accidental killing of an ex-girlfriend on an unknown date.
Once again I will say that imo he is deeply disturbed by Madeleine's case.
When kate mccann answered on 2 occasions about that night, why did cb not answer the letter sent in 2013 and disappeared and wjy not clear his name. Cmomm seem to be lovong people like cb
-
There seems to be some weird idea that everyone is going to see The EVIDENCE. This is not going to happen, at least not with whatever the worst might be. And I wouldn't want to anyway.
-
Are not court procedures in the public domain in Germany ?
I sincerely hope not. And nor are they in Angltere.
-
When kate mccann answered on 2 occasions about that night, why did cb not answer the letter sent in 2013 and disappeared and wjy not clear his name. Cmomm seem to be lovong people like cb
Best not to care about CMoMM. Their rules only apply to those whom they think are culpable; regardless of evidence. Really not impotent.
-
Where is Madeleine here?!!!...
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/3-year-old-bouchra-benaissa-her-mother-697540b (https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/3-year-old-bouchra-benaissa-her-mother-697540b)
Aww, come on Ret Syn.
As you well know, that photo was taken after the famous photo of a man carrying Madeleine.
We are talking about the original of Madeleine on a dressed up mans back. Dressed up to look like a native woman.
Most peple on here will remember the original. Please try not to change Historical factual imagery. That is dishonest.
Do you have an agenda perchance?
-
Is there evidence pointing to that possibility?
Oh, yes.
Only the abduction part, not the murder part. Madeleine still lives.
-
Aww, come on Ret Syn.
As you well know, that photo was taken after the famous photo of a man carrying Madeleine.
We are talking about the original of Madeleine on a dressed up mans back. Dressed up to look like a native woman.
Most peple on here will remember the original. Please try not to change Historical factual imagery. That is dishonest.
Do you have an agenda perchance?
Nice try, eidas... it's the same woman and same girl, but definitely NOT Madeleine.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mccanns-despair-as-picture-of-girl-in-morocco-is-child-of-local-farmer-28065549.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mccanns-despair-as-picture-of-girl-in-morocco-is-child-of-local-farmer-28065549.html)
https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/09/26/photo_raises_false_hopes_of_finding_madeleine.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/09/26/photo_raises_false_hopes_of_finding_madeleine.html)
-
I’m afraid you’re asking the wrong person there - Spam doesn’t do concern, particularly not when it comes to child welfare.
Or McCann supporters.
I done care about them either.
-
There seems to be some weird idea that everyone is going to see The EVIDENCE. This is not going to happen, at least not with whatever the worst might be. And I wouldn't want to anyway.
Maybe there just isn't any.
-
Is it not a concern that CB may well have been paid by someone else to abduct and murder a child and that co-conspirator is currently an unidentified entity, free to operate elsewhere?
A hit job on Maddie?
What an interesting theory.
Can't think why anyone would want her dead though.
-
There are a few possibilities, Jassi. IMO if CB had committed an abduction/murder solely for self-gratification,with no outside involvement, his behaviour would have continued to escalate as he escaped justice. Little evidence has been produced in that vein, bar the reported accidental killing of an ex-girlfriend on an unknown date.
Once again I will say that imo he is deeply disturbed by Madeleine's case.
Ah, yes, as I've been pointing out, this explains the need for the hit job theory. Desperation.
-
Why should anyone pay someone else to abduct and then kill ? Are you thinking grudge against McCann or a snuff movie ?
Well yes, it's probably the paedo snuff movie, that would account for all the photo/video evidence Wolters has of Maddie.
-
A hit job on Maddie?
What an interesting theory.
Can't think why anyone would want her dead though.
Unless, of course, she or her family are not as ordinary as they seem to be. Didn't some anti-McCann groups suggest that's what lay behind the support they received from the authorities? Their supporters, however, have always rejected that theory. Have they changed their minds?
-
Unless, of course, she or her family are not as ordinary as they seem to be. Didn't some anti-McCann groups suggest that's what lay behind the support they received from the authorities? Their supporters, however, have always rejected that theory. Have they changed their minds?
Well Sadies theory has always been along those lines, say what you like about that, but she's never swayed from that despite the rest of supporters on here flip flopping along to the tune of the investigations and the next suspect.
-
Unless, of course, she or her family are not as ordinary as they seem to be. Didn't some anti-McCann groups suggest that's what lay behind the support they received from the authorities? Their supporters, however, have always rejected that theory. Have they changed their minds?
Please don’t be ridiculous.
-
Poor old Spammy. What a terrible time he must have had. No, I really mean it. I didn't have much fun as a child, but I grew up always hoping.
Did those hopes materialise .
-
Well Sadies theory has always been along those lines, say what you like about that, but she's never swayed from that despite the rest of supporters on here flip flopping along to the tune of the investigations and the next suspect.
And you’re being ridiculous too. What flip-flopping are you on about? I have never altered my position.
-
Unless, of course, she or her family are not as ordinary as they seem to be. Didn't some anti-McCann groups suggest that's what lay behind the support they received from the authorities? Their supporters, however, have always rejected that theory. Have they changed their minds?
?{)(**
Perhaps so, anything is possible in the abduction of Maddie.
I'm thinking maybe she had access to some damaging insider information & Pampers had to take her out.
-
Well Sadies theory has always been along those lines, say what you like about that, but she's never swayed from that despite the rest of supporters on here flip flopping along to the tune of the investigations and the next suspect.
Yes, Sadie has always maintained that Madeleine was special (and her siblings too, obviously). Whether other supporters agree isn't clear. Why would anyone hire a hit on a 3 year old though?
-
Yes, Sadie has always maintained that Madeleine was special (and her siblings too, obviously). Whether other supporters agree isn't clear. Why would anyone hire a hit on a 3 year old though?
Sadie has never suggested that a hit was taken out on Madeleine but do enjoy you funny little jokes this morning, it’s all very mirthful I’m sure.
-
Sadie has never suggested that a hit was taken out on Madeleine but do enjoy you funny little jokes this morning, it’s all very mirthful I’m sure.
You're quite correct, it was Misty who has suggested that CB was paid to abduct and murder her. We're just trying to work out why. Why her?
-
You're quite correct, it was Misty who has suggested that CB was paid to abduct and murder her. We're just trying to work out why. Why her?
do you really need to ask? I would imagine Misty meant that Madeleine was stolen for a paedophile or paedophiles to be sexually abused and then disposed of, had that thought not crossed your mind as to what Misty might have meant or do you prefer to ascribe more ridiculous scenarios so that you can enjoy a good laugh this morning?
-
do you really need to ask? I would imagine Misty meant that Madeleine was stolen for a paedophile or paedophiles to be sexually abused and then disposed of, had that thought not crossed your mind as to what Misty might have meant or do you prefer to ascribe more ridiculous scenarios so that you can enjoy a good laugh this morning?
I don't see any problem with that, I found it funny, perhaps supporters should just try lightening up a bit.
-
I don't see any problem with that, I found it funny, perhaps supporters should just try lightening up a bit.
Sorry, no, I take that back, there's no space for frivolity here, we are talking about a very serious & sensitive subject , the abduction & murder of a 3 year old child, that nobody can prove actually happened.
-
You're quite correct, it was Misty who has suggested that CB was paid to abduct and murder her. We're just trying to work out why. Why her?
Well yes, apparently there were so many little blonde girls running about that week, so a paedohile would have been spoiled for choice. Maybe all the others were looked after properly so were not easily available.
-
Well yes, apparently there were so many little blonde girls running about that week, so a paedohile would have been spoiled for choice. Maybe all the others were looked after properly so were not easily available.
What would a paedophile gain by paying for someone else to carry out an abduction and murder?
-
What would a paedophile gain by paying for someone else to carry out an abduction and murder?
One explanation would be that it was to be filmed and then distributed far and wide on the internet for the enjoyment of other paedophiles.
The flaw in that argument would be that no trace of such a film has surfaced in the intervening years - that we know of.
-
What would a paedophile gain by paying for someone else to carry out an abduction and murder?
sexual gratification? Money? Why does anyone pay anyone else for carrying out their dirty work?
-
Well yes, apparently there were so many little blonde girls running about that week, so a paedohile would have been spoiled for choice. Maybe all the others were looked after properly so were not easily available.
Could be. The other kids who were left alone were not in a ground floor unlocked apartment as far as I am aware.
-
Could be. The other kids who were left alone were not in a ground floor unlocked apartment as far as I am aware.
Was Maddie even alive & in the apartment though?
No way to be sure really is there, just have to take the McCanns word for it.
-
Was Maddie even alive & in the apartment though?
No way to be sure really is there, just have to take the McCanns word for it.
Even GA believes she was alive on that day, given witness statements i think 4 were given seeing maddy that day.
Some sites and groups disagree lol, earlier in the week. I cant see two ppl with no criminal record prior or after to be able to psychologically hide ur daughter in a foreign country then get so much media attention to follow you and criticise. No sense their.
-
Even GA believes she was alive on that day, given witness statements i think 4 were given seeing maddy that day.
Some sites and groups disagree lol, earlier in the week. I cant see two ppl with no criminal record prior or after to be able to psychologically hide ur daughter in a foreign country then get so much media attention to follow you and criticise. No sense their.
The McCanns are the only witnesses that can vouch for her life after around 5:30pm, 6:00pm on May 3rd.
So, maybe she ceased to be after that. Really is no way to be sure she didn't, other than taking the McCanns word for it I suppose.
-
I mean can we even be sure Madeleine ever even existed? It could all be a giant conspiracy, we only have them, their family and friends word for it, maybe the whole thing is a massive hoax just to get fame and fortune?
Hello Logicman, wherever you may be… ()678%
-
I mean can we even be sure Madeleine ever even existed? It could all be a giant conspiracy, we only have them, their family and friends word for it, maybe the whole thing is a massive hoax just to get fake and fortune?
Hello Logicman, wherever you may be… ()678%
The point I made about the McCanns being the only witnesses who can vouch for Maddie's life after 6pm or whenever it was, is absolute fact, & your desperate response just shows how inconvenient you find that.
-
The point I made about the McCanns being the only witnesses who can vouch for Maddie's life after 6pm or whenever it was, is absolute fact, & your desperate response just shows how inconvenient you find that.
So provide how it happened, why not murder over accident, 4 witness statements that day said she was alive, explain the timeframe for one.
-
So provide how it happened, why not murder over accident, 4 witness statements that day said she was alive, explain the timeframe for one.
Well, there's simply no way to be sure what happened, if anything, is there.
But, it only takes about 3 minutes to choke, or be choked to death, for example, & as I've already explained, the last confirmed sighting of Maddie was by her parents. So witnesses saw her alive on May 3rd, great, but only her parents can vouch for her after around 6pm. In theory, she could be dead as little as 3 minutes later.
Now, I'm not saying that happened, but there's not really any way to be certain it didn't either.
-
Well, there's simply no way to be sure what happened, if anything, is there.
But, it only takes about 3 minutes to choke, or be choked to death, for example, & as I've already explained, the last confirmed sighting of Maddie was by her parents. So witnesses saw her alive on May 3rd, great, but only her parents can vouch for her after around 6pm. In theory, she could be dead as little as 3 minutes later.
Now, I'm not saying that happened, but there's not really any way to be certain it didn't either.
Exactly, so trying to be rralistic within a timeframe removing body and being all good and well in spirit back at the tapas seems odd to me. Odd that the mccanns could put a brave face on and miraculously understand dna, cleansing, hiding etc within a short period of time within a unknown terrain.
-
Exactly, so trying to be rralistic within a timeframe removing body and being all good and well in spirit back at the tapas seems odd to me. Odd that the mccanns could put a brave face on and miraculously understand dna, cleansing, hiding etc within a short period of time within a unknown terrain.
Odd, but not impossible, people can act, deceive, put a brave face on things. Interesting creatures humans.
People can actually lie about things & have other people believe them, it happens all the time.
Not sure why you're bringing DNA & cleaning into this, given the method I described.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying the McCanns are guilty, I just don't see any convincing evidence they're not guilty either.
-
Unless, of course, she or her family are not as ordinary as they seem to be. Didn't some anti-McCann groups suggest that's what lay behind the support they received from the authorities? Their supporters, however, have always rejected that theory. Have they changed their minds?
There isn't a social media platform set up by sceptics in existence which doesn't promote the extraordinary notions first promulgated by Amaral and his myth factory regarding political theory and security service involvement etc.
All rather unbalanced I think, to the extent that his delusional obsessions ultimately caused his dismissal from the case.
-
There isn't a social media platform set up by sceptics in existence which doesn't promote the extraordinary notions first promulgated by Amaral and his myth factory regarding political theory and security service involvement etc.
All rather unbalanced I think, to the extent that his delusional obsessions ultimately caused his dismissal from the case.
Can't say I've ever spent much time reading any of that to be honest.
Maybe don't read them particular platforms, they shouldn't bother you then.
-
Can't say I've ever spent much time reading any of that to be honest.
Maybe don't read them particular platforms, they shouldn't bother you then.
I don't require to read any of the ravings polluting the internet hate platforms under discussion all I require to do to keep up to speed is read your daily posing record.
At one time or another you ensure each and every slur ever made and some nobody else ever thought of is repeated by you ad nauseam.
-
As I don't use Facebook or Twitter, or the like, what people post there is of no concern to me.
I read WS but find it a sad disappointment after all the hype about it on here. 8(8-))
-
As I don't use Facebook or Twitter, or the like, what people post there is of no concern to me.
I read WS but find it a sad disappointment after all the hype about it on here. 8(8-))
Of course you do, they're not all ripping the piss out of Madeleine and her parents, which seems to be more the kind of thing that floats your boat.
-
I don't require to read any of the ravings polluting the internet hate platforms under discussion all I require to do to keep up to speed is read your daily posing record.
At one time or another you ensure each and every slur ever made and some nobody else ever thought of is repeated by you ad nauseam.
Glad to be of service, my pleasure.
-
Of course you do, they're not all ripping the piss out of Madeleine and her parents, which seems to be more the kind of thing that floats your boat.
Well, it passes the the time until Wolters proves us all wrong.
-
There isn't a social media platform set up by sceptics in existence which doesn't promote the extraordinary notions first promulgated by Amaral and his myth factory regarding political theory and security service involvement etc.
All rather unbalanced I think, to the extent that his delusional obsessions ultimately caused his dismissal from the case.
Well if the McCanns weren't special why, according to Misty, would someone pay CB to abduct and murder their daughter?
-
Well if the McCanns weren't special why, according to Misty, would someone pay CB to abduct and murder their daughter?
Why are you being so obtuse?
-
Well if the McCanns weren't special why, according to Misty, would someone pay CB to abduct and murder their daughter?
You really do look at things simplistically. It's possible CB was paid to abduct a young girl... Not a specific young girl
-
You really do look at things simplistically. It's possible CB was paid to abduct a young girl... Not a specific young girl
Abduct and murder. Why?
-
Abduct and murder. Why?
Reasons have already been suggested today, why are you repeating the question?
-
Abduct and murder. Why?
Paedo abuse videos are very valuable
-
Reasons have already been suggested today, why are you repeating the question?
No logical reason has been suggested imo. In fact I don't think there is a logical reason why someone would pay CB to abduct and murder a child. There's no benefit to the one who paid.
-
Well if the McCanns weren't special why, according to Misty, would someone pay CB to abduct and murder their daughter?
The sentiments expressed in your post don't surprise me in the slightest but are nonetheless tremendously revealing.
At a stroke you sum up the sceptic mindset to the nth degree and believe me when I say it is not an edifying sight to behold.
-
No logical reason has been suggested imo. In fact I don't think there is a logical reason why someone would pay CB to abduct and murder a child. There's no benefit to the one who paid.
There is no logical reason why people set up hate sites and there is no logical reason for people to join them for the purpose of adding to the vilification.
The fact is they do.
There is no logic or benefit in abducting and murdering a child.
The fact is that people do.
Why you attempt to condone such aberrant behaviour is a matter for your conscience.
-
No logical reason has been suggested imo. In fact I don't think there is a logical reason why someone would pay CB to abduct and murder a child. There's no benefit to the one who paid.
There is as I've pointed out
-
No logical reason has been suggested imo. In fact I don't think there is a logical reason why someone would pay CB to abduct and murder a child. There's no benefit to the one who paid.
Sexual gratification? Monetizing the abuse and killing? Are these not logical explanations? They may not be palatable but they are potential reasons, and the police did at one time also consider that Madeleine had been stolen to order. any child stolen to be abused in a paedophile ring is likely to be disposed of at some stage, which bit of this do you not understand?
-
Yes, Sadie has always maintained that Madeleine was special (and her siblings too, obviously). Whether other supporters agree isn't clear. Why would anyone hire a hit on a 3 year old though?
That s just one of my ideas. I have others that are absolutely feasible as well.
I throw them out for examination by forum, but they are always ignored excpt by you Gunit and you have made me think deeper and wider and helped me find improved solutions. I thank yiou for that.
My favourite thinking atm is that her VERY special bloodline is of vital importance to the man who has ordered her abduction. Atm, I am thinking that it is to strengthen his families already VERY special bloodline
Anyone know if Madeleine has any ancesters from the CLARE, Klara (etc) family. They are reputedly descended from Jesus and Mary Magdeline. Or does anyone know of the names of any that have descended from his cousin, John The baptist i.e. The St John, Sinjohn (etc) family? Gerrys mother was a Johnson, wasn't she?
About 13 years ago, Lyell, who is a forum member and was an early poster on here, affirmed that he had royal and sacred blood. This was after I had deeply researched and found what appeared to be connections of that name to Jesus. I asked him.
I wonder what his real name is ?
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/joseph-of-arimathea-37385.php
For those that are not aware, Jesus is thought to have survived the Cross, been taken down from the cross by his uncle "Joseph of Arimathea". from there he was placed in Josephs private tomb and as we all have learned since that on the third day he rose from 'The dead'. It seems that the story put out was that on the hird day, he had ascended into Heaven. However, it appears that in reality, he and his supporters quietly made their way to the Greek Islands
He is thought to have then travelled with a group of supporters first to the Greek/Turkish Islands and later to have settled with Mary Magdelene in the South of France where they had a family.
Am just toying with ideas about why Madeleine was chosen and abducted. Was it because of her very special pure blood bloodline for some eason?
-
Sexual gratification? Monetizing the abuse and killing? Are these not logical explanations? They may not be palatable but they are potential reasons, and the police did at one time also consider that Madeleine had been stolen to order. any child stolen to be abused in a paedophile ring is likely to be disposed of at some stage, which bit of this do you not understand?
Abused by a paedophile ring or abducted and murdered by one man at the request of another? Why people bother speculating beats me.
-
That s just one of my ideas. I have others that are absolutely feasible as well.
I throw them out for examination by forum, but they are always ignored excpt by you Gunit and you have made me think deeper and wider and helped me find improved solutions. I thank yiou for that.
My favourite thinking atm is that her VERY special bloodline is of vital importance to the man who has ordered her abduction. Atm, I am thinking that it is to strengthen his families already VERY special bloodline
Anyone know if Madeleine has any ancesters from the CLARE, Klara (etc) family. They are reputedly descended from Jesus and Mary Magdeline. Or does anyone know of the names of any that have descended from his cousin, John The baptist i.e. The St John, Sinjohn (etc) family? Gerrys mother was a Johnson, wasn't she?
About 13 years ago, Lyell, who is a forum member and was an early poster on here, affirmed that he had royal and sacred blood. This was after I had deeply researched and found what appeared to be connections of that name to Jesus. I asked him.
I wonder what his real name is ?
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/joseph-of-arimathea-37385.php
For those that are not aware, Jesus is thought to have survived the Cross, been taken down from the cross by his uncle "Joseph of Arimathea". from there he was placed in Josephs private tomb and as we all have learned since that on the third day he rose from 'The dead'. It seems that the story put out was that on the hird day, he had ascended into Heaven. However, it appears that in reality, he and his supporters quietly made their way to the Greek Islands
He is thought to have then travelled with a group of supporters first to the Greek/Turkish Islands and later to have settled with Mary Magdelene in the South of France where they had a family.
Am just toying with ideas about why Madeleine was chosen and abducted. Was it because of her very special pure blood bloodline for some eason?
So do all your theories see Madeleine as special? I think she was just an ordinary child.
-
Abused by a paedophile ring or abducted and murdered by one man at the request of another? Why people bother speculating beats me.
Are you not aware of how Marc Dutroux's gang operated?
-
Abused by a paedophile ring or abducted and murdered by one man at the request of another? Why people bother speculating beats me.
You asked us to speculate why someone would be paid to abduct and murder a child, remember? You claimed there was no logical reason, remember? I’ve given you one, so do try and remember it for next time.
-
Abused by a paedophile ring or abducted and murdered by one man at the request of another? Why people bother speculating beats me.
We're not allowed to speculate about what Brueckner might have done with her body though.
We'll just have to wait until Wolters tells us.
-
So do all your theories see Madeleine as special? I think she was just an ordinary child.
All children are special, adults not so much, but children, we've got to protect the children, although, we can murder them in utero, it's ok then, but from when they pop out to the age of 16 they are the most important humans on our massively overpopulated planet, even though millions of them get plopped out every week.
-
Are you not aware of how Marc Dutroux's gang operated?
Are you speculating then? You have no actual evidence that someone paid CB to abduct and murder a child?
-
Are you speculating then? You have no actual evidence that someone paid CB to abduct and murder a child?
Something about the Russians wasn't it?
"Oh, those Russians."
(credits Boney M, Rasputin)
-
Abused by a paedophile ring or abducted and murdered by one man at the request of another? Why people bother speculating beats me.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating the way in which the internet social media abusers' mindset operates. Bang on the thread topic.
-
So do all your theories see Madeleine as special? I think she was just an ordinary child.
My opinion is that there is no such thing as an 'ordinary' child. I have never met a child who was not extraordinary in each and every way.
-
My opinion is that there is no such thing as an 'ordinary' child. I have never met a child who was not extraordinary in each and every way.
What about adults? Not so much?
Do children become less extraordinary once they reach adulthood?
Where's the cut off point for you exactly, 16, 18?
How about pensioners, at the other end of the scale, how do you feel about them?
Personally I prefer to be unbiased & despise all of humanity equally. It seems somehow fairer to me, I don't mind cats though, kittens right through to geriatrics, I think they're all lovely.
-
Are you speculating then? You have no actual evidence that someone paid CB to abduct and murder a child?
None of we armchair detectives have had sight of any 'actual evidence'. The German prosecutors are keeping a very tight rein on it all. One would have thought you were aware of that.
-
None of we armchair detectives have had sight of any 'actual evidence'. The German prosecutors are keeping a very tight rein on it all. One would have thought you were aware of that.
That's if they really have any that is, beyond coincidence, second hand confessions & Brueckner's online bravado.
-
What about adults? Not so much?
Do children become less extraordinary once they reach adulthood?
Where's the cut off point for you exactly, 16, 18?
How about pensioners, at the other end of the scale, how do you feel about them?
Personally I prefer to be unbiased & despise all of humanity equally. It seems somehow fairer to me, I don't mind cats though, kittens right through to geriatrics, I think they're all lovely.
I've always found this to be an interesting philosophical question.
Children are regarded as special & extraordinary, but once they reach a certain age, less so somehow.
Seriously.
Terminating them in utero is socially acceptable, but, if you dare kill one after it plops out, it's regarded as the worst crime imaginable, but then becomes somehow less serious if you do it when they're 37.
I just don't get it, the whole thing seems simply inexplicable to me. Either human life matters from start to finish, or it doesn't surely?
It shouldn't be age depended, that's discrimination.
-
Are you speculating then? You have no actual evidence that someone paid CB to abduct and murder a child?
No, I'm using a previous case involving a paedophile ring to demonstrate that organised crime can indeed involve a third party paying someone to abduct & then murder a child.
There is evidence that CB may have had a substantial windfall during the period after Madeleine's disappearance, which enabled him to purchase the Tiffin Allegro and have some expensive dental work carried out. All this occurred before he reportedly participated in the €100,000 burglary with Nicole F in November 2007. Added to his competence at burglary, an association with people smugglers/drug trafficking networks and an uncanny ability to never be caught committing such serious crimes in Portugal, I can see certain similarities with the Marc Dutroux affair, even if you can't.
People in anti-groups have spent thousands of hours writing about how Gerry not hearing Jane's flip flops as she passed him, Gerry's "missing" blue bag and a solitary cadaver dog's alerts (just a few examples) PROVE that the McCanns disposed of Madeleine's body and every person/organisation connected to them conspired to cover this up.
Now, faced with a suspect/accused who had the means, motive & opportunity to commit this heinous crime, why is it so uncomfortable for you/the anti groups to consider what can be deemed less speculative than a certain ex-detective's book?
Would you rather I speculate about how spending €50,000 of dirty money to abduct & kill a child could turn into a €500,000 long term gain of clean money for someone?
-
No, I'm using a previous case involving a paedophile ring to demonstrate that organised crime can indeed involve a third party paying someone to abduct & then murder a child.
There is evidence that CB may have had a substantial windfall during the period after Madeleine's disappearance, which enabled him to purchase the Tiffin Allegro and have some expensive dental work carried out. All this occurred before he reportedly participated in the €100,000 burglary with Nicole F in November 2007. Added to his competence at burglary, an association with people smugglers/drug trafficking networks and an uncanny ability to never be caught committing such serious crimes in Portugal, I can see certain similarities with the Marc Dutroux affair, even if you can't.
People in anti-groups have spent thousands of hours writing about how Gerry not hearing Jane's flip flops as she passed him, Gerry's "missing" blue bag and a solitary cadaver dog's alerts (just a few examples) PROVE that the McCanns disposed of Madeleine's body and every person/organisation connected to them conspired to cover this up.
Now, faced with a suspect/accused who had the means, motive & opportunity to commit this heinous crime, why is it so uncomfortable for you/the anti groups to consider what can be deemed less speculative than a certain ex-detective's book?
Would you rather I speculate about how spending €50,000 of dirty money to abduct & kill a child could turn into a €500,000 long term gain of clean money for someone?
If the venture was so lucrative, how come he didn't carry on doing it, rather than running a kiosk?
I reckon I'd have stuck to abducting kids myself, particurally given how good I was at it.
-
Seriously, run a kiosk 52 weeks a year or commit one child abduction for hundreds of thousands.
I'd pinch one or two kids a year & buy myself something more upmarket to live in than a campervan & a crumbling old derelict box factory myself.
But it takes all sorts I suppose.
Complicated chap Brueckner.
-
If the venture was so lucrative, how come he didn't carry on doing it, rather than running a kiosk?
I reckon I'd have stuck to abducting kids myself, particurally given how good I was at it.
It doesn't exactly provide a regular income, although it is a job "for life". Besides, he nearly got caught in the act imo.
I think the kiosk was useful for laundering some of his drugs income.
-
It doesn't exactly provide a regular income, although it is a job "for life". Besides, he nearly got caught in the act imo.
I think the kiosk was useful for laundering some of his drugs income.
The demand for little girls far outstrips supply surely, they don't go missing very often, & he didn't actually get caught though, even if he did have a close shave he'd have learned his lesson, that after conducting detailed surveillance all week, probably chose a better time to abduct a child rather than precisely when a parent is scheduled to enter the apartment.
-
What would a paedophile gain by paying for someone else to carry out an abduction and murder?
Dosh !! Big Dosh.
But they wanted her alive and well, so NO murder.
She was selected and is still alive and well looked after.
-
The demand for little girls far outstrips supply surely, they don't go missing very often, & he didn't actually get caught though, even if he did have a close shave he'd have learned his lesson, that after conducting detailed surveillance all week, probably chose a better time to abduct a child rather than precisely when a parent is scheduled to enter the apartment.
Risk & reward.
The demand for currency far outstrips supply but we don't see banks being robbed on a regular basis.
It's a lot more difficult for a kidnapper to dispose of their victim without being caught than offloading stolen electrical goods or passports. We've never had a proper answer from sceptic fora explaining how they think Gerry achieved it.
-
One explanation would be that it was to be filmed and then distributed far and wide on the internet for the enjoyment of other paedophiles.
The flaw in that argument would be that no trace of such a film has surfaced in the intervening years - that we know of.
No film, because it never happened. She was wanted in a pure state
-
Risk & reward.
The demand for currency far outstrips supply but we don't see banks being robbed on a regular basis.
It's a lot more difficult for a kidnapper to dispose of their victim without being caught than offloading stolen electrical goods or passports. We've never had a proper answer from sceptic fora explaining how they think Gerry achieved it.
You've never heard my theory?
I find that hard to believe.
Just think Corrie Mckeague.
-
You've never heard my theory?
I find that hard to believe.
Just think Corrie Mckeague.
I see posts of yours which change direction more times than a wasp at a picnic.
We have all heard the official line on Corrie's disappearance. Can you explain why people should accept the fact that Corrie's phone last pinging at the waste tip = Corrie was also at the tip? It's quite relevant when compared to CB's phone pings.
-
I see posts of yours which change direction more times than a wasp at a picnic.
We have all heard the official line on Corrie's disappearance. Can you explain why people should accept the fact that Corrie's phone last pinging at the waste tip = Corrie was also at the tip? It's quite relevant when compared to CB's phone pings.
I read the inquest reports.
The bin weight matched his body weight there abouts & was significantly heavier than it's usual weekly weight (the weight gets registered by the lorry automatically as it's loaded in)
The binman called to the inquest tried claiming he had checked the contents before hooking it onto the lifting mechanism, the coroner wasn't buying it, & even after initial doubt & denial of the possibility, Corrie's mother finally accepted the obvious.
-
I read the inquest reports.
The bin weight matched his body weight there abouts & was significantly heavier than it's usual weekly weight (the weight gets registered by the lorry automatically as it's loaded in)
The binman called to the inquest tried claiming he had checked the contents before hooking it onto the lifting mechanism, the coroner wasn't buying it, & even after initial doubt & denial of the possibility, Corrie's mother finally accepted the obvious.
Wasn't the weight of the bin contents collected the subject of controversy?
You haven't answered the question about the phone. Did police check the back cover from a mobile handset found close to the last ping location for DNA?
-
Yes, someone falsified the bin weight on a form, just wrote the approximate usual weekly weight iirc. Not sure about the dna on the phone, but Corrie was known to sleep in bins, strangely, it all adds up really. Another one I like is Alexis Avila, had a slightly happier ending that one, but she's charged with attempted murder & the child owes it's life to dumpster divers.
If you care to search her name on YouTube, the rather nonchalant way she just lobs it in is quite something.
-
Yes, someone falsified the bin weight on a form, just wrote the approximate usual weekly weight iirc. Not sure about the dna on the phone, but Corrie was known to sleep in bins, strangely, it all adds up really. Another one I like is Alexis Avila, had a slightly happier ending that one, but she's charged with attempted murder & the child owes it's life to dumpster divers.
If you care to search her name on YouTube, the rather nonchalant way she just lobs it in is quite something.
The dumpster had a lock on it too so it's strange no-one reported it having been damaged. I guess we just have to trust the experts, despite the anomalies.
I hadn't heard of the Avila case but yes, the baby was fortunate to survive and the mother caught on CCTV. I believe they have a checking system in USA because dumping babies (and bodies) in the trash is a fairly common occurrence. Do we not have something similar here?
Anyway, we'll be shot at dawn for going off-topic.
-
If the venture was so lucrative, how come he didn't carry on doing it, rather than running a kiosk?
I reckon I'd have stuck to abducting kids myself, particurally given how good I was at it.
He could have, however it was major news thereafter. Be a bit heat.
-
He could have, however it was major news thereafter. Be a bit heat.
In Luz, maybe.
But as I understand it, little girls can be found dotted all around the planet, millions of them, they're not exclusive to Luz, but I could be wrong about that.
-
In Luz, maybe.
I also tend not to hypothesise how i would do something like wonderfulspam lmao dpes not enter my mind one bit.
But as I understand it, little girls can be found dotted all around the planet, millions of them, they're not exclusive to Luz, but I could be wrong about that.
-
I also tend not to hypothesise how i would do something like wonderfulspam lmao dpes not enter my mind one bit.
That might explain why you're convinced Maddie was abducted, despite the absence of verifiable evidence she ever was, & only because the McCanns said so.
-
That might explain why you're convinced Maddie was abducted, despite the absence of verifiable evidence she ever was, & only because the McCanns said so.
Not neccessarily convinced, because again i dont know what happened. I just think its unlikely the mccanns were involved.
-
The dumpster had a lock on it too so it's strange no-one reported it having been damaged. I guess we just have to trust the experts, despite the anomalies.
I hadn't heard of the Avila case but yes, the baby was fortunate to survive and the mother caught on CCTV. I believe they have a checking system in USA because dumping babies (and bodies) in the trash is a fairly common occurrence. Do we not have something similar here?
Anyway, we'll be shot at dawn for going off-topic.
"He said the bin had a lock but this could be “easily popped if someone is strong enough to lift the bin lid”.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2022/03/11/wrong-bin-weight-in-corrie-mckeague-search-was-due-to-error-in-process--inquest/
..and no, we don't just have to trust the experts, we can assess the evidence & come to the logical conclusion.
A man known to sleep in bins when he was drunk was last seen on cctv one drunken night out entering an area where bins were.
There was no way out other than the way he went in, cctv never caught him leaving.
The bins were collected the next morning, the weight of a bin there matched roughly his body weight & he hasn't phoned his mother or girlfriend since.
But who knows, maybe he went off to start a new life, leaving his bank account job & family behind forever, or maybe it's just that, sadly, he rather foolishly slept in the bin.
-
Not neccessarily convinced, because again i dont know what happened. I just think its unlikely the mccanns were involved.
So do SY, the PJ the BKA & Wolters.
It could be that's why they're having a bit of problem convicting anyone of abducting Maddie.
-
So do SY, the PJ the BKA & Wolters.
It could be that's why they're having a bit of problem convicting anyone of abducting Maddie.
Alot of people have been convicted without a body, or givong evidence of abduction but proved through other means or confession. Its not un natural to have to claim how it happened. I domt think that will come to light. Unless the extra info that maybe bruckner did do something may be enough to convict.
-
Not neccessarily convinced, because again i dont know what happened. I just think its unlikely the mccanns were involved.
Pretty nigh on impossible, I would say.
-
Pretty nigh on impossible, I would say.
So, not impossible then.
I mean, no way to be sure they weren't really is there.
-
Alot of people have been convicted without a body, or givong evidence of abduction but proved through other means or confession. Its not un natural to have to claim how it happened. I domt think that will come to light. Unless the extra info that maybe bruckner did do something may be enough to convict.
Doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon though.
Certainly, Wolters can't see it happening anytime in the foreseeable future.
-
Alot of people have been convicted without a body, or givong evidence of abduction but proved through other means or confession. Its not un natural to have to claim how it happened. I domt think that will come to light. Unless the extra info that maybe bruckner did do something may be enough to convict.
Only 3 or 4 in Germany, one was a miscarriage of Justice .
-
Only 3 or 4 in Germany, one was a miscarriage of Justice .
Germany is one country, happens all the time accross the world
-
Germany is one country, happens all the time accross the world
Germany is the country that is claiming their prime suspect killed Madeleine without dna evidence , forensics or a body ,
-
Germany is the country that is claiming their prime suspect killed Madeleine without dna evidence , forensics or a body ,
Yeah but internally cpuntries do the same
-
Yeah but internally cpuntries do the same
But we're not on about any other crimes in different countries,
-
Germany is the country that is claiming their prime suspect killed Madeleine without dna evidence , forensics or a body ,
Funnily enough Amaral claimed Madeleine died of a Calpol overdose and that the McCanns hid her body then froze it and transported it in the hire car 23 days later, and that was also without the benefit of DNA evidence, forensics or a body and some people don't seem to have a problem with that at all.
-
Germany is the country that is claiming their prime suspect killed Madeleine without dna evidence , forensics or a body ,
Just s video of him doing it
-
Funnily enough Amaral claimed Madeleine died of a Calpol overdose and that the McCanns hid her body then froze it and transported it in the hire car 23 days later, and that was also without the benefit of DNA evidence, forensics or a body and some people don't seem to have a problem with that at all.
Yet you do , but don't have an issue with the BKA declaring the same .
-
Just s video of him doing it
Well, we can imagine there is, I suppose.
-
Just s video of him doing it
Wishful thinking .
-
But we're not on about any other crimes in different countries,
Oh right, sorry thought i was on a differemt thread! Point is all countries do the same, as in accusing parents and dont have to prove abduction, at least bka are trying tp give a timeline.
-
Wishful thinking .
No, Wolters said something which lead Davel to be certain of it.
So, it's all about believing Wolters really.
Just have faith in him, he'll deliver the goods eventually don't you worry, just not anytime in the foreseeable future though.
-
No, Wolters said something which lead Davel to be certain of it.
So, it's all about believing Wolters really.
Just have faith in him, he'll deliver the goods eventually don't you worry, just not anytime in the foreseeable future though.
Wolters said nothing of the sort though .
-
Oh right, sorry thought i was on a differemt thread! Point is all countries do the same, as in accusing parents and dont have to prove abduction, at least bka are trying tp give a timeline.
What timeline have they given ?
Someone recieved a call around 7:30pm til 8:00pm, then Brueckner murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
That seems to be all they've given so far.
-
Wolters said nothing of the sort though .
Ah but he did.
He made an appeal about 2 years ago asking for photos of the inside of houses Brueckner had been in.
He has thousands of abuse images he needs to match with the fireplace & wallpaper, so obviously the appeal was specifically regarding Maddie & no one else.
He doesn't seem to have made any appeals since though, so, maybe he's already matched the photo, but if so, it doesn't seem to have got him anywhere, since he can't see Brueckner being charged anytime at all.
-
What timeline have they given ?
Someone recieved a call around 7:30pm til 8:00pm, then Brueckner murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
That seems to be all they've given so far.
Grange had better timelines with their suspects .
-
Ah but he did.
He made an appeal about 2 years ago asking for photos of the inside of houses Brueckner had been in.
He has thousands of abuse images he needs to match with the fireplace & wallpaper, so obviously the appeal was specifically regarding Maddie & no one else.
He doesn't seem to have made any appeals since though, so, maybe he's already matched the photo, but if so, it doesn't seem to have got him anywhere, since he can't see Brueckner being charged anytime at all.
Again I think you may have hit the nail on the head despite posting nonsense worthy of whatever "Anti facebook groups etc" or whatever internet platform you may prefer.
If memory serves me well Brueckner's lawyer may well be working on a defence for two rapes on two unknown women, one an older woman and one much younger.
It seems the BKA may have used the system of gathering the evidence for these vile offenses using exactly the methods you hold up to ridicule.
-
Grange had better timelines with their suspects .
Are you referring to the burglars interviewed in 2014?
Just as in Brueckner's case the PJ studiously ignored the phone ping evidence available to them in 2007.
-
Again I think you may have hit the nail on the head despite posting nonsense worthy of whatever "Anti facebook groups etc" or whatever internet platform you may prefer.
If memory serves me well Brueckner's lawyer may well be working on a defence for two rapes on two unknown women, one an older woman and one much younger.
It seems the BKA may have used the system of gathering the evidence for these vile offenses using exactly the methods you hold up to ridicule.
Well, you can think that, & I can laugh about it you see, because Wolters concrete, irrefutable, 100% evidence Brueckner murdered Maddie, which you find utterly convincing without having seen it, isn't sufficient to bring Brueckner to justice anytime soon, much to your disappointment I'm sure.
-
Yet you do , but don't have an issue with the BKA declaring the same .
I’m reserving judgement on the BKA and HCW in particular who claims to have certain evidence that would lead us to be convinced of CB’s involvement so I’m giving Wolters the benefit of the doubt, particularly as he hasn’t been moved sideways or sacked for anything he has so far revealed publicly. The difference is we know for a fact Amaral had nothing and yet made a small personal fortune out of pretending that he did.
-
Are you referring to the burglars interviewed in 2014?
Just as in Brueckner's case the PJ studiously ignored the phone ping evidence available to them in 2007.
....and pray tell, what does Brueckner's phone ping evidence prove exactly?
That he recieved a half hour phone call?
Well that's not much use really is it.
-
I’m reserving judgement on the BKA and HCW in particular who claims to have certain evidence that would lead us to be convinced of CB’s involvement so I’m giving Wolters the benefit of the doubt, particularly as he hasn’t been moved sideways or sacked for anything he has so far revealed publicly. The difference is we know for a fact Amaral had nothing and yet made a small personal fortune out of pretending that he did.
Well, there's simply no good reason to doubt Wolters is there.
Other than the fact he can't prove anything I suppose. In My Opinion.
-
....and pray tell, what does Brueckner's phone ping evidence prove exactly?
That he recieved a half hour phone call?
Well that's not much use really is it.
What is it you imagine the ping from Corrie McKeague's phone signifies again.
-
What is it you imagine the ping from Corrie McKeague's phone signifies again.
That it was within a mast radius & connected to a mast?
I'm not sure what your point is really.
If you're suggesting Brueckners phone pinging a mast is evidence he was close to the apartment, that would depend on the mast radius really wouldn't it, & even then, the call was 7:30 to 8:00.
Maddie wasn't 'abducted' until after 9:00, so Brueckner could have been an hour away by then.
If he wasn't, I wonder what Brueckner got up to for that extra hour?
Any ideas? Maybe Wolters knows & we'll find out soon.
-
That it was within a mast radius & connected to a mast?
I'm not sure what your point is really.
If you're suggesting Brueckners phone pinging a mast is evidence he was close to the apartment, that would depend on the mast radius really wouldn't it, & even then, the call was 7:30 to 8:00.
Maddie wasn't 'abducted' until after 9:00, so Brueckner could have been an hour away by then.
If he wasn't, I wonder what Brueckner got up to for that extra hour?
Any ideas? Maybe Wolters knows & we'll find out soon.
Maybe amaral may know soon!
-
That it was within a mast radius & connected to a mast?
I'm not sure what your point is really.
If you're suggesting Brueckners phone pinging a mast is evidence he was close to the apartment, that would depend on the mast radius really wouldn't it, & even then, the call was 7:30 to 8:00.
Maddie wasn't 'abducted' until after 9:00, so Brueckner could have been an hour away by then.
If he wasn't, I wonder what Brueckner got up to for that extra hour?
Any ideas? Maybe Wolters knows & we'll find out soon.
Where did CB go on the night of the 3rd of May. He went somewhere has he said where he went?
-
Where did CB go on the night of the 3rd of May. He went somewhere has he said where he went?
I don't know, I keep writing to him, sending him fan mail & scented letters, but he hasn't replied yet.
Maybe he was out abducting & murdering Maddie, or maybe he just wasn't, & we have to presume he wasn't, because that's what the presumption of innocence requires, until Wolters can prove the opposite in a court of law, if he actually can that is.
-
Where did CB go on the night of the 3rd of May. He went somewhere has he said where he went?
Unfortunately his Alibi let him down because she can't remember.
-
Unfortunately his Alibi let him down because she can't remember.
Well, it doesn't seem to have made any difference does it?
I mean, is Brueckner being charged with abducting & murdering Maddie anytime soon, as a result of this uncertain alibi, do you happen to know?
-
Germany is the country that is claiming their prime suspect killed Madeleine without dna evidence , forensics or a body ,
As far as YOU know. As far as we all know
But You / we dont know everything about the case , do we?
-
As far as YOU know. As far as we all know
But You / we dont know everything about the case , do we?
Its the prosecutor's words from Germany not mine.
-
Its the prosecutor's words from Germany not mine.
As far as we know, but they are not obliged to share everything with us.
-
As far as we know, but they are not obliged to share everything with us.
Indeed they are not, but what he has shared are the reasons for no advancement after investigating CB for 5 yrs two of them as prime suspect, Wolters is on record on tv saying they cannot put CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007 also in the very same programme he says they have no forensics into the death of Madeleine.
Can some one enlighten the reader where before , a person has been charged and found guilty, without a body, without forensic evidence and the prime suspect can't be placed at or near a scene of alleged abduction.
There is no search for Madeleine imo , there might be a search for incriminating evidence to lead to a prosecution.
-
Indeed they are not, but what he has shared are the reasons for no advancement after investigating CB for 5 yrs two of them as prime suspect, Wolters is on record on tv saying they cannot put CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007 also in the very same programme he says they have no forensics into the death of Madeleine.
Can some one enlighten the reader where before , a person has been charged and found guilty, without a body, without forensic evidence and the prime suspect can't be placed at or near a scene of alleged abduction.
There is no search for Madeleine imo , there might be a search for incriminating evidence to lead to a prosecution.
Wolters...we have evidence which shows 100% CB murdered MM...and if you saw this evidence you would agree with us. Doent need forensics...body....or proof of CB in Luz
-
Wolters...we have evidence which shows 100% CB murdered MM...and if you saw this evidence you would agree with us. Doent need forensics...body....or proof of CB in Luz
Would a judge agree?
-
If you listen to what Wolters says he now has enough evidence to charge but wants to get the best possible evidence to guarantee a conviction. He has also said there is something that links the American.. Behan and MM case.
A successful prosecution in the Behan case proving this link may well be the last picce if evidence he wants. It seems the Behan case is underway when six months ago sceptics were saying he wouldn't be charged with it..
-
If you listen to what Wolters says he now has enough evidence to charge but wants to get the best possible evidence to guarantee a conviction. He has also said there is something that links the American.. Behan and MM case.
A successful prosecution in the Behan case proving this link may well be the last picce if evidence he wants. It seems the Behan case is underway when six months ago sceptics were saying he wouldn't be charged with it..
Any particular sceptics in mind or just the collective hive mind of the sceptics?
-
If you listen to what Wolters says he now has enough evidence to charge but wants to get the best possible evidence to guarantee a conviction. He has also said there is something that links the American.. Behan and MM case.
A successful prosecution in the Behan case proving this link may well be the last picce if evidence he wants. It seems the Behan case is underway when six months ago sceptics were saying he wouldn't be charged with it..
Have charges been filed?
-
Have charges been filed?
If reports are true , CB was examined in prison by authorities including taking photo's you would expect, if true and its reported that HB said her attacker had an identifying mark, the case would seem to rest upon this .
-
Wolters...we have evidence which shows 100% CB murdered MM...and if you saw this evidence you would agree with us. Doent need forensics...body....or proof of CB in Luz
Ok then, name a case where there has been no body, no forensics and the alleged perpetrator can not be placed in the vicinity of where an alleged victim disappeared from ? and it led to a successful prosecution ?
-
Have charges been filed?
You don't seem to be keeping up. FF has-been given the evidence.... He has a certain amount of time to respond before charges are made
-
Ok then, name a case where there has been no body, no forensics and the alleged perpetrator can not be placed in the vicinity of where an alleged victim disappeared from ? and it led to a successful prosecution ?
Totally irrelevant
-
Totally irrelevant
It is totally irrelevant. But don't expect some people to understand.
-
You don't seem to be keeping up. FF has-been given the evidence.... He has a certain amount of time to respond before charges are made
As I understand it a judge looks at all the evidence and then decides if charges will follow...or not.
-
As I understand it a judge looks at all the evidence and then decides if charges will follow...or not.
Brueckner's Lawyers have to be given time to respond.
-
Ok then, name a case where there has been no body, no forensics and the alleged perpetrator can not be placed in the vicinity of where an alleged victim disappeared from ? and it led to a successful prosecution ?
That's an easy one.
They still haven't found Suzanne's body. But they did manage to prove who abducted and killed her.
How surveillance society solved a murder with no body
By Steven Brocklehurst
BBC Scotland news website
Published
18 April 2012
Two years ago, Suzanne Pilley disappeared on her way to work in the centre of Edinburgh. Her body was never discovered but her killer was convicted last month after his movements were traced by a range of surveillance devices. On Wednesday, David Gilroy was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years before he can apply for parole.
CCTV footage, mobile phone records, emails, shop receipts - our everyday routine leaves an "electronic footprint".
David Gilroy went to great lengths to cover his tracks after he killed Suzanne Pilley in May 2010.
But an extraordinary police investigation tracked his movements in the smallest of detail.
CCTV footage from a supermarket two days before Suzanne's disappearance shows the pair buying groceries for a meal near her flat.
What looks on the screen to be an unremarkable domestic scene is in fact his last desperate attempt to resurrect the relationship.
Gilroy, a married man, had been having a secret relationship with his work colleague for about a year but she had been trying to end it.
That night they had a massive row and two days later he killed her.
At 08:19 on Tuesday 4 May, Suzanne's final commute to work was captured by CCTV cameras which track virtually every bus passenger in the Scottish capital.
She had spent the night with a new man whom she had recently met.
Suzanne got off the bus at 08:49 and was picked up by other CCTV cameras as she walked the last part of her journey to work.
She was seen going into a supermarket before she finally disappeared from view.
Specialist CCTV analysts looked at images from 84 cameras in the area and built up a case that a tiny image of Suzanne could be seen from a distant camera as she entered her work.
Gilroy had spent the previous few weeks besieging her with numerous texts and voicemails, desperate to continue their relationship.
Police were able to recover everything left on her phone, even though the phone itself has never been found.
Gilroy knew there were no CCTV cameras at the place where he and Pilley worked.
However, CCTV cameras on properties outside the building show him going in and out of the basement garage.
The man who quickly became a suspect had arrived at work by bus but later made excuses to go home and collect his car.
Later he was caught by CCTV having just bought four air fresheners.
Police believe Gilroy lured Suzanne to the basement and killed her.
He then hid her body in a stairwell before later transferring it to the boot of his car.
Specialist cadaver dogs were used to search the basement and garage of the building.
They found areas of interest but no DNA or forensics.
Before Gilroy went home he went to his computer and arranged an appointment which would require him to drive about 130 miles to Lochgilphead in rural Argyll the next day.
The killer then went home and acted naturally.
CCTV images even caught him attending a school concert and a restaurant that evening.
Police reconstructed Gilroy's trip to Argyll on 5 May through CCTV at various places along the route, such as when he stopped for petrol.
Officers had to trawl for CCTV footage from hundreds of cameras - not just on the main route to Lochgilphead but surrounding roads as well.
It was a route Gilroy took regularly but on this occasion he went much further north than the direct route and police were suspicious.
Gilroy's mobile phone was later seized by police, along with his car.
Experts found that the phone had been switched off between Stirling and Inveraray and the same on the way back.
Police suspected Gilroy had deliberately switched his phone off to conceal his movements while he did a "reccy" for a site to dispose of Suzanne's body. He repeated this on his way back when he actually buried the body.
But Gilroy did not realise that his car would provide more clues that he had been driving along rough forest tracks.
Damage to the suspension, scrape marks on the underside of the car and vegetation attached to the car were all clues of his off-road activities.
Police reckoned that the average time for the journey between Tyndrum and Inveraray was 36 minutes.
CCTV analysis of the time taken by Gilroy indicated that he took five hours and eight minutes.
Footage from CCTV also showed that an umbrella on the back parcel shelf of his car, probably put there when Suzanne's body was placed in the boot, disappeared from view on the return journey, having been placed back in the boot.
Despite extensive searches, Suzanne's body was never found.
However, due to the cumulative evidence built up in the police investigation, Gilroy was convicted at the High Court in Edinburgh last month.
On Wednesday, he was given a life sentence with a minimum of 18 years before he can apply for parole.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17727255
Anyway ~ why do you raise the question here? Has someone set up a hate site about it? If not I think you may well be indanger of straying off topic yet again.
-
Totally irrelevant
Thought as much you can't give an answer.
-
Thought as much you can't give an answer.
No one is forced to answer spurious questions.
-
As I understand it a judge looks at all the evidence and then decides if charges will follow...or not.
I find Wolters very thorough.....I cant see him submitting the evidence unless its comprehensive
-
Ok then, name a case where there has been no body, no forensics and the alleged perpetrator can not be placed in the vicinity of where an alleged victim disappeared from ? and it led to a successful prosecution ?
Their are certain circumstantial evidences against him and some to the public unknown. He has admitted being in the area that night. But not one so called alibi has accounted or made public about his whereabouts.
-
Their are certain circumstantial evidences against him and some to the public unknown. He has admitted being in the area that night. But not one so called alibi has accounted or made public about his whereabouts.
Any witnesses say he was busy abducting Maddie on the night of may 3rd?
-
Their are certain circumstantial evidences against him and some to the public unknown. He has admitted being in the area that night. But not one so called alibi has accounted or made public about his whereabouts.
I suppose that works both ways as no one has come forward to say that they saw him in the area, either - as far as we know.
Of course he doesn't really need an alibi, though one might eventually prove helpful, as he hasn't been officially accused of anything that requires one - again as far as we know.
-
I suppose that works both ways as no one has come forward to say that they saw him in the area, either - as far as we know.
Of course he doesn't really need an alibi, though one might eventually prove helpful, as he hasn't been officially accused of anything that requires one - again as far as we know.
Not really at this time, but its been said twice he was in area, now i cant remember if a while back he told someone he was not in portugal that night. I think its a chess game he is playing woth the press. He is not obliged until charged to speak to officers. Althpugh he made no comment as an arguido following more than likely his rights from solicitor as did the mccanns
-
Not really at this time, but its been said twice he was in area, now i cant remember if a while back he told someone he was not in portugal that night. I think its a chess game he is playing woth the press. He is not obliged until charged to speak to officers. Althpugh he made no comment as an arguido following more than likely his rights from solicitor as did the mccanns
Problem is we don't know how reliable something printed in the media actually is. Some stuff is more reliable than other stuff.
What does'in the area' actually mean ?
Anyone with a vehicle within a 50 km radius of PDLmight be said to be within the area
-
Problem is we don't know how reliable something printed in the media actually is. Some stuff is more reliable than other stuff.
What does'in the area' actually mean ?
Anyone with a vehicle within a 50 km radius of PDLmight be said to be within the area
Being in area, im not saying that is definitive, but their must be more. Will hold hands up if not released when charged or convicted.
-
Problem is we don't know how reliable something printed in the media actually is. Some stuff is more reliable than other stuff.
What does'in the area' actually mean ?
Anyone with a vehicle within a 50 km radius of PDLmight be said to be within the area
I also just cant see why they would focus vision on this person CB without reason.
-
Being in area, im not saying that is definitive, but their must be more. Will hold hands up if not released when charged or convicted.
I'm afraid that not being charged doesn't exclude him, or indeed anyone else. It merely means that police haven't found sufficient evidence to follow through.
-
I also just cant see why they would focus vision on this person CB without reason.
Because he lived & worked in the area, broke into apartments & robbed, raped a granny & some young sort, molested kids, went around telling his mates he knew all about the McCann case, told a paedo in a chat room that he murdered Maddie, destroying the evidence, & the Cops don't know where he was on May 3rd.
-
I'm afraid that not being charged doesn't exclude him, or indeed anyone else. It merely means that police haven't found sufficient evidence to follow through.
You can npt release information you have especially with a high profile case.
-
I also just cant see why they would focus vision on this person CB without reason.
The Germans are only focused on Brueckner because of some statement made to British police by a criminal associate. There are no other declared suspects.
They are desperate to prosecute him for something, hence the unrelated alleged forthcoming charges. I can see no other reason why they should want to act as world police force.
Clearly they are piecing together some evidential links and hope to persuade judges of their validity.
IMO
-
You can npt release information you have especially with a high profile case.
Agreed, so a failure to gain a conviction will leave the case in limbo.
-
The Germans are only focused on Brueckner because of some statement made to British police by a criminal associate. There are no other declared suspects.
They are desperate to prosecute him for something, hence the unrelated alleged forthcoming charges. I can see no other reason why they should want to act as world police force.
Clearly they are piecing together some evidential links and hope to persuade judges of their validity.
IMO
Why? Just taken against him for no good reason?
-
Why? Just taken against him for no good reason?
Of course. What else could it be?
-
The Germans are only focused on Brueckner because of some statement made to British police by a criminal associate. There are no other declared suspects.
They are desperate to prosecute him for something, hence the unrelated alleged forthcoming charges. I can see no other reason why they should want to act as world police force.
Clearly they are piecing together some evidential links and hope to persuade judges of their validity.
IMO
Prosecutors get tunnel vision in these cases especially when they go public with unverified claims. Desperation appears to take over and that leads to wrongful convictions.
-
Why? Just taken against him for no good reason?
Because he's an obvious danger to the public.
-
Because he lived & worked in the area, broke into apartments & robbed, raped a granny & some young sort, molested kids, went around telling his mates he knew all about the McCann case, told a paedo in a chat room that he murdered Maddie, destroying the evidence, & the pigs don't know where he was on May 3rd.
Pigs? What does that mean?
-
Pigs? What does that mean?
Police, sorry, he doesn't like the cops.
Anyway, he's a danger to the public, this will be why Wolters is going after him hard imo
They want to stop him abusing kids, dropping his trousers in playgrounds & breaking into places, robbing & raping.
They might get him for all that stuff, but it doesn't look like they'll ever get him for Maddie, maybe because he just didn't do it. He did all the other stuff, just not Maddie imo
-
Prosecutors get tunnel vision in these cases especially when they go public with unverified claims. Desperation appears to take over and that leads to wrongful convictions.
They can't be that desperate - it's been two years now and no charges yet.
-
Prosecutors get tunnel vision in these cases especially when they go public with unverified claims. Desperation appears to take over and that leads to wrongful convictions.
I think your post is laughable..
Either wolters wants to commit professional suicide or he has evidence that shows 100% CB murdered Maddie.
If he hasn't CB can sue him and ruin him
I think you are dreaming John
-
I think your post is laughable..
Either wolters wants to commit professional suicide or he has evidence that shows 100% CB murdered Maddie.
If he hasn't CB can sue him and ruin him
I think you are dreaming John
He has the flimsy-ass evidence Brueckner telling his mates he murdered Maddie.
So, Brueckner can't really sue him then, because he said he dunnit.
-
I think your post is laughable..
Either wolters wants to commit professional suicide or he has evidence that shows 100% CB murdered Maddie.
If he hasn't CB can sue him and ruin him
I think you are dreaming John
Absolutely not. Seen it happen all the time in the real world. If you think the police and the prosecutors are beyond reproach then you must be living in a parallel universe. Some of them should be behind bars!
-
Absolutely not. Seen it happen all the time in the real world. If you think the police and the prosecutors are beyond reproach then you must be living in a parallel universe. Some of them should be behind bars!
I'm well aware of what you say but that is not always the case. You had nothing but praise for amaral who is discredited... Saying the police will have more evidence than they have revealed. I don't see anything to suggest it applies in this case... Quite the opposite.
Do you really think Wolters would destroy his own career knowing that if he's lying CB can sue him.
I think he's playing a very clever game... Drawing CB out.. He's already managed to confirm he doesn't have an alibi.. Well done Wolters
-
I'm well aware of what you say but that is not always the case. You had nothing but praise for amaral who is discredited... Saying the police will have more evidence than they have revealed. I don't see anything to suggest it applies in this case... Quite the opposite.
Do you really think Wolters would destroy his own career knowing that if he's lying CB can sue him.
I think he's playing a very clever game... Drawing CB out.. He's already managed to confirm he doesn't have an alibi.. Well done Wolters
I don't think Wolters has any credibility left. He has refused to reveal to the McCanns what happened to their daughter and that is unforgivable in my book.
-
I don't think Wolters has any credibility left. He has refused to reveal to the McCanns what happened to their daughter and that is unforgivable in my book.
Why do you think he's still in a job then? Even the Portuguese managed to see sense and ditch Amaral when it was obvious what an idiot he was after only a few short months, two years down the line why has the penny still not dropped for the Germans yet in your opinion?
-
I'm well aware of what you say but that is not always the case. You had nothing but praise for amaral who is discredited... Saying the police will have more evidence than they have revealed. I don't see anything to suggest it applies in this case... Quite the opposite.
Do you really think Wolters would destroy his own career knowing that if he's lying CB can sue him.
I think he's playing a very clever game... Drawing CB out.. He's already managed to confirm he doesn't have an alibi.. Well done Wolters
So he doesn't have a solid alibi?
The girl can't remember if she was with him that night, or not, so she could have been with him, or perhaps not.
So it's Wolters move now then, now he knows Brueckner has no firm alibi.
But Wolters isn't doing much about it, is he?
So, it's pretty obvious he can't actually prove Brueckner was abducting Maddie that night, really.
-
I don't think Wolters has any credibility left. He has refused to reveal to the McCanns what happened to their daughter and that is unforgivable in my book.
I'm sure the McCanns would rather find out what happened to Maddie than be told something that could ruin the investigation. It seems CB has been served evidence of an intended prosecution.. Perhaps the Behan rape case. The Portuguese failed miserably in the previous one where the Germans succeeded. We will be able to judge him once that's heard
-
I'm sure the McCanns would rather find out what happened to Maddie than be told something that could ruin the investigation. It seems CB has been served evidence of an intended prosecution.. Perhaps the Behan rape case. The Portuguese failed miserably in the previous one where the Germans succeeded. We will be able to judge him once that's heard
Can't the McCanns be trusted to keep their mouths shut then?
-
I don't think Wolters has any credibility left. He has refused to reveal to the McCanns what happened to their daughter and that is unforgivable in my book.
Maybe it's because he doesn't really have any concrete evidence to show them.
-
If The McCanns know for certain that Madeleine is dead they would not be able to hide their grief.
-
I'm sure the McCanns would rather find out what happened to Maddie than be told something that could ruin the investigation. It seems CB has been served evidence of an intended prosecution.. Perhaps the Behan rape case. The Portuguese failed miserably in the previous one where the Germans succeeded. We will be able to judge him once that's heard
Seriously, this argument.
How would it jeopardise the investigation if the McCanns knew what the concrete evidence was?
Care to explain?
-
If The McCanns know for certain that Madeleine is dead they would not be able to hide their grief.
What difference would that make to anything?
The concrete evidence is that she's dead, Wolters has already repeatedly announced this to the world via mass media.
So what difference would it make then if the McCanns saw the evidence & publicly grieved?
How would that jeopardise the investigation?
Care to explain?
-
If The McCanns know for certain that Madeleine is dead they would not be able to hide their grief.
I'm sure the McCanns realise Maddie is dead
-
I'm sure the McCanns realise Maddie is dead
That's not what their website suggests.
Time for an update really then.
......................................
Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
(Apart from concrete evidence she's dead. Why do the McCanns doubt Wolters?)
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her.
Wolters is looking for her.
She is young and vulnerable and needs our help.
She'd be 18 now & she's definitely dead, Wolters said so & he has concrete evidence
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.
Ahhh, touching.
http://findmadeleine.com/home.html
-
That's not what their website suggests.
Time for an update really then.
......................................
Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
(Apart from concrete evidence she's dead. Why do the McCanns doubt Wolters?)
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her.
Wolters is looking for her.
She is young and vulnerable and needs our help.
She'd be 18 now & she's definitely dead, Wolters said so & he has concrete evidence
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.
Ahhh, touching.
http://findmadeleine.com/home.html
The two versions certainly appear to be mutually exclusive.
-
The two versions certainly appear to be mutually exclusive.
I don't get why they should have any doubt at all in Wolters & his evidence, or, how it would jeopardise the investigation in any way at all were they to publicly accept her certain demise having seen the concrete evidence?
I doubt I'll get an explanation for this though.
Does Wolters not trust the McCanns to keep the evidence itself confidential?
What if they publicly grieve? So what?
Brueckner would still be a murderer regardless & the concrete evidence is still going to put him away whatever happens, isn't it?
-
The two versions certainly appear to be mutually exclusive.
Perhaps it would be more salient to refer to the most recent communication from the McCanns whi ch appears on the website and which belies no resentment towards the German investigation:
“This year we mark fifteen years since we last saw Madeleine. It feels no harder than any other but no easier either. It’s a very long time.
Many people talk about the need for ‘closure’. It’s always felt a strange term. Regardless of outcome, Madeleine will always be our daughter and a truly horrific crime has been committed. These things will remain. It is true though that uncertainty creates weakness; knowledge and certainty give strength, and for this reason our need for answers, for the truth, is essential. We are grateful for the ongoing work and commitment of the UK, Portuguese and German authorities as it is this combined police effort which will yield results and bring us those answers.
As always, we would like to thank all of our supporters for their continued good wishes and support. It is a huge comfort to know that regardless of time passed, Madeleine is still in people’s hearts and minds. Thank you.”
-
Statement from Kate and Gerry McCann- 22nd April, 2022
We welcome the news that the Portuguese authorities have declared a German man an “arguido” in relation to the disappearance of our beloved daughter Madeleine. This reflects progress in the investigation, being conducted by the Portuguese, German and British authorities. We are kept informed of developments by the Metropolitan police.
-
Perhaps it would be more salient to refer to the most recent communication from the McCanns whi ch appears on the website and which belies no resentment towards the German investigation:
“This year we mark fifteen years since we last saw Madeleine. It feels no harder than any other but no easier either. It’s a very long time.
Many people talk about the need for ‘closure’. It’s always felt a strange term. Regardless of outcome, Madeleine will always be our daughter and a truly horrific crime has been committed. These things will remain. It is true though that uncertainty creates weakness; knowledge and certainty give strength, and for this reason our need for answers, for the truth, is essential. We are grateful for the ongoing work and commitment of the UK, Portuguese and German authorities as it is this combined police effort which will yield results and bring us those answers.
As always, we would like to thank all of our supporters for their continued good wishes and support. It is a huge comfort to know that regardless of time passed, Madeleine is still in people’s hearts and minds. Thank you.”
So they still don't know what the truth is?
The truth is Brueckner murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence, apart from the concrete evidence he left behind which Wolters has, & he is going to use to wrap things up & convict Brueckner, just as soon as he wraps up the other cases.
So, no need to keep the donate button anymore really is there.
Why have they still got that?
-
Not sure why they are still appealing for information about Tanner Man or Smith Man etc either.
http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Brueckner murdered Maddie, has no alibi, Wolters can prove as much & will be wrapping things up very soon.
No need to appeal for information about these random men anymore really is there.
-
So they still don't know what the truth is?
The truth is Brueckner murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence, apart from the concrete evidence he left behind which Wolters has, & he is going to use to wrap things up & convict Brueckner, just as soon as he wraps up the other cases.
So, no need to keep the donate button anymore really is there.
Why have they still got that?
Better question would be when will the funds be dispersed to other missing person cases?
-
No chance - IMO
-
Better question would be when will the funds be dispersed to other missing person cases?
Ah, but what if Wolters doesn't wrap things up?
Surely they need the funds to keep the search for Maddie going, even though she's definitely dead & they know exactly who murdered her.
-
Better question would be when will the funds be dispersed to other missing person cases?
Might they be allowed to bury Madeleine first do you think? Presuming there is a body to bury of course.
Jesus H. I despair sometimes.
-
Might they be allowed to bury Madeleine first do you think? Presuming there is a body to bury of course.
Jesus H. I despair sometimes.
Do you think they'l claim that against the fund ? I suppose it could be claimed as a legitimate expense.
-
Might they be allowed to bury Madeleine first do you think? Presuming there is a body to bury of course.
Jesus H. I despair sometimes.
Well there isn't a body, Brueckner destroyed the evidence remember, apart from the concrete evidence that is.
He forgot to destroy that.
-
Do you think they'l claim that against the fund ? I suppose it could be claimed as a legitimate expense.
Don't forget the Headstone or some sort of Memorial. Sheesh.
-
Aye, there's always that. A 6 ft Cuddlecat in pink stone, perhaps
-
Aye, there's always that. A 6 ft Cuddlecat in pink stone, perhaps
What a bitch.
-
Aye, there's always that. A 6 ft Cuddlecat in pink stone, perhaps
Even I found that slightly offensive, very insensitive, it made me wince & draw a breath slightly.
Obviously, not offensive to me personally, but to the McCanns.
Good for you, well done, I admire your ability to offend & make me wince.
Taken a leaf out of my book, keep up the good work.
-
Seriously, this argument.
How would it jeopardise the investigation if the McCanns knew what the concrete evidence was?
Care to explain?
Nobody going to try & answer this one then?
-
Do you think they'l claim that against the fund ? I suppose it could be claimed as a legitimate expense.
An absolutely worthy post for this thread perfectly illustrating the hatred and vilification of the social media anti mindset.
-
Aye, there's always that. A 6 ft Cuddlecat in pink stone, perhaps
Yet again you demonstrate the gross mentality that could even be bothered to invent and post such an aberrant sentiment.
At the root of this ill wishing is a child who was taken from all she knew and loved whose fate can only be contemplated with horror. She did nothing to you. So why would you deride her!
-
Yet again you demonstrate the gross mentality that could even be bothered to invent and post such an aberrant sentiment.
At the root of this ill wishing is a child who was taken from all she knew and loved whose fate can only be contemplated with horror. She did nothing to you. So why would you deride her!
I think she was ripping her parents, to be fair.
-
An absolutely worthy post for this thread perfectly illustrating the hatred and vilification of the social media anti mindset.
What exactly are we supposed to like about the McCanns anyway?
I can't think of anything.
Can't think of anything positive to say about them at all really.
Well, I mean, at least they've managed not lose any more kids, there's that I suppose.
-
Yet again you demonstrate the gross mentality that could even be bothered to invent and post such an aberrant sentiment.
At the root of this ill wishing is a child who was taken from all she knew and loved whose fate can only be contemplated with horror. She did nothing to you. So why would you deride her!
isn’t it a shame - such childish spite on display. You’d think an elderly woman might exhibit some wisdom and kindness but I guess not all old folk are kind or wise. Some clearly revel in being mean-spirited and nasty!
-
isn’t it a shame - such childish spite on display. You’d think an elderly woman might exhibit some wisdom and kindness but I guess not all old folk are kind or wise. Some clearly revel in being mean-spirited and nasty!
Well, it passes the time until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
There's nothing much to talk about at the moment really is there, so might as well enjoy ourselves.
-
I'm sure the McCanns realise Maddie is dead
I do wish that you would stop saying that Davel.
The very fact that SY are looking for a missing child goes against that.
-
She's not a child, remember! Your four OG mates discovered her as a nineteen-year-old adult, now full-time mum and happily ensconced in the bosom of an altruistic (albeit wicked and crooked) loving family... but they're keeping it TOP SECRET until the right time (whenever that will be, if ever), according to your deluded agenda.
-
I do wish that you would stop saying that Davel.
The very fact that SY are looking for a missing child goes against that.
You are mistaken.. SY are not looking for anyone.. They are working closely with the germans
-
You are mistaken.. SY are not looking for anyone.. They are working closely with the germans
There's definitely communication and cooperation between the 3 police forces due to the custom of international cooperation. That doesn't mean they are all in agreement.
-
There's definitely communication and cooperation between the 3 police forces due to the custom of international cooperation. That doesn't mean they are all in agreement.
Portugal have made CB aguido.. They cannot investigate anyone else.. You need to wake up
SY have clearly said stranger abduction..
You can put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes if you want
-
There's definitely communication and cooperation between the 3 police forces due to the custom of international cooperation. That doesn't mean they are all in agreement.
They are all in agreement that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. FACT.
-
Portugal have made CB aguido.. They cannot investigate anyone else.. You need to wake up
SY have clearly said stranger abduction..
You can put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes if you want
Portugal made Murat an arguido, but followed that by making the McCanns arguidos. Maybe you ought to think before you write.
SY have been saying stranger abduction since the beginning of their investigation. I haven't heard them saying they are working closely with the Germans on a murder.
My eyes and ears are fixed on what has actually been done and said, not on pretending it's more.
-
Portugal made Murat an arguido, but followed that by making the McCanns arguidos. Maybe you ought to think before you write.
SY have been saying stranger abduction since the beginning of their investigation. I haven't heard them saying they are working closely with the Germans on a murder.
My eyes and ears are fixed on what has actually been done and said, not on pretending it's more.
Not forgetting the 3 amigos and Malinka in 2014.
-
Portugal made Murat an arguido, but followed that by making the McCanns arguidos. Maybe you ought to think before you write.
SY have been saying stranger abduction since the beginning of their investigation. I haven't heard them saying they are working closely with the Germans on a murder.
My eyes and ears are fixed on what has actually been done and said, not on pretending it's more.
To me you are determined to reality. You've missed the point perhaps you don't understand it like the other uninformed sceptics.. Try this..
NO ONE ELSE CAN BE MADE ARGUIDO IN THE MM CASE DUE TO THE SIL.
The Germans are 100% convinced MM was murdered bY CB. That's what they are working in. SY have said they are working closely with the Germans...
You aren't making a lot of sense
-
To me you are determined to reality. You've missed the point perhaps you don't understand it like the other uninformed sceptics.. Try this..
NO ONE ELSE CAN BE MADE ARGUIDO IN THE MM CASE DUE TO THE SIL.
The Germans are 100% convinced MM was murdered bY CB. That's what they are working in. SY have said they are working closely with the Germans...
You aren't making a lot of sense
I'm afraid a little more is needed to clarify and confirm your claims.
How does the SIL (do you mean SOL?) restrict the creation of other arguidos?
SY may be working closely with the Germans; where does it say they agree with their conclusions and aims?
-
I'm afraid a little more is needed to clarify and confirm your claims.
How does the SIL (do you mean SOL?) restrict the creation of other arguidos?
SY may be working closely with the Germans; where does it say they agree with their conclusions and aims?
why would you cooperate and work closely with an organization whose conclusions and aims you vehemently disagreed with?
-
why would you cooperate and work closely with an organization whose conclusions and aims you vehemently disagreed with?
Stop making things up. Or do you have a cite that there is vehement disagreement?
-
I'm afraid a little more is needed to clarify and confirm your claims.
How does the SIL (do you mean SOL?) restrict the creation of other arguidos?
SY may be working closely with the Germans; where does it say they agree with their conclusions and aims?
After the expiry of the SOL ....no arguidos can be made...im not surprised you didnt realise that
In what way could they be working closely if not on the CB case...what else could tehy be working on
-
Stop making things up. Or do you have a cite that there is vehement disagreement?
This doesn't make sense.
-
After the expiry of the SOL ....no arguidos can be made...im not surprised you didnt realise that
In what way could they be working closely if not on the CB case...what else could tehy be working on
Where is the bolded information to be found?
I repeat, working closely cannot be interpreted as agreement.
-
Where is the bolded information to be found?
I repeat, working closely cannot be interpreted as agreement.
what do you think SOL means....do you think portugal can ignore it...arrest and charge someone else. YOu need to think before posting.
Germans are convinced CB is guilty...SY working closely....what else could they possibly be working on. how can they work closely if they dont agree
-
Stop making things up. Or do you have a cite that there is vehement disagreement?
It was a rhetorical question - can you answer it or not? It was you who suggested that the Met are not in agreement with the German investigation, not me, the level of vehemence is for you to decide, it’s your fantasy not mine.
-
It was a rhetorical question - can you answer it or not? It was you who suggested that the Met are not in agreement with the German investigation, not me, the level of vehemence is for you to decide, it’s your fantasy not mine.
Don't seem to have announced they've moved on from missing persons to a full on murder investigation yet?
Maybe Wolters hasn't shown them the concrete evidence, them & Maddie's parents.
It has to be kept secret from the McCanns you see, just in case it damages the investigation.
Although, no one is able to explain exactly how it could.
-
what do you think SOL means....do you think portugal can ignore it...arrest and charge someone else. YOu need to think before posting.
Germans are convinced CB is guilty...SY working closely....what else could they possibly be working on. how can they work closely if they dont agree
You have obviously read up on it, so where does it say that extending the investigation can only be done by making only one person an arguido?
"Scotland Yard is still treating Madeleine McCann as a missing person, the Met Commissioner has said, despite the belief of German prosecutors that she is dead.
Dame Cressida Dick said the force was working with German investigators but had not seen all of their evidence.
Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".
She said a small team of Met Police investigators continued to work "very closely" with police in Germany and Portugal."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357
I've seen no change in outlook announced since the above. Have I missed it?
-
You have obviously read up on it, so where does it say that extending the investigation can only be done by making only one person an arguido?
"Scotland Yard is still treating Madeleine McCann as a missing person, the Met Commissioner has said, despite the belief of German prosecutors that she is dead.
Dame Cressida Dick said the force was working with German investigators but had not seen all of their evidence.
Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".
She said a small team of Met Police investigators continued to work "very closely" with police in Germany and Portugal."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357
I've seen no change in outlook announced since the above. Have I missed it?
You haven't missed it you just refuse to accept what's happening.
So SY are working very closely with the Germans... Who are convinced MM has been murdered by CB.. No other suspects. So how can they work closely if they are not in agreement... What do you think SY are working on.
Grange will remain a missing person enquiry until they have defininive evidence of death.. Quite reasonable.
The McCann's say they are encouraged by CB being made arguido... They say SY are keeping them informed.
The mccanns accept that in reality there is little chance Maddie is alive.
The SOL has expired in Portugal... Do you think they can simply ignore it and investigate someone else.. Perhaps you do.
The only person they can charge is CB who was made an arguido before the expiration
-
Statement from Kate and Gerry McCann- 22nd April, 2022
We welcome the news that the Portuguese authorities have declared a German man an “arguido” in relation to the disappearance of our beloved daughter Madeleine. This reflects progress in the investigation, being conducted by the Portuguese, German and British authorities. We are kept informed of developments by the Metropolitan police.
It is important to note the “arguido” has not yet been charged with any specific crime related to Madeleine’s disappearance. Even though the possibility may be slim, we have not given up hope that Madeleine is still alive and we will be reunited with her.
-
Statement from Kate and Gerry McCann- 22nd April, 2022
We welcome the news that the Portuguese authorities have declared a German man an “arguido” in relation to the disappearance of our beloved daughter Madeleine. This reflects progress in the investigation, being conducted by the Portuguese, German and British authorities. We are kept informed of developments by the Metropolitan police.
It is important to note the “arguido” has not yet been charged with any specific crime related to Madeleine’s disappearance. Even though the possibility may be slim, we have not given up hope that Madeleine is still alive and we will be reunited with her.
Someone needs to break it to them that it's absoloutely pointless hoping & that Maddie is totally, utterly & concretely dead.
I wonder why they don't believe Wolters?
Can't see any good reason why anyone should though, to be fair.
-
You haven't missed it you just refuse to accept what's happening.
So SY are working very closely with the Germans... Who are convinced MM has been murdered by CB.. No other suspects. So how can they work closely if they are not in agreement... What do you think SY are working on.
Grange will remain a missing person enquiry until they have defininive evidence of death.. Quite reasonable.
The McCann's say they are encouraged by CB being made arguido... They say SY are keeping them informed.
The mccanns accept that in reality there is little chance Maddie is alive.
The SOL has expired in Portugal... Do you think they can simply ignore it and investigate someone else.. Perhaps you do.
The only person they can charge is CB who was made an arguido before the expiration
Does working closely mean agreement? Well, the UK police worked very closely with the PJ in 2007/8, but I don't think they agreed with each other. Neither did members of the UK government who worked closely with PM Johnson.
It's clear that SY is not fully convinced that MM was murdered, and neither are the McCanns. They don't have the evidence.
As to the SOL, you seem unable to support your opinions on how it works, so imo you are speculating.
-
Does working closely mean agreement? Well, the UK police worked very closely with the PJ in 2007/8, but I don't think they agreed with each other. Neither did members of the UK government who worked closely with PM Johnson.
It's clear that SY is not fully convinced that MM was murdered, and neither are the McCanns. They don't have the evidence.
As to the SOL, you seem unable to support your opinions on how it works, so imo you are speculating.
Ah, but Wolters hasn't shared the concrete 100% irrefutable death evidence with SY.
Just incase it damages the investigation in some inexplicable way.
-
Does working closely mean agreement? Well, the UK police worked very closely with the PJ in 2007/8, but I don't think they agreed with each other. Neither did members of the UK government who worked closely with PM Johnson.
It's clear that SY is not fully convinced that MM was murdered, and neither are the McCanns. They don't have the evidence.
As to the SOL, you seem unable to support your opinions on how it works, so imo you are speculating.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-could-escape-26680778.amp
-
Someone needs to break it to them that it's absoloutely pointless hoping & that Maddie is totally, utterly & concretely dead.
I wonder why they don't believe Wolters?
Can't see any good reason why anyone should though, to be fair.
I think that is a heartless, pointless post really. They may think it to themselves but parents usually may think the worst, but dont want to believe the worst.
Seriously mate its their child not ours. I would want hope my child would be alive.
-
I think that is a heartless, pointless post really. They may think it to themselves but parents usually may think the worst, but dont want to believe the worst.
Seriously mate its their child not ours. I would want hope my child would be alive.
You are attempting to reason with a troll. It won’t work I’m afraid, but nice try.
-
Does working closely mean agreement? Well, the UK police worked very closely with the PJ in 2007/8, but I don't think they agreed with each other. Neither did members of the UK government who worked closely with PM Johnson.
It's clear that SY is not fully convinced that MM was murdered, and neither are the McCanns. They don't have the evidence.
As to the SOL, you seem unable to support your opinions on how it works, so imo you are speculating.
How can you write that with a straight face? You don’t think the McCanns are convinced that Madeleine has been murdered? Surely as far as you’re concerned they know she wasn’t!
-
How can you write that with a straight face? You don’t think the McCanns are convinced that Madeleine has been murdered? Surely as far as you’re concerned they know she wasn’t!
Or maybe she was
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-could-escape-26680778.amp
I don't think your cite says "NO ONE ELSE CAN BE MADE ARGUIDO IN THE MM CASE DUE TO THE SIL." As you can't produce a cite it seems you are posting your opinion as if it's fact.
-
I don't think your cite says "NO ONE ELSE CAN BE MADE ARGUIDO IN THE MM CASE DUE TO THE SIL." As you can't produce a cite it seems you are posting your opinion as if it's fact.
Have you read and understood the article..it appears not.
One of the reasons CBwas made arguido was due to the SOL expiring.. So how could a new arguido be made now the SOL has expired
-
Have you read and understood the article..it appears not.
One of the reasons CBwas made arguido was due to the SOL expiring.. So how could a new arguido be made now the SOL has expired
You don't seem to understand that the SOL hasn't expired, it's been extended.
-
You don't seem to understand that the SOL hasn't expired, it's been extended.
Cite please... Or are you making things up
-
She's not a child, remember! Your four OG mates discovered her as a nineteen-year-old adult, now full-time mum and happily ensconced in the bosom of an altruistic (albeit wicked and crooked) loving family... but they're keeping it TOP SECRET until the right time (whenever that will be, if ever), according to your deluded agenda.
Oh, did they?
Thanks for letting me know. Seems I was right then.
Did she safely give birth ths time? The family will have got what they wanted then. Hope they haven't stuck her in a nunnery somewhere to hide her away
-
After the expiry of the SOL ....no arguidos can be made...im not surprised you didnt realise that
In what way could they be working closely if not on the CB case...what else could tehy be working on
So, does this mean if another man appears who they feel strongly is the abductor, they can't charge him?
-
I don't think your cite says "NO ONE ELSE CAN BE MADE ARGUIDO IN THE MM CASE DUE TO THE SIL." As you can't produce a cite it seems you are posting your opinion as if it's fact.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
page 15/22
*snipped*
(a) THE EXTENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERRUPTION OF
THE LIMITATION PERIOD
48. Although, in Germany and Portugal, the interruption has effects solely in respect of
the offender(s), since the grounds for interruption are personal and not transferable,
Only Brueckner is the subject of any continued investigation.
-
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
page 15/22
*snipped*
(a) THE EXTENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERRUPTION OF
THE LIMITATION PERIOD
48. Although, in Germany and Portugal, the interruption has effects solely in respect of
the offender(s), since the grounds for interruption are personal and not transferable,
Only Brueckner is the subject of any continued investigation.
Thank you so much Misty, that's what was needed.
-
You don't seem to understand that the SOL hasn't expired, it's been extended.
Looks like I understood very well and you didnt
-
So, does this mean if another man appears who they feel strongly is the abductor, they can't charge him?
Strangely if Maddie is still alive they have until she's 23 to charge
-
You don't seem to understand that the SOL hasn't expired, it's been extended.
But only for one suspect. The SOL is a personal thing and cannot be extended to everyone once that date has passed.
-
Thank you so much Misty, that's what was needed.
Like so many other issues concerning Madeleine's case the arguments surrounding it must be absolutely unique and reserved in totality to her.
First among those must be the absolutely horrid and unprecedentedly organised mobs feeling free to make the most spurious and hateful slurs against Madeleine and her parents.
That has been going on for every second of every day over a mind boggling period of fifteen years with some perpetrators making a lucrative career for themselves out of it.
The second most disturbing phenomenon arising directly from that unbalanced hatred is the absolute denial that any police suspect who is a stranger to the targets the mob has chosen to persecute must be a "patsy".
The PJ suspected Euclides Monteiro and investigated him to universal ridicule. Similar to that engendered by today's prime suspect who was thus able to continue his life hiding in plain view.
"Reports state that Monteiro, a heroin addict, had been working as an employee at The Ocean Club Resort in Praia da Luz shortly before the toddler disappeared on May 3, 2007.
Reports state that Monteiro, 40 years old at the time, had been fired from his job at the beach club for stealing from guests shortly before Madeleine disappeared. He aroused police suspicions after phone records showed that he returned to the resort a year after being fired.
Officials said that he may have wanted revenge against his former employers, and thought that he may have stumbled across Madeleine while trying to burgle from the McCann's room,
Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha, in 2013, said: "The motives that could have caused the ex-employee to kidnap the youngster are still being investigated. The suspect could have taken the child to commit a sex crime before killing her. But he could also have committed the kidnap as a form of retaliation against the Ocean Club."
Officials reportedly lost crucial time to interview Monteiro because his name was missing from a list of former and current employees at the resort which was given to police during the investigation.
Detectives, however, were set to question Monteiro after identifying him as a suspect following the suspicious phone records. However, they never got the chance to question him as he died in a tractor accident in 2009."
https://meaww.com/madeleine-mccann-chief-suspect-euclides-monteiro-never-interviewed-cops-credible-theory-abduction
Just because three police forces have made Brueckner their prime suspect doesn't automatically make him innocent as the internet sceptics presume.
Their malice was never right under any circumstances but is particularly unwarranted right now. I think the total mystery right now is their inability to think rationally about the situation even as depicted in the public domain let alone considering the police evidence firmly making him prime suspect - not only in this one case - but in a myriad of others.
-
Like so many other issues concerning Madeleine's case the arguments surrounding it must be absolutely unique and reserved in totality to her.
First among those must be the absolutely horrid and unprecedentedly organised mobs feeling free to make the most spurious and hateful slurs against Madeleine and her parents.
That has been going on for every second of every day over a mind boggling period of fifteen years with some perpetrators making a lucrative career for themselves out of it.
The second most disturbing phenomenon arising directly from that unbalanced hatred is the absolute denial that any police suspect who is a stranger to the targets the mob has chosen to persecute must be a "patsy".
The PJ suspected Euclides Monteiro and investigated him to universal ridicule. Similar to that engendered by today's prime suspect who was thus able to continue his life hiding in plain view.
"Reports state that Monteiro, a heroin addict, had been working as an employee at The Ocean Club Resort in Praia da Luz shortly before the toddler disappeared on May 3, 2007.
Reports state that Monteiro, 40 years old at the time, had been fired from his job at the beach club for stealing from guests shortly before Madeleine disappeared. He aroused police suspicions after phone records showed that he returned to the resort a year after being fired.
Officials said that he may have wanted revenge against his former employers, and thought that he may have stumbled across Madeleine while trying to burgle from the McCann's room,
Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha, in 2013, said: "The motives that could have caused the ex-employee to kidnap the youngster are still being investigated. The suspect could have taken the child to commit a sex crime before killing her. But he could also have committed the kidnap as a form of retaliation against the Ocean Club."
Officials reportedly lost crucial time to interview Monteiro because his name was missing from a list of former and current employees at the resort which was given to police during the investigation.
Detectives, however, were set to question Monteiro after identifying him as a suspect following the suspicious phone records. However, they never got the chance to question him as he died in a tractor accident in 2009."
https://meaww.com/madeleine-mccann-chief-suspect-euclides-monteiro-never-interviewed-cops-credible-theory-abduction
Just because three police forces have made Brueckner their prime suspect doesn't automatically make him innocent as the internet sceptics presume.
Their malice was never right under any circumstances but is particularly unwarranted right now. I think the total mystery right now is their inability to think rationally about the situation even as depicted in the public domain let alone considering the police evidence firmly making him prime suspect - not only in this one case - but in a myriad of others.
Well, it doesn't make him guilty either does it.
-
Personally, I don't understand how it is no longer possible to prosecute someone for Murder in Portugal after only fifteen years.
And why did Portugal make Brueckner an Arguido only at the last minute? This stinks.
-
Personally, I don't understand how it is no longer possible to prosecute someone for Murder in Portugal after only fifteen years.
And why did Portugal make Brueckner an Arguido only at the last minute? This stinks.
Wolters kept the concrete evidence from them until the last minute.
Give him time he might also share it with the MET the McCanns or maybe even a judge one day, just not anytime in the foreseeable future though.
-
Thank you so much Misty, that's what was needed.
That is another procedure which should be added to the mix called "common knowledge" which doesn't require to be challenged each and every time requiring a trawl through the Portuguese Codes to retrieve the cite.
You still have difficulty with the changes made to the code on 15th September 2007 which meant the McCanns could not have been constituted arguido without a presiding judge being presented with justifying evidence.
-
Portugal has always had access to any evidence. But chose not to pursue it until the last minute. If in fact they are doing so now.
What a disgraceful shower.
-
Looks like I understood very well and you didnt
If you are in possession of facts, you have to be able to show your sources. Thankfully someone was able to help you with that.
-
If you are in possession of facts, you have to be able to show your sources. Thankfully someone was able to help you with that.
How come you weren't able?
-
Portugal has always had access to any evidence. But chose not to pursue it until the last minute. If in fact they are doing so now.
What a disgraceful shower.
Even Wolters concrete evidence, when he hasn't shared it with the MET?
Or the McCanns either for that matter, incase that jeopardises the case in some way, which nobody is able to explain how it actually could.
-
If you are in possession of facts, you have to be able to show your sources. Thankfully someone was able to help you with that.
At the top of page 32 you were asked for a cite which you have so far failed to provide.
-
At the top of page 32 you were asked for a cite which you have so far failed to provide.
This is how well the case against Brueckner is going.
-
Cite please... Or are you making things up
Gunit is hardly likely to provide a Cite that will prove that she is wrong and make her look foolish.
-
Gunit is hardly likely to provide a Cite that will prove that she is wrong and make her look foolish.
Again, this is how well the case against Brueckner is going. Nothing to talk about but petty arguing over cites instead.
Oh well, there's always tomorrow isn't there.
Maybe Wolters will be able to come up with something tangible then.
-
Gunit is hardly likely to provide a Cite that will prove that she is wrong and make her look foolish.
Well she looks like a hypocrite instead, hey ho.
-
Well she looks like a hypocrite instead, hey ho.
She could look like a total numpty for believing Wolters, so it could be worse couldn't it.
-
Well she looks like a hypocrite instead, hey ho.
It don't half make you wonder.
-
But only for one suspect. The SOL is a personal thing and cannot be extended to everyone once that date has passed.
Seems strange the SOL is not for the crime nor for the victim then, Sadie asked earlier if CB is found to have not been involved then is it game over ?
-
Personally, I don't understand how it is no longer possible to prosecute someone for Murder in Portugal after only fifteen years.
And why did Portugal make Brueckner an Arguido only at the last minute? This stinks.
You would think being in the EU would have meant some kind of correlation in the justice systems.
-
Seems strange the SOL is not for the crime nor for the victim then, Sadie asked earlier if CB is found to have not been involved then is it game over ?
Well, it can only be him, can't it. Brueckner murdered Maddie & there's concrete evidence which proves as much, Wolters said so.
The MET don't seem to agree though, the McCanns don't seem convinced either, Brueckner is that confident he isn't the murderer that he's been ripping the piss out of the prosecutor with cartoon drawings & challenging him to put up or shut up, but it's probably not important.
-
You would think being in the EU would have meant some kind of correlation in the justice systems.
Why would you think that? Our Scottish laws differ from those of the other countries which make up the Union.
-
You would think being in the EU would have meant some kind of correlation in the justice systems.
Each EU Country is subject to it's own Rules. I don't know what they are and at the moment I am not interested. I will become so if and when I need to.
-
Seems strange the SOL is not for the crime nor for the victim then, Sadie asked earlier if CB is found to have not been involved then is it game over ?
The SOL is for the crime it has not been extended purely for CB. CB was made an arguido before the expiration of the SOL...thats why he ...and only he...can be charged with murder in portugal. As I pointed out correctly...no one else can be made an arguido for murder in this case
-
Seems strange the SOL is not for the crime nor for the victim then, Sadie asked earlier if CB is found to have not been involved then is it game over ?
It seems to be aimed at protecting the perpetrator, sure enough. If he can evade being arrested and charged until the time limit is up then he's got away with it, it seems;
A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense.[51] If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
-
The SOL is for the crime it has not been extended purely for CB. CB was made an arguido before the expiration of the SOL...thats why he ...and only he...can be charged with murder in portugal. As I pointed out correctly...no one else can be made an arguido for murder in this case
Maddie's mystery ends without blame
New suspects can no longer be investigated for the death of the British girl, with the exception of Bruckner, who was charged on 21 April.
Magali Pinto
May 3, 2022
It's been 15 years since Maddie McCann disappeared without a scan. The British child, daughter of two doctors, was vacationing with her family at Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, when she was no longer seen on May 3, 2007. Fifteen years later, the criminal proceedings prescribe, in the sense that new suspects of kidnapping and death cannot be investigated, with the exception of Christian Bruckner, who was accused two weeks ago by the public prosecutor.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/misterio-de-maddie-termina-sem-culpados?ref=Mais%20Sobre_BlocoMaisSobre
-
Maddie's mystery ends without blame
New suspects can no longer be investigated for the death of the British girl, with the exception of Bruckner, who was charged on 21 April.
Magali Pinto
May 3, 2022
It's been 15 years since Maddie McCann disappeared without a scan. The British child, daughter of two doctors, was vacationing with her family at Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, when she was no longer seen on May 3, 2007. Fifteen years later, the criminal proceedings prescribe, in the sense that new suspects of kidnapping and death cannot be investigated, with the exception of Christian Bruckner, who was accused two weeks ago by the public prosecutor.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/misterio-de-maddie-termina-sem-culpados?ref=Mais%20Sobre_BlocoMaisSobre
One desperate last stab in the gloom then really.
But who knows, maybe they'll one day come up with sufficient evidence against Brueckner to secure a conviction. Wolters can't see that happening any time soon though.
-
Maddie's mystery ends without blame
New suspects can no longer be investigated for the death of the British girl, with the exception of Bruckner, who was charged on 21 April.
Magali Pinto
May 3, 2022
It's been 15 years since Maddie McCann disappeared without a scan. The British child, daughter of two doctors, was vacationing with her family at Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, when she was no longer seen on May 3, 2007. Fifteen years later, the criminal proceedings prescribe, in the sense that new suspects of kidnapping and death cannot be investigated, with the exception of Christian Bruckner, who was accused two weeks ago by the public prosecutor.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/misterio-de-maddie-termina-sem-culpados?ref=Mais%20Sobre_BlocoMaisSobre
Portuguese must be swayed by the information.
-
Portuguese must be swayed by the information.
....and they've questioned Brueckner, he's failed to answer & doesn't have an alibi.
No charges though.
Says a lot for their evidence really.
-
....and they've questioned Brueckner, he's failed to answer & doesn't have an alibi.
No charges though.
Says a lot for their evidence really.
He has a legal right not to answer questions, as this was of an arguido status under jurisidction of law of the portuguese. Hes been saying different things about the night in question, surely as everyone slates kate for not answering he could have cleared the air, rather than speaking to newspapers.
-
He has a legal right not to answer questions, as this was of an arguido status under jurisidction of law of the portuguese. Hes been saying different things about the night in question, surely as everyone slates kate for not answering he could have cleared the air, rather than speaking to newspapers.
What use is it him speaking to the cops?
There's simply no denying concrete, irrefutable 100% convincing evidence he's a murderer really is there?
How could he possibly explain that away?
-
Portuguese must be swayed by the information.
I think the feelings and prejudices of the Portuguese public must run pretty deeply against the McCanns, given the unrelenting and constant attacks they have been subject to for over fifteen years.
Very recently Amaral was still perpetrating his slurs against them as he came out strongly on behalf of Brueckner.
I think it will take time for all of that to be dispelled as events take their course but in the interim we've had fifteen years of propaganda. All of which ensured a lot of people couldn't see past what they had been instructed to believe and view the possibility they should have been keeping an open mind all through the years of not looking for Madeleine.
-
It seems to be aimed at protecting the perpetrator, sure enough. If he can evade being arrested and charged until the time limit is up then he's got away with it, it seems;
A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense.[51] If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
good to see you understand it now
-
What use is it him speaking to the cops?
There's simply no denying concrete, irrefutable 100% convincing evidence he's a murderer really is there?
How could he possibly explain that away?
Maybe give an actual alibi backed up
-
He has a legal right not to answer questions, as this was of an arguido status under jurisidction of law of the portuguese. Hes been saying different things about the night in question, surely as everyone slates kate for not answering he could have cleared the air, rather than speaking to newspapers.
Two people execising their right to remain silent, both of whom spoke to the newspapers. I see no difference.
-
good to see you understand it now
It is actually very difficult to interpret all the nuances of the legal procedures of other countries. I think the lesson to be learned from recent exchanges is that the combative style of 'debate' doesn't really get to the root of the matter by giving the definitive answers which are obviously readily available if we look for them.
But we got there in the end - pity the route was acrimonious when it didn't have to be.
-
I think the feelings and prejudices of the Portuguese public must run pretty deeply against the McCanns, given the unrelenting and constant attacks they have been subject to for over fifteen years.
Very recently Amaral was still perpetrating his slurs against them as he came out strongly on behalf of Brueckner.
I think it will take time for all of that to be dispelled as events take their course but in the interim we've had fifteen years of propaganda. All of which ensured a lot of people couldn't see past what they had been instructed to believe and view the possibility they should have been keeping an open mind all through the years of not looking for Madeleine.
Yeah they get the run of the mill stories still on certain forums. Main focus is bruckner now. Im npt aginst or for bruckner but gibem his profile and history inwould never 100 percent discount him.
-
Two people execising their right to remain silent, both of whom spoke to the newspapers. I see no difference.
My opinion is that one is on record as not speaking to the newspapers in awareness of the penalties.
The other is a psychopath enjoying the notoriety.
BETCHA I know how you would interpret which was which.
-
Yeah they get the run of the mill stories still on certain forums. Main focus is bruckner now. Im npt aginst or for bruckner but gibem his profile and history inwould never 100 percent discount him.
You doubt the concrete evidence?
Davel must think you're delusional.
-
It is actually very difficult to interpret all the nuances of the legal procedures of other countries. I think the lesson to be learned from recent exchanges is that the combative style of 'debate' doesn't really get to the root of the matter by giving the definitive answers which are obviously readily available if we look for them.
But we got there in the end - pity the route was acrimonious when it didn't have to be.
There's no way to know if a person is expressing fact or opinion without a cite. Repeating a claim ad infinitum doesn't make it a fact or progress the debate. I'm just relieved that someone had the knowledge needed.
-
Two people execising their right to remain silent, both of whom spoke to the newspapers. I see no difference.
I see a difference - Kate (the mother of a missing child with no criminal record) is constantly lambasted for exercising her right, the other CB (a convicted rapist and paedophile) not so much, by the same critics of McCann. Why not? Any ideas? No, that's right - no answer to that question either!
-
I see a difference - Kate (the mother of a missing child with no criminal record) is constantly lambasted for exercising her right, the other CB (a convicted rapist and paedophile) not so much, by the same critics of McCann. Why not? Any ideas? No, that's right - no answer to that question either!
Because he didn't do it?
I mean, no one can prove he did can they, or that Maddie was ever really abducted in the first place either.
-
I see a difference - Kate (the mother of a missing child with no criminal record) is constantly lambasted for exercising her right, the other CB (a convicted rapist and paedophile) not so much, by the same critics of McCann. Why not? Any ideas? No, that's right - no answer to that question either!
Both arguidos had their reasons for remaining silent. My guess is self protection was one of them.
-
Both arguidos had their reasons for remaining silent. My guess is self protection was one of them.
That is an answer to a question I didn't ask, well done!
-
Maybe give an actual alibi backed up
Depends on what exactly he was asked .
-
There's no way to know if a person is expressing fact or opinion without a cite. Repeating a claim ad infinitum doesn't make it a fact or progress the debate. I'm just relieved that someone had the knowledge needed.
Davel undoubtedly had the fact based knowledge.
Misty researched and provided the cite.
Nothing Davel said was untrue - speculation - or flawed opinion as you suggested in your posts. Therefore my opinion is that as well as your thanks to Misty, a little contrition is also due regarding the false accusations your lack of knowledge caused you to make regarding Davel.
Who knows - could lend a little bonhomie to the forum.
-
There's no way to know if a person is expressing fact or opinion without a cite. Repeating a claim ad infinitum doesn't make it a fact or progress the debate. I'm just relieved that someone had the knowledge needed.
The daily mail article backed my claim
Where is your cite for the SOL being extended
-
It seems to be aimed at protecting the perpetrator, sure enough. If he can evade being arrested and charged until the time limit is up then he's got away with it, it seems;
A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense.[51] If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
Jeez!
-
Maddie's mystery ends without blame
New suspects can no longer be investigated for the death of the British girl, with the exception of Bruckner, who was charged on 21 April.
Magali Pinto
May 3, 2022
It's been 15 years since Maddie McCann disappeared without a scan. The British child, daughter of two doctors, was vacationing with her family at Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, when she was no longer seen on May 3, 2007. Fifteen years later, the criminal proceedings prescribe, in the sense that new suspects of kidnapping and death cannot be investigated, with the exception of Christian Bruckner, who was accused two weeks ago by the public prosecutor.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/misterio-de-maddie-termina-sem-culpados?ref=Mais%20Sobre_BlocoMaisSobre
How disgusting. A new method of corruption?
-
Davel undoubtedly had the fact based knowledge.
Misty researched and provided the cite.
Nothing Davel said was untrue - speculation - or flawed opinion as you suggested in your posts. Therefore my opinion is that as well as your thanks to Misty, a little contrition is also due regarding the false accusations your lack of knowledge caused you to make regarding Davel.
Who knows - could lend a little bonhomie to the forum.
I achieved what I asked for; a cite. I will continue to ask if cites aren't supplied. End of.
-
I achieved what I asked for; a cite. I will continue to ask if cites aren't supplied. End of.
Why don’t you have to supply cites when asked though?
-
You don't seem to understand that the SOL hasn't expired, it's been extended.
Cite please.... Third request
-
Cite please.... Third request
Where's the cite for Wolters reasons he can't share the concrete evidence with the McCanns?
-
Cite please.... Third request
The SOL would have expired on 3rd May 2022. It was, however, interupted by making CB an arguido before that date. The effect of that interuption appears to be extending the SOL to end on 3rd May 2037.
2. THE EFFECTS OF INTERRUPTION
44. In all the legal systems examined which include this mechanism, interruption of the
limitation period has the effect of stopping the period from running, erasing the
period which has already elapsed prior to the act interrupting the limitation period
and restarting a new limitation period of equal length to the limitation period
provided by law (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania
and Spain).
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
-
The SOL would have expired on 3rd May 2022. It was, however, interupted by making CB an arguido before that date. The effect of that interuption appears to be extending the SOL to end on 3rd May 2037.
2. THE EFFECTS OF INTERRUPTION
44. In all the legal systems examined which include this mechanism, interruption of the
limitation period has the effect of stopping the period from running, erasing the
period which has already elapsed prior to the act interrupting the limitation period
and restarting a new limitation period of equal length to the limitation period
provided by law (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania
and Spain).
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
You claimed as a fact I didn't understand. Do you have a cite that the SOL has been extended in this case. My understanding is that it hasn't... And that's why CB was made an arguido before expiration...
So.. A cite for your claim the SOL has been extended
-
Depends on what exactly he was asked .
Oooo, probably how his cell is, if he fitting in comfortably, does he have enough pens to write to people and papers and draw pictures. Those sort pf questions.
-
Oooo, probably how his cell is, if he fitting in comfortably, does he have enough pens to write to people and papers and draw pictures. Those sort pf questions.
More likely, where were you on May 3rd when you were abducting & murdering Maddie?
He replied no comment & the police have been stumped since.
Say's a lot for the concrete evidence really doesn't it.
I mean, there's the police, sitting there with absolute proof he abducted & murdered Maddie, he doesn't give them any alibi to refute this concrete evidence & yet they're not charging him with abduction & murder any time in the foreseeable future?
Extraordinary.
-
You claimed as a fact I didn't understand. Do you have a cite that the SOL has been extended in this case. My understanding is that it hasn't... And that's why CB was made an arguido before expiration...
So.. A cite for your claim the SOL has been extended
The answer is neither, I think. It didn't expire because it was interrupted before the date of expiration. It wasn't extended either, a new 15 year period began.
-
The answer is neither, I think. It didn't expire because it was interrupted before the date of expiration. It wasn't extended either, a new 15 year period began.
Maybe they'll press charges before it expires again, but I doubt it.
-
More likely, where were you on May 3rd when you were abducting & murdering Maddie?
He replied no comment & the police have been stumped since.
Say's a lot for the concrete evidence really doesn't it.
I mean, there's the police, sitting there with absolute proof he abducted & murdered Maddie, he doesn't give them any alibi to refute this concrete evidence & yet they're not charging him with abduction & murder any time in the foreseeable future?
Extraordinary.
All questions were no comments, it would have been an exercise not producing evidence as if he was charged. Their ypu go.
-
All questions were no comments, it would have been an exercise not producing evidence as if he was charged. Their ypu go.
Didn't get them very far.
-
Didn't get them very far.
Of course not.
As an habitual, if relatively unsuccessful criminal currently serving a prison sentence, why would he wish to assist any police investigation ? I'm sure he's more than happy for them to expend their resources on him.
-
If Brueckner has an Alibi he would be very stupid not to mention it. And even more stupid to try and mock one up.
-
Of course not.
As an habitual, if relatively unsuccessful criminal currently serving a prison sentence, why would he wish to assist any police investigation ? I'm sure he's more than happy for them to expend their resources on him.
If he actually gets away with committing one of the most high profile crimes of the 21st century I would say that he was pretty successful at evading justice.
-
If Brueckner has an Alibi he would be very stupid not to mention it. And even more stupid to try and mock one up.
Why ?
-
Why ?
Silly Question.
-
Of course not.
As an habitual, if relatively unsuccessful criminal currently serving a prison sentence, why would he wish to assist any police investigation ? I'm sure he's more than happy for them to expend their resources on him.
He can write a book while Wolters never writes up a charge sheet.
-
If he actually gets away with committing one of the most high profile crimes of the 21st century I would say that he was pretty successful at evading justice.
Yeah, it seems more likely he just didn't do it really, when you test the strength of Wolters evidence it doesn't hold much weight.
-
The answer is neither, I think. It didn't expire because it was interrupted before the date of expiration. It wasn't extended either, a new 15 year period began.
So in reality having told me I'm wrong you don't have a clue.
It has not been extended as you now realise... CB was made arguido before expiration so they have to charge him before his arguido status expires .
The SOl has expired so as I previously said no one else can be made arguido.
-
The answer is neither, I think. It didn't expire because it was interrupted before the date of expiration. It wasn't extended either, a new 15 year period began.
Cite fir a new 15 yr period has begun.. It hasnt
-
Yeah, it seems more likely he just didn't do it really, when you test the strength of Wolters evidence it doesn't hold much weight.
Indeed, how would you know that he had 'got away with it' and was not simply innocent of the charge ?
-
Silly Question.
In what way ?
Why does he need to provide an alibi ?
-
The answer is neither, I think. It didn't expire because it was interrupted before the date of expiration. It wasn't extended either, a new 15 year period began.
The new (extended) period of investigation is a 7.5yr period, not 15, commencing from the date of the interruption.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
54. In Portugal, public prosecution is time-barred where, from the starting point of the
limitation period and excluding the period of interruption, one-and-a-half times the
duration of the standard limitation period has elapsed. Where, under specific laws,
the limitation period is less than 2 years, the maximum length of the limitation is
twice that period. According to case-law, the purpose of that temporal limitation is to
prevent offences becoming de facto time-barred as a result of the successive
application of multiple grounds for interruption and suspension, and thus to stop the
interruption of the limitation period being “dragged on interminably”, which would
be contrary to the foundations of the institution of limitation.
-
Indeed, how would you know that he had 'got away with it' and was not simply innocent of the charge ?
Some people have a problem understanding the word "if", it would seem.
-
Some people have a problem understanding the word "if", it would seem.
So you think Brueckner could potentially be innocent, despite the concrete evidence of the 3 investigative forces?
How do you square that circle exactly?
-
The new (extended) period of investigation is a 7.5yr period, not 15, commencing from the date of the interruption.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
54. In Portugal, public prosecution is time-barred where, from the starting point of the
limitation period and excluding the period of interruption, one-and-a-half times the
duration of the standard limitation period has elapsed. Where, under specific laws,
the limitation period is less than 2 years, the maximum length of the limitation is
twice that period. According to case-law, the purpose of that temporal limitation is to
prevent offences becoming de facto time-barred as a result of the successive
application of multiple grounds for interruption and suspension, and thus to stop the
interruption of the limitation period being “dragged on interminably”, which would
be contrary to the foundations of the institution of limitation.
2. THE EFFECTS OF INTERRUPTION
44. In all the legal systems examined which include this mechanism, interruption of the
limitation period has the effect of stopping the period from running, erasing the
period which has already elapsed prior to the act interrupting the limitation period
and restarting a new limitation period of equal length to the limitation period
provided by law (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania
and Spain).
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
-
2. THE EFFECTS OF INTERRUPTION
44. In all the legal systems examined which include this mechanism, interruption of the
limitation period has the effect of stopping the period from running, erasing the
period which has already elapsed prior to the act interrupting the limitation period
and restarting a new limitation period of equal length to the limitation period
provided by law (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania
and Spain).
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf
There is a limitation to the extended period in Portuguese law, as I stated before. This period of 7.5 years was confirmed by a former Minister of Justice in Portugal in their media. I will try to locate the cite.
-
Just been lied to about a anti fb mccann group truth or lie. The moderator lied said i blocked them, then lied in comments, blocked me absolute sad world these di****** get to actually dictate free speech then on debbie christie account they put using this profile bcos of free speech these ppl r animals.
-
Just been lied to about a anti fb mccann group truth or lie. The moderator lied said i blocked them, then lied in comments, blocked me absolute sad world these di****** get to actually dictate free speech then on debbie christie account they put using this profile bcos of free speech these ppl r animals.
There's a lot to unpack there.
-
There's a lot to unpack there.
Their is, you best go have a deek
-
Just been lied to about a anti fb mccann group truth or lie. The moderator lied said i blocked them, then lied in comments, blocked me absolute sad world these di****** get to actually dictate free speech then on debbie christie account they put using this profile bcos of free speech these ppl r animals.
Delete Facebook & do something more productive with your time, is my advice.
My garden is looking quite beautiful since I jacked in Facebook. Had a bumper crop of tomatoes this year.
-
Their is, you best go have a deek
Where is it, Facebook?
Debbie Christie?
-
Delete Facebook & do something more productive with your time, is my advice.
My garden is looking quite beautiful since I jacked in Facebook. Had a bumper crop of tomatoes this year.
I was just about to offer the same advice, not that anyone should take advice from me, not with my reputation.
Being lied to and banned on Facebook, then venting about this perceived wrong on another, unrelated forum to members who, at best, have a tenuous link to the former, seems like a lot of burnt energy for little gain. And now I'm doing it! Look what you've dragged me in to, Ross B!
-
Delete Facebook & do something more productive with your time, is my advice.
My garden is looking quite beautiful since I jacked in Facebook. Had a bumper crop of tomatoes this year.
Actually rarely use it tbf. But i mean why come on here then. Does not seem to acchieve anything either. I joined january. Do not have anywhere near your posts, or likes. So a bit hypocritical if i may say.
-
I was just about to offer the same advice, not that anyone should take advice from me, not with my reputation.
Being lied to and banned on Facebook, then venting about this perceived wrong on another, unrelated forum to members who, at best, have a tenuous link to the former, seems like a lot of burnt energy for little gain. And now I'm doing it! Look what you've dragged me in to, Ross B!
Well taking to a forum yourself to vent and complain is hypocritical in that sense. My point being is it is full of liars and deceit. Sorry for having an opinion. I shud shut up in future and be told what i think. However you are the general the big bad general lmao
-
Actually rarely use it tbf. But i mean why come on here then. Does not seem to acchieve anything either. I joined january. Do not have anywhere near your posts, or likes. So a bit hypocritical if i may say.
I see the seemingly contradictory stance.
You are right though, nothing here is of any consequence, although we have today established there are several members who thought they knew libel law....but didn't.
-
Well taking to a forum yourself to vent and complain is hypocritical in that sense. My point being is it is full of liars and deceit. Sorry for having an opinion. I shud shut up in future and be told what i think. However you are the general the big bad general lmao
My point was, you could cut your avenues of online frustration in half if you want.
You don't need to shut up Ross, despite me being The General, I would never decree such a thing - not hot on the heels of our recent free speech victory.
Go back there and give 'em hell kid (if you're not banned)
-
My point was, you could cut your avenues of online frustration in half if you want.
You don't need to shut up Ross, despite me being The General, I would never decree such a thing - not hot on the heels of our recent free speech victory.
Go back there and give 'em hell kid (if you're not banned)
This is where your status comes into play to give me more online free speech mr general. It was more than obvious the mccanns would be ruled against. To me venting is not what i am doing i just question those that feel they have 100 percent correct hypothesis to what happened. Amd think they know the parents as if they were their own. Conundrum it is.
-
This is where your status comes into play to give me more online free speech mr general. It was more than obvious the mccanns would be ruled against. To me venting is not what i am doing i just question those that feel they have 100 percent correct hypothesis to what happened. Amd think they know the parents as if they were their own. Conundrum it is.
A great many commentators, the press included, simply could not discern what was at stake and the nuances of the legal devices, hence how they got it so wrong.
The McCann's were in a position to be able to afford to continue their forlorn fight; the majority are not so fortunate and are ruined as a result, despite potentially being 'right'.
It's time to pay Charon, I believe, and an obol under the tongue simply will not cut it. May I suggest Go Fund Me, or Only Fans?
-
This is where your status comes into play to give me more online free speech mr general. It was more than obvious the mccanns would be ruled against. To me venting is not what i am doing i just question those that feel they have 100 percent correct hypothesis to what happened. Amd think they know the parents as if they were their own. Conundrum it is.
I don't see you questioning abduction very often, at all actually, & there's plenty of people here who believe that hypothesis is a dead cert. Maybe start questioning 'the abduction' a bit more & you'll find your online experience more enjoyable.
I've found comedic value in questioning that particular theory for about 10 years now.
-
I don't see you questioning abduction very often, at all actually, & there's plenty of people here who believe that hypothesis is a dead cert. Maybe start questioning 'the abduction' a bit more & you'll find your online experience more enjoyable.
I've found comedic value in questioning that particular theory for about 10 years now.
Yeah you would be right. Ten years you say? Via here via amaral or via facebook? Hope you were not venting. Of course absence of evidence does not assume ones guilt. I am open to different theories i just only say its unlikely they were involved and not only mention the ppl who are consumed with wild conspiracy theories are those that are against them. Cant see you bringing up or debating she was sold to the epsteins.
-
Yeah you would be right. Ten years you say? Via here via amaral or via facebook? Hope you were not venting. Of course absence of evidence does not assume ones guilt. I am open to different theories i just only say its unlikely they were involved and not only mention the ppl who are consumed with wild conspiracy theories are those that are against them. Cant see you bringing up or debating she was sold to the epsteins.
Too young then, but not now I assume.
-
Yeah you would be right. Ten years you say? Via here via amaral or via facebook? Hope you were not venting. Of course absence of evidence does not assume ones guilt. I am open to different theories i just only say its unlikely they were involved and not only mention the ppl who are consumed with wild conspiracy theories are those that are against them. Cant see you bringing up or debating she was sold to the epsteins.
Here, only place I wum.
No other forums, didn't take a proper interest in the case until about 2012.
Came here & found countless idiots insisting Maddie was abducted, when there's simply no good reason to believe she ever was.
-
Most of The Sceptics only came along when they saw an opportunity for a punch up. They aren't here because they actually care about anything, least of all Madeleine. It is their own personal failures that motivate them.
-
Most of The Sceptics only came along when they saw an opportunity for a punch up. They aren't here because they actually care about anything, least of all Madeleine. It is their own personal failures that motivate them.
Why would I care about Madeleine?
Bit pointless really, she's dead after all.
-
I see the seemingly contradictory stance.
You are right though, nothing here is of any consequence, although we have today established there are several members who thought they knew libel law....but didn't.
Ditto with human rights law.
-
Most of The Sceptics only came along when they saw an opportunity for a punch up. They aren't here because they actually care about anything, least of all Madeleine. It is their own personal failures that motivate them.
I go to Ju Jitsu for a punch up; I come here to gloat at being 100% right 70% of the time.
-
I go to Ju Jitsu for a punch up; I come here to gloat at being 100% right 70% of the time.
Would it be too utterly fawning to say I’ve missed you General?
-
Would it be too utterly fawning to say I’ve missed you General?
8**8:/:
-
Would it be too utterly fawning to say I’ve missed you General?
Hands off, he's my bird.
-
Would it be too utterly fawning to say I’ve missed you General?
Not at all. I've missed you guys to a greater or lesser degree (there's gradations of 'missing' someone when conversing virtually). Even the 'other side', although I doubt the feeling is mutual.
-
Here, only place I wum.
No other forums, didn't take a proper interest in the case until about 2012.
Came here & found countless idiots insisting Maddie was abducted, when there's simply no good reason to believe she ever was.
So you have found nothing better in over ten years but persist? Me youtube last may. Nutjobs commenting, next cmomm, again nut jobs, get blocked, four face books writing about another child, blocked including dopey liar debbie christie and liar jill havern. Their is a pattern of where questioning and free speech doesnt go a long way. No libel no lies just questions then booom. You are blocked. And then lied about to other members. Been here probably 1/10 of you and russell crowe the general but of course im venting on a specific thread in regards to nastiness 🤣 must take me tablets soon at age 31.
-
So you have found nothing better in over ten years but persist? Me youtube last may. Nutjobs commenting, next cmomm, again nut jobs, get blocked, four face books writing about another child, blocked including dopey liar debbie christie and liar jill havern. Their is a pattern of where questioning and free speech doesnt go a long way. No libel no lies just questions then booom. You are blocked. And then lied about to other members. Been here probably 1/10 of you and russell crowe the general but of course im venting on a specific thread in regards to nastiness 🤣 must take me tablets soon at age 31.
I've just taken mine as it happens.
10mg olanzapine & 20mg Zoplicone.
If there's one thing I can't get enough of it's sedative drugs. Washed down with Calpol. So if you don't hear from me for a few hours, you'll know why.
-
I've just taken mine as it happens.
10mg olanzapine & 20mg Zoplicone.
If there's one thing I can't get enough of it's sedative drugs. Washed down with Calpol. So if you don't hear from me for a few hours, you'll know why.
Careful you don't overdose. 8(0(*
-
Careful you don't overdose. 8(0(*
I wish, just got my electricity bill this morning. All that machine sanding & hoovering has made the house look lovely, but came at a price.
I'll have to cut back on crack cocaine
& prostitutes this week.
-
So you have found nothing better in over ten years but persist? Me youtube last may. Nutjobs commenting, next cmomm, again nut jobs, get blocked, four face books writing about another child, blocked including dopey liar debbie christie and liar jill havern. Their is a pattern of where questioning and free speech doesnt go a long way. No libel no lies just questions then booom. You are blocked. And then lied about to other members. Been here probably 1/10 of you and russell crowe the general but of course im venting on a specific thread in regards to nastiness 🤣 must take me tablets soon at age 31.
I'll take maximus decimus meridius. It's a far cry from General Scheisskopf, I suppose.
I may even change my picture thingy to endorse your suggestion.
-
I'll take maximus decimus meridius. It's a far cry from General Scheisskopf, I suppose.
I may even change my picture thingy to endorse your suggestion.
Good lad, did you find a chance general to take a look at the mental comments or not?
-
Good lad, did you find a chance general to take a look at the mental comments or not?
I'll be honest, Ross, I don't have Facebook. I wouldn't know where to start.
I do know that the internet is full of anonymous, self-proclaimed experts, who have appointed themselves pre-eminent in everything from the correct texture and consistency of a black pudding, right through to the nuances of ECHR verdicts, despite having no specific training in either.
Edit: And I'm a bit disappointed to find that you've taken my title of 'Youngest Member of the Forum' by some distance. You do know that our oldest active member is 81 years older than you?
-
I'll be honest, Ross, I don't have Facebook. I wouldn't know where to start.
I do know that the internet is full of anonymous, self-proclaimed experts, who have appointed themselves pre-eminent in everything from the correct texture and consistency of a black pudding, right through to the nuances of ECHR verdicts, despite having no specific training in either.
Edit: And I'm a bit disappointed to find that you've taken my title of 'Youngest Member of the Forum' by some distance. You do know that our oldest active member is 81 years older than you?
Lol, well you changed ur pic well done. Its an honour to be a young member who looked into this case as of last year, also mental to see on majority of other well a few forums of pure mentalness. Born and raised in newcastle i must be getting soft on all things unproven!
-
Why would I care about Madeleine?
Bit pointless really, she's dead after all.
She is alive and well unless they have killed her off trying to conceive from her.
-
Lol, well you changed ur pic well done. Its an honour to be a young member who looked into this case as of last year, also mental to see on majority of other well a few forums of pure mentalness. Born and raised in newcastle i must be getting soft on all things unproven!
I'm a relative newbie here too, and a fellow Northener (that's why I think the McCann's live in a mansion)
There's a couple of members here who knew Madie was abducted several months before she went missing.
Conversely, there's a few who believe VRD dogs converse in passable English and can discern the blood type of a dead mosquito's last human bite recipient. I'm sort of right-leaning, but not National Socialist.
-
I'll be honest, Ross, I don't have Facebook. I wouldn't know where to start.
I do know that the internet is full of anonymous, self-proclaimed experts, who have appointed themselves pre-eminent in everything from the correct texture and consistency of a black pudding, right through to the nuances of ECHR verdicts, despite having no specific training in either.
Edit: And I'm a bit disappointed to find that you've taken my title of 'Youngest Member of the Forum' by some distance. You do know that our oldest active member is 81 years older than you?
Eighty Three actually. But I think that Sadie might be a bit older than me.
-
Browsing turned up a reminder of research which is particularly relevant to this thread.
It was carried out by the Department of Psychology at the University of Huddersfield looking at trolls and the McCann case.
Remarkably the situation regarding trolling continues past the fifteenth anniversary. It continues still despite the advent of a prime suspect better known as "a patsy" by sceptics.
I think there is a specific thread on the forum discussing this phenomenon; how interesting should the university decide carry out research into the intervening years to find out what the continuing motivation might be.
Aggressive comments about McCann motivate psychological study
The language used is often rude and ignorant
Lusa
30 April 2017
British academics who studied the activity of 'trolls' on social media were surprised by the activity surrounding the Madeleine McCann disappearance case and called for rules to combat insults.
When they decided to study the behaviour of these people who write unfavourable messages or comments on public discussion sites with the aim of destabilizing, a team of researchers from the Department of Psychology at the University of Huddersfield looked at the McCann case.
"They were the group considered most appropriate to start our investigation because of their history, because they had been active for many years, and also because of the volume of activity in which they are involved, which was 150 tweets per hour," John Synnott, one of the study's authors, told Lusa.
Titled "Trolling online: The case of Madeleine McCann", the study wanted to analyze the behaviors and strategies of a group of alleged 'trolls' on the social network Twitter referred to as an**-McCann due to continued attacks on parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, against those who support them, identified as p**-McCann.
The scientific paper was published in the June issue of the journal Computers in Human Behaviour, dedicated to the study of computers from a psychological perspective.
Together with Andria Coulias and Maria Ioannou, John Synnott studied a sample of 400 McCann-related tweets obtained from 37 accounts and containing a total of 7,600 words.
The conclusion they have reached is that the language used, often rude and ignorant, helped build an identity and cohesion of these trolls, who are relatively organized, feeding websites and forums about the case.
"They comment on stories that arise related to the case or confront other users, for example pro-group McCann, who promote a narrative against theirs," he explained.
The deputy director of the Master's degree in Investigative Psychology at the University of Huddersfield believes that this study can help to understand the abusive behaviour of these people and contribute to their combat.
One of the suggested measures is the end of the use of pseudonyms instead of true identity, since anonymity encourages many people to act in this way.
Until that happens, the McCann will continue to be the subject of internet attacks, even 10 years after their daughter's disappearance, believes the academic, who predicted: "With the impending 10-year anniversary of Madeline's disappearance, the level of online activity is likely to increase."
https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/maddie10-anos-comentarios-agressivos-sobre-mccann-motivam-estudo-psicologico-6256293.html
-
Browsing turned up a reminder of research which is particularly relevant to this thread.
It was carried out by the Department of Psychology at the University of Huddersfield looking at trolls and the McCann case.
Remarkably the situation regarding trolling continues past the fifteenth anniversary. It continues still despite the advent of a prime suspect better known as "a patsy" by sceptics.
I think there is a specific thread on the forum discussing this phenomenon; how interesting should the university decide carry out research into the intervening years to find out what the continuing motivation might be.
Aggressive comments about McCann motivate psychological study
The language used is often rude and ignorant
Lusa
30 April 2017
British academics who studied the activity of 'trolls' on social media were surprised by the activity surrounding the Madeleine McCann disappearance case and called for rules to combat insults.
When they decided to study the behaviour of these people who write unfavourable messages or comments on public discussion sites with the aim of destabilizing, a team of researchers from the Department of Psychology at the University of Huddersfield looked at the McCann case.
"They were the group considered most appropriate to start our investigation because of their history, because they had been active for many years, and also because of the volume of activity in which they are involved, which was 150 tweets per hour," John Synnott, one of the study's authors, told Lusa.
Titled "Trolling online: The case of Madeleine McCann", the study wanted to analyze the behaviors and strategies of a group of alleged 'trolls' on the social network Twitter referred to as an**-McCann due to continued attacks on parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, against those who support them, identified as p**-McCann.
The scientific paper was published in the June issue of the journal Computers in Human Behaviour, dedicated to the study of computers from a psychological perspective.
Together with Andria Coulias and Maria Ioannou, John Synnott studied a sample of 400 McCann-related tweets obtained from 37 accounts and containing a total of 7,600 words.
The conclusion they have reached is that the language used, often rude and ignorant, helped build an identity and cohesion of these trolls, who are relatively organized, feeding websites and forums about the case.
"They comment on stories that arise related to the case or confront other users, for example pro-group McCann, who promote a narrative against theirs," he explained.
The deputy director of the Master's degree in Investigative Psychology at the University of Huddersfield believes that this study can help to understand the abusive behaviour of these people and contribute to their combat.
One of the suggested measures is the end of the use of pseudonyms instead of true identity, since anonymity encourages many people to act in this way.
Until that happens, the McCann will continue to be the subject of internet attacks, even 10 years after their daughter's disappearance, believes the academic, who predicted: "With the impending 10-year anniversary of Madeline's disappearance, the level of online activity is likely to increase."
https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/maddie10-anos-comentarios-agressivos-sobre-mccann-motivam-estudo-psicologico-6256293.html
I don't think there's any mystery here. Every other week for the last 15 years there's a different story / book / article / podcast / mini-series / accusation / suspect / documentary / youtube account.
If the university conducted a study on an old man uploading videos of model trains, I'd venture they'd find a general rule of thumb of 25% of comments would be negative and 5% would be 'offensive'.
Add the fact that the Mccanns polarise opinion about 50 / 50 to begin with, then it's no great surprise.
-
I'll be honest, Ross, I don't have Facebook. I wouldn't know where to start.
I do know that the internet is full of anonymous, self-proclaimed experts, who have appointed themselves pre-eminent in everything from the correct texture and consistency of a black pudding, right through to the nuances of ECHR verdicts, despite having no specific training in either.
Edit: And I'm a bit disappointed to find that you've taken my title of 'Youngest Member of the Forum' by some distance. You do know that our oldest active member is 81 years older than you?
Get your Dad to help you with your sums, Gen.
Methinks that you are in your early twenties, but now you want to appear older for some reason. Why?
Please forgive me if I am wrong.
-
Get your Dad to help you with your sums, Gen.
Methinks that you are in your early twenties, but now you want to appear older for some reason. Why?
Please forgive me if I am wrong.
You are forgiven. Let's put it this way, I've got pairs of undies older than Ross.
-
You are forgiven. Let's put it this way, I've got pairs of undies older than Ross.
You sure there General?
Just seen a few more videos on youtube regarding mccann loss to ECHR, people are having an emphatic celebration!
-
You sure there General?
Just seen a few more videos on youtube regarding mccann loss to ECHR, people are having an emphatic celebration!
Since first encountering some of the absolutely vile McCann content available on the internet it has been obvious to me and of greatest concern, that the most vulnerable to it was always going to be the McCann children.
After a two week inquest a coroner finds that in the death of fourteen year old Molly Russell, harmful online content was likely to have contributed to Molly’s death ‘in a more than minimal way’. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/molly-russell-died-while-suffering-negative-effects-of-online-content-rules-coroner
It was always abusive to indulge in the McCann hate fest on the internet. It was always obvious that at some future time Madeleine's siblings would be exposed to it in one way or another.
Indeed I have seen it claimed in mitigation by sceptic offenders, the hope that the children will "question" their parents.
If these sceptics were too obtuse to work out exactly how abusive their hobby of attacking the family is - they most certainly don't have that excuse now.
Internet content on social media has yet again played its part in influencing the death of a young person. "Anti facebook groups etc." have been deliberately posting content which will cause distress to the young people exposed to it for years.
It is a measure of the type of individuals they are.
-
Since first encountering some of the absolutely vile McCann content available on the internet it has been obvious to me and of greatest concern, that the most vulnerable to it was always going to be the McCann children.
After a two week inquest a coroner finds that in the death of fourteen year old Molly Russell, harmful online content was likely to have contributed to Molly’s death ‘in a more than minimal way’. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/molly-russell-died-while-suffering-negative-effects-of-online-content-rules-coroner
It was always abusive to indulge in the McCann hate fest on the internet. It was always obvious that at some future time Madeleine's siblings would be exposed to it in one way or another.
Indeed I have seen it claimed in mitigation by sceptic offenders, the hope that the children will "question" their parents.
If these sceptics were too obtuse to work out exactly how abusive their hobby of attacking the family is - they most certainly don't have that excuse now.
Internet content on social media has yet again played its part in influencing the death of a young person. "Anti facebook groups etc." have been deliberately posting content which will cause distress to the young people exposed to it for years.
It is a measure of the type of individuals they are.
Unfortunately, The McCanns can no longer be pursued in Portugal. Statute of something or another. So that's the end of that. Unless Germany want to take them on, along with Brueckner.
This could get interesting. No doubt someone will come up with something.
-
OKAY, Everyone has bogged off because this is going nowhere. And basically no one wants to talk about The Statute of Limitations. The McCanns are done now. And did we ever think that it would come to this?
How any Country could put a Fifteen Year limitation on the death of a small child completely defeats me. But that is what Portugal has done. The McCanns are now free from prosecution, ever.
-
OKAY, Everyone has bogged off because this is going nowhere. And basically no one wants to talk about The Statute of Limitations. The McCanns are done now. And did we ever think that it would come to this?
How any Country could put a Fifteen Year limitation on the death of a small child completely defeats me. But that is what Portugal has done. The McCanns are now free from prosecution, ever.
They may be free from prosecution but they will never be free of persecution as can be seen online every time the case is mentioned. Some people just enjoy being nasty and the McCanns are (for some) the preferred punch bags.
-
They may be free from prosecution but they will never be free of persecution as can be seen online every time the case is mentioned. Some people just enjoy being nasty and the McCanns are (for some) the preferred punch bags.
Rossb and Myster have touched on the Youtube reaction to the ECHR decision. I haven't bothered to seek them out for the simple reason that after fifteen years of 'refinement' all that such mindless hounding suggests to me is the determined lack of moral compass displayed by the perpetrators.
There is increased awareness of the damage irresponsible internet postings can cause or contribute to. It is not a victimless crime.
-
Since first encountering some of the absolutely vile McCann content available on the internet it has been obvious to me and of greatest concern, that the most vulnerable to it was always going to be the McCann children.
After a two week inquest a coroner finds that in the death of fourteen year old Molly Russell, harmful online content was likely to have contributed to Molly’s death ‘in a more than minimal way’. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/molly-russell-died-while-suffering-negative-effects-of-online-content-rules-coroner
It was always abusive to indulge in the McCann hate fest on the internet. It was always obvious that at some future time Madeleine's siblings would be exposed to it in one way or another.
Indeed I have seen it claimed in mitigation by sceptic offenders, the hope that the children will "question" their parents.
If these sceptics were too obtuse to work out exactly how abusive their hobby of attacking the family is - they most certainly don't have that excuse now.
Internet content on social media has yet again played its part in influencing the death of a young person. "Anti facebook groups etc." have been deliberately posting content which will cause distress to the young people exposed to it for years.
It is a measure of the type of individuals they are.
You're right, it is a measure of the type of individual. 'Trolls', like me, apparently, are more likely to display traits of sadism and narcissism, according to studies. But I think it's much deeper than that and has its roots in innate schadenfreude, as well as other competitive social comparison based-emotions such as envy and jealousy, originally evolved as a response to competition between rivals over limited resources.
That is to say that we all possess these emotions, but they are magnified and given access with the exponential rise on social media.
I would suggest that approximately 40% of all conversational posts between 'sides' on this forum have some form of embedded trolling or goading.
If we want to have a conversation about the psychology, we have to examine to biology first, then the sociology.
-
I didn't watch it. I don't bother anymore. I've come to the conclusion that some people have a hobby dishing out nastiness. No doubt in my mind that the McCann's are probably not the only ones they target. They may have no intention of debating the case in a normal manner. I have nothing against people who don't share my view of the McCann's and will debate their reasons for not doing so, but people who just love to gang up with others to jeer and spread malice I have no time for. Sarah Payne's mother had to stop posting online due to some people, Ben's mother has faced it too, don't know what is wrong with them, but as I say they just love to do it it has become part of their lives now.
-
I didn't watch it. I don't bother anymore. I've come to the conclusion that some people have a hobby dishing out nastiness. No doubt in my mind that the McCann's are probably not the only ones they target. They may have no intention of debating the case in a normal manner. I have nothing against people who don't share my view of the McCann's and will debate their reasons for not doing so, but people who just love to gang up with others to jeer and spread malice I have no time for. Sarah Payne's mother had to stop posting online due to some people, Ben's mother has faced it too, don't know what is wrong with them, but as I say they just love to do it it has become part of their lives now.
You haven't watched it so why comment?
Do you not think it could be not nastiness.....but its because they don't belive the mccs version of events.
-
You haven't watched it so why comment?
Do you not think it could be not nastiness.....but its because they don't belive the mccs version of events.
I didn't have to watch it I could tell by the comments that it was people posting vile messages about the McCann's. As I said normal debate ok.
-
I didn't have to watch it I could tell by the comments that it was people posting vile messages about the McCann's. As I said normal debate ok.
Ye but they don't discuss or debate it says leave a comment....they just leave comments on what their beliefs are.
I mean you go on about nastiness....but you choose to be the same by condoning their right to an opinion.
Just because you don't like it L
-
You sure there General?
Just seen a few more videos on youtube regarding mccann loss to ECHR, people are having an emphatic celebration!
Are they the people who thought Amaral wasn't guilty? Perhaps some of them contributed to help him with his costs? If so, then they have reason to be pleased.
-
Are they the people who thought Amaral wasn't guilty? Perhaps some of them contributed to help him with his costs? If so, then they have reason to be pleased.
What costs? The ECHR was about whether or not Portugal had breached the McCanns’ human rights, nothing to do with Amaral remember?
-
What costs? The ECHR was about whether or not Portugal had breached the McCanns’ human rights, nothing to do with Amaral remember?
Without donations he wouldn't have been able to appeal the ruling of the first instance.
-
Without donations he wouldn't have been able to appeal the ruling of the first instance.
Money well spent as he won his case.
-
Without donations he wouldn't have been able to appeal the ruling of the first instance.
That was years ago. The celebrations that Ross were referring to were wrt to the ECHR ruling and nothing to do with Amaral per se, or funding his appeal. Let’s be honest here: it was a kick in the balls for the McCanns and their doubters loved it. Best thing that’s happened to them all year probably.
-
Money well spent as he won his case.
Did that donation money get spent? I thought Amaral was supposed to be donating it all to charity. As if.
-
That was years ago. The celebrations that Ross were referring to were wrt to the ECHR ruling and nothing to do with Amaral per se, or funding his appeal. Let’s be honest here: it was a kick in the balls for the McCanns and their doubters loved it. Best thing that’s happened to them all year probably.
The ECHR ruling found that Portugal was correct to clear Amaral, so of course it was an occasion for his supporters to celebrate. Certain McCann supporters even hoped he might be retried in Portugal if the McCanns won at the ECHR, so they were clearly linking him in.
-
Money well spent as he won his case.
Yes, they backed the right horse for sure.
-
The ECHR ruling found that Portugal was correct to clear Amaral, so of course it was an occasion for his supporters to celebrate. Certain McCann supporters even hoped he might be retried in Portugal if the McCanns won at the ECHR, so they were clearly linking him in.
Portugal won because they presented cadaver odour as a proven fact when it wasn't
-
Portugal won because they presented cadaver odour as a proven fact when it wasn't
They won because their courts correctly decided that Amaral didn't breach the McCanns rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.
-
They won because their courts correctly decided that Amaral didn't breach the McCanns rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Yes, I know. We do have at least one thread to discuss all that.
The topic of this thread being "Anti facebook groups etc" do let us discuss that instead. thank you
-
They won because their courts correctly decided that Amaral didn't breach the McCanns rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.
I'll post on the other thresd