New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[jassi]

Where is the evidence for these other crimes?  I haven't seen any.

Nor has anyone else - as far as I'm aware.

[G-Unit]

Reporting that there is a document claiming that CB was outside the apartment is information, there is no value judgement about the accuracy or validity of the document.  I take it you would prefer it if its existence had been ignored.

Mentioning this document supports it's false claim because it contains false facts. Imo it's not worth the paper it's written on.

[Eleanor]

Nor has anyone else - as far as I'm aware.

Well there you go.  Brueckner will be out in a minute.  Don't forget to lock up the children and the grannies.

[Wonderfulspam]

Well there you go.  Brueckner will be out in a minute.  Don't forget to lock up the children and the grannies.

...and car, shed, doors & house windows. Don't leave a hundred grand lying around & maybe carry a rape alarm.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Mentioning this document supports it's false claim because it contains false facts. Imo it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Even though you have no idea what's contained in the document.  And your logic is of course entirely flawed, but never mind. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

As an investigative journalist I am handed a document which purports to show that CB was 100 miles away from PdL on the night of the disappearance.  Should I completely ignore it or should I mention it in an article I am writing about the case, whilst making no claim as to the veracity or otherwise of the contents?

[Eleanor]

As an investigative journalist I am handed a document which purports to show that CB was 100 miles away from PdL on the night of the disappearance.  Should I completely ignore it or should I mention it in an article I am writing about the case, whilst making no claim as to the veracity or otherwise of the contents?

Everyone else is sticking their oar in.

[G-Unit]

As an investigative journalist I am handed a document which purports to show that CB was 100 miles away from PdL on the night of the disappearance.  Should I completely ignore it or should I mention it in an article I am writing about the case, whilst making no claim as to the veracity or otherwise of the contents?

We're not talking about rumours of 'traces' or 'fibres', we're talking about something WHICH CAN'T BE TRUE. Anyone familiar with the technological facts of the case knows this. Printing it without comment adds credence, and those printing it know that.

[Eleanor]

We're not talking about rumours of 'traces' or 'fibres', we're talking about something WHICH CAN'T BE TRUE. Anyone familiar with the technological facts of the case knows this. Printing it without comment adds credence, and those printing it know that.

How do we know that Brueckner wasn't a hundred miles away at the time?

[Vertigo Swirl]

We're not talking about rumours of 'traces' or 'fibres', we're talking about something WHICH CAN'T BE TRUE. Anyone familiar with the technological facts of the case knows this. Printing it without comment adds credence, and those printing it know that.

THERE’S NO NEED TO SHOUT.  Do you know precisely what is in this document or who produced it?  Perhaps it is nothing to do with technology and is an eyewitness account.  It isn’t true that CB has an alibi for the night of the 3rd May but I don’t recall seeing you getting on your high horse every time MWT peddles this myth.

[Vertigo Swirl]

A document exists purporting to show that CB was next to Apartment 5a on the night Madeleine disappeared but according to G-Unit it is utterly wrong to report the existence of such a document.  Go figure.

[Eleanor]

A document exists purporting to show that CB was next to Apartment 5a on the night Madeleine disappeared but according to G-Unit it is utterly wrong to report the existence of such a document.  Go figure.

I can think of a few things Gunit shouldn't be saying.

[Wonderfulspam]

THERE’S NO NEED TO SHOUT.  Do you know precisely what is in this document or who produced it?  Perhaps it is nothing to do with technology and is an eyewitness account.  It isn’t true that CB has an alibi for the night of the 3rd May but I don’t recall seeing you getting on your high horse every time MWT peddles this myth.

An eye witness that only gave their evidence since Wolters began investigating Brueckner?

The defence barrister would enjoy crossing that witness.

'You say you saw the defendant standing outside the front of the apartment, why did it take you 15 years to report this?'

[Vertigo Swirl]

“Sandra Felgueiras doesn't need me defending her nor I am her mouth piece, nor do I have any ulterior motives when I call out an injustice when I see one, as was the case with the "fibres" fabrication that was wrongly attributed to Sandra, it's just my nature. I do not personally believe in her line of investigation. Even thought Brueckner is a sadistic sex predator who deserves to rot in jail, I do not believe that he is the person behind Madeleine's disappearance or alleged murder. Nor do I think that her investigation has presented enough, if any evidence, in as much a TV program can present evidence that would prove Brueckner's guilt. Nevertheless I value her work, not only in the past but still now, as a journalist, even though we might not meet eye to eye in a number of issues beyond this case. Why is she important to this case? She has access to material the English and other foreign journalists don't have, we might not like her style nor the content she presents, but she does go after and pursue the leads she has” - Joana Morais.

It’s a shame most sceptics are unable to be so generous and reasonable.

[faithlilly]

“Sandra Felgueiras doesn't need me defending her nor I am her mouth piece, nor do I have any ulterior motives when I call out an injustice when I see one, as was the case with the "fibres" fabrication that was wrongly attributed to Sandra, it's just my nature. I do not personally believe in her line of investigation. Even thought Brueckner is a sadistic sex predator who deserves to rot in jail, I do not believe that he is the person behind Madeleine's disappearance or alleged murder. Nor do I think that her investigation has presented enough, if any evidence, in as much a TV program can present evidence that would prove Brueckner's guilt. Nevertheless I value her work, not only in the past but still now, as a journalist, even though we might not meet eye to eye in a number of issues beyond this case. Why is she important to this case? She has access to material the English and other foreign journalists don't have, we might not like her style nor the content she presents, but she does go after and pursue the leads she has” - Joana Morais.

It’s a shame most sceptics are unable to be so generous and reasonable.

My problem with SF is she lacks the conviction a true journalist needs. It appears that she wets her finger, sticks it in the air and the way the wind is blowing is the stance she takes.

We all saw for ourselves the savaging she gave the parents many months after the case had been shelved and the files released., At that point she must have known that Amaral had lied to her but still interviewed the parents as if they were guilty. Now she appears appalled that she was hoodwinked ( she knew) and displays all the faux contrition of a still imbibing alcoholic at an AA meeting. The reason for this faux contrition….she knows with the parents being found innocent be default because of the remit of OG the only way to ring the last vestige of journalistic juice from the situation is with a neck breaking uturn. The problem she has though is some of us have memories longer than the proverbial goldfish.