New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[jassi]

I know next to nothing about her and have dismissed her as just another hack who has hitched herself to the Madeleine bandwagon.
Consequently I pay as  little attention to her as I do to the rest of them.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

She did not “savage” the McCanns, she simply did what all interviewers do these days which is to play devils advocate and try to put them on the spot.  It wasn’t a very sympathetic way to treat the parents of a missing child, but it’s a way of getting a more interesting and revealing interview.  And - whether Amaral lied to her or not, doesn’t necessarily change whether the McCanns were guilty or not.  She may still have had suspicions at that point  which she has since realised were incorrect or unfounded.  I don’t understand your logic wrt to the last part of your post.  Why should she need to perform a u-turn in order to “ring (sic) the last vestige of journalistic juice from the situation “?  Are you saying that the Portuguese no longer have an appetite for news reports on the case which continue to raise doubts about the parents version of events?  I mean the McCanns being “found innocent” (your words not mine) has hardly stopped Amaral in his anti McCann endeavours has it?

[faithlilly]

She did not “savage” the McCanns, she simply did what all interviewers do these days which is to play devils advocate and try to put them on the spot.  It wasn’t a very sympathetic way to treat the parents of a missing child, but it’s a way of getting a more interesting and revealing interview.  And - whether Amaral lied to her or not, doesn’t necessarily change whether the McCanns were guilty or not.  She may still have had suspicions at that point  which she has since realised were incorrect or unfounded.  I don’t understand your logic wrt to the last part of your post.  Why should she need to perform a u-turn in order to “ring (sic) the last vestige of journalistic juice from the situation “?  Are you saying that the Portuguese no longer have an appetite for news reports on the case which continue to raise doubts about the parents version of events?  I mean the McCanns being “found innocent” (your words not mine) has hardly stopped Amaral in his anti McCann endeavours has it?

Why the ‘ring ( sic) ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why the ‘ring ( sic) ?

Because you presumably meant “wring”.


wring
/rɪŋ/
 Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: wring; 3rd person present: wrings; past tense: wrung; past participle: wrung; gerund or present participle: wringing
1.
squeeze and twist (something) to force liquid from it.
"she wrung the cloth out in the sink"

[Mr Gray]

Why the ‘ring ( sic) ?

That's quite funny...

[faithlilly]

Because you presumably meant “wring”.


wring
/rɪŋ/
 Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: wring; 3rd person present: wrings; past tense: wrung; past participle: wrung; gerund or present participle: wringing
1.
squeeze and twist (something) to force liquid from it.
"she wrung the cloth out in the sink"

Oh yes you’re right…well done. Every victory, however small, should always be celebrated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oh yes you’re right…well done. Every victory, however small, should always be celebrated.

You’re quite wright :-)

[Heriberto Janosch]

Or he could well have been anywhere within a 20 mile radius of the phone mast.

Wolters isn't even sure that Brueckner was 'the abductor', he's only certain he murdered Maddie, apparently.

He's keeping the door open for another as yet unidentified abductor who sold Maddie to Brueckner.

20 mile radius is totally wrong. The ...683 phone (I am not saying CB) was no more than 2.5 km from 5A. There were other BTS stations that could pickup the phone if it was more than 2.5 km from 5A.

[Wonderfulspam]

20 mile radius is totally wrong. The ...683 phone (I am not saying CB) was no more than 2.5 km from 5A. There were other BTS stations that could pickup the phone if it was more than 2.5 km from 5A.

Thanks Heri, I was only going by what had previously been reported with regards to the radius.

So a 1.5 mile radius, still not quite him standing right outside the window of 5a though, or maybe he was?!

[The General]

Thanks Heri, I was only going by what had previously been reported with regards to the radius.

So a 1.5 mile radius, still not quite him standing right outside the window of 5a though, or maybe he was?!

7sq km. That's just one parameter required. If the next mast is equivalent, technically he could be up to 3k away, but located within a total area of 14sq km.

[Wonderfulspam]

7sq km. That's just one parameter required. If the next mast is equivalent, technically he could be up to 3k away, but located within a total area of 14sq km.

Thanks, I'm not great on technical stuff & my maths is utterly appalling.

But, I'm not too bad a spotting when I'm being sold London Bridge, I can usually pick up on that quite well.

[Heriberto Janosch]

Thanks, I'm not great on technical stuff & my maths is utterly appalling.

But, I'm not too bad a spotting when I'm being sold London Bridge, I can usually pick up on that quite well.

In other words, the person (CB or another one) who had the ...680 phone at 20:02 could be in 5A (walking) between 21:00 and 22:00. But it is not possible, base only on communications data, to say if he/she was in 5A or not. We need another witness (Jane Tanner description is not good).

Sorry, in another post I put ...683 phone, but I was talking about ...680 phone.

The ...683 phone was outside PdL zone, but it may be not so far away, even 6 or 7 km ... 

 

[Wonderfulspam]

In other words, the person (CB or another one) who had the ...680 phone at 20:02 could be in 5A (walking) between 21:00 and 22:00. But it is not possible, base only on communications data, to say if he/she was in 5A or not. We need another witness (Jane Tanner description is not good).

Sorry, in another post I put ...683 phone, but I was talking about ...680 phone.

The ...683 phone was outside PdL zone, but it may be not so far away, even 6 or 7 km ...

Thanks Heri, yes, not much reasonable inference can really be drawn from the phone data alone, other than that someone, somewhere, recieved a half hour phone call. Wolters (or someone in the BKA) conceded as much, according to Mark Williams Thomas, telling him the phone data is irrelevant to the case against Brueckner.

[G-Unit]

Thanks Heri, yes, not much reasonable inference can really be drawn from the phone data alone, other than that someone, somewhere, recieved a half hour phone call. Wolters (or someone in the BKA) conceded as much, according to Mark Williams Thomas, telling him the phone data is irrelevant to the case against Brueckner.

The Germans linked that phone number to CB and appealed for information about the call recieved by it.  Was that because they thought it might be relevant or were they fishing? Either way it didn't add anything.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The Germans linked that phone number to CB and appealed for information about the call recieved by it.  Was that because they thought it might be relevant or were they fishing? Either way it didn't add anything.

How do you know?