Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Brietta]

Exactly he could have been anywhere.
There's no one who suggest's he was there,Tannerman looks nothing like him,Mr Smith has according to press reports claimed he's nothing like the guy who was carrying a girl  (fitting a description to that of Madeleine),last bit attributed to Redwood.One child and one man unaccounted for,Smithman and Madeleine,find the first imo and it'll lead to the second.

There are eye witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they became aware of a man or two men who attracted their attention because of the intensity with which they appeared to be surveilling the McCann apartment.
It would only take one or two of these to have identified Brueckner with a certainty of 99% for that fact to become evidence.

Before you scoff ~ please take time to consider that the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc.

Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.
Consider the unrelenting feeding frenzy sceptics have had over McCann phones and phone traffic from the length and breadth of internet sceptic fora.   

Only yesterday a member of this forum raised the issue of McCann phones being cleared after Madeleine disappeared.  Of course they were cleared 💥 
Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received.  It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that.

[G-Unit]

There are eye witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they became aware of a man or two men who attracted their attention because of the intensity with which they appeared to be surveilling the McCann apartment.
It would only take one or two of these to have identified Brueckner with a certainty of 99% for that fact to become evidence.

Before you scoff ~ please take time to consider that the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc.

Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.
Consider the unrelenting feeding frenzy sceptics have had over McCann phones and phone traffic from the length and breadth of internet sceptic fora.   

Only yesterday a member of this forum raised the issue of McCann phones being cleared after Madeleine disappeared.  Of course they were cleared 💥 
Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received.  It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that.

"the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc."

The McCusky sighting was indeed proved wrong, but not the Smith one, otherwise OG wouldn't have been investigating it years later.

"Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received.  It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that."

I don't think your 'simple explanation' addresses deleting call records.

[kizzy]

There are eye witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they became aware of a man or two men who attracted their attention because of the intensity with which they appeared to be surveilling the McCann apartment.
It would only take one or two of these to have identified Brueckner with a certainty of 99% for that fact to become evidence.

Before you scoff ~ please take time to consider that the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc.

Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.
Consider the unrelenting feeding frenzy sceptics have had over McCann phones and phone traffic from the length and breadth of internet sceptic fora.   

Only yesterday a member of this forum raised the issue of McCann phones being cleared after Madeleine disappeared.  Of course they were cleared 💥 
Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received.  It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that.

Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.


If that had been the case  - wouldn't you think the so called abduction would have been done after the mccs left at 8. 30 knowing no one would be checking anytime soon.

Rather than a time hanging about for over an hour and then going in when everyone was backwards and forwards

[Brietta]

"the McCluskey and Smith 'identification' of the mediatised Gerry McCann (both of which were proved wrong by the Judicial police at the time) is accepted by an exceedingly high percentage of sceptics as one of their main planks of 'evidence' justifying their 'suspicions' etc."

The McCusky sighting was indeed proved wrong, but not the Smith one, otherwise OG wouldn't have been investigating it years later.

"Back in 2007 when a phone message in box was full messages had to be cleared before new ones could be received.  It is not a great mystery the explanation is as simple as that."

I don't think your 'simple explanation' addresses deleting call records.

What a disingenuous use of words.  Mr Smith's misidentification of of Gerry McCann was proved wrong by the Judicial police beyond question based on many witnesses who place him elsewhere at the time of Mr Smith's  sighting.

Interesting your denial of that.

Interesting also your refusal to give up on inconsequential McCann phone calls.  I think it is a problem when individuals find it impossible to move on from mistakes of the past and resist all new information because of their ingrained prejudices as a result.

[G-Unit]

He told Sandra F that in the latest Sexta9 episode.

Do you have a link to the episode please.

[Brietta]

Also think on before you scoff at Brueckner's phone ping in Luz just prior to Madeleine's disappearance ringing warning bells for today's investigators.


If that had been the case  - wouldn't you think the so called abduction would have been done after the mccs left at 8. 30 knowing no one would be checking anytime soon.

Rather than a time hanging about for over an hour and then going in when everyone was backwards and forwards

I am quite sure the police will be checking all that out before coming to a conclusion.

In the meantime I must admit to more than a little amusement watching the twists and turns of those who are defending the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance from the slings and arrows while still meting that treatment to the McCanns.

[Anthro]

Do you have a link to the episode please.

https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/mundo/maddie-mccann-desaparecimento-pode-envolver-russos-e-alemaes_v1261775

[jassi]

https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/mundo/maddie-mccann-desaparecimento-pode-envolver-russos-e-alemaes_v1261775

As you are clearly fluent in Spanish, could you provide a translation for those of us who are not ?

[Anthro]

As you are clearly fluent in Spanish, could you provide a translation for those of us who are not ?

You clearly have some sort of issue with me. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the content that I’ve posted.

[jassi]

You clearly have some sort of issue with me. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the content that I’ve posted.

Not  at all.

However I'm not prepared to delve into a foreign language program link  just in case there is some virus lurking there.

[Erngath]

https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/mundo/maddie-mccann-desaparecimento-pode-envolver-russos-e-alemaes_v1261775

Thank you for that link.
Will watch it after lunch.

[Brietta]

As you are clearly fluent in Spanish, could you provide a translation for those of us who are not ?

I've been waiting (in vain) for a translation via sceptic blogs on many issues.  Google Translate is good enough to give the gist of printed media but without subtitled translation of video I must confess to be at a loss for interviews and news.

Those who seek out obscure nuances which are unfriendly and biased towards the McCanns and hasten to translate and publish them in the interests of 'free speech' have not been providing translations in the way they do.

Interesting that free speech only seems to work when it is one version which is promoted.

In my opinion what we are witnessing at the moment are demonstrations of mindsets which cannot progress with the times.  Exactly the same 'evidence' used by Amaral is still being promoted by him and by his supporters whatever the actual evidence really is.  There is no evidence against the McCanns EVERYTHING concerning them has been checked to the nth degree .

The police now have a prime suspect under investigation who they have apparently been investigating for years.  We shall just have to wait and see about him.

In the interim I think it has to be acknowledged that three national police forces have been following the evidence which is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger whether Brueckner or another.  And I think that is hard for some to take in.

[G-Unit]

What a disingenuous use of words.  Mr Smith's misidentification of of Gerry McCann was proved wrong by the Judicial police beyond question based on many witnesses who place him elsewhere at the time of Mr Smith's  sighting.

Interesting your denial of that.

Interesting also your refusal to give up on inconsequential McCann phone calls.  I think it is a problem when individuals find it impossible to move on from mistakes of the past and resist all new information because of their ingrained prejudices as a result.

The final word on the Smith sighting;

This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

So the 'many witnesses' were in reality his seven hoiday companions and no-one contradicted them. Did you know they were the only witnesses Brietta?

[kizzy]

I am quite sure the police will be checking all that out before coming to a conclusion.

In the meantime I must admit to more than a little amusement watching the twists and turns of those who are defending the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance from the slings and arrows while still meting that treatment to the McCanns.

How can the police check all that out , if maddie had of been abducted at 8 30 she would not have been there for the 9 15 proud moment of gmcc when he checked.

I fail to see how not believing CB is the abductor is defending him.

Suppose it is your prerogative as to what you find amusing.

amusing though how you still class CB as prime suspect although just your presumption he still is.

How presumptuous also is D new signature,

 Signature:
It must upset posters that it now looks as though I was right all along

[jassi]

How can the police check all that out , if maddie had of been abducted at 8 30 she would not have been there for the 9 15 proud moment of gmcc when he checked.

I fail to see how not believing CB is the abductor is defending him.

Suppose it is your prerogative as to what you find amusing.

amusing though how you still class CB as prime suspect although just your presumption he still is.

How presumptuous also is D new signature,

 Signature:
It must upset posters that it now looks as though I was right all along

To be honest, does anyone care ?