The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect

[Brietta]

I'm not interested in whether Jane Tanner has suffered abuse, to be honest. Who hasn't? Well Leicestershire police have got off lightly, imo, considering it was their job to collect and assess the evidence from British holidaymakers.

I am more concerned with attempting to keep the threads on topic.

You know - much along the lines of those excellent WS mods for whom you have recently expressed admiration.

Cold cases are sometimes solved by advances in forensic techniques not available to investigators at the time and place of the crime or by information not available to the investigators on the ground at the time and place of the crime.

These circumstances are not applicable to the investigation carried out by the Amaral team. 

• The PJ knew about Brueckner.
• They went looking for him.
• Brueckner was nowhere to be found and that gave no-one pause for thought, because it certainly seems they didn't bother to try to find out his whereabouts after one abortive attempt.
• Advances in forensics don't come into it either.
• The Amaral team had access to the phone dump of which a little investigation might have revealed the activation of antennae by Brueckner's phone.
  And making the excuse of not knowing the number doesn't wash - unless in recognition that the PJ were too inept to find what numbers he was using.
• From my reading of the files the only phone numbers the Amaral team were interested in were those of the individuals who had aroused their suspicion - namely Murat et al and Mccann et al.

Your criticism of Leicestershire police is for your opinion to address but I think the local boy scout troop in Leicestershire would have been capable of conducting a more efficient investigation than did the Amaral tram.
Bet they would have found the Totman family -  something which was quite obviously beyond the capabilities of Amaral's team.

[G-Unit]

I am more concerned with attempting to keep the threads on topic.

You know - much along the lines of those excellent WS mods for whom you have recently expressed admiration.

Cold cases are sometimes solved by advances in forensic techniques not available to investigators at the time and place of the crime or by information not available to the investigators on the ground at the time and place of the crime.

These circumstances are not applicable to the investigation carried out by the Amaral team. 

• The PJ knew about Brueckner.
• They went looking for him.
• Brueckner was nowhere to be found and that gave no-one pause for thought, because it certainly seems they didn't bother to try to find out his whereabouts after one abortive attempt.
• Advances in forensics don't come into it either.
• The Amaral team had access to the phone dump of which a little investigation might have revealed the activation of antennae by Brueckner's phone.
  And making the excuse of not knowing the number doesn't wash - unless in recognition that the PJ were too inept to find what numbers he was using.
• From my reading of the files the only phone numbers the Amaral team were interested in were those of the individuals who had aroused their suspicion - namely Murat et al and Mccann et al.

Your criticism of Leicestershire police is for your opinion to address but I think the local boy scout troop in Leicestershire would have been capable of conducting a more efficient investigation than did the Amaral tram.
Bet they would have found the Totman family -  something which was quite obviously beyond the capabilities of Amaral's team.

You don't understand why the PJ didn't pick Brueckner's phone number from the 7,000 odd numbers they received?
All I can say is why on earth would they? Why and how would they know/find out his phone number? Your criticisms are totally unrealistic imo.

As for Leicestershire police, they maybe should have let their local boy scouts examine the holidaymaker's completed questionnaires.

[Mr Gray]

You don't understand why the PJ didn't pick Brueckner's phone number from the 7,000 odd numbers they received?
All I can say is why on earth would they? Why and how would they know/find out his phone number? Your criticisms are totally unrealistic imo.

As for Leicestershire police, they maybe should have let their local boy scouts examine the holidaymaker's completed questionnaires.

The incompetent PJ thought mistakenly they had proof Maddie died in the apt and was transported in the hire car... Can't you see that simple truth

[Brietta]

You don't understand why the PJ didn't pick Brueckner's phone number from the 7,000 odd numbers they received?
All I can say is why on earth would they? Why and how would they know/find out his phone number? Your criticisms are totally unrealistic imo.

As for Leicestershire police, they maybe should have let their local boy scouts examine the holidaymaker's completed questionnaires.

Madeleine's was a Portuguese investigation and a jealously guarded one at that as recorded in Amaral's book.

At a time of strained resources while the PJ were supposed to be looking for a missing child, Amaral relates having a weather eye kept on Madeleine's home force by putting senior officers et al under surveillance!

The clincher to the incompetence is the fact that the Portuguese knew about Brueckner.

The PJ tried to interview Brueckner and they failed to do so.

The PJ failed to follow through on that lead and failed to trace him which I think shows someone somewhere in the chain of command was too busy sniffing Calpol bottles and tracing Murat and McCann pings to be too bothered with local criminals.

Get real about the thousand upon thousand phone calls the PJ had to investigate. 

Do you really think for one millisecond they did that. 

They did what any sensible investigation would do and chose certain limits for checking and started to work through those pings falling within those chosen parameters.

Years later the Scotland Yard investigation showed they hadn't bothered to check out the pings of a team of burglars active in the resort and in contact at the relevant time. 
Years after that SY showed the PJ hadn't bothered to check out Brueckner whose criminality they knew about whose pings actually fell within the time span being investigated by two minutes. 

I think that might have been a very important two minutes in a little girl's life.

[G-Unit]

Madeleine's was a Portuguese investigation and a jealously guarded one at that as recorded in Amaral's book.

At a time of strained resources while the PJ were supposed to be looking for a missing child, Amaral relates having a weather eye kept on Madeleine's home force by putting senior officers et al under surveillance!

The clincher to the incompetence is the fact that the Portuguese knew about Brueckner.

The PJ tried to interview Brueckner and they failed to do so.

The PJ failed to follow through on that lead and failed to trace him which I think shows someone somewhere in the chain of command was too busy sniffing Calpol bottles and tracing Murat and McCann pings to be too bothered with local criminals.

Get real about the thousand upon thousand phone calls the PJ had to investigate. 

Do you really think for one millisecond they did that. 

They did what any sensible investigation would do and chose certain limits for checking and started to work through those pings falling within those chosen parameters.

Years later the Scotland Yard investigation showed they hadn't bothered to check out the pings of a team of burglars active in the resort and in contact at the relevant time. 
Years after that SY showed the PJ hadn't bothered to check out Brueckner whose criminality they knew about whose pings actually fell within the time span being investigated by two minutes. 

I think that might have been a very important two minutes in a little girl's life.

Sometimes people are so convinced that their opinions are correct that there's no point in debating with them. I'll content myself with one question; why didn't Leicestershire police notice Totman was wandering about with his child?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sometimes people are so convinced that their opinions are correct that there's no point in debating with them. I'll content myself with one question; why didn't Leicestershire police notice Totman was wandering about with his child?

A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?

[Brietta]

Sometimes people are so convinced that their opinions are correct that there's no point in debating with them. I'll content myself with one question; why didn't Leicestershire police notice Totman was wandering about with his child?

I have no interest in "debating" long redundant points with you or anyone else for that matter.  Many of which are nothing short of libellous and if not that amazingly obtuse and nasty.

The fact is that Brueckner is the prime suspect in the German investigation into whatever fate befell Madeleine McCann.

The fact is the German prosecutor has publicly advised that they have no interest in Madeleine's parents concerning her disappearance.

The fact is that the German spokesperson has categorically stated that the German investigation has evidence against Brueckner which has convinced them that Madeleine is dead and that Brueckner is their prime suspect in her murder.

The fact is that Operation Grange continues to investigate Madeleine's case as that of a missing person.  But having co-operated with the German investigation into Brueckner for over five years I think they will have a finger on the pulse of what is going down.

That is a brief summary of some of what should be getting debated on this thread.  Deflection back to Leicestershire police is nothing more or less than tiresome and on topic only when it pertains to Brueckner's present role in the matter.

Please bear the thread topic in mind, whatever that may be, in your future discussion.  I think it makes for a better run forum when members do that.

[Brietta]

A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?

If memory serves me well VS we have screeds of posts and perhaps even dedicated topics to that effect.

We have moved into the surreal realms of where a suspected child murderer's "alibi" is apparently provided to a documentary team and states he was out and about the day before and the day after Madeleine's disappearance.

If that is correct, I would say that definitely places him in the locality before and after, leaving the police to find out where he was on the night Madeleine's abduction took place.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If memory serves me well VS we have screeds of posts and perhaps even dedicated topics to that effect.

We have moved into the surreal realms of where a suspected child murderer's "alibi" is apparently provided to a documentary team and states he was out and about the day before and the day after Madeleine's disappearance.

If that is correct, I would say that definitely places him in the locality before and after, leaving the police to find out where he was on the night Madeleine's abduction took place.

Sceptics simply cannot move on. They are stuck in 2007 where trivial non-issues like who stood where on the pavement and Gerry allegedly swearing on an airport bus are of more significance than the fact that there was a known rapist and paedophile operating in the area, someone with a declared interest in taking and abusing a small child for days.  Sceptics don’t want to know about that, they want to know why Kate and Gerry were photographed smiling outside a church and why Kate didn’t rush the twins to hospital that night, and why Gerry said front door if he meant patio door, all questions which are not keeping any of the German or British police awake at night, I’m pretty certain.

[G-Unit]

A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?

Or, why did they take notice when Jes Wilkins, the Smiths, Roman Stem, Lance Purser and Derek Flack approached them, but allegedly ignored the Totmans and Jayne Jensen? Funny, that imo.

[G-Unit]

Sceptics simply cannot move on. They are stuck in 2007 where trivial non-issues like who stood where on the pavement and Gerry allegedly swearing on an airport bus are of more significance than the fact that there was a known rapist and paedophile operating in the area, someone with a declared interest in taking and abusing a small child for days.  Sceptics don’t want to know about that, they want to know why Kate and Gerry were photographed smiling outside a church and why Kate didn’t rush the twins to hospital that night, and why Gerry said front door if he meant patio door, all questions which are not keeping any of the German or British police awake at night, I’m pretty certain.

That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.

The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.

[Lace]

A better question would be why didn’t the Portuguese police put two and two together after Totman came forward to say he thought Tannerman might be him back in 2007?

You would have thought that Amaral when told by Jane Tanner she had seen a man carrying a child,  would have questioned all the people using the creche.   Asking if they carried their child at that time on the 3rd of May.  He didn't.

What sort of investigation allows the bedding to be taken away and washed when it is the bedding of a  a missing child ?
That bed was crucial to the investigation,  it could have contained skin,  fingerprints,  yet it was taken away!!

Amaral said they knocked on CB's door but there was no answer.   Yet he says they eliminated him from the investigation,  what was it that eliminated him and did they even question him.  Did they look to see if CB's phone number was on their list?

[Lace]

That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.

The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.

Have you an obsession with the first investigation?   You seem to bring up the 'was Gerry in the Tapas Bar' rather a lot.  Which to me means you think Gerry had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

[Lace]

That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.

The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.

So,  if it was Amaral finding all this out about CB,  would you stil have the same thoughts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's somewhat ironic considering the obsession some have with the first investigation by the PJ which was archived almost 14 years ago.

The German police may or may not be examining the guilty person, and if they aren't then all the excitement over Brueckner will have been pointless. A suspect is one thing, a guilty verdict in a court of law is quite another.

There's nothing ironic about my post.  No supporter obsesses about the unimportant minutiae of the original investigation in the way that McCann sceptic obsessives do, unless you can point me to some examples?  You pride yourself in knowing pretty much every word of the original files and look down on those who don't.  I meanwhile am quite content not to be quite that anally retentive and obsessive.  That said I know nothing is going to stop you niggling away at what you perceive as witness statement inconsistencies, even I doubt a successful prosecution of the child's abductor.  Still, I guess it gives you something to do to pass the time, so who am I to stand in the way of your little pleasures, sad though I find your inability to move on and face the reality of the situation.