The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Ms Para glider]

I have no idea whether he's guilty or not as I think I've said a few times. I'm not interested in credibility either, I'm interested in evidence. When I see evidence that suggests he was actually rather than possibly involved I may be more interested. At the moment no such evidence has been released. It's all speculation.

Just because you have not personally seen the evidence the German authorities claim to have, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not strong. There are plenty of things in this world that you accept as 'true', even though you have not personally seen the evidence that proves it. But you accept it, based on professional opinion of those who have seen the evidence and their reputational standing.

That's human nature. In most part, people accept the opinion of experts, especially when they have no motive to lie about their conclusions. Where people actively refuse to accept such an opinion, it is almost always because the conclusion of that opinion directly conflicts with something they already believe/want to be true. The theory of evolution among people who are devoutly religious is probably one of the most common examples of this.

Let me be clear. I am NOT saying anyone should blindly accept that CB is guilty based on say-so from the Prosecutor. It is fair to have doubts until the evidence is revealed and independently evaluated. But there is a big difference in reserving judgement and actively trying to discredit the case against CB without anything of substance to back it up.

That's what all this is about. Despite what position you might claim to have, it is actually that you don't want to believe CB is guilty, simply because you already have an opinion that the McCanns are. It's nothing to do with not seeing the evidence, or thinking that Wolters may be some loose cannon whose views don't align with the BKA investigators, or that OG are still saying "missing persons investigation", or any other weak point you've sought to sling mud at and take the thread off-topic. If Wolters/BKA were making these kind of accusations against the McCanns, you would not be making the same objections, you would be embracing them. That's the truth of it.

You are hiding behind the PJ files and your mistaken conclusion that the evidence points to the parents. It doesn't. There is NO evidence that directly implicates them. There is a lot of speculation required to devise a theory that involves the McCanns and those theories are all still lacking in credibility for one reason or another. Most commonly, they lack a plausible motive. The truth is, the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory the sceptics care to offer up.

You were right about one thing though, when you said you weren't interested in "credibility". You really should be though. Not all 'evidence' and 'opinion' is equal in veracity.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So when you say the Portuguese polce believe Madeleine was abducted your evidence is that they allegedly reopened their investigation to investigate Motiero, amongst other leads. It was Correio da Manha who reported that, but it was never officially confirmed.

"A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria said: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case, and our professional secrecy, prevents us from making any comment on Correio da Manha's reports.""
By Gerard Couzens | 30 Oct 2013 11:25 Daily Mirror
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm

Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?

Not if it doesn't fit well with your beliefs and hopes obviously.

[Vertigo Swirl]

A MIT was involved, but their remit isn't restricted to investigating murder;

Major Crime Investigative Support
We provide front-line policing with specialist skills and expertise to support major crime investigations such as abduction, serial sexual crimes and no body murder.
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/how-we-work/providing-specialist-capabilities-for-law-enforcement/major-crime-investigative-support

Well we know from the horse's mouth that the Met have accepted the possibility that Madeleine might be dead, but do you think having accepted the possibility that, should evidence present itself that she was murdered, they would discount it because the case is officially a "missing persons" case?  Please use some common sense. 

[Brietta]

So when you say the Portuguese polce believe Madeleine was abducted your evidence is that they allegedly reopened their investigation to investigate Motiero, amongst other leads. It was Correio da Manha who reported that, but it was never officially confirmed.

"A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria said: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case, and our professional secrecy, prevents us from making any comment on Correio da Manha's reports.""
By Gerard Couzens | 30 Oct 2013 11:25 Daily Mirror
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm

Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?

"Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?"

Strange question coming from you.

The answer to which depends very much on the quality of the journalist and the veracity of information being imparted.  I remember the days when Sandra Felgueiras was a bit of a sceptic icon when she relied on  information emanating directly from her main source in Madeleine's investigation which she subsequently promoted.

When Sandra discovered that her main source who was Goncalo Amaral had lied to her and publicised that - she rather fell from grace in certain quarters.


Anyway - well done you 😁

With your usual consistency you have once again employed the deflection tactic to take the thread way off course.

Might I remind you that the thread topic is "The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner"

[Vertigo Swirl]

Just because you have not personally seen the evidence the German authorities claim to have, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not strong. There are plenty of things in this world that you accept as 'true', even though you have not personally seen the evidence that proves it. But you accept it, based on professional opinion of those who have seen the evidence and their reputational standing.

That's human nature. In most part, people accept the opinion of experts, especially when they have no motive to lie about their conclusions. Where people actively refuse to accept such an opinion, it is almost always because the conclusion of that opinion directly conflicts with something they already believe/want to be true. The theory of evolution among people who are devoutly religious is probably one of the most common examples of this.

Let me be clear. I am NOT saying anyone should blindly accept that CB is guilty based on say-so from the Prosecutor. It is fair to have doubts until the evidence is revealed and independently evaluated. But there is a big difference in reserving judgement and actively trying to discredit the case against CB without anything of substance to back it up.

That's what all this is about. Despite what position you might claim to have, it is actually that you don't want to believe CB is guilty, simply because you already have an opinion that the McCanns are. It's nothing to do with not seeing the evidence, or thinking that Wolters may be some loose cannon whose views don't align with the BKA investigators, or that OG are still saying "missing persons investigation", or any other weak point you've sought to sling mud at and take the thread off-topic. If Wolters/BKA were making these kind of accusations against the McCanns, you would not be making the same objections, you would be embracing them. That's the truth of it.

You are hiding behind the PJ files and your mistaken conclusion that the evidence points to the parents. It doesn't. There is NO evidence that directly implicates them. There is a lot of speculation required to devise a theory that involves the McCanns and those theories are all still lacking in credibility for one reason or another. Most commonly, they lack a plausible motive. The truth is, the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory the sceptics care to offer up.

You were right about one thing though, when you said you weren't interested in "credibility". You really should be though. Not all 'evidence' and 'opinion' is equal in veracity.

I'm afraid you're dealing with someone who does not believe smoking is harmful to health, so good luck with that one!

[Ms Para glider]

I'm afraid you're dealing with someone who does not believe smoking is harmful to health, so good luck with that one!

 
So much for being interested in the "evidence".

[G-Unit]

Just because you have not personally seen the evidence the German authorities claim to have, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not strong. There are plenty of things in this world that you accept as 'true', even though you have not personally seen the evidence that proves it. But you accept it, based on professional opinion of those who have seen the evidence and their reputational standing.

That's human nature. In most part, people accept the opinion of experts, especially when they have no motive to lie about their conclusions. Where people actively refuse to accept such an opinion, it is almost always because the conclusion of that opinion directly conflicts with something they already believe/want to be true. The theory of evolution among people who are devoutly religious is probably one of the most common examples of this.

Let me be clear. I am NOT saying anyone should blindly accept that CB is guilty based on say-so from the Prosecutor. It is fair to have doubts until the evidence is revealed and independently evaluated. But there is a big difference in reserving judgement and actively trying to discredit the case against CB without anything of substance to back it up.

That's what all this is about. Despite what position you might claim to have, it is actually that you don't want to believe CB is guilty, simply because you already have an opinion that the McCanns are. It's nothing to do with not seeing the evidence, or thinking that Wolters may be some loose cannon whose views don't align with the BKA investigators, or that OG are still saying "missing persons investigation", or any other weak point you've sought to sling mud at and take the thread off-topic. If Wolters/BKA were making these kind of accusations against the McCanns, you would not be making the same objections, you would be embracing them. That's the truth of it.

You are hiding behind the PJ files and your mistaken conclusion that the evidence points to the parents. It doesn't. There is NO evidence that directly implicates them. There is a lot of speculation required to devise a theory that involves the McCanns and those theories are all still lacking in credibility for one reason or another. Most commonly, they lack a plausible motive. The truth is, the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory the sceptics care to offer up.

You were right about one thing though, when you said you weren't interested in "credibility". You really should be though. Not all 'evidence' and 'opinion' is equal in veracity.

Thank you for your analysis of what I REALLY think and what REALLY motivates me. It's amazing how some people can convince themselves that they understand me better than I do. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Other people's speculations about me are immaterial, including yours.

I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but I agree with the prosecutor's report;

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The prosecutor didn't agree with you that "the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory"

[G-Unit]

"Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?"

Strange question coming from you.

The answer to which depends very much on the quality of the journalist and the veracity of information being imparted.  I remember the days when Sandra Felgueiras was a bit of a sceptic icon when she relied on  information emanating directly from her main source in Madeleine's investigation which she subsequently promoted.

When Sandra discovered that her main source who was Goncalo Amaral had lied to her and publicised that - she rather fell from grace in certain quarters.


Anyway - well done you 😁

With your usual consistency you have once again employed the deflection tactic to take the thread way off course.

Might I remind you that the thread topic is "The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner"

When people use a quote from a Portuguese newspaper as if it was a fact then that question is perfectly valid imo.

[Ms Para glider]

Thank you for your analysis of what I REALLY think and what REALLY motivates me. It's amazing how some people can convince themselves that they understand me better than I do. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Other people's speculations about me are immaterial, including yours.

I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but I agree with the prosecutor's report;

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The prosecutor didn't agree with you that "the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory"

Weren't you the one who started making accusations about what people REALLY think? That we were all desperate for CB to be guilty and such?

I'm only going off the evidence of what I've heard you say. And despite what you might claim, I don't think anyone here is in any doubt about who you believe to be guilty. You really aren't that good at hiding it.

I don't know what that prosecutor statement you quoted is meant to signify. From my reading of it, he is saying that the manner and circumstances of Madeleine’s disappearance are not "unavoidable facts", only the fact that she disappeared from the OC is. He does not say that the evidence is MORE supportive of an alternative scenario than the stranger-abduction explanation. Only that it is not fully conclusive that's what happened.

Interesting though that you so readily agree with the "opinions" of this Prosecutor, but are going out of your way to discount the opinions of the German Proseuctor. Even though the German Prosecutor has the benefit of knowing all the evidence in the original case as well what has been discovered more recently.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thank you for your analysis of what I REALLY think and what REALLY motivates me. It's amazing how some people can convince themselves that they understand me better than I do. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Other people's speculations about me are immaterial, including yours.

I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but I agree with the prosecutor's report;

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The prosecutor didn't agree with you that "the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory"

But we also know (as you have said as much on this forum) that you think abduction from the apartment was virtually impossible.  You have also repeatedly come back to the issue of sedation of the McCann children as a possible factor in this case.  You have also shown your approval for a post by another member claiming (as fact) that the PJ solved the case in 2007. Taking these three pieces of information in conjunction, one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out your closely guarded opinion on what happened.  Why be so coy about it? 

[Brietta]

When people use a quote from a Portuguese newspaper as if it was a fact then that question is perfectly valid imo.

When people use quotes - I evaluate them and come to my own conclusions regarding them.

The facts reflect that times have moved on from 2007 and numerous investigative opportunities have been investigated and either progressed to the next stage or discarded.

It is also a fact that all of these initiatives have been instigated by Madeleine's parents or by those acting on their behalf.

This is particularly true of the present investigation focusing on the present suspect Brueckner - as a direct result of publicity and media appeals made by them on Madeleine's behalf on the tenth anniversary of her disappearance.

Whatever it is that drives your anathema towards people whose lives have been shaped by the crime perpetrated against their missing daughter will forever be a complete mystery to me.

But I think it is time for you to join the rest of the world in 2022 and give a thought to where it is the real evidence will take you.

For most (particularly those professionals actively involved in the investigation) it has led to Brueckner's door just as it did for the PJ in 2007.
The only difference being that this time round instead of knocking politely and leaving when the knock wasn't answered they went in and dug whopping great holes in his properties.  And I don't think they will be leaving any time soon or before we find out what evidence they recovered from such searches and witness testimony.

None of this activity features Kate and Gerry McCann - except as victims.

[G-Unit]

Weren't you the one who started making accusations about what people REALLY think? That we were all desperate for CB to be guilty and such?

I'm only going off the evidence of what I've heard you say. And despite what you might claim, I don't think anyone here is in any doubt about who you believe to be guilty. You really aren't that good at hiding it.

I don't know what that prosecutor statement you quoted is meant to signify. From my reading of it, he is saying that the manner and circumstances of Madeleine’s disappearance are not "unavoidable facts", only the fact that she disappeared from the OC is. He does not say that the evidence is MORE supportive of an alternative scenario than the stranger-abduction explanation. Only that it is not fully conclusive that's what happened.

Interesting though that you so readily agree with the "opinions" of this Prosecutor, but are going out of your way to discount the opinions of the German Proseuctor. Even though the German Prosecutor has the benefit of knowing all the evidence in the original case as well what has been discovered more recently.

Have the PJ files been translated into German then?

[G-Unit]

When people use quotes - I evaluate them and come to my own conclusions regarding them.

The facts reflect that times have moved on from 2007 and numerous investigative opportunities have been investigated and either progressed to the next stage or discarded.

It is also a fact that all of these initiatives have been instigated by Madeleine's parents or by those acting on their behalf.

This is particularly true of the present investigation focusing on the present suspect Brueckner - as a direct result of publicity and media appeals made by them on Madeleine's behalf on the tenth anniversary of her disappearance.

Whatever it is that drives your anathema towards people whose lives have been shaped by the crime perpetrated against their missing daughter will forever be a complete mystery to me.

But I think it is time for you to join the rest of the world in 2022 and give a thought to where it is the real evidence will take you.

For most (particularly those professionals actively involved in the investigation) it has led to Brueckner's door just as it did for the PJ in 2007.
The only difference being that this time round instead of knocking politely and leaving when the knock wasn't answered they went in and dug whopping great holes in his properties.  And I don't think they will be leaving any time soon or before we find out what evidence they recovered from such searches and witness testimony.

None of this activity features Kate and Gerry McCann - except as victims.

So a newspaper report was being quoted by you as a factual account of why the Portuguese investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was reopened? Why not just admit that was your source?

[Ms Para glider]

Have the PJ files been translated into German then?

Are you suggesting that the BKA are unable to read English?

Are you really suggesting that the German investigators are completely oblivious to the findings and evidence of the original investigation? Is that honestly what you are trying to say?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Have the PJ files been translated into German then?

Grasping. At. Straws.  First you claim the Met were instructed only to investigate abduction to the exclusion of any other possibility, now you're suggesting that the BKA have not familiarized themselves with the Madeleine case files.  I guess this is what happens when you run out of any cogent argument (not that you had much of that to start with IMO).