Operation Update.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's a lot of waffle, but it isn't evidence Madeleine was abducted. Try again.

I realise that well reasoned and logical posts will look like waffle to the hard of thinking but that?s your problem not mine.

[Wonderfulspam]

I realise that well reasoned and logical posts will look like waffle to the hard of thinking but that?s your problem not mine.

Your reason & logic is that police are searching, therefore Madeleine was abducted. It's retarded, but thats entirely what I've come to expect from McCann believers.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Your reason & logic is that police are searching, therefore Madeleine was abducted. It's retarded, but thats entirely what I've come to expect from McCann believers.

No, my logic is that they wouldn?t have been investing years of their time and millions of euros on this case if they didn?t have very solid reasons for thinking that CB was responsible for taking Madeleine.  Just because they didn?t write and inform you personally of those reasons or ask for your permission to investigate doesn?t mean they don?t exist.  Don?t refer to me as retarded again thanks.

[Wonderfulspam]

No, my logic is that they wouldn?t have been investing years of their time and millions of euros on this case if they didn?t have very solid reasons for thinking that CB was responsible for taking Madeleine.  Just because they didn?t write and inform you personally of those reasons or ask for your permission to investigate doesn?t mean they don?t exist.  Don?t refer to me as retarded again thanks.

They have nothing against Brueckner, because Madeleine wasn't abducted. That's why I was able to predict that he wouldn't be charged, & that all their searching will yield absolutely nothing. Least of all, any evidence Madeleine was abducted in the first place. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I won't be, because the Smith family passed Gerry, not Brueckner.

[The General]

That's why I was able to predict that he wouldn't be charged, & that all their searching will yield absolutely nothing. Least of all, any evidence Madeleine was abducted in the first place. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I won't be,

Funny how the shoe, if it were on someone else's foot, fits the previous.....if the shoe fits, put a cap on it......if the cap fits the shoe......a shoe, as shoe, my Kingdom.......if a shoe falls in the woods, does the bear wear the pope? A shoe in the bush is worth a cap on the bus.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Martin Smith stated that he did not recognise Brueckner, yet he's fairly certain he recognised Gerry.
Again, there's more evidence that Gerry was involved than there is Brueckner.
If Martin Smith would have recognised Brueckner I'm sure the MACA brigade (and the BKA) would have been all over it like a hobo on chips. Funny how the shoe, if it were on someone else's foot, fits the previous.....if the shoe fits, put a cap on it......if the cap fits the shoe......a shoe, as shoe, my Kingdom.......if a shoe falls in the woods, does the bear wear the pope? A shoe in the bush is worth a cap on the bus.

This is simply wrong.  It it were true then it would be Gerry that would still be in the frame, not the local rapist / paedophile that the Germans (with the cooperation of the Met and the PJ) have spent years and millions of euros pursuing.  A 60%-80% sure sighting of Gerry is as worthless as a 100% sure sighting of Madeleine and there were many of those.  Now tell me I?m a retard with a sandy fanny.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Exactly what I was saying yesterday (but slagged off for supposedly lying)
Madeleine McCann search goes on but is it 18 years too late? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20qdwxq394o

[The General]

This is simply wrong.  It it were true then it would be Gerry that would still be in the frame, not the local rapist / paedophile that the Germans (with the cooperation of the Met and the PJ) have spent years and millions of euros pursuing.  A 60%-80% sure sighting of Gerry is as worthless as a 100% sure sighting of Madeleine and there were many of those.  Now tell me I?m a retard with a sandy fanny.

If Martin Smith would have fingered Brueckner at 60 - 80% you and your drooling mob of sandy-fannied retards would be calling that conclusive evidence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If Martin Smith would have fingered Brueckner at 60 - 80% you and your drooling mob of sandy-fannied retards would be calling that conclusive evidence.

Keep it coming, I?m getting off on your abuse.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I?m loving the thinly disguised rage and angst that this latest activity has stirred up in our little sceptic community.  The level of abuse always ramps up when the police reiterate their focus is not remotely anywhere close to being on the McCanns. 

[The General]

I?m loving the thinly disguised rage and angst that this latest activity has stirred up in our little sceptic community.  The level of abuse always ramps up when the police reiterate their focus is not remotely anywhere close to being on the McCanns.

Ask and ye shall receive.
There's no rage here, just spittin' facts - Martin Smith ID's Brueckner and all of a sudden the sighting would be valid.
But because he doubled down he gets demonised by the MACA collective.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ask and ye shall receive.
There's no rage here, just spittin' facts - Martin Smith ID's Brueckner and all of a sudden the sighting would be valid.
But because he doubled down he gets demonised by the MACA collective.

There have been all sorts of witness statements claiming CB confessed or CB was seen in the area at the time, do you see me harping on about them ad nauseam?  And it works both ways: if Martin Smithnsaid he was only 60-80% certain he saw Bruckner carrying Madeleine you?d be the first to poo-pooh it, that?s also a fact.

[The General]

There have been all sorts of witness statements claiming CB confessed or CB was seen in the area at the time, do you see me harping on about them ad nauseam?  And it works both ways: if Martin Smithnsaid he was only 60-80% certain he saw Bruckner carrying Madeleine you?d be the first to poo-pooh it, that?s also a fact.

Well at least you admit it, that's progress.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well at least you admit it, that's progress.

What did I admit?  Did you admit you?d pooh-pooh Smith?s sighting if it was 60-80% certain of Bruckner not Gerry? Of would you be totally objective and say hmm, yes despite the fact he never saw his face and only decided many months later that it was him from the way he carried a child that Smith?s sighting is very strong evidence that Bruckner took Madeleine? Because I can tell you for a fact I would not.

[Wonderfulspam]

What did I admit?  Did you admit you?d pooh-pooh Smith?s sighting if it was 60-80% certain of Bruckner not Gerry? Of would you be totally objective and say hmm, yes despite the fact he never saw his face and only decided many months later that it was him from the way he carried a child that Smith?s sighting is very strong evidence that Bruckner took Madeleine? Because I can tell you for a fact I would not.

It is incorrect to state that Smith never saw his face. Smith was able to tell the subject had no beard or glasses. Beards & glasses are worn on....... the face, therefore he must have seen his face.