Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

Can I ask why you suspected them, even for 5 minutes?

Are you prone to jumping to conclusions?

What makes you say that?  It looks like you?re cruising for another argumentative bruising.  I would have happily answered your first question if you hadn?t added the second vaguely insulting one.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Excuse me..........prove YOU wrong...IMO you are

They have never come up with a plausible and rational abductor either...or any proof of one.

OH. Apart from the current one......... HCW telling you CB abducted Maddie. [5 year later still no proof].

The mccs have never been 100% cleared either.

As for the gauntlet [silly]...what for - a difference of opinion.

Youll be challenging me to handbags at dawn next.

It?s all very well having an opinion, but if you can?t back it up with anyhting approaching a plausible , logical theory of how they did it then I?m afraid your opinion is worth very little.   I mean, I could voice the opinion that Madeleine ran away to join the circus and is now appearing on stage in Las Vegas under a pseudonym but without some evidence or plausible theory as to how she got there then I?m sure you?d have to agree such an opinion would be completely worthless as well as completely stupid.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He actually worked in the Tapas Bar and did jobs around the apartments where the McCann's stayed, so he would know his way around the establishment.

Can you cooperate that as evidence...or is it the Ken Ralph [5 minute fame] chap  version 13 year later

Mr Ralphs - a former community champion in Greater Manchester - himself fled from the UK Portugal with his wife in 2004 when a police blunder led to his name being handed to suspected criminals.

This was after Mr Ralphs had given police information on a gangland murder in which the suspects were cleared, resulting in death threats made against him and putting his family in danger.

I wont bother with the rest...you should not believe everything the media tells you.....its not evidence or proof.

By the way I'm not trying to convince you of anything you just keep convincing yourself from what your told.

But I will say after 5 year investigation...C.B. is walking the streets a free man

And I will say that for nearly 18 years the McCanns and all the friends they went to Portugal with have been walking the streets as free men and women, without a single conviction or even charge amongst the lot of them.  So, is their long spell of freedom a measure of their innocence in your view? It would appear not?

[faithlilly]

What makes you say that?  It looks like you?re cruising for another argumentative bruising.  I would have happily answered your first question if you hadn?t added the second vaguely insulting one.

The second question was not meant to be insulting, vaguely or otherwise. We all jump to conclusions at times. I was simply wondering whether you did.

As to answering the first question, it?s your prerogative not to answer but it is rather difficult to have a discussion when the person that you?re having the discussion with fails to answer pertinent questions.

All rather odd!

[Vertigo Swirl]

The second question was not meant to be insulting, vaguely or otherwise. We all jump to conclusions at times. I was simply wondering whether you did.

As to answering the first question, it?s your prerogative not to answer but it is rather difficult to have a discussion when the person that you?re having the discussion with fails to answer pertinent questions.

All rather odd!

If ?we all jump to conclusions at times? then you appear to already know the answer to your own question.  As for not answering questions I asked you one a very pertinent one few days dack on this very thread which youfailed to answer or even acknowledge.  All rather odd indeed Ms Pot.

[faithlilly]

If ?we all jump to conclusions at times? then you appear to already know the answer to your own question.  As for not answering questions I asked you one a very pertinent one few days dack on this very thread which youfailed to answer or even acknowledge.  All rather odd indeed Ms Pot.

I asked you why you thought the parents guilty at one time, that was my question. Why did you jump to that conclusion?

So far we?re none the wiser. No problem if you wish to keep it to yourself.

[faithlilly]

Absolutely nothing of any relevance to Madeleine?s disappearance.  What areas of investigation do you think they should have pursued that they didn?t?  Incidentally, the combined police forces of three countries don?t spend 5 years investigating a suspect on a whim, do they?

I assume this was the question that you alluded to in a recent post.

What areas of investigation should they have pursued? No idea as I wasn?t part of the investigation but when you have a successful, highly respected police officer claiming that he was told that OG was not going to be allowed to look at the parents it does make you question how thorough the investigation was going to be.

As to Brueckner being questioned on a whim, if or when they finally gather enough evidence to even question him then we will know the answer to that.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I asked you why you thought the parents guilty at one time, that was my question. Why did you jump to that conclusion?

So far we?re none the wiser. No problem if you wish to keep it to yourself.

I didn?t jump to any conclusions, I did however for a very short period of time in September 2007 began to wonder if the McCanns might (despite the complete implausibility of it) have had something to do with Madeleine?s disappearance after all, not based on any evidence per se, but because they were made arguidos.  However, I very quickly came to my senses and realised that it was more than likely they were just being stitched up by the police, aided and abetted by what at the time was a very hostile and myth-peddling media.  This moment of doubt was short lived, and certainly does not amount to the regular to-ing and fro-ing I was accused of by Kizzy, and nor is it evidence of me being prone to jumping to conclusions.  Is that answer fullsome enough for you?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I assume this was the question that you alluded to in a recent post.

What areas of investigation should they have pursued? No idea as I wasn?t part of the investigation but when you have a successful, highly respected police officer claiming that he was told that OG was not going to be allowed to look at the parents it does make you question how thorough the investigation was going to be.

As to Brueckner being questioned on a whim, if or when they finally gather enough evidence to even question him then we will know the answer to that.

I would love to know what investigation you think any police officer, including the highly respected one you refer to could have conducted into the parents which hadn?t already been carried out and which you think might have led to proof of their involvement.  Just give me one example of the kind of area you think they should have concentrated on vis-a-vis Kate and Gerry.
BTW, I didn?t say questioned on a whim, I said investigated on a whim.  We have 3 police forces dedicating 5 years and god knows what resources and manpower to investigate one key suspect (who I believe remains an arguido to this day).  It?s unlikely they have done so just for shits and giggles.

[faithlilly]

I didn?t jump to any conclusions, I did however for a very short period of time in September 2007 began to wonder if the McCanns might (despite the complete implausibility of it) have had something to do with Madeleine?s disappearance after all, not based on any evidence per se, but because they were made arguidos.  However, I very quickly came to my senses and realised that it was more than likely they were just being stitched up by the police, aided and abetted by what at the time was a very hostile and myth-peddling media.  This moment of doubt was short lived, and certainly does not amount to the regular to-ing and fro-ing I was accused of by Kizzy, and nor is it evidence of me being prone to jumping to conclusions.  Is that answer fullsome enough for you?

Wow that?s a lot of words to say at one point you thought the parents were guilty of some part in the disappearance of their daughter.

Quite the admission

[faithlilly]

I would love to know what investigation you think any police officer, including the highly respected one you refer to could have conducted into the parents which hadn?t already been carried out and which you think might have led to proof of their involvement.  Just give me one example of the kind of area you think they should have concentrated on vis-a-vis Kate and Gerry.
BTW, I didn?t say questioned on a whim, I said investigated on a whim.  We have 3 police forces dedicating 5 years and god knows what resources and manpower to investigate one key suspect (who I believe remains an arguido to this day).  It?s unlikely they have done so just for shits and giggles.

So the narrative is that the original Portuguese investigation was flawed. This means that evidence could have been missed, including evidence that linked the parents to the disappearance of their daughter. The case was then shelved and there was no further serious investigation into the case until OG. Now we know from a very respected police officer that the parents were not to be looked at during OG so who knows what evidence against the parents had been missed by the original flawed investigation?

The German police may not have investigated Brueckner on a whim?.his people smuggling friend made sure of that?.but in 5 years the 3 police forces have not uncovered a single piece of evidence incriminating enough to even arrest him. What does that tell us? Either the 3 police forces are completely incompetent and have failed to find that incriminating evidence or that the evidence was never there to find.what do you think?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Wow that?s a lot of words to say at one point you thought the parents were guilty of some part in the disappearance of their daughter.

Quite the admission

LOL.  I had already said that (reply 16017) .  Then you wanted to know why and was I always prone to jumping to conclusions.  Then I said because of your loaded question I would decline to explain.  Then you pressed me further.  Then I answered your question in full.  Then you complained my answer was too full and all I needed to say was what I had already said.  In short you were never really interested in anything I thought at the time, just out to score a point, or cruising for the argumentative bruising, as I said. Thanks for the laugh!

[Vertigo Swirl]

So the narrative is that the original Portuguese investigation was flawed. This means that evidence could have been missed, including evidence that linked the parents to the disappearance of their daughter. The case was then shelved and there was no further serious investigation into the case until OG. Now we know from a very respected police officer that the parents were not to be looked at during OG so who knows what evidence against the parents had been missed by the original flawed investigation?

The German police may not have investigated Brueckner on a whim?.his people smuggling friend made sure of that?.but in 5 years the 3 police forces have not uncovered a single piece of evidence incriminating enough to even arrest him. What does that tell us? Either the 3 police forces are completely incompetent and have failed to find that incriminating evidence or that the evidence was never there to find.what do you think?

Incompetent or simply unfortunate?  Do you believe all crimes are solveable within a limited timeframe?   That all key suspects in any given crime are obviously innocent if no charges are ever brought after a lengthy investigation?  Explain your thought processes on that.
As for the parents ?who know what evidence might have been missed? well that?s a complete cop out isn?t it?  Like what?  You think Madeleine fell off a balcony and was whisked away by her Dad (who somehow managed to be in two places at once) and thrown in a bin, which (lucky for him) was emptied that night ensuring her body will never be recovered, so short of subjecting the parents and all their friends to torture what forensic or circumstantial evidence do you think the McCanns left in PdL or took home with them that no policeman nor member of the public has uncovered about them in 18 years?   Perhaps, to use your words and your logic ?the evidence was never there to be found??

[faithlilly]

LOL.  I had already said that (reply 16017) .  Then you wanted to know why and was I always prone to jumping to conclusions.  Then I said because of your loaded question I would decline to explain.  Then you pressed me further.  Then I answered your question in full.  Then you complained my answer was too full and all I needed to say was what I had already said.  In short you were never really interested in anything I thought at the time, just out to score a point, or cruising for the argumentative bruising, as I said. Thanks for the laugh!

You?re very welcome.

Not true to say that I?m not interested in anything you thought at the time.

I?m very interested in the fact that you, seemingly without any evidence, thought the parents guilty.
And, seemingly, you have learned nothing and still think that Brueckner is guilty without any evidence being revealed after 5 years.

That mindset interests me.

[faithlilly]

Incompetent or simply unfortunate?  Do you believe all crimes are solveable within a limited timeframe?   That all key suspects in any given crime are obviously innocent if no charges are ever brought after a lengthy investigation?  Explain your thought processes on that.
As for the parents ?who know what evidence might have been missed? well that?s a complete cop out isn?t it?  Like what?  You think Madeleine fell off a balcony and was whisked away by her Dad (who somehow managed to be in two places at once) and thrown in a bin, which (lucky for him) was emptied that night ensuring her body will never be recovered, so short of subjecting the parents and all their friends to torture what forensic or circumstantial evidence do you think the McCanns left in PdL or took home with them that no policeman nor member of the public has uncovered about them in 18 years?   Perhaps, to use your words and your logic ?the evidence was never there to be found??

Do I believe that all crimes are solvable within a limited timeframe. Of course not. Do I believe that a suspect will evade justice if they are not investigated thoroughly, absolutely.

As to the parents. Gerry was not at two places at the one time. By his own witness statement there was time for him to be seen by the Smiths and be back in the tapas bar by the time of the alarm. He was seen by the Smiths at around 10pm and the alarm raised around 10.15 ( by Gerry?s statement ). PDL is a very small village and the distance Gerry would have to have covered is absolutely feasible.

 The parent?s attitude to the Smith sighting and their lack of interest in it is also very telling.

Of course incompetence on the part of the Portuguese police played a part if the body was deposited in a bin. Gerry didn?t know that the bins were emptied at a certain time every morning but the police did?and yes there was an element of luck on Gerry?s part but that does not rule it out as happening.

Further if the body had been found and they had found drugs in Madeleine?s system the abductor of course could have been blamed. Gerry needed distance from the body not for the body not to be found.

The body might never have been recovered as the landfill site where it would have been deposited was never searched. You can?t find what you are not looking for.

You mused that charges being brought after a lengthy investigation does not make the suspect innocent?absolutely. Neither does a short investigation.