Wandering Off Topic

[kizzy]

I?ve barely mentioned Bruckner recently.  My recent discussion was all about whether or not Gerry could possibly be Smithman.  I think I have demonstrated that that would have been virtually impossible.  I don?t think Smithman was Bruckner either.  Or Ghislaine Maxwell for that matter!

I?ve barely mentioned Bruckner recently.

No, but why would you .....what is there to mention.

Apart from him being a suspect of the past....another one.

Or you could say G.A. was right when he said -  he was only a patsy a scape goat.

 ?A scapegoat,? in the words of the former PJ inspector, who does not believe in this line of investigation and harshly criticizes the German police.
?There is a scapegoat here who has, literally, and in terms of rationality and logic, nothing to do with anything,? explained the former inspector who claims that ?there is no evidence that [Br?ckner] places anywhere that links him to the case.?
Gon?alo Amaral even stated that the authorities ?made a fool of themselves? by not returning to the initial case after identifying a new suspect. ?We cannot hide what exists. And what exists are indications that point in another direction. It doesn't matter which direction it is. If you want to continue one, first end the other.?

It seems he means the mccs....who in the S C were not proved innocent.

[kizzy]

That's not my theory. I don't believe all their friends were in on it.

It was a career thing with them all IMO

Seems to me they were all to buisy looking after there own careers and wasn't actually backing the mccs up.

Apart from D.P. that is with his OTT statement when he checked on kmc

More like Im a proffecional get me out of here.

After all they all left the kids.

[Uncle Jr]

Interestingly they only came forward after their acquaintance Robert Murat was made an arguido.  In my opinion they came forward as a result of that, keen to get him off the hook by saying the man they saw carrying a child that night definitely wasn't him and that they'd have known if it had been.  OTOH they said they wouldn't be able to recognise the man again (not until 4 months later anyway when suddenly Smith's memory miraculously sharpened as a result of a method of child carrying employed by Gerry McCann).   Personally I think the fact that they knew a child had gone missing the very day after the sighting, thought it might have been Madeleine and then chose not to tell anyone for 3 weeks is quite unforgiveable but it does show that some people are reluctant to come forward with information in high profile cases for whatever reason, which could explain why, if Smithman was just a dad collecting his child from the creche, he hasn't ever come forward.

I must say, getting Murat off the hook looks quite far fetched as a reason for unrelated people with nothing to gain and lots to lose.

[Uncle Jr]

You don't need to read all the statemens or be up to speed on every detail of the case. You just need to ask yourself the question, is it really likely that an innocent man or abductor could resemble Gerry & have similar trousers to his? If the answer is not likely then the simplest answer is that it was Gerry. There's no escaping this conclusion for me. This is why I'm sick & tired of the case. It's like a black comedy.

I'm not sure there's much to gain ploughing through the statements either. The fact that there's at least two versions only served to muddy the waters and exponentially increase dispairty with the original ones.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I must say, getting Murat off the hook looks quite far fetched as a reason for unrelated people with nothing to gain and lots to lose.

And yet Smith seemed very keen to assure the police it wasn't him.  What would he have to lose by saying so? 

[Lace]

Why


Do we know the window was defiantly wide open.

If like you think -  it was ....why did she run out and leave it wide open with curtains blowing and twins inside.

Kmc searched for 10 mins....why if she knew Maddie had been abducted straight away.

Why would she think Maddie was hiding from someone...who.

I think you should put yourself in Maddies position -  if like you think she had been taken by a peodo.

I wouldn't even consider putting my self in kmc position.

Because kmc put herself in the position by leaving them vulnerable and alone in foreign country in the first place.

Yes we all know they left the children.  I have always said I wouldn't have done that.  We are not talking about that though are we.  We are talking about the aftermath.  The question was 'why do you think Kate knows where Madeleine is '
Kate ran out in complete hysterics. Can you think straight when you are that shocked and frightened.  The answer is no you can't.  It's all very well to say why did she do this or that,  thing is we don't know what we would do in that situation do we.

Yes Kate searched very quickly there weren't many rooms to search and she was frantically searching.  As I said in my last post if I had left my child asleep in her bed and came back to find her gone and the window open I would immediately think she had been abducted.

Kate thought she might be cowering afraid of whoever came into the apartment.

You need to put yourself in Kates position as you need to see both sides of the argument.  I don't believe the McCann's made the abduction up.  You say they knew where Madeleine is but you don't explain why.

[Lace]

I?ve barely mentioned Bruckner recently.

No, but why would you .....what is there to mention.

Apart from him being a suspect of the past....another one.

Or you could say G.A. was right when he said -  he was only a patsy a scape goat.

 ?A scapegoat,? in the words of the former PJ inspector, who does not believe in this line of investigation and harshly criticizes the German police.
?There is a scapegoat here who has, literally, and in terms of rationality and logic, nothing to do with anything,? explained the former inspector who claims that ?there is no evidence that [Br?ckner] places anywhere that links him to the case.?
Gon?alo Amaral even stated that the authorities ?made a fool of themselves? by not returning to the initial case after identifying a new suspect. ?We cannot hide what exists. And what exists are indications that point in another direction. It doesn't matter which direction it is. If you want to continue one, first end the other.?

It seems he means the mccs....who in the S C were not proved innocent.

\\


Amaral criticises the German Police he criticises the British Police.  Only he can be right you see.  Yet the Portuguese Police are working with the British Police and the German Police.  They don't seem to be giving what Amaral thinks a second thought do they.   In other words they don't think its worth pursuing.

[Wonderfulspam]

You're sticking your fingers in your ears and going blah blah blah.  You will not listen to reason.  You have put all your belief in one (very belatedly given) witness statement that no one, not even the police thought was Gerry, even the witness himself wasn't sure but bizarrely you are 100% certain.  Can't you see how stupid that is?

No. Whats stupid is anyone who believes the McCanns. People who believe the McCanns are simply not worth my time anymore. They are gullible retarded morons who lack common sense. I could be wrong, so when the three expert investigative forces catch the abductor who looked like Gerry & had the same trousers as him I'll admit I might look a bit silly. But until then the simplest explanation is that Gerry was Smithman & the McCanns did it. And that?s all there is to it.

[Wonderfulspam]

\\


Amaral criticises the German Police he criticises the British Police.  Only he can be right you see.  Yet the Portuguese Police are working with the British Police and the German Police.  They don't seem to be giving what Amaral thinks a second thought do they.   In other words they don't think its worth pursuing.

Not getting them very far is it. But then, it's a bit of a tall order trying to find the abductor who looked like Gerry & had the same trousers as him.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. Whats stupid is anyone who believes the McCanns. People who believe the McCanns are simply not worth my time anymore. They are gullible retarded morons who lack common sense. I could be wrong, so when the three expert investigative forces catch the abductor who looked like Gerry & had the same trousers as him I'll admit I might look a bit silly. But until then the simplest explanation is that Gerry was Smithman & the McCanns did it. And that?s all there is to it.

Man, you have a seriously bad case of McCann Derangement Syndrome (though I suspect it?s all performative and you don?t really believe they dunnit, you just enjoy the attention).

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not getting them very far is it. But then, it's a bit of a tall order trying to find the abductor who looked like Gerry & had the same trousers as him.

Just a reminder.  Three weeks after the sighting none of the Smiths said they would be able to recognise the man they saw if they saw him again.  This was following three weeks of intense media coverage in which Gerry was hesvily featured in the media but didn?t ring any bells for any of them then.  As for the button thing - really?!  Aoife wasn?t close enough to spot it was Gerry but was close enough to the man to spot a teeny weeny button on a pair of trousers walking past her briskly down a darkened street?  And it?s this button that may or may not have been on a pair of trousers that means it was definitely Gerry?  You?re funny.  In fact you know that thing you wrote above about gullible retarded morons?  I think you were projecting.

[Wonderfulspam]

Just a reminder.  Three weeks after the sighting none of the Smiths said they would be able to recognise the man they saw if they saw him again.  This was following three weeks of intense media coverage in which Gerry was hesvily featured in the media but didn?t ring any bells for any of them then.  As for the button thing - really?!  Aoife wasn?t close enough to spot it was Gerry but was close enough to the man to spot a teeny weeny button on a pair of trousers walking past her briskly down a darkened street?  And it?s this button that may or may not have been on a pair of trousers that means it was definitely Gerry?  You?re funny.  In fact you know that thing you wrote above about gullible retarded morons?  I think you were projecting.

Ok dear. I'll humour you once more. Can I ask, what evidence convinces you that Madeleine was alive when Gerry checked on her at 9pm?  Is it, because Gerry said so?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ok dear. I'll humour you once more. Can I ask, what evidence convinces you that Madeleine was alive when Gerry checked on her at 9pm?  Is it, because Gerry said so?

Yes, obviously as I think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.  Now you tell me what evidence convinces you that Madeleine was murdered by one of her parents. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes, obviously as I think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.  Now you tell me what evidence convinces you that Madeleine was murdered by one of her parents.

That's a bit naive isn't It? What if he just wasn't telling the Truth? I mean, he might well not have been. Which would explain why there's still no abductor after 19 years really.

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes, obviously as I think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.  Now you tell me what evidence convinces you that Madeleine was murdered by one of her parents.

And I'm convinced she was murdered by her parents because we only have their word for it that she wasn't, & I see no good reason to believe them really.