Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

There are two mugshots on line one is of Breaukner at 19 the other is of Breaukner in 2006.  If you look at the one on the right its the image of the thinner picture of the man the Smiths saw.  If someone can get them up on here it would be great.

In my opinion the efits are a complete red herring, for two reasons:
1) they were done 16 months after the event
2) they were given by person(s) who thought the man might have been Gerry so based their description on trying (not very successfully) to bring his features to mind.  Why they didn?t just hand the detectives a photo of Gerry and say ?draw that? remains a mystery to this day.

[Wonderfulspam]

What rotten luck for the MCanns. Not only were they falsely suspected of faking an abduction because Madeleine was dead, but also, later on, Brueckner got mistaken for Gerry, & he happened to have trousers like Gerry's & he disguised Maddie by changing her pyjama for some reason. I mean it sounds absolutely absurd doesn't it.  But that must be what the three expert investigative forces believe likely, since the Mccanns have been completely ruled out.

[Joe Blogs]

No worries, though I am surprised if you?re still entertaining the possibility that Gerry was Smithman.  There is a branch of McCann scepticism which has made peace with the idea of that Smithman was not Gerry, however this has led them down another ludicrous path of convoluted conspiracy.  The simplest solutions to a mystery such as this are usually the correct ones imo, ones that don?t involve highly improbable actions, don?t involve ignoring all but the most unreliable of witnesses, don?t involve complicated plots between friends and acquaintances.

 IMO, abducted by a stranger fits that brief.  There were a couple of clear windows of opportunity for one to strike - after Gerry?s check, or after Matt?s check.  The apartment was unlocked by the patio door, however an opportunist thief with a lock kit (CB had one, it was found amongst his possessions) may not have known that at the time and could also have entered by the front door.  He may have been disturbed on first attempt (perhaps shortly after the McCanns left for dinner) which might explain the moving door. Perhaps he hid outside in the bushes waiting until Gerry had left before returning inside, opened the window for a quicker getaway in case needed or to hear approaching passersby.  He then removed Madeleine from her bed sometime after 9.10pm and left via the front door, and probably left the area by car or van. 

It?s one plausible scenario which fits the known facts.  I?m not dogmatically wedded to it however.  The abduction could possibly have happened half an hour later, following more or less the same sequence.  Moving internal door earlier could have been caused by a child getting out of bed and wandering into the living area, air movement in the apartment caused by opening the patio door, or maybe Gerry misremembering how the door was left in the first place. 

All the above obviously ripe for sneering ridicule from some quarters I know, but I believe the above scenarios are more plausible than the others we are constantly and aggressively being told occurred.

I certainly don't sneer at anyone's scenario, Vertigo! they are all possible, but that's the problem, without some additional evidence cropping up they will simply remain possibilities!

[Wonderfulspam]

I certainly don't sneer at anyone's scenario, Vertigo! they are all possible, but that's the problem, without some additional evidence cropping up they will simply remain possibilities!

I tend to sneer because there's no evidence whatsoever of Brueckner entering 5a, extracting Maddie from within it, then bundling her into any waiting getaway vehicle. There isn't a shred of evidence to support VS's theory. Whereas there is evidence that a man resembling Gerry, with coincidental button trousers, was seen by an Irish family uncomfortably carrying a disabled Maddie, dressed in the wrong pyjamas, off into the night never to be seen again. There's actual evidence to support my theory. VS's theory however, has nothing at all to really support it.

[Uncle Jr]

I tend to sneer because there's no evidence whatsoever of Brueckner entering 5a, extracting Maddie from within it, then bundling her into any waiting getaway vehicle. There isn't a shred of evidence to support VS's theory. Whereas there is evidence that a man resembling Gerry, with coincidental button trousers, was seen by an Irish family uncomfortably carrying a disabled Maddie, dressed in the wrong pyjamas, off into the night never to be seen again. There's actual evidence to support my theory. VS's theory however, has nothing at all to really support it.

I believe Smithman is significant for a slightly different reason. I believe HCW / the German judiciary didn't charge Brueckner with the evidence they have, in part, due to the unresolved concept of Smithman providing a basis for reasonable doubt. Yes, there are other factors at work, such as the quality of the evidence itself and the ill-fated testimony of his cohort, but any defence worth their salt would point directly at the Smith's witness statements as a cornerstone of an agrument against.

[Wonderfulspam]

I believe Smithman is significant for a slightly different reason. I believe HCW / the German judiciary didn't charge Brueckner with the evidence they have, in part, due to the unresolved concept of Smithman providing a basis for reasonable doubt. Yes, there are other factors at work, such as the quality of the evidence itself and the ill-fated testimony of his cohort, but any defence worth their salt would point directly at the Smith's witness statements as a cornerstone of an agrument against.

The McCanns lawyers attacked the credibility of the Smith family evidence during the McCanns hilariously unsuccessful attempt to sue an ex inspector. But of course, they simply had to do that. So yes I agree. The most likely sighting of Madeleine simply doesn't fit with any abduction scenario & would be pounced upon by any decent lawyer

[Uncle Jr]

The McCanns lawyers attacked the credibility of the Smith family evidence during the McCanns hilariously unsuccessful attempt to sue an ex inspector. But of course, they simply had to do that. So yes I agree. The most likely sighting of Madeleine simply doesn't fit with any abduction scenario & would be pounced upon by any decent lawyer

I wouldn't start gloating yet though, Spam, as the best strategy for dismissing reasonable doubt is to remove it. It could work in HCW's favour if Smithman could just as plausibly be CB as Gerry.

[Wonderfulspam]

I wouldn't start gloating yet though, Spam, as the best strategy for dismissing reasonable doubt is to remove it. It could work in HCW's favour if Smithman could just as plausibly be CB as Gerry.

Nope. I'm happy to sneer & to gloat & ridicule McCann supporters. They would often sneer at any theory that the McCanns could be involved, so it's long past the time they got some back really. But, if you're right, if CB could plausibly be the man the Smiths saw, that would mean Brueckner, had similar trousers to Gerry & had changed Madeleine's pyjamas. I'm not sure Wolters will be capable of proving that somehow, without the courtroom breaking down in fits of laughter.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wouldn't start gloating yet though, Spam, as the best strategy for dismissing reasonable doubt is to remove it. It could work in HCW's favour if Smithman could just as plausibly be CB as Gerry.

Yes, if you can believe that the father of a missing child would have the brazen balls to carry his child?s corpse through town AFTER his wife kicked up a stink about her going missing, and then despite being seen by nine individuals seemingly comfortable with doing a TV appeal the very next night, then any argument that an abductor would not be similarly brazen can be knocked right on the head.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I certainly don't sneer at anyone's scenario, Vertigo! they are all possible, but that's the problem, without some additional evidence cropping up they will simply remain possibilities!

You don?t sneer Joe, but you know who does, and he has done it repeatedly since I made what in my view was a perfectly reasonable post.  And do you not at least by now agree that some scenarios are more likely than others?   I mean, why do you suppose two versions of AI rejects Spam?s theory for example?  It can?t be because they are gullible and retarded like me, surely?!

[jassi]

I wouldn't start gloating yet though, Spam, as the best strategy for dismissing reasonable doubt is to remove it. It could work in HCW's favour if Smithman could just as plausibly be CB as Gerry.

No chance.

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes, if you can believe that the father of a missing child would have the brazen balls to carry his child?s corpse through town AFTER his wife kicked up a stink about her going missing, and then despite being seen by nine individuals seemingly comfortable with doing a TV appeal the very next night, then any argument that an abductor would not be similarly brazen can be knocked right on the head.

The stink she created was going on around the immediate area of the rear of the apartment. Gerry was seen slightly further away, wouldn't you agree?

[Wonderfulspam]

You don?t sneer Joe, but you know who does, and he has done it repeatedly since I made what in my view was a perfectly reasonable post.  And do you not at least by now agree that some scenarios are more likely than others?   I mean, why do you suppose two versions of AI rejects Spam?s theory for example?  It can?t be because they are gullible and retarded like me, surely?!

AI rejected my thesis because of its bias. It would probably say the McCanns have been formally cleared if you ask it that.
Anyway, my theory has evidence to support it. Yours has imaginary getaway vehicles. As we have discovered.

[Wonderfulspam]

Anyway. I've no need at all to appeal to AI because I'm simply not as desperate as VS.

[Wonderfulspam]

No chance.

Vs liked Uncles post. It seems she's coming round to the idea now that CB could be Smithman all of sudden. Maybe we'll get to hear her theory that actually includes the Smith witness testimony this time, & without the need to conjure up imaginary getaway vehicles.