Wandering Off Topic

[Uncle Jr]

Anyway, I think the saddest thing about all of this for me, it is not that Madeleine disappeared. It is that I haven't been lucky enough to recieve any late night visits from a butt naked Brueckner.

That is quite funny to be fair.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That is quite funny to be fair.

What makes you think he was joking?

[Uncle Jr]

What makes you think he was joking?

Good point.

[Wonderfulspam]

He is my favourite burgling rapist & paedophile, I can't deny that. Mostly though I'm fond of him, because McCann supporters are not. This is in keeping with my firm & long held commitment to never agree with Mccann supporters on any given subject.

[Uncle Jr]

He is my favourite burgling rapist & paedophile, I can't deny that. Mostly though I'm fond of him, because McCann supporters are not. This is in keeping with my firm & long held commitment to never agree with Mccann supporters on any given subject.

You forgot 'naked'.
On a more serious note, for me, the Smithman sighting remains the single most compelling and unresolved piece of the puzzle. It is a credible, contemporaneous account that became a primary line of inquiry for Scotland Yard.
While CB is my prime suspect, who was this man? I think the main reason this was never resolved was the delay in the release of the efits.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You forgot 'naked'.
On a more serious note, for me, the Smithman sighting remains the single most compelling and unresolved piece of the puzzle. It is a credible, contemporaneous account that became a primary line of inquiry for Scotland Yard.
While CB is my prime suspect, who was this man? I think the main reason this was never resolved was the delay in the release of the efits.

The Smiths were vague when they first gave statements but sharpened up over the months to the point where Smith was able to give detailed description of the man whose face he didn?t see (not to mention the fact he wasn?t wearing his glasses at the time) 16 months later.  Why do you think these efits have any credibility to resolve the case whatsoever?

[Wonderfulspam]

The Smiths were vague when they first gave statements but sharpened up over the months to the point where Smith was able to give detailed description of the man whose face he didn?t see (not to mention the fact he wasn?t wearing his glasses at the time) 16 months later.  Why do you think these efits have any credibility to resolve the case whatsoever?

The innocent McCanns had absolutely nothing to fear from the Smith sighting. Were you in their position, with no reason to fear these e-fits, you'd bury them would you, in the innocent search for your most definitely abducted daughter? I cant say I would. I think I might even have included them in my best seller & release them in a press conference with my slimey spokesman.

[Wonderfulspam]

Anyway, I read part of Fiona's rogatory the other day. She places the time Kate came screaming between 9:45 & 10pm. More specifically, she recalled that Kate came screaming very soon after Russells steak arrived from the kitchen. So that further supports that the alarm was raised before 10pm.

[Wonderfulspam]

You forgot 'naked'.
On a more serious note, for me, the Smithman sighting remains the single most compelling and unresolved piece of the puzzle. It is a credible, contemporaneous account that became a primary line of inquiry for Scotland Yard.
While CB is my prime suspect, who was this man? I think the main reason this was never resolved was the delay in the release of the efits.

It is Mary Smiths cause to enquire about the well being of the little, typically British girl in the long sleeved pyjamas that I find most significant. There was something not quite right that she felt compelled to ask.

'Oh, is she asleep?'

[Vertigo Swirl]

*eyeroll emoji*

[Uncle Jr]

The Smiths were vague when they first gave statements but sharpened up over the months to the point where Smith was able to give detailed description of the man whose face he didn?t see (not to mention the fact he wasn?t wearing his glasses at the time) 16 months later.  Why do you think these efits have any credibility to resolve the case whatsoever?

I don't. I didn't say they would. I didin't even suggest such a thing.

[Uncle Jr]

It is Mary Smiths cause to enquire about the well being of the little, typically British girl in the long sleeved pyjamas that I find most significant. There was something not quite right that she felt compelled to ask.

'Oh, is she asleep?'

This is why I say 'unresolved'. The account was that the girl's arms were limp, or words to that effect.
It might be a 'vague', 'untimely' and inconsistent account, but it's still the only contemperaneous eye witness account we have that was formally logged and not dismissed or retracted. That makes it significant and another reaons why Brueckner will get away with it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't. I didn't say they would. I didin't even suggest such a thing.

I must have misunderstood this sentence then ? who was this man? I think the main reason this was never resolved was the delay in the release of the efits?.  because it sounds very much like you think the efits would have helped identify Smithman, which in turn suggests you think they were based on credible information supplied by the witnesses.

[Uncle Jr]

I must have misunderstood this sentence then ? who was this man? I think the main reason this was never resolved was the delay in the release of the efits?.  because it sounds very much like you think the efits would have helped identify Smithman, which in turn suggests you think they were based on credible information supplied by the witnesses.

If the e-fits would have come out contemporaneously who knows what response they may have had was my point. A holidaymaker may have come forward and identifed themselves, or an innocent resident picking up a child and trudging home.
We may not all be sat here now, mulling over the case forever.

[Uncle Jr]

Let me be clear, I think Brueckner is a calculating, sadistic psychopath, well capable of abidction, murder and disposal.
The apparent contradiction in Brueckner's criminal history is more about his modus operandi than his capacity for violence. He is a man who I believe compartmentalised his life: a sloppy, low-level, nomdadic drifter type criminal for day-to-day survival, but a sadistic, organised predator when acting out his sexual fantasies. The bungling and the brutal are not two different people, but two sides of the same profoundly dangerous individual.

It is this very pattern of escalation and the disturbing items in his possession that led Wolters to make him the prime suspect in the first place. For him, the man capable of the 2005 rape was certainly capable of more, and the forensic gaps in the McCann case point to a killer who learned to hide his tracks for his most serious crime.