Madeleine McCann

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi P.I.,

Can't say I'm entirely surprised as the NZ Herald is an unlikely source to be the first to present such information, but it appears to me (not having had a chance to read the DM article yet) that it is a recent story and not something that was reported on years ago. I could, of course, be mistaken on that, either way thanks for that.

- Jeff

You're welcome, Jeff.

I don't think the existence of the shrine had ever been reported before except to the Portuguese police.

The 'exclusive' Daily Mail scoop was not so exclusive after all: the same story was reported on the same day in the Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Daily Star and The Sun.

[FrankO]

hi frank
lol, sorry i thought you thought i was the moron, especially since your previous post you were saying i missed your point.
apologies.

No worries, Abbby. I sure didn't think you were a moron, but rather that I was the one who hadn't done a good job getting my point across, not you not getting it. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that English isn't my native language. Anyway, glad that it's straightened out.

Cheers,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

No worries, Abbby. I sure didn't think you were a moron, but rather that I was the one who hadn't done a good job getting my point across, not you not getting it. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that English isn't my native language. Anyway, glad that it's straightened out.

Cheers,
Frank

nah, your english is perfect. bettter than mine actually! ha! it has more to do with the fact of something gets missing in non verbal/electronic communication like this.

[Abby Normal]

so after doing a little more reading up on this shrine and this Brueckner dude, IMHO hes looking more and more like a very good suspect. Are their any photos of him from closer to the time frame of the crime? im trying to see if his hair might have been more brown back then.

[FrankO]

nah, your english is perfect. bettter than mine actually! ha! it has more to do with the fact of something gets missing in non verbal/electronic communication like this.

Yeah, second that Abby.

Cheers

[Darryl Kenyon]

I believe the shrine to be a red herring. Brueckner allegedly left the area not long after Madeline's disappearance [ May 7 ] . I can't find a definitive date but maybe , say in the summer.
The shrine was not found until Christmas [ same year ], apparently. Would a bouquet of flowers, Lilies I believe, and a photo of Madeline still be there and looking untouched months later ? If Brueckner made the shrine ? Or would the flowers have been dead by then ? And would the photo of Madeline [ unless in a frame ], not just have blown away ? And would someone have not spotted said shrine earlier ?

Regards Darryl

[Pcdunn]

I believe the shrine to be a red herring. Brueckner allegedly left the area not long after Madeline's disappearance [ May 7 ] . I can't find a definitive date but maybe , say in the summer.
The shrine was not found until Christmas [ same year ], apparently. Would a bouquet of flowers, Lilies I believe, and a photo of Madeline still be there and looking untouched months later ? If Brueckner made the shrine ? Or would the flowers have been dead by then ? And would the photo of Madeline [ unless in a frame ], not just have blown away ? And would someone have not spotted said shrine earlier ?

Regards Darryl

Brueckner was said to live in the area "off and on" for a period of years. And didn't the family find the "shrine" in 2007? That's a few years later than the disappearance, isn't it?

Maybe the guy left, but returned later to put up the so-called shrine? The family apparently didn't report their find until they realized the police were searching close to the picnic area and the reservoir.

[Sunny Delight]

I believe the shrine to be a red herring. Brueckner allegedly left the area not long after Madeline's disappearance [ May 7 ] . I can't find a definitive date but maybe , say in the summer.
The shrine was not found until Christmas [ same year ], apparently. Would a bouquet of flowers, Lilies I believe, and a photo of Madeline still be there and looking untouched months later ? If Brueckner made the shrine ? Or would the flowers have been dead by then ? And would the photo of Madeline [ unless in a frame ], not just have blown away ? And would someone have not spotted said shrine earlier ?

Regards Darryl

Yeah I feel the same way. I dislike when the Police get fixated on a certain individual and begin to try and make the evidence match the suspect. I suppose the issue for the Police is that they don't have any real tangible lead and Breuckner does seem a plausible suspect. I suppose the term leaving 'no stone unturned' may be apt in that the Police are investigating Breuckner and his past very strongly but the fixation on one suspect becomes problematic.

[cobalt]

Breuckner, with his appalling record, would certainly be a good suspect for a child abductor. The German police are understandably keen to lock him up for eternity and establishing his involvement with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann would surely achieve that. But we have been down this road before with 'prime suspects' and still have no resolution. The PJ, who would surely welcome the opportunity to bring closure to a case which has dogged them for years, seem rather lukewarm about this latest development.

I'm familiar with characters like Breuckner taking trophies from their crimes but the concept of a 'shrine' is a new one on me. Is the word 'shrine' a concept that has been created by media?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Brueckner was said to live in the area "off and on" for a period of years. And didn't the family find the "shrine" in 2007? That's a few years later than the disappearance, isn't it?

Maybe the guy left, but returned later to put up the so-called shrine? The family apparently didn't report their find until they realized the police were searching close to the picnic area and the reservoir.

Hi Pc
Madeline disappeared May 7 2007

Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

The shrine could be a red herring but it’s interesting that the police, and a PI were already searching that area. In other words they had some reason, a lead, to search that area before the people reported shrine. If the the so called shrine was what first led the police to the area that would be one thing but it seems that there are two independent things that’s pointing to that area which is much different.

I too get skeptical about police focusing on one suspect but apparently Bruekner use to call that park his little paradise. It seems tht area had special significance to him. Serial killers are known to have special areas for them where they commit their crimes, dump bodies and return to them. It’ll be interesting if they find anything else there.

[cobalt]

There are photos taken by a UK couple a few months after the disappearance which show something that might be called a 'shrine.' in the area of the reservoir. One of the photos as printed in a UK newspaper shows ribbons, lilies and a small photo of the missing girl. At first I assumed the UK couple, who wish to remain unnamed, gave copies of their original photos to the newspaper. Another photo in the newspaper looked similar but without the photo of Madeleine McCann. Which made me wonder if the newspaper photos had been 'recreated' in consultation with the couple.

Further to what Abby said about the area being of interest, it seems the reservoir area was searched by a private team of detectives hired by the McCanns about a year after the disappearance. I can see that any lakes might be of interest to searchers but this reservoir is described as 30 km away from the resort. Yet it popped up as a place of interest quite early on.

[cobalt]

http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=cause_of_death

This is a link to an article which rejects the abductor theory and concludes that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment as the result of an accident. It must be a translation since the English is awkward at times but the argument is coherent enough, focusing on the forensic evidence from the apartment. It assumes that death took place around 6pm and deals with the odd meeting that took place between David Payne and Kate McCann, the one where he was asked to 'check on' Kate and that he recalled as lasting half an hour but she remembered as being barely 30 seconds.

The weakness is the one often highlighted by Sunny Delight: how on earth did tourists, panicking in an unfamiliar country, find the wherewithal to hide the body of a child from sniffer dogs and later transport it by hired car, presumably for burial, under the eyes of the world press? This article tags Gerry McCann as the person spotted by the Smiths which means all these problems come to the surface. I think there are better alternative explanations for the problems with this theory.

[Sunny Delight]

http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=cause_of_death

This is a link to an article which rejects the abductor theory and concludes that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment as the result of an accident. It must be a translation since the English is awkward at times but the argument is coherent enough, focusing on the forensic evidence from the apartment. It assumes that death took place around 6pm and deals with the odd meeting that took place between David Payne and Kate McCann, the one where he was asked to 'check on' Kate and that he recalled as lasting half an hour but she remembered as being barely 30 seconds.

The weakness is the one often highlighted by Sunny Delight: how on earth did tourists, panicking in an unfamiliar country, find the wherewithal to hide the body of a child from sniffer dogs and later transport it by hired car, presumably for burial, under the eyes of the world press? This article tags Gerry McCann as the person spotted by the Smiths which means all these problems come to the surface. I think there are better alternative explanations for the problems with this theory.

Literally every single thing mentioned in that blog can be dismissed.

- The Cavidar dogs are not evidence. Martin Grime has never suggested they were but merely they can point you in an investigative direction. If you find no co-orboratimg evidence then the alerts are useless.

- The Cavidar in the car hired 26 days after Madeleine's disappearance again is not evidence. Not only that but now we have Gerry McCann who is carrying his dead daughter through the streets of Luz to an undisclosed location in a strange country with the ground as hard as rock. Where was he going to Bury her? Then retrieve the body to place in a fridge before transporting again in the hire car? Come on.

- The DNA traces all came back inconclusive or so general that the lab investigating them said half the people who worked there probably shared similar DNA.

- I have no idea what how cuddle cat was supposed to be evidence.

- Oddities in an unsolved disappearance. Will wonders ever cease.

As I have explained numerous times the theory of the McCanns being guilty does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it falls flat on its face the minute it's challenged.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

how on earth did tourists, panicking in an unfamiliar country, find the wherewithal to hide the body of a child from sniffer dogs and later transport it by hired car, presumably for burial, under the eyes of the world press?

It's an outlandish theory, based on character assassination, similar to those accusing Luard of murdering his wife and Wallace of murdering his wife.

In both cases, their alibis were dismissed by their accusers as fabricated, with Wallace accused of fabricating a phone call to himself and even of having dressed up as his wife, and Luard accused of getting himself noticed on a golf course in order to provide himself with an alibi, even though he did nothing to draw attention to himself.

All the arguments against them have always been contrived and based on a presumption of guilt, with every act of theirs that should have cleared them being interpreted as the actions of a guilty man, made with the intentions of a guilty man.

Luard has been accused of murdering his wife and then going to the golf course and home and pretending to be worried that she had not returned.

Wallace was accused of murdering his wife and of pretending to have received a call to go to an appointment, at an address he knew not to exist.

The McCanns, in similar style, were accused of having gone to dinner knowing that their daughter was dead and then pretending to be shocked to discover that she was missing.

The respective murderers of Luard's and Wallace's wives were never charged but have been unmasked.

It is to be hoped that Madeleine's murderer will be unmasked and proven guilty in a court of law, and that the accusations against the McCanns then cease.

In the case of the Chamberlains, however, they never have stopped, even though it was proven that no murder had even been committed.