Madeleine McCann

[Abby Normal]

theres a reason its a crime in the us to leave children alone. if the mcanns didnt do it, they are criminals anyway and should have gone to jail.

they are also psychopaths. what parents would continue to ditch the kids when the previous night madeleine asked them... why didnt you come when we cried last night. they are heartless, selfish stupid people. but yeah lets just make fun of people who think hutch or lech are valid suspects, like that has anything to do with it. good lord.

[Geddy2112]

That gave me a giggle. The consensus is that those who generally believe George Hutchinson killed Mary Kelly or those who believe that Israel Schwartz gave his statement to divert attention from the Socialist club, they believe that the McCanns did it.

I guess the McCanns cocking up the 'sleeping tablet' dosage, coming back to find poor Maddie brown bread then disposing of her out at sea is akin to the Royal Conspiracy, it's a good story. When in reality 'der Deutsche' is akin to the unknown killer in 1888. I did hear Charles Cross had an apartment in Luz and owned a rival Tapas Bar in the 1990s. So he was there.... he was there.

[Sunny Delight]

Indeed, just to save me reading 109 pages what is the general consensus on this thread of who is guilty?

1) The McCanns
2) The German
3) Charles Lechmere

??? Thanks.

That gave me a giggle. The consensus is that those who generally believe George Hutchinson killed Mary Kelly or those who believe that Israel Schwartz gave his statement to divert attention from the Socialist club, they believe that the McCanns did it.

Lots of others see abduction as the most likely. The most likely suspect then being Breuckner. If it wasn't him it was someone like him. A serial thief who had sick fantasies about young girls, who took an opportunity.

Oh, and the Lechmerians believe it was Charles Cross.

[Geddy2112]

Lots of unanswered questions.

Indeed, just to save me reading 109 pages what is the general consensus on this thread of who is guilty?

1) The McCanns
2) The German
3) Charles Lechmere

??? Thanks.

[Sunny Delight]

New searches taking place about 30 miles from Praia da Luz over the coming days. Interestingly the last searches were not for physical evidence but for soil samples as per the recent Channel 4 documentary, the Unseen Evidence. Also that documentary stated that sniffer dogs followed Madeleine McCann's scent that night from the hotel to a car park near the Chapel. Then they lost it meaning it is likely any abductor used a car for transport. Was this why Breuckner re-registered the car the day after the disappearance to an acquaintance in Germany? Lots of unanswered questions.

[Abby Normal]

In case you missed it, Christian Brueckner was acquitted in his rape/sexual abuse trial last month.

bummer. looks like he set to be released on previous crimes next year?

[rjpalmer]

In case you missed it, Christian Brueckner was acquitted in his rape/sexual abuse trial last month.

[rjpalmer]

Brueckner is back in the news. There's a new witness in his 2004 rape case who claims to have seen Brueckner leaving the area while removing a mask. I don't know how much weight to give this after all these years, but the German police apparently find the witness credible.

There is a photograph in Spain's Olive Press, showing the window he entered in this 2004 case, and it is similar in some ways to the one we see at the McCann's hotel--ie., in plain view of a backstreet/parking lot. It's higher off the ground, but strange to say, the builder made the odd choice of positioning the housing of a water shutoff valve directly under the window.

[caz]

keep your diary nonsense out of it. off topic.

It was perfectly on topic in the context of RJ's post, in which he argued very cogently for the McCanns being innocent of the greater of two evils: causing their daughter harm versus not doing enough to keep her safe. He observed that there would surely have been a whistleblower after fifteen years from someone in their circle of friends and I agree with his reasoning. The once popular public perception of the McCanns as monsters is clearly not the private one ever held by those who actually knew the family when Madeleine went missing.

If you can't see the relevance of the parallel when it comes to the Barretts, who have similarly not had a single whistleblower in thirty years from anyone who actually knew them, that's your prerogative.

Back to Madeleine...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The vultures turned up at Cliff Richard's home hoping for another lynching.

I suspect they got 'criminal records' confused with 'a criminal record'.

I'll get me coat...

[Sunny Delight]

It's correct that a GP from England offered up himself as possibly the person seen by Jane Tanner. (She described him as not the usual sort of tourist, whatever that meant.) The PJ were aware of that claim and are now being criticised a) for not following up the information with enough zeal and b) for searching around fruitlessly for a man who had already presented himself to them.

I have no more inside information than anyone else on this site, but I doubt the PJ placed much reliability on the Tanner sighting. The fact that the GP thought it might be him, but was not certain, indicates that her description and location of him was at odds with what he recalled. If the PJ dismissed it as not germane to the inquiry then it appears they reached the correct decision.

It is true that it is not absolutely certain that the man who stated he was the man seen by Tanner, was actually him. The McCanns themselves on their Web page find Madeleine still have this man as someone of interest. The MET declared they were almost certain the Tanner sighting was a red herring. But almost certain is not convlusive. I think they were sure however that the Tanner sighting could be discounted.

The PJ from the beginning doubted the Tanner sighting. Then once they became convinced the McCanns had done it they felt it was a conspiracy and the Tanner sighting part of the whole charade. They had tunnel vision and discounted everything that didn't help their own theory.

[cobalt]

It's correct that a GP from England offered up himself as possibly the person seen by Jane Tanner. (She described him as not the usual sort of tourist, whatever that meant.) The PJ were aware of that claim and are now being criticised a) for not following up the information with enough zeal and b) for searching around fruitlessly for a man who had already presented himself to them.

I have no more inside information than anyone else on this site, but I doubt the PJ placed much reliability on the Tanner sighting. The fact that the GP thought it might be him, but was not certain, indicates that her description and location of him was at odds with what he recalled. If the PJ dismissed it as not germane to the inquiry then it appears they reached the correct decision.

[Sunny Delight]

So far as shutters are concerned, I will rely on what the PJ established had happened in regard to these particular shutters; not what might have been possible with another set of shutters in a video.

There was more than a scintilla of evidence gathered in respect of the McCanns. None of it was sufficient to bring charges against them, so they remain innocent.

The person in the Jane Tanner sighting must have been one of the few people in the western world who was not aware of the high profile case of missing Madeleine McCann. That is if he ever actually did carry his daughter from a creche down the street.

You are mistaken to rely on the PJ as has been demonstrated to you.

No there was no real evidence against the McCanns. Cavidar is not evidence. The DNA was not evidence. They had absolutely nothing on them whatsoever.

The person in the Jane Tanner sighting passed a questionnaire to the Leicestershire Police detailing their movements in 2008. The PJ didn't follow it up because by then they had convinced themselves the McCanns had done it.

[cobalt]

So far as shutters are concerned, I will rely on what the PJ established had happened in regard to these particular shutters; not what might have been possible with another set of shutters in a video.

There was more than a scintilla of evidence gathered in respect of the McCanns. None of it was sufficient to bring charges against them, so they remain innocent.

The person in the Jane Tanner sighting must have been one of the few people in the western world who was not aware of the high profile case of missing Madeleine McCann. That is if he ever actually did carry his daughter from a creche down the street.

[Sunny Delight]

''Despite everything being presented to you in regards the window and the fact it did open from outside you appear totally resistant to it. That is your perogative. No point going over old ground,'

Old ground? are you serious? Even the McCanns abandoned the window theory once it was exposed as nonsense. The window did not open from the outside anymore than the sun revolves around the earth. The window was discounted as a means of entry from day one, hence the unlocked door backup from the Tapas group. Please keep up. Whether the window was capable of being 'jemmied' or the like without leaving evidence was irrelevant in this particular case since no forensic evidence was found to support this theory. It was a dead end which led to an uncomfortable line of enquiry.

Which takes us back to the most likely line of enquiry when a child goes missing: the parents themselves. No fairy stories about phantom abductors; no fairy stories about paedophiles or a girl who waked and wandered; just the obvious.

The shutters could be opened from the outside. Not the whole way but far enough so that if the window was open it could be slid across and by entering ones hand through the window manipulate the shutter controls to full open. I have already posted a video showing someone doing this. You are sticking to something proven to be erroneous. Why?

Parents will always be prime suspects and Police procedure in that instance is to investigate them first. Everyone knows that. Not one scintilla of evidence was ever produced to suspect the McCanns. With hindsight it was clearly an overworked Police force under extreme pressure fixating on the parents when all other avenues had seemingly been exhausted. There was no thought that the PJ themselves had made a complete mess of the investigation. Such a mess in fact that they claimed DNA that didn't exist and lied to journalists about the nature of their evidence against the McCanns. For goodness sake they didn't even identify the man seen by Jane Tanner when all they had to do was fully investigate everyone whose child had been at the night creche that night, meaning of course for 5 years the man seen by Tanner was the prime suspect.