Unsolved Madeleine McCann * Current Trial of Main Suspect Christian Brueckner

[Angry Red Bull]

Is that technically correct? I can't find any statement from Scotland Yard which officially 'clears' the McCanns - the case remains open, and unsolved, so how can anyone be 'cleared'?
The Portuguese Attorney General officially removed their arguido status.
Besides that I don't think any of the authorities have explicitly exonerated them?

I've moved hotel room furniture around plenty of times. Usually to create an open space in the middle of the room, or to accommodate watching the TV.

There is no dispute it may have been moved to create an environment of choice. Fact is though it WAS moved once in care of McCanns. Nothing incriminating flows from that. The sofa was against the wall in all post disappearance photos.......and there is a 97% chance a dead body was behind the sofa.. The most likely way that can occur is PA which coincides with its placement against the wall.

 

[faible]

there is a 97% chance a dead body was behind the sofa

Note: this has been discussed and is not an accurate factual representation of the evidence.

 

[31550]

I'm mystified that people take the analysis I do as some biased prosec
Let me frame it. With a 15/19

Not sure what that's got to do with my post which you quoted, but ok.

 

[faible]

I'm mystified that people take the analysis I do as some biased prosec

Shouldn't be surprising at all.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Not sure what that's got to do with my post which you quoted, but ok.

Sorry incomplete I was going to add

 

[BonzaRam]

This is the link to the blue bag. Clearly SY had resolved such a bag existed. GM via Clarence Mitchell denied it did. They believe it important to find as discussed here.

Did CB take the bag? we haven't even been able to prove he entered the unit so massive ? And why? Not going to take MM and a bag.....he'd have his own anyway

So why would SY think it important? DP said one existed but wasn't big.....they did tennis lessons. SY is chasing it meaning they believe it existed too and with this level of authority probably proven it did.

So why would SY think it important? DP said one existed but wasn't big.....they did tennis lessons. SY is chasing it meaning they believe it existed too and with this level of authority probably proven it did.

I gave you the link to DPs statement, show where in it he says GM had a sports bag or anywhere he conclusively says a bag existed.

Can you show where in the PJ files they say a sports bag existed? All I saw in their files was on the black plastic bag found on the cliff and clothes/shoes bag you mentioned.

I ask these questions because the story keeps changing in small ways and because you keep pushing the mystery sports bag that there is no proof of it ever existing.

What were saying about the media being used to manipulate an investigation?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

.

So why would SY think it important? DP said one existed but wasn't big.....they did tennis lessons. SY is chasing it meaning they believe it existed too and with this level of authority probably proven it did.

I gave you the link to DPs statement, show where in it he says GM had a sports bag or anywhere he conclusively says a bag existed.

Can you show where in the PJ files they say a sports bag existed? All I saw in their files was on the black plastic bag found on the cliff and clothes/shoes bag you mentioned.

I ask these questions because the story keeps changing in small ways and because you keep pushing the mystery sports bag that there is no proof of it ever existing.

What were saying about the media being used to manipulate an investigation?

Yeah it's in DP statement of April 2008 as you have quoted. That is amongst PJ files and has already been linked here I believe

I've read it. If you want I can isolate the exact excerpt but I don't see the point. I don't care what sort of bag it is, but the essence was it was small of some ilk to enable him to carry his tennis needs..not a tennis bag as such and wouldn't hold a racquet. It's a SPORTS bag being used to that end not because it's style is of specific category Sports Bag. The importance of distinction eludes me. They were his words. Nothing has changed. Was it an official sports bag or a duffle bag I don't know nor care and DP is vague anyway. What I care about is that SY has determined there is one and that it is missing. Full stop. It can't have carried MM. DP even started to say it couldn't but stopped and said tennis racquet instead

The image of the wardrobe I suspect may have been the luggage bag not the sports bag.....but it is unclear too.

SY say there was one and this video was the one I've looked at before where THEY say it's important to the investigation. DP says he has a bag/whatever too. Pretty conclusive one existed.

Omg are you going to suggest the video shows someone impersonating a LE officer? Seems legitimate to me. You can form your own opinion though.

I should add. I don't conceive it's possible it was used to carry a cadaver. Exactly why it is missing is unclear. But IF someone lied about it's existence the bag is important for that use..we can only speculate

 

[BonzaRam]

.

Yeah it's in DP statement of April 2008 as you have quoted. That is amongst PJ files and has already been linked here I believe

I've read it. If you want I can isolate the exact excerpt but I don't see the point. I don't care what sort of bag it is, but the essence was it was small of some ilk to enable him to carry his tennis needs..not a tennis bag as such and wouldn't hold a racquet. It's a SPORTS bag being used to that end not because it's style is of specific category Sports Bag. The importance of distinction eludes me. They were his words. Nothing has changed. Was it an official sports bag or a duffle bag I don't know nor care and DP is vague anyway. What I care about is that SY has determined there is one and that it is missing. Full stop. It can't have carried MM. DP even started to say it couldn't but stopped and said tennis racquet instead

The image of the wardrobe I suspect may have been the luggage bag not the sports bag.....but it is unclear too.

SY say there was one and this video was the one I've looked at before where THEY say it's important to the investigation. DP says he has a bag/whatever too. Pretty conclusive one existed.

Omg are you going to suggest the video shows someone impersonating a LE officer? Seems legitimate to me. You can form your own opinion though.

I should add. I don't conceive it's possible it was used to carry a cadaver. Exactly why it is missing is unclear. But IF someone lied about it's existence the bag is important for that use..we can only speculate

If you can't show where in the statement or files then just say so, I already know it's not there.

" Omg are you going to suggest the video shows someone impersonating a LE officer? Seems legitimate to me. You can form your own opinion though."
I never said any such thing, why would imply I did or would?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If you can't show where in the statement or files then just say so, I already know it's not there.

" Omg are you going to suggest the video shows someone impersonating a LE officer? Seems legitimate to me. You can form your own opinion though."
I never said any such thing, why would imply I did or would?

Of course I can but it's no different to what you've said. Am I missing something? There are no paragraph numbers so I can only cut and paste.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

DAVID PAYNE ROGATORY STATEMENT

00:04:36 Reply "Err sleeveless, err I, I keep thinking he's got white trousers err shorts sorry, but I can't remember.'

1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.'

1485 "So as opposed to a bag it'd be something like a rucksack, if at all''
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "Yeah.'

This is the excerpt and it appears delineated by time of the interview. I hope that helps. Not sure what the 1485 number is but it's throughout

 

[Angry Red Bull]

'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her

A German prosecutor goes public with earth-shattering news that Madeleine has been murdered by a new prime suspect. But what is the 'concrete evidence' that points to her death, and does it stand up under close scrutiny?

omny.fm

This is a podcast from Mark Saukonoko with CW about CB as at its date 2020

Summary

• He doesn't know radius of phone tower pings
• He doesn't know location of phone towers
• Despite not knowing he believes it was in ocean club
• He hasn't got any forensic evidence or a body
• He hasn't got photographic evidence or video evidence
• He is unsure if they have seen or had provided witness statements regarding Smithman sighting
• He recognised that his comments about guilt are prejudicial but believes the German judges are up to task
• He is unconcerned that Martin Smith had identified the person thought to be carrying Maddie
• 2 phone calls on the night are part of the evidence. One of those calls we know to be Nicole Ferlinger ( see previous posts). The other we need
• He was unable to talk about the cadaver dog indications saying he can't talk about the case

We now know that there are two email accounts relevant to the murder and linking him.

Short answer this is rubbish!!!

What can he possibly have in an email account that proves with certainty he murdered Maddie.

 

[BonzaRam]

DAVID PAYNE ROGATORY STAYEMENT

00:04:36 Reply "Err sleeveless, err I, I keep thinking he's got white trousers err shorts sorry, but I can't remember.'

1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.'

1485 "So as opposed to a bag it'd be something like a rucksack, if at all''
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "Yeah.'

This is the excerpt and it appears delineated by time of the interview. I hope that helps. Not sure what the 1485 number is but it's throughout

Right and where does he say they had a sports bag? A rucksack is not a sports bag and it sounds to me like he trying to describe something you sling over your shoulder to carry water bottles in, and then ends with doubt ("if they had anything")

I still haven't found any mention of a sports bag in the PJ files, i guess you could imply they asked a question about a kit bag to see if a sports bag got mentioned but why would they be doing SYs investigation for them?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Right and where does he say they had a sports bag? A rucksack is not a sports bag and it sounds to me like he trying to describe something you sling over your shoulder to carry water bottles in, and then ends with doubt ("if they had anything")

I still haven't found any mention of a sports bag in the PJ files, i guess you could imply they asked a question about a kit bag to see if a sports bag got mentioned but why would they be doing SYs investigation for them?

The ROGATORY statements were UK LE I think. So they did a recap of the PJ statements then went into more detail. I looked especially to see if they spoke to tennis coaches and I didn't find anything. There are however over 4000 pages so there may be something there

Correction: there is tennis coach statement Dan Stuk....but nothing in them about a bag

 

[BonzaRam]

Just a thought.... wouldn't someone who worked in sports medicine or perhaps cardiology have a "kit bag"?

 

[faible]

We know nothing of the McCanns and their friends, I’d say they were pretty close considering alll the adult males took turns bathing each others children.

For additional information on this; in the Gaspar Statement she says this occurred on their Majorca holiday which was in 2005 when the kids were ~ 2 according to her statement. This statement was mostly providing information about David Payne.

Not sure what the 1485 number is but it's throughout

At the top of the statement page it says this refers to "DC 1485 MESSIAH" as the Interviewing Officer.

Just a thought.... wouldn't someone who worked in sports medicine or perhaps cardiology have a "kit bag"?

The way he answers the question I'd say he's referring to 'kit' as in tennis gear, as is the interviewer:

Reply "You know just to pick the kit up and, and then go back down really.'

1485 "Virtually. Do you know whether they took their own tennis kit out''

00:03:23 Reply "Err no they didn't.'

1485 "They didn't take the kit out''

Reply "No.'

1485 "But when I said''

Reply "Oh sorry when you say the tennis kit''

1485 "When I say kit.'

Reply "I'm talking about the, err racquet and b*lls they didn't take.'

1485 "Kit in, you know, kit in general is gonna mean the attire and''

1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''

Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''

Also worth noting is that this Interview occurred on 11 April 2008, when the McCann's had been subject to all manner of speculation as to their involvement in the disappearance and might give some context as to why he's explaining that if they had a bag it wouldn't have been overly large.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Windows: did the window have something to do with an hypothetical accident?

Window in MM room

It was only 3' off ground outside..wouldn't cause a fatal accident imo

Window behind sofa

It was approx 10' off ground and cement pathway below. An accident falling out that window could cause significant trauma even possibly death on an extreme. These windows also have shutters. All mechanisms operate from the inside

The footprint:

A single size 6 footprint right foot with blood on soul was created just outside kids room inside heading towards the room.. I don't understand fully how they could tell but it's said the blood came from outside. That print was the same one matched to print on bumper of hire car. Did she fall out that window found by parent and brought inside? I think it unlikely but possible. Shutters. More likely the accident is window sill from inside. That's where blood seeped under tiles. When found they perhaps moved her to main bed, but she checked on twins. Foot print. The remaining prints were probably cleaned away by cleaners. Does that support earlier night? .....because it had been cleaned after? Need to check when room was cleaned during stay and when after disappearance and compare with timing of tests to form any conclusion.

 

[faible]

Windows: did the window have something to do with an hypothetical accident?

Window in MM room

It was only 3' off ground outside..wouldn't cause a fatal accident imo

Window behind sofa

It was approx 10' off ground and cement pathway below. An accident falling out that window could cause significant trauma even possibly death on an extreme. These windows also have shutters. All mechanisms operate from the inside

The footprint:

A single size 6 footprint right foot with blood on soul was created just outside kids room inside heading towards the room.. I don't understand fully how they could tell but it's said the blood came from outside. That print was the same one matched to print on bumper of hire car. Did she fall out that window found by parent and brought inside? I think it unlikely but possible. Shutters. More likely the accident is window sill from inside. That's where blood seeped under tiles. When found she was moved to main bed, but she checked on twins. Foot print. The remaining prints were probably cleaned away by cleaners. Does that support earlier night? .....because it had been cleaned after? Need to check when room was cleaned during stay and when after disappearance and compare with timing of tests to form any conclusion.

Link to source.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The multiplication theory of probability works as follows. Where two events can happen the probability that BOTH will happen is the multiplier of the individual probabilities. That's why when you place a bet on a daily double the odds are multipliers of the individual odds of the two horses. Two 8- 1 chances result in 64-1 chance both would happen. The multiplier can go to power of the individual probability events.

Here we know that a cadaver dog has 3% chance of random error each indication in identifying A cadaver per scientific analysis of their accuracy.. That is the math theory

In practice the calculation then is:

33 X 33= 1089

100/3 =33

The probability that the cadaver dog made an accidental error in detecting a cadaver at two locations is 1089 to 1. In other words extremely unlikely. Eddie had a 100% accuracy history so consistent you assume with scientific testing

A blood dog has a similar accuracy of 97% but of blood not a cadaver. They use these dogs in tandem for a reason. They cross verify and it leads to further probability multiplier certainty of cadaver. There are, however two elements to possible error.....the usual error rate of 3% compounded by the fact it may be a blood detection but not blood of same cadaver. Assume for simplicity sake that the probability of BOTH error or it being unrelated blood is 60% not 97%. That means that additional multiplier is

1089 X 2.5 X 2.5 = 6806

The 2.5 is 40% unrelated expressed as multiple 100/ (100-60)=2.5

We now have the probability that the dogs made error in indication both times and or to unrelated blood of 1 in 6806.

That is just pure math and scientific error rate and doesn't yet account for multiple facts which exacerbate the math towards it being Maddie. Factors such as:

* The fact there were cadaver contamination indications consistent with the primary indications eg the car keys, the cuddle cat toy, the patio door handle, clothes of KM

* The fact that the car had only 3000klm. on odometer when hired indicating few prior users and therefore few people who may have had a cadaver in boot

* The fact that there were no reported history of fatalities in the unit

* The two timelines are weeks apart but both under control of McCann when they had a missing child

* The fact that DNA testing resulted in mixed sample which likely would have included MM but contaminated by other DNA. That isn't a failed test. It's a test requiring further testing.

* The fact GM was seen airing the car boot for days and that there is testimony of horrible odour in the car

These all DRAMATICALLY increase probability that not only is it a cadaver but that cadaver is MM. An actuary could work it out mathematically.......or you could just take up Dr Perlins offer and do the DNA test to resolve the matter and clear McCanns if they had no involvement

LE know this of course. It is an utter disgrace they seek to peddle BS to the world. The truth isn't going to be buried. My hope is it will prevail. Maddie deserves it to prevail

When asked why the offer wasn't taken up the then head of OG said words to the effect:

"Because we are investigating an abduction and those tests have nothing to do with that outcome"

At a probability a 6805/6806 or 99.99% that there was a cadaver in both places , their unit and their car you really can't be that stupid.

 

[Kurve]

At a probability a 6805/6806 or 99.99% that there was a cadaver in both places , their unit and their car you really can't be that stupid.

Not admissible because it's unreliable.

 

[faible]

At a probability a 6805/6806 or 99.99% that there was a cadaver in both places , their unit and their car you really can't be that stupid.

Apparently the entire world is that stupid and the McCann's are criminal masterminds.

OR

The dog evidence is deeply flawed because of handler error, which is exactly what has been raised in this thread previously.

 

[jason_recliner]

The multiplication theory of probability works as follows. Where two events can happen the probability that BOTH will happen is the multiplier of the individual probabilities. That's why when you place a bet on a daily double the odds are multipliers of the individual odds of the two horses. Two 8- 1 chances result in 64-1 chance both would happen. The multiplier can go to power of the individual probability events.

Here we know that a cadaver dog has 3% chance of random error each indication in identifying A cadaver per scientific analysis of their accuracy.. That is the math theory

In practice the calculation then is:

33 X 33= 1089

100/3 =33

The probability that the cadaver dog made an accidental error in detecting a cadaver at two locations is 1089 to 1. In other words extremely unlikely. Eddie had a 100% accuracy history so consistent you assume with scientific testing

A blood dog has a similar accuracy of 97% but of blood not a cadaver. They use these dogs in tandem for a reason. They cross verify and it leads to further probability multiplier certainty of cadaver. There are, however two elements to possible error.....the usual error rate of 3% compounded by the fact it may be a blood detection but not blood of same cadaver. Assume for simplicity sake that the probability of BOTH error or it being unrelated blood is 60% not 97%. That means that additional multiplier is

1089 X 2.5 X 2.5 = 6806

The 2.5 is 40% unrelated expressed as multiple 100/ (100-60)=2.5

We now have the probability that the dogs made error in indication both times and or to unrelated blood of 1 in 6806.

That is just pure math and scientific error rate and doesn't yet account for multiple facts which exacerbate the math towards it being Maddie. Factors such as:

* The fact there were cadaver contamination indications consistent with the primary indications eg the car keys, the cuddle cat toy, the patio door handle, clothes of KM

* The fact that the car had only 3000klm. on odometer when hired indicating few prior users and therefore few people who may have had a cadaver in boot

* The fact that there were no reported history of fatalities in the unit

* The two timelines are weeks apart but both under control of McCann when they had a missing child

* The fact that DNA testing resulted in mixed sample which likely would have included MM but contaminated by other DNA. That isn't a failed test. It's a test requiring further testing.

* The fact GM was seen airing the car boot for days and that there is testimony of horrible odour in the car

These all DRAMATICALLY increase probability that not only is it a cadaver but that cadaver is MM. An actuary could work it out mathematically.......or you could just take up Dr Perlins offer and do the DNA test to resolve the matter and clear McCanns if they had no involvement

LE know this of course. It is an utter disgrace they seek to peddle BS to the world. The truth isn't going to be buried. My hope is it will prevail. Maddie deserves it to prevail

When asked why the offer wasn't taken up the then head of OG said words to the effect:

"Because we are investigating an abduction and those tests have nothing to do with that outcome"

At a probability a 6805/6806 or 99.99% that there was a cadaver in both places , their unit and their car you really can't be that stupid.

You need to study statistics.

 

[31550]

33 X 33= 1089

100/3 =33

The probability that the cadaver dog made an accidental error in detecting a cadaver at two locations is 1089 to 1.

Your interpretation of the maths /stats / probability is incorrect.

If the dog has a 3% chance of error in one location then it has a 97% chance of success. It's chances of being correct in both of two locations is 0.97 * 0.97 = 0.941. Therefore chances that the dog made an error at either location is 1-0.941 or 0.059 - almost 6% chance of being wrong about one or both locations.

 

[bomberclifford]

Your interpretation of the maths /stats / probability is incorrect.

If the dog has a 3% chance of error in one location then it has a 97% chance of success. It's chances of being correct in both of two locations is 0.97 * 0.97 = 0.941. Therefore chances that the dog made an error at either location is 1-0.941 or 0.059 - almost 6% chance of being wrong about one or both locations.

Glad someone mentioned it.

Probablity decreases with each subsequent step in the chain of events. It doesn't increase.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The scientific accuracy of the cohort is 97%. That connotes reliable accuracy than not. The problem is that to accept dog evidence as admissible you'd need to have clear understanding and verification of THE dog. Instead the handlers and LE use them as an investigative tool to locate forensic evidence not as evidence per se though I understand some USA cases have started to use such evidence. I suspect they do this because otherwise there would be microscopic analysis of every case in which the dogs were involved to undermine the evidence l

We have DNA sample collection from two locations where two dogs gave indications and to date hasn't been tested under current technology to ascertain definitive outcome. Based on scientific accuracy of the cohort that seems minimum standard..

Your interpretation of the maths /stats / probability is incorrect.

If the dog has a 3% chance of error in one location then it has a 97% chance of success. It's chances of being correct in both of two locations is 0.97 * 0.97 = 0.941. Therefore chances that the dog made an error at either location is 1-0.941 or 0.059 - almost 6% chance of being wrong about one or both locations.

You are wrong plain and simple. They are two locations not one and each has its probability so to ascertain the probability of BOTH you must multiply.

To once again apply the racing horses analogy the probability of BOTH happening is 64 to 1 NOT 8 to 1.

 

[31550]

The scientific accuracy of the cohort is 97%. That connotes reliable accuracy than not. The problem is that to accept dog evidence as admissible you'd need to have clear understanding and verification of THE dog. Instead the handlers and LE use them as an investigative tool to locate forensic evidence not as evidence per se though I understand some USA cases have started to use such evidence. I suspect they do this because otherwise there would be microscopic analysis of every case in which the dogs were involved to undermine the evidence l

We have DNA sample collection from two locations where two dogs gave indications and to date hasn't been tested under current technology to ascertain definitive outcome. Based on scientific accuracy of the cohort that seems minimum standard..


You are wrong plain and simple. They are two locations not one and each has its probability so to ascertain the probability of BOTH you must multiply.

To once again apply the racing horses analogy the probability of BOTH happening is 64 to 1 NOT 8 to 1.

You are really digging a hole for yourself. I suggest you just stop.
I MULTIPLIED 0.97 by 0.97 (0.97 being the probability of success). The probability of success in two successive events is 0.97 TIMES 0.97 = 0.941. Therefore the probability of failure - 0.059 = 5.9%.