Unsolved Madeleine McCann

[Angry Red Bull]

Why are you asking me what my point is when it should be so obvious? Amarale abused power, Wolters has not.

Then we have a different criteria for what constitutes abuse of power.Talking up constantly Brueckner guilt now for several years and saying it's certain but not following through with charges IS an abuse of power.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

this dude has done two days of research on the case, it takes a few more days to fully understand the case!

he doesn't realize the police files are readily available on the net for him to read

A detectives opinion piece-

Oh mate that video is just terrible. I couldn't even finish it I'm afraid.

 

[Kurve]

Nabbed red-handed in the 'crime' of downloading an image of Maddie. Keep trying Christian.......maybe one day when you grow up you can become a real investigator

If you accept that there's an image of Madeleine after she went missing from the apartment being passed around by paedophiles over the internet, logic should have you accepting that Kate and Gerry didn't take it. Therefore, they weren't responsible and they're in the clear.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If you accept that there's an image of Madeleine after she went missing from the apartment being passed around by paedophiles over the internet, logic should have you accepting that Kate and Gerry didn't take it. They weren't responsible.

I don't accept.

If there is indeed such an image and can be proven to be after disappearance then it proves she wasn't dead in the unit, boot etc etc

I haven't seen such an image nor evidence it exists.

 

[Kurve]

Nabbed red-handed in the 'crime' of downloading an image of Maddie. Keep trying Christian

You posted that.

I don't accept.

If there is indeed such an image and can be proven to be after disappearance then it proves she wasn't dead in the unit, boot etc etc

I haven't seen such an image nor evidence it exists

It's a best guess they have images of Madeleine after she was taken and it seems safe to assume that's what they've got. You seemed to agree.

Sooner or later, Wolters will say exactly what it is they have. We'll never see them imo, German authorities won't release images they seized from a paedophile/child murderer for public consumption. Kate and Gerry might never see them either.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You posted that.



It's a best guess they have images of Madeleine after she was taken and it seems safe to assume that's what they've got. You seemed to agree.

Sooner or later, Wolters will say exactly what it is they have. We'll never see them imo, German authorities won't release images they seized from a paedophile/child murderer for public consumption. Kate and Gerry might never see them either.

I was supporting the thread by discussing the possibilities of such images. My assessment of probabilities precludes serious consideration of their existence.

I now don't believe the case can ever be solved.

 

[Kurve]

Christian Brueckner's lawyer denies he's charged over Madeleine McCann

Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner has been made an 'official suspect' in the case, by Portuguese prosecutors, it has been reported, but no charges have been brought.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[johnymac1]

Oh mate that video is just terrible. I couldn't even finish it I'm afraid.

I thought.... Oh wow, we have a serving law enforcer commenting on the case. which is rare!
your right, he missed the mark.


I still think something weird went on during the Mccanns holiday. can't quite put my finger on it yet.

There was somebody always moving through that laneway between Apartment and Bar. I can't see a stranger abduction happening.
Bar and kitchen staff, residents of the apartments, the Tapas 7 crew doing their checks and Jeremy Wilkins on patrol outside the apartment block.

There are hundreds of statements taken, I was going to post a full list, but it might have infringed on individuals' privacy
But a key witness the police interviewed on three different occasions

Jeremy Wilkins (1/3), On holiday in Praia da Luz, had conversation with G. McCann at ± 9.10 hrs., didn't see J. Tanner,
Jeremy Wilkins (2/3), On holiday in Praia da Luz, had conversation with G. McCann at ± 9.10 hrs., didn't see J. Tanner,
Jeremy Wilkins (3/3), On holiday in Praia da Luz, had conversation with G. McCann at ± 9.10 hrs., didn't see J. Tanner, CR 5

t was a very thorough investigation.
Amaral wasn't the only detective on it, He's not the only detective that disregarded the stranger abduction theory.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I thought.... Oh wow, we have a serving law enforcer commenting on the case. which is rare!
your right, he missed the mark.


I still think something weird went on during the Mccanns holiday. can't quite put my finger on it yet.

There was somebody always moving through that laneway between Apartment and Bar. I can't see a stranger abduction happening.
Bar and kitchen staff, residents of the apartments, the Tapas 7 crew doing their checks and Jeremy Wilkins on patrol outside the apartment block.

There are hundreds of statements taken, I was going to post a full list, but it might have infringed on individuals' privacy
But a key witness the police interviewed on three different occasions

Jeremy Wilkins (1/3), On holiday in Praia da Luz, had conversation with G. McCann at ± 9.10 hrs., didn't see J. Tanner,
Jeremy Wilkins (2/3), On holiday in Praia da Luz, had conversation with G. McCann at ± 9.10 hrs., didn't see J. Tanner,
Jeremy Wilkins (3/3), On holiday in Praia da Luz, had conversation with G. McCann at ± 9.10 hrs., didn't see J. Tanner, CR 5

t was a very thorough investigation.
Amaral wasn't the only detective on it, He's not the only detective that disregarded the stranger abduction theory.

Gerry says that he met Wilkins on the other side of the Street or toward the middle. Had he done that Tanner could easily have walked undetected by both on the opposite side near the apartments and back passage. Both Tanner and Wilkins say he was near the back entrance on the opposite side as she walked past and she must have been able to touch them as she did ...that close. Have a look at images of location and you will see what I mean. She of course saw the stranger with child in arms at that point up the street just after passing them. Neither saw her I recall or the purported 'abductor'......distracted by the conversation perhaps? Or perhaps they didn't cross paths at all and the Tanner report was a false one. It certainly gave GM a strong conviction that that sighting WAS the one of the abduction. That is so despite 4 people in the Smith group saying that they saw a GM lookalike (subsequently testified it WAS GM) carrying MM a few hundred metres away heading toward the beach in opposite direction AND those 4 saw them face to face rather than side on like Tanner had. Why didnt GM mention that latter sighting even once? If you come out of the main entrance you are going to hug the footpath walking up to the back passage. You wouldn't cross the street to see Wilkins only to then have to cross the street a further 40 metres near the back passage. The reverse is true in heading back. Wouldn't. Would Wilkins stand with a pram in the middle of street having a conversation. Also highly unlikely. They saw each other at that back entrance and should have seen Tanner pass but inexplicably didn't. Why?

By placing the point of meeting toward the other side GM inadvertently creates the possibility that Tanner walked behind them and that explains why she wasnt seen. I think the Tanner sighting is in error or false. It gave the abductor explanation life of that we can be sure. It also creates a distraction

Amarale has said that this exact point is crucial to solving the case......the Tanner sighting and the interaction with GM and Wilkins. I can see why he thinks that.

I also happen to think that GM had just exited the back entrance and that's when he met Wilkins. The last dog Cadaver detection was in a flower bed at the bottom of those back steps before you exit onto the street. Perhaps the abductor placed the child in flower bed to then check that the street was clear? Logical. The problem of course is that an abductor having killed the child in unit isn't going to carry a dead body away at all. Nor would a cadaver smell occur in that short time either (takes 2 hrs). They didnt. That 2 hrs gives us a timeline for death. Yet we have a dead body located in flower bed! A killer would escape. The only person who would carry a dead child away is someone linked to the child who was perhaps negligent. Any thoughts?

Maybe the cadaver dog detected fecal matter? Nah ...with 94% accuracy there was a 2 hr old dead body in a flower bed attached to that unit.

The Tanner sighting then serves two purposes in my opinion

 

[bomberclifford]

So the McCanns carried their recently deceased child from the apartment to some other location, placing her in the flower bed at the bottom of the stairs for a bit. Long enough to leave her decomposing DNA for the dogs to detect but not long enough to be seen or discovered.

This apparently has a 'probability' of 94%

This first hiding spot goes undetected for several weeks until they were able to retrieve the putrified remains and put her body in the boot of a rental car and drive somewhere else to dispose of the body.

This also apparently has a 'probability' of 94%

They did all this without any witnesses or evidence (apart from the non-admissible DNA of course).

The second part was done while under the scrutiny of the Portuguese police, the UK authorities now in the region because of the missing child, and the international media throng that had gathered.

They've also never once wavered in fifteen years.


MI6 needs to get the McCanns on their payroll.
They're that good.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So the McCanns carried their recently deceased child from the apartment to some other location, placing her in the flower bed at the bottom of the stairs for a bit. Long enough to leave her decomposing DNA for the dogs to detect but not long enough to be seen or discovered.

This apparently has a 'probability' of 94%

This first hiding spot goes undetected for several weeks until they were able to retrieve the putrified remains and put her body in the boot of a rental car and drive somewhere else to dispose of the body.

This also apparently has a 'probability' of 94%

They did all this without any witnesses or evidence (apart from the non-admissible DNA of course).

The second part was done while under the scrutiny of the Portuguese police, the UK authorities now in the region because of the missing child, and the international media throng that had gathered.

They've also never once wavered in fifteen years.


MI6 needs to get the McCanns on their payroll.
They're that good.

I'm not trying to convince you. Wouldn't bother. But you are wrong to suggest there is no evidence. The Smith group of 4 saw a person they identified as being GM lookalike carrying a child a few hundred metres away that night.

Perhaps you can explain how a cadavar smell arose in all the locations it did? ....and how those detections had nothing to do with MM? I wait with baited breath. Cadavar dogs give critically important leads in investigation because of their detection accuracy, knowing that forensic evidence needs to then identify WHO. There is no question a cadavar was behind the lounge, in or around the closet, handler having touched the balcony sliding door, in the flower bed, in the boot of a rental car and handler having touched the keys to that car. I would be interested in your explanation of that as to 94% probability. Bear in mind that the hire car has only 3000 klm on clock when hired is hardly used by many. So are you relying on the 6%? You must be if you're dismissing it out of hand as having no possible involvement

That's rather closed thinking to dismiss the 94% and back the 6%. Dismiss the witness statement expert who FBI use, dismiss the Smith witness account of 4, dismiss Amarale who resolved that people had lied, dismiss that the only person with fingerprints on the open window.

To suggest that 6 cadavar detections all with a 94% probability of being a dead body are unrelated unconnected random dead bodies OR that the 6% occurred on each occasion is just plain naive and irrational thinking. In fact it's an absurd proposition. So How?

My guess coincides with Amarale. The body was initially hidden then moved quickly thereafter in the middle of the night to another rental accommodation unit with a chest freezer probably rented by a friend to avoid detection once the focus escalated. Hell of a lot more probable that happened than to argue it's all coincidence and unrelated non incriminating 94% or that the 6% happened 6 times in a row

Just so you know how ridiculous it is to argue 6% X 6 times. The odds of that happening are 16,777,216 to 1. I forgot cuddle toy was too. So it's actually 268,436,456 to 1.

So for your argument to be effective a dead body not being MM was clutching cuddle toy

 

[faible]

I'm not trying to convince you. Wouldn't bother. But you are wrong to suggest there is no evidence. The Smith group of 4 saw a person they identified as being GM carrying a child a few hundred metres away that night.

Perhaps you can explain how a cadavar smell arose in all the locations it did? ....and how those detections had nothing to do with MM? I wait with baited breath. Cadavar dogs give critically important leads in investigation because of their detection accuracy, knowing that forensic evidence needs to then identify WHO. There is no question a cadavar was behind the lounge, in or around the closet, handler having touched the balcony sliding door, in the flower bed, in the boot of a rental car and handler having touched the keys to that car. I would be interested in your explanation of that as to 94% probability that doesn't include them. Bear in mind that the hire car has only 3000 klm on clock when hired is hardly used by others So are you relying on the 6%? You must be if you're dismissing it out of hand as having no possible involvement

That's rather closed thinking to dismiss the 94% and back the 6%. Dismiss the witness statement expert who FBI use, discmiss the Smith witness account of 4, dismiss Amarale who resolved that family and friends had lied, dismiss that the only person with fingerprints on the open window was KM

To suggest that 6 cadavar detections all with a 94% probability of being a dead body are unrelated unconnected random dead bodies OR that the 6% occurred on each occasion is just plain naive and irrational thinking. In fact it's an absurd proposition. So How?

My guess coincides with Amarale. The body was initially hidden then moved quickly thereafter in the middle of the night to another rental accommodation uniit with a chest freezer probably rented by a friend to avoid detection once the focus went on Mccann. Hell of a lot more probable that happened than to argue it's all coincidence and unrelated non incriminating 94% or that the 6% happened 6 times in a row

Just so you know how ridiculous it is to argue 6% X 6 times. The odds of that happening are 16,777,216 to 1.

For someone who was so quick to tell us you were an expert on quantitative methods, you're really bad at quantitative methods.

My uni studies involved quantitative methods including probability analysis and statistics. I didn't get anything wrong

 

[bomberclifford]

I'm not trying to convince you. Wouldn't bother. But you are wrong to suggest there is no evidence. The Smith group of 4 saw a person they identified as being GM lookalike carrying a child a few hundred metres away that night.

Perhaps you can explain how a cadavar smell arose in all the locations it did? ....and how those detections had nothing to do with MM? I wait with baited breath. Cadavar dogs give critically important leads in investigation because of their detection accuracy, knowing that forensic evidence needs to then identify WHO. There is no question a cadavar was behind the lounge, in or around the closet, handler having touched the balcony sliding door, in the flower bed, in the boot of a rental car and handler having touched the keys to that car. I would be interested in your explanation of that as to 94% probability. Bear in mind that the hire car has only 3000 klm on clock when hired is hardly used by many. So are you relying on the 6%? You must be if you're dismissing it out of hand as having no possible involvement

That's rather closed thinking to dismiss the 94% and back the 6%. Dismiss the witness statement expert who FBI use, dismiss the Smith witness account of 4, dismiss Amarale who resolved that people had lied, dismiss that the only person with fingerprints on the open window.

To suggest that 6 cadavar detections all with a 94% probability of being a dead body are unrelated unconnected random dead bodies OR that the 6% occurred on each occasion is just plain naive and irrational thinking. In fact it's an absurd proposition. So How?

My guess coincides with Amarale. The body was initially hidden then moved quickly thereafter in the middle of the night to another rental accommodation unit with a chest freezer probably rented by a friend to avoid detection once the focus escalated. Hell of a lot more probable that happened than to argue it's all coincidence and unrelated non incriminating 94% or that the 6% happened 6 times in a row

Just so you know how ridiculous it is to argue 6% X 6 times. The odds of that happening are 16,777,216 to 1. I forgot cuddle toy was too. So it's actually 268,436,456 to 1.

So for your argument to be effective a dead body not being MM was clutching cuddle toy

... and yet here we are, fifteen years later, with no body, no motive, no admissible evidence, no witnesses, no charges, no convictions, nothing. Nada.

What is the probability of that?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

... and yet here we are, fifteen years later, with no body, no motive, no admissible evidence, no witnesses, no charges, no convictions, nothing. Nada.

What is the probability of that?

FBI says unsolved murders are a little under 50%. Elsewhere I think it's lower...approximating 10%. There are some peculiarities of the McCann case affecting it being solved including UK interference.......failure to upgrade DNA testing as two. The case will never be solved to have a perpetrator charged or if one is it will be on unconvincing evidence that fails a conviction. That also happens to be Amarale prediction and he said some time ago an attempt will be made to close the whole ugly episode by blaming an innocent party though he nominated a different Patsy. Boom boom. Whatever statistic you use won't be a shadow on 1 in 268M .

 

[bomberclifford]

FBI says unsolved murders are a little under 50%. Elsewhere I think it's lower...approximating 10%. There are some peculiarities of the McCann case affecting it being solved including UK interference.......failure to upgrade DNA testing as two. The case will never be solved to have a perpetrator charged.

So McCann's did it and there's conclusive proof but they won't be charged because... something something.
Sounds like you're on top of it.

Whatever statistic you use won't be a shadow on 1 in 268M

The more you post, the clearer it is that the probability of you understanding probability is approaching zero.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So McCann's did it and there's conclusive proof but they won't be charged because... something something.
Sounds like you're on top of it.




The more you post, the clearer it is that the probability of you understanding probability is approaching zero.

I'm not going to refer to THE peculiarities for legal reasons. You don't have to believe they exist. I know they do and am totally satisfied. I suggest you do some homework on the case facts as I thoroughly have. A good start after you have might be the parameters for Operation Grange. The name Perlin is also worth a look and his offer to solve the impasse which has never even received the courtesy of a response. You might ask why? Many have. The answer is astounding.

If you don't want to do the work but still insist on seeking to insult me with nonsense remarks then the conversation is finished. I have more important things to do sorry.

 

[faible]

I have more important things to do sorry.

Well that's a lie given you've posted in this thread 170 times.

 

[bomberclifford]

I'm not going to refer to THE peculiarities for legal reasons.

Of course. Stay safe out there ARB. They might find you.

 

[jason_recliner]

I'm not going to refer to THE peculiarities for legal reasons. You don't have to believe they exist. I know they do and am totally satisfied. I suggest you do some homework on the case facts as I thoroughly have. A good start after you have might be the parameters for Operation Grange. The name Perlin is also worth a look and his offer to solve the impasse which has never even received the courtesy of a response. You might ask why? Many have. The answer is astounding.

If you don't want to do the work but still insist on seeking to insult me with nonsense remarks then the conversation is finished. I have more important things to do sorry.

You have an almost preternatural ability to misinterpret the world around you, fail to understand statistics, and hence be incorrect about literally everything that you've predicted since joinging BF. Your posts are invaluable as they allow investigators, with 94% certainty, to rule out scenarios that you 'know' are correct. Clearly the McCanns are innocent and we can move on to other possibilities.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You have an almost preternatural ability to misinterpret the world around you, fail to understand statistics, and hence be incorrect about literally everything that you've predicted since joinging BF. Your posts are invaluable as they allow investigators, with 94% certainty, to rule out scenarios that you 'know' are correct. Clearly the McCanns are innocent and we can move on to other possibilities.

Then it should be so easy to ignore me yet you seem incapable to do so......which I find very instructive as to your character, personality, principles and motivation. What motivates someone to be so intent at opposing with animosity hatred and attempt to bully to obsessive extremes even that which is simply an opinion? I have some theories but won't be so ungracious as to express them because of MY personality character and principles. I never cower to a bully. Ever. It must be excruciatingly frustrating that I don't because it seems to make you uncontrollably irate. Have you ever asked yourself why? Sought answers?

 

[faible]

Then it should be so easy to ignore me yet you seem incapable to do so......which I find very instructive as to your character, personality, principles and motivation. What motivates someone to be so intent at opposing with animosity hatred and attempt to bully to obsessive extremes even that which is simply an opinion? I have some theories but won't be so ungracious as to express them because of MY personality character and principles. I never cower to a bully. Ever. It must be excruciatingly frustrating that I don't because it seems to make you uncontrollably irate. Have you ever asked yourself why? Sought answers?

Hard to ignore someone who spams the thread. You could simply, not.

 

[jason_recliner]

Then it should be so easy to ignore me yet you seem incapable to do so......which I find very instructive as to your character, personality, principles and motivation. What motivates someone to be so intent at opposing with animosity hatred and attempt to bully to obsessive extremes even that which is simply an opinion? I have some theories but won't be so ungracious as to express them because of MY personality character and principles. I never cower to a bully. Ever. It must be excruciatingly frustrating that I don't because it seems to make you uncontrollably irate. Have you ever asked yourself why? Sought answers?

Where to start?

As a scientist, somebody who undertakes qualitative, semi-quantitiative, and quantititave analysis for a living, it's probably your total failure to understand even basic statistics. But it's more than that. Having publicly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about, you repeatedly assert your positions as though backed up by facts, which they most clearly are not. But it's more than that, you claim you will "research", as though that will find answers that have not yet been uncovered by years of investigation, both professional and amateur. But it's actually even more than that, it's that you post as though to claim that your opinions are fact, proven, absolute. And even in the face of being proven wrong several times now, you continue to do so, as though you are singularly qualified to analyse crimes because you're a semi-retired tax consultant?!?!?!

I could go on, but I think I've said enough!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Where to start?

As a scientist, somebody who undertakes qualitative, semi-quantitiative, and quantititave analysis for a living, it's probably your total failure to understand even basic statistics. But it's more than that. Having publicly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about, you repeatedly assert your positions as though backed up by facts, which they most clearly are not. But it's more than that, you claim you will "research", as though that will find answers that have not yet been uncovered by years of investigation, both professional and amateur. But it's actually even more than that, it's that you post as though to claim that your opinions are fact, proven, absolute. And even in the face of being proven wrong several times now, you continue to do so, as though you are singularly qualified to analyse crimes because you're a semi-retired tax consultant?!?!?!

I could go on, but I think I've said enough!

Wrong. My University course has dedicated subjects dealing with Quantitative methods 1 and 2. Probability theory. Hypothesis testing..Statistics analysis. I'm accomplished and my math ability is comparable to a person having spent their 40 year career dealing SOLELY with numbers. Covers the whole gambit I'm afraid and passed with a distinction if I recall. The course I did was also the most distinguished too throughout the country at least at the time

You suggest I've been proven wrong but that's totally incorrect. All that has happened is that several people have attacked me consistently because I have conviction in my analytical ability and conclusions and they want to talk over the top of me. There has been no proof. I'm 100% right on this issue and as it relates to probability and conclusions that can be drawn about this case. Zero doubt. You are free to believe otherwise. I don't insist you accept my view unlike you

You still haven't explained why it matters so much that I express an opinion? Are you used to bullying people into submission? Does it somehow offend you that someone can believe unwavering in their answer and their own ability? It shouldn't matter but seemingly it does. So it ultimately comes down to the fact that you are accustomed to bullying people into your opinion and you can't with me and it annoys you.

Deal with it. I won't change my opinion because I'm happy with it. You can believe it's Brueckner if you like. I don't care if you agree with me or not. Just get ready to be disappointed when nothing eventuates with Brueckner. I've had zero involvement in crime analysis. You are right there. So I'm a novice relating to it. Does that make you feel better?

 

[jason_recliner]

Wrong. My University course has dedicated subjects dealing with Quantitative methods 1 and 2. Probability theory. Hypothesis testing..Statistics analysis. I'm accomplished and my math ability is comparable to a person having spent their 40 year career dealing SOLELY with numbers. Covers the whole gambit I'm afraid and passed with a distinction if I recall. The course I did was also the most distinguished too throughout the country at least at the time

You suggest I've been proven wrong but that's totally incorrect. All that has happened is that several people have attacked me consistently because I have conviction in my analytical ability and conclusions and they want to talk over the top of me. There has been no proof. I'm 100% right on this issue and as it relates to probability and conclusions that can be drawn about this case. Zero doubt. You are free to believe otherwise. I don't insist you accept my view unlike you

You still haven't explained why it matters so much that I express an opinion? Are you used to bullying people into submission? Does it somehow offend you that someone can believe unwavering in their answer and their own ability? It shouldn't matter but seemingly it does. So it ultimately comes down to the fact that you are accustomed to bullying people into your opinion and you can't with me and it annoys you.

Deal with it. I won't change my opinion because I'm happy with it. You can believe it's Brueckner if you like. I don't care if you agree with me or not. Just get ready to be disappointed when nothing eventuates with Brueckner. I've had zero involvement in crime analysis. You are right there. So I'm a novice relating to it. Does that make you feel better?

How long ago did you graduate from university?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

How long ago did you graduate from university?

Here is a tip. Rather than try and find a reason that you can put someone down who poses no earthy threat to you, why don't you let bygones be bygones and instead devote your time to effective anger management techniques preferably with assistance