Author Topic: The case of Madeleine McCann  (Read 587305 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16219
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5775 on: January 30, 2022, 06:09:PM »
Amaral still running with a 'simulated' disappearance.

https://www.portugalresident.com/goncalo-amaral-is-back-pointing-finger-squarely-at-madeleine-mccanns-parents/

I supposed he has invested so much in it, that he has no other choice.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16219
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5776 on: January 30, 2022, 06:13:PM »

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3186
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5777 on: January 31, 2022, 11:44:AM »
"The German paedophile suspected of abducting Madeleine McCann “repeatedly worked” at the holiday apartments in Portugal where the child vanished, documentary makers can reveal.

Christian Brueckner was said to have been employed by a company that carried out repairs at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz shortly before the three-year-old British girl disappeared in 2007."


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/30/paedophile-suspected-abducting-madeleine-mccann-had-worked-apartments/

If he "repeatedly worked" at Ocean Club it begs the question how its only recently come to light despite the MET spending about 13 million investigating over nearly 9 years and the PJ carrying out 2 investigations which were among the longest in its history.  Couldn't possibly be anything to do with documentary makers enticing viewers could it!?

How would Brueckner know Madeleine and her younger siblings were being left alone every evening from 8.30pm to 11.30pm in the UNLOCKED apartment? 

The person(s) who abuduced Madeleine gleaned intelligence of the McCann's MO and seized the opportunity.
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12664
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5778 on: January 31, 2022, 05:05:PM »
Amaral still running with a 'simulated' disappearance.

https://www.portugalresident.com/goncalo-amaral-is-back-pointing-finger-squarely-at-madeleine-mccanns-parents/

I supposed he has invested so much in it, that he has no other choice.

Amaral will continue to expand his ludicrous theory to even greater levels of lunacy in order to explain any further developments.

The guy is a disgrace. During his career, not only was he caught manufacturing false evidence, he was put in-charge of three missing children's cases (Including  Madeline) and found none of them. He should never have been employed in such a position.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 05:15:PM by David1819 »

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16219
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5779 on: January 31, 2022, 05:08:PM »
Amaral will continue to expand his ludicrous theory to even greater levels of lunacy in order to explain any further develops.

The guy is a disgrace. During his career, not only was he caught manufacturing false evidence, he was put in-charge of three missing children's cases (Including  Madeline) and found none of them. He should never have been in employed in such a position.

I think you'll find the Portuguese feel very differently. As one television presenter said, while generically addressing the UK press and authorities.. "we are not stupid".
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 05:31:PM by Roch »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5780 on: January 31, 2022, 05:27:PM »
Blood's always thicker than water Roch.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18057
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5781 on: January 31, 2022, 06:11:PM »
Amaral will continue to expand his ludicrous theory to even greater levels of lunacy in order to explain any further developments.

The guy is a disgrace. During his career, not only was he caught manufacturing false evidence, he was put in-charge of three missing children's cases (Including  Madeline) and found none of them. He should never have been employed in such a position.
You have to take every case separately. He has just as much right to his point of view as anyone else. https://www.portugalresident.com/goncalo-amaral-is-back-pointing-finger-squarely-at-madeleine-mccanns-parents/

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5782 on: February 01, 2022, 01:52:PM »
Mobile phone data from the night Madeleine McCann disappeared puts the prime suspect ‘no more than five minutes away’ from where the toddler vanished, it has been claimed.

Christian Brueckner, 44, was named in June 2020 as German prosecutors’ main suspect in the Madeleine case.

The three-year-old disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, and has not been seen since.

Brueckner is currently serving time in a German prison for a number of sex and drug offences. Ever since he was identified as a suspect, he has repeatedly denied any involvement in the case.
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5783 on: February 08, 2022, 05:26:PM »
Mobile phone data from the night Madeleine McCann disappeared puts the prime suspect ‘no more than five minutes away’ from where the toddler vanished, it has been claimed.

Christian Brueckner, 44, was named in June 2020 as German prosecutors’ main suspect in the Madeleine case.

The three-year-old disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, and has not been seen since.

Brueckner is currently serving time in a German prison for a number of sex and drug offences. Ever since he was identified as a suspect, he has repeatedly denied any involvement in the case.

The case will never be solved until the suggestion that 'Madeleine McCann' went missing  sometime between 9pm and 10.00, on the evening of the '3rd May 2007' that premis made by family and friends, is false and fabricated! Everything beleiveable points to, and indicates, that for 'one reason or another', the parents of the victim, made arrangements for 'Madeleine' and their 'two twin' siblings, to be 'looked after', and 'cared for', by 'people' and 'persons', whilst the parents and some of their associates visited 'CHAPLINS BAR' after 10. 30pm, on the evening of the 1st May 2007. Furthermore, a parent (or both) revisited 'CHAPLINS BAR' on the following evening [`2nd May 2007'] asking for those who were, or could be involved in the ['unreturn'] the safe return and custody, of their daughter from the despicable mob who took her on the previous evening...

Everything points to 'Madeleine' having been taken `as early as the evening` of `1st May 2007`, once `the parents left the tapas restaurant bar at around 10.30pm on the evening of the 1st May 2007`, and that `the parents knew` and `know the identity of the person` or `people`, who `they arranged to check on their three siblings`, that `particular evening` - my suggestion to anyone who is remotely interested in uncovering the absolute truth regarding this matter, is `whether or not`, it was `one member` (or more) from `their own group`, or `a member of the Ocean Club staff` [at reception] who were `entrusted with keeping an eye on` the three 'McCann children' on the evening of the `1st May 2007` [or `a mixture`, of `group members`, and `Ocean Club Staff members`], when for `whatever purpose` or `reason` [that] `both` of the 'McCann parents' left `the Ocean club' tapas restaurant bar, at around `10.30pm` (or, thereabouts) on the evening of the '1st May 2007', and visited 'CHAPLINS BAR' which is 'conveniently located' in 'close proximity of (to) the local church', (also) 'the derelict building' located 'directly opposite on the same street', and  'in the region of the nearby beach'!

What 'I am certain of', as much as 'I can be', is that on the following evening ('2nd May 2007') was 'that' only 'Gerald McCann' revisited 'CHAPLINS BAR' [ and 'that he did so' after the pre-booked evening meal' at 'the Ocean Club restaurant' bar] of/on that occasion, and that 'Kate McCann', went 'back to the family apartment' at '5A'[apartment block 5] and that 'she slept alone' in 'a spare bed in the children's bedroom' (whilst her 'erstwhile husband' had 'gone off' to `deal with the matter` of 'trying to get their daughter [Madeleine] ¿back', unharmed)!
« Last Edit: February 10, 2022, 05:45:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5784 on: February 08, 2022, 10:57:PM »
At least two different suspects were seen acting suspiciously on the evenings of the 1st and 2nd May 2007, both of these suspects could have been the two suspects who went visiting apartments asking for  charity donation on days prior to the 3rd May 2007...

One suspect was seen acting suspiciously using a mobile phone, outside and inside a public telephone box, seen on evening of 1st and 2nd May 2007, was obviously in contact with a possible accomplice. The second suspect was seen on two separate occasions close to the 'McCann Apartment', once seen leanining against the wall of an alleyway, peering in the general direction of the patio door of apartment 5A. On a second occasion the same suspect was stood with his back against a garden wall belonging to apartment block 6, looking across the road in the direction of the entrance (beyond a gate and a set of concrete steps which led up to the patio and its sliding glass door of the 'McCann apartment...

Rather curiously, neither suspect was seen acting suspiciously in those areas on 3rd May 2007, or any day thereafter...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5785 on: February 09, 2022, 09:39:AM »
At least two different suspects were seen acting suspiciously on the evenings of the 1st and 2nd May 2007, both of these suspects could have been the two suspects who went visiting apartments asking for  charity donation on days prior to the 3rd May 2007...

One suspect was seen acting suspiciously using a mobile phone, outside and inside a public telephone box, seen on evening of 1st and 2nd May 2007, was obviously in contact with a possible accomplice.

Here is the actual public telephone kiosk, around and inside of which, one of the suspects was observed behaving oddly on the evenings of the 1st and 2nd May 2007...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2022, 09:54:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5786 on: February 09, 2022, 10:09:AM »
Here is the actual public telephone kiosk, around and inside of which, one of the suspects was observed behaving oddly on the evenings of the 1st and 2nd May 2007...

This public kiosk is very near to other places of interest where premises were visited, and left, on three consecutive evenings [1st, 2nd and 3rd May 2007]. Places and premises which are of interest to any police investigation, as follows:-

The public phone kiosk

Kelly's Bar

The Smith contingent sighting of a man seen carrying a child at about 10pm on the evening of the 3rd May 2007, after they had left 'Kelly's bar' [ the actual sighting(s) took place near to the 'LUZDOC' facility

The 'Black Bull' public house, which has an outdoor veranda via which anyone can easily access the rear garden of the 'Derelict Building' where I am as certain as I can be, that 'Madeleine McCann' was taken to. This derelict building is situated directly across the street from the village church, where the McCann parents sought refuge during the early days of them reporting the disappearance of their daughter ['Madeleine'] on the evening of the 3rd May 2007].

'Chaplins Bar'  where the 'McCann parents' revelled (until) after 10.30pm on the evening of the 1st May 2007 - linked to this fact is the information provided to the police [`Mrs Fell'] that between about 10.30pm and 11.45pm, on the evening of '1st May 2007' she had heard a child crying somewhat hysterically, with no-one coming or going to the child's distress, until at about 11.45pm that same evening, how the witness had overheard the sliding door to the apartment below [the 'McCann family apartment] which coincided with the child ceasing from crying, and calling out' Daddy' and all became quite.

The real reason why 'Kate McCann' slept in a spare bed in the children's bedroom on and overnight (2nd /3rd May 2007)? Also, the apparent discrepancy between the 'McCann parents' recollection or assertion that 'Madeleine' did not mention any crying episode until breakfast time of the 3rd May 2007 (the morning of the very same day that 'The parents announced their daughters disappearance and that there existed contradictory information regarding the evening which' Mrs Fenn' recounted [that the only crying episode she heard, was on the late evening of the 1st May 2007]? Was it or is it, at all possible, that there had (in fact) been two crying episodes involving Madeleine, on on the evening of 1st May 2007, and another crying episode, involving two of the 'McCann parents', children. For example, where 'Mrs Fell' only heard a small child crying on the 1st May 2007, as opposed to the 'McCann parents, having had it stated to them at breakfast time on the morning of her disappearance [3rd May 2007], how' Madeleine ' had introduced the fact [to both parents] that both herself and one of the other toddlers had been crying overnight, late evening of the 2nd and the early hours of the following day, the 3rd May 2007. The parents have dug a big hole for themselves by falsely introducing the two crying children, and doing so as allegedly told to them by 'Madeleine' at Breakfast time on the morning of her alleged disappearance [3rd May 2007]  because 'Madeleine' did not sleep in the kids bedroom during the evening of the 2nd May 2007, or the early morning of 3rd May 2007, By reliance upon a number of telling factors, that they have refused to offer or to give proper and reasonable answers, for example, at what time did 'Kate McCann' return to apartment 5A, on the evening of the 2nd May 2007, or as the case may be, during the early hours of the 3rd May 2007? Moreover, where had she been on the evening of 2nd May 2007? And, who was she with? WAS IT TRUE, that she and her husband, had ceremoniously gone to the Ocean Club tapas restaurant for the nightly evening meal together? Now, there are a lot of very puzzling configurations which need to be properly investigated by any fresh police investigation, one such puzzle, concerns no member of the 'OCEAN Club' staff, states what time 'the McCann parents' arrived for their so called regular as clock work evening meal, or for that matter, what time, one or other, or both of them had left to return back to their apartment [`5A'] or some other unreported destination? Did, 'Kate' return back to their apartment, whilst 'Gerald' went down to Chaplin bar to try to secure the safe return of 'Madeleine'? There are other significant inconsistencies, which suggests to me, that the script by which the parents and their friends have chosen to introduce, an overall script which does not stand up to scrutiny or truthfulness...


« Last Edit: February 09, 2022, 12:22:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5787 on: February 09, 2022, 04:19:PM »
The 'McCann parents' know the name of the person, or persons, who they entrusted the safety and well being of their three children, to enable them to visit 'Chaplins Bar' after completion of their evening meal at the 'OCEAN Club tapas restaurant' at around 10.30pm on the evening of the 1st May 2007. It is a fact, that not all adult members of the overall tapas 9 group went to 'Chaplins Bar', on 'that particular evening', and that the 'McCann parents' felt 'confident that any such volunteer(s)' who 'had promised', or 'said that they would check on their children' vowing 'to carry out regular checks' at or 'in apartment 5A', whilst the 'McCann parents' were 'absent', would be 'dutifully carried out'. It is also possible, that - although 'the parents were aware of' the 'OCEAN CLUB' babysitting service, that maybe they 'did not commit fully' to 'the total benefits' of 'such a full service'. But, instead, (as 'it appears to have turned out') made some sort of an (indirect) 'agreement' or 'arrangement' with 'the babysitting support System' affiliated with/to the  'Ocean Club listening services' [policy], on the basis that `a member`, or `members`, explaining that whilst the 'McCann parents' were `absent from the grounds of block five`, in particular, `apartment 5A` at the resort, that `other good friends` who were (all) adult members of the tapas 9 group, would almost certainly without question, at 'regular half hourly', or 'hourly intervals', that 'there might arise' or be 'any cause for concern', with the late hour that the ' McCann parents' might 'not return in good time' to 'manage the looking after' of 'their own children', which might have resulted in 'checks' (which ordinarily might have not all been expected to have lasted all night long! As a result, I believe it possible, that 'any adult member' of the 9 strong 'tapas group', went and 'spoke to a member'  of the 'Ocean Club staff' working 'in' and 'at' the small 'reception entrance' and reported that 'they could not go all night long' without any 'sleep', waiting for the 'McCann parents' to 'return to apartment 5A' and that 'due to the late hour' of the intended possibility that 'the McCann parents' might 'be absent all night long', the 'volunteer group member' who had 'inadvertently promised to keep checking apartment 5A' , and 'the McCann children' asked a member of staff to make an entry into the small reception diary, if [whether, or not] `someone working in the capacity` and terms [agreement] on offer by them, (babysitting service) to make regular half hourly checks of the 'McCann apartment' and 'their three siblings', from around 11.30pm ( that same evening) until 'such a time' regarding' the return of the parents' from their visit to ' Chaplins Bar'..
« Last Edit: February 10, 2022, 09:57:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5788 on: February 10, 2022, 10:16:PM »
.. I believe it possible, that 'any adult member' of the 9 strong 'tapas group', went and 'spoke to a member'  of the 'Ocean Club staff' working 'in' and 'at' the small 'reception entrance' and reported that 'they could not go all night long' without any 'sleep', waiting for the 'McCann parents' to 'return to apartment 5A' and that 'due to the late hour' of the intended possibility that 'the McCann parents' might 'be absent all night long', the 'volunteer group member' who had 'inadvertently promised to keep checking apartment 5A' , and 'the McCann children' asked a member of staff to make an entry into the small reception diary, if [whether, or not] `someone working in the capacity` and terms [agreement] on offer by them, (babysitting service) to make regular half hourly checks of the 'McCann apartment' and 'their three siblings', from around 11.30pm ( that same evening) until 'such a time' regarding' the return of the parents' from their visit to ' Chaplins Bar'..
So, 'WHO WAS' / 'IS RESPONSIBLE', for the entry made in the diary at 'the small reception' of the 'OCEAN Club' - 'when was the entry made in the diary', 'which member of staff', and 'whose handwriting is the entry made in' or 'by'? On which page of the relevant small reception diary, was this information recorded? How come, there is not as yet, any photograph or image of the information recorded in the said diary? Furthermore, what is (the) other information recorded on the same page, (also) on the previous page, and the subsequent page [either page, before and after the page where the information regarding the reservation of / for [a] dining table(s) because 'they' were leaving the children alone back in their apartments nearby]? Which guests were leaving their children at risk (unprotected)? Was or is their any reference to a particular family [such as 'The McCanns'] or was the information recorded generally covering all families [and all the children], belonging (collectively) to all 9 adult members of the so called 'tapas 9 group'?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2022, 10:39:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5789 on: February 10, 2022, 10:50:PM »
Which guests were leaving their children at risk (unprotected)? Was or is their any reference to a particular family [such as 'The McCanns'] or was the information recorded generally covering all families [and all the children], belonging (collectively) to all 9 adult members of the so called 'tapas 9 group'?
Why wasn't the information given that was recorded in [that version] the small reception diary, acted upon by 'any' or 'all members of staff' working for, and 'in the best interests' of the 'OCEAN CLUB' and 'families' [the welfare of vulnerable young children', and (of course) toddlers, [being, as it were] somewhat, rather 'astonishingly', we're 'left home alone' at 'risk' or 'peril of a disaster' waiting to 'happen']?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2022, 10:51:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...