The latest McCann suspect: Scotland Yard has revealed vital new information about a suspect wanted in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Doug D wrote:Batman:

'As far as I'm aware, the German police have never stated they suspect CB of abducting or murdering MM. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I have studied their statements very carefully and I haven't seen anything that unambiguous.

I can see how people would think that's the case it but I don't believe it's supported by the facts.'

Mainline @ #28

'In the documentary Case Files XY Unsolved on German TV tonight, Christian Hoppe, director of the National Crime Agency, said German police believed they had almost enough evidence to charge him with Madeleine’s abduction and murder.'

Pretty unambiguous to me.

OK, splitting hairs, he may not technically be 'the German police' and it is not therefore a 'police statement' but a direct quote from the director of the National Crime Agency is good enough for me and this was just the first article I looked at.

littlefoot59 wrote:The state prosecutor from Braunschweig, Hans Christian Wolters has said explicitly that there is specific factual evidence against Brückner. But right now he isn't authorized to talk about it.
I guess we all have to be patient, even if it is very frustrating. But as I said in my very first comment: I do not believe that the various German authorities are involved in a nefarious cover-up in order to shield the McCanns. That's highly unlikely IMO. I guess that they are truly convinced to be able to crack the case wide open...

Doug D wrote:First part of GA's interview is now up on Textusa blog:

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2020/06/goncalo-amaral-jornal-das-8-tvi-june-21.html

littlefoot59 wrote:Batman, I know that I am very new here - but it might be helpful to talk to a German
Christian Hoppe is a high ranking police investigator of the BKA which means "Bundeskriminalamt". This is an indication that the German investigators take the case  very seriously.

pauloalexandre wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Netflix’s The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: Has our growing obsession with true crime gone too far?

With the young girl's disappearance having been turned into a Netflix documentary, Alexandra Pollard looks at whether documentarians should be turning private grief into public property

Friday 15 March 2019 13:15

In the first episode of the documentary series The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, which arrived on Netflix this morning, Portuguese reporter Sandra Felgueiras recalls having an epiphany. It was 2007, a three-year-old girl had just gone missing during a family holiday to the Algarve, and Felgueiras had been sent to cover the case. She watched Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate, make their first public statement to the press. As Gerry spoke, voice breaking, of his “anguish and despair”, his wife stared at the ground, clutching her daughter’s pink cuddly toy. “This is not news,” Felgueiras remembers thinking. “This not a story. This is their life.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-true-crime-making-a-murderer-serial-a8824666.html
.....................

I doubt very much Sandra Felgueiras has been threatened.  She's just doing what journalists do best - making money and career advancement.

Let's face it though - she was a very good journalist early on, and to my knowledge, she was one of the few journalists who questioned the McCanns about their version of events.

pauloalexandre wrote:"Gonçalo Amaral's thesis"

What an utter disappointment you turned out to be, Sandra.

littlefoot59 wrote:The documentary "Aktenzeichen XY" is a  a long standing tv format with a very good reputation. The searches for incriminating hints are often initiated by the official investigators themselves. But the fact that the German investigators felt the need to involve the TV audience might bei an indication that they still don't have the smoking gun!  They strongly believe that Brückner did it, but they don't have enough evidence
for charging him.

‘He was definitely a pervert and all his friends thought that about him. He had some sexual issues but we didn’t think that he liked young children,’ former friend says

• Vincent Wood @wood_vincent
  
• 3 hours ago
  

He’s an almost perfect suspect. All that’s missing for him to become the perfect suspect is for him to be dead.”
Goncalo Amaral ex-Maddie cop

At the time all we knew was that this man was a paedophile.”
Goncalo Amaral ex-Maddie cop

Verdi wrote:Another update - short and sweet like a donkey's gallop..

Furthermore, we do not have a family spokesperson nor are we actively paying any lawyers.

What, are they working pro-bono?

Hobs wrote:

Verdi wrote:Another update - short and sweet like a donkey's gallop..

Furthermore, we do not have a family spokesperson nor are we actively paying any lawyers.

What, are they working pro-bono?

The German 'suspect' was investigated years ago by the Portuguese police and discounted.

I wonder why all this sudden media interest?
When stuff like this happens, it usually means something has cropped up that the mccanns don't want to the public to know about or be disinterested in/minimized.

All this still fails to explain the reaction of the blood and cadaver dogs to the apartment, the hire car, kate's trousers, the child's red t shirt and cuddle cat.
If he did actually kill her and it was in the apartment, why would he remove her body?
Dead bodies are extremely heavy and difficult to handle hence the phrase dead weight.
He would then have the problem of moving her body out of the apartment into whatever he used to move her without being caught and the disposing of her body at its final location.
It would have been far easier to have left her body in situ.
Since blood, body fluids, DNA and cadaverine were detected in the hire car which was blamed Maddie's sweaty sandals, dirty diapers and also other members of the family and even friend driving the hire car to explain the 15/19 markers (14 were too degraded to be identified at the time) and then blamed on rotting meat and fish for the horrible smell which was commented on by Michael Wright and also meant they left the trunk of the hire car open every night.
If the German guy hired the car before the mccanns, there would have been a record, they would also have noticed the smell and complained about it rather than ignoring it.
They would not have explained away the body fluids etc, they would have been demanding every test going to find out if their missing daughter could have been transported in the car before they hired it.
They would also not have come up with explanations for what was found in the apartment such as mosquitoes or nose bleeds, they would not have explained away the dog picking on kate's trousers as her being in contact allegedly with 6 corpses before their vacation, ditto for cuddle cat although they can't even agree when she got it or if it was her favorite toy/comforter like the now missing pink blanket or how it got on the t shirt.
Why when the dogs reacted in the apartment they could not explain it or had excuses rather than screaming and crying and demanding to know if it meant their daughter had been harmed or injured by the alleged abductor.

Why then did kate refuse to answer the 48 questions although technically it was more as several were compound questions) whilst answering the 49th

1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?

3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help?

16. What does “we let her down” mean?

17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

and the 49th question which she did answer:


Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

Not the expected behavior of an innocent mother!

It also doesn't explain why the parents and chums refused to take part in a reconstruction.
As arguidos the parents were compelled to take part, they got round it by having their friends make so many demands and placing so many restriction on the PJ that is was impossible to do a reconstruction.
Claiming the PJ could use actors was ridiculous as only the mccanns and chums would know what they were doing where and when, plus with all the alleged checks, the group would have been up and down like yoyos.
Why would innocent people refuse to cooperate?
Surely they would have been demanding a reconstruction and taking part even if it was a painful reminder/memory.
Innocent family and friends of a missing/murdered loved one will still take part in a reconstruction if it finds their missing loved one.

Why did they offer to take a polygraph and then when taken up on the offer, set so many conditions it was impossible to do?

In the Kate Prout murder case, the failure of Mr Prout to pass a Polygraph test led ultimately to his confession to the murder of his wife.

Back in September 2007 the mcanns, as part of their PR 'fight back' against the action of the Portuguese police in making them arguidos, made it known - albeit through the inevitable use of a proxy 'friend of the family'/'source' - that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.

"They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police," the anonymous 'friend' stated, adding that they had "received no such request from the Portuguese authorities".

Once the frantic headlines, such as 'McCANNS: WE'LL TAKE LIE TEST', had been successfully embedded into the nation's newsstands, clarence mitchell, the mccanns spokesperson, stepped forward to pour cold water on the idea. Principally on the grounds that such evidence was not admissible in a Portuguese court.

And there the matter lay...

Until November, of the same year, when a "shocked" Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, spoke to the Sunday Express. He revealed that he had spoken to "the mccanns' people", with regard to taking a lie detector test, and they had come back "with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy".

Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."

The accompanying headlines, such as 'KATE REFUSES LIE TEST', were clearly unhelpful and so, as usual, clarence mitchell was afforded the final word on the subject:

"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."

How did he have time to almost forensically clean the apartment leaving little DNA of Maddie in her bed or the children in the apartment in the few hours between the mccanns putting the children to bed at 19:30 and then the 22:00 hr check when Maddie was allegedly discovered missing and all the checks in between, leaving no smell of bleach etc, making Maddie's bed with the corner turned down and having the bed under the window all messed up>

It also does not explain away kate's infamous description on page 129 of Maddie in her exhibit 1 your Honor madeleine (with the title Madeleine all in lower case whilst kate's name is capitalized showing priority and also subtle demeaning of the victim)

Page 129: I asked Gerry apprehensively if he’d had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart. Although I knew I had to share this burden, just raising the subject out loud to someone else, even Gerry, was excruciating. Admitting the existence of these images somehow confirmed them as a real possibility, and with that confirmation came renewed waves of fear.


Firstly, given they described Maddie as almost perfect when born, what parent ever describes their child's genitals as perfect?
Secondly, what innocent parent would ever put such a thing in a book supposedly written for their other children to read when older let alone the general public?

Page 276, Apart from describing her sex life, why would kate use these words in relation to Maddie?
The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again.
Firstly she use THIS (which is close rather than THAT (which is distancing(
Why does she place herself close to the alleged monster?
Why does she then use the words touching and Stroking her and perfect little body
Stroking is a gentle, loving term you would expect to see between lovers not between a paedophile and his victim.
No innocent parent would refer to a paedophile stroking their child
Defiling is an expected word.
Again she describes Maddie as having a perfect little body
We have seen all the subtle demeaning about Maddie from her immediate and extended family, things like being jealous of her siblings, being demanding, having tantrums etc yet we see kate again describing Maddie has having a perfect little body
This is unexpected from an innocent parent.
No mention is made about her having a perfect character, it is all about her appearance.
Scary especially given the description about what Maddie would do as spoken by david payne and reported to the PJ by the Drs Gaspar and also paynes extremely creepy and scary description of Maddie in his rogatory interview:

1485 "Okay. I'd like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.'
Reply "Mm, err Madeleine's err a very striking err beautiful child, I'd almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she'd got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry's, you know pride and joy. They'd had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she'd got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.'
1485 "Mm.'
00:15:30 Reply "You know I, you know a fact I've come across already you know she was a, she's a very bright child you know, she wouldn't be the kind of mischievous child who you know and just try and get out of the flat and you know get up to mischief and that, you know, there's fun in all children but she certainly wasn't that kind of child. She was very bright.'

I wonder what type of fun we could have with Maddie?
What was the kind of interaction that could be had with Maddie?
Was it the same kind of interaction that adults had that children had?
What was the difference if any?
What was the difference between payne interacting with Maddie and having fun with Maddie?
She interacted with payne and other children but played with Lily.
Why did she interact with other children rather than play with them?
Why the focusing on her appearance first rather than her character and personality?
Why describe her as Doll like
Note of course all the paste tenses!
what type of fun does he mean when he said " there's fun in all children but she certainly wasn't that kind of child.
Was there a bad child to interact with she was a very good child to, to interact with.
Note the qualifier very and the stutter on the word to
15 x was's
She'd
Could
23 x you know
1 x correction from past to present tense - She was, you know, very, she is
9 x She was, you know, very, she is
2 x interact
2 x fun
2 x unique
3 x bright
1 x self referral as I said on the other, earlier recording


They do not call out to Maddie unless prompted and even then is is minimal, almost as if they lost a watch.
They do not call out to the alleged paedophile abductor.
In all the interviews and chances to send a message they don't, even from the get go.
Not forgetting the fact they never searched, instead they played tennis and went jogging, not the expected behavior of innocent parents.

Over the last 13 years, their language and behavior tells us they know Maddie is dead and knew from the get go making the fund a fraud.
They have told us Maddie is dead.
Kate has described perfectly what a corpse looks like when they have been dead for a couple of days, unembalmed and kept cold "I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying cold and mottled, on a big grey stone slab."
As an ex doctor, she would have seen dead bodies but they would have been fresh (when called out to confirm a death as a GP, although as a p/t locum, this would have been very uncommon, and her only other exposure would have been in medical school and they would have been embalmed and the classes would not have been over a long period) She is describing when she last saw Maddie.

Also the description of this alleged paedophile abductor does not match the discounted description of the alleged abductor as seen by tanner.
The abductor was described as dark hair yet this German 'suspect' is blonde.
Did he go back in time and dye his hair?

What will Scotland yard say?
What will Portugal say more importantly since the crime took place there and it is they who will prosecute the case?
Is this man going to be the patsy?
Will kate and gerry let him take the fall, Innocent of this crime although guilty of others?
Will they testify in court as to their behavior that week?
What is the penalty for perjury?

Verdi wrote:
Kate and Gerry McCann in Portugal in 2007 shortly after Madeleine's disappearance



Touché :en garde:  !

Doug D wrote:Textusa has now put up the second part of GA's interview.

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2020/06/goncalo-amaral-jornal-das-8-tvi-june-21_24.html

MONSTER IN THE MIDST

Madeleine McCann Netflix documentary tells how suspect with ‘ugly pockmarked face’ was lurking near Kate and Gerry’s apartment before she vanished

Investigators believed two witnesses saw the same suspect - but he was never found

A POCKMARKED prowler with an acne-scarred face was spotted lurking near the Madeleine McCann's holiday flat in the days before she was snatched, a documentary claims.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8698066/madeleine-mccann-netflix-doc-suspect-kate-gerry-parents-apartment-lurk/

sharonl wrote:   They are hoping that Bruckner may have confessed to someone or at leat hinted that he was guilty.  They have offered a £22,000 to reward to anyone who spills the beans.  

Brilliant - just look at these people who come forward as I'm sure that many more will now.