StopTheMyths

Oh no - G-Unit is now posting on Justice forum!

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threa ... 28/page-39

No posts on UK Justice forum (Mccann topics) for 5 days - good.

Calling RossB, should he happen to read this post:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 687303#new

Ah!

Vertigo Swirl has beaten me to it in making the exact point I was going to make.

Exactly that.

Before replying to someone else's post, ensure your cursor is below the last line of the text you are replying to.

ETA: And below the text formatting box.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 687568#new

If CB is convicted of murder but not abduction then it can't be assumed that he was an abductor. How Madeleine left 5A would remain a mystery for ever. Maybe MWT's theory was correct; she wandered off.

That, malevolent and dishonest as always from one poster on the board, is, nonetheless, a shift.

She is apparently willing to countenance that the dog-alerts contributed nothing to solving the question of what happened to Madeleine, which is, of course, absolutely correct.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 11381.5115

Mr Gray writes:

Amaral didn't understand the evidence..that's fact...not opinion.....and he isn't right about CB being a scapegoat

Mr Grey might be right, but I think it more likely that Amaral maliciously misrepresented the evidence.


Did Amaral really not understand that the investigation he headed up was, from before the British arrived, a murder enquiry?

From what he spouted in an interview to a Spanish magazine, he (seemingly) didn't?

Did Amaral really not understand that Mark Harrison was instructed by his (Amaral's) boss (at the time) the (now late) Encarnacidio, to investigate, alone, that Madeleine had been murdered and buried; that Harrison offered, strictly on request, to investigate other possibilities or scenarios?

\Perhaps he didn't. But I think it more likely that he lied in an (ironically) successful bid to keep his book from being declared 'libellous'.

Did Amaral really think that Eddie had 'no hesitation in alerting to Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic? In fairness, Amaral can genuinely blame Grime's excesses for that fact that they were looking for Madeleine's blood there. But Amaral seems in no mood to blame Grime for anything.

Kizzy writes:

although the mccs were never going to leave any stone unturned seems they missed a golden opportunity here.

They have spent practically all their energy on a bitter fight going after GA.

The motive for that was he was harming the search for Maddie [seems it turned out it was reputation etc].

I wonder what their motive was in turning down a chance to prove they were innocent. and prove the DNA is no longer inconclusive.


Offer to help examine DNA samples ignored
Among the other things Operation Grange has showed no interest in is the remarkable offer by Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist and executive of an American company, Cybergenetics, which is reputed to have the world’s most advanced equipment and methods to examine and identify DNA samples. Asked by an Australian news outlet if he could help in the Madeleine case, Dr Perlin said he would gladly analyse forensic samples found by specialist dogs in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and in a car they had hired 25 days after the reported disappearance. He said he could decipher 18 previously unsolvable DNA samples dating back to 2007.

A now defunct laboratory in the UK had been unable to come to any proper conclusions about them. Despite the lapse of time, Dr Perlin was optimistic that if the samples were sent to him, he and his team could accurately identify the DNA in less than a fortnight. He offered his services to Operation Grange free of charge, but he got no response. Dr Perlin extended the offer to Gerry McCann, but he did not respond either. Again, one wonders why.

How to break it gently to Kizzy.

Madeleine was abducted on May 4th.

The McCanns hired the Renault Scenic on May 27.

Still, Eddie alerted accurately to Gerry's blood on the ignition key.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... ic=12448.0

From one of the posts on that thread:

Whatever he [Grime] may have suspected, guessed or deduced, his dog alerted, and that was not in his control.

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

Alerts were most definitely under Grime's control. He kept returning the dog to the same spots -- repeatedly -- until the dog eventually got fed up and barked.

An astute PJ officer observing the video footage picked that up.

Barrier has quoted this, from the archiving dispatch, presumably to support the fiction that Portuguese prosecutors did not rule out the McCanns' possible involvement in Madeleine's disappearance:



http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 693495#new

Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

Presumably to promote the fiction that the Prosecutors did not definitively rule out the possibility that Kate and Gerry were behind Madeleine's disappearance.

More in an edit ....

The prosecutors first said this:

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

After making plain the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of Madeleine, they added that they had no real clue what happened to Madeleine -- beyond that Kate and Gerry played no part in Madeleine's disappearance.

Of course, the prosecutors also made plain Kate, Gerry and the whole group checked on their children.

No wonder the police have never found the women allegedly on the tape. Seyferth describes one as 45 while Busching says 70-80. Seyferth says there was one tape while Busching said two.

The court picked up on the contradictions and rather than helping to convict Brueckner there evidence was dismissed.

Suspect in Maddie case filmed rapes of three women
June 16, 2020 at 8:33 pm
Linkedin
Pinterest
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2020-06-1 ... s-mulheres

House frequented by Christian Bruckner in the Algarve

JOSÉ FERNANDES

Two former accomplices of Christian Bruckner revealed to German judges details about images they found in a film camera meanwhile missing
Hugo Franco
HUGO FRANCO
Christian Bruckner filmed three rapes on different women, possibly when he resided in Portugal between 1996 and 2007. There were two former accomplices who casually found the footage on a film camera that they stole from the German's home, taking advantage of the fact that he was detained in Portimão for fuel theft in 2006.

The court in Braunschweig, Germany, heard one of these suspects, who reported two of these violations, according to the court ruling, which Expresso had access to, on the case of the violation of an American woman in Praia da Luz in 2005.

One of the victims that appears in the video was a woman of about 75, who was brucked by Bruckner to a bed in a holiday apartment and whose face was covered with swimming goggles, whose lenses were painted with gray paint - was targeted countless harms.

Another victim who was also filmed by the suspect in another video was a young woman who the rapist tied to a wooden post in the middle of the living room of his old home in the Algarve.

The images of the third violation were seen only by the second accomplice who had also entered Bruckner's home. This time it was a 50-year-old woman who spoke Italian.

But the video camera with the images disappeared in that period, which never allowed to serve as evidence against the man that the German, Portuguese and British justice suspect was the author of the kidnapping of Madeleine McCann, in May 2007 in Praia da Luz.

Despite the lack of a video camera, the German newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" reveals that the two testimonies were considered credible by the German court.

In none of these films does the American woman appear who was raped in Praia da Luz in September 2005 by this suspect. A crime for which Bruckner was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison in Germany in December last year, after the Judiciary Police sent the information about this crime to BKA, the German federal police.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/a ... tugal.html
Regardless of the question of guilt in this circumstantial process:

The emigrant, who claims to have lived from various jobs in Portugal, had lived in a house near the victim at the time of the crime. He paints the picture of himself as a helpful man with changing relationships with women who has nothing to do with the masked perpetrator who, in September 2005, is said to have enjoyed tormenting his helpless victim with blows with a flexible metal object humiliate.

But how did a body hair of the accused get to the crime scene? As an objective characteristic, the chamber evaluates the hair as a strong indicator. The defendant argues against it: The hair could have got into the house of the 72-year-olds from stroking the cat in front of the victim's house - which was on his way to the beach - or from an accidental transfer while shopping or in a café.

And then of all things on the bed sheet in the bedroom where the rape took place? The court does not believe in this - especially since a DNA analyst as an expert in this process had declared the secondary transfer of body hair (unlike in the case of hair on the head) to be possible but unlikely.

The investigators had only brought the seized hair into connection with the accused years after the crime, which had not yet been resolved: acquaintances of the 43-year-old who belonged to the petty criminal milieu had told the police about video recordings that had fallen into their hands. Thereupon the accused could be seen in - according to her conviction real - rape scenes.

The video recordings never surfaced, they should no longer exist. Did the former acquaintances make up the accusations only to make themselves popular with the police, as the defendant thinks? The defense attorney points out contradictions in the statements. "You are not believable."

The chamber sees no motive why the two should have pounded the accused after years. "The investigation into the rape of an elderly woman, as described by you, was only started," recalls the presiding judge. On the basis of the suspicion, attempts were made to clarify whether such a crime had occurred in Portugal. The actions of the defendant described by the two witnesses in the filmed scenes were similar to the rape of the 72-year-olds.

In the overall view of all the evidence, so the chairman, the court was convinced of the culprit of the accused, who already had a criminal record for sexual and property crimes.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 695587#new

(g-Unit):

My question is simple. How did Grange decide that the crime was abduction?

I think G-Unit is simple.

The Portuguese prosecutors decided that the crime was abduction, and said so, in their archiving dispatch.

They reached that conclusion despite, apparently, missing, as Operation Grange certainly did not, that the English sniffer-dog team was headed by a freelance, recently sacked, incompetent and corrupt handler/ex-policeman.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... 696479#new

Vertigo Swirl, uncharacteristically missing a vital point, here:

As has been pointed out dozens of times before there are (sadly) numerous examples of first time child abductor / murderers - why do you think it's unlikely Bruckner could be one too? Any specific reason apart from "just because"?

In your view did the person who you believe ran over Madeleine and hid her body have to have had a track record of running over kids and hiding their bodies in order to have committed this crime?

Numerous?

Every single person who has ever murdered anyone did so, for the first time.

Ruth Snyder only ever murdered one person, her husband. That had nothing to do with an abusive relationship. She was bored rigid with her marriage and wanted to escape with her lover, Judd Grey, with whom she plotted her husband's murder.

There are doubtless countless other examples.

This was from the Summer of 2017

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/m ... d-10338968

1. A burglary gone wrong
Former Operation Grange head DCI Andy Redwood championed a theory that Maddie had been kidnapped by thieves during a bungled burglary at the holiday flat.

There had been a fourfold increase in burglaries from the start of 2007 to the day the three-year-old went missing.

In the three weeks before Maddie's disappearance, windows were used to gain access to apartments in the Ocean Club complex and British detectives believed the toddler may have disturbed an intruder.

But Portugal's Policia Judiciaria made little secret of their dismissal of the theory.

Looks as if Andy Redwood might have been on to something ....

It seems that the idiot wonderfulspam has now taken over Justice forum and can now say absolutely anything without censure.

Bloody hell ....

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12484.0

McCann supporters are often keen to tell us that the three expert investigative forces believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. That, in essence, the police have evidence which proves it completely impossible that the McCanns could be in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

So, I'd like to hear from members...

What possible evidence could there be that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?

I'll start...

1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.


Members are invited to add to this list.

It was the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors, on a set of files more accurate and more complete, than anything online, that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger (to Madeleine).

It was the conclusion of PJ Inspector Carlos that, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant.

If Inspector Carlos was wrong to conclude that, those who insist he was wrong must point to commentary on the files on efforts to find Gerry following Kate;s alert, including where he was when found and who found him.

Then again, they shouldn't bother. No such commentary exists because inspector carlos was/is right.

Mr Smith proved, by changing his mind about producing an efit that he had also changed his mind about the identity of the man he saw.

As Mel, here, once memorably put it, while our dear late Queen was still alive, you would no more produce an efit of someone you thought was Gerry than you would, of someone you thought was the Queen.

The Queen, not nearly as well known as Gerry, obviously.

But apart from that, I thought it was an excellent analogy.

And finally the English dog-handler, freelance in Praia da Luz having been sacked by South Yorkshire Police, straining every sinew to launch a freelance career, who disregarded Mark Harrison, whose lead he was supposed to be following, in laying trails others followed to accuse the McCanns, having perpetrated the fraud of the "E"VRD.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... =8465.5430

Mr Gray writes:

To claim Eddie alerte to cadaver odour is not a fact and it is therefore a lie to refer to it as a fact. There are further lies in the interim report. The dogs do not have a 100% record,..they are not the only dogs of their type in the world. Both these claims were made in the Interim report by Almeida and are untrue and therefore lies.
Amarals book does not have a factual basis..it is based on lies.
The PJ seem to have too much belief in Grime.
The diver in the Nicola Bulley case reminds me of Grime. Highly regarded as an expert in his field and now his reputation is in tatters.
I think the same will happen to Grime.

(More in an edit)

During the searches two dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.

The searches described in this document were limited to certain locations. Therefore, it can not be said that the concealed remains of Madeleine McCann are not within the village of Praia da Luz. During the first week of her disappearance the GNR tasked personnel to search through the village for the scenario of Madeleine still being alive. This involved visiting dwellings and business premises and a physical search of the refuse bins. A full scale re-search of the village is not currently advised due to its speculative nature and resource implications. Should new information or intelligence identify a specific location then it would be recommended to re-search it adopting the similar model of reconnaissance followed by a search using several detecting methods as detailed in this report to provide a high assurance of detection for a concealed body.

At the conclusion of this initial process of “clearing the ground under your feet” I am satisfied a systematic review and search procedure has been conducted and accurately recorded by the PJ.

I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).

Should further advice or support be required regarding search activity then I would be happy to consider such a request.

NB The online corruption of Mark Harrison's report which has him describing freelance Martin Grime's private working pets as Police dogs edited out.

Mark Harrison simply wrote dogs

I agree, HB, but the thread concerns the EHcHR judgment... which was only ever going to give a summary of the substance and whether the courts had violated EU law. It was never anything to do with whatever the dogs may or may not have alerted to.

There had never been a criminal trial, which would have been the arena in which to determine the veracity of dog alerts.

It was a civil case, which was judging between relative human rights.

There was a case, I think Sal found, way back, where a couple of yachtsmen sailed to Portugal and anchored somewhere offshore before going ashore.

The Portuguese found a stash of illegal drugs on the sea-bed quite close to where the yacht was moored and that was all the 'evidence' the Portuguese police needed to convict the yachtsmen of drug smuggling. They appealed through the Portuguese courts and lost; then attempted to take their case to the EU, who threw it out on the basis that they don't act as a final court of appeal against decisions of national courts.

I guess it's similar here.

honestbroker1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 7:02 pm

There was a case, I think Sal found, way back, where a couple of yachtsmen sailed to Portugal and anchored somewhere offshore before going ashore.

The Portuguese found a stash of illegal drugs on the sea-bed quite close to where the yacht was moored and that was all the 'evidence' the Portuguese police needed to convict the yachtsmen of drug smuggling. They appealed through the Portuguese courts and lost; then attempted to take their case to the EU, who threw it out on the basis that they don't act as a final court of appeal against decisions of national courts.

I guess it's similar here.

http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/deci ... rtugal.htm