Madeleine McCann

robwen · 13-06-2020 03:27PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Wtf? Explain that rational?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-shouted-22155770

SusieBlue · 13-06-2020 04:02PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Regarding disposal of body I did a direction search on Google Maps and it is a calculated 34 minute drive at normal driving speed from Ocean Club to the south-western sheer cliffs at Cap Sao Vincente, where there is an adjacent car park. A body deposited over these wild cliffs would unlikely to be seen again.

But they didn’t have a car. 34 minutes over, 34 minutes back, that’s an hour and 10 minutes.
They didn’t have access to google maps like we do now, or mobile internet, and they wouldn’t have been overly familiar with the immediate area.

They collected Madeleine at 6pm from kids club, and sat down to dinner at 8:30.
Say it took an hour and 10 to drive to the cliffs, that leaves 1hr 20 mins to kill Madeleine, come up with a plan, get the other parent on board with the kidnapping story, figure out where they’re going to dump the body, clean and destroy all evidence, source a car, and drive to the cliffs to dump it.
All the while it’s still reasonably bright outside and other tourists are on their way for dinner, so not ideal conditions for disposing the body of a murdered toddler.
And they’d need to be back at the ocean club, clean and dressed ready to sit calmly down for dinner at 8:30pm.

That just seems completely implausible to me.

13-06-2020 04:19PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Christian B report, chilling and a real weirdo by this account

This lady would have very well honed instincts through her tons of experience, and was an able and observant communicator.

100% psychopath, very dangerous man.

13-06-2020 04:25PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

But they didn’t have a car. 34 minutes over, 34 minutes back, that’s an hour and 10 minutes.
They didn’t have access to google maps like we do now, or mobile internet, and they wouldn’t have been overly familiar with the immediate area.

They collected Madeleine at 6pm from kids club, and sat down to dinner at 8:30.
Say it took an hour and 10 to drive to the cliffs, that leaves 1hr 20 mins to kill Madeleine, come up with a plan, get the other parent on board with the kidnapping story, figure out where they’re going to dump the body, clean and destroy all evidence, source a car, and drive to the cliffs to dump it.
All the while it’s still reasonably bright outside and other tourists are on their way for dinner, so not ideal conditions for disposing the body of a murdered toddler.
And they’d need to be back at the ocean club, clean and dressed ready to sit calmly down for dinner at 8:30pm.

That just seems completely implausible to me.

I mean that WHOEVER did the deed had ready access to a vehicle, and this is a very likely location for disposal of a body. I can never figure out how this location hasn’t figured much in the media discussions. You would be unlikely to ever see a body again in the extremely wild open ocean there, and if done under cover of dark It could pass notice, although it is a very popular spot for fishing, day trippers (by daylight) and no doubt for romantic episodes at night.

weldoninhio · 13-06-2020 04:41PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Kate stated several times that she knew Madeleine was not capable of opening the sliding patio door . It was heavy and she couldn’t pull it open . The door was unlocked but closed so very unlikely that a child would open it then wander out and stop to close a heavy patio door behind her

Kate also said that the draught from a closed and locked window, with only her fingerprints on it, had slammed the bedroom door and alerted her that something was wrong. I’d take what she said with a barrel of salt.

Day Lewin · 13-06-2020 06:43PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Kate also said that the draught from a closed and locked window, with only her fingerprints on it, had slammed the bedroom door and alerted her that something was wrong. I’d take what she said with a barrel of salt.

I think I disagree with you there -
there's a thing called ?? Something Memory - (sorry can't remember the exact name)
That is, when you return home and everything looks normal but you have a feeling that something feels different, that someone from outside has been there --

Vague though it sounds, this is a real thing: and is thought to be caused by a subliminal memory of where exactly everything had been, even pages of paper etc, even if you had not really memorised them.

A few milimetres here and there can be enough to trigger that unsettled awareness of a change. I think that Kate McCann felt that as soon as she went in.

(Must try to remember what that memory thing is called???)

Plumbthedepths · 13-06-2020 07:29PM

When Kate ran back to the Tapas bar screaming ''they've taken her'' wonder why she was so sure Maddie hadn't wondered off and if she suspected kidnapp why leave her other two children in danger?Bizzare behaviour.

Rock77 · 13-06-2020 08:13PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

When Kate ran back to the Tapas bar screaming ''they've taken her'' wonder why she was so sure Maddie hadn't wondered off and if she suspected kidnapp why leave her other two children in danger?Bizzare behaviour.

The only logical conclusion to her panicked screams is she killed her own child by accident and disposed of her body......

If she ran screaming ‘she’s missing’ there would be no suspicion though..

Sorry, bad day.....

jam_mac_jam · 13-06-2020 08:21PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

When Kate ran back to the Tapas bar screaming ''they've taken her'' wonder why she was so sure Maddie hadn't wondered off and if she suspected kidnapp why leave her other two children in danger?Bizzare behaviour.

People may act bizarrely in such a situation. Maybe she wasn't thinking clearly or thought the person who took the child was around and they could catch up with them.

Just because someone doesn't act the way that you think you would doesn't mean she killed the child.

Who knows what would go through your head in that moment. Maybe she just needed help as quick as possible.

seenitall · 13-06-2020 08:30PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

When Kate ran back to the Tapas bar screaming ''they've taken her'' wonder why she was so sure Maddie hadn't wondered off and if she suspected kidnapp why leave her other two children in danger?Bizzare behaviour.

From everything I've read, our subconscious is a very strong force in ourselves. There are so many things we 'know' on some deep level but can be in denial about for whatever reason, because thinking differently suits us, or whatever. I think that evening was a horrible example of this for Kate and Gerry. On some level, they knew that leaving the kids unattended was a very, very risky thing to do. But with their conscious minds they thought the risk was culculated, that they had it figured out and it was an acceptable level of risk (i.e. very low, "nothing will happen"). Because they wanted to go to the restaurant, and relax for the evening without the kids. So their conscious mind prevailed over the subconscious red flag of leaving the children alone in the flat. Yet, the subconscious knows a wrong thing has been done. It is watchful. Somewhere in the subconscious, the worst possible fears are always fomenting (that goes for all of us). Before we were civilised, we were animals and had to rely on our subconscious/instincts to survive. The subconscious is a very sharp working tool for us if we let it work for us. But as we've become civilised, we rely more on calculation, statistics, and "it won't happen". We have become too comfortable in our civilised societies to stop and assess a risk properly. Not everyone, but a lot of people.

When Kate gets back to the flat, she can't find her daughter and immediately she feels that her worst fear has been realised. NOW she feels it to the bone, in a flash. She had the fear suppressed before. Her subconscious is telling her: "I told you this would happen, you wouldn't listen." That's how she 'knows' Madeleine's been taken. She would feel all this, react like this even if Madeleine had wandered off and was somewhere down the hall. Unfortunately, her instinct was completely correct this time - the worst has happened.

Her extreme, completely overwhelming fear connected to her eldest, makes her then lose her head in relation to anything else, even her youngest. She immediately goes to seek help to find Madeleine because only more people can help find her, nothing else will. Madeleine is ALL she can think about in that moment.

That horrible, horrible rush of adrenaline, rush you feel in your head, to the point where you feel dizzy and you are almost living an excrutiating, hellish out of body experience. That only ever happened to me on two occasions in my life, both of them when I thought my then toddler was lost or taken, in a big department store and in an airport. It DIDN'T happen when I was hanging off a very high cliff on the Adriatic coast, literally holding on by my fingers and toes and nothing else (pure thoughtless stupidity and brainless curiosity is the answer to how I found myself in that situation - disregarding instinct, again - I was very scared, but nothing beats the atavistic fear of a mother in a crowded public space).

Banana Republic. · 13-06-2020 08:51PM

robwen wrote: »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-shouted-22155770

A witness claimed to have seen Madeleine getting into a German VW van like Brueckner’s with a man in Spain weeks after she vanished.

Thank you, my apologies.
This is shocking,

“They said she emerged from a restaurant in Alcossebre, 2007, police files show.

It emerged last week that Brueckner was living just two miles from the holiday apartment where the little girl vanished”.
Surely this guy is the one cause the amount of info out is incredible.

retro:electro · 13-06-2020 09:01PM

I’m pretty sure “Madeleine’s gone” were Kate’s first words as she ran down to the Tapas Bar. Open to correction there?

The person who overheard Kate screaming “they’ve taken her” was woken by a knock on her door altering her and her husband to the turn of events at 11:30pm, so approx an hour and a half after it was realised Madeleine was gone. It was then when she heard Kate state these words, “the bastards have taken her”, which aren’t that outrageous when you consider her child had been gone for nearly two hours at this point, so far from a nonsensical accusation, it was more of a realisation she came to nearly two hours later when she realised whoever had taken Madeleine, had probably taken her, and she was unlikely to return.

Also, because I don’t think it can be stated enough on this thread, a few words from the former nanny who was actually there on the night and was witness to the aftermath:

She is still constantly quizzed by people about the case who ask if “the parents did it”.
She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their reactions, the whole thing. Not a chance.”

jam_mac_jam · 13-06-2020 09:16PM

The timings of a few hours between kids club and the dinner make it very unlikely. With not a shred of evidence to be found.

Also the fact that they worked for so long for so hard to keep the investigation up. You would want to be the best actor in the world to keep it up.

MonsterCookie · 13-06-2020 09:17PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

A witness claimed to have seen Madeleine getting into a German VW van like Brueckner’s with a man in Spain weeks after she vanished.

Thank you, my apologies.
This is shocking,

“They said she emerged from a restaurant in Alcossebre, 2007, police files show.

It emerged last week that Brueckner was living just two miles from the holiday apartment where the little girl vanished”.
Surely this guy is the one cause the amount of info out is incredible.

He certainly sounds ‘promising’ if that’s the right word.

Going by what the German police have said, it sounds like they have plenty of information beyond what is already in the public domain. But just not enough to convict.

Ardillaun · 13-06-2020 10:16PM

2u2me wrote: »

I had a listen and I think he just verbalises what many of us feel.
In many of the interviews with them- their concern seems to be more about defending themselves from the accusations of neglect.
.

Putting too much weight on expressed affect can seriously mislead investigators (and the public) as well. For months, this Detroit physician was considered the prime suspect in his wife’s murder partly because he exhibited little apparent emotion when discussing her death. Even after being cleared by the police, many still believed him to be guilty until the true culprits were found.

https://www.greensboro.com/couple-charged-in-killing-of-detroit-ophthalmologist/article_378df9b1-39df-5e45-a6a6-4314d2c4fd00.html

Shefwedfan · 13-06-2020 11:23PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

When Kate ran back to the Tapas bar screaming ''they've taken her'' wonder why she was so sure Maddie hadn't wondered off and if she suspected kidnapp why leave her other two children in danger?Bizzare behaviour.

If she wasn’t acting bizarre after her child was taken then yes questions would be asked.....

2u2me · 13-06-2020 11:26PM

Ardillaun wrote: »

Putting too much weight on expressed affect can seriously mislead investigators (and the public) as well. For months, this Detroit physician was considered the prime suspect in his wife’s murder partly because he exhibited little apparent emotion when discussing her death. Even after being cleared by the police, many still believed him to be guilty until the true culprits were found.

https://www.greensboro.com/couple-charged-in-killing-of-detroit-ophthalmologist/article_378df9b1-39df-5e45-a6a6-4314d2c4fd00.html

I can't access that link(legal restriction- no idea) but i take your point. It definitely is just a tool in the toolkit.

Ardillaun · 13-06-2020 11:50PM

2u2me wrote: »

I can't access that link(legal restriction- no idea) but i take your point. It definitely is just a tool in the toolkit.

Sorry, here’s another one. The reports I can find now don’t really give a full picture of the way the media portrayed him until the other suspects were found:

Dr. Robert Iverson had been a murder suspect for seven months, since his wife was found strangled in the backseat of her sport-utility vehicle, a photo of the couple’s two young children by her body.

``A lot of people in the community were surprised I wasn’t defensive over that,″ Iverson said Thursday, after a young couple was charged with killing his wife. ``The cloud of the suspicion over me was other people’s problem, not mine. If a person knows he wasn’t complicit in a crime there should be no consternation that the investigation had to proceed.″

https://apnews.com/3899d0d5b58edcd33b3bab4c3fad1a6c

Outlaw Pete · 14-06-2020 12:39AM

Sureitlbegrand wrote: »

https://youtu.be/uS6ucYudNAo

It's an old one but worth a watch if it hasn't been seen. An FBI statement analyst goes through some interviews with Kate and Gerry. This guy really knows hows to read people hes excellent

Watched that a few years ago and that guy is full of it tbf. Just two examples of how the guy's theories don't hold up to much scrutiny:

The basis for almost every single one of his conclusions are that the McCanns (in the interview he analysed) at no stage express concern for Madeleine's whereabouts or safety, as if the interview had taken place just days after she had gone missing, but the interview in fact took place four years later and the whole reason for the McCanns giving the interview was guess what? Because they were concerned for Madeleine! So what he says makes no damn sense.

At another stage he talks about this 'hidden confession' which the McCanns apparently gave in the interview and he bases this assertion on their response to being asked if they killed Madeleine and in reply they pose some questions to highlight how ludicrous some of the claims about them are. He refers to this as "floating alibis" :rolleyes: What absolute nonsense.

It's quite common for people to say something like 'If I did x then why would I have ...' or 'How could I possibly have been in y when you know I was in z' - this is just something people often do in an attempt to get people to see that what they are being accused of is illogical, it is far from evidence that someone is lying as this clown asserts and just because he had one example where some idiot (a doping cricketer I believe) did this, that doesn't mean everyone that poses such questions when faced with an accusation from thereafter must also be doing what he did.

retro:electro · 14-06-2020 12:50AM

These YouTube videos are just farcical. I can’t believe they’re being offered up on this thread as logical explanations for anything. Most of them are conspiracy central.

MonsterCookie · 14-06-2020 02:01AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Watched that a few years ago and that guy is full of it tbf. Just two examples of how the guy's theories don't hold up to much scrutiny:

The basis for almost every single one of his conclusions are that the McCanns (in the interview he analysed) at no stage express concern for Madeleine's whereabouts or safety, as if the interview had taken place just days after she had gone missing, but the interview in fact took place four years later and the whole reason for the McCanns giving the interview was guess what? Because they were concerned for Madeleine! So what he says makes no damn sense.

At another stage he talks about this 'hidden confession' which the McCanns apparently gave in the interview and he bases this assertion on their response to being asked if they killed Madeleine and in response they pose some questions to highlight how ludicrous some of the claims about them are. He refers to this as "floating alibis" :rolleyes: What absolute nonsense.

It's quite common for people to say something like 'If I did x then why would I have ...' or 'How could I possibly have been in y when you know I was in z' - this is just something people often do in an attempt to get people to see that what they are being accused of is illogical, it is far from evidence that someone is lying as this clown asserts and just because he had one example where some idiot (a doping cricketer I believe) did this, that doesn't mean everyone that poses such questions from thereafter must also be doing so.

i agree with you. the context seems to be totally lost i.e. it was four years later and the McCanns were giving background to an australian audience who may not have been as familiar with the case. the analyst didn't refer to the questions being asked i.e. it wasn't a police statement, they weren't asked an open question like 'tell me what happened'. Maybe the answers were appropriate for the questions?

the other thing that struck me was that the analyst may not have been making any allowances for colloquiality e.g. when Kate said 'my god'.

not to totally discredit the analyst mind you - the science behind the statement analysis is very impressive. but its one thing to analyse a statement given to the police at the time of the abduction, and another entirely to analyse answers given in a media interview 4 years on.

2u2me · 14-06-2020 02:21AM

One thing struck me as particularly curious in the video, I'm wondering if this is normal behaviour.

He emphasized the "you didn't come when we cried" from Madeleine, a 3 year old.

Is it normal or not for a 3 year old to be concerned in the 'we' sense like this? Or would it indicate as he proposed a sign 'parentification' of Madeleline? Anybody know this?

tigger123 · 14-06-2020 10:15AM

2u2me wrote: »

One thing struck me as particularly curious in the video, I'm wondering if this is normal behaviour.

He emphasized the "you didn't come when we cried" from Madeleine, a 3 year old.

Is it normal or not for a 3 year old to be concerned in the 'we' sense like this? Or would it indicate as he proposed a sign 'parentification' of Madeleline? Anybody know this?

Havent watched the video, but a 3 year old does definitely know the meaning and the sense of 'we'.

jam_mac_jam · 14-06-2020 10:23AM

2u2me wrote: »

One thing struck me as particularly curious in the video, I'm wondering if this is normal behaviour.

He emphasized the "you didn't come when we cried" from Madeleine, a 3 year old.

Is it normal or not for a 3 year old to be concerned in the 'we' sense like this? Or would it indicate as he proposed a sign 'parentification' of Madeleline? Anybody know this?

They usually wouldn't but i don't think it's impossible and it doesn't really proof she was lying.

The fact that the analyst was saying that they were talking about her as if she was dead is not really proof either. It's four years later there is part of them that probably accepts she is gone at that stage rather then missing. Even if there is still hope.

It wasn't straight afterwards so some of his assertions seem to be clutching at straws.

the_pen_turner · 14-06-2020 10:41AM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

They usually wouldn't but i don't think it's impossible and it doesn't really proof she was lying.

The fact that the analyst was saying that they were talking about her as if she was dead is not really proof either. It's four years later there is part of them that probably accepts she is gone at that stage rather then missing. Even if there is still hope.

It wasn't straight afterwards so some of his assertions seem to be clutching at straws.

you would have to think that way.
there are only really 3 options in this, she is dead, someone took her to raise as their own child, or took her for their sick pleasure. .
believeing she is dead is the best option , ideally she would be alive and in a loving home but that leaves the worse option firmly open

Day Lewin · 14-06-2020 01:07PM

You'd have to wonder what idiot was responsible for this....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/13/madeleine-mccann-suspect-told-he-was-on-german-police-radar-in-2013

Suspect was warned? Would have taken the chance to get rid of anything incriminating? (if guilty, that is...)
I hope they have their detective hands on every computer and phone he ever owned.

Strumms · 14-06-2020 01:17PM

MonsterCookie wrote: »

He certainly sounds ‘promising’ if that’s the right word.

Going by what the German police have said, it sounds like they have plenty of information beyond what is already in the public domain. But just not enough to convict.

He is is was in prison up to recently for raping an elderly woman, late 70’s early 80’s... he does seem like an absolute psycho. Also going by what he told his girlfriend at dinner prior to the abduction....jeez

limnam · 14-06-2020 01:24PM

Strumms wrote: »

He is is was in prison up to recently for raping an elderly woman, late 70’s early 80’s... he does seem like an absolute psycho. Also going by what he told his girlfriend at dinner prior to the abduction....jeez

Him and the many hundreds of others that claimed they committed this crime.

Must be a nightmare to police.

Day Lewin · 14-06-2020 01:29PM

limnam wrote: »

Him and the many hundreds of others that claimed they committed this crime.

Must be a nightmare to police.

But he hasn't claimed to have committed the crime.

He apparently volunteered some telling information, when drunk, to a friend who was a former fellow-inmate. C-B- has spent time in prison and has a history of offending, both sexual crimes and burglary.

We don't know just what he said to this person, but it was enough for the police to sit up and take notice, more than they usually do with crackpots who claim "I did it!!"

limnam · 14-06-2020 01:45PM

You're right

He cried out, ‘The child is dead now and that’s a good thing’, then he said: ‘You can make a body disappear quickly. Pigs also eat human flesh’.”

This could mean anything. Not sure why it's been made such a big deal of. Probably had watched snatch

Madeleine McCann

Comments