Madeleine McCann

Multipass · 18-07-2020 08:58AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I've said it multiple times the child never left the apartment alive. How her death occurred is a mystery as by whom or whether it was intentional or an accident. This is what I think the disposal of her body is the issue.

I actually really hope you’re right, I hope she died accidentally in that apartment. Because what’s looking increasingly likely is so much worse.

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 09:00AM

Multipass wrote: »

I actually really hope you’re right, I hope she died accidentally in that apartment. Because what’s looking increasingly likely is so much worse.

I doubt if the German is responsible that it was an accident.

Banana Republic. · 18-07-2020 09:02AM

splinter65 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8534831/amp/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-girlfriend-finally-unmasked.html

Very interesting. I wonder if these pics are recent? She’s not suspected herself I see, just the tipp off.

Mind blown, this links so much together. The information is huge, hiding kids in a safe space in the van! She’s used disposable phones, I wonder is this the information the UK Investigator provided to the German police in the last week. This has blown the car wide open that he has a working accomplice with him, maybe she’s the one that was told “ I’ve a horrible job to do” Madeline or the 100,000 life savings that he stole. This is potentially explosive now that they could give her identity aswell. Business is about to pick up.

Day Lewin · 18-07-2020 09:19AM

splinter65 wrote: »

But where is the evidence that every angle hasn’t/isn’t being investigated?

I was referring to

@maebee What is needed is an independent inquiry into the case of Madeleine's disappearance, which will never happen, due to politics

and

@Plumbthedepths
Colin Sutton one of the Mets most successful detectives refused to be considered to lead the investigation as he would had one hand tied behind his back. Certain avenues were to be closed.

What politics? Why close off any avenues? Any ideas?

Multipass · 18-07-2020 09:21AM

splinter65 wrote: »

I doubt if the German is responsible that it was an accident.

I was going to quote some of the things he wrote in chat rooms, but I can’t do it.

Day Lewin · 18-07-2020 09:33AM

Multipass wrote: »

I was going to quote some of the things he wrote in chat rooms, but I can’t do it.

Agreed. Repulsive.

And what is even more depressing, he's not the only one by a long chalk.

I mean I don't KNOW, but I believe there are dozens of those chat-rooms and thousands of members.

It is a very common perversion - and that's without the torture and murder aspects.

Oh sh1t -- humans are so horrible.

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 09:36AM

Day Lewin wrote: »

I was referring to

@maebee What is needed is an independent inquiry into the case of Madeleine's disappearance, which will never happen, due to politics

and

@Plumbthedepths
Colin Sutton one of the Mets most successful detectives refused to be considered to lead the investigation as he would had one hand tied behind his back. Certain avenues were to be closed.

What politics? Why close off any avenues? Any ideas?

As the years went by and the McCanns were astonishingly never charged with the abduction and murder of their daughter, despite the overwhelming evidence these posters had decided proved that they were guilty (Gerry was laughing one day, something something shutters, getting pissed in the boozer, Gerry scratched his nose during an interview, kate took the advice of her solicitor during her questioning) that kind of solid evidence, they decided that there was a huge political conspiracy stretching across at least 2 sovereign states of the EU to prevent the McCanns from being charged.
This conspiracy cannot be explained, there doesn’t appear to be any political connections that the McCanns have. There doesn’t seem to be anyone to benefit from this “political” conspiracy, but it is stated as a fact nonetheless. Make of that what you will, or better still, ask that poster to explain what she means but “political” reasons.

Banana Republic. · 18-07-2020 10:03AM

Multipass wrote: »

I was going to quote some of the things he wrote in chat rooms, but I can’t do it.

I think if anyone has any interest in the case they would of seen the documentaries and seen the language he uses, I would be the same I’d find it hard to print some of the stuff.

happyoutscan · 18-07-2020 10:07AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

For the cameras.

This is one of the most twisted, pathetic and downright scummy posts in all my years on boards (and that includes some of the nonsense I've sprouted).

VENEATS · 18-07-2020 10:08AM

splinter65 wrote: »

So they were never charged with neglect never mind found guilty of neglect by either of 2 countries investigating the case.
So It’s really just your opinion that they neglected their kids. And you think someone in authority should take your opinion into account and take their kids off them?!? Why would they do that? Who are you to decide?

There is past cases where parents have left their kids at home and run down to the shop and lost their child over it. It was very grossly negligent.

Beasty · 18-07-2020 10:39AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Have you ever wondered why very few are willing to engage with you? Could it be your inability to accept a different opinion. You have been banned on several of the McCann threads for good reason.
I have answered your questions to another poster, you however are not worthy of the same effort.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You presume I care what you think, I don't.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Funny thing ignore doesn't work on the mobile site, but the lack of inaction with you is evident.
Anyway keep up your posting style, I hope it works out this time.

Threadbanned

Rock77 · 18-07-2020 10:59AM

Day Lewin wrote: »

(Throws bucket of water over scrapping terriers)

Back to business!

There's one mystery that continues to present as utterly baffling:
( I mean, apart from child missing, no body, no trail etc)

WHY would any government or police force have any stake in "not investigating" any angle?
If the British officer turned it down because he thought he wouldn't be ALLOWED to investigate certain angles...I mean, WHY?

The bereaved parents aren't the Royal Family, they aren't stinking rich, they don't own the BBC or work for the Kremlin or anything like that...I can't think of any reason why a detective would be forbidden to look into ALL angles.

For any missing child, that would include their parents, immediate family, neighbours, people seen nearby, known criminals in the area, any unusual incidents in the time-frame - EVERYTHING.

A professional investigation would have been helpful, maybe. So why this puzzle?

I just can't think of any reason why the Portuguese or the British authorities wouldn't wish to solve the case.

My opinion on Colin Sutton is....

He was considering leading this investigation and he did indeed receive a call from a senior ‘friend’ in the Met. This friend either slightly over exaggerated how his hands would be tied, maybe he said something like ‘the top brass are really hoping it’s not the parents, the Portuguese have already tried to stitch them up so we would like to concentrate on other avenues’ Maybe Sutton exaggerated this slightly in his own head..

Alternatively maybe this ‘friend’ had someone else he wanted to lead the investigation and he was trying to discourage Sutton from taking it.

I am certainly of the opinion that there is absolutely no way the Met would decide not to look at all avenues, let’s say they decided the parents were innocent and they would not investigate them, then they start looking into CB, they find CCTV from a shop down the road which catches Gerry the night after Madeline went missing carrying her body.... what, they destroy the evidence and carry on?

That’s a bit extreme but you get my point, they are only allowed find out it was the parents by accident? Silly stuff really, it’s not the way it works.

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 11:18AM

Rock77 wrote: »

My opinion on Colin Sutton is....

He was considering leading this investigation and he did indeed receive a call from a senior ‘friend’ in the Met. This friend either slightly over exaggerated how his hands would be tied, maybe he said something like ‘the top brass are really hoping it’s not the parents, the Portuguese have already tried to stitch them up so we would like to concentrate on other avenues’ Maybe Sutton exaggerated this slightly in his own head..

Alternatively maybe this ‘friend’ had someone else he wanted to lead the investigation and he was trying to discourage Sutton from taking it.

I am certainly of the opinion that there is absolutely no way the Met would decide not to look at all avenues, let’s say they decided the parents were innocent and they would not investigate them, then they start looking into CB, they find CCTV from a shop down the road which catches Gerry the night after Madeline went missing carrying her body.... what, they destroy the evidence and carry on?

That’s a bit extreme but you get my point, they are only allowed find out it was the parents by accident? Silly stuff really, it’s not the way it works.

No. That’s definitely NOT the way the Met or any other police force operates.
“Listen, top brass are REALLY hoping it’s not the parents”?

dark crystal · 18-07-2020 11:27AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

So you think you felt worse about your sons dog passing away than the McCanns did about their 3 year old disappearing? You think you cared more about your child’s pet than they did their daughter?
And this is based on the fact that you think they are cold people? Wow.

Susie, this is the way every person who believes the McCanns are guilty must think.

To have done what they believe the McCanns did, it would have taken two absolute psychopaths without a shred of love or empathy to have done it. I don't just mean the crime itself, I mean to have chatted, drank wine and eaten tapas with their friends immediately afterwards. To have kept their crime in the public eye all these years. To have implored and campaigned the Met police to reopen the investigation etc.

It may as well have been a dead pet to them as far as certain people are concerned. The simple fact of the matter is, very few people on the other side of their computer screen here know what it is like to lose a child. They have no idea what they would do, how they act, what they would say. They have no idea what it would be like to have every facial expression, every word, every gesture, every action scrutinised and analysed. They have no idea how their grief would be belittled and mocked because they are certain that is not how they would act.

The post you replied to comparing the loss of their child to the loss of a dog is precisely how many of them think. It's the clearest view into their mindset yet.

Rock77 · 18-07-2020 11:32AM

splinter65 wrote: »

No. That’s definitely NOT the way the Met or any other police force operates.
“Listen, top brass are REALLY hoping it’s not the parents”?

Well that’s my point, I’m trying to think of a way that Colin Sutton and his ‘friend’ would have a conversation and by the end of it Sutton would decide not to take the case. I don’t think he is lying I just think he’s over exaggerating or maybe his ‘friend’ was over exaggerating.

For theories to work there has to be a full theory.... so IF the Met decided not to investigate the parents, why? Not only does this not make sense it’s pretty much impossible when you think about it...

Banana Republic. · 18-07-2020 11:40AM

Rock77 wrote: »

Well that’s my point, I’m trying to think of a way that Colin Sutton and his ‘friend’ would have a conversation and by the end of it Sutton would decide not to take the case. I don’t think he is lying I just think he’s over exaggerating or maybe his ‘friend’ was over exaggerating.

For theories to work there has to be a full theory.... so IF the Met decided not to investigate the parents, why? Not only does this not make sense it’s pretty much impossible when you think about it...

Why do you doubt Sutton? To fit a narrative? There’s no reason to doubt Sutton he came into live TV and put his career on the line with this information. The Mc Canns have backed Operation Grange which shoes they aren’t being investigated at all by the officers in this case. I don’t think he was exaggerating at all, now maybe his “friend” had different motives for him not to take the case but then Sutton would of known this person and treasured them to take their advice, to me he comes across as an investigator who has morals and believes in a method of investigating all the facts not just some of them and as he said they might have missed something or he might have interpreted something different and found a way or a suspect possibly the likes of CB earlier or interviewed The Mc Canns and Co and got information which previously wasn’t used or given by them. I’ve no reason to doubt him.

Rock77 · 18-07-2020 11:52AM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Why do you doubt Sutton? To fit a narrative? There’s no reason to doubt Sutton he came into live TV and put his career on the line with this information. The Mc Canns have backed Operation Grange which shoes they aren’t being investigated at all by the officers in this case. I don’t think he was exaggerating at all, now maybe his “friend” had different motives for him not to take the case but then Sutton would of known this person and treasured them to take their advice, to me he comes across as an investigator who has morals and believes in a method of investigating all the facts not just some of them and as he said they might have missed something or he might have interpreted something different and found a way or a suspect possibly the likes of CB earlier or interviewed The Mc Canns and Co and got information which previously wasn’t used or given by them. I’ve no reason to doubt him.

Well you have taken my point completely the wrong way..

I do not doubt Sutton, I said in the post you replied to that I do not think he is lying.

I said already that I think either his friend didn’t want Sutton to take the job or there was some slight exaggeration in either their conversation or the interview that Sutton gave.

Again, I think it’s impossible to do an investigation this way. I see no reason whatsoever that a police force would decide someone is innocent before even starting the investigation!

Especially this investigation, the first people you have to talk to are the parents and the tapa’s 7...

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 12:01PM

Never once from that first Friday morning, not for 1 second did it enter my head that the McCanns had harmed their child.
She either woke up and left herself ( highly unlikely but nonetheless possible) or someone went into the apartment and took her.
In order to believe any of the “it was the parents/Tapas 7 wot dun it” so called theories you would have to suspend reality and enter into a make believe world and even at that it is impossible to unravel the plotting planning and subterfuge that would have had to happen.
The entire worlds media would needed to have been hypnotised all together on at least 3 occasions for example.
As you say, at least 2 people involved in this plotting and planning would need to be clinically diagnosed psychopaths in order to make it fit.
I think that 99% of the people who claim to maintain that the parents are guilty know now and for a long time absolutely that they couldn’t possibly be, but can’t face having been wrong, very wrong, for so long. Some people can’t accept that they are ever wrong even when it is written out in black and white.
They also developed this worrying deep hatred of the McCanns, people they didn’t know and knew next to nothing about, persecuting and mocking and willing harm on them.
Can anyone think of another similar case where this happened. Lindy Chamberlain?

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 12:05PM

Rock77 wrote: »

Well you have taken my point completely the wrong way..

I do not doubt Sutton, I said in the post you replied to that I do not think he is lying.

I said already that I think either his friend didn’t want Sutton to take the job or there was some slight exaggeration in either their conversation or the interview that Sutton gave.

Again, I think it’s impossible to do an investigation this way. I see no reason whatsoever that a police force would decide someone is innocent before even starting the investigation!

Especially this investigation, the first people you have to talk to are the parents and the tapa’s 7...

If the bits of evidence that they have shows that it was impossible for any of the party at dinner to have harmed Madeleine then what is the point in further investigating them?

Day Lewin · 18-07-2020 12:05PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Why do you doubt Sutton? To fit a narrative? There’s no reason to doubt Sutton he came into live TV and put his career on the line with this information. ......
.... I’ve no reason to doubt him.

I've no reason to doubt him either.
which only adds to the puzzle!

Surely it would be flagrantly unprofessional and unethical to hogtie an important inquiry by a senior officer in this way; in fact it cries out for explanation!
Which may be quite simple, of course - or complicated - but either way - why???

dark crystal · 18-07-2020 12:15PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Can anyone think of another similar case where this happened. Lindy Chamberlain?

Some really striking similarities between these two cases, I agree.

Rock77 · 18-07-2020 12:16PM

splinter65 wrote: »

If the bits of evidence that they have shows that it was impossible for any of the party at dinner to have harmed Madeleine then what is the point in further investigating them?

This is the part that I don’t get, I don’t believe that there is any ‘investigating them’ specifically.

I think you do the investigation and you follow where it leads. The parents and the tapa’s seven are the main source of info, you go through all statements from everyone, from the beginning.

How do you do an investigation into this case or any case without having an open mind to all possibilities?

Yes the timeline doesn’t fit but if you discover new evidence that implicates the parents you have to go with it, yes?

This is why I don’t believe the Met decided not to investigate the parents.. I don’t even know what that means to be honest...

dark crystal · 18-07-2020 12:28PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

I've no reason to doubt him either.
which only adds to the puzzle!

Surely it would be flagrantly unprofessional and unethical to hogtie an important inquiry by a senior officer in this way; in fact it cries out for explanation!
Which may be quite simple, of course - or complicated - but either way - why???

There was and is no official line from the Met that says certain avenues couldn't or wouldn't be explored. He says himself, this was merely relayed to him via phone by someone in the Met known to him. He doesn't say who this was, in what capacity he was employed, nor whether he had any connection to what would become known as Operation Grange at all. It may well have been someone who was unsympathetic to the McCanns in general, as some people are prone to be. We don't know, because he won't reveal this source or their motivation for the call.

A while back, someone posted a screenshot of a conversation Sutton had with someone in which he was asked directly was he told not to investigate the McCanns and he answered that he was never even asked to head up the investigation; an investigation that wouldn't even materialise until quite a while after he retired.

So it appears that he was warned by a colleague not to take a case he wasn't even asked to participate in, on a task force that wasn't even set up until after his retirement.

It's a head-scratcher alright.

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 12:43PM

Rock77 wrote: »

This is the part that I don’t get, I don’t believe that there is any ‘investigating them’ specifically.

I think you do the investigation and you follow where it leads. The parents and the tapa’s seven are the main source of info, you go through all statements from everyone, from the beginning.

How do you do an investigation into this case or any case without having an open mind to all possibilities?

Yes the timeline doesn’t fit but if you discover new evidence that implicates the parents you have to go with it, yes?

This is why I don’t believe the Met decided not to investigate the parents.. I don’t even know what that means to be honest...

Yes if you discover new evidence then you’d look at it. But logistics prove that the parents or tapas couldn’t possibly have done it. So you could safely say that there was no point in pursuing that line if enquiry.

Banana Republic. · 18-07-2020 12:55PM

Rock77 wrote: »

Well you have taken my point completely the wrong way..

I do not doubt Sutton, I said in the post you replied to that I do not think he is lying.

I said already that I think either his friend didn’t want Sutton to take the job or there was some slight exaggeration in either their conversation or the interview that Sutton gave.

Again, I think it’s impossible to do an investigation this way. I see no reason whatsoever that a police force would decide someone is innocent before even starting the investigation!

Especially this investigation, the first people you have to talk to are the parents and the tapa’s 7...

Agreed but it seems to be played out as UK vs Portuguese police forces, PJ have their own tourism to look after and the UK have their citizens, Freud was high up at the time and the Prime Minister of the day sent out liaison officer to help the Mc Canns so its easy see how a bias may form. Sutton made it clear that he wasn’t allowed interview the parties mentioned in the UK. Straight away that’s vital interviews shelved and hinder the investigation. Sutton has no bias, he just wanted to paint the full picture but wasn’t given ask the colour to paint it. ( thought I’d bring some class to proceedings

) anyway in 13 years Operation Grange hasn’t had any real success despite spending millions. How can they call it a missing persons case and The Germans call it a murder case and the Germans now have leads everywhere on CB in the last two years while Operation Grange has been whittled down to a handful of officers.

Banana Republic. · 18-07-2020 12:58PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes if you discover new evidence then you’d look at it. But logistics prove that the parents or tapas couldn’t possibly have done it. So you could safely say that there was no point in pursuing that line if enquiry.

I disagree, he could of gotten info or interpreted it in a different way so no line of enquiry should ever be closed in a case that’s unsolved and not a scrap to go by it seems of hard evidence so there’s always a point of pursuing the lines of enquiry again and again, I’m pretty sure investigators have missed things in the past only to go back and think Jesus how did I not see this the first time. Not necessarily to catch Mc Canns or Tapas but a testimony could trigger different thinking from an investigator fresh on the case.

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 01:38PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Agreed but it seems to be played out as UK vs Portuguese police forces, PJ have their own tourism to look after and the UK have their citizens, Freud was high up at the time and the Prime Minister of the day sent out liaison officer to help the Mc Canns so its easy see how a bias may form. Sutton made it clear that he wasn’t allowed interview the parties mentioned in the UK. Straight away that’s vital interviews shelved and hinder the investigation. Sutton has no bias, he just wanted to paint the full picture but wasn’t given ask the colour to paint it. ( thought I’d bring some class to proceedings ) anyway in 13 years Operation Grange hasn’t had any real success despite spending millions. How can they call it a missing persons case and The Germans call it a murder case and the Germans now have leads everywhere on CB in the last two years while Operation Grange has been whittled down to a handful of officers.

Clement Freud was high up at the time in what?
I can’t see what “bias” you are attaching to the McCanns being appointed a liaison officer. It’s the UK policy for UK citizens kidnapped abroad. Below is evidence from their policy book for UK citizens travelling abroad.
There’s no point in pretending they got preferential treatment, they didn’t.
If Sutton was retired before the creation of Operation Grange then why is he important.

dark crystal · 18-07-2020 01:41PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Sutton has no bias, he just wanted to paint the full picture but wasn’t given ask the colour to paint it. ( thought I’d bring some class to proceedings ) anyway in 13 years Operation Grange hasn’t had any real success despite spending millions. How can they call it a missing persons case and The Germans call it a murder case and the Germans now have leads everywhere on CB in the last two years while Operation Grange has been whittled down to a handful of officers.

He wasn't given colour to paint anything, as he wasn't asked to head up the investigation at all. Operation Grange was not set up until well after he retired from the Met police.

In fairness to the German police force, I believe it is not just Madeleine's disappearance they are working on, but a number of other child disappearances that they believe CB may have been involved in as well. We don't know what they may have found on the USB stick discovered on CB's property, so they may have evidence related to other suspected crimes that the British police have no hand or part in.

Again, I'm just speculating here, as we don't know what evidence the German police are working off for sure and what leads they have not only on the Madeleine case, but other cases also.

Rock77 · 18-07-2020 02:02PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes if you discover new evidence then you’d look at it. But logistics prove that the parents or tapas couldn’t possibly have done it. So you could safely say that there was no point in pursuing that line if enquiry.

Again I have to disagree, I think the logistics and timeline strongly suggest that the parents and tapa’s 7 had nothing to do with it. I don’t think it proves they are 100% innocent and that they shouldn’t even be considered in an investigation.

Every avenue should be investigated, from start to finish, finish to start and inside out.

splinter65 · 18-07-2020 02:39PM

Rock77 wrote: »

Again I have to disagree, I think the logistics and timeline strongly suggest that the parents and tapa’s 7 had nothing to do with it. I don’t think it proves they are 100% innocent and that they shouldn’t even be considered in an investigation.

Every avenue should be investigated, from start to finish, finish to start and inside out.

I think “strongly suggest” is underestimating really. Even the few proven facts there are indicate that there’s more chance of Santa Claus being involved then any of them. That was established within the first few years. And I think lots of police from any of the countries would like to have proved that Maddie was harmed by someone she knew. Because that’s the most usual thing. But if there’s no motive or opportunity etc then it’s a dead duck in the water. No point in wasting even more time and money on that.

Madeleine McCann

Comments