Madeleine McCann

[Raj]

52 minutes ago, Izzy said:

‘Son’ing someone is the worst possible insult 

Was going to be kid!!!

 

I agree though son is more soul destroying!!!

Just hope he is young enough to be a "son"!!!

Edited 6 June 2020 by Raj

[Saigon Fox]

1 hour ago, l444ry said:

Difficult to discuss this subject in depth and rationally isn't it? 

Most people just believe what they read in a newspaper. There's a lot of information out there pertaining to the case. The PJ files are a good starting point.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

My Lord, your joint ignorance is making you look stupid

Eh? What you on about? What you having a pop at me for?

 

The worldwide media attention of this case is exactly because the family is so relatable. There but for the grace of God etc

 

That's kinda difficult to argue against, surely?

 

 

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Eh? What you on about? What you having a pop at me for?

 

The worldwide media attention of this case is exactly because the family is so relatable. There but for the grace of God etc

 

That's kinda difficult to argue against, surely?

 

 

Essentially what you and Raj are saying is that if you look like "decent, affluent, middle class" people with a child who looks neat and tidy, you're going to get more media attention than some saggy breasted, cigarette smoking mother and unshaved, jobless father, with a kid who looks like she/he exists on chips and cheese?

It's a question of one's perspective. I don't think you can blindly say that if you're affluent and easy on the eye, you get better press coverage.

 

 

 

[l444ry]

11 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Essentially what you and Raj are saying is that if you look like "decent, affluent, middle class" people with a child who looks neat and tidy, you're going to get more media attention than some saggy breasted, cigarette smoking mother and unshaved, jobless father, with a kid who looks like she/he exists on chips and cheese?

It's a question of one's perspective. I don't think you can blindly say that if you're affluent and easy on the eye, you get better press coverage.

 

 

 

Not sure if *more* coverage is the right description Parafox, *Different* would be more accurate.

Edited 6 June 2020 by l444ry

[Facecloth]

11 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Essentially what you and Raj are saying is that if you look like "decent, affluent, middle class" people with a child who looks neat and tidy, you're going to get more media attention than some saggy breasted, cigarette smoking mother and unshaved, jobless father, with a kid who looks like she/he exists on chips and cheese?

It's a question of one's perspective. I don't think you can blindly say that if you're affluent and easy on the eye, you get better press coverage.

 

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

[Paninistickers]

18 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Essentially what you and Raj are saying is that if you look like "decent, affluent, middle class" people with a child who looks neat and tidy, you're going to get more media attention than some saggy breasted, cigarette smoking mother and unshaved, jobless father, with a kid who looks like she/he exists on chips and cheese?

It's a question of one's perspective. I don't think you can blindly say that if you're affluent and easy on the eye, you get better press coverage.

 

 

 

Eh? 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's basic human instinct to be more interested in and more empathetic to someone or something you can relate to. 

 

 

 

 

[oxford blue]

On 04/06/2020 at 15:18, Wymsey said:

But why has it took over 13 years to investigate this suspect, despite his reported child abuse history in the past?

A new name to ensure the police get additional funding. It has been going on for years that a breakthrough is just about to happen, when more money is needed. It seems the media have already found the German (Brueckner) guilty, although he has not even been interviewed by British police.

 

Yes, I am sceptical about this major new lead.

[ClaphamFox]

3 hours ago, oxford blue said:

A new name to ensure the police get additional funding. It has been going on for years that a breakthrough is just about to happen, when more money is needed. It seems the media have already found the German (Brueckner) guilty, although he has not even been interviewed by British police.

 

Yes, I am sceptical about this major new lead.

So the German Federal Police's request to the public for more information about Christian Brueckner has not been made in good faith at all, but rather as simply a favour to help their British counterparts secure more funding? The major TV appeal they launched in Germany a few nights ago was just an elaborate ruse to help their mates in a foreign police force? 

 

If you're sceptical, is it because you don't believe the evidence the German police say they have about Brueckner, or that you do believe it but think it's all just a coincidence? 

[bovril]

On 06/06/2020 at 14:11, Paninistickers said:

Eh? What you on about? What you having a pop at me for?

 

The worldwide media attention of this case is exactly because the family is so relatable. There but for the grace of God etc

 

That's kinda difficult to argue against, surely?

 

 

It's also because they made a concerted effort to keep the case in the public eye. Obviously it was easier for them to do that than it would be for some other families, not that I blame them at all for doing it.

[oxford blue]

14 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

So the German Federal Police's request to the public for more information about Christian Brueckner has not been made in good faith at all, but rather as simply a favour to help their British counterparts secure more funding? The major TV appeal they launched in Germany a few nights ago was just an elaborate ruse to help their mates in a foreign police force? 

 

If you're sceptical, is it because you don't believe the evidence the German police say they have about Brueckner, or that you do believe it but think it's all just a coincidence? 

According to the Independent, Bruckner's name first came to the attention of the German police in 2013, after a Crimewatch type programme. The Met Police gave more information 4 years later; we now have him identified as a suspect. The lead is so strong that - as I understand - Bruckner has not even been interviewed about the case. 

 

It was as long ago as 2014 when the Met did at least interview 11 people who they thought could help. 

[Jon the Hat]

On 06/06/2020 at 11:02, Stuntman_Mike said:

Couldn't agree more.

 

If parents from a council estate had done this they'd have done time. Simple as that. 

 

 

If you can find any examples of this actually happening I would be interested.  Not long term neglect, but a single incidence of someone being prosecuted for leaving the kids alone for a few hours in the night.

[ClaphamFox]

Bruuckner's name was indeed first suggested in 2013. A German regional force was investigating him for other crimes and came across evidence that he may have been responsible for Madeline McCann's disappearance. They strongly suggested to the German Federal Police that they investigate Brueckner over Madeleine McCann, but this initially did not happen. Then in 2017 an acquaintance of Brueckner's called the police to say that he'd been with Brueckner in a bar, watching a TV news story covering the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine's disapperance, when Brueckner admitted that he'd kidnapped and murdered her. The German Federal Police finally started investigating Brueckner a few years ago and have have now reached a point in their investigations where they want more information from the public. Judging fom what I've read in German newspapers (with the aid of google translate), German prosecutors seem very confident that Brueckner is indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and potentially other murders too. I also read a German legal expert comment that the fact they've said they suspect Brueckner of murdering Madeline rather than just being 'involved in her disappearance' (a highly unusual move with no body discovered, apparently) must mean they have further evidence that they haven't revealed yet.

 

Of course, none of this makes him guilty. But t if the evidence that we've seen so far is true, I think it at least makes him a very compelling suspect. The German police seem to think so, too. I've been surprised at how many people on social media have been so determined to dismiss this development out of hand simply because it does not fit with their view of what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Edited 8 June 2020 by ClaphamFox

[nnfox]

6 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Bruuckner's name was indeed first suggested in 2013. A German regional force was investigating him for other crimes and came across evidence that he may have been responsible for Madeline McCann's disappearance. They strongly suggested to the German Federal Police that they investigate Brueckner over Madeleine McCann, but this initially did not happen. Then in 2017 an acquaintance of Brueckner's called the police to say that he'd been with Brueckner in a bar, watching a TV news story covering the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine's disapperance, when Brueckner admitted that he'd kidnapped and murdered her. The German Federal Police finally started investigating Brueckner a few years ago and have have now reached a point in their investigations where they want more information from the public. Judging fom what I've read in German newspapers (with the aid of google translate), German prosecutors seem very confident that Brueckner is indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and potentially other murders too. I also read a German legal expert comment that the fact they've said they suspect Brueckner of murdering Madeline rather than just being 'involved in her disappearance' (a highly unusual move, apparently) must mean they have further evidence that they haven't revealed yet.

 

Of course, none of this makes him guilty. But t if the evidence that we've seen so far is true, I think it at least makes him a very compelling suspect. The German police seem to think so, too. I've been surprised at how many people on social media have been so determined to dismiss this development out of hand simply because it does not fit with their view of what happened to Madeleine McCann.

It is interesting but I'm not sure why they would wait a number of years before appealing to the public for help.  Small details and memories fade with time.  If he really was on the radar in 2013, they would have chased a lot of leads in 2013.  If he became a suspect in 2017, they would have wanted to know more in 2017.  The timing of this development is interesting as it says to me that either they have a bit more information, or this is a final throw of the dice in relation to him.

 

The bit about social media dismissing the situation is down to a psychological condition(?) called cognitive dissonance, where people form an opinion based on the information they receive fairly early on and then stick to it, even in the face of new, compelling facts to the contrary.  In fact, compelling facts to the contrary can strengthen their resolve.  We are all prone to it from time to time.  The difficult bit is keeping an open mind and weighing up the facts on their own strengths and weaknesses.

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, nnfox said:

It is interesting but I'm not sure why they would wait a number of years before appealing to the public for help.  Small details and memories fade with time.  If he really was on the radar in 2013, they would have chased a lot of leads in 2013.  If he became a suspect in 2017, they would have wanted to know more in 2017.  The timing of this development is interesting as it says to me that either they have a bit more information, or this is a final throw of the dice in relation to him.

 

The bit about social media dismissing the situation is down to a psychological condition(?) called cognitive dissonance, where people form an opinion based on the information they receive fairly early on and then stick to it, even in the face of new, compelling facts to the contrary.  In fact, compelling facts to the contrary can strengthen their resolve.  We are all prone to it from time to time.  The difficult bit is keeping an open mind and weighing up the facts on their own strengths and weaknesses.

No doubt some additional information has come to light farily recently with regard to him being in the locality - perhaps the phone records are recent.

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

It is interesting but I'm not sure why they would wait a number of years before appealing to the public for help.  Small details and memories fade with time.  If he really was on the radar in 2013, they would have chased a lot of leads in 2013.  If he became a suspect in 2017, they would have wanted to know more in 2017.  The timing of this development is interesting as it says to me that either they have a bit more information, or this is a final throw of the dice in relation to him.

 

The bit about social media dismissing the situation is down to a psychological condition(?) called cognitive dissonance, where people form an opinion based on the information they receive fairly early on and then stick to it, even in the face of new, compelling facts to the contrary.  In fact, compelling facts to the contrary can strengthen their resolve.  We are all prone to it from time to time.  The difficult bit is keeping an open mind and weighing up the facts on their own strengths and weaknesses.

Unfortunately there are many cases where it turns out that the person eventually found guilty was on the police's radar very early on but not investigated properly. It's not uncommon at all.

[Wymsey]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No doubt some additional information has come to light farily recently with regard to him being in the locality - perhaps the phone records are recent.

Didn't this suspect apparently sell his car the day after she went missing (or along those lines)?

Edited 8 June 2020 by Wymsey

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, Wymsey said:

Didn't this suspect apparently sell his car the day after she went missing (or along those lines)?

The day after she went missing changed the registration details of one of his cars so that it was no longer in his name.

[davieG]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Unfortunately there are many cases where it turns out that the person eventually found guilty was on the police's radar very early on but not investigated properly. It's not uncommon at all.

Wasn't that the case with Peter Sutcliffe aka the Yorkshire ripper?

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Wasn't that the case with Peter Sutcliffe aka the Yorkshire ripper?

Yup. Interviewed several times, but not taken seriously until finally caught almost red-handed.

[nnfox]

25 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No doubt some additional information has come to light farily recently with regard to him being in the locality - perhaps the phone records are recent.

I would doubt that. I don't know Portuguese data retention laws but I think the EU allows a window of 6-24 months. Here, phone companies keep data for 12 months.  My bet is that they had his phone records at an early stage which adds to the mystery why it's taken this long.

[Nalis]

Anyone got reccomendations on documentaries / series on this? Watched episode 1 of the netflix docuseries but seems a bit drawn out already and 8 episodes seems like a stretch for what it is.

[kingcarr21]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Anyone got reccomendations on documentaries / series on this? Watched episode 1 of the netflix docuseries but seems a bit drawn out already and 8 episodes seems like a stretch for what it is.

Its a really good watch. Stick with it

[nnfox]

43 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Unfortunately there are many cases where it turns out that the person eventually found guilty was on the police's radar very early on but not investigated properly. It's not uncommon at all.

True.  Of course, it doesn't mean those people are dismissed out of hand.  The police need evidence and sometimes (a lot of the time) the evidence collected isn't sufficient to support a trial where the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty.  There are lots of crimes to that go undetected even though the police "know" who did it.  I fear this might end up being one of those cases.

 

32 minutes ago, davieG said:

Wasn't that the case with Peter Sutcliffe aka the Yorkshire ripper?

Yes, and it lead to many reforms and professionalising investigations.  That case was a good example of cognitive dissonance that I mentioned earlier when the lead investigator focused on the Westside Jack hoax calls.  Confirmation bias is another when people (including police) pursue evidence that confirms their preconceived idea about a case, rather than forming an objective assessment based on the facts and evidence available.

[ClaphamFox]

Portuguese police say they have identified somebody who worked at the resort who tipped off Christian Brueckner about the fact that the McCanns and their friends left their kids in their apartments while they ate at the bar.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-was-tipped-off-by-praia-da-luz-hotel-worker-12002751