New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[Brietta]

So you're suggesting that, not only do they know what the defence have by way of mitigation, they also know which strategy they're going to deploy at a trial and will test it during a legal mock-up?
There's an awful lot of prevarication going on by a prosecution who apparently hold all the cards.

I think it will go like this if CB even deigns to utter a word, given the obvious HCW focus.....
Prosecution Lawyer - 'were you at Apartment 5a on the night?'
CB - 'no'
Prosecution Lawyer - 'where were you then?'
CB - 'at home'
Prosecution Lawyer - 'why did your phone ping nearby then?'
CB - 'I lived nearby'
Prosecution Lawyer - 'who called you for 30 minutes on the night?'
CB - 'no idea'

Without the ID of the caller this strand of evidence is dead.
They might then get in to the mobile phone technology limitations.
If they have other compelling evidence, they may be better focussing on that, perhaps some half-decent witness testimony.

What makes you so certain that the caller's ID isn't already known to the police.

[Brietta]

Well he doesn't really, with the burden of proof being on the prosecution. It's highly likely he won't utter a word if it ever goes to trial.

It is possible ~ but I don't think he will do that.  Particularly if he suffers from the delusion that he is more intelligent than anyone else in the room.

[jassi]

If Brueckner has given his Defence Team an indisputable get out clause it would be rather politic for them to share.  In that way he can be eliminated from the inquiry.
Which would allow the police to move onto another burglar and convicted paedophile and rapist, domicile in Luz and phoning from Luz at the relevant time and who apparently confessed to the crime perpetrated against Madeleine in 2017,  to be investigated.

Wonder why they haven't done that.

Maybe because the evidence the German investigation holds against Brueckner cancels out the rapist's certainty that they won't find any.

But you have to ask why he should be interested in helping police further their investigations ?

If he is innocent, then he'll know there is nothing for them to find, but may be quite content for them to waste their time

If he's not innocent, then he's hardly likely to help them either.

[Brietta]

Who hasn't done the old swap and drop at the Tesco self-checkout?
I don't think he will need to explain anything. But he may proffer an arbitrary alibi, given that HCW has told the world that he can't place CB at the scene.

David Gilroy was found guilty of murder despite not taking the stand at his trial.  The case built by the police using the available circumstantial evidence did for him despite the remains of his victim never being found.

[Brietta]

Nice analogy, but I prefer to see it as pieces of timber used to bolster a structure, with the defence attacking each piece to attempt to topple it. It would only take the defence one successful strike to, at the very least, introduce reasonable doubt.

Realistically though, would CB be instructed to keep shtum? If he's the idiot we suspect, Fulscher would surely be reticent to let him speak for himself.

I think Brueckner is many things but I don't think "idiot" is one of them.

[jassi]

Big difference is that Gilroy knew his victim and worked with her, so connections could be made.

[Uncle Jr]

Big difference is that Gilroy knew his victim and worked with her, so connections could be made.

Agreed, these two cases are not comparable, as the preponderance of circumstantial evidence against Gilroy was overwhelming  - co-workers, ex-lovers, text messages, lack of text messages, the car journey, the stuff in the boot, the lack of stuff in the boot, the CCTV footage, the forensics, the knackered car, etc.

[Uncle Jr]

I think Brueckner is many things but I don't think "idiot" is one of them.

Do you have any evidence of him being mentally sophisticated, given the number of times he's been caught?

[Mr Gray]

Agreed, these two cases are not comparable, as the preponderance of circumstantial evidence against Gilroy was overwhelming  - co-workers, ex-lovers, text messages, lack of text messages, the car journey, the stuff in the boot, the lack of stuff in the boot, the CCTV footage, the forensics, the knackered car, etc.

You don't know what evidence Wolters has.. CB... burglar.. May have been at OC before.. And paedophile

[jassi]

You don't know what evidence Wolters has.. CB... burglar.. May have been at OC before.. And paedophile

Yeah, him and hundreds of others.

If he lived in PDL he's bound to have been around OC - they have properties all over the village.

No forensics to tie him to 5A remember

[Venturi Swirl]

Well he's not particularly successful at evading capture generally (apart from the obvious), or even being forensically or evidentially aware.
In addition to his apparent continual running of his mouth to anyone who'll listen.
So no, not particularly bright.

I’m getting a distinct whiff of deja vu about our conversation.  I’m sure it’s entirely coincidental.

[Eleanor]

Do you have any evidence of him being mentally sophisticated, given the number of times he's been caught?

Or the number of crimes he has committed that no one knows about yet.

[Venturi Swirl]

Do you have any evidence of him being mentally sophisticated, given the number of times he's been caught?

Do you have any evidence that it was down to a lack of mental competency that led to his arrests on previous occasions?  Or was it more to do with the fact that he has always been a high risk taker which has absolutely nothing to do with IQ*.   He has been described by previous friends and colleagues as intelligent but of course it's all comparative.  Perhaps they were all complete amoebas in the braincell department. 

*I take that back https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130113545.htm

[Uncle Jr]

Do you have any evidence that it was down to a lack of mental competency that led to his arrests on previous occasions?  Or was it more to do with the fact that he has always been a high risk taker which has absolutely nothing to do with IQ*.   He has been described by previous friends and colleagues as intelligent but of course it's all comparative.  Perhaps they were all complete amoebas in the braincell department. 

*I take that back https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130113545.htm

I don't know. It's a side issue, granted.
He seems to act on impulse; an opportunist, so I suppose mental capacity goes out of the window.

[jassi]

Acting on impulse doesn't fit well with the carefully planned stolen to order  by human traffickers  scenario that has been suggested  in the past.