Madeleine McCann suspect named as Christian Brueckner

[G-Unit]

so you accept that you were wrong and that   there is evidence but in your opinion its not useful....... Im sure you will find out you are wrong there too. If CB is convicted of any serious crime as a result of this evidence you would have to agree its been very useful

Most courts need more than the word of a convicted criminal to convict another criminal.

[Wonderfulspam]

Most courts need more than the word of a convicted criminal to convict another criminal.

I thought the words of a prosecutor would be enough to convince a judge?
I mean, they convinced a scientist.

[Mr Gray]

Most courts need more than the word of a convicted criminal to convict another criminal.

Let me try and expalin this to you very simply...you said there was no evidence linking CB to MM...I pointed out you were wrong and there was..

It really is that simple

[faithlilly]

Let me try and expalin this to you very simply...you said there was no evidence linking CB to MM...I pointed out you were wrong and there was..

It really is that simple

I don’t talk for G but perhaps she meant credible evidence? While testimony of another criminal given 9 years after the event might convince an over-eager prosecutor with an eye on his legacy unfortunately it won’t cut the mustard when it comes to a rather more impartial judge.

[Wonderfulspam]

I don’t talk for G but perhaps she meant credible evidence? While testimony of another criminal given 9 years after the event might convince an over-eager prosecutor with an eye on his legacy unfortunately it won’t cut the mustard when it comes to a rather more impartial judge.

But that testimony will be bolstered by the evidence from the Behan rape case, along with the photo of Maddie from when she was tied up in the back of the campervan.

[Venturi Swirl]

Maybe you weren't 100% convinced, but you chose to close your eyes and ears to the lack of evidence which was gradually revealed. Had you been sceptical you might have been more prepared to be disappointed.

Please don’t write rubbish.  I did not close my eye and ears to anything, I simply refuse to join in with the chorus of know-it-alls claiming HCW has no evidence at all.  I have always preferred the “wait and see” approach and to take people at face value until the evidence suggests they are wrong or lying.  So far as the investigation and HCW are concerned I am still at that point.  Is there anything wrong with this approach in your view?

[Wonderfulspam]

Please don’t write rubbish.  I did not close my eye and ears to anything, I simply refuse to join in with the chorus of know-it-alls claiming HCW has no evidence at all.  I have always preferred the “wait and see” approach and to take people at face value until the evidence suggests they are wrong or lying.  So far as the investigation and HCW are concerned I am still at that point.  Is there anything wrong with this approach in your view?

Well, your 'wait & see' approach will have you waiting a long time.
For the foreseeable future as it happens, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that before.

[The General]

I've been away for a bit, some of which was spent in Des Deutschen Vaterland, what's the latest with suspect / arguido nummer eins?