Is it immoral to think Madeleine was abducted and murdered?

[misty]

Nothing to talk about is there. Gone wildly off topic with misty trying to explain why Brueckner only committed one abduction & murder.

Maybe she will explain why Wolters can't reveal the concrete evidence to the McCanns or the MET, but I won't hold my breath.

IMO I don't think Wolters can reveal the concrete evidence because he can't yet answer many of the questions which will arise from doing so. BKA know the who & maybe the where but have admitted to not knowing the when, how and why. They need to be sure they have at least 4 definitive answers imo in the absence of a body or body parts.

[Wonderfulspam]

IMO I don't think Wolters can reveal the concrete evidence because he can't yet answer many of the questions which will arise from doing so. BKA know the who & maybe the where but have admitted to not knowing the when, how and why. They need to be sure they have at least 4 definitive answers imo in the absence of a body or body parts.

He doesn't need to answer anything.

The evidence speaks for itself doesn't it?

If we saw it too we'd be in no doubt, according to Wolters.

[Venturi Swirl]

If CB knocked on the window and Madeleine opened the window, did he need to set foot inside 5A or could he just have lifted her out through the window after reaching in & raising the shutter? Are you using the open window as a defence now rather than part of proof of intrusion?
We have no idea how many children CB may have abused on his travels through Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania, Switzerland etc. Without Madeleine's case, people would never have known about all the cases involving sexual predators on the Algarve in the noughties. It was reported that many of the children featured in the CSA images found on CB's devices were young & blonde, like Madeleine.

Careful, you’ll be accused of having a faulty moral compass for writing posts like that.

[Venturi Swirl]

IMO I don't think Wolters can reveal the concrete evidence because he can't yet answer many of the questions which will arise from doing so. BKA know the who & maybe the where but have admitted to not knowing the when, how and why. They need to be sure they have at least 4 definitive answers imo in the absence of a body or body parts.

Surely they know the why? 

[misty]

He doesn't need to answer anything.

The evidence speaks for itself doesn't it?

If we saw it too we'd be in no doubt, according to Wolters.

Evidence of death is not sufficient to convict someone without other strong evidence linking them to that death.

[Wonderfulspam]

Evidence of death is not sufficient to convict someone without other strong evidence linking them to that death.

That's where the imaginary video comes in that can't be fully linked to Brueckner for some reason, even though it was on his memory stick.

[Wonderfulspam]

Evidence of death is not sufficient to convict someone without other strong evidence linking them to that death.

Besides, we were talking about presenting evidence of death to her parents. They don't need to know immediately who killed her, even though they already know it was Brueckner, only evidence confirming she's definitely dead.
I can't see any good reason they couldn't be shown that evidence & neither can anyone else apparently.
Even the person who suggested the idea.

[misty]

Careful, you’ll be accused of having a faulty moral compass for writing posts like that.

Researching this case and the life of Christian B has been a lesson in the different ways in which someone's moral compass can be skewed.

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

[Wonderfulspam]

Researching this case and the life of Christian B has been a lesson in the different ways in which someone's moral compass can be skewed.

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Yeah, if you take Brueckners confession as gospel you're lead to a total dead end really.

[misty]

Surely they know the why?

HCW did say they had no evidence their suspect had sexually abused Madeleine. I haven't seen him say anything to the contrary. In one of his letters to Jutta R, (German journalist) I understand CB made reference to "an injured or damaged child" but am unable to provide a precise cite to support this claim.

[misty]

Yeah, if you take Brueckners confession as gospel you're lead to a total dead end really.

How lacking in moral compass do you have to be to claim knowledge and responsibility for a crime you say you didn't commit?

[Wonderfulspam]

How lacking in moral compass do you have to be to claim knowledge and responsibility for a crime you say you didn't commit?

People boast about things they haven't done. It does happen.
Raymond Hewlett did, unless maybe he was actually telling the truth because no one ever lies you see.

Perhaps all them 8000+ sightings of Maddie were all genuine after all.

[misty]

People boast about things they haven't done. It does happen.
Raymond Hewlett did, unless maybe he was actually telling the truth because no one ever lies you see.

Perhaps all them 8000+ sightings of Maddie were all genuine after all.

Of course it happens. Brueckner just seemed to want the notoriety before being caught and convicted for other serious crimes. What changed?

[Wonderfulspam]

Of course it happens. Brueckner just seemed to want the notoriety before being caught and convicted for other serious crimes. What changed?

Why not write to him & ask.

He doesn't mind pen pals apparently.

[misty]

Why not write to him & ask.

He doesn't mind pen pals apparently.

That would be acting against my moral compass. Besides which - he tells lies.