Madeleine McCann suspect named as Christian Brueckner

[Wonderfulspam]

Schrödinger's Brueckner evidence.

100% convincing, whilst simultaneously, not entirely convincing.

[G-Unit]

its tiresome to keep having to correct you. Wolters is trying to build an absolyely watertight case..that doesnt mean he doesnt have enough evidence yet to charge or prosecute

You are in no position to correct me because you have no more information than I have. The difference is that you are happy to believe what you are told.

[Venturi Swirl]

You are in no position to correct me because you have no more information than I have. The difference is that you are happy to believe what you are told.

So are you saying that Wolters ISN'T trying to build a watertight case?  Isn't what Davel wrote perfectly logical?

[Mr Gray]

You are in no position to correct me because you have no more information than I have. The difference is that you are happy to believe what you are told.

need to correct you again....I dont simply believe what Im told...that is a stupid allegation. I have explained why I find Wolters claims credible...if you dont read the posts or cant remember them fine....but to accuse me of believing what Im told is just stupid

[Brietta]

This is not up to date information is it? Regardless of what has gone before the very latest information I have seen was the German prosecutor telling 60 minutes that it could take years to bring his suspect to trial. The investigation may be evidence led, but they obviously haven't yet found the definitive evidence they need.

We are dealing with a cold case and we are dealing with the evidence which was ignored at the time but which should not have been

Quite obviously the German investigation has been able to circumvent such derelictions.
Off which there were many - and have carried out the necessary diligences to enable them to build a very up to date evidence based case against the prime suspect.

[Mr Gray]

His case, the evidence is already 100% convincing, isn't It?
Can't get much more watertight than that really.

Can't be bothered to explained

[Wonderfulspam]

We are dealing with a cold case and we are dealing with the evidence which was ignored at the time but which should not have been

Quite obviously the German investigation has been able to circumvent such derelictions.
Off which there were many - and have carried out the necessary diligences to enable them to build a very up to date evidence based case against the prime suspect.

Not a very good case they've built though is it.
Certainly, Brueckner isn't convinced by it, & he of all people should be in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not.

[Wonderfulspam]

Can't be bothered to explained

Wolters will explain, perhaps one day.
Just not anytime in the foreseeable future though.
But maybe after that.

[Venturi Swirl]

Can't be bothered to explained

My advice - stop feeding the troll.

[Mr Gray]

My advice - stop feeding the troll.

agreed...putting him on ignore

[Wonderfulspam]

My advice - stop feeding the troll.

Well, you'll all have to remain silent until Wolters wraps things up then really, because I'm going to be here, quite happy to remind you, every time you fantasise over the concrete evidence, that Brueckner simply isn't being charged either today, tomorrow, next year, or until hell freezes over.

But maybe after that aye, maybe Wolters will finally be able to prove Maddie was ever abducted in the first place once that happens.

[Venturi Swirl]

agreed...putting him on ignore

you won't regret it

[G-Unit]

We are dealing with a cold case and we are dealing with the evidence which was ignored at the time but which should not have been

Quite obviously the German investigation has been able to circumvent such derelictions.
Off which there were many - and have carried out the necessary diligences to enable them to build a very up to date evidence based case against the prime suspect.

The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.

[Mr Gray]

The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.

You are confusing innocence and the POI. He may or may not be innocent....a court verdict is not definitive

For instance if he was found guilty on the basis of a confession beaten out if him...would the verdict convince you

[Venturi Swirl]

The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.

And by the same argument  you will of course wholeheartedly agree that the McCanns and their friends including DP are innocent no matter what nasty allegations are made about them on here and elsewhere, right?