UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on August 22, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
-
why does the MET require further funding for 2021/22 to the tune of some 350k?
-
why does the MET require further funding for 2021/22 to the tune of some 350k?
To stay in the game. Even if they don't do very much, it keeps the 'team' together, at least on paper.
No one has the moral courage to be the one to refuse funding.
IMO
-
This Thread was inevitable, of course. Holly is back yet again and will inevitably leave just as quickly as she always does.
-
why does the MET require further funding for 2021/22 to the tune of some 350k?
No one here knows the answer to this question so suggest you send an FOI to the Met. Furthermore I don't think the majority of posters here really believes that the Germans have it "almost in the bag" so your thread is built on a false premise.
-
No one here knows the answer to this question so suggest you send an FOI to the Met. Furthermore I don't think the majority of posters here really believes that the Germans have it "almost in the bag" so your thread is built on a false premise.
Most answers are unknown to those here but it doesn't seem to stop endless speculation.
My thread asks a question and is prefixed by 'If' so no premise false or otherwise.
-
why does the MET require further funding for 2021/22 to the tune of some 350k?
It's disgusting the amount of public money thrown at this case when it didn't even occur in the UK. How many children have gone missing in the UK in the last 14 years with little or no interest being shown in them by police?
-
And could we please cease the disparaging remarks. TY
-
It's disgusting the amount of public money thrown at this case when it didn't even occur in the UK. How many children have gone missing in the UK in the last 14 years with little or no interest being shown in them by police?
Perhaps you could give us some examples? Starting with all missing children under the age of 5 that no police has been bothered to look for?
-
Most answers are unknown to those here but it doesn't seem to stop endless speculation.
My thread asks a question and is prefixed by 'If' so no premise false or otherwise.
Who (apart from you) said the Germans have it almost in the bag? Is endless speculation a good thing, in your view? If so why?
-
Who (apart from you) said the Germans have it almost in the bag? Is endless speculation a good thing, in your view? If so why?
Davel thinks its solved, so thats who else.
-
Davel thinks its solved, so thats who else.
I think Maddies fate has been solved but not enough evidence yet to prove who did it
-
Perhaps you could give us some examples? Starting with all missing children under the age of 5 that no police has been bothered to look for?
There's an entire board dedicated to missing UK children of all ages on the forum.
-
Davel thinks its solved, so thats who else.
So nothing to do with Vertigo Swirl.
-
I think Maddies fate has been solved but not enough evidence yet to prove who did it
The only person or persons who know that are the people who took her away. As for the Germans having it in the bag, I doubt that very much.
-
The only person or persons who know that are the people who took her away. As for the Germans having it in the bag, I doubt that very much.
Tell us something we don't know.
-
The only person or persons who know that are the people who took her away. As for the Germans having it in the bag, I doubt that very much.
From what wolters has said he may well have photographic evidence of Maddies fate but not strong enough evidence against the alleged perp
-
There's an entire board dedicated to missing UK children of all ages on the forum.
I’ve looked at your list and there are no other missing children in the UK under the age of 5 in the last 14 years, in fact there are precious few missing children of any age from the last 14 years on your list. Perhaps it needs updating?
-
It's disgusting the amount of public money thrown at this case when it didn't even occur in the UK. How many children have gone missing in the UK in the last 14 years with little or no interest being shown in them by police?
Is your argument that more public money should be spent to look for all missing children but not if they go missing abroad, or that less money should be spent on any British child missing, and none at all if they go missing abroad? Or that any amount spent looking for one child must never exceed the amount spent looking for another?
-
Is your argument that more public money should be spent to look for all missing children but not if they go missing abroad, or that less money should be spent on any British child missing, and none at all if they go missing abroad? Or that any amount spent looking for one child must never exceed the amount spent looking for another?
Not logical, is it. But in this case it never is.
-
Not logical, is it. But in this case it never is.
It’s been a god send to the moaners and the sanctimonious though.
-
It’s been a god send to the moaners and the sanctimonious though.
I should let them have it. I am going to. I can't be bothered anymore.
-
It’s been a god send to the moaners and the sanctimonious though.
It’s hardly sanctimonious to point out that very young children shouldn’t be left unattended.
-
It’s hardly sanctimonious to point out that very young children shouldn’t be left unattended.
And quite right too.
-
It’s hardly sanctimonious to point out that very young children shouldn’t be left unattended.
I think it is, when it is repeated ad nauseam for 14 years, especially with added “I never let my precious babies out of my sight for one single minute”. Yawn.
-
So nothing to do with Vertigo Swirl.
Did anyone say it was.
-
Did anyone say it was.
I don't know. Did they?
-
why does the MET require further funding for 2021/22 to the tune of some 350k?
No idea.
Maybe they are staking out your prime suspect - on the other hand - maybe not 😁
-
Most answers are unknown to those here but it doesn't seem to stop endless speculation.
My thread asks a question and is prefixed by 'If' so no premise false or otherwise.
Please elucidate on the alleged "endless speculation". I actually don't think there has much of a debate going on about the German prime suspect especially now that I think sceptics have become convinced that his right to the presumption of innocence has never been breached by anyone on this forum.
-
It's disgusting the amount of public money thrown at this case when it didn't even occur in the UK. How many children have gone missing in the UK in the last 14 years with little or no interest being shown in them by police?
None: I think British police pull out all the stops on behalf of missing children in particular. There certainly has never been a case in Britain where the little victim was abandoned with such alacrity leaving only her parents to keep her case alive.
-
None: I think British police pull out all the stops on behalf of missing children in particular. There certainly has never been a case in Britain where the little victim was abandoned with such alacrity leaving only her parents to keep her case alive.
Quite. Look at the amazing effort that went into looking for April Jones for example.
-
It’s hardly sanctimonious to point out that very young children shouldn’t be left unattended.
Right - I think we may have got that by now - none more so than the missing child's parents.
So why approve of what the Portuguese investigation did by treating her as if she was not fit to be looked for and 'shelving' her case.
You may not think a lot of her parents - but what the Hell has an innocent three year old done to generate such antipathy!
-
I think the Portuguese were wise to shelve the case when they did - they were unable to progress any further, and unlike us British, who clearly have money to burn, decided that enough was enough.
-
I think the Portuguese were wise to shelve the case when they did - they were unable to progress any further, and unlike us British, who clearly have money to burn, decided that enough was enough.
Yes I agree. Let’s put a cap of 12 months investigation on all crimes and when they can’t be solved just give up. Think of the money it will save!!
-
Yes I agree. Let’s put a cap of 12 months investigation on all crimes and when they can’t be solved just give up. Think of the money it will save!!
Sounds fair enough to me. Let's give up on this notion that it takes a village to raise a child ~ why not just let them get on with it themselves.
Boy oh boy - what a criminal's charter it will be when we give up even paying lip service to nailing any of them at all!
-
Right - I think we may have got that by now - none more so than the missing child's parents.
So why approve of what the Portuguese investigation did by treating her as if she was not fit to be looked for and 'shelving' her case.
You may not think a lot of her parents - but what the Hell has an innocent three year old done to generate such antipathy!
The PJ actually did the opposite. Under pressure they initially treated the case like an abduction rather than first "clearing the ground from under the feet" of parental involvement. They found that the alleged "evidence" and the reported stories of an abduction led nowhere.
-
It's disgusting the amount of public money thrown at this case when it didn't even occur in the UK. How many children have gone missing in the UK in the last 14 years with little or no interest being shown in them by police?
Madeleine was/is a British citizen.
-
Who (apart from you) said the Germans have it almost in the bag? Is endless speculation a good thing, in your view? If so why?
I thought HCW said as much?
-
I thought HCW said as much?
No, they’ve said they don’t have enough evidence to bring a successful prosecution, repeatedly.
-
No, they’ve said they don’t have enough evidence to bring a successful prosecution, repeatedly.
Oh. I thought HCW used the term "concrete evidence"?
-
Madeleine was/is a British citizen.
I wonder how many investigations by British police forces involve British citizens who were victims of a crime in another country?
-
Oh. I thought HCW used the term "concrete evidence"?
It appears that is what is lacking. I don’t think they’ll be too bothered as long as CB remains in prison and a significant number of the public believe him to be guilty, imo. It wouldn’t surprise me if he suffers some fatal injury in prison thus sparing a court case whilst still cementing his guilt in the consciousness of the public. Case closed!!
-
It appears that is what is lacking. I don’t think they’ll be too bothered as long as CB remains in prison and a significant number of the public believe him to be guilty, imo. It wouldn’t surprise me if he suffers some fatal injury in prison thus sparing a court case whilst still cementing his guilt in the consciousness of the public. Case closed!!
I think they are keeping him in solitary to avoid that
-
Oh. I thought HCW used the term "concrete evidence"?
Yes, and?
-
I wonder how many investigations by British police forces involve British citizens who were victims of a crime in another country?
Do you think we should pull the plug on Madeleine McCann's investigation - and ask the Portuguese and Germans to do likewise.
-
Do you think we should pull the plug on Madeleine McCann's investigation - and ask the Portuguese and Germans to do likewise.
Yes to the former. Would you prefer it to go on indefinitely?
As for the Portuguese/Germans, they can please themselves.
-
Yes to the former. Would you prefer it to go on indefinitely?
As for the Portuguese/Germans, they can please themselves.
Your answer doesn't surprise me for a moment. At least you are honest about it.
-
Yes to the former. Would you prefer it to go on indefinitely?
As for the Portuguese/Germans, they can please themselves.
The cold case into the likely murder of Claudia Lawrence is £1.5 million, OG cold case into the disappearance of Madeleine circa £12 million, hmmm.
-
The cold case into the likely murder of Claudia Lawrence is £1.5 million, OG cold case into the disappearance of Madeleine circa £12 million, hmmm.
Claudia Lawrences case was investigated in Britain. Madeleine's in Portugal. The Police in Claudia's investigation hit a brick wall, but they investigate when new evidence arises, they are searching ponds now aren't they?
-
Claudia Lawrences case was investigated in Britain. Madeleine's in Portugal. The Police in Claudia's investigation hit a brick wall, but they investigate when new evidence arises, they are searching ponds now aren't they?
I expect there are people complaining about that as well.
-
Do you think we should pull the plug on Madeleine McCann's investigation - and ask the Portuguese and Germans to do likewise.
That's not an answer.
-
Claudia Lawrences case was investigated in Britain. Madeleine's in Portugal. The Police in Claudia's investigation hit a brick wall, but they investigate when new evidence arises, they are searching ponds now aren't they?
Where are OG investigating ? why do they need money ? allegedly the BKA have it under control with CB doing time.
-
Where are OG investigating ? why do they need money ? allegedly the BKA have it under control with CB doing time.
Why don't you ask them? I doubt very much if the Government dished out money that was not needed,
-
Why don't you ask them? I doubt very much if the Government dished out money that was not needed,
Don't you believe it - they waste money right left and centre.
-
Don't you believe it - they waste money right left and centre.
Do they? The money given to OG is in the news, do you think they would brazenly hand out money that they knew would be published in the news?
-
Do they? The money given to OG is in the news, do you think they would brazenly hand out money that they knew would be published in the news?
Alleged dodgy contracts during the current pandemic were also in the news, but it didn't stop the brazen deals, imo.
-
That's not an answer.
You may not like it but it is an answer. I have absolutely no idea why there are those who want an active investigation to be abandoned before all the evidence has been evaluated. But there it is. The Germans say they are on the brink of solving Madeleine's over fourteen year old case and you are carping on about the money paying for for the British investigation. So strange.
-
You may not like it but it is an answer. I have absolutely no idea why there are those who want an active investigation to be abandoned before all the evidence has been evaluated. But there it is. The Germans say they are on the brink of solving Madeleine's over fourteen year old case and you are carping on about the money paying for for the British investigation. So strange.
It's a response, but it's difficult to see how it answers my question imo. Which was;
I wonder how many investigations by British police forces involve British citizens who were victims of a crime in another country?
-
It's a response, but it's difficult to see how it answers my question imo. Which was;
I wonder how many investigations by British police forces involve British citizens who were victims of a crime in another country?
Wonder away, that is your privilege - but in what context is your wonderment: there is such a thing as operational confidentiality and there again there is a hated child out there who fills a section of society with resentment against her because people are actually looking for her.
What I do know with absolute certainty is that currently the Germans have a prime suspect under investigation and that there are mean spirited individuals who resent that with a vengeance while resenting British money being spent on an active police case involving a British citizen.
There have been various internet campaigns supposedly advocating "Justice for Maddie".
The Germans are attempting to do just that and strange to say it is those who have demanded "JUSTICE" the loudest who are internet mouthing off yet again with loud objections to paying for it!
You really, really could not make it up 😁
-
Wonder away, that is your privilege - but in what context is your wonderment: there is such a thing as operational confidentiality and there again there is a hated child out there who fills a section of society with resentment against her because people are actually looking for her.
What I do know with absolute certainty is that currently the Germans have a prime suspect under investigation and that there are mean spirited individuals who resent that with a vengeance while resenting British money being spent on an active police case involving a British citizen.
There have been various internet campaigns supposedly advocating "Justice for Maddie".
The Germans are attempting to do just that and strange to say it is those who have demanded "JUSTICE" the loudest who are internet mouthing off yet again with loud objections to paying for it!
You really, really could not make it up 😁
When a crime is committed against a British citizen in another country the British police can't just decide to investigate that crime; it's out of their jurisdiction.
-
Wonder away, that is your privilege - but in what context is your wonderment: there is such a thing as operational confidentiality and there again there is a hated child out there who fills a section of society with resentment against her because people are actually looking for her.
What I do know with absolute certainty is that currently the Germans have a prime suspect under investigation and that there are mean spirited individuals who resent that with a vengeance while resenting British money being spent on an active police case involving a British citizen.
There have been various internet campaigns supposedly advocating "Justice for Maddie".
The Germans are attempting to do just that and strange to say it is those who have demanded "JUSTICE" the loudest who are internet mouthing off yet again with loud objections to paying for it!
You really, really could not make it up 😁
imo justice for Madeleine McCann means finding out the truth about what happened to her. Since we don't that truth it is grossly unfair imo to describe "a hated child" just because many people, with valid reasons, question the abduction scenario and point out flaws in the OG remit. Does Colin Sutton, for example, view Madeleine as "a hated child"? I very much doubt it!
-
imo justice for Madeleine McCann means finding out the truth about what happened to her. Since we don't that truth it is grossly unfair imo to describe "a hated child" just because many people, with valid reasons, question the abduction scenario and point out flaws in the OG remit. Does Colin Sutton, for example, view Madeleine as "a hated child"? I very much doubt it!
Quite the opposite I'd surmise.
-
When a crime is committed against a British citizen in another country the British police can't just decide to investigate that crime; it's out of their jurisdiction.
You don't say!!
-
Quite the opposite I'd surmise.
After more than fourteen long years an investigative opportunity is being followed which might give answers to what happened to Madeleine.
Sceptics now, like Amaral at the time and now, renege on anything but the made up version of events Amaral concocted.
The German investigation which is in danger of finding out what actually happened is now on his ridiculous agenda.
Wake up and smell the coffee people!!!
This is the guy who set up and promoted a false image of the German Prime suspect with a rasta hairdo in a ridiculous effort to derail the German investigation. Which he is obviously seriously worried about.
There are indeed loads of "patsies" in this case who almost all without exception subscribe what this man - who has reiterated that Brueckner was not interviewed in 2007 because he wasn't in - has to say.
Following evidence to find out the true story of what happened to Madeleine as the Germans are doing is the only way to get Justice for Madeleine.
Those who called that slogan loudest hate with a vengeance the mere thought that the Germans might actually be successful in achieving just that. As I said - you couldn't make it up.
-
After more than fourteen long years an investigative opportunity is being followed which might give answers to what happened to Madeleine.
Sceptics now, like Amaral at the time and now, renege on anything but the made up version of events Amaral concocted.
The German investigation which is in danger of finding out what actually happened is now on his ridiculous agenda.
Wake up and smell the coffee people!!!
This is the guy who set up and promoted a false image of the German Prime suspect with a rasta hairdo in a ridiculous effort to derail the German investigation. Which he is obviously seriously worried about.
There are indeed loads of "patsies" in this case who almost all without exception subscribe what this man - who has reiterated that Brueckner was not interviewed in 2007 because he wasn't in - has to say.
Following evidence to find out the true story of what happened to Madeleine as the Germans are doing is the only way to get Justice for Madeleine.
Those who called that slogan loudest hate with a vengeance the mere thought that the Germans might actually be successful in achieving just that. As I said - you couldn't make it up.
But what makes you so sure they are any nearer the truth than Amaral was? A phone ping in PDL, a car registration change and his previous? They’ve been talking about this for over a year and still nothing concrete.
-
But what makes you so sure they are any nearer the truth than Amaral was? A phone ping in PDL, a car registration change and his previous? They’ve been talking about this for over a year and still nothing concrete.
So you don’t accept that the Grrmans have evidence that they haven’t shared with the general public?
-
So you don’t accept that the Grrmans have evidence that they haven’t shared with the general public?
They might have. I very much doubt they have enough evidence to secure a conviction otherwise he’d have been charged already IMO.
-
imo justice for Madeleine McCann means finding out the truth about what happened to her. Since we don't that truth it is grossly unfair imo to describe "a hated child" just because many people, with valid reasons, question the abduction scenario and point out flaws in the OG remit. Does Colin Sutton, for example, view Madeleine as "a hated child"? I very much doubt it!
Suggesting that people hate a three year old child is utterly bizarre, beyond belief and beyond the pale imo.
-
Suggesting that people hate a three year old child is utterly bizarre, beyond belief and beyond the pale imo.
How else would you describe the many and varied campaigns designed only to thwart every move Madeleine's parents have made over fourteen+ years to find her.
It is not possible to slur her parents and family and circumvent every initiative they take on her behalf while still maintaining a stance of concern for Madeleine.
Her parents have spent fourteen+ years campaigning for her while others have spent the the same span of time trying to circumvent them.
I think you are defending the indefensible when you are in denial of how that impinges on Madeleine herself.
-
How else would you describe the many and varied campaigns designed only to thwart every move Madeleine's parents have made over fourteen+ years to find her.
It is not possible to slur her parents and family and circumvent every initiative they take on her behalf while still maintaining a stance of concern for Madeleine.
Her parents have spent fourteen+ years campaigning for her while others have spent the the same span of time trying to circumvent them.
I think you are defending the indefensible when you are in denial of how that impinges on Madeleine herself.
Hatred is a very strong emotion and I very much doubt that anyone has ever felt extreme dislike or disgust towards Madeleine McCann. There may be some who have reacted to her parents with such feelings, but it's quite a mental leap to suggest that extends to feeling the same about their innocent child.
-
How else would you describe the many and varied campaigns designed only to thwart every move Madeleine's parents have made over fourteen+ years to find her.
It is not possible to slur her parents and family and circumvent every initiative they take on her behalf while still maintaining a stance of concern for Madeleine.
Her parents have spent fourteen+ years campaigning for her while others have spent the the same span of time trying to circumvent them.
I think you are defending the indefensible when you are in denial of how that impinges on Madeleine herself.
I seriously doubt that many have any concern for Madeleine as she is long gone from this world.
IMO
-
Hatred is a very strong emotion and I very much doubt that anyone has ever felt extreme dislike or disgust towards Madeleine McCann. There may be some who have reacted to her parents with such feelings, but it's quite a mental leap to suggest that extends to feeling the same about their innocent child.
So what do you suggest it is to resist with every sinew of one's being every single positive initiative for the purpose of finding out what happened to her and perhaps bringing her back home.
Those negative actions were and are taken: there must be a reason for deliberately disadvantaging this little girl as she was then and young woman many hope she lived to become.
What is it, you who have leapt to tell us what it is not.
-
So what do you suggest it is to resist with every sinew of one's being every single positive initiative for the purpose of finding out what happened to her and perhaps bringing her back home.
Those negative actions were and are taken: there must be a reason for deliberately disadvantaging this little girl as she was then and young woman many hope she lived to become.
What is it, you who have leapt to tell us what it is not.
Perhaps your opinion that the PJ were resisting finding the truth isn’t correct, imo. You linked to the Archiving Dispatches to make a point. These dispatches detail the volume of work going into finding Madeleine or at least finding the truth of what happened to her?
Doesn’t ignoring Smithman for years indicate that certain people weren’t actually exploring every lead? Smithman has never come forward. OG recognise him as crucially important yet to this day the Find Madeleine website features him differently in Portugal and the UK? Hiow does this help identify a crucial lead?
-
So what do you suggest it is to resist with every sinew of one's being every single positive initiative for the purpose of finding out what happened to her and perhaps bringing her back home.
Those negative actions were and are taken: there must be a reason for deliberately disadvantaging this little girl as she was then and young woman many hope she lived to become.
What is it, you who have leapt to tell us what it is not.
There aren't protesters outside The Yard every day, demanding the end of investigations.
If there were I'd probably join them.
-
There aren't protesters outside The Yard every day, demanding the end of investigations.
If there were I'd probably join them.
😁 well if the irrelevance you have become doesn't bother you 😁 it sure don't bother me.
-
😁 well if the irrelevance you have become doesn't bother you 😁 it sure don't bother me.
Does ignoring Smithman for so long bother you when you desperately want to find the truth of what happened?
-
So what do you suggest it is to resist with every sinew of one's being every single positive initiative for the purpose of finding out what happened to her and perhaps bringing her back home.
Those negative actions were and are taken: there must be a reason for deliberately disadvantaging this little girl as she was then and young woman many hope she lived to become.
What is it, you who have leapt to tell us what it is not.
For you, everything the parents said and did was aimed at finding out what happened to their daughter and, hopefully, finding her. What you appear unable to grasp is that others don't agree with your opinion. They believe that the parents were motivated by aims other than those they claimed they had.
You are convinced you're right, but you can't prove it and therefore your views are just one of a variety of opinions about the parent's motives.
-
For you, everything the parents said and did was aimed at finding out what happened to their daughter and, hopefully, finding her. What you appear unable to grasp is that others don't agree with your opinion. They believe that the parents were motivated by aims other than those they claimed they had.
You are convinced you're right, but you can't prove it and therefore your views are just one of a variety of opinions about the parent's motives.
This is Libel. Or Slander, depending on what such comments amount to Legally.
-
This is Libel. Or Slander, depending on what such comments amount to Legally.
It’s not libel (or slander) to point out that factually not everyone shares Brietta’s views about the McCann parents.
-
There aren't protesters outside The Yard every day, demanding the end of investigations.
If there were I'd probably join them.
What a sheep - why don't you start the protest if this is such a hugely important issue for you?
-
What a sheep - why don't you start the protest if this is such a hugely important issue for you?
Because I'm far too busy campaigning to free Christian Brueckner.
-
Because I'm far too busy campaigning to free Christian Brueckner.
Jesus Christ. God preserve me. But no doubt He will.
You are only tolerated on this Forum because you are such a duckhead and provide the occasional puke.
-
You are only tolerated on this Forum because you are such a duckhead and provide the occasional puke.
Or you have ideas above your station and can't actually ban anyone.
-
Or you have ideas above your station and can't actually ban anyone.
While you have ideas well below your station. Which is a bit sad for you.
-
While you have ideas well below your station. Which is a bit sad for you.
There again I don't wear my heart on my sleeve.
-
Because I'm far too busy campaigning to free Christian Brueckner.
Please direct me to your campaign page.
-
There again I don't wear my heart on my sleeve.
Why should I not? I like people in general. And have no reason to think otherwise.
The one thing that has really upset me is that so many people are actively looking for something that is ill done. And I don't understand this. I honestly didn't see this coming. I don't even know what this means.
In my house everyone is innocent, unless it can be proven otherwise. And I have had a few of those.
Me? Not so much. I am an arsehole of the best kind because I am always right when shit comes to bust.
-
We mostly operate on the dark web or via standard post.
So just message me your name address & bank details, (plus the last 3 digits on the back of the card) & we'll send you your Brueckner Fan Club membership pack. (Just don't show it to anyone else or you might get in trouble).
You have zero chance of success then but still I’m curious…
Anyhoo, the name’s Alfred R Jones (I live with my elderly uncle and he pays for everything), 14 Macadamia Crescent, Swansea, SA14 4FU bank number 037454162 sort code 00-69-69 last 3 digits won’t get you very far without my other card details but they’re 167 since you asked. Look forward to receiving my pack soon.
-
For you, everything the parents said and did was aimed at finding out what happened to their daughter and, hopefully, finding her. What you appear unable to grasp is that others don't agree with your opinion. They believe that the parents were motivated by aims other than those they claimed they had.
You are convinced you're right, but you can't prove it and therefore your views are just one of a variety of opinions about the parent's motives.
Oh you are very much mistaken that I am in the slightest doubt that there are those who propagate the most heinous accusations and slurs aimed at the McCanns.
I see it day and daily.
My views are not aimed at causing harm.
-
Oh you are very much mistaken that I am in the slightest doubt that there are those who propagate the most heinous accusations and slurs aimed at the McCanns.
I see it day and daily.
My views are not aimed at causing harm.
I have no power to harm anyone, you are exaggerating.
-
I have no power to harm anyone, you are exaggerating.
What about yourself.
-
What about yourself.
I'm just fine thank you. How about you?
-
This is Libel. Or Slander, depending on what such comments amount to Legally.
No it's not, people are entitled to think whatever they like.
-
No it's not, people are entitled to think whatever they like.
I think people are entitled to think what they like although I think the WOKE movement has put a stop to that in a big way which hasn't really been noticed too much as yet.
It is when voice is put to that ~ for example questioning people's motives or asking a simple question as Sally Bercow found to her cost. "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"
She accused Lord McAlpine of nothing but someone else had and Sally Bercow was sued for libel.
-
I think people are entitled to think what they like although I think the WOKE movement has put a stop to that in a big way which hasn't really been noticed too much as yet.
It is when voice is put to that ~ for example questioning people's motives or asking a simple question as Sally Bercow found to her cost. "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"
She accused Lord McAlpine of nothing but someone else had and Sally Bercow was sued for libel.
A defeat for Carter Ruck too, for once.
-
A defeat for Carter Ruck too, for once.
Sally Bercow libelled Lord McAlpine and paid the price for it.
The judgment is one of great public interest and provides both a warning to and guidance for people who use social media."
Rozenberg noted:
"The law of defamation is well known to those who write for a living.
One hopes Twitter users are beginning to learn what a powerful and potentially dangerous weapon they have at their fingertips. A tweet is more like a broadcast than an email and is subject to the law of libel in the same way."
Bercow said: "The High Court found that my tweet constituted a serious libel, both in its natural meaning and as an innuendo. To say I am surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow#Judgment
I think Sally Bercow's advice should be remembered whenever or wherever one happens to post on the internet.
Innocent parties have the right to seek redress when maligned and sometimes they use that right as Lord McAlpine did.
-
Sally Bercow libelled Lord McAlpine and paid the price for it.
The judgment is one of great public interest and provides both a warning to and guidance for people who use social media."
Rozenberg noted:
"The law of defamation is well known to those who write for a living.
One hopes Twitter users are beginning to learn what a powerful and potentially dangerous weapon they have at their fingertips. A tweet is more like a broadcast than an email and is subject to the law of libel in the same way."
Bercow said: "The High Court found that my tweet constituted a serious libel, both in its natural meaning and as an innuendo. To say I am surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow#Judgment
I think Sally Bercow's advice should be remembered whenever or wherever one happens to post on the internet.
Innocent parties have the right to seek redress when maligned and sometimes they use that right as Lord McAlpine did.
All this because I said something which wasn't libellous? %77*
-
No it's not, people are entitled to think whatever they like.
Are people allowed to write their thoughts about what happened on here now then? Was a time we could not write freely.
-
All this because I said something which wasn't libellous? %77*
You are mistaken.
"All this because" you responded to my previous post with "A defeat for Carter Ruck too, for once."
Do please make the attempt to keep pace with flow of the debate even if it is all wildly off topic as per usual 😀
-
why does the MET require further funding for 2021/22 to the tune of some 350k?
The Germans have strong evidence against CB.
They just want to complete that evidence with more evidence, so that there is no doubt in the judges when passing sentence.
The Germans don't expect CB to confess. They hope that the evidence will continue to accumulate as it has until now, until it becomes incontestable.
MET is helping to collect additional evidence.
Unfortunately, Madeleine was killed soon after her abduction by CB.
-
The Germans have strong evidence against CB.
They just want to complete that evidence with more evidence, so that there is no doubt in the judges when passing sentence.
The Germans don't expect CB to confess. They hope that the evidence will continue to accumulate as it has until now, until it becomes incontestable.
MET is helping to collect additional evidence.
Unfortunately, Madeleine was killed soon after her abduction by CB.
We shall see - maybe.
-
The Germans have strong evidence against CB.
They just want to complete that evidence with more evidence, so that there is no doubt in the judges when passing sentence.
The Germans don't expect CB to confess. They hope that the evidence will continue to accumulate as it has until now, until it becomes incontestable.
MET is helping to collect additional evidence.
Unfortunately, Madeleine was killed soon after her abduction by CB.
Totally agree
-
The Germans have strong evidence against CB.
They just want to complete that evidence with more evidence, so that there is no doubt in the judges when passing sentence.
The Germans don't expect CB to confess. They hope that the evidence will continue to accumulate as it has until now, until it becomes incontestable.
MET is helping to collect additional evidence.
Unfortunately, Madeleine was killed soon after her abduction by CB.
Any idea what the concrete evidence against Brueckner might be?
-
Any idea what the concrete evidence against Brueckner might be?
Graphic material, eyewitnesses, phone calls ...
-
Graphic material, eyewitnesses, phone calls ...
You think Jane Tanner saw Brueckner?
-
Graphic material, eyewitnesses, phone calls ...
Eyewitnesses of what ?
-
Eyewitnesses of what ?
From inside the paedo gang lair, some of them have broken rank & grassed CB up.
-
The Germans have strong evidence against CB.
They just want to complete that evidence with more evidence, so that there is no doubt in the judges when passing sentence.
The Germans don't expect CB to confess. They hope that the evidence will continue to accumulate as it has until now, until it becomes incontestable.
MET is helping to collect additional evidence.
Unfortunately, Madeleine was killed soon after her abduction by CB.
Do you know if BKA have determined the motive yet, as that will be crucial for any prosecutor?
-
Do you know if BKA have determined the motive yet, as that will be crucial for any prosecutor?
CB entered to get something of value, like money, mobiles, laptops ...
And found something of great value for a paedo, unfortunately.
-
CB entered to get something of value, like money, mobiles, laptops ...
And found something of great value for a paedo, unfortunately.
When was he convicted? I think you need to use the word "allegedly" until he's been convicted.
Do you think he inflicted some injury which left blood traces behind the sofa or were they there for some other reason - like a nosebleed, maybe?
-
Hi Heri, in your opinion, how did he enter and exit the apartment with Madeleine?
-
Hi Heri, in your opinion, how did he enter and exit the apartment with Madeleine?
And at what time?
-
CB entered to get something of value, like money, mobiles, laptops ...
And found something of great value for a paedo, unfortunately.
If it was as simple as just an opportunist abduction and BKA already have the evidence you listed, what reason iyo could there be for him not being questioned to date?
-
Graphic material, eyewitnesses, phone calls ...
Do you have a cite for this please?
Has there been a leak of information to the public (something the PJ were criticised for) or an official press release with the latest information on the German investigation?
-
We shall see - maybe.
Indeed, isn't MWT supposed to be doing a piece about some Russians.
-
Im in total agreement with Heri
-
Im in total agreement with Heri
Heri seems to have changed his mind as he wasn't all that impressed by the German investigation previously. It would be interesting to know why he now seems convinced of CB's involvement.
-
Heri seems to have changed his mind as he wasn't all that impressed by the German investigation previously. It would be interesting to know why he now seems convinced of CB's involvement.
he seems to have the same view I have now...no change of mind from me...perhaps its listening to Wolters
-
Heri seems to have changed his mind as he wasn't all that impressed by the German investigation previously. It would be interesting to know why he now seems convinced of CB's involvement.
"I believed that HCW had solid evidence on the case of CB in relation to MM, but now I do not know, and fear that the Germans have only a "criminal profile", and the fact that CB possibly was in PDL on May 3, 2007 having a call. The "criminal profile" is very interesting (he is a burglar and a paedo), but not enough to sustain the case against CB. We have to wait for future developments." (Heri).
Since then there's been no developments yet Heri is now sold.
I too wonder what the clincher was?
-
The Germans have strong evidence against CB.
They just want to complete that evidence with more evidence, so that there is no doubt in the judges when passing sentence.
The Germans don't expect CB to confess. They hope that the evidence will continue to accumulate as it has until now, until it becomes incontestable.
MET is helping to collect additional evidence.
Unfortunately, Madeleine was killed soon after her abduction by CB.
They have nothing but wishful thinking. What evidence do they have to prove that he was with Madeleine?
-
They have nothing but wishful thinking. What evidence do they have to prove that he was with Madeleine?
Simple. The BKA has not shared their evidence.
-
Simple. The BKA has not shared their evidence.
Apart from with Heriberto it seems!!!
"Graphic material, eyewitnesses, phone calls ..."
-
Apart from with Heriberto it seems!!!
"Graphic material, eyewitnesses, phone calls ..."
I believe they also have his bank records.
-
I believe they also have his bank records.
Was it true that the McCann's were less forthcoming with theirs?
-
Was it true that the McCann's were less forthcoming with theirs?
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077870/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2027
-
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077870/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2027
There's something I didn't know.
-
CB entered to get something of value, like money, mobiles, laptops ...
And found something of great value for a paedo, unfortunately.
You want us to believe that out of all the thousands of dwellings in PDL that CB just stumbled upon one that was unsecured? And then instead of taking items for monetary gain he took a small sleeping female child to satisfy his perversions? I'm not buying it. The person(s) who abudcted MM were completely offay with the T9 MO and took full advantage. There's no evidence whatsover that CB had such knowledge whether first, second, third or any hand.
-
You want us to believe that out of all the thousands of dwellings in PDL that CB just stumbled upon one that was unsecured? And then instead of taking items for monetary gain he took a small sleeping female child to satisfy his perversions? I'm not buying it. The person(s) who abudcted MM were completely offay with the T9 MO and took full advantage. There's no evidence whatsover that CB had such knowledge whether first, second, third or any hand.
au fait, dear, au fait. Offay is not a word. Au fait is from the French. I have told you this before but you ignored my correction, preferring to continue using a non-word. How odd! IMO.
-
You want us to believe that out of all the thousands of dwellings in PDL that CB just stumbled upon one that was unsecured? And then instead of taking items for monetary gain he took a small sleeping female child to satisfy his perversions? I'm not buying it. The person(s) who abudcted MM were completely offay with the T9 MO and took full advantage. There's no evidence whatsover that CB had such knowledge whether first, second, third or any hand.
Perish the thought a paedophile should even consider stealing a little girl either with malice aforethought or opportunistically.
-
You want us to believe that out of all the thousands of dwellings in PDL that CB just stumbled upon one that was unsecured? And then instead of taking items for monetary gain he took a small sleeping female child to satisfy his perversions? I'm not buying it. The person(s) who abudcted MM were completely offay with the T9 MO and took full advantage. There's no evidence whatsover that CB had such knowledge whether first, second, third or any hand.
As I recall it was reported CB had friends amongst the OC workers.. He may well have known the children were being left alone. Films depicting child abuse are very valuable on the dark web
-
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077870/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2027
Is that a rebuttal?
Summary of Verifiable Facts
The Portuguese police asked for the transactions regarding Gerry McCann's credit cards for the period between 1st April 2007 and 30th September 2007. The Home Office asked for clarification of the basis upon which they made the request. There's no reply to that in the files. The basis for the request made by the PJ, was on a false/mistaken claim by a witness.
The Portuguese police didn't ask for the McCann's bank statements. They asked for information about the McCann's background, and they received that information.
-
As I recall it was reported CB had friends amongst the OC workers.. He may well have known the children were being left alone. Films depicting child abuse are very valuable on the dark web
According to an anonymous source.
-
Is that a rebuttal?
Summary of Verifiable Facts
The Portuguese police asked for the transactions regarding Gerry McCann's credit cards for the period between 1st April 2007 and 30th September 2007. The Home Office asked for clarification of the basis upon which they made the request. There's no reply to that in the files. The basis for the request made by the PJ, was on a false/mistaken claim by a witness.
The Portuguese police didn't ask for the McCann's bank statements. They asked for information about the McCann's background, and they received that information.
Yes it is, please feel free to dispute the accuracy of the rebuttal.
-
As I recall it was reported CB had friends amongst the OC workers.. He may well have known the children were being left alone. Films depicting child abuse are very valuable on the dark web
I recall no reports of CB having friends working at the OC.
-
Yes it is, please feel free to dispute the accuracy of the rebuttal.
Because the Home Office did refuse to hand over the requested information unless a number of conditions were met. That might be a legal requirement but nevertheless they didn't hand over the requested information.
It would be interesting to see what conditions the German government set on allowing CB's bank statements to be released to the Police there.
-
I recall no reports of CB having friends working at the OC.
I seem to recall Monteiro being mentioned
-
I seem to recall Monteiro being mentioned
Yet not a mention to the three amigo's whom its alleged Grange posed the question did you kill the girl.
-
Yet not a mention to the three amigo's whom its alleged Grange posed the question did you kill the girl.
They don't require to mention them.
BKA and SY are working in co-operation as are PJ: they will all have access to the witness statements. If I remember correctly the Portuguese did not allow SY to perform certain diligences such as access to bank statements.
If there is a connection to Brueckner no doubt we will hear about it in due course.
I always find it so amusing that there are actually individuals who appear to find it extraordinary that active investigations involving named suspects don't tell the world every nuance of the case being investigated. Don't you and they realise how unrealistic and ludicrous such expectations are.
I think Madeleine's case has reached its zenith and yet again you highlight some of the incompetence which took investigators fourteen+ years to get to this stage.
It took SY to question individuals in 2014 who should have been on the PJ list in 2007 - their phone numbers were on the cell dump.
It took SY and BKA to notice Brueckner's phone number which was similarly also available to the Amaral co-ordinated PJ investigation of 2007.
Was it David Edgar who said some years ago that it was probable that the names of possible perpetrators were already in the PJ files?
-
They don't require to mention them.
BKA and SY are working in co-operation as are PJ: they will all have access to the witness statements. If I remember correctly the Portuguese did not allow SY to perform certain diligences such as access to bank statements.
If there is a connection to Brueckner no doubt we will hear about it in due course.
I always find it so amusing that there are actually individuals who appear to find it extraordinary that active investigations involving named suspects don't tell the world every nuance of the case being investigated. Don't you and they realise how unrealistic and ludicrous such expectations are.
I think Madeleine's case has reached its zenith and yet again you highlight some of the incompetence which took investigators fourteen+ years to get to this stage.
It took SY to question individuals in 2014 who should have been on the PJ list in 2007 - their phone numbers were on the cell dump.
It took SY and BKA to notice Brueckner's phone number which was similarly also available to the Amaral co-ordinated PJ investigation of 2007.
Was it David Edgar who said some years ago that it was probable that the names of possible perpetrators were already in the PJ files?
Not one to hedge his bets then @)(++(*
-
I seem to recall Monteiro being mentioned
I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation.
-
I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation.
I dont...im making it clear im not certain...so no need for cite . Could we also stop speculation that Wolters has no evidence.. that the dogs reacted to a cadaver...that the dna matched maddie...that Maddie may have died in an accident...and on and on and on
-
I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation.
a simple google search found this. were you not criticising another poster for not understanding search google
Earlier this year, reports in Portugal suggested an employee at the Ocean Club holiday complex watched the McCanns and passed information to Brueckner so he could break into their ground floor apartment.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-murder-suspect-accomplice-22699661
-
I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation.
this is from the TImes..
An employee at the resort where Madeleine McCann was abducted may have watched her family and passed information to Christian Brückner so he could burgle their apartment, reports suggest.
Portuguese police believe that an alleged accomplice told Brückner, the prime suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, that the family had left valuable items in the ground floor apartment where the three-year-old slept with her 18-month-old twin siblings. Their parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were at a restaurant in the Ocean Club complex.
-
a simple google search found this. were you not criticising another poster for not understanding search google
Earlier this year, reports in Portugal suggested an employee at the Ocean Club holiday complex watched the McCanns and passed information to Brueckner so he could break into their ground floor apartment.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-murder-suspect-accomplice-22699661
Could you highlight the relevant part about Eucides Monteiro?
I couldn't find that anywhere.
-
I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation.
There are occasions when a cite is not really necessary; for instance such as various reports in the press which it can be assumed everyone with an interest knows or because it has already been discussed on the forum.
For example ~ when I say that Amaral lied about Brueckner having dreadlocks you should know that is a fact because the link has already been provided on numerous occasions.
Similarly ~ when I say that Amaral is responsible for attempting to interfere in the German investigation by pointing the way to identifying him in 2019 is also known to those who who have been following the debate and read the links provided.
Providing sources is essential but there is a happy medium between doing so and constantly demanding cites for common knowledge which can only be construed as disrupting the debate should there be one.
-
There are occasions when a cite is not really necessary; for instance such as various reports in the press which it can be assumed everyone with an interest knows or because it has already been discussed on the forum.
For example ~ when I say that Amaral lied about Brueckner having dreadlocks you should know that is a fact because the link has already been provided on numerous occasions.
Similarly ~ when I say that Amaral is responsible for attempting to interfere in the German investigation by pointing the way to identifying him in 2019 is also known to those who who have been following the debate and read the links provided.
Providing sources is essential but there is a happy medium between doing so and constantly demanding cites for common knowledge which can only be construed as disrupting the debate should there be one.
Maybe you can you find reports linking Monteiro to Brueckner?
-
There are occasions when a cite is not really necessary; for instance such as various reports in the press which it can be assumed everyone with an interest knows or because it has already been discussed on the forum.
For example ~ when I say that Amaral lied about Brueckner having dreadlocks you should know that is a fact because the link has already been provided on numerous occasions.
Similarly ~ when I say that Amaral is responsible for attempting to interfere in the German investigation by pointing the way to identifying him in 2019 is also known to those who who have been following the debate and read the links provided.
Providing sources is essential but there is a happy medium between doing so and constantly demanding cites for common knowledge which can only be construed as disrupting the debate should there be one.
Thank you for saying that, Brie. I am getting heartily sick of this.
And I do not believe that the members repeatedly demanding these cites do not know that they have already been provided. In which case it is pretty obvious that they have another agenda.
-
Thank you for saying that, Brie. I am getting heartily sick of this.
And I do not believe that the members repeatedly demanding these cites do not know that they have already been provided. In which case it is pretty obvious that they have another agenda.
No cites were ever provided in this instance.
-
this is from the TImes..
An employee at the resort where Madeleine McCann was abducted may have watched her family and passed information to Christian Brückner so he could burgle their apartment, reports suggest.
Portuguese police believe that an alleged accomplice told Brückner, the prime suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, that the family had left valuable items in the ground floor apartment where the three-year-old slept with her 18-month-old twin siblings. Their parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were at a restaurant in the Ocean Club complex.
Everyone with an interest in the German investigations already knows that it is long suspected that Brueckner had an accomplice or perhaps more than one ~
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner’s ‘girlfriend accomplice' is finally unmasked, sparking new hopes she could be key to unlocking mystery of the three-year-old’s disappearance
A girlfriend of Christian Brueckner helped him raid properties in the Algarve
Brueckner is the latest prime suspect in the Madeline McCann disappearance
Nicole Fehlinger is accused of aiding an Algarve break-in in November 2007
The accused crime took place six months after Madeline McCann vanished
By NICK FAGGE IN WURZBURG, GERMANY, FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 19:23, 17 July 2020 | UPDATED: 22:30, 17 July 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8534831/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-girlfriend-finally-unmasked.html
Brueckner knew a lot of people living and working in Praia da Luz many of whom must have been in the service industry as he allegedly was.
Luz was his residence of choice it seems so it is not surprising that he may have had friends and perhaps accomplices there.
-
Everyone with an interest in the German investigations already knows that it is long suspected that Brueckner had an accomplice or perhaps more than one ~
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner’s ‘girlfriend accomplice' is finally unmasked, sparking new hopes she could be key to unlocking mystery of the three-year-old’s disappearance
A girlfriend of Christian Brueckner helped him raid properties in the Algarve
Brueckner is the latest prime suspect in the Madeline McCann disappearance
Nicole Fehlinger is accused of aiding an Algarve break-in in November 2007
The accused crime took place six months after Madeline McCann vanished
By NICK FAGGE IN WURZBURG, GERMANY, FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 19:23, 17 July 2020 | UPDATED: 22:30, 17 July 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8534831/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-girlfriend-finally-unmasked.html
Brueckner knew a lot of people living and working in Praia da Luz many of whom must have been in the service industry as he allegedly was.
Luz was his residence of choice it seems so it is not surprising that he may have had friends and perhaps accomplices there.
Nope, I'm still not seeing Monteiro's name anywhere.
-
Thank you for saying that, Brie. I am getting heartily sick of this.
And I do not believe that the members repeatedly demanding these cites do not know that they have already been provided. In which case it is pretty obvious that they have another agenda.
Interestingly I found this discussion taking place on an entirely different forum and it certainly rang a bell with what I have observed here and elsewhere.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/is-our-forum-under-troll-attack.7756/
-
Interestingly I found this discussion taking place on an entirely different forum and it certainly rang a bell with what I have observed here and elsewhere.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/is-our-forum-under-troll-attack.7756/
I don't think we need to consider other sites whose theories are so silly as to be laughable. In fact, mentioning them here is a breach of our rules and moderators should know better.
[/b]
-
Interestingly I found this discussion taking place on an entirely different forum and it certainly rang a bell with what I have observed here and elsewhere.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/is-our-forum-under-troll-attack.7756/
You think asking for cites is trolling?
-
Because the Home Office did refuse to hand over the requested information unless a number of conditions were met. That might be a legal requirement but nevertheless they didn't hand over the requested information.
It would be interesting to see what conditions the German government set on allowing CB's bank statements to be released to the Police there.
So, that's the Home Office refusing on behalf of the McCanns, and quite rightly too IMO - protecting the rights of their citizens.
-
You think asking for cites is trolling?
I think it can be. I think asking for a cite when a poster has made it clear that they are not claiming a fact... As you did... Could be described ad trolling
-
So, that's the Home Office refusing on behalf of the McCanns, and quite rightly too IMO - protecting the rights of their citizens.
I think its more than your opinion... A persons right to privacy is governed by the ECHR
-
I think it can be. I think asking for a cite when a poster has made it clear that they are not claiming a fact... As you did... Could be described ad trolling
I gave you a choice;
"I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12194.msg664493#msg664493
You chose (eventually) to cite speculation by the media. Although there has been such speculation, which you chose to repeat, there is no evidence that Brueckner knew anyone who worked at the Ocean Club or that anyone working there helped him in any way shape or form. In particular, the name Monteiro wasn't connected with Brueckner imo.
-
I gave you a choice;
"I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12194.msg664493#msg664493
You chose (eventually) to cite speculation by the media. Although there has been such speculation, which you chose to repeat, there is no evidence that Brueckner knew anyone who worked at the Ocean Club or that anyone working there helped him in any way shape or form. In particular, the name Monteiro wasn't connected with Brueckner imo.
Ive given my opinion on trolling. Its not up to you to mske up rules that suit you. If you want to stop speculation...contact john
-
I gave you a choice;
"I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12194.msg664493#msg664493
You chose (eventually) to cite speculation by the media. Although there has been such speculation, which you chose to repeat, there is no evidence that Brueckner knew anyone who worked at the Ocean Club or that anyone working there helped him in any way shape or form. In particular, the name Monteiro wasn't connected with Brueckner imo.
So to be clear - is it now no longer permitted to vaguely speculate on this forum by prefacing a comment with something like "I seem to think" or "I would imagine that"? I think this needs clarification Mrs Mod.
-
Well I seem to remember reports the McCanns were involved with Christian Brueckner.
-
Well I seem to remember reports the McCanns were involved with Christian Brueckner.
You seem to have a faulty memory or perhaps you are suffering from the Mandela effect.
-
So, that's the Home Office refusing on behalf of the McCanns, and quite rightly too IMO - protecting the rights of their citizens.
Yes, I can see their argument is valid... I'm not convinced (on gut feeling) that they always set the bar so high when "protecting citizens".
-
Well I seem to remember reports the McCanns were involved with Christian Brueckner.
I doubt anyone cares... But it seems gunit does
-
You seem to have a faulty memory or perhaps you are suffering from the Mandela effect.
Well Brueckner & the McCanns were both (allegedly) at the Ocean Club so it's quite possible they knew each other, a'la Brueckner & Monteiro.
-
Yes, I can see their argument is valid... I'm not convinced (on gut feeling) that they always set the bar so high when "protecting citizens".
That seems like vague speculation.. Lol.
As regards medical records im fairlly sure a doctor would require a court order which a judhe would only authorise if there was sufficient evifence to justify. A request by an inept detective who didnt understand the evidence simply wouldnt do
-
That seems like vague speculation.. Lol.
As regards medical records im fairlly sure a doctor would require a court order which a judhe would only authorise if there was sufficient evifence to justify. A request by an inept detective who didnt understand the evidence simply wouldnt do
It was just gut feeling, but I accept your point. It's certainly a valid legal argument that was used, not to hand over the requested information. The claim though, that the "pro" site was trying to rebut, was Amaral's claim that the HO refused to to hand over the information. I have no idea why Amaral did not respond. You would have to ask him that question.
-
It was just gut feeling, but I accept your point. It's certainly a valid legal argument that was used, not to hand over the requested information. The claim though, that the "pro" site was trying to rebut, was Amaral's claim that the HO refused to to hand over the information. I have no idea why Amaral did not respond. You would have to ask him that question.
The ball was in the PJ's court, clearly they couldn't be arsed to hit it back.
-
Ive given my opinion on trolling. Its not up to you to mske up rules that suit you. If you want to stop speculation...contact john
"Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links."
Posted by Admin in Forum rules
« on: March 02, 2012, 12:57:13 PM »
-
"Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links."
Posted by Admin in Forum rules
« on: March 02, 2012, 12:57:13 PM »
We have all seen that....do you realise that without speculation there would be no forum. could you confirm taht none of your posts contain speculation.
the titel of the thread...
If The Germans Have It Almost In The Bag...
started by a mod...invites speculation...as does the one below by Angelo
-
We have all seen that....do you realise that without speculation there would be no forum. could you confirm taht none of your posts contain speculation.
the titel of the thread...
If The Germans Have It Almost In The Bag...
started by a mod...invites speculation...as does the one below by Angelo
There are LOADS of threads inviting us to speculate, many started by mods, perhaps G-Unit could have a word with John and get all of them removed. As if.
-
Without speculation there would be No Forum. Hence John's request for, "In My Opinion."
-
this is from the TImes..
An employee at the resort where Madeleine McCann was abducted may have watched her family and passed information to Christian Brückner so he could burgle their apartment, reports suggest.
Portuguese police believe that an alleged accomplice told Brückner, the prime suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, that the family had left valuable items in the ground floor apartment where the three-year-old slept with her 18-month-old twin siblings. Their parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were at a restaurant in the Ocean Club complex.
What does that post prove exactly.
The Times....isn't that the newspaper the mcs sued.
-
It was just gut feeling, but I accept your point. It's certainly a valid legal argument that was used, not to hand over the requested information. The claim though, that the "pro" site was trying to rebut, was Amaral's claim that the HO refused to to hand over the information. I have no idea why Amaral did not respond. You would have to ask him that question.
I wad a victim of fraud... Lots of evidence... It.took a lot of persuading for the judge to allow access to bank statements.
Medical records are even more confidential. If a policeman asked me if a person had an appt with me at a certain time im unable to reply without a court order
-
What does that post prove exactly.
The Times....isn't that the newspaper the mcs sued.
It doesnt prove anything and I never claimed it did
-
I wad a victim of fraud... Lots of evidence... It.took a lot of persuading for the judge to allow access to bank statements.
Medical records are even more confidential. If a policeman asked me if a person had an appt with me at a certain time im unable to reply without a court order
As I said I accept the legal argument.... However, in the context of the conversation above.... The rebuttal used didn't rebut the accusation being made. So when Amaral says he didn't receive requested info the rebuttal should have said "Amaral is correct but there is a reason for it". The reason being to protect people's rights.
-
As I said I accept the legal argument.... However, in the context of the conversation above.... The rebuttal used didn't rebut the accusation being made. So when Amaral says he didn't receive requested info the rebuttal should have said "Amaral is correct but there is a reason for it". The reason being to protect people's rights.
Looking at it... Amaral wasnt refused... He was askedd for clarification... He didnt bother to reply
-
Looking at it... Amaral wasnt refused... He was askedd for clarification... He didnt bother to reply
Or to put it another way he was refused unless he provided a better legal basis for his request.... It's legalistic pedantry and I'll concede your point.
-
As I said I accept the legal argument.... However, in the context of the conversation above.... The rebuttal used didn't rebut the accusation being made. So when Amaral says he didn't receive requested info the rebuttal should have said "Amaral is correct but there is a reason for it". The reason being to protect people's rights.
Hang on a second. I posted a link to the rebuttal in response to this question from you regarding bank statements. Nothing to do with Amaral.
“Was it true that the McCann's were less forthcoming with theirs?”
The answer is - no, it isn’t true, as the link made clear.
-
I gave you a choice;
"I think you should either cite or cease the vague speculation."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12194.msg664493#msg664493
You chose (eventually) to cite speculation by the media. Although there has been such speculation, which you chose to repeat, there is no evidence that Brueckner knew anyone who worked at the Ocean Club or that anyone working there helped him in any way shape or form. In particular, the name Monteiro wasn't connected with Brueckner imo.
You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?
-
There are occasions when a cite is not really necessary; for instance such as various reports in the press which it can be assumed everyone with an interest knows or because it has already been discussed on the forum.
For example ~ when I say that Amaral lied about Brueckner having dreadlocks you should know that is a fact because the link has already been provided on numerous occasions.
Similarly ~ when I say that Amaral is responsible for attempting to interfere in the German investigation by pointing the way to identifying him in 2019 is also known to those who who have been following the debate and read the links provided.
Providing sources is essential but there is a happy medium between doing so and constantly demanding cites for common knowledge which can only be construed as disrupting the debate should there be one.
I found it quite bizarre the Amaral came up with the dreadlocks. Why? Plus why say his van was covered in stickers? Very strange.
-
Is that a rebuttal?
Summary of Verifiable Facts
The Portuguese police asked for the transactions regarding Gerry McCann's credit cards for the period between 1st April 2007 and 30th September 2007. The Home Office asked for clarification of the basis upon which they made the request. There's no reply to that in the files. The basis for the request made by the PJ, was on a false/mistaken claim by a witness.
The Portuguese police didn't ask for the McCann's bank statements. They asked for information about the McCann's background, and they received that information.
Oh was that to see if they had sold Madeleine? Another ridiculous conspiracy that circled.
-
You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?
What has that got to do with it?
-
I found it quite bizarre the Amaral came up with the dreadlocks. Why? Plus why say his van was covered in stickers? Very strange.
I think it strange and suspicious.
Quite an obvious attempt not just to criticises the German investigation but to derail it entirely.
I would say these are the pronouncements and the actions of a man who just does not want the German investigation to fail but any chance whatsoever of finding out what happened to Madeleine.
Given the influence he has already exerted on his own behalf over the years I think his recent actions require to be questioned.
Maybe his forthcoming book will shed some light on his motives.
-
What has that got to do with it?
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
-
His campervan has sure seen some action. The springs must be worn out...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9958837/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-ex-lover-tells-growing-obsession-girls.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9958837/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-ex-lover-tells-growing-obsession-girls.html)
-
You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?
Neither do you - although it does seem to be nothing but a ping hearsay an media stories.
Looks like the end result will be as what was predicted by most - well over a year ago.
-
Neither do you - although it does seem to be nothing but a ping hearsay an media stories.
Looks like the end result will be as what was predicted by most - well over a year ago.
I have never claimed to know. Neither have I said there is no evidence that CB knew someone in the OC.
-
You don't know what evidence Wolters has do you?
Nothing.
-
Nothing.
Correct. You know nothing.
-
Correct. You know nothing.
I know Wolters can't prove either abduction, Brueckners involvement in it, or that he murdered Maddie.
-
I know Wolters can't prove either abduction, Brueckners involvement in it, or that he murdered Maddie.
Well done, have a biscuit. Not being able to prove something and having no evidence at all are two different things. Amaral couldn't prove murder by the parents, so therefore he had nothing, is that your view?
-
Well done, have a biscuit. Not being able to prove something and having no evidence at all are two different things. Amaral couldn't prove murder by the parents, so therefore he had nothing, is that your view?
Technically, yes, he had nothing that will stand up in court, much the same as Wolters.
-
Technically, yes, he had nothing that will stand up in court, much the same as Wolters.
So your suspicions regarding the McCanns are based on nothing then.
-
So your suspicions regarding the McCanns are based on nothing then.
Well yes, they must be presumed innocent, so yes there's no evidence of their guilt, same as Brueckner.
-
Well yes, they must be presumed innocent, so yes there's no evidence of their guilt, same as Brueckner.
But you KNOW they murdered Madeleine so what the hell is that all about then?
-
But you KNOW they murdered Madeleine so what the hell is that all about then?
Don't ask. Nothing Spammy ever says will be relevant.
-
Well done, have a biscuit. Not being able to prove something and having no evidence at all are two different things. Amaral couldn't prove murder by the parents, so therefore he had nothing, is that your view?
Amaral didn’t believe “murder by the parents” was a likely scenario (source: The Truth of the Lie)
-
Amaral didn’t believe “murder by the parents” was a likely scenario (source: The Truth of the Lie)
No,, but Spam does. Amaral couldn’t prove anything, murder, accident, overdosing, body occulting, nothing. My point stands.
-
No,, but Spam does. Amaral couldn’t prove anything, murder, accident, overdosing, body occulting, nothing. My point stands.
What ever happened to that Coffin in some church. Or the dead dog? Come on, there were some very creditable scenarios if you were desperate.
-
Amaral didn’t believe “murder by the parents” was a likely scenario (source: The Truth of the Lie)
Incidentally, on what basis could he have ruled out murder? Any ideas?
-
What ever happened to that Coffin in some church. Or the dead dog? Come on, there were some very creditable scenarios if you were desperate.
None as simple, & therefore more probable, as the bin.
-
But you KNOW they murdered Madeleine so what the hell is that all about then?
The media & others often state abduction as fact.
How do they know? The answer is they don't.
I'm just providing balance by saying I know the crime was murder by the parents.
-
The media & others often state abduction as fact.
How do they know? The answer is they don't.
I'm just providing balance by saying I know the crime was murder by the parents.
No, what you are providing is trolling, pure and simple (with the emphasis on simple).
-
None as simple, & therefore more probable, as the bin.
It is a pity that the landfill closest to PDL was never searched.
-
Incidentally, on what basis could he have ruled out murder? Any ideas?
I don't think he did entirely. In his book he talks about the possibility, but I don't know why his main conclusions, in summary, were as follows. I would say accidental death was a hypothesis and still was only that when he was taken off the case:
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following: 1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila
da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007; 2. There was simulation of abduction. 3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their
daughter's body. 4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident; 5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the
children.
-
The media & others often state abduction as fact.
How do they know? The answer is they don't.
I'm just providing balance by saying I know the crime was murder by the parents.
You KNOW the crime was murder by the parents ?
That's quite an accusation .
Will you be forthcoming with details of just how you know?
-
You KNOW the crime was murder by the parents ?
That's quite an accusation .
Will you be forthcoming with details of just how you know?
Yes I will, but only when the police explain how they know it definitely wasn't.
-
You KNOW the crime was murder by the parents ?
That's quite an accusation .
Will you be forthcoming with details of just how you know?
He doesn't
-
Yes I will, but only when the police explain how they know it definitely wasn't.
Murder is a killing intended to cause death is it not?
I think it would be difficult to prove and as far as I can recall the police have never said they know it definitely wasn't .
-
No,, but Spam does. Amaral couldn’t prove anything, murder, accident, overdosing, body occulting, nothing. My point stands.
No-one has proved "abduction" either. Your point is just opinion, but you're welcome to express it in my book.
-
No-one has proved "abduction" either. Your point is just opinion, but you're welcome to express it in my book.
That’s very kind of you, thank you.
-
No-one has proved "abduction" either. Your point is just opinion, but you're welcome to express it in my book.
Hope you don't intend to go to print, mind its a gift thats keeps giving.
-
No-one has proved "abduction" either. Your point is just opinion, but you're welcome to express it in my book.
I think... Based on the evidence.. Abduction can be proved.. That is the Germans have proof of abduction
-
I think... Based on the evidence.. Abduction can be proved.. That is the Germans have proof of abduction
According to you they also have proof of murder yet can't obviously pin it on the tail of the donkey, concrete ! yeh right. We've had concrete laid at work and are driving on it, far superior to german stuff.
-
According to you they also have proof of murder yet can't obviously pin it on the tail of the donkey, concrete ! yeh right. We've had concrete laid at work and are driving on it, far superior to german stuff.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt of murder... Yes
But not such proof of who the murderer is
-
Proof beyond reasonable doubt of murder... Yes
But not such proof of who the murderer is
Very difficult without a body, unless Wolters cites the dog's, that would raise your hackles and blood pressure.
-
Very difficult without a body, unless Wolters cites the dog's, that would raise your hackles and blood pressure.
If wolters has the evidence i and others think he has....and what he has alluded to...he doesnt need a body
-
If wolters has the evidence i and others think he has....and what he has alluded to...he doesnt need a body
I could post a picture of say Saddam Hussein after being hung, (which I believe was available), it doesn't mean I did it.
-
I could post a picture of say Saddam Hussein after being hung, (which I believe was available), it doesn't mean I did it.
it would be very strong evidence he was hung. the evidence I and others believe wolters has proves death but not who did it
-
it would be very strong evidence he was hung. the evidence I and others believe wolters has proves death but not who did it
To be honest the death has never been in doubt, imo , despite the official line of OG.
-
it would be very strong evidence he was hung. the evidence I and others believe wolters has proves death but not who did it
If the BKA has evidence of death why has the MET secured further HO funding, to the tune of some 350k, to continue the missing person investigation?
Do you think the parents are being kept in the dark about this evidence/MM's death?
-
If the BKA has evidence of death why has the MET secured further HO funding, to the tune of some 350k, to continue the missing person investigation?
Do you think the parents are being kept in the dark about this evidence/MM's death?
Just so that they can say they've still got a dog in the race, even if it's limping along - IMO.
-
If the BKA has evidence of death why has the MET secured further HO funding, to the tune of some 350k, to continue the missing person investigation?
Do you think the parents are being kept in the dark about this evidence/MM's death?
The Met has conceded that Madeleine may well be dead so I don't see what your point is about the funding. Do you think it would only be granted if they assured the Home Office that they believed Madeleine was definitely alive?
-
If the BKA has evidence of death why has the MET secured further HO funding, to the tune of some 350k, to continue the missing person investigation?
Do you think the parents are being kept in the dark about this evidence/MM's death?
There may well be a lot we don't know about. The parents silence and Kate returning to work may mean they have been told more details
-
There may well be a lot we don't know about. The parents silence and Kate returning to work may mean they have been told more details
I think Kate was working in 2017.
Tonight former GP and now medical worker Kate, 49, and eminent heart doctor Gerry, 48
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3474396/kate-and-gerry-mccann-attend-prayer-service-with-friends-and-family-at-local-parish-as-others-in-portugal-offer-their-thoughts/
-
There may well be a lot we don't know about. The parents silence and Kate returning to work may mean they have been told more details
Quite how you've connected KM returning to work and the couple's silence with perhaps them knowing more details I don't know because certainly bad news wouldn't bring those two things about .
-
I think Kate was working in 2017.
Tonight former GP and now medical worker Kate, 49, and eminent heart doctor Gerry, 48
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3474396/kate-and-gerry-mccann-attend-prayer-service-with-friends-and-family-at-local-parish-as-others-in-portugal-offer-their-thoughts/
Afaiaa Kate was not seeing patients
-
Quite how you've connected KM returning to work and the couple's silence with perhaps them knowing more details I don't know because certainly bad news wouldn't bring those two things about .
Thats just your opinion.... Maybe based on incorrect information.
I'm sure the McCanns have realised for some time that the most likely scenario was that Maddie died as a result of a stranger abduction and would to a certain extent come to terms with it. They have never had solid evidence to confirm this so have lived in limbo.
Maybe now they understand she is dead and have managed to find some closure... Hence that may be the reason for a return to work
-
Thats just your opinion.... Maybe based on incorrect information.
I'm sure the McCanns have realised for some time that the most likely scenario was that Maddie died as a result of a stranger abduction and would to a certain extent come to terms with it. They have never had solid evidence to confirm this so have lived in limbo.
Maybe now they understand she is dead and have managed to find some closure... Hence that may be the reason for a return to work
Which authority has/could have told them Madeleine is dead ? There's a huge difference between assuming /presuming she is but the final blow has surely not been delivered to them ?
-
Afaiaa Kate was not seeing patients
She was working even so.
-
Which authority has/could have told them Madeleine is dead ? There's a huge difference between assuming /presuming she is but the final blow has surely not been delivered to them ?
If you listen to Wolters.. She's dead
I see it as closure... Which is welcomed
-
She was working even so.
Doing what?
-
Doing what?
Work.
-
Work.
lol, you haven’t a clue but seem to believe what the Sun reported - accept nothing, believe no one, check everything.
-
If you listen to Wolters.. She's dead
I see it as closure... Which is welcomed
The parents motto has always been that they never give up hoping so
I think they will require proof positive and no one's going to be able to give them that unless there's a confession from the person/s who killed her .
Wolters "thinks " one image is of Madeleine but can't prove it ?
-
The parents motto has always been that they never give up hoping so
I think they will require proof positive and no one's going to be able to give them that unless there's a confession from the person/s who killed her .
Wolters "thinks " one image is of Madeleine but can't prove it ?
Where are you getting your information from... Who says Wolters thinks one image is Maddie... As, I said your opinion is based on false information.
So where does Wolters say he thinks one image is Maddie
-
The parents motto has always been that they never give up hoping so
I think they will require proof positive and no one's going to be able to give them that unless there's a confession from the person/s who killed her .
Wolters "thinks " one image is of Madeleine but can't prove it ?
I don't think McCann will ever accept anything short of DNA evidence as proof of her death.
-
The parents motto has always been that they never give up hoping so
I think they will require proof positive and no one's going to be able to give them that unless there's a confession from the person/s who killed her .
Wolters "thinks " one image is of Madeleine but can't prove it ?
If there's an image then it's taken from the bundle Smithy left and CB stumbled upon , far fetched ? It's as far fetched as CB half inching Madeleine out of 5a.
-
If there's an image then it's taken from the bundle Smithy left and CB stumbled upon , far fetched ? It's as far fetched as CB half inching Madeleine out of 5a.
Name one instance anywhere in the world ever of anyone photographing a corpse they just happened to stumble upon and keeping quiet about what they have seen. I can name numerous examples of childten being taken by a stranger from their places of residence.
-
If there's an image then it's taken from the bundle Smithy left and CB stumbled upon , far fetched ? It's as far fetched as CB half inching Madeleine out of 5a.
As I've said before... Thst doesn't fit..wolters has impied an image of a live Maddie.. I won't go any further
-
Name one instance anywhere in the world ever of anyone photographing a corpse they just happened to stumble upon and keeping quiet about what they have seen. I can name numerous examples of childten being taken by a stranger from their places of residence.
Wolters has never said his suspect took Madeleine from inside 5a.
-
Wolters has never said his suspect took Madeleine from inside 5a.
Wolters was asked if he had any evidence CB had been in 5a.... He declined to comment
-
Wolters has never said his suspect took Madeleine from inside 5a.
And from this you deduce Brueckner merely photographed a corpse of a little girl he stumbled upon and didn't bother to report it? Sure that sounds verrrrry plausible and logical.
-
Wolters was asked if he had any evidence CB had been in 5a.... He declined to comment
He's stated no forensics, ergo not in 5a.
-
He's stated no forensics, ergo not in 5a.
I think it's a given that Wolters has something that will shock/surprise everyone
-
I think it's a given that Wolters has something that will shock/surprise everyone
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
-
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
He hasn't said he's working closely with the PJ and I think he holds them in contempt and wouldnt share anything with them.... The McCanns may already have closure... We don't know.... But I think it's certain the Germans know exactly what happened to her
-
He hasn't said he's working closely with the PJ and I think he holds them in contempt and wouldnt share anything with them.... The McCanns may already have closure... We don't know.... But I think it's certain the Germans know exactly what happened to her
My mistake it was Cressida Dick who said it
Sourced from The Belfast Times
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressiday Dick said the force is working “really, really closely” with the German authorities, but did not expect them to share all of their evidence.
She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know, and the PJ (Policia Judiciaria) in Portugal
-
My mistake it was Cressida Dick who said it
Sourced from The Belfast Times
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressiday Dick said the force is working “really, really closely” with the German authorities, but did not expect them to share all of their evidence.
She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know, and the PJ (Policia Judiciaria) in Portugal
That's SY saying they are working closely with the PJ... Not Wolters
-
That's SY saying they are working closely with the PJ... Not Wolters
The second paragraph clearly says .....She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know" etc
-
The second paragraph clearly says .....She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know" etc
This is what you posted..
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
I'm afraid you are mistaken.. Wolters has never said he's working closely with the, PJ
-
This is what you posted..
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
I'm afraid you are mistaken.. Wolters has never said he's working closely with the, PJ
You seem to have missed this post in which I corrected my saying it was Wolters .
MY MISTAKE IT WAS CRESSIDA DICK who said it .
Sourced from The Belfast Times
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressiday Dick said the force is working “really, really closely” with the German authorities, but did not expect them to share all of their evidence.
She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know, and the PJ (Policia Judiciaria) in Portugal
-
You seem to have missed this post in which I corrected my saying it was Wolters .
MY MISTAKE IT WAS CRESSIDA DICK who said it .
Sourced from The Belfast Times
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressiday Dick said the force is working “really, really closely” with the German authorities, but did not expect them to share all of their evidence.
She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know, and the PJ (Policia Judiciaria) in Portugal
Sorry - I'm not quite getting this.
If you had already recognised your error and corrected it ~ why did you repeat it again?
-
Deleted
-
You seem to have missed this post below in which I corrected my saying it was Wolters .
MY MISTAKE IT WAS CRESSIDA DICK who said it .
Sourced from The Belfast Times
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressiday Dick said the force is working “really, really closely” with the German authorities, but did not expect them to share all of their evidence.
She said: 'We're continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the BKA (Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office) in Germany, as you know, and the PJ (Policia Judiciaria) in Portugal
This is what I had said earlier
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
You have added the final line here as if it was in my post ! !
But I had already corrected my mistake saying it was Wolters when in fact it was Cressida Dick .
[quote author=Davel link=topic=12194.msg667063#msg667063 date=
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
I'm afraid you are mistaken.. Wolters has never said he's working closely with the, PJ
[/quote]
That final line is your work .
-
Yawn.
-
Yawn.
Still as rude as ever ? I won't be quoted as saying something Davel put into ( added) a post of mine .
-
This is what I had said earlier
You have added the final line here as if it was in my post ! !
But I had already corrected my mistake saying it was Wolters when in fact it was Cressida Dick .
[quote author=Davel link=topic=12194.msg667063#msg667063 date=
Time he was sharing it with the PJ then don't you think,after all it's their case ?Oh but he's said he's working closely with them and OG so it's not looking like they're that eager to get to ,as you said yesterday, " closure" for the McCanns ?
I'm afraid you are mistaken.. Wolters has never said he's working closely with the, PJ
That final line is your work .
The point is you thought Wolters was working closely with the PJ...he isnt and he hasnt shared his evidence with SY or the PJ,,....so its something we dont know about
-
Still as rude as ever ? I won't be quoted as saying something Davel put into ( added) a post of mine .
Your argument isn’t making much sense IMO, what point are you trying to refute or make?
-
The point is you thought Wolters was working closely with the PJ...he isnt and he hasnt shared his evidence with SY or the PJ,,....so its something we dont know about
If any evidence exists, which I very much doubt, it would have originated from BKA not HCW. We haven't heard from BKA since June 2020.
-
If any evidence exists, which I very much doubt, it would have originated from BKA not HCW. We haven't heard from BKA since June 2020.
Of course the evidence exists... And I've said many times Wolters is the spokesman.. He is speaking for the whole team
-
Of course the evidence exists... And I've said many times Wolters is the spokesman.. He is speaking for the whole team
Weak circumstantial evidence exists. There's still nothing concrete in the public domain.... How long do you give Wolters before you concede he hasn't got enough evidence?
-
Weak circumstantial evidence exists. There's still nothing concrete in the public domain.... How long do you give Wolters before you concede he hasn't got enough evidence?
As long as it takes... As long as its clear there is progress.
-
Weak circumstantial evidence exists. There's still nothing concrete in the public domain.... How long do you give Wolters before you concede he hasn't got enough evidence?
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
A source close to the family told The Sun Online that “Police don’t tell us what’s going on, we’re in the dark because it‘s an ongoing investigation. But if it is him, and there’s no direct and conclusive evidence he may never say a word. He’s not saying a word now. He’s locked up for other crimes, so at least he’s in the best place – in jail.” https://greekreporter.com/2021/10/12/madeleine-mccan-suspect/
Amazing that there is an expectation that confidential information in an active police investigation should be in the public domain.
Madeleine's family don't know what the evidence is ~ so why should you??? but I think they are getting on with things aware that few criminals would be prosecuted if they were privy to the police action being taken to build a case against them.
Anyway, now that the PJ seem to be in the loop after their meetings with the German investigators concerning crimes committed in Portugal, there is a fair chance it shouldn't be too long before we know all about it!
-
As long as it takes... As long as its clear there is progress.
There doesn't appear to have been any progress in months!
-
There doesn't appear to have been any progress in months!
There has.. Wolters says hee now has enough evidence to charge
-
There has.. Wolters says hee now has enough evidence to charge
Give it a few weeks he'll be claiming there's enough to secure a conviction, and that them magic beans he planted are beginning to sprout.
-
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
A source close to the family told The Sun Online that “Police don’t tell us what’s going on, we’re in the dark because it‘s an ongoing investigation. But if it is him, and there’s no direct and conclusive evidence he may never say a word. He’s not saying a word now. He’s locked up for other crimes, so at least he’s in the best place – in jail.” https://greekreporter.com/2021/10/12/madeleine-mccan-suspect/
Amazing that there is an expectation that confidential information in an active police investigation should be in the public domain.
Madeleine's family don't know what the evidence is ~ so why should you??? but I think they are getting on with things aware that few criminals would be prosecuted if they were privy to the police action being taken to build a case against them.
Anyway, now that the PJ seem to be in the loop after their meetings with the German investigators concerning crimes committed in Portugal, there is a fair chance it shouldn't be too long before we know all about it!
snip/
Amazing that there is an expectation that confidential information in an active police investigation should be in the public domain.
I don't think there is such an expectation. People are simply pointing out that the evidence is unknown, so those who are convinced the Germans have sufficient evidence are just believing what they are being told rather than on what they know is true (imo).
-
snip/
Amazing that there is an expectation that confidential information in an active police investigation should be in the public domain.
I don't think there is such an expectation. People are simply pointing out that the evidence is unknown, so those who are convinced the Germans have sufficient evidence are just believing what they are being told rather than on what they know is true (imo).
It's a matter of what is most likely... And I think it's most likely that what Wolters is saying is true. I think you doubt him because what he says proves almost everything you believe is wrong
-
It's a matter of what is most likely... And I think it's most likely that what Wolters is saying is true. I think you doubt him because what he says proves almost everything you believe is wrong
Believe what you want, but you can't support it with facts because Wolters has given you none.
-
Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
-
Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
HCW is a prosecutor not a detective as you claim.
-
Yes, it's extremely unusual for a suspect to be declared guilty prior to conviction, or trial, or arrest even.
Here in the UK we have a nurse on remand, suspected of murdering new borns in a hospital ward.
She's been on remand for over a year now (so the evidence against her presumably is convincing), & yet, I haven't seen any prosecutors or detectives declare her guilty. There's even a media injunction (presumably so as to secure a fair trial).
-
HCW is a prosecutor not a detective as you claim.
It's a moot point as far as the thrust of Uncle's post is concerned.
-
Yes, it's extremely unusual for a suspect to be declared guilty prior to conviction, or trial, or arrest even.
Here in the UK we have a nurse on remand, suspected of murdering new borns in a hospital ward.
She's been on remand for over a year now (so the evidence against her presumably is convincing), & yet, I haven't seen any prosecutors or detectives declare her guilty. There's even a media injunction (presumably so as to secure a fair trial).
We also have the case of Suzy Lamplugh in which the police have made it quite clear that they believe John Canaan abducted and murdered her.
-
We also have the case of Suzy Lamplugh in which the police have made it quite clear that they believe John Canaan abducted and murdered her.
It doesn't matter what they 'believe'.
John Canaan is innocent.
-
It's a moot point as far as the thrust of Uncle's post is concerned.
Shall we just do away with defence counsel then?
-
Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
Have you got anything from BKA?
-
We also have the case of Suzy Lamplugh in which the police have made it quite clear that they believe John Canaan abducted and murdered her.
The police made it quite clear they thought Colin Stagg was guilty.
If the police believe John Canaan is responsible why don't they charge?
-
Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
Hear what CB's defence counsel has to say in response to the prosecutor's claims:
https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8757067/amp/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-lawyer-says-evidence-clears-client.html?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16349877233050&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-8757067%2FMadeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-lawyer-says-evidence-clears-client.html
-
Believe what you want, but you can't support it with facts because Wolters has given you none.
I think based on the facts we have it's highly likely that Wolters has the evidence.. What do you think
-
I think based on the facts we have it's highly likely that Wolters has the evidence.. What do you think
I see no reason to doubt Friedrich Fulscher myself.
-
HCW is a prosecutor not a detective as you claim.
Wolters is spokesman for the investigation
-
Have you got anything from BKA?
Wolters is speaking for the whole investigation
-
The police made it quite clear they thought Colin Stagg was guilty.
If the police believe John Canaan is responsible why don't they charge?
In neither of case did the police police claim concrete evidence
-
Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?
Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.
Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”
Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:
“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”
My thoughts exactly
-
The police made it quite clear they thought Colin Stagg was guilty.
If the police believe John Canaan is responsible why don't they charge?
'Insufficient evidence'
So in cases where Insufficient evidence can be gathered & therefore charges cannot be pressed, it's ok to just declare the suspect guilty anyway.
This is the position of the UK & German justice systems, but it's got a whiff of human rights infringement about it if you ask me.
-
It doesn't matter what they 'believe'.
John Canaan is innocent.
Just saying Brukner isn't the only vile criminal rotting in prison who has been publicly accused of other crimes by the authorities.
-
Shall we just do away with defence counsel then?
What's that got to do with what I wrote?
-
The police made it quite clear they thought Colin Stagg was guilty.
If the police believe John Canaan is responsible why don't they charge?
Insufficient evidence, I would have thought that was obvious.
-
Just saying Brukner isn't the only vile criminal rotting in prison who has been publicly accused of other crimes by the authorities.
Free John Canaan.
He's eligible for parole next year.
-
'Insufficient evidence'
So in cases where Insufficient evidence can be gathered & therefore charges cannot be pressed, it's ok to just declare the suspect guilty anyway.
This is the position of the UK & German justice systems, but it's got a whiff of human rights infringement about it if you ask me.
But you have absolutely no problem with publicly declaring the McCanns guilty, so you're a bit of a hypocrite aren't you?
-
(&^&
But you have absolutely no problem with publicly declaring the McCanns guilty, so you're a bit of a hypocrite aren't you?
I'm not the police.
-
Besides, I have concrete evidence against the McCanns.
-
Besides, I have concrete evidence against the McCanns.
The McCanns are innocent.
-
Besides, I have concrete evidence against the McCanns.
Surplus to requirement as they are already serving a life sentence.
-
snip/
Amazing that there is an expectation that confidential information in an active police investigation should be in the public domain.
I don't think there is such an expectation. People are simply pointing out that the evidence is unknown, so those who are convinced the Germans have sufficient evidence are just believing what they are being told rather than on what they know is true (imo).
My post was in response to a member who gives the appearance of thinking circumstantial evidence is "weak": it is not and to label it "weak" demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what evidence actually is.
Definition of circumstantial evidence
: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial%20evidence
If the German investigators have intimated in effect that they have sufficient evidence to lay charges but it doesn't suit them to do so at this moment in time and give perfectly valid reasons for that stance ~ why on earth do you suggest that isn't true?
-
Free John Canaan.
He's eligible for parole next year.
he won't get it. This is a man who brutally raped a woman at knifepoint in front of her own mother and baby (who he threatened to knife to death). He also was found guilty of
Raping Sharon Major in December 1980
Attempting to commit b....ry on Major on the same date
Making an indecent assault on Major on the same date
Causing grievous bodily harm to Major on the same date
Raping Donna Tucker on 6 October 1986
Committing b....ry on Tucker on the same date
Indecently assaulting Tucker on the same date
Abducting Tucker on the same date with the intention of raping her
Attempting to abduct Julia Holman on 7 October 1987 with the intention of raping her
Stealing a car that belonged to Shirley Banks in October 1987
Abducting Shirley Banks on 8 October 1987 with the intent of raping her
Murdering Shirley Banks in October 1987
Assaulting Carmel Clearly with the intention to rob on 29 October 1987
Detaining Clearly against her will on the same date with the intention of raping her
I know when you call for him to be freed you are only doing so to troll and for your own amusement but it's worth bearing in mind that real people and their families have suffered immeasurably as a result of this man's actions.
The police have very good reason for believing Canaan committed other rapes and murders - sadly it is not always possible to prove it.
-
he won't get it. This is a man who brutally raped a woman at knifepoint in front of her own mother and baby (who he threatened to knife to death). He also was found guilty of
Raping Sharon Major in December 1980
Attempting to commit b....ry on Major on the same date
Making an indecent assault on Major on the same date
Causing grievous bodily harm to Major on the same date
Raping Donna Tucker on 6 October 1986
Committing b....ry on Tucker on the same date
Indecently assaulting Tucker on the same date
Abducting Tucker on the same date with the intention of raping her
Attempting to abduct Julia Holman on 7 October 1987 with the intention of raping her
Stealing a car that belonged to Shirley Banks in October 1987
Abducting Shirley Banks on 8 October 1987 with the intent of raping her
Murdering Shirley Banks in October 1987
Assaulting Carmel Clearly with the intention to rob on 29 October 1987
Detaining Clearly against her will on the same date with the intention of raping her
I know when you call for him to be freed you are only doing so to troll and for your own amusement but it's worth bearing in mind that real people and their families have suffered immeasurably as a result of this man's actions.
The police have very good reason for believing Canaan committed other rapes and murders - sadly it is not always possible to prove it.
Well he's served his allotted sentence & said he's sorry so I don't see why he shouldn't be released.
If they wanted to keep him in prison indefinitely they should have given him a whole life tariff.
They didn't, & that's their problem.
He should be released.
-
It's a matter of what is most likely... And I think it's most likely that what Wolters is saying is true. I think you doubt him because what he says proves almost everything you believe is wrong
The German investigation is forcing everyone to reassess the available evidence. For those who follow and promulgate CMOMM theories I think it may be coming as a bit of a shock.
-
Well he's served his allotted sentence & said he's sorry so I don't see why he shouldn't be released.
If they wanted to keep him in prison indefinitely they should have given him a whole life tariff.
They didn't, & that's their problem.
He should be released.
It's not "their" problem, it's "our" problem. You may not view the man as any threat to you (and why would you?) but would you be OK with him going to live next door to your sister, your mother, your imaginary daughter? But anyway, we're getting off the subject. The police think he killed Suzy Lamplugh and have said so publicly, the tragedy is he will probably never face justice for it and could be out soon raping and murdering again (though I doubt it).
-
Have you got anything from BKA?
Well I'm still waiting for this epoch defining evidence, the weight and gravity of which is going to cause me to fall off my chair, or indeed all of our collective chairs, that Fulscher promised a year ago.
That's a long time to be sat on a chair, lockdown or not.
-
It's not "their" problem, it's "our" problem. You may not view the man as any threat to you (and why would you?) but would you be OK with him going to live next door to your sister, your mother, your imaginary daughter? But anyway, we're getting off the subject. The police think he killed Suzy Lamplugh and have said so publicly, the tragedy is he will probably never face justice for it and could be out soon raping and murdering again (though I doubt it).
Yes. I'd be quite happy for him to run a local womens community support group, because he has served his sentence & apologised.
I mean, sure, maybe he is a danger to women & might go murdering some more, but they should have thought about that 30 years ago during sentencing.
As it is, they considered his crimes weren't serious enough to warrant life without parole, it would be totally unfair to go adding extra years now.
-
See, I'm in favour of mandatory whole life sentences for ALL murderers myself.
But I'm also in favour of the justice system having egg on its face when they let murderers walk free & they reoffend.
The more often it happens the better imo, because that will inevitably increase support for mandatory life minimums, which are an all round fairer form of punishment for the crime imo.
Ask the relatives of most murder victims, they probably would'nt want to see their loved ones killer out enjoying life ever again.
So yes, free John Canaan, let him murder more women, then let the sentencing body explain what it was about the rapist & murderer that gave them the impression he'd ever change.
-
Well I'm still waiting for this epoch defining evidence, the weight and gravity of which is going to cause me to fall off my chair, or indeed all of our collective chairs, that Fulscher promised a year ago.
That's a long time to be sat on a chair, lockdown or not.
Maybe he won't, or can't respond until he knows what his client is being charged with.
Would you offer any sort of defence until you knew just what you were being accused of ?
Meanwhile we all wait for some sort of formal accusation/charge from the prosecution.
-
Maybe he won't, or can't respond until he knows what his client is being charged with.
Would you offer any sort of defence until you knew just what you were being accused of ?
Meanwhile we all wait for some sort of formal accusation/charge from the prosecution.
Obviously the only dissent to Wolter's handling of the case emanates from Brueckner, Amaral and his sceptic supporters. If there was any lawful basis for it I think Fulcher would be in there raising Hell instead of being conspicuous by his absence.
So if Wolters is playing his cards close to his chest and taking his time about it he is doing it well within the law.
-
See, I'm in favour of mandatory whole life sentences for ALL murderers myself.
But I'm also in favour of the justice system having egg on its face when they let murderers walk free & they reoffend.
The more often it happens the better imo, because that will inevitably increase support for mandatory life minimums, which are an all round fairer form of punishment for the crime imo.
Ask the relatives of most murder victims, they probably would'nt want to see their loved ones killer out enjoying life ever again.
So yes, free John Canaan, let him murder more women, then let the sentencing body explain what it was about the rapist & murderer that gave them the impression he'd ever change.
He can only be released if he is no longer considered a danger to the public, women in particular. It’s also one good reason for continuing the investigation into Suzy’s and other women’s disappearances because new evidence may come to light which will help keep him banged up for life, which IMO is exactly what the Germans are hoping to achieve with Bruckner.
-
He can only be released if he is no longer considered a danger to the public, women in particular. It’s also one good reason for continuing the investigation into Suzy’s and other women’s disappearances because new evidence may come to light which will help keep him banged up for life, which IMO is exactly what the Germans are hoping to achieve with Bruckner.
Brueckner isn't a murderer though, only a rapist, which isn't half as bad as being a murderer. And I don't believe he killed Suzy Lamplugh.
I believe she's still alive.
What evidence is there that she's dead?
-
Brueckner isn't a murderer though, only a rapist, which isn't half as bad as being a murderer. And I don't believe he killed Suzy Lamplugh.
I believe she's still alive.
What evidence is there that she's dead?
No you don’t believe she is still alive, please don’t be silly if you want a proper discussion. I know you are capable of it.
-
No you don’t believe she is still alive, please don’t be silly if you want a proper discussion. I know you are capable of it.
Well, there isn't any evidence she's dead, other than that she's missing.
So it's easy to see why John Canaan can't be charged with murdering her, since there's no evidence she was actually murdered.
Maybe she left for a new life in South Africa with Mr Kuiper.
-
EXCLUSIVE: GERMAN AND PORTUGUESE COPS MEET TO SWAP EVIDENCE ON PRIME SUSPECT WHO ‘WANTED TO CATCH SOMETHING SMALL’ IN MADELEINE MCCANN CASE
By
Jon Clarke (Publisher & Editor)
-
21 Oct, 2021
GERMAN detectives have been holding high level meetings with their Portuguese counterparts over missing Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian Brueckner.
A team of police from Portugal’s Policia Judiciaria (PJ) have flown to Germany to help in the ongoing investigation, it can be revealed.
The aim is to exchange information and strengthen the investigation against Brueckner, 44, in Germany, where he is in prison for the rape of a pensioner, 72.
It is understood that all the evidence the PJ department in the Algarve have on Brueckner will be transferred to Braunschweig, where the probe is being coordinated.
“The officers are not big shots but just minor officers,” an Olive Press source from Faro, revealed. “Apparently it’s nothing important at this stage and no field work has been scheduled yet.”
But he continued: “This is a way to compile and cross-reference all the information they have. It’s just for a few days.”
The Olive Press can reveal that the meetings at the BKA headquarters in Wiesbaden and Braunschweig come after a recent visit from German police to Lisbon and Porto.
Most of the files on the Maddie case are in Porto where the case has been ‘secretly coordinated’ for the last few years.
That is why a pair of BKA officers who have been probing the convicted paedophile in Germany spent two days in the north of Portugal, but they are expected to be returning to the Algarve over the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, a Portuguese daily newspaper has published excerpts from a sickening online chat between Brueckner and a fellow German paedophile.
“Brueckner’s Facebook chat proves that he had disturbing conversations about abducting and raping children,” reported Correio da Manha newspaper yesterday.
German police are convinced that Brueckner snatched and later killed Madeleine McCann, 3, while she was on holiday on the Algarve in 2007.
The online chats made in 2010 are already in the German files and are between Brueckner and a fellow German paedophile, who lives in another part of the country.
According to the newspaper, he promised his friend that when they meet he will have ‘new videos to show him’.
In one online conversation, which has previously been reported as being on Skype, he says he desires to have sex with ‘a little one’.
He adds that his greatest pleasure would be to ‘pick up something small and be able to use it for days’.
“I’m going to record a lot of films… I’m going to document exactly the way she’s going to be tortured,” he wrote sickeningly.
Another friend told German police that Brueckner told him he could ‘imagine myself killing a person faster than an animal’ and ‘I need dangerous situations’.
The revelations come after German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Mirror this month he was ‘100% sure’ Brueckner snatched Madeleine McCann from her holiday home in Portugal in May 2007.
An explosive new book on the case by Olive Press editor Jon Clarke has revealed Brueckner’s exact movements at the time in May 2007 – as well as his sordid past.
My Search for Madeleine determined that he was living between a number of beaches, the resort of Praia da Luz and an inland village called Foral. It is available on Amazon.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/10/21/exclusive-german-and-portuguese-cops-meet-to-swap-evidence-on-prime-suspect-who-wanted-to-catch-something-small-in-madeleine-mccann-case/amp/
With thanks to WS
-
Well, there isn't any evidence she's dead, other than that she's missing.
So it's easy to see why John Canaan can't be charged with murdering her, since there's no evidence she was actually murdered.
Maybe she left for a new life in South Africa with Mr Kuiper.
There is a ton of evidence she is dead but I’m not going to derail this thread any further feeding the troll.
-
In one online conversation, which has previously been reported as being on Skype, he says he desires to have sex with ‘a little one’.
He adds that his greatest pleasure would be to ‘pick up something small and be able to use it for days’.
“I’m going to record a lot of films… I’m going to document exactly the way she’s going to be tortured,” he wrote sickeningly.
Another friend told German police that Brueckner told him he could ‘imagine myself killing a person faster than an animal’ and ‘I need dangerous situations’.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/10/21/exclusive-german-and-portuguese-cops-meet-to-swap-evidence-on-prime-suspect-who-wanted-to-catch-something-small-in-madeleine-mccann-case/amp/
......................
Notice all the future tense there.
This was in 2010, so by 2010 he'd neither had sex with a little one, picked one up & used it for days, documented torture or killed anyone, those were all things he wanted to do.
-
In one online conversation, which has previously been reported as being on Skype, he says he desires to have sex with ‘a little one’.
He adds that his greatest pleasure would be to ‘pick up something small and be able to use it for days’.
“I’m going to record a lot of films… I’m going to document exactly the way she’s going to be tortured,” he wrote sickeningly.
Another friend told German police that Brueckner told him he could ‘imagine myself killing a person faster than an animal’ and ‘I need dangerous situations’.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/10/21/exclusive-german-and-portuguese-cops-meet-to-swap-evidence-on-prime-suspect-who-wanted-to-catch-something-small-in-madeleine-mccann-case/amp/
......................
Notice all the future tense there.
This was in 2010, so by 2010 he'd neither had sex with a little one, picked one up & used it for days, documented torture or killed anyone, those were all things he wanted to do.
Your logic is very poor.
-
Your logic is very poor.
Yes, you're right, because talking of things in future tense rather than past tense indicates you've already done those things.
Yes, that's logical isn't it.
-
Yes, you're right, because talking of things in future tense rather than past tense indicates you've already done those things.
Yes, that's logical isn't it.
”I really fancy a Big Mac. I’m going to have it with a side portion of fries. I will eat it very slowly and I might even take a selfie of myself eating it”. This clearly indicates I have never eaten a Big Mac before.
Good logic.
-
”I really fancy a Big Mac. I’m going to have it with a side portion of fries. I will eat it very slowly and I might even take a selfie of myself eating it”. This clearly indicates I have never eaten a Big Mac before.
Good logic.
Big Macs are significantly more common than abduction rape & murder, & I haven't seen any evidence Brueckner has been to McDonalds either.
-
Bruckner’s exact words
“Friend: Hello
Bruckner: How are things going?
Friend: Very well. How about you?
Bruckner: Not so well. I want to f... a little one
Friend: Who doesn't want to...
Bruckner: Do you have any new films?
Friend: Unfortunately not. I barely had time during the week.
Bruckner: OK. Anyway sending films this way is dangerous.
(...)
Bruckner: Catching something small and to be able to use it for days...
Friend: It is also not without danger....
Bruckner: If the evidence is deleted afterwards...
(...)
Brueckner :Then [before they meet] I will record a lot of films. (...) I will document exactly how she will be tortured.”
Which bit demonstrates he has never abducted, raped and murdered a child before?
-
Bruckner’s exact words
“Friend: Hello
Bruckner: How are things going?
Friend: Very well. How about you?
Bruckner: Not so well. I want to f... a little one
Friend: Who doesn't want to...
Bruckner: Do you have any new films?
Friend: Unfortunately not. I barely had time during the week.
Bruckner: OK. Anyway sending films this way is dangerous.
(...)
Bruckner: Catching something small and to be able to use it for days...
Friend: It is also not without danger....
Bruckner: If the evidence is deleted afterwards...
(...)
Brueckner :Then [before they meet] I will record a lot of films. (...) I will document exactly how she will be tortured.”
Which bit demonstrates he has never abducted, raped and murdered a child before?
The bit where he doesn't mention ever having abducted raped or murdered a child before.
-
Big Macs are significantly more common than abduction rape & murder, & I haven't seen any evidence Brueckner has been to McDonalds either.
What has “significantly more common” got to do with it? It’s the language you were referring to, the use of future tense which you seem to think proves that discussing something you wish to do proves you have never done it before. Bizarre logic.
-
What has “significantly more common” got to do with it? It’s the language you were referring to, the use of future tense which you seem to think proves that discussing something you wish to do proves you have never done it before. Bizarre logic.
It's the absence of the word 'again' that suggests he hasn't.
If he said 'I want to rape a little one 'again', that would suggest the opposite wouldn't it, but he never said that.
-
It's the absence of the word 'again' that suggests he hasn't.
If he said 'I want to rape a little one 'again', that would suggest the opposite wouldn't it, but he never said that.
Oh well that’s it then. He never said “again” which clearly proves his innocence. Jesus H. Your logic is *%87
-
Oh well that’s it then. He never said “again” which clearly proves his innocence. Jesus H. Your logic is *%87
He doesn't need to prove his innocence.
You need to prove he's abducted raped & murdered anyone or stop libelling him.
-
He doesn't need to prove his innocence.
You need to prove he's abducted raped & murdered anyone or stop libelling him.
Hello. You are hell bent on trying to prove his innocence by citing his phone conversation as evidence that he has never raped or murdered a child ago. The logic is flawed. I have not libelled him.
-
Hello. You are hell bent on trying to prove his innocence by citing his phone conversation as evidence that he has never raped or murdered a child ago. The logic is flawed. I have not libelled him.
No, I don't need to prove his innocence because he hasn't been found guilty.
This isn't Big Macs, these are serious allegations.
You're suggesting he may have raped & murdered a child & you have no evidence that he has, but when I suggest Kate & Gerry might have done the same based on an equal amount of evidence I get 50%. There's something about that seems like an injustice to me.
-
The circumstantial evidence in the public domain is certainly weak, in my opinion: CB was somewhere near PDL on the night in question, he used his phone that night, and he has depraved texts in internet chat rooms... However when it comes to concrete evidence this is from Uncle's post earlier: "Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:"
-
No, I don't need to prove his innocence because he hasn't been found guilty.
This isn't Big Macs, these are serious allegations.
You're suggesting he may have raped & murdered a child & you have no evidence that he has, but when I suggest Kate & Gerry might have done the same based on an equal amount of evidence I get 50%. There's something about that seems like an injustice to me.
I’m not responsible for giving you 50% so don’t complain to me. Do you have some transcripts of Gerry talking about what depraved things he wants to do to a child btw?
-
No, I don't need to prove his innocence because he hasn't been found guilty.
This isn't Big Macs, these are serious allegations.
You're suggesting he may have raped & murdered a child & you have no evidence that he has, but when I suggest Kate & Gerry might have done the same based on an equal amount of evidence I get 50%. There's something about that seems like an injustice to me.
As far as I’m concerned Bruckner demonstrates a callous disregard for the well being of little children and sees them as objects to be consumed to satiate a hunger and discarded when finished with, much like fast food in fact.
-
I’m not responsible for giving you 50% so don’t complain to me. Do you have some transcripts of Gerry talking about what depraved things he wants to do to a child btw?
No, but the absence of the transcripts could suggest he destroyed them.
Yes, that sounds like logic that might be applied to Brueckner so I'm going with that.
-
As far as I’m concerned Bruckner demonstrates a callous disregard for the well being of little children and sees them as objects to be consumed to satiate a hunger and discarded when finished with, much like fast food in fact.
The paedophile who sexually abused my daughter has "a callous disregard for the well being of little children and sees them as objects" but he didn't kill Madeleine McCann.
-
The paedophile who sexually abused my daughter has "a callous disregard for the well being of little children and sees them as objects" but he didn't kill Madeleine McCann.
What on earth…?!
-
No, but the absence of the transcripts could suggest he destroyed them.
Yes, that sounds like logic that might be applied to Brueckner so I'm going with that.
It certainly does sound like Spamlogic. *%87
-
I think we all have to wait and see what the German ev is
-
As far as I’m concerned Bruckner demonstrates a callous disregard for the well being of little children and sees them as objects to be consumed to satiate a hunger and discarded when finished with, much like fast food in fact.
Brueckner is a paedophile, yes, we get that.
Now, what evidence is there he abducted raped & murdered Maddie, other than a second hand confession & some alleged concrete?
-
I think we all have to wait and see what the German ev is
No, I think it's better we accept unsubstantiated claims of concrete evidence as certainty of guilt myself.
I think Wolters sets an example that should be rolled out across justice systems worldwide.
If you're guilty of crime A, you are therefore guilty of crimes B through to Z.
It sounds harsh but it would reduce crime eventually, once everyone is banged up on suspicion of crimes they might never have committed.
-
Brueckner is a paedophile, yes, we get that.
Now, what evidence is there he abducted raped & murdered Maddie, other than a second hand confession & some alleged concrete?
You keep asking, it’s explained to you, you mock the explanation so not playing that game again.
Out of interest do you think Brückner despite talking about abducting, raping and murdering childten with a friend is really not the sort of person to actually commit such crimes? If not why not?
-
No, I think it's better we accept unsubstantiated claims of concrete evidence as certainty of guilt myself.
I think Wolters sets an example that should be rolled out across justice systems worldwide.
If you're guilty of crime A, you are therefore guilty of crimes B through to Z.
It sounds harsh but it would reduce crime eventually, once everyone is banged up on suspicion of crimes they might never have committed.
Please try not to be too silly.
-
You keep asking, it’s explained to you, you mock the explanation so not playing that game again.
Out of interest do you think Brückner despite talking about abducting, raping and murdering childten with a friend is really not the sort of person to actually commit such crimes? If not why not?
Maybe he would commit those crimes.
But there isn't any evidence that he has.
-
Maybe he would commit those crimes.
But there isn't any evidence that he has.
Is it usual for the police to update you on all the evidence they have against a suspect prior to charges being brought?
-
Is it usual for the police to update you on all the evidence they have against a suspect prior to charges being brought?
What is he being charged with?
-
What is he being charged with?
Whatever they think they can get away with - hence the late script re-write.
IMO
-
What is he being charged with?
I didn't say he was being charged I said is it usual for the police to contact you to divulge what evidence they have against a suspect prior to charges being brought? Can you please tell us, as apparently you already know HCW has nothing at all.
-
Whatever they think they can get away with - hence the late script re-write.
IMO
Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in fer Chrissy! Because of course the German state just wants to frame this man for no good reason coz they just don't like him.
-
I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.
Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.
-
I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.
Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.
A death in prison might.
Certainly would solve the problem, even if he isn't involved.
Police could declare that they are not looking for anyone else and everyone can pack up and go home.
"It's justice Jim, but not as we know it"
-
I didn't say he was being charged I said is it usual for the police to contact you to divulge what evidence they have against a suspect prior to charges being brought? Can you please tell us, as apparently you already know HCW has nothing at all.
The burden of proof is on Wolters.
Not me.
-
I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.
Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.
If that's a fact then what the hell do you think the Germans are playing at?
-
If that's a fact then what the hell do you think the Germans are playing at?
Is sarcasm your default position?
It's my opinion. I don't know what they're doing. They must have tested their evidence officially or unofficially with the judiciary. Perhaps they've been told they don't meet the exacting German threshold to press ahead, hence why HCW has recently stated that they're continuing to bolster the case.
They've got something, but not enough in my opinion. But as I mentioned, presenting the evidence is one thing, assuring a fair trial is quite another.
-
I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.
Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.
Wolters has already answered the fair trial question... It a depends on the quality of the evidence.... The only reason there wouldn't be a trial is if the evidence does not stack up
-
Is sarcasm your default position?
It's my opinion. I don't know what they're doing. They must have tested their evidence officially or unofficially with the judiciary. Perhaps they've been told they don't meet the exacting German threshold to press ahead, hence why HCW has recently stated that they're continuing to bolster the case.
They've got something, but not enough in my opinion. But as I mentioned, presenting the evidence is one thing, assuring a fair trial is quite another.
There was literally nothing sarcastic about my question, it was a perfectly reasonable one to ask in the circumstances (in my opinion). If by going public with their own opinion on CB and naming him they know that there is no chance of him receiving a fair trial then it would seem entirely counterproductive, in fact it would be sheer lunacy to have spent all that time and money investigating him in secret to then deliberately sabotage the investigation by going public and thus damaging any prospect of a positive result.
-
Wolters has already answered the fair trial question... It a depends on the quality of the evidence.... The only reason there wouldn't be a trial is if the evidence does not stack up
Article 6 of Guide to ECHR - 9. Prejudicial publicity
265. The Court has held that a virulent press campaign can adversely affect the fairness of a trial by
influencing public opinion and, consequently, the jurors called upon to decide the guilt of an accused
(Akay v. Turkey (dec.); Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), § 98; Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 123). In this
way, a virulent press campaign risks having an impact on the impartiality of the court under Article 6
§ 1 as well as the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark
(dec.); Anguelov v. Bulgaria (dec.)).9
-
There was literally nothing sarcastic about my question, it was a perfectly reasonable one to ask in the circumstances (in my opinion). If by going public with their own opinion on CB and naming him they know that there is no chance of him receiving a fair trial then it would seem entirely counterproductive, in fact it would be sheer lunacy to have spent all that time and money investigating him in secret to then deliberately sabotage the investigation by going public and thus damaging any prospect of a positive result.
Well here's the rub, HCW had not alternative but to go public, he was trying to trace a very specific caller to CB, with a view to placing him at the scene. This tactic was a calculated gamble, no doubt taken with great consideration and with the advice of legal specialists. If a trial occurs and he's convicted, it's only then that the fairness of the trial will be tested - maybe that's a gamble worth taking, given that it would take years to come to fruition.
Short term, however, the gamble did not pay dividends.
-
Article 6 of Guide to ECHR - 9. Prejudicial publicity
265. The Court has held that a virulent press campaign can adversely affect the fairness of a trial by
influencing public opinion and, consequently, the jurors called upon to decide the guilt of an accused
(Akay v. Turkey (dec.); Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), § 98; Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 123). In this
way, a virulent press campaign risks having an impact on the impartiality of the court under Article 6
§ 1 as well as the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark
(dec.); Anguelov v. Bulgaria (dec.)).9
I don't think anyone has abrogated Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence.
I wish it was possible to say the same about Kate and Gerry McCann and the recognition of their right to the same.
-
I don't think anyone has abrogated Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence.
I wish it was possible to say the same about Kate and Gerry McCann and the recognition of their right to the same.
Presumption of innocence is a totally separate legal concept to the right to a fair trial.
-
Well here's the rub, HCW had not alternative but to go public, he was trying to trace a very specific caller to CB, with a view to placing him at the scene. This tactic was a calculated gamble, no doubt taken with great consideration and with the advice of legal specialists. If a trial occurs and he's convicted, it's only then that the fairness of the trial will be tested - maybe that's a gamble worth taking, given that it would take years to come to fruition.
Short term, however, the gamble did not pay dividends.
Firstly, we don't know what dividends the "gamble" paid out precisely, and secondly without being an expert in German law (which I'm not, and presume you are not either) it's not possible to say that HCW's actions to date have harmed Bruckner's chances of a fair trial. He would not be facing a jury after all, but professional judges who would determine his innocence or guilt.
-
Well here's the rub, HCW had not alternative but to go public, he was trying to trace a very specific caller to CB, with a view to placing him at the scene. This tactic was a calculated gamble, no doubt taken with great consideration and with the advice of legal specialists. If a trial occurs and he's convicted, it's only then that the fairness of the trial will be tested - maybe that's a gamble worth taking, given that it would take years to come to fruition.
Short term, however, the gamble did not pay dividends.
Without Goncalo Amaral's early intervention to ensure the press pack identified Brueckner it is my opinion that we would still be scratching our heads wondering what on earth the police were doing with some still continuing to vociferously lobby the Home Office complaining about expenditure on Madeleine's case.
-
Firstly, we don't know what dividends the "gamble" paid out precisely, and secondly without being an expert in German law (which I'm not, and presume you are not either) it's not possible to say that HCW's actions to date have harmed Bruckner's chances of a fair trial. He would not be facing a jury after all, but professional judges who would determine his innocence or guilt.
I did state that the fairness of the trial will be determined in the future, I'm simply pointing out the legal peril.
Your first point - I think we can safely assume that the appeal for the caller did not bear fruit, given that he has recently stated that he still doesn't have enough evidence and the identity of the caller was fundamental to his case.
-
Presumption of innocence is a totally separate legal concept to the right to a fair trial.
What allows you the presumption that Kate and or Gerry McCann would have received a fair trial in Portugal?
-
Without Goncalo Amaral's early intervention to ensure the press pack identified Brueckner it is my opinion that we would still be scratching our heads wondering what on earth the police were doing with some still continuing to vociferously lobby the Home Office complaining about expenditure on Madeleine's case.
Amaral, Bild, The Rothley Gazette, Reddit, Infowars, CB's mate Klaus - it matters not a jot who publicised the ID of CB, HCW let the genie out of the bottle. In fact that was his express purpose; to publicise his appeal globally, so without identified him he identified him.
So, as I stated earlier, nobody cares who or how, the tactic was a gamble and was indicative of almost a last resort.
-
What allows you the presumption that Kate and or Gerry McCann would have received a fair trial in Portugal?
What are you talking about? I'm discussing the legal implications of HCW's decision to ask the public for help.
-
I did state that the fairness of the trial will be determined in the future, I'm simply pointing out the legal peril.
Your first point - I think we can safely assume that the appeal for the caller did not bear fruit, given that he has recently stated that he still doesn't have enough evidence and the identity of the caller was fundamental to his case.
Did he say that? Not being sarcastic, I just don't recall him saying that it all hinged on identifying that person. "Still not enough evidence" does not mean the appeal yielded nothing useful at all. It may well have done, but still lacking the final piece of the jigsaw that would ensure a slam dunk result. Let's also not forget that this isn't just about Madeleine McCann - he's being investigated for a number of other crimes and has been for years. I find it very hard to believe that the Germans would jeopardise these investigations all for a case that didn't even happen in their country and against a foreign national. It just doesn't make sense to me.
-
I did state that the fairness of the trial will be determined in the future, I'm simply pointing out the legal peril.
Your first point - I think we can safely assume that the appeal for the caller did not bear fruit, given that he has recently stated that he still doesn't have enough evidence and the identity of the caller was fundamental to his case.
The public appeals by the British and German police were productive if one takes the volume of contacts into consideration.
I think however, it may be counter productive to presume exactly what the information was that they sought: for example would it have been profitable to check out on a burner phone?
While everyone is looking one way they may very well have continued to look in the direction they already were until so rudely interrupted by Amaral's attempt to disrupt the German investigation.
-
What are you talking about? I'm discussing the legal implications of HCW's decision to ask the public for help.
How do you interpret "discussing"? Is it a game of follow my leader as seems to be the norm elsewhere?
-
Did he say that? Not being sarcastic, I just don't recall him saying that it all hinged on identifying that person. "Still not enough evidence" does not mean the appeal yielded nothing useful at all. It may well have done, but still lacking the final piece of the jigsaw that would ensure a slam dunk result. Let's also not forget that this isn't just about Madeleine McCann - he's being investigated for a number of other crimes and has been for years. I find it very hard to believe that the Germans would jeopardise these investigations all for a case that didn't even happen in their country and against a foreign national. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I believe they put the pieces together while investigating something else, perhaps a paedophile ring, and his name was caught in the net along with many others - hence the time delay.
As I said, I doubt they took the decision lightly and was discussed way above HCW's pay grade.
The 'gamble', even if we got all the way down the line to a conviction, then he got off on a technicality in the ECHR 8 years later, would still be a result - he's been proven to be the culprit and now everyone knows it, he's just got off. Job done really, what have you lost? Reputation, prestige? I'm sure Germany will cope.
-
The public appeals by the British and German police were productive if one takes the volume of contacts into consideration.
I think however, it may be counter productive to presume exactly what the information was that they sought: for example would it have been profitable to check out on a burner phone?
While everyone is looking one way they may very well have continued to look in the direction they already were until so rudely interrupted by Amaral's attempt to disrupt the German investigation.
IIRC, he even gave us the number. Of course it was a burner, otherwise they'd pop a RFI in to the network provider.
Again, from memory, as it was a long time ago, he specified exactly who he was looking for. No presumption required, he wanted to know who called CB on his number for approx 30 minutes around the time MM went missing. The appeal was clearly unsuccessful in its intended outcome, but did, by it's necessity, ensure a certain element of future legal peril (which they were happy to take).
-
I believe they put the pieces together while investigating something else, perhaps a paedophile ring, and his name was caught in the net along with many others - hence the time delay.
As I said, I doubt they took the decision lightly and was discussed way above HCW's pay grade.
The 'gamble', even if we got all the way down the line to a conviction, then he got off on a technicality in the ECHR 8 years later, would still be a result - he's been proven to be the culprit and now everyone knows it, he's just got off. Job done really, what have you lost? Reputation, prestige? I'm sure Germany will cope.
If Burckner got off on a technicality that would be absolutely devastating for the child's family, for those who have spent years building a case against him and for justice really, it's worse than no result at all IMO, and it would seem a completely futile pursuit if that is indeed what the Germans are playing at. The Germans would look utterly incompetent though I'm sure they would cope (they've coped with worst in the past) but really what's in it for them? I'm sorry, it still doesn't make any sense.
-
IIRC, he even gave us the number. Of course it was a burner, otherwise they'd pop a RFI in to the network provider.
Again, from memory, as it was a long time ago, he specified exactly who he was looking for. No presumption required, he wanted to know who called CB on his number for approx 30 minutes around the time MM went missing. The appeal was clearly unsuccessful in its intended outcome, but did, by it's necessity, ensure a certain element of future legal peril (which they were happy to take).
If the phone was a burner - why waste time on it? or even - why waste time looking for it and perhaps for the user they already knew about.
I think you are ignoring that a certain subterfuge might well have been employed to protect aspects of the investigation which had maintained its confidentiality from 2017 until prematurely put in the public domain by Amaral initially via podcast in 2019 and when the subtlety of that failed spelled out to the media in 2020.
If you think the German investigators' strategy was "clearly unsuccessful" I think that might be a tad naive and an underestimation of the German and British. Investigators must have had contingency plans to protect their direction of inquiry which had been a jealously guarded secret since 2017 to cope with the eventuality of a leak which did in fact occur.
-
I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.
Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.
I prefer his skit about the paedophile Braveheart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHA1ufmLZQY
-
If the phone was a burner - why waste time on it? or even - why waste time looking for it and perhaps for the user they already knew about.
I think you are ignoring that a certain subterfuge might well have been employed to protect aspects of the investigation which had maintained its confidentiality from 2017 until prematurely put in the public domain by Amaral initially via podcast in 2019 and when the subtlety of that failed spelled out to the media in 2020.
If you think the German investigators' strategy was "clearly unsuccessful" I think that might be a tad naive and an underestimation of the German and British. Investigators must have had contingency plans to protect their direction of inquiry which had been a jealously guarded secret since 2017 to cope with the eventuality of a leak which did in fact occur.
He released the number, if it was registered they would know who it belonged to, ergo, it was a burner - and he was looking for the person it belonged to. It was a hail Mary play that didn't pay off. That's why we're another 18 months down the line.
Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?
'Clearly unsuccessful' pertains to the 'clearly unsuccessful' appeal for the caller. Quite why you expanded that to encompass the entirety of the British and German investigations only you know.
-
He released the number, if it was registered they would know who it belonged to, ergo, it was a burner - and he was looking for the person it belonged to. It was a hail Mary play that didn't pay off. That's why we're another 18 months down the line.
Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?
'Clearly unsuccessful' pertains to the 'clearly unsuccessful' appeal for the caller. Quite why you expanded that to encompass the entirety of the British and German investigations only you know.
Evidently you really do not have a clue about the information and evidence held against Brueckner and sprinkling your posts with goads isn't going to alter that situation one little bit.
-
Evidently you really do not have a clue about the information and evidence held against Brueckner and sprinkling your posts with goads isn't going to alter that situation one little bit.
Is 'a tad naive' goading? Yes.
Is anything I posted goading? No.
-
Is 'a tad naive' goading? Yes.
Is anything I posted goading? No.
Difference of opinion is goading in some quarters.
-
Is 'a tad naive' goading? Yes.
Is anything I posted goading? No.
What about this?
“Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?”
A teensy bit maybe?
-
Difference of opinion is goading in some quarters.
And sometimes it is.
-
What about this?
“Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?”
A teensy bit maybe?
A bit more than "Teensy" but it is a question and consequentially debatable. However, Brietta is more than capable of defending herself against spurious accusations.
-
Difference of opinion is goading in some quarters.
This is the first forum I've been on where goading is even registered. If there's a rule, and that's odd in itself, what's the definition? Or is it just when a moderator decides it is?
The term goading is so ambiguous and subjective that it's impossible to define. Just keep it as 'abuse' or not and leave it there, otherwise 90% of posts could be flagged as goading. Including this one.
-
This is the first forum I've been on where goading is even registered. If there's a rule, and that's odd in itself, what's the definition? Or is it just when a moderator decides it is?
The term goading is so ambiguous and subjective that it's impossible to define. Just keep it as 'abuse' or not and leave it there, otherwise 90% of posts could be flagged as goading. Including this one.
Moderators function on the rules laid down by John.
This Forum isn't a Democracy. So take it up with John.
-
A bit more than "Teensy" but it is a question and consequentially debatable. However, Brietta is more than capable of defending herself against spurious accusations.
But who is to decide what is spurious?
-
But who is to decide what is spurious?
John.
-
This is the first forum I've been on where goading is even registered. If there's a rule, and that's odd in itself, what's the definition? Or is it just when a moderator decides it is?
The term goading is so ambiguous and subjective that it's impossible to define. Just keep it as 'abuse' or not and leave it there, otherwise 90% of posts could be flagged as goading. Including this one.
I've had numerous warnings for goading. Also outlawed is sarcasm, calling someone a troll, claiming Madeleine was abducted, expressing an opinion without using "IMO" at the end of it. It's very strict here...
-
Incidentally my last warning was on February 11th. Now, I haven't turned over a new leaf so what the hell is going on? Are the Mods on strike?
-
John.
Well that's reassuring 8((()*/
-
Incidentally my last warning was on February 11th. Now, I haven't turned over a new leaf so what the hell is going on? Are the Mods on strike?
A lack of warnings doesn't equate to a lack of moderation.
-
Incidentally my last warning was on February 11th. Now, I haven't turned over a new leaf so what the hell is going on? Are the Mods on strike?
I suspect that John might have got a bit fed up with the overuse of such.
-
He released the number, if it was registered they would know who it belonged to, ergo, it was a burner - and he was looking for the person it belonged to. It was a hail Mary play that didn't pay off. That's why we're another 18 months down the line.
Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?
'Clearly unsuccessful' pertains to the 'clearly unsuccessful' appeal for the caller. Quite why you expanded that to encompass the entirety of the British and German investigations only you know.
Maybe the Police were hoping the person had rang other people using the burner, that they would recognise the number. Doesn't look like it. IMO the phone was used just to contact CB alone, an accomplice IMO.
-
Maybe the Police were hoping the person had rang other people using the burner, that they would recognise the number. Doesn't look like it. IMO the phone was used just to contact CB alone, an accomplice IMO.
If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious. And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.
-
If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious. And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.
A simple payg would likely be the order of the day back then, contract were expensive .The i phone a must for those who like to look at themselves in the mirror only came out then .
-
If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious. And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.
Mobile phones didn't need to be registered circa 2007.
Most of my early phones were unregistered.
-
Maybe the Police were hoping the person had rang other people using the burner, that they would recognise the number. Doesn't look like it. IMO the phone was used just to contact CB alone, an accomplice IMO.
In what exactly ? being there ? shock horror men/women who reside in Luz parish use mobile phone , not forgetting the mobiles sent OG on a wild goose chase.
-
If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious. And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.
I don't think it can be assumed that unregistered phones are always suspicious. Neither can it be assumed that someone was a) using a certain phone or b) if he was, that he would remember a conversation 14 years later.
-
A simple payg would likely be the order of the day back then, contract were expensive .The i phone a must for those who like to look at themselves in the mirror only came out then .
But Breuckner must still know who it was.
-
In what exactly ? being there ? shock horror men/women who reside in Luz parish use mobile phone , not forgetting the mobiles sent OG on a wild goose chase.
Being there an hour or so before Madeleine disappeared.
You are entitled to your opinion. IMO I think it very significant.
-
I remember getting my Phillips C12, with Old Macdonald ring tone, 10 different emojis & text limited to 60 characters.
-
Being there an hour or so before Madeleine disappeared.
You are entitled to your opinion. IMO I think it very significant.
Yes, it's very significant that Brueckner was in Luz at the time he was living in Luz.
-
Mobile phones didn't need to be registered circa 2007.
Most of my early phones were unregistered.
Yes but you WERE a drug dealer.
-
Yes, it's very significant that Brueckner was in Luz at the time he was living in Luz.
It puts a known rapist/burglar/paedophile (who has an interest in young girls and has expressed a desire to kidnap, rape and murder one and who has claimed expertise in making such a victim disappear forever) in the same vicinity as a young girl who disappeared forever. Of course you won't see the significance of that, but some people do.
-
It puts a known rapist/burglar/paedophile (who has an interest in young girls and has expressed a desire to kidnap, rape and murder one and who has claimed expertise in making such a victim disappear forever) in the same vicinity as a young girl who disappeared forever. Of course you won't see the significance of that, but some people do.
Doesn't mean he did it.
Mark Rowley 2017: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences
need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are
currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which
could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been
doing.
-
It puts a known rapist/burglar/paedophile (who has an interest in young girls and has expressed a desire to kidnap, rape and murder one and who has claimed expertise in making such a victim disappear forever) in the same vicinity as a young girl who disappeared forever. Of course you won't see the significance of that, but some people do.
There's no record of him having any desire to abduct rape or murder a child prior to 2010.
-
If he lived miles away in Spain or Northern Portugal, & his phone pinged in Luz on the night of May 3rd, you might have something.
But he lived in Luz, so there's nothing suspicious about him being there or using a phone really.
-
Yes but you WERE a drug dealer.
Only between about 2005 to 2010.
I had my first phone in about 1999.
-
If he lived miles away in Spain or Northern Portugal, & his phone pinged in Luz on the night of May 3rd, you might have something.
But he lived in Luz, so there's nothing suspicious about him being there or using a phone really.
But where was the other party? No one seems to know, burner or otherwise. This alone would be interesting and I suspect that they have some idea.
You are perfectly capable of an informed discussion, much as it pains me to admit it. So what are you trying to do here. Is it something to do with inherent guilt?
-
There's no record of him having any desire to abduct rape or murder a child prior to 2010.
So you don't think it ever crossed his mind to do so until he verbally confirmed his wish to do so to a mate in 2010? Hmm, ok then. *%87
-
Doesn't mean he did it.
Mark Rowley 2017: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences
need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are
currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which
could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been
doing.
In the same way that being the parents of a child and the last to see them alive doesn't mean they did it, I'm sure you'd agree.
-
If he lived miles away in Spain or Northern Portugal, & his phone pinged in Luz on the night of May 3rd, you might have something.
But he lived in Luz, so there's nothing suspicious about him being there or using a phone really.
It would be interesting to know how many times his phoned pinged in PdL in the days leading up to 3rd May.
-
Only between about 2005 to 2010.
I had my first phone in about 1999.
What made you turn to a life of crime?
-
What made you turn to a life of crime?
Well it's not really a life of crime, since I don't do it anymore.
But I happened to be friends with man who had a few grow houses producing large quantities of very high grade sh*t.
I used to smoke the odd bit I'd buy from him, then one day I realised I could make a lot of money if I bought a much bigger bag from him & sold it off in smaller amounts.
-
Well it's not really a life of crime, since I don't do it anymore.
But I happened to be friends with man who had a few grow houses producing large quantities of very high grade sh*t.
I used to smoke the odd bit I'd buy from him, then one day I realised I could make a lot of money if I bought a much bigger bag from him & sold it off in smaller amounts.
I bet he made more money than you did.
-
If he lived miles away in Spain or Northern Portugal, & his phone pinged in Luz on the night of May 3rd, you might have something.
But he lived in Luz, so there's nothing suspicious about him being there or using a phone really.
Apart from the fact it was by the Ocean Club and he is a Paedophile. He is alleged to have admitted taking Madeleine.
-
Instead of pointing the finger at the MccCann's and their phone calls, maybe Amaral would have been better off checking the phone data the Portugal Police had gathered. CB's phone number was on that list, they could have looked into his history. Then maybe they could have checked him out and his van, things could have been sorted years ago. There could have been DNA.
-
Friday at 9.00. Brückner allegedly had an accomplice in Maddie's abduction.
By ZAP -September 17th, 2020
The program "Friday at 9" announced that will reveal on Friday details about a nomad who lived not far from Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region, where the three-year-old girl was kidnapped.
According to the "Friday at 9" program, Christian Brueckner, the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, had an accomplice who helped him kidnap and murder that British girl who disappeared in Portugal in May 2007. "German detectives confirmed the suspicion that Christian Brueckner had an accomplice," host Sandra Felgueiras said in the pre-announcement.
The reports claim that the man lived in a van in the area of the Dam of Bravura, where the body of the girl was left, according to anonymous note found in Praia da Luz a year after the disappearance cited by Russia Today.
In the promotional video, the presenter shows photographs of Brueckner's ex-girlfriend to a witness who lived in the Algarve at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
The pre-announcement also includes excerpts from an interview with prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters, who claims to have sufficient evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead.
Recently, Friedrich Fuelscher, Christian Brueckner's lawyer, said he had revealing information about the case. "I can't tell you what it is, but it's a big deal. It certainly surprised me," Friedrich Fuelscher said in an interview with the Mirror newspaper,quoted by the Observer.
Asked if he would leave his client -- who has already been convicted of pedophilia -- to take care of his daughters, the lawyer replied no: "Maybe to take care of my dogs, yes, but because of his history, I wouldn't let him take care of my daughter."
Reopening of the process
British and German police launched a new public appeal on June 3 for information about a German man suspected of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal in 2007.
The 43-year-old man, currently serving prison time in Germany, reportedly lived in the Algarve between 1995 and 2007, and police revealed that phone records put him in the Area of Praia da Luz on the day the English child disappeared.
Madeleine McCann disappeared on May 3, 2007, a few days before she was four years old, from the room where she slept with her two younger twin brothers in an apartment of a tourist village in Praia da Luz, Algarve.
Recently, the PJ searched the body of Madeleine McCann in three water wells located in rural areas of the municipality of Vila do Bispo, in the Algarve, but found no trace of the British girl.
https://zap.aeiou.pt/sexta-as-9-maddie-347270
-
Apart from the fact it was by the Ocean Club and he is a Paedophile. He is alleged to have admitted taking Madeleine.
Somewhere in the area, I believe, rather than a specific spot.
-
Well it's not really a life of crime, since I don't do it anymore.
But I happened to be friends with man who had a few grow houses producing large quantities of very high grade sh*t.
I used to smoke the odd bit I'd buy from him, then one day I realised I could make a lot of money if I bought a much bigger bag from him & sold it off in smaller amounts.
So greed then - a desire to get rich peddling illicit, unregulated drugs to potheads, some of whom may have had their mental health compromised by the sh*t you sold them. What made you stop? Surely not a conscience?
-
I bet he made more money than you did.
Well yes obviously. He was supplying me.
The same way cash & carry make more money than the corner shop they sell to.
-
Somewhere in the area, I believe, rather than a specific spot.
Near the Ocean Club.
-
So greed then - a desire to get rich peddling illicit, unregulated drugs to potheads, some of whom may have had their mental health compromised by the sh*t you sold them. What made you stop? Surely not a conscience?
I was in a position where lots of people I knew wanted good weed, I knew a guy who grew good weed but didn't want the hassle of supplying the little people.
It would have been wrong of me to deny these people a good time.
I quit because I got a different job that meant I had no free time to drive around meeting the local stoners requirements.
-
Instead of pointing the finger at the MccCann's and their phone calls, maybe Amaral would have been better off checking the phone data the Portugal Police had gathered. CB's phone number was on that list, they could have looked into his history. Then maybe they could have checked him out and his van, things could have been sorted years ago. There could have been DNA.
I thought it was the British police that did all the phone work, them being more technically advanced and all that.
-
Near the Ocean Club.
How near?
-
I thought it was the British police that did all the phone work, them being more technically advanced and all that.
The Portuguese police actually did get off their arses to go and knock on Bruckner's door and when he wasn't it they decided he probably wasn't involved anyway and that was that, no follow up, no investigation, nothing. Geniuses.
-
I thought it was the British police that did all the phone work, them being more technically advanced and all that.
It also emerged that each member of the Tapas Nine were placed under surveillance after British communications experts arrived in the resort at the end of May. Mobile phone records, which leave a trail even when switched off, are believed to have been checked against statements made by guests and staff at the Ocean Club complex.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id33.htm
-
So would it be fair to say that any deficiencies with the phone records would be down to UK police ?
-
So would it be fair to say that any deficiencies with the phone records would be down to UK police ?
No it would not.
Telecommunication experts supplied the evidence; which the investigators were supposed to investigate. This they did exhaustively as far as innocent witnesses were concerned but it seems the inhabitants of the dark underbelly of criminality domicile in Luz did not merit the same diligence.
-
It would be interesting to know how many times his phoned pinged in PdL in the days leading up to 3rd May.
Probably all the time it was switched on. But for the German police to zero in on that one call means that they've exhausted all use out of the remaining data from that his number. It could be that one call is the only outlier.
-
It also emerged that each member of the Tapas Nine were placed under surveillance after British communications experts arrived in the resort at the end of May. Mobile phone records, which leave a trail even when switched off, are believed to have been checked against statements made by guests and staff at the Ocean Club complex.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id33.htm
Yeh, that's not true.
-
Yeh, that's not true.
Did I say it was?
-
Did I say it was?
You typed it, not me.
-
You typed it, not me.
Please at least try to be polite.
-
Please at least try to be polite.
Pointing out someone's wrong is also an offence?
What is this, round on the new member?
-
Pointing out someone's wrong is also an offence?
What is this, round on the new member?
You know very well that it was a statement made by someone else on another Site and not by Brietta herself.
Please don't try playing your games with me. This is not the first time that you have done this.
-
You know very well that it was a statement made by someone else on another Site and not by Brietta herself.
Please don't try playing your games with me. This is not the first time that you have done this.
Playing games? What are you going on about?
The statement, whether typed or copy / pasted is owned by the poster. So if it's posted then we assume that they think the statement is true. I point that out and I'm playing games?
Beibetter has the opportunity to redact or modify if he thinks he's made an error, but that's not what he did, he decided to disassociate himself from what he realised was wrong - that's fine - just admit it, move on and we all get along nicely.
-
Probably all the time it was switched on. But for the German police to zero in on that one call means that they've exhausted all use out of the remaining data from that his number. It could be that one call is the only outlier.
OK, let me re-phrase that. It would be interesting to know how many incoming / outgoing calls were made from that phone which activated the mast in PdL in the days leading up to the disappearance.
-
Instead of pointing the finger at the MccCann's and their phone calls, maybe Amaral would have been better off checking the phone data the Portugal Police had gathered. CB's phone number was on that list, they could have looked into his history. Then maybe they could have checked him out and his van, things could have been sorted years ago. There could have been DNA.
Well OG checked it but didn't flag him.
-
OK, let me re-phrase that. It would be interesting to know how many incoming / outgoing calls were made from that phone which activated the mast in PdL in the days leading up to the disappearance.
Unlikely to have been harvested with no crime fitting an alleged abduction taking place.
-
Playing games? What are you going on about?
The statement, whether typed or copy / pasted is owned by the poster. So if it's posted then we assume that they think the statement is true. I point that out and I'm playing games?
Beibetter has the opportunity to redact or modify if he thinks he's made an error, but that's not what he did, he decided to disassociate himself from what he realised was wrong - that's fine - just admit it, move on and we all get along nicely.
You do not necessarily have to believe a Cite that you post. Nor do you have a right to alter a Cite if it so suits you.
-
You do not necessarily have to believe a Cite that you post. Nor do you have a right to alter a Cite if it so suits you.
If you know a cite is incorrect, then that could be misleading.
The reply 'Did I say it was?' infers that he knew it was incorrect, but posted it anyway.
If one of the sceptics did that there'd be hell on.
Anyway, we move on.
-
You typed it, not me.
Wrong. I merely cut and pasted the information ~ but what I do find astonishing is your deflection to trivia from the data which was available to the Portuguese investigators in 2007 but which was obviously used inappropriately or not at all.
Amaral's 'confession' concerning Brueckner being allowed to slip through the net has raised far more than my eyebrows, it raises many more questions regarding the incompetence with which he coordinated Madeleine's case.
Maybe you should be giving issues like that some thought as opposed to fomenting disruption by posting irrelevant and meaningless provocation as you managed yesterday with my post as your focal point.
Please desist, as I for one find it incredibly tiresome 😁
-
Apart from the fact it was by the Ocean Club and he is a Paedophile. He is alleged to have admitted taking Madeleine.
Well someone told me that the McCanns said that they did it, so I'm sticking with it being them.
-
If you know a cite is incorrect, then that could be misleading.
The reply 'Did I say it was?' infers that he knew it was incorrect, but posted it anyway.
If one of the sceptics did that there'd be hell on.
Anyway, we move on.
Obey The Rules and we won't have a problem.
-
Well OG checked it but didn't flag him.
Scotland Yard were not privy to Brueckner's criminal record ~ the Germans did as did the Portuguese. But the German investigators knew how to coordinate which seems to have been way beyond the skills available to the Portuguese coordinator supposed to be working on them in 2007.
-
Scotland Yard were not privy to Brueckner's criminal record ~ the Germans did as did the Portuguese. But the German investigators knew how to coordinate which seems to have been way beyond the skills available to the Portuguese coordinator supposed to be working on them in 2007.
So £12 million doesn't get much of a look in,what's the point of OG then.
-
So £12 million doesn't get much of a look in,what's the point of OG then.
Please bear in mind what the thread topic is and try to post accordingly. Thank you
-
Well someone told me that the McCanns said that they did it, so I'm sticking with it being them.
Who was this, tell Uncle Jr.....not here though, in the basement, feds.
-
Unlikely to have been harvested with no crime fitting an alleged abduction taking place.
What??
-
So £12 million doesn't get much of a look in,what's the point of OG then.
Just to make the Germans look efficient and competent.
-
Just to make the Germans look efficient and competent.
Which they are by the way. They've taken only 18 months really to get to the truth.
-
Is this the truth that dare not speak it's name - at least not on here?
-
Please bear in mind what the thread topic is and try to post accordingly. Thank you
If only OG had helped they may have had it in the bag, whatever "it" is.
-
If only OG had helped they may have had it in the bag, whatever "it" is.
You think OG was set up to actually further the investigation ? What a quaint idea.
-
You think OG was set up to actually further the investigation ? What a quaint idea.
Most expensive game of charades ever then.
-
Most expensive game of charades ever then.
When it's government financed, money no object.
Just like all these 'Official inquiries' that spend millions avoiding the truth.
-
You think OG was set up to actually further the investigation ? What a quaint idea.
What was it for then? Don't tell me, a highly sophisticated, multi-faceted, multi-agency cover up, ensuring that a top secret bio-engineering experiment didn't come to light?
-
What was it for then? Don't tell me, a highly sophisticated, multi-faceted, multi-agency cover up, ensuring that a top secret bio-engineering experiment didn't come to light?
Sorry. We've done that one already. Many moons ago and several times.
-
What was it for then? Don't tell me, a highly sophisticated, multi-faceted, multi-agency cover up, ensuring that a top secret bio-engineering experiment didn't come to light?
Simpler than that - just to avoid embarrassment to those establishment figures who leapt too eagerly to McCann defence.
IMO
-
Sorry. We've done that one already. Many moons ago and several times.
I haven't. Indulge me.
-
Simpler than that - just to avoid embarrassment to those establishment figures who leapt too eagerly to McCann defence.
IMO
I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that, a mere face-saving exercise, spanning 3 or 4 Home Secretarys.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that, a mere face-saving exercise, spanning 3 or 4 Home Secretarys.
Well sure, no one would want to be known as the one who pulls the plug on 'little Maddie'
Even Pritti Awful, who seems sufficiently lacking in empathy to be a sceptic, knows how to play the game.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that, a mere face-saving exercise, spanning 3 or 4 Home Secretarys.
Were any fit for purpose residing over the institutionalised racist, corrupt not fit for purpose MET, whilst there's no evidence to suggest any officers from grange are as such, they do belong to an organisation described as such following enquiries.
-
I haven't. Indulge me.
Use The Search Facility. It's all here somewhere.
-
Does it not depend on having the correct key search words? I've never found it very satisfactory.
In this particular instance, what key words would work best ?
-
Does it not depend on having the correct key search words? I've never found it very satisfactory.
Try Conspiracy Theories. That should cover it.
-
Try Conspiracy Theories. That should cover it.
Yeah, sums it up, someone conspired with someone to hand the girl to CB, all in it together, concrete is strong with this one.
-
Try Conspiracy Theories. That should cover it.
Nope. Only pulls up this post and Barriers following one.
Am I doing it wrong ?
-
Nope. Only pulls up this post and Barriers following one.
Am I doing it wrong ?
I have no idea. I don't normally need it.
-
Yeah, sums it up, someone conspired with someone to hand the girl to CB, all in it together, concrete is strong with this one.
Madeleine McCann prime suspect Christian Brueckner 'had an accomplice', witness says Christian Brueckner was seen with a blond man the night he was arrested for allegedly exposing himself to children in a park in 2017
The prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann 'had an accomplice' during an alleged child sex crime in Portugal, according to witnesses.
22/08/2020
Christian Brueckner was seen with a blond man the night he was arrested for allegedly exposing himself to four children, aged eight to 12, in a park in 2017.
The German, 43, had been spotted ahead of the incident with a male companion of similar height as they attended a festival in the village of Messines, according to police sources.
The pair then went to the children's play area where Brueckner is said to have hidden under a slide with his trousers round his knees.
An off-duty female police woman is thought to have challenged him before trying to keep the situation under control as four parents tried to rush toward him.
A source said: 'She called for back-up. Witnesses said a second man fled the scene.'
But the alleged incident never made it to trial and was archived.
It is thought that the descriptions of Brueckner and his companion are similar to those involved in Madeline McCann's disappearance in 2007
Witnesses outside the McCann's rental apartment in Praia da Luz (pictured) had reported seeing two blond men in the area hours before the three-year-old was abducted
One is said to have had blue eyes, like Brueckner, while the other had green eyes.
Brueckner was declared as the prime suspect in the Madeline case in June.
He is currently in Germany's Kiel prison for drugs offences and is due to start a seven-year sentence for the rape of an elderly American woman in Praia da Luz in 2005.
https://twnews.co.uk/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-christian-brueckner-had-an-accomplice-witness-says
-
Who was this, tell Uncle Jr.....not here though, in the basement, feds.
Not only is there the alleged second hand alleged confession by the McCanns but there is also other damning evidence, such as phone pings & calls that place them at the scene around the time Madeleine disappeared.
Coincidence? I think not.
-
I have certainly never thought that Breuckner could have done this on his own.
-
Not only is there the alleged second hand alleged confession by the McCanns but there is also other damning evidence, such as phone pings & calls that place them at the scene around the time Madeleine disappeared.
Coincidence? I think not.
What are you on about now?
-
What are you on about now?
Someone mentioned the alleged confession by Brueckner.
I was just pointing out how unreliable second hand confessions are by saying 'someone told me the McCanns said they did it.'
...and how the phone ping data of someone with legitimate reason to be in the locale is pretty useless.
-
I have certainly never thought that Breuckner could have done this on his own.
I have never thought that whoever abducted Madeleine acted on their own. There had to be more than one accomplice both prior to and afterwards.
I had fervently hoped it would not be discovered that someone with a profile like Brueckner's was the perpetrator - I think now that may have been a forlorn hope.
-
Someone mentioned the alleged confession by Brueckner.
I was just pointing out how unreliable second hand confessions are by saying 'someone told me the McCanns said they did it.'
...and how the phone ping data of someone with legitimate reason to be in the locale is pretty useless.
So you were making it up then. There is no person who told you this.
-
So you were making it up then. There is no person who told you this.
Yes there is, it was the same guy who said Brueckner said he did it.
-
Yes there is, it was the same guy who said Brueckner said he did it.
Now you are plainly lying. Try not to be too silly.
-
Some posters are misunderstanding how a trial based on circumstantial evidence would work. They are taking each piece of evidence in isolation rathervthan everything together.
If Someone walks out of a shop with a bottle of gin saying it was a mistake that's s reasonable explanation.. If they did it 20 times in a month...no excuse would work.
Each piece of evidence taken on it's own may be wrak but the evidence would be looked at cumulatively.. That's how it works... Some will not agree... But I'm absolutely right
-
Of course each individual piece of evidence will have to be proved to be true.
-
Some posters are misunderstanding how a trial based on circumstantial evidence would work. They are taking each piece of evidence in isolation rathervthan everything together.
If Someone walks out of a shop with a bottle of gin saying it was a mistake that's s reasonable explanation.. If they did it 20 times in a month...no excuse would work.
Each piece of evidence taken on it's own may be wrak but the evidence would be looked at cumulatively.. That's how it works... Some will not agree... But I'm absolutely right
One piece of information = a thread. Thereafter it is just a case of the number of threads there are which combine to make a rope.
At the moment Wolters already has enough coordinating evidence ~ but it will do no harm to the case against Brueckner to festina lente and add a few more threads just to "mak Siccar"
-
Fine unless the defence takes a pair of scissors to them and cuts them to ribbons
-
Well, I think the concrete evidence Brueckner abducted & murdered Maddie will play a significant part in the trial.
I mean, just the mention of it has me convinced, without even knowing what it is, or if it even exists.
I'm rational like that.
-
Simpler than that - just to avoid embarrassment to those establishment figures who leapt too eagerly to McCann defence.
IMO
@)(++(* utterly ridiculous theory imo.
-
Well, I think the concrete evidence Brueckner abducted & murdered Maddie will play a significant part in the trial.
I mean, just the mention of it has me convinced, without even knowing what it is, or if it even exists.
I'm rational like that.
And they call me a sarky bitch!
-
Some posters are misunderstanding how a trial based on circumstantial evidence would work. They are taking each piece of evidence in isolation rathervthan everything together.
If Someone walks out of a shop with a bottle of gin saying it was a mistake that's s reasonable explanation.. If they did it 20 times in a month...no excuse would work.
Each piece of evidence taken on it's own may be wrak but the evidence would be looked at cumulatively.. That's how it works... Some will not agree... But I'm absolutely right
Come now Mr prosecutor how you gonna do it ?
9/10/2021.
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder. Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter.”
-
Well sure, no one would want to be known as the one who pulls the plug on 'little Maddie'
Even Pritti Awful, who seems sufficiently lacking in empathy to be a sceptic, knows how to play the game.
How about engaging some grey matter and consider how the “high-ups” blushes could have been even better saved by not conducting a review or investigation at all? And saving millions of quid into the bargain!
-
And they call me a sarky bitch!
I was recalling further today how I came to deal weed because it wasn't something I set out to do. It was partly driven by demand. I smoked weed, knew other smokers from local pubs & such & was frequently asked if I could get some for other people. I remember that being a pain in the ass, too & frow from the dealer every day to get yet another ten bag for someone else (when I always had the foresight to buy myseld a bigger lump to last me while).
Most of my customers were in their 30's 40's or older (one guy well into his sixties).
One owned a taxi firm, another a cafe, I had a pretty mature customer base.
I wasn't out pushing bags of smack at the school gates, that came later.
-
And they call me a sarky bitch!
Do they really? That's a bit harsh.
-
How about engaging some grey matter and consider how the “high-ups” blushes could have been even better saved by not conducting a review or investigation at all? And saving millions of quid into the bargain!
Is this goading? I'll be b....red by a badger if I know, that's for sure.
-
Do they really? That's a bit harsh.
Is it? I’d say it was quite accurate @)(++(*
-
Is this goading? I'll be b....red by a badger if I know, that's for sure.
No, it’s sage advice, sincerely offered in all seriousness.
-
No, it’s sage advice, sincerely offered in all seriousness.
I think we're going to get along famously. Until I inevitably get excluded.
-
I think we're going to get along famously. Until I inevitably get excluded.
No one gets banned from this Forum.
-
I think we're going to get along famously. Until I inevitably get excluded.
You’d have to try really really REALLY hard to get excluded. What’s more likely is that you will get tired with the groundhog day nature on the conversation and the (lets call them) idiosyncrasies of the few of us that still bother posting about the case.
-
Did you not see what I said? No one gets banned from this Forum.
Unless of course they actively want to be.
I'm just joking. I'm still learning the ropes. Let's hope I learn quick, eh.
-
I'm just joking. I'm still learning the ropes. Let's hope I learn quick, eh.
Jolly good show. That's the ticket. Live long and prosper.
-
Posters are reminded to keep comments relative and above all, constructive.
-
I'm just joking. I'm still learning the ropes. Let's hope I learn quick, eh.
You'll be fine unless you raise serious and genuine questions about the possibility of parental involvement, staged abduction, child neglect, the misuse of fenergan or concealment of a corpse.
-
You'll be fine unless you raise serious and genuine questions about the possibility of parental involvement, staged abduction, child neglect, the misuse of fenergan or concealment of a corpse.
Or if you point out that fear of being a victim of Brueckners is irrational & that you're more likely to win the lottery.
I got a lot of points for that the other week.
-
Or if you point out that fear of being a victim of Brueckners is irrational & that you're more likely to win the lottery.
I got a lot of points for that the other week.
Bruckner is banged up so of course it’s an irrational fear at the moment. But if he were released and went back to live in the heart of PdL again I definitely would not holiday there, especially not with young children which would be a perfectly rational decision.
-
Bruckner is banged up so of course it’s an irrational fear at the moment. But if he were released and went back to live in the heart of PdL again I definitely would not holiday there, especially not with young children which would be a perfectly rational decision.
But the person with this fear doesn't live in Luz.
They live in a country along with roughly 35 million other women, so the chances of being a victim were 1 in 35 million, assuming Brueckner ever even went to that country.
Lottery odds are better at 1 in 14 million.
I never did get an explanation from the mods as to how I was breaking forum rules.
-
But the person with this fear doesn't live in Luz.
They live in a country along with roughly 35 million other women, so the chances of being a victim were 1 in 35 million, assuming Brueckner ever even went to that country.
Lottery odds are better at 1 in 14 million.
I never did get an explanation from the mods as to how I was breaking forum rules.
Knowing you it was probably to do with the way you said it, and the probability that you were just trolling to get a rise out of your target.
-
Knowing you it was probably to do with the way you said it, and the probability that you were just trolling to get a rise out of your target.
Maybe the moderator who deleted the comments could explain.
I have asked already but things went quiet after that.
-
But the person with this fear doesn't live in Luz.
They live in a country along with roughly 35 million other women, so the chances of being a victim were 1 in 35 million, assuming Brueckner ever even went to that country.
Lottery odds are better at 1 in 14 million.
I never did get an explanation from the mods as to how I was breaking forum rules.
Repeated Repeating of a Deleted Comment which was Libellous.
-
Repeated Repeating of a Deleted Comment which was Libellous.
Which part was libellous?
-
Which part was libellous?
It was the Repeated Repeating that was the real problem. Most of your comments are Libellous.
-
Bruckner is banged up so of course it’s an irrational fear at the moment. But if he were released and went back to live in the heart of PdL again I definitely would not holiday there, especially not with young children which would be a perfectly rational decision.
Bruckner is a serial offender, I for one would be quite happy should he never be released but if he is. he should be subjected to the most severe travel restrictions.
-
Bruckner is a serial offender, I for one would be quite happy should he never be released but if he is. he should be subjected to the most severe travel restrictions.
He would probably be required to report to a parole officer on a regular basis (though admittedly I don't know if this is how the Germans do things) but would he comply by such an order or would he just hot foot it out of the country asap?
-
Bruckner is a serial offender, I for one would be quite happy should he never be released but if he is. he should be subjected to the most severe travel restrictions.
There may be no legal mechanism to do that.
It is relatively easy for a country to refuse admission, but not to deny exit.
Parole would be a consideration, of course, but he wouldn't be on parole for ever
I'm sure the ECHR would have something to say on the matter
-
He would probably be required to report to a parole officer on a regular basis (though admittedly I don't know if this is how the Germans do things) but would he comply by such an order or would he just hot foot it out of the country asap?
That's what would worry me.
-
Bruckner is a serial offender, I for one would be quite happy should he never be released but if he is. he should be subjected to the most severe travel restrictions.
Hang on a minute?
Wouldn't he need to commit offences deemed serious enough to warrant life without parole?
He hasn't done that so I'm not sure indefinite detainment is really 'justice"
It sounds more like persecution to me.
-
The case of Colin Pitchfork sets a legal precedent in terms of sentencing imo.
You can rape & murder two girls, attempt to pervert the course of justice & still be free in 30 years.
I can understand why Wayne Couzens is appealing his whole life tariff, since he only committed half as much rape & murder as Pitchfork, yet he'll never be released, technically he should really be out in 15 years, when measured by the Pitchfork scale.
-
He would probably be required to report to a parole officer on a regular basis (though admittedly I don't know if this is how the Germans do things) but would he comply by such an order or would he just hot foot it out of the country asap?
They're very pro-rehabilitation in Germany. There's a chance he'll be out next year with restrictions, alas, so the clock is ticking.
-
They're very pro-rehabilitation in Germany. There's a chance he'll be out next year with restrictions, alas, so the clock is ticking.
He only got sentenced last year wasn't it?
Minus time on remand he'll probably do at least another 3, at a guess, depending on behaviour, assuming they don't hold his right to remain silent on the McCann case against him (even though no ones attempted to actually question him).
-
He only got sentenced last year wasn't it?
Minus time on remand he'll probably do at least another 3, at a guess, depending on behaviour, assuming they don't hold his right to remain silent on the McCann case against him (even though no ones attempted to actually question him).
He's done 18 months all told, I believe, so this time next year he'll be up for a review. His problem, apart from being the man in the frame, is that this 'review' will be compromised in regard to options, as they're having to keep him under 'non on normal communal exercise' status due to HCW's public proclamations making him a target inside.
It won't get that far, as they're certainly going to charge him with something. But despite how it may impinge on peoples' sensitivities, a decent human rights lawyer could argue that he's been unfairly dealt with and due process has been compromised.
-
He's done 18 months all told, I believe, so this time next year he'll be up for a review. His problem, apart from being the man in the frame, is that this 'review' will be compromised in regard to options, as they're having to keep him under 'non on normal communal exercise' status due to HCW's public proclamations making him a target inside.
It won't get that far, as they're certainly going to charge him with something. But despite how it may impinge on peoples' sensitivities, a decent human rights lawyer could argue that he's been unfairly dealt with and due process has been compromised.
Has he finished his Drug Sentence and actually started the Rape Sentence?
-
Has he finished his Drug Sentence and actually started the Rape Sentence?
....not sure. Good question.
-
A federal court in Karlsruhe, a city in south-west Germany, rejected Brueckner's appeal against the conviction and confirmed the sentence on Friday.
The judgment comes weeks before German national Brueckner, who is also serving a prison sentence for drug trafficking, could have been freed.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters, who is leading the McCann investigation, said the one year and seven months Brueckner has already spent in jail will count towards the seven-year jail term.
"Therefore, he should be in custody until spring 2026,"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-wont-freed-23042200
-
....not sure. Good question.
There may be more crimes to take into consideration for which he hasn't been prosecuted yet.
I would be surprised if these and the supporting evidence weren't discussed at the recent meeting held between the international teams of investigators.
We shall all just have to wait serenely for what is decided.
-
He's done 18 months all told, I believe, so this time next year he'll be up for a review. His problem, apart from being the man in the frame, is that this 'review' will be compromised in regard to options, as they're having to keep him under 'non on normal communal exercise' status due to HCW's public proclamations making him a target inside.
It won't get that far, as they're certainly going to charge him with something. But despite how it may impinge on peoples' sensitivities, a decent human rights lawyer could argue that he's been unfairly dealt with and due process has been compromised.
I still can't find any other instances of people being declared guilty by prosecutors or police.
Literally John Canaan & Brueckner are the only two I can think of....
(there may be more, perhaps a resident google expert can help)
...& in the Canaan case, supposing by some miracle they do find Suzy's body (there isn't much evidence of her death without it, other than her being missing) the MET have jeopardised future conviction of him imo,
so far from helping Suzy's case, they might have made it worse.
Supposing Brueckner didn't murder Maddie & never gets tried.
Who's going to bother looking for her when Wolters has been so absolute in his determination.
..and when Maddie's real killer is in the dock, the defence can just call Wolters to give concrete evidence they didn't do it.
-
I still can't find any other instances of people being declared guilty by prosecutors or police.
Literally John Canaan & Brueckner are the only two I can think of....
(there may be more, perhaps a resident google expert can help)
...& in the Canaan case, supposing by some miracle they do find Suzy's body (there isn't much evidence of her death without it, other than her being missing) the MET have jeopardised future conviction of him imo,
so far from helping Suzy's case, they might have made it worse.
Supposing Brueckner didn't murder Maddie & never gets tried.
Who's going to bother looking for her when Wolters has been so absolute in his determination.
..and when Maddie's real killer is in the dock, the defence can just call Wolters to give concrete evidence they didn't do it.
Levi Bellfield was declared the prime suspect in the Millie Dowler case by the police two years before charges were brought against him.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/25/ukcrime2
-
Has he finished his Drug Sentence and actually started the Rape Sentence?
His drug sentence ended Jan 2021.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/shackled-madeleine-mccann-suspect-taken-23027270
-
Levi Bellfield was declared the prime suspect in the Millie Dowler case by the police two years before charges were brought against him.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/25/ukcrime2
So they named him as prime suspect, yes.
Did they say he was guilty prior to trial like in the cases I mentioned?
Brueckner's even been declared guilty before arrest.
-
So they named him as prime suspect, yes.
Did they say he was guilty prior to trial like in the cases I mentioned?
Brueckner's even been declared guilty before arrest.
Do you have a cite for this official declaration please?
-
Probably weren't 100 % sure about Bellfield.. Must be solid evidence against CB
-
Well here, just the other week, having stated previously they have only one suspect & concrete evidence, he added that there's no conclusion other than Maddie being dead.
'We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.
'I can't tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there's no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive,'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
-
Well here, just the other week, having stated previously they have only one suspect & concrete evidence, he added that there's no conclusion other than Maddie being dead.
'We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.
'I can't tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there's no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive,'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
So no declaration of guilt, just a belief, an opinion. How does this materially differ from declaring someone the prime suspect and saying they have compelling circumstantial evidence against him? Are you suggesting that there is a big difference that would mean a judge would be swayed by one statement but not another?
-
Well here, just the other week, having stated previously they have only one suspect & concrete evidence, he added that there's no conclusion other than Maddie being dead.
'We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.
'I can't tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there's no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive,'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
Doesn't explain why they consider it murder, or why they are so certain that is Brueckner what done it.
-
Probably weren't 100 % sure about Bellfield.. Must be solid evidence against CB
No forensics, DNA, body.
Has to be the photograph of a dead Maddie then....
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
-
No forensics, DNA, body.
Has to be the photograph of a dead Maddie then....
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
Yep CB took a picture when he came across Smithmans bundle .
-
No forensics, DNA, body.
Has to be the photograph of a dead Maddie then....
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10075115/Prosecutors-100-sure-convicted-Christian-Brueckner-murdered-Madeleine-McCann.html
That doesn't sound like a public declaration of guilt either. I mean you're not convinced by it, so why do you think German judges would be falling for this hook, line and sinker and denying Brueckner a fair trial?
-
That doesn't sound like a public declaration of guilt either. I mean you're not convinced by it, so why do you think German judges would be falling for this hook, line and sinker and denying Brueckner a fair trial?
Yeah to be fair to him he's flip flopped a little on the issue from that initial certainty of Madie definitely getting murdered to a few months later admitting the possibility she might still be alive, (when confronted by British journalists for such blasphemy) but from them recent comments he's relapsed into sin.
-
Yep CB took a picture when he came across Smithmans bundle .
Are you stating this as a fact? Because I think you're writing a load of rubbish - again. What was Bruckener doing wandering the streets of PdL with a camera looking in bins for?
-
Are you stating this as a fact? Because I think you're writing a load of rubbish - again. What was Bruckener doing wandering the streets of PdL with a camera looking in bins for?
If you don't use the dark web then you really wouldn't know.
I can't take my eyes off other peoples bins myself & pay good money to see the contents of other peoples bins, your honour.
(Defense witness Mr Strange, amateur waste photographer.)
-
Are you stating this as a fact? Because I think you're writing a load of rubbish - again. What was Bruckener doing wandering the streets of PdL with a camera looking in bins for?
Is that where you think smithy put his bundle in ?
-
....not sure. Good question.
I believe that his Drug Sentence is just coming to an end, before he starts the Rape Sentence, although I am not sure about the time frame. But he did get seven years for The Rape.
I have no idea about Germany's stance on rehabilitation and I have no idea of his ability to rehabilitate.
I don't know if he abducted and killed Madeleine but I am very much an Innocent Until Proven Guilty sort of person, which is why I have so long supported The McCanns.
You can't have it both ways you see, which seems to be a bit beyond some members of this Forum.
Hypocrisy at its worst.
-
His drug sentence ended Jan 2021.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/shackled-madeleine-mccann-suspect-taken-23027270
So then his Rape Sentence began. How many of the seven years for that will he have to serve?
-
Yep CB took a picture when he came across Smithmans bundle .
Come on, Barrier. You are better than that.
-
So then his Rape Sentence began. How many of the seven years for that will he have to serve?
Not sure about length of sentence vs actual time served.
In the Uk, burglars etc tend to serve half their sentence inside then the other half out on licence.
For rape this increases to serving two thirds of a sentence inside before release on licence.
So supposing that's also the case in Germany, Brueckner wouldn't be out until at least 2024/5.....maybe.
-
Is that where you think smithy put his bundle in ?
No, but that is a popular theory with some. You seem to know as fact that Brückner photographed Madeleine dead somewhere so presumably you know where she was put too.
-
Come on, Barrier. You are better than that.
I doubt it.
-
If you don't use the dark web then you really wouldn't know.
I can't take my eyes off other peoples bins myself & pay good money to see the contents of other peoples bins, your honour.
(Defense witness Mr Strange, amateur waste photographer.)
If Brückner has thousands of photos of the contents of people’s bins then he might possibly have a defence. No mention of this from the Germans though, only the thousands of pictures of abused children. Were they all found in bins too do you think?
-
Probably late 2026, although likely to be subject to any Parole Board if Germany has such a thing. So possibly longer.
-
If Brückner has thousands of photos of the contents of people’s bins then he might possibly have a defence. No mention of this from the Germans though, only the thousands of pictures of abused children. Were they all found in bins too do you think?
No, he probably destroyed the evidence of his bin fetish, downloading thousands of images of children was just a ruse.
-
Come on, Barrier. You are better than that.
Its as ridiculous as CB being the one imo
We're asked to believe CB's mate (debateable ) kept to himself knowledge of Madeleines death at the hands of CB since 2008 , how much money was on offer and he never went after it ?
-
Its as ridiculous as CB being the one imo
We're asked to believe CB's mate (debateable ) kept to himself knowledge of Madeleines death at the hands of CB since 2008 , how much money was on offer and he never went after it ?
The reward was for Madeleine’s safe return. In any case he probably didn’t believe CB at the time, until all the other stuff was revealed - the paedophilia, the rape, etc.
If Madeleine was abducted what sort of person do you think took her, or do you believe that even the notion she was abducted is ridiculous?
-
Its as ridiculous as CB being the one imo
We're asked to believe CB's mate (debateable ) kept to himself knowledge of Madeleines death at the hands of CB since 2008 , how much money was on offer and he never went after it ?
Why do you assert that Brueckner being classed as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance "ridiculous"?
Please elucidate.
-
So then his Rape Sentence began. How many of the seven years for that will he have to serve?
A third.
-
A third.
Not nearly enough.
-
The German Justice system seems to think so.
-
The German Justice system seems to think so.
What do you think?
-
What do you think?
Do you mean sentences in general or for him in particular?
Either way I don't have a problem with the sentence imposed, though I do think only serving part of a sentence strange.
-
Do you mean sentences in general or for him in particular?
Either way I don't have a problem with the sentence imposed, though I do think only serving part of a sentence strange.
They have a parole review of sorts and all options are on the table.
CB's problem is, given HCW telling the world that he's the man, there's at least one option now off the table - a move to a lower category status. There's a potential impingement of human rights right there, as unpalatable as that may be. It could be argued that, if he's not charged prior to the review, then HCW's proclamations have been prejudicial to the judicial process.
-
Do you mean sentences in general or for him in particular?
Either way I don't have a problem with the sentence imposed, though I do think only serving part of a sentence strange.
It's the part of that worries me. Less than two and a half years for a violent Rape? Or one third of any sentence for that matter.
Is this subject to legal discussion?
No wonder Wolters is trying so hard to catch him on something else.
-
They have a parole review of sorts and all options are on the table.
CB's problem is, given HCW telling the world that he's the man, there's at least one option now off the table - a move to a lower category status. There's a potential impingement of human rights right there, as unpalatable as that may be. It could be argued that, if he's not charged prior to the review, then HCW's proclamations have been prejudicial to the judicial process.
Thank you for that.
I am not even remotely interested in Brueckner's Human Rights. Would The ECHR be, do you think?
-
Thank you for that.
I am not even remotely interested in Brueckner's Human Rights. Would The ECHR be, do you think?
I'm interested in abuse of process, it doesn't matter who it is to me. Everyone counts or no-one counts.
Let's say he gets charged, it would be a dereliction of duty of his defence not to automatically request the charges be dismissed due to a total lack of the chance of a fair trial. In my opinion a fair trial is impossible, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
His defence should keep going, challenging the process at every turn. It's now not about MM at all, but a circus created by injudicious proclamations from HCW, et al.
-
Thank you for that.
I am not even remotely interested in Brueckner's Human Rights. Would The ECHR be, do you think?
I would think so they're quite keen on peoples liberty issues.
Mind you, the speed at which they work, Brueckner would likely be an old man before he got a decision.
-
I would think so they're quite keen on peoples liberty issues.
Mind you, the speed at which they work, Brueckner would likely be an old man before he got a decision.
That thought occurred to me as well. But would he still be in prison? Or at least serve the whole sentence?
-
I'm interested in abuse of process, it doesn't matter who it is to me. Everyone counts or no-one counts.
Let's say he gets charged, it would be a dereliction of duty of his defence not to automatically request the charges be dismissed due to a total lack of the chance of a fair trial. In my opinion a fair trial is impossible, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
His defence should keep going, challenging the process at every turn. It's now not about MM at all, but a circus created by injudicious proclamations from HCW, et al.
We are talking Judges here. And not the hoi poloi of a Jury.
-
I would think so they're quite keen on peoples liberty issues.
Mind you, the speed at which they work, Brueckner would likely be an old man before he got a decision.
That's one for 8-10 years in the future. Right now he has plenty of avenues of recourse given his current prisoner status.
Would he be in lockdown / solitary right now if HCW hadn't de facto given the world his identity? I would argue not. He'd be playing ping pong, popping out to the local town for lunch and cultivating vegetables. A far cry from watching his back 24/7, screws mixing their bodily fluids in his dinner and the prison nutters waiting for their opportunity that will inevitably arrive.
He's probably involved, but he's certainly been legally compromised. In my opinion.
-
We are talking Judges here. And not the hoi poloi of a Jury.
It doesn't matter. The challenge will be prior to any trial and probably subsequently all the way through the process.
-
That thought occurred to me as well. But would he still be in prison? Or at least serve the whole sentence?
Much would depend on how a parole review works.
It ought not to take future possible charges into account at all -because they may never materialize
-
How much as Wolters played to the world stage and how much to the Germans which would influence them ?
-
I would expect judges to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction.
-
It doesn't matter. The challenge will be prior to any trial and probably subsequently all the way through the process.
So his Defence will label The Judges biased and not fit for purpose.
Good luck with that one.
-
So his Defence will label The Judges biased and not fit for purpose.
Good luck with that one.
No, nothing to do with the judges, it's everything to do with the process. It doesn't even matter if he did it and what evidence they may have. It would be a lot easier to establish with a jury trial, granted, but I expect a legal challenge the same minute as the charges are filed.
-
I'm interested in abuse of process, it doesn't matter who it is to me. Everyone counts or no-one counts.
Let's say he gets charged, it would be a dereliction of duty of his defence not to automatically request the charges be dismissed due to a total lack of the chance of a fair trial. In my opinion a fair trial is impossible, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
His defence should keep going, challenging the process at every turn. It's now not about MM at all, but a circus created by injudicious proclamations from HCW, et al.
Any abuses of judicial processes or human rights should be highlighted and dealt with, no matter who the victim of the abuses is or what they might have done. Criminals should face the full weight of the law, but not by circumventing the proper processes.
-
So his Defence will label The Judges biased and not fit for purpose.
Good luck with that one.
Wolters has already addressed the question of a fair trial.. Anyone suggesting he won't is questioning the professionalism and integrity of the German judges.
If it was a jury trial as in the UK there might be some grounds to criticise..it all depends on what evidence Wolters has
-
Any abuses of judicial processes or human rights should be highlighted and dealt with, no matter who the victim of the abuses is or what they might have done. Criminals should face the full weight of the law, but not by circumventing the proper processes.
Any suspect has access to justice at the ECHR.
It's not for you to decide their decision
-
Wolters has already addressed the question of a fair trial.. Anyone suggesting he won't is questioning the professionalism and integrity of the German judges.
If it was a jury trial as in the UK there might be some grounds to criticise..it all depends on what evidence Wolters has
That's what I thought.
The system appears to be entirely different to UK. Which is possibly the most stupid thing I have ever said.
-
No, nothing to do with the judges, it's everything to do with the process. It doesn't even matter if he did it and what evidence they may have. It would be a lot easier to establish with a jury trial, granted, but I expect a legal challenge the same minute as the charges are filed.
This is not me being facetious but could you explain exactly on what basis CB would be denied a fair trial if the evidence in court is being assessed by judges? I mean there are many people here and elsewhere who are not convinced he's involved despite over a year of pronouncements from HCW so what makes it more likely that a judge will be swayed by these announcements and judge unfairly on his case?
-
Wolters has already addressed the question of a fair trial.. Anyone suggesting he won't is questioning the professionalism and integrity of the German judges.
If it was a jury trial as in the UK there might be some grounds to criticise..it all depends on what evidence Wolters has
Not enough to charge thats for sure, lets just go with it, what can he have ? he's stated no dna, or photo evidence linking CB to the alleged murder, so its entirely circumstantial, with out the two I've mentioned what can he possibly have in the form of concrete evidence ?
-
Not enough to charge thats for sure, lets just go with it, what can he have ? he's stated no dna, or photo evidence linking CB to the alleged murder, so its entirely circumstantial, with out the two I've mentioned what can he possibly have in the form of concrete evidence ?
I fear we won't be getting an answer anytime soon
-
Not enough to charge thats for sure, lets just go with it, what can he have ? he's stated no dna, or photo evidence linking CB to the alleged murder, so its entirely circumstantial, with out the two I've mentioned what can he possibly have in the form of concrete evidence ?
This appear to depend on what "Concrete" means in German.
-
Not enough to charge thats for sure, lets just go with it, what can he have ? he's stated no dna, or photo evidence linking CB to the alleged murder, so its entirely circumstantial, with out the two I've mentioned what can he possibly have in the form of concrete evidence ?
It seems he does have enough to charge.
He has not ruled out photo evidence of Maddie's fate..
I don't see him making such a claim unless he has the evidence
-
It seems he does have enough to charge.
He has not ruled out photo evidence of Maddie's fate..
I don't see him making such a claim unless he has the evidence
Not sure about this, but neither am I sure Wolters would do this if he had nothing.
-
This appear to depend on what "Concrete" means in German.
Enough to make the Germans 100% sure... So same as UK
-
Enough to make the Germans 100% sure... So same as UK
Yer, but wet or dry concrete?
However, Trials have been won on circumstantial evidence.
-
Could even be some of that substandard stuff that have been used in bridges.
-
According to Google and what I can make of it, it means the same thing.
-
I'm interested in abuse of process, it doesn't matter who it is to me. Everyone counts or no-one counts.
Let's say he gets charged, it would be a dereliction of duty of his defence not to automatically request the charges be dismissed due to a total lack of the chance of a fair trial. In my opinion a fair trial is impossible, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
His defence should keep going, challenging the process at every turn. It's now not about MM at all, but a circus created by injudicious proclamations from HCW, et al.
I often wonder what is behind Wolter’s proclamations. As a prosecutor he cannot be unaware how damaging to any case brought against Brueckner his behaviour is so why indulge in it?
-
I often wonder what is behind Wolter’s proclamations. As a prosecutor he cannot be unaware how damaging to any case brought against Brueckner his behaviour is so why indulge in it?
Suggesting that The Judges will be influenced by this is really not a good idea.
-
Can someone explain to me why it isn't standard practice to declare suspects guilty before trial, charges or arrest, if doing so has no influence on a trial itself?
-
Can someone explain to me why it isn't standard practice to declare suspects guilty before trial, charges or arrest, if doing so has no influence on a trial itself?
CB hasn’t been declared guilty, the prosecutor has merely offered his opinion that he is convinced by the evidence they have that they have the right man in their sights and are busy building trying to build a cast iron case against him.
-
CB hasn’t been declared guilty, the prosecutor has merely offered his opinion that he is convinced by the evidence they have that they have the right man in their sights and are busy building trying to build a cast iron case against him.
Now change the CB to GM and see how that fits.
It's wrong on all counts.
-
Now change the CB to GM and see how that fits.
It's wrong on all counts.
It's wrong if he doesn't have the evidence... Right if he does
-
Wolters has already addressed the question of a fair trial.. Anyone suggesting he won't is questioning the professionalism and integrity of the German judges.
If it was a jury trial as in the UK there might be some grounds to criticise..it all depends on what evidence Wolters has
Well that's a relief, HCW has addressed it.
Imagine a prosecutor in the UK making the same proclamation about a jury pool. Just because they're judges, it doesn't mean they're unimpeachable and know nothing about the case or CB.
There will not be a fair trial, but they will probably do it anyway.
-
It's wrong if he doesn't have the evidence... Right if he does
It makes no difference. Amaral had 'evidence'. Was that fair to Gerry?
-
It makes no difference. Amaral had 'evidence'. Was that fair to Gerry?
Amaral didn't have evidence... He was such a fool he thought he did and he should have been punished for that.. As Wolters should if he doesn't have it. The ECHR will confirm.
It's a matter of public interest.. Some opinion. ..some fact
-
Well that's a relief, HCW has addressed it.
Imagine a prosecutor in the UK making the same proclamation about a jury pool. Just because they're judges, it doesn't mean they're unimpeachable and know nothing about the case or CB.
There will not be a fair trial, but they will probably do it anyway.
You are thinking your opinion is fact it isn't. Whether the trial is fair will depend on the evidence
-
It makes no difference. Amaral had 'evidence'. Was that fair to Gerry?
If you look at the ECHR edicts on free speech it puts great importance on evidence and it's vveracity
-
then Greek helicopter pilot who murdered.. Allegedly... His wife. The police have claimed he's confessed.
If he now pleads not guilty..and denies the confession. Will he get a fair trial..
It's all about the evidence
-
If you look at the ECHR edicts on free speech it puts great importance on evidence and it's vveracity
'Evidence' is to be determined, we're not at that stage yet. In fact we're at the stage where Amaral has as much evidence on Gerry as HCW has on CB - it hasn't been verified, quantified and its veracity determined legally.
It's wholly inappropriate and it taints legal process, in my opinion - and even if it doesn't, HCW opened that door.
-
then Greek helicopter pilot who murdered.. Allegedly... His wife. The police have claimed he's confessed.
If he now pleads not guilty..and denies the confession. Will he get a fair trial..
It's all about the evidence
I know nothing about the Greek pilot, but the example doesn't appear comparable and here's why - I think HCW decided he had the additional latitude to ask the public for help to establish evidence against CB because he was already in custody.
-
'Evidence' is to be determined, we're not at that stage yet. In fact we're at the stage where Amaral has as much evidence on Gerry as HCW has on CB - it hasn't been verified, quantified and its veracity determined legally.
It's wholly inappropriate and it taints legal process, in my opinion - and even if it doesn't, HCW opened that door.
You are totally wrong imo
The Greek pilot case proves me right.
The whole point is it will be examined at a later date. ...and at that time we will know if Woltets had the right tonsayvwhat he has said.. You are guilty yourself of ptejudging
-
I know nothing about the Greek pilot, but the example doesn't appear comparable and here's why - I think HCW decided he had the additional latitude to ask the public for help to establish evidence against CB because he was already in custody.
How can you say the pilot case is not comparable if you know nothing about it.. Poor logic exposed.
You are making an assumption here that Wolters has no evidence... I agree if he hadn't he's wring.. But if he has he's right
-
Now change the CB to GM and see how that fits.
It's wrong on all counts.
I think the fact that CB is aready in prison makes a difference. If GM was in prison for rape and paedophilia I personally wouldn’t have a problem with statements such as those made by HCW.
-
Well that's a relief, HCW has addressed it.
Imagine a prosecutor in the UK making the same proclamation about a jury pool. Just because they're judges, it doesn't mean they're unimpeachable and know nothing about the case or CB.
There will not be a fair trial, but they will probably do it anyway.
Care to give an answer to the question I put to you yesterday on this subject?
-
I think the fact that CB is aready in prison makes a difference. If GM was in prison for rape and paedophilia I personally wouldn’t have a problem with statements such as those made by HCW.
Oh right. so because Brueckner is guilty of crimes A & B it's therefore acceptable to publicy accuse him of the more serious crime C.
Gerry might have got a speeding ticket once so I don't think it's unreasonable to accuse him of further criminal activity.
-
Oh right. so because Brueckner is guilty of crimes A & B it's therefore acceptable to publicy accuse him of the more serious crime C.
Gerry might have got a speeding ticket once so I don't think it's unreasonable to accuse him of further criminal activity.
I was asked to consider how I would feel if it was GM being publicly accused in such a manner and I have offered a personal opinion. I don’t think you can equate a parking ticket with abduction of a child, rape and murder but the crimes CB has committed do (even Amaral admits this) make him the perfect suspect in Madeleine’s alleged abduction rape and murder.
-
I was asked to consider how I would feel if it was GM being publicly accused in such a manner and I have offered a personal opinion. I don’t think you can equate a parking ticket with abduction of a child, rape and murder but the crimes CB has committed do (even Amaral admits this) make him the perfect suspect in Madeleine’s alleged abduction rape and murder.
Why, has he abducted & murdered any children before then?
Jimmy Saville raped a lot of kids, doesn't seem to have got round to murdering any though.
-
Why, has he abducted & murdered any children before then?
Jimmy Saville raped a lot of kids, doesn't seem to have got round to murdering any though.
He may have done (both of them). Savile was never found guilty of rape btw, how dare you say he did?!
-
Why, has he abducted & murdered any children before then?
Jimmy Saville raped a lot of kids, doesn't seem to have got round to murdering any though.
What sort of person enters a house illegally, takes a child and murders them? Describe their characteristics and previous criminal history.
-
What sort of person enters a house illegally, takes a child and murders them? Describe their characteristics and previous criminal history.
A child abductor & murderer.
Do you have any evidence Brueckner is both or either of those?
-
Further more...
What evidence is there Maddie was abducted & murdered?
Or just abducted, or murdered, anyone?
-
A child abductor & murderer.
Do you have any evidence Brueckner is both or either of those?
You have given a facetious answer. When you give a thoughtful, serious one then I will continue the discussion with you, your choice.
-
You have given a facetious answer. When you give a thoughtful, serious one then I will continue the discussion with you, your choice.
Why didn't you just say 'no I don't have any evidence'?
-
Further more...
What evidence is there Maddie was abducted & murdered?
Or just abducted, or murdered, anyone?
Wolters has proof of abduction and murder.. I'm sure
-
Wolters has proof of abduction and murder.. I'm sure
For a man of science that's a strange declaration.
You're accepting the earth is flat based on one mans proclamations.
-
Why didn't you just say 'no I don't have any evidence'?
I will answer your questions when you answer mine properly, and not facetiously. Your choice.
-
For a man of science that's a strange declaration.
You're accepting the earth is flat based on one mans proclamations.
You are obviously not a man of science... I'm following the evidence and understanding it.. And teaching conclusions... That's how science works
-
For a man of science that's a strange declaration.
You're accepting the earth is flat based on one mans proclamations.
Not something the scientific community does, that's for sure.
-
You are obviously not a man of science... I'm following the evidence and understanding it.. And teaching conclusions... That's how science works
You don't have access to the evidence though, do you?
-
I am only concerned with the suggestions that The German Judges are biased by public opinion.
Do we believe this or not?
-
Not something the scientific community does, that's for sure.
It is rather at odds isn't it.
Assuming Brueckner was a suspect, but Wolters hadn't said 'concrete evidence', might he be equally convinced of Brueckner's guilt based on the 'evidence'?
Maybe the addition of soundwaves & gas are an important factor here, I don't know, I'm not a scientist.
-
I am only concerned with the suggestions that The German Judges are biased by public opinion.
Do we believe this or not?
Aren't all humans open to persuasion?
Isn't that what advertising is all about?
Are German judges somehow devoid of this, like they're a different species or something?
-
I am only concerned with the suggestions that The German Judges are biased by public opinion.
Do we believe this or not?
It's not public opinion we're discussing, it's the public claims of a prosecutor.
-
Wouldn't there possibly be some issue with disclosure of previous convictions?
Suppose Bruckner's trial happened here, the media have already listed his convictions, interviewed all his associates & then made their statements public, been to his old house, fumbled with his beer cans & mattresses & described his wine cellar as a paedo dungeon.
All this would be seriously prejudicial in the the UK legal system.
-
I'm not sure when nurse Lucy Letby goes on trial here for murder, but I find it strange the British media haven't photographed her previous addresses, disclosed any police records on her, interviewed all her friends & associates & then made all their statements public.
The prosecution haven't even mentioned there being no other conclusion or how the evidence against her is concrete.
Why not?
-
Wouldn't there possibly be some issue with disclosure of previous convictions?
Suppose Bruckner's trial happened here, the media have already listed his convictions, interviewed all his associates & then made their statements public, been to his old house, fumbled with his beer cans & mattresses & described his wine cellar as a paedo dungeon.
All this would be seriously prejudicial in the the UK legal system.
Good job his case isn't being handled in the UK legal system then. Are you a supporter of Hacked Off?
-
Good job his case isn't being handled in the UK legal system then. Are you a supporter of Hacked Off?
No, because the McCanns.
If it wasn't for that I might be.
-
No, because the McCanns.
If it wasn't for that I might be.
How childish.
-
Aren't all humans open to persuasion?
Isn't that what advertising is all about?
Are German judges somehow devoid of this, like they're a different species or something?
You must be a superior being to the German judges seeing as how you are completely resistant to even the possibility of CB's guilt, whereas the Geman Judges are probably all be completely gullible fools and will blindly accept the opinion of the prosecutor, even without examining the evidence, right?
-
It's not public opinion we're discussing, it's the public claims of a prosecutor.
Which you seem to think, along with others will influence public opinion and consequentially The Judges.
If you don't think that it will affect The Judges then why does it matter?
-
I'm not sure when nurse Lucy Letby goes on trial here for murder, but I find it strange the British media haven't photographed her previous addresses, disclosed any police records on her, interviewed all her friends & associates & then made all their statements public.
The prosecution haven't even mentioned there being no other conclusion or how the evidence against her is concrete.
Why not?
Because it's a slam dunk?
-
You must be a superior being to the German judges seeing as how you are completely resistant to even the possibility of CB's guilt, whereas the Geman Judges are probably all be completely gullible fools and will blindly accept the opinion of the prosecutor, even without examining the evidence, right?
What evidence?
-
What evidence?
Well, let's see. If it goes to court and put in front of the judges, the prosecution will have to present this stuff called "evidence". Without this stuff it cannot go to court. So, in order for the judges to blindly accept CB's guilt based on HCW's earlier pronouncements there will have to be some of this stuff called evidence even if the judges don't bother to assess or weigh it up against the defence's counter evidence stuff. Understand now?
-
You must be a superior being to the German judges seeing as how you are completely resistant to even the possibility of CB's guilt, whereas the Geman Judges are probably all be completely gullible fools and will blindly accept the opinion of the prosecutor, even without examining the evidence, right?
CB is a rapist and a sex offender. There is no evidence he killed anyone.
-
Mayhap the Pre Trial Pronouncements from The Public Prosecutor are part of The German Legal System. I don't actually know. Gathering Evidence perhaps, which Wolters seems to be doing.
But not even Davel would decide absolutely until he had seen the evidence. It takes a particular sort of mind to rule absolutely fairly, which is how Judges get selected. They don't just come along and offer their services because they feel like it.
My mind is only half way there because I have no legal training. But I do understand Reasonable Doubt and Brueckner would not be convicted in any Court of mine if there was such a doubt.
-
CB is a rapist and a sex offender. There is no evidence he killed anyone.
As yet.
-
CB is a rapist and a sex offender. There is no evidence he killed anyone.
A convicted criminal said that he said he did it though, allegedly.
-
Mayhap the Pre Trial Pronouncements from The Public Prosecutor are part of The German Legal System. I don't actually know. Gathering Evidence perhaps, which Wolters seems to be doing.
But not even Davel would decide absolutely until he had seen the evidence. It takes a particular sort of mind to rule absolutely fairly, which is how Judges get selected. They don't just come along and offer their services because they feel like it.
My mind is only half way there because I have no legal training. But I do understand Reasonable Doubt and Brueckner would not be convicted in any Court of mine if there was such a doubt.
He pretty much did about 2 pages back.
-
CB is a rapist and a sex offender. There is no evidence he killed anyone.
HCW has shared all his evidence with you has he? Interesting...
-
Which you seem to think, along with others will influence public opinion and consequentially The Judges.
If you don't think that it will affect The Judges then why does it matter?
It's about whether a prosecutor breached a suspect's human rights.
-
He pretty much did about 2 pages back.
I suspect that Davel's comments are bit too intelligent for you.
-
It's about whether a prosecutor breached a suspect's human rights.
There's already been a human rights breach if he's being held on an extended stay in solitary.
It may be for his own protection, but funnily enough, he didn't need any protection until Wolters called him a murderer.
-
It's about whether a prosecutor breached a suspect's human rights.
Has he? Unless you know more about German Law than I think you do.
Has Breuckner been convicted yet?
I am not convinced of Brueckner's guilt and for all I know I might never be.
-
If CB's human rights have been breached then what is his lawyer waiting for?
-
If CB's human rights have been breached then what is his lawyer waiting for?
Who is funding his defense anyway?
Does he have a state appointed legal team or is it funded by some free CB campaign?
I wouldn't know, I'm far too busy trying to free Martin Brueckner myself.
-
If CB's human rights have been breached then what is his lawyer waiting for?
His Lawyer can't actually do anything at the moment since no charges have been brought and no evidence has been provided. Which seems to be part of German Law.
This is perfectly logical which is so often missing in This Affair when it comes to Internet Posters, who still have the right to anonymity.
Anonymity is a bad one in my opinion, but please yourselves. I am not anonymous and never wanted to be. The choice was always mine.
Meanwhile Posters will go on Posting shite.
Just as matter of interest I have never suffered any fall out from being who I am.
-
Who is funding his defense anyway?
Does he have a state appointed legal team or is it funded by some free CB campaign?
I wouldn't know, I'm far too busy trying to free Martin Brueckner myself.
Who is Martin Brueckner? I have never heard of him.
-
His Lawyer can't actually do anything at the moment since no charges have been brought and no evidence has been provided. Which seems to be part of German Law.
This is perfectly logical which is so often missing in This Affair when it comes to Internet Posters, who still have the right to anonymity.
Anonymity is a bad one in my opinion, but please yourselves. I am not anonymous and never wanted to be. The choice was always mine.
Meanwhile Posters will go on Posting shite.
Just as matter of interest I have never suffered any fall out from being who I am.
All well and good but how do we know you are you say you are ?
-
Has he? Unless you know more about German Law than I think you do.
Has Breuckner been convicted yet?
I am not convinced of Brueckner's guilt and for all I know I might never be.
More to do with human rights law than German law actually. Germans do have to comply with it of course.
-
It's about whether a prosecutor breached a suspect's human rights.
And of course to what extent his human rights have been abused.. If at all. That would be a decision for the ECHR not a poster on this forum.
Do you really think that if Wolters has this evidence and it's proved he is guilty on overwhelming evidence.. That CB would make an application and what level of damages do you think he would receive.
You don't seem to realise what part the evidence plays.
-
His Lawyer can't actually do anything at the moment since no charges have been brought and no evidence has been provided. Which seems to be part of German Law.
This is perfectly logical which is so often missing in This Affair when it comes to Internet Posters, who still have the right to anonymity.
Anonymity is a bad one in my opinion, but please yourselves. I am not anonymous and never wanted to be. The choice was always mine.
Meanwhile Posters will go on Posting shite.
Just as matter of interest I have never suffered any fall out from being who I am.
But we’re being told that his himan rights are being abused NOW therefore if this is a fact then his lawyer should be working on his behalf to sue thr Germans for a breach of his client’s human rights. If it’s a question of money then I’m sure there are a couple hundred Amaral fans who would gladly chip in a tenner each to get the ball rolling. Maybe Amaral himself could donate all the proceeds of his new (ahem) bestseller to the cause too, after all he’s certain Bruckner is innocent isn’t he?
-
More to do with human rights law than German law actually. Germans do have to comply with it of course.
Really. Could you have a word with them and tell them to hurry up.
-
More to do with human rights law than German law actually. Germans do have to comply with it of course.
This is typical sceptic thinking.. CB is sp precious he doesn't have to do what others have to... Apply to the ECHR and wait 5 years to get his case heard.. He deserves action now.. Why is he so special to you and other sceptics
-
I thought you had to exhaust the domestic court system before applying to the EHCR
-
I thought you had to exhaust the domestic court system before applying to the EHCR
Of course you do... But gunit wants to do away with the domestic courts and tthe ECHR application ...do away with looking at the evidence and go straight to a verdict in CBs favour.. LOL
-
I thought you had to exhaust the domestic court system before applying to the EHCR
You are definitely right about that.
-
I thought you had to exhaust the domestic court system before applying to the EHCR
As I expect his lawyers will if they ever reach the court system.
-
As I expect his lawyers will if they ever reach the court system.
I think you are wrong and can't see it happening. If there is overwhelming evidence of CBs guilt... And he is found guilty..I don't see him making an application to the ECHR.
Could you explain what action the ECHR might take in the circumstances... I really don't think you have thought this through properly and dont understand what might happen
-
I think you are wrong and can't see it happening. If there is overwhelming evidence of CBs guilt... And he is found guilty..I don't see him making an application to the ECHR.
Could you explain what action the ECHR might take in the circumstances... I really don't think you have thought this through properly and dont understand what might happen
All the lawyer needs to do is what the McCann's lawyer did. Make sure that the issue is raised during the process.
-
Are we all cheering for The ECHR now? I do hope so. I do love an interminable wait.
-
All the lawyer needs to do is what the McCann's lawyer did. Make sure that the issue is raised during the process.
I will ask you again... If it went to the ECHR and he won... What do you think the ECHR would do.... As I've said... I don't think you've thought it through
-
Posters are again reminded to keep replies amicable and above all, relevant and constructive.
Mods will remove comments which are not conducive to healthy debate and where necessary apply sanctions for repeated rule breaches. Admin
-
I will ask you again... If it went to the ECHR and he won... What do you think the ECHR would do.... As I've said... I don't think you've thought it through
So the ECHR matters if the McCanns appeal to it but not if CB does? Your ambivalence is showing.
-
So the ECHR matters if the McCanns appeal to it but not if CB does? Your ambivalence is showing.
Ive explained why that is the case...your lack of knowledge is showing.
If the mcCanns are successful it will humiliate portugal and amaral...and they will have the opportunity to ask for the case to be reheard armed with a judgement by the ECHR whish wil show that the SC got it wrong.
Ive asked you several times but you CANT answer a simple question. ...so once more...
ive expalined what the McCanns could acheive...what could CB achieve...but you dont have an answer
-
Ive explained why that is the case...your lack of knowledge is showing.
If the mcCanns are successful it will humiliate portugal and amaral...and they will have the opportunity to ask for the case to be reheard armed with a judgement by the ECHR whish wil show that the SC got it wrong.
Ive asked you several times but you CANT answer a simple question. ...so once more...
ive expalined what the McCanns could acheive...what could CB achieve...but you dont have an answer
It's all ifs, isn't it? Here's another one; IF the Portuguese courts breached the McCann's human rights Portugal can do what most countries do; pay their costs and then forget it.
-
It's all ifs, isn't it? Here's another one; IF the Portuguese courts breached the McCann's human rights Portugal can do what most countries do; pay their costs and then forget it.
As can Germany, presumably. Although I don't think Breuckner has any Costs. But he stays Convicted?
-
It's all ifs, isn't it? Here's another one; IF the Portuguese courts breached the McCann's human rights Portugal can do what most countries do; pay their costs and then forget it.
You still can't answer the simple question Re CB and the. ECHR can you. As you know in the situation you described the McCanns could apply to have the SC judgement looked at again and possibly overturned.
All those saying the SC judgement cannot be overturned are wrong
-
You still can't answer the simple question Re CB and the. ECHR can you. As you know in the situation you described the McCanns could apply to have the SC judgement looked at again and possibly overturned.
All those saying the SC judgement cannot be overturned are wrong
Can the judgement of a German Court be overturned by The ECHR if Breuckner were to be convicted. Bearing in mind any Evidence?
-
Can the judgement of a German Court be overturned by The ECHR if Breuckner were to be convicted. Bearing in mind any Evidence?
No... And the Portuguese verfictt cannot be overturned by the ECHR.. Bit the McCanns could request Portugal to re-open the case. Could Portugal be seen to be abusing tthe HR of the McCanns and denying them justice
-
No... And the Portuguese verfictt cannot be overturned by the ECHR.. Bit the McCanns could request Portugal to re-open the case. Could Portugal be seen to be abusing tthe HR of the McCanns and denying them justice
So we could be waiting on a wing and a prayer.
Not that I mind all that much. It doesn't appear to be possible for Portugal to enforce their verdict when it comes to costs and compensation.
And of course Amaral will be looking very silly. If not totally discredited.
-
You still can't answer the simple question Re CB and the. ECHR can you. As you know in the situation you described the McCanns could apply to have the SC judgement looked at again and possibly overturned.
All those saying the SC judgement cannot be overturned are wrong
"can" doesn't equal "will". The decision would be for Portugal to decide.