Only Brueckner will know what lies have been printed.An unfounded allegation can be construed as libel.
An unfounded allegation can be construed as libel.
so what unfounded allegations have been made against himIt will be interesting to see how he could prove they are unfounded. The more he speaks about the case the more chance of the lies being exposed, if they exist in the first place.
Only Brueckner will know what lies have been printed.And yet so many people on this forum seem certain he has a strong case to sue the world’s media for libel. How do they know what’s lies then?
It will be interesting to see how he could prove they are unfounded. The more he speaks about the case the more chance of the lies being exposed, if they exist in the first place.He wouldn’t have to prove anything, but he would have to employ some very expensive lawyers first.
so what unfounded allegations have been made against himWell that remains to be seen. Most rag press are a little more cautious these days, but there's still a few that will see a £300 - 400k libel award as a loss leader.
Well that remains to be seen. Most rag press are a little more cautious these days, but there's still a few that will see a £300 - 400k libel award as a loss leader.So you’ve no idea what or even if any of the allegations are unfounded yet you seem pretty certain he has a strong case to sue for libel. How very odd.
The parents sued for defamation due to allegations made about them that were never substantiated. I find it strange that certain individuals would deny Brueckner the same right to justice.Indeed and, despite the title of this thread, the allegations don't necessarily have to be lies.
Indeed and, despite the title of this thread, the allegations don't necessarily have to be lies.Are you suggesting that the British media can print the truth about a convicted paedophile and rapist from Germany and still be sued for defamation.? Well, this I would love to see...
The parents sued for defamation due to allegations made about them that were never substantiated. I find it strange that certain individuals would deny Brueckner the same right to justice.what total and absolute BS....Breukner has every right to justice ...and I certainly hope he gets it....and so does Madeleine
what total and absolute BS....Breukner has every right to justice ...and I certainly hope he gets it....and so does Madeleine
Then you are okay with Brueckner receiving huge wads of cash for the unsubstantiated allegations made about him in the press. Glad to hear it.
Then you are okay with Brueckner receiving huge wads of cash for the unsubstantiated allegations made about him in the press. Glad to hear it.
what unsutabntiated allegations...I think you need to take a reality check... then you need to understand the law in each country...
In what universe would the state actually pay to help B fight such a corner? We can't even fight the Coronavirus (as you quire correctly point out) so how and when would we rush to the defence of one of the most serious criminals in Europe jsut to prove a point (whatever that point would be) ?
I think you’re out of your depth.
In what universe would the state actually pay to help B fight such a corner? We can't even fight the Coronavirus (as you quire correctly point out) so how and when would we rush to the defence of one of the most serious criminals in Europe jsut to prove a point (whatever that point would be) ?
do you ...I dont think you have a clue ...all three investigatins agree with me,
The state ? Any libel lawyer would do it on a no win, no fee basis.
Well good luck with that.
Unlike two professional and well respected doctors, CB does not have a good name to be harmed by dint of the fact that he is a burglar a paedophile and a rapist with 17 convictions under his belt.
Unlike two professional and well respected doctors, CB does not have a good name to be harmed by dint of the fact that he is a burglar a paedophile and a rapist with 17 convictions under his belt.
He wouldn’t have to prove anything, but he would have to employ some very expensive lawyers first.Seems I was wrong if the article I quoted above is right. Bruckner would have to prove that allegations made by the media had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his (already in tatters) reputation. Only a lawyer not in full command of his faculties would take on this case in a no win no fee basis imo.
Seems I was wrong if the article I quoted above is right. Bruckner would have to prove that allegations made by the media had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his (already in tatters) reputation. Only a lawyer not in full command of his faculties would take on this case in a no win no fee basis imo.
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.It’s been suggested for years that Ghislaine Maxwell was Epstein’s pimp and fellow paedo but I don’t remember her sueing, and she’s loaded.
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.If this is true by the way then you as a moderator of this forum better start deleting all the threads which repeat all the so-called libels that have appeared in press articles about Brückner’s that have been copied here. Are you going to do so as this forum’s owner does not tolerate libellous allegations.
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.
I don't see CB has any case to sue anyone for libel....particularly with the defence of honest opinion.Apparently any article that puts his name together with that of Madeleine McCann or any missing child is libellous so the man is going to be spoilt for choice about who to sue, including this forum for repeating the libels. John must be quaking in his boots and I wouldn’t be surprised if the forum is shut down by the end of the day for a major clean up operation. I doubt we’ll even be allowed to refer to CB by name going forward. Job done, the libel scaremongers have won, let’s shut down the debate and get back to libelling the parents instead..
Could those who think otherwise cite a staement that they consider libellous...I think they will struggle
Supreme Court clarifies 'serious harm' in defamation law
OUT-LAW NEWS | 17 Jun 2019 | 11:22 am | 2 min. read
Share via email
Share on social
A statement will not be defamatory unless the claimant proves that it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation, the UK's highest court has confirmed.
The Supreme Court's unanimous judgment will be widely welcomed by media publishers, although the publishers in this case lost their appeal on the facts, according to defamation law expert Alex Keenlyside of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com. This is because the issue which the Court was addressing - the correct approach to the 'serious harm' threshold in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 - was decided in a way that will make it harder for claimants to bring successful libel claims, he said.
Under the Defamation Act 2013, claimants must demonstrate that the publication of a statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation in order to bring a claim for defamation against the publisher of the statement. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have considered what constitutes 'serious harm' since the Act came into force, but this is the first time the issue hasreached the Supreme Court.
The case concerns articles published by the Independent, the 'i', the Huffington Post and the London Evening Standard, which reported allegations of domestic violence and kidnap made against aerospace engineer Bruno Lachaux by his ex-wife. In July 2015, the High Court found that the allegations made would cause serious harm to Lachaux's reputation.
The publishers appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. In September 2017, the Court of Appeal held that while the High Court judge had reached the correct outcome on the preliminary issue, it disagreed on various aspects of his approach to the interpretation of the serious harm test under the Act.
High Court judge Mr Justice Warby had ruled that the Act requires a claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement has in fact caused serious harm to their reputation, or probably will do so. According to the judge, parliament’s intention was that the court should consider not just the meaning of the statement but all the relevant circumstances, including what harm had actually occurred.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the judge's approach, concluding that by introducing section 1, parliament had merely “given statutory status to the decision in Thornton [the 2011 case which established a substantial harm test] whilst at the same time raising the threshold from one of substantiality to one of seriousness”, and that this was “both the extent of and limit to the change in the law”.
The Supreme Court once again dismissed the publishers' appeal on the facts. However, it also overturned the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the Act, preferring the approach adopted by the High Court judge. The Supreme Court found that section 1 of the Act “raises the threshold of seriousness”above that envisaged in the case law prior to the Act, and“requires its application to be determined by reference to the actual facts about [the statement in question’s] impact and not just to the meaning of the words”.
"The Court of Appeal’s strained interpretation of the serious harm test can now be put to one side in favour of a more logical and literal reading of the statute," said Alex Keenlyside of Pinsent Masons.
"What’s less clear at the moment is what this decision will mean for case management. An important driver for the introduction of the 'serious harm' requirement was to eliminate those cases at the more trivial end of the spectrum in which substantial amounts of court time and legal costs could still be generated. The challenge for judges now is to find a way of managing cases efficiently such that in appropriate cases the 'serious harm' point can be tested at an early stage in proceedings, rather than at trial when all of that time and cost has been incurred,” he said.
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/supreme-court-clarifies-serious-harm-in-defamation-law
This is why I have often said nothing posted here would pass the libel test of serious harm. The audience is simply too small.Best not to risk it though, I suggest John insists that all discussion re: CB cease with immediate effect, the guy is soon to go on a sueing rampage according to those who have his best interests at heart.
It is par for the course that when an individual with a profile matching Brueckners are discovered to be walking among us that the police of every county and every country to which he had access share information and take a very close look at murders and disappearances fitting his modus operandi.
For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Black_(serial_killer)#:~:text=Black%20may%20also%20have%20been,investigations%20of%20the%2020th%20century.
It is standard procedure in most civilised countries ... and the press generally report what is going on unless perhaps the investigation is taking place in a police state.
I think it is known as 'the freedom of the press'.
It is disturbing for me to witness the defenders of this awful man leaping to his defence apparently because he has been associated with Madeleine McCann.
By law he ~ in very stark contrast to what has been suffered by Madeleine's parents for thirteen years ~ is entitled to the presumption of innocence by the same people who heap opprobrium and libels to deny the McCanns their rights under law ... very strange behaviour indeed.
But there you are then ... I think there is a strong case to be made for double standards in operation here. Sadly though, there are those who cannot recognise that.
I't's been suggested that the media have lied about CB. If so, he has as much right to sue as anyone else.He has the right to sue but I haven't seen any lies...have you. In the Barry George case there were clear lies
He has the right to sue but I haven't seen any lies...have you. In the Barry George case there were clear liesThey don't need to be proven lies.
He has the right to sue but I haven't seen any lies...have you. In the Barry George case there were clear lies
The headline for the article was ‘I didn’t kill Jill Dando… I was stalking someone else at the time’. The defendant accepts that Mr George never made that statement.”
They don't need to be proven lies.
And you're thinking too narrow; what about the rest rest of the world, Australia, New Zealand, Eritrea?
I't's been suggested that the media have lied about CB. If so, he has as much right to sue as anyone else.How does anyone know what lies have been told about CB to make that claim?
if GA wanted too he could sue posters on this forum im not pro amaral but people have said horrible things about him on here
I don't know if the media have printed lies or not, but he will.
The Sun and the News of the World admitted making false accusations about Barry George.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415772.stm
I don't know if the media have printed lies or not, but he will.
The Sun and the News of the World admitted making false accusations about Barry George.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415772.stm
if GA wanted too he could sue posters on this forum im not pro amaral but people have said horrible things about him on here
if GA wanted too he could sue posters on this forum im not pro amaral but people have said horrible things about him on here
I don't know if the media have printed lies or not, but he will.According to The General the media don’t even need to have printed lies about CB, just merely mentioning that he might have dunnit it is enough for him to be able to sue the world’s media and rake in the cash.
The Sun and the News of the World admitted making false accusations about Barry George.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415772.stm
According to the All Knowing All Seeing The General the media don’t even need to have printed lies about CB, just merely mentioning that he might have dunnit it is enough for him to be able to sue the world’s media and rake in the cash.
The thread title mentions lies, so who said the media told lies?
We have multiple posters claiming he will suemmmhe can only due if lies are told
That makes no sense to me, sorry.Have another look
Have another look
Who are they? What did they say?
They said CB will sue...and get lots and lots of money...faith and the general as I recallYou have misrepresented what I stated Dav.
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.
You have misrepresented what I stated Dav.
I never mentioned 'lies', in fact I specifically stated that 'lies' are not required.
I would be grateful if you could.......djsgjcnsmf jkdskmx jffnn,,,,,
Read my post again I haven't mentioned lies
We have multiple posters claiming he will sue..he can only due if lies are told
You mean this:
I mean, it does sort of say......lies.....
I never said you mentioned lies..if you do not desist I may be forced to sueThe post below was in direct reference to Reply #62.
They said CB will sue...and get lots and lots of money...faith and the general as I recall...did you not see the posts
They said CB will sue...and get lots and lots of money...faith and the general as I recall...did you not see the posts
Did they say the media lied about him? Could you point out the appropriate posts?
You have misrepresented what I stated Dav.
I never mentioned 'lies', in fact I specifically stated that 'lies' are not required.
I would be grateful if you could.......djsgjcnsmf jkdskmx jffnn,,,,,
Then you are okay with Brueckner receiving huge wads of cash for the unsubstantiated allegations made about him in the press. Glad to hear it.What unsubstantiated allegations
Libel requires an untrue statement....a lieA defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth.
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth.
Libel requires an untrue statement....a lie
Not in Portugal it seemsWho knows. Most of the Commonwealth and the US use the English system as the basis.
The definition of libel is a written and published false statement about someone that damages their reputation.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/libel
A false statement need not be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement#In_law
Who knows. Most of the Commonwealth and the US use the English system as the basis.
They may have a different basis in Finland or elsewhere.
Don't you remember the SC telling us the McCanns hadn't been cleared...so Amaral could say what he liked
The SC told us the McCanns hadn't been cleared.....so their lawyer couldn't say they had.
The point Im making in portugal the defendant does not have to prove what he is saying is true...CB is also making no attempt to prove his innocenceIn fairness, he doesn't need to, as you know.
The SC told us the McCanns hadn't been cleared.....so their lawyer couldn't say they had.
Jesus Christ preserve me. Thirteen years of accusing The McCanns without a scrap of evidence.
There is something seriously wrong going on in the heads of some people. But God forbid that The McCanns could be innocent while some ghastly, convicted paedophile and rapist is now being defended.
You all get stuck in there while I stagger on in horror.
So discussing libel on this thread is off topic...thanks for clarifying
What is the matter with you? Why do you do this?
The point Im making in portugal the defendant does not have to prove what he is saying is true...CB is also making no attempt to prove his innocence
I think you'll find the burden of proof is on the appellant in most jurisdictions;
Plaintiffs in civil cases typically have the burden of proving their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-502-6326?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
I think you'll find the burden of proof is on the appellant in most jurisdictions;
Plaintiffs in civil cases typically have the burden of proving their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-502-6326?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
How can a mod moderate on libel when they dont understand the lawI think the primary purpose of the mods is to keep order, not to 'moderate' on the nuances of topics.
The thread title mentions lies, so who said the media told lies?If there are no lies then what is it the lovely Bruckner can sue the media for? Whatever it is, why haven’t you deleted all mention of the man from this forum, as we have it in good authority from forum members that he is poised to sue anyone who defames him, and as he has been defamed on here by dint of the fact that media articles about him have been copied here that would technically include this forum. NO LIBEL IS PERMITTED ON THIS FORUM so as a moderator sort it out pleae.
I think the primary purpose of the mods is to keep order, not to 'moderate' on the nuances of topics.
And they're doing a ruddy good job too.
i've had several posts removed as libellous...If a mod doesnt understand libel law it creates a problemMe too. It seems it’s only libel if the prople being libelled don’t have names beginning with Mc.
i've had several posts removed as libellous...If a mod doesnt understand libel law it creates a problem...or potentially libellous. It's only libel if you get sued successfully. Only The Beak can determine that.
...or potentially libellous. It's only libel if you get sued successfully. Only The Beak can determine that.
Yet you've already decided CB can sue and will receive a fortune...the BS detector is smokingIt still needs someone to decide.
It still needs someone to decide.
And if I'm wrong, I often am, I really won't care. I may raise an eyebrow, or perhaps shrug a shoulder.
I may post a brief missive in the Gazette congratulating you on your legal acumen.
"My Dearest Dave L,
I trust this message finds you well; it should, it would seem our little wager played out with Lady Luck on your side - or perhaps I'm doing you a disservice.
May I take this opportunity to extend my sincerest congratulations on a solitary instance of interpreting English Law in the correct manner on an obscure forum on the internet. Never let it be said that your knowledge of this seemingly irrelevant and very specific legal point is found wanting in any way, although there is only one way in which it could be found wanting, but it wasn't.
If this infernal virus would permit it, I would get my man to drive me the 70 miles down the M6 to shake you vigorously by theneckhand.
Yours, The General.
If you explain to a fool he is wrong he will be angry with you...Thank you.
If you explain to a wise man he is wrong he will thank you.
If there are no lies then what is it the lovely Bruckner can sue the media for? Whatever it is, why haven’t you deleted all mention of the man from this forum, as we have it in good authority from forum members that he is poised to sue anyone who defames him, and as he has been defamed on here by dint of the fact that media articles about him have been copied here that would technically include this forum. NO LIBEL IS PERMITTED ON THIS FORUM so as a moderator sort it out pleae.
It's you who said there were lies, so where are they?
Thank you.It is also noted who has recently became angry.
Nothing much to be done about you. But then on one cares.
Carry on being irrelevant.
Did he? I haven't seen that.
Think you meant irreverent.
It's you who said there were lies, so where are they?Did you not read my post? If there are no lies (quite possible imo) then what is he going to sue the media for and why are you continuing to allow this material to appear on this forum? Sort it out, FGS before John loses the farm!
Did you not read my post? If there are no lies (quite possible imo) then what is he going to sue the media for and why are you continuing to allow this material to appear on this forum? Sort it out, FGS before John loses the farm!
My definition of libel says it's making false statements. My definition of false statements says they're not necessarily lies. You seem to believe they must be. Please explain.You’re post makes little sense to me and you seem very keen to deflect from my question with another question. When are you going to remove all the media articles on here making “false statements that aren’t necessarily lies” about CB, the ones he is planning to sue them over?
Look at the first post of the thread.I have amended the opening thread to satisfy your own definition of what false statements means, now answer the question.
You’re post makes little sense to me and you seem very keen to deflect from my question with another question. When are you going to remove all the media articles on here making “false statements that aren’t necessarily lies” about CB, the ones he is planning to sue them over?
I have amended the opening thread to satisfy your own definition of what false statements means, now answer the question.
You're asking me on what grounds Brueckner would sue? Why would I know?
Have you said that there might be?
No.
Good. I have seen no such Libel committed on this Forum, or anywhere else for that matter.
That's Ok then. Goodnight Eleanor x
No.Better to be safe than sorry surely? According to the General and Faithlilly CB is going to get rich sueing the world’s media - as they are both highly knowledgeable experts (both about libel law and all the false statements told about CB) isn’t it time you took your job seriously and protected this forum from legal action?
Have you said that there might be?Actually she has, despite her assertion otherwise. G-Unit wrote
Actually she has, despite her assertion otherwise. G-Unit wrote
“Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann”.
So, has it been suggested on here that CB abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann?
G-Unit is now claiming not, but I think she’s quite mistaken and that it has been suggested. As she claims we can’t do that then it is surely down to her and other moderators to remove all such suggestions. Will she do so? I think she has no choice now, or look more than a little confused.
I think gunit may be wrong again. I don't think George won damages for being accused of the Dando murder...I think it was the the newspapers false claim that he said he couldn't have committed the murder because he was stalking someone else.So in fact the media claimed the complete opposite of what G-Unit claimed they had said. I thought so. But, still beside the point which is she clearly believes that it cannot be suggested that Cb was involved in Madeleine’s disappearance and yet the forum is rife with such suggestions, so I want her to explain what she is going to do about it.
So in fact the media claimed the complete opposite of what G-Unit claimed they had said. I thought so. But, still beside the point which is she clearly believes that it cannot be suggested that Cb was involved in Madeleine’s disappearance and yet the forum is rife with such suggestions, so I want her to explain what she is going to do about it.
I think gunit may be wrong again. I don't think George won damages for being accused of the Dando murder...I think it was the the newspapers false claim that he said he couldn't have committed the murder because he was stalking someone else.Snip
Snip
He was convicted of murder, but the forensic evidence was later discounted and his conviction was subsequently judged unsafe by the Court of Appeal, and was quashed in 2007. After a retrial,[2][3] he was acquitted on 1 August 2008.[4] His claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment have been dismissed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_George
Actually she has, despite her assertion otherwise. G-Unit wrote
“Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann”.
So, has it been suggested on here that CB abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann?
G-Unit is now claiming not, but I think she’s quite mistaken and that it has been suggested. As she claims we can’t do that then it is surely down to her and other moderators to remove all such suggestions. Will she do so? I think she has no choice now, or look more than a little confused.
I think gunit is wrong yet again. I dont think its libellous to say CB may be involved in maddie's disappearnce as the satement is true and not false and based on solid evidence.
Then you are okay with Brueckner receiving huge wads of cash for the unsubstantiated allegations made about him in the press. Glad to hear it.
I think gunit is wrong yet again. I dont think its libellous to say CB may be involved in maddie's disappearnce as the satement is true and not false and based on solid evidence.
MAY BE, are the words that make it not libellous. He is a suspect. Unlike the words Amaral used with the McCann's he said the DNA and dog alerts proved Madeleine died in 5a.
Absolutely yet those who support amarals right to defame the McCanns are supportive of a convicted paedophile/rapist
Absolutely yet those who support amarals right to defame the McCanns are supportive of a convicted paedophile/rapist
Wrong I have no interest what so ever in CB or what happens to him..apart from believing he is not involved.
Now, on the other hand, it is my opinion that the mccs were involved...the case was shelved and they were not cleared of any involvement.
Now why do you think that is.... if they were totally innocent.
I think they are totally innocent..there is no mechanism to clear suspects...Ben Needham's family haven't been cleared...they're innocent too
Im expalining that saying the McCanns havent been cleared is silly....no suspects are cleared...there s no mechanism to clear people. Even Barry George who has had two trials hasnt been cleared.Wasn't it "perfect scapegoat"?
Breukner certainly hasnt been cleared.
Im interested in CB because hes the perfect suspect...according to amaral
I don't support him being an ex-paedophile & rapist.
I just support his right to the presumption of innocence where Maddies murder is concerned.
Im expalining that saying the McCanns havent been cleared is silly....no suspects are cleared...there s no mechanism to clear people. Even Barry George who has had two trials hasnt been cleared.
Breukner certainly hasnt been cleared.
Im interested in CB because hes the perfect suspect...according to amaral
Their lawyer didn't see it as silly when she claimed the McCanns had been cleared; she seemed to think it was a very important point.
Im expalining that saying the McCanns havent been cleared is silly....no suspects are cleared...there s no mechanism to clear people. Even Barry George who has had two trials hasnt been cleared.
Breukner certainly hasnt been cleared.
Im interested in CB because hes the perfect suspect...according to amaral
the phrase ha sno precise legal meaning.....imply that not being cleared implies some doubt re innocence is afallacy imo...becasue ther eis no legal mechanism to clear someone.As i said...barry george has been tried twice but not regarded as innocent...the McCanns were not even arrested
What ever you interpritate to mean IYO... IMO doesn't matter.
They wasn't cleared ...and that is a fact.
What ever you interpritate to mean IYO... IMO doesn't matter.
They wasn't cleared ...and that is a fact.
What about Robert Murat? What do you think he wasn't cleared of?
Any way the topic is Brueckner ... maybe about time to hang up the McCann obsession for a time and see if it is worthwhile starting a new one with him at its centre much as it should be on this particular thread.
It seems the latest hope on here is that CB will successfully sue the world’s media for libel. It’s nice the guy has so many people on here rooting for him but what false statements that aren’t necessarily lies* exactly will he be able to sue for? Let’s start a list....
*Post amended to satisfy G-Unit’s very own definition of “false statements “ meaning not necessarily lies, exactly.
IMO - If he's not charged in connection with Madeleine's abduction/murder then CB will have grounds to sue the media. Despite his prior criminal activities, his personal life has been publicly invaded & scrutinised to such an extent that his name & face will be associated with "the murder of Madeleine McCann" for the foreseeable future.
See case A. v Norway 28070/06.
Let's hope German police obtain the necessary evidence to nail CB & his co-conspirators.
IMO - If he's not charged in connection with Madeleine's abduction/murder then CB will have grounds to sue the media. Despite his prior criminal activities, his personal life has been publicly invaded & scrutinised to such an extent that his name & face will be associated with "the murder of Madeleine McCann" for the foreseeable future.
See case A. v Norway 28070/06.
Let's hope German police obtain the necessary evidence to nail CB & his co-conspirators.
Worth a try if he feels that way inclined, I'm sure he won't have a problem in people raising money for him to live on while his (pro bono) legal team are knocking them down one after another.
What a laugh if the first to fall was Amaral.
However I am more interested in your thinking that he may have had co-conspirators. Just from what I know of the files and subsequent events I think there are grounds for suspecting that Madeleine's abductor was not acting alone.
It will certainly be interesting to watch how the case against Brueckner progresses; like you I wish the German police well with their investigation.
Im expalining that saying the McCanns havent been cleared is silly....no suspects are cleared...there s no mechanism to clear people. Even Barry George who has had two trials hasnt been cleared.
Breukner certainly hasnt been cleared.
Im interested in CB because hes the perfect suspect...according to amaral
Thats worth a look. Would it depend on the strength of the German evidence....It does tend to confirm they must have some concrete evidence against him. thren....what does that say about the MCCanns case at the ECHR
Wrong I have no interest what so ever in CB or what happens to him..apart from believing he is not involved.
Now, on the other hand, it is my opinion that the mccs were involved...the case was shelved and they were not cleared of any involvement.
Now why do you think that is.... if they were totally innocent.
I imagine that if the Germans failed to charge CB & he embarked on a defamation claim against various media outlets he'd have less financial support than Malinka when the latter wanted to publish a book. CB's actions would cause no harm to (or even involve) the McCanns, which is the main incentive for those who contributed to Amaral's "defence" fund.
IMO the reason for German police not sharing the concrete evidence they have with SY or PJ is because such evidence shows others who were present just prior to or at the time the alleged murder was committed.
Actually that isn't true. On many occasions we have read that police investigations have cleared some suspect or other which is another way of saying that said suspect is no longer of interest to the investigation. Once any enquiry goes beyond the police however into the domain of the prosecutor and thence to the courts then that is a different matter. All that said however, I have always found it worthy of note that the Supreme Court in Portugal in it's wisdom found it necessary to dispute the claim that the McCanns had been cleared of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
The SC only mentioned the subject because the McCann's lawyer raised it.
Worth a try if he feels that way inclined, I'm sure he won't have a problem in people raising money for him to live on while his (pro bono) legal team are knocking them down one after another.
What a laugh if the first to fall was Amaral.
However I am more interested in your thinking that he may have had co-conspirators. Just from what I know of the files and subsequent events I think there are grounds for suspecting that Madeleine's abductor was not acting alone.
It will certainly be interesting to watch how the case against Brueckner progresses; like you I wish the German police well with their investigation.
I think they are totally innocent..there is no mechanism to clear suspects...Ben Needham's family haven't been cleared...they're innocent too
Worth a try if he feels that way inclined, I'm sure he won't have a problem in people raising money for him to live on while his (pro bono) legal team are knocking them down one after another.
What a laugh if the first to fall was Amaral.
However I am more interested in your thinking that he may have had co-conspirators. Just from what I know of the files and subsequent events I think there are grounds for suspecting that Madeleine's abductor was not acting alone.
It will certainly be interesting to watch how the case against Brueckner progresses; like you I wish the German police well with their investigation.
To be fair, there was a lot of evidence which pointed to the McCanns involvement which wasn't the case in the Ben Needham investigation.I don't accept that at all...you will be saying dogs don't lie next.A leading McCann critic actually thinks the family were involved and they were initially suspects...the fact is they haven't been cleared...can you name any suspect anywhere ..ever who has been officially cleared
Worth a try if he feels that way inclined, I'm sure he won't have a problem in people raising money for him to live on while his (pro bono) legal team are knocking them down one after another.
What a laugh if the first to fall was Amaral.
However I am more interested in your thinking that he may have had co-conspirators. Just from what I know of the files and subsequent events I think there are grounds for suspecting that Madeleine's abductor was not acting alone.
It will certainly be interesting to watch how the case against Brueckner progresses; like you I wish the German police well with their investigation.
I don't accept that at all...you will be saying dogs don't lie next.A leading McCann critic actually thinks the family were involved and they were initially suspects...the fact is they haven't been cleared...can you name any suspect anywhere ..ever who has been officially cleared
A little reminder Brietta. There is nothing to connect Brueckner with Madeleine and there is no evidence Madeleine was even abducted so please bear this in mind.
Murder is such an emotive word,the CPS brought murder charges against 3 lads for the killing of PC Harper,the jury found them not guilty of such but guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, takes some convincing that murder was actually committed and by who.
I don't accept that at all...you will be saying dogs don't lie next. A leading McCann critic actually thinks the family were involved and they were initially suspects...the fact is they haven't been cleared...can you name any suspect anywhere ..ever who has been officially cleared
Stefan Kitszko.
A phone call... statements from friends and we don't know what the Germans.....would they have gone do public on nothing. They claim to have concrete evidence...they have sent 100 officers to search....would they do that on a phone call and friends statements
A phone call... statements from friends and we don't know what the Germans.....would they have gone do public on nothing. They claim to have concrete evidence...they have sent 100 officers to search....would they do that on a phone call and friends statements
That's one ..do you have a cite for that
It still needs someone to decide.
And if I'm wrong, I often am, I really won't care. I may raise an eyebrow, or perhaps shrug a shoulder.
I may post a brief missive in the Gazette congratulating you on your legal acumen.
"My Dearest Dave L,
I trust this message finds you well; it should, it would seem our little wager played out with Lady Luck on your side - or perhaps I'm doing you a disservice.
May I take this opportunity to extend my sincerest congratulations on a solitary instance of interpreting English Law in the correct manner on an obscure forum on the internet. Never let it be said that your knowledge of this seemingly irrelevant and very specific legal point is found wanting in any way, although there is only one way in which it could be found wanting, but it wasn't.
If this infernal virus would permit it, I would get my man to drive me the 70 miles down the M6 to shake you vigorously by theneckhand.
Yours, The General.
Hypothetically - there may be audible evidence that the suspect was told to shoot Madeleine & the suspect can be seen shooting her. Other people may or may not have been present at the time that occurred.
Indeed,but hypothetically she could have been accidentally smothered to death in the process of an alleged abduction,manslaughter or murder, she could have been knocked down by a car, murder or manslaughter especially if said driver was impaired by alcohol or drugs. Its far from cut and dried imo.
Yes because they are on the spot now after making these ridiculous claims. Any professional reputable police force would have shared their findings with the child's parents before making public such claims and that never happened for one very good reason and that is that they have embellished their findings...they haven't got anything.
However, the evidence does point to her having walked out of the apartment on her own, something which supporters have failed to acknowledge for obvious reasons.
Whether you do or not is irrelevant. The entire case is riddled with inconsistencies and very much open to interpretation even now.
I don't think the evidence does point to woke and wandered...the archiving report from the PJ certainly didn't think so
Inconsistencies because of the way the statements were taken...imo. Parents not suspects and no evidence against them according to the last declaration from the PJ
So believing the PJ again
I don't think the evidence does point to woke and wandered...the archiving report from the PJ certainly didn't think so
They said improbable, not impossible.
A little reminder Brietta. There is nothing to connect Brueckner with Madeleine and there is no evidence Madeleine was even abducted so please bear this in mind.
As for Amaral, it is without doubt that he was made a scapegoat, whether he is right or not is still to be determined.
In my opinion Amaral was the architect of his of fall from grace which resulted in his sacking from Madeleine's case; not helped by his later criminal conviction for perjury.
I have no idea if Brueckner was involved in Madeleine's disappearance or not; however I think it is appropriate to watch with interest the efforts of German police whose prime suspect he is, checking out his alleged involvement.
I don't think they dug up his former allotment for nothing.
Another, Christian Brueckner.
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner cleared of rape and murder of girl, 11
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22463839
A little reminder Brietta. There is nothing to connect Brueckner with Madeleine and there is no evidence Madeleine was even abducted so please bear this in mind.
As for Amaral, it is without doubt that he was made a scapegoat, whether he is right or not is still to be determined.
To be fair, there was a lot of evidence which pointed to the McCanns involvement which wasn't the case in the Ben Needham investigation.
What about the confession Brueckner made to his 'friend' about Madeleine? Not just heard by the 'friend' but by others who were there at the time.
How was Amaral made a scapegoat? No one made him write his book.
The Police accused Ben's uncle, they said he had an accident whilst riding his motor bike with Ben, that Ben died and he buried him.
However, the evidence does point to her having walked out of the apartment on her own, something which supporters have failed to acknowledge for obvious reasons.
I suggest you find all these posts which you think are libellous and report them to the moderators.It’s not me that thinks they’re libellous. It’s you who appear to have turned a blind eye to posts suggesting CB was involved in Madeleine’s disappearance l something you claimed yesterday we were not allowed to do.
I don't support him being an ex-paedophile & rapist.Do you support thr McCanns right to the presumption of innocence too?
I just support his right to the presumption of innocence where Maddies murder is concerned.
To be fair, there was a lot of evidence which pointed to the McCanns involvement which wasn't the case in the Ben Needham investigation.There certainly was not a lot of evidence that the McCanns were involved as evidenced by the Final Report which stated there was a lack of evidence of their involvement.
Do you support thr McCanns right to the presumption of innocence too?
It’s not me that thinks they’re libellous. It’s you who appear to have turned a blind eye to posts suggesting CB was involved in Madeleine’s disappearance l something you claimed yesterday we were not allowed to do.
No.Thanks for confirming your blatant double standards and hypocrisy.
How, when and why I moderate is my business, not yours. Any more posts on the same lines as the above will be moderated as goading.I’m just trying to keep the forum out of trouble, so sue me.
Thanks for confirming your blatant double standards and hypocrisy.OK it was me who deleted your previous post because it was "too personal" toward Wonderfulspan. I'm not that sure that "Thanks for confirming your blatant double standards and hypocrisy" is that much better.
Well I never!I believe the lawyers are beng paid for by Wonderfulspam- he did tell us he planned to raise money to support Bruckner.
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner using British lawyers for defence case
EXCLUSIVE: It remains unclear who is paying the fees to retain 43-year-old Christian Brueckner's team of British lawyers as he has no source of income
Christian Brueckner, 43, has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him
The prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case has employed a team of British lawyers to help his case, it has been revealed.
Christian Brueckner, 43, has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him as he tries to prove his innocence.
His German lawyer Friedrich Fuelscher said: “I can confirm we are using UK lawyers.”
But it remains unclear who is paying the lawyers’ fees.
Penniless Brueckner is currently doing time in a German jail and has no source of income.
When asked who was funding Brueckner’s representation, Mr Fuelscher replied: “I’m afraid I cannot answer that question.”
However, he said one of the lawyers’ roles was “looking at the media coverage surrounding him”.
It is possible the fees will be funded under the German legal aid system, which would mean the German taxpayers would be footing the bill.
Fuelscher has gone on record complaining about the “lack of objectivity” in some of the press reporting in Germany and the UK.
It is understood the legal firm combs all British news websites and reads every national newspaper each day to check coverage...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22732762
Well I never!
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner using British lawyers for defence case
EXCLUSIVE: It remains unclear who is paying the fees to retain 43-year-old Christian Brueckner's team of British lawyers as he has no source of income
Christian Brueckner, 43, has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him
The prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case has employed a team of British lawyers to help his case, it has been revealed.
Christian Brueckner, 43, has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him as he tries to prove his innocence.
His German lawyer Friedrich Fuelscher said: “I can confirm we are using UK lawyers.”
But it remains unclear who is paying the lawyers’ fees.
Penniless Brueckner is currently doing time in a German jail and has no source of income.
When asked who was funding Brueckner’s representation, Mr Fuelscher replied: “I’m afraid I cannot answer that question.”
However, he said one of the lawyers’ roles was “looking at the media coverage surrounding him”.
It is possible the fees will be funded under the German legal aid system, which would mean the German taxpayers would be footing the bill.
Fuelscher has gone on record complaining about the “lack of objectivity” in some of the press reporting in Germany and the UK.
It is understood the legal firm combs all British news websites and reads every national newspaper each day to check coverage...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22732762
Well I never!A certain legal firm working pro bono maybe.
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner using British lawyers for defence case
EXCLUSIVE: It remains unclear who is paying the fees to retain 43-year-old Christian Brueckner's team of British lawyers as he has no source of income
Christian Brueckner, 43, has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him
The prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case has employed a team of British lawyers to help his case, it has been revealed.
Christian Brueckner, 43, has instructed a UK legal firm to assist him as he tries to prove his innocence.
His German lawyer Friedrich Fuelscher said: “I can confirm we are using UK lawyers.”
But it remains unclear who is paying the lawyers’ fees.
Penniless Brueckner is currently doing time in a German jail and has no source of income.
When asked who was funding Brueckner’s representation, Mr Fuelscher replied: “I’m afraid I cannot answer that question.”
However, he said one of the lawyers’ roles was “looking at the media coverage surrounding him”.
It is possible the fees will be funded under the German legal aid system, which would mean the German taxpayers would be footing the bill.
Fuelscher has gone on record complaining about the “lack of objectivity” in some of the press reporting in Germany and the UK.
It is understood the legal firm combs all British news websites and reads every national newspaper each day to check coverage...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-22732762
A certain legal firm working pro bono maybe.
It sounds like they are gathering evidence of defamation rather than preparing a criminal defence, doesn't it?
It sounds like more rubbish from Fulscher to me... Along with his fall off the chair evidence after his meeting with amaral. If you want to believe everything you read in the paper that's up to you
It sounds like they are gathering evidence of defamation rather than preparing a criminal defence, doesn't it?It’s time for you as a moderator to get this forum in order and delete all the threads about Bruckener then. We don’t want John getting sued now do we?
When did HCW last give any direct statement?
It sounds like more rubbish from Fulscher to me... Along with his fall off the chair evidence after his meeting with amaral. If you want to believe everything you read in the paper that's up to youIt sounds like more rubbish from HCW to me. Along with his 'concrete' evidence after his meeting with nobody. If you want to believe everything you read online that's up to you.
It’s time for you as a moderator to get this forum in order and delete all the threads about Bruckener then. We don’t want John getting sued now do we?The forum discusses both sides.
It sounds like more rubbish from HCW to me. Along with his 'concrete' evidence after his meeting with nobody. If you want to believe everything you read online that's up to you.
I think it's just bluster from Fulscher..We'll see, Kimosabi. Might be a sue-fest, might not, who cares? He might get shivved in the jug, with any luck, put all this to bed (except it will give every supporter a convenient out).
I dont think the thread has discovered anything defamatory... And what about the media in Australia.. Portugal and Germany
The forum discusses both sides.We’re not allowed to discuss McCanns involvement so why are we allowed to discuss Brückner’s? Let’s have some even-handedness for a change.
We’re not allowed to discuss McCanns involvement so why are we allowed to discuss Brückner’s? Let’s have some even-handedness for a change.
We are allowed to discuss allegations of involvement. This does not include direct accusations with lack or no proof to support an argument.
I would be surprised if the supporters took umbridge if CB is denied access to the law, and is not allowed to sue for the same things the 'innocent' tapas group were accused of.
Nasty trolls on ti tinternet saying he is who wat dun it. Would be karma if one was doorstepped by German news reporter...
I think..based on the evidence available which I have highlighted several times...that its quite probable CB is involved . HCW says he has enough evidence to say SB murdered MM. If Sky News want to contact me via PM on this forum I would be more than happy to appear live and explain my views... I've been on Tv several times
Sorry Davel, I didn't know you have evidence CB murdered Maddie. My apologies.
Have you passed this onto SY and PJ? so he can be arrested. I think it is wonderful news!
dont apologise for not being able to read the post properly...I'm happy to make allowances
We are allowed to discuss allegations of involvement. This does not include direct accusations with lack or no proof to support an argument.Do you really think any supporter writing nasty things about a proven rapist and paedophile on the internet would be newsworthy? Or particularly shameful even?
I would be surprised if the supporters took umbridge if CB is denied access to the law, and is not allowed to sue for the same things the 'innocent' tapas group were accused of.
Nasty trolls on ti tinternet saying he is who wat dun it. Would be karma if one was doorstepped by German news reporter...
Do you really think any supporter writing nasty things about a proven rapist and paedophile on the internet would be newsworthy? Or particularly shameful even?
Thank you. I am happy to see you on TV. 'The .... and the imaginary evidence'
Unlike others I'm not ashamed of anything I've said about the case and am happy to repeat it in public
Can you identify anyone who has mentioned being ashamed of something they've said?
Can you identify anyone who has mentioned being ashamed of something they've said?
I didn't say they said it but I think it's a fair opinion to hold that BL was ashamed of what she had said and wasn't prepared to stand by it. I m not ashamed of anything I've said and would be happy to repeat it... The post was made in the context if a supporter being doorstepped by sky
In my opinion I can identify many who should be black burning ashamed of what they've said over the years.
I really don't think they have it in them to feel 'shame' though.
Just as I await with bated breath examples of the alleged heinous media lies told about Brueckner ... nobody seems to have come up with any.
I agree with your first sentence. Some people seem to delight in attempting to assassinate the characters of others without any knowledge whatsoever of them apart from their opinions on this case. It reminds me of the insults levelled at those who voted for Brexit by those who thought anyone who disagreed with them was lacking in some way. I don't know if they felt shame; probably not.
The media certainly misreported the strength of the mobile phone evidence against Brueckner.
I agree with your first sentence. Some people seem to delight in attempting to assassinate the characters of others without any knowledge whatsoever of them apart from their opinions on this case. It reminds me of the insults levelled at those who voted for Brexit by those who thought anyone who disagreed with them was lacking in some way. I don't know if they felt shame; probably not.
The media certainly misreported the strength of the mobile phone evidence against Brueckner.
Much as Amaral and various social media posters have misrepresented the phone calls made by the McCanns and their friends.
While the real phone evidence was already there to hand but ignored until Scotland Yard and the German investigation put two and two together and came up with, as Amaral has recognised the "perfect suspect",
Shame he didn't pull that rabbit out of the hat back in 2007 when that was what he was being paid to do.
I don't know which phone calls you're referring to, sorry. Was that those made on the phones they admitted to using, or the ones the police were unaware of until a year later?
Your post isn't at all clear or is it merely disingenuous.
Would that be the phones which were delivered to the police station for them probably to use for local Portuguese phone calls you are referring to.
As well as numerous entries in the PJ Files which you are familiar such as this one https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm#:~:text=At%208.50%20Kate%20McCann%20received,and%2010.47%2C%20again%20without%20response. which includes an acknowledgement to Paolo Reis for his sterling analysis.
What a shame no one in authority took it upon themselves to analyse calls made by burglars such as Scotland Yard did for interviews held in 2014. Or even paedophiles who were also apparently phoning around the relevant time scale and at least one of whom, according to Amaral, had been ruled out .
In my opinion I can identify many who should be black burning ashamed of what they've said over the years.
I really don't think they have it in them to feel 'shame' though.
Just as I await with bated breath examples of the alleged heinous media lies told about Brueckner ... nobody seems to have come up with any.
I’m sure those English lawyers he’s employed will be looking for some as we speak.If he's actually employed any... Are they just slow readers
If he's actually employed any... Are they just slow readersDo you get the sense that some people are actually rooting for CB?
Do you get the sense that some people are actually rooting for CB?
Just a lot... But he can't possibly be guilty because of the dog alerts. Mark S said as much
Perhaps Brueckner's Lawyer has been having words with Amaral and believes him.
Now that really would make me fall off my chair.
I think thats quite possible..I dont think Fulscher understands the english phrase.....fall off your chair laughing.
Its quite possible Fulscher would believe what amaral might say re the dogs. That could explain the English lawyers.
Your post isn't at all clear or is it merely disingenuous.
Would that be the phones which were delivered to the police station for them probably to use for local Portuguese phone calls you are referring to.
As well as numerous entries in the PJ Files which you are familiar such as this one https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm#:~:text=At%208.50%20Kate%20McCann%20received,and%2010.47%2C%20again%20without%20response. which includes an acknowledgement to Paolo Reis for his sterling analysis.
What a shame no one in authority took it upon themselves to analyse calls made by burglars such as Scotland Yard did for interviews held in 2014. Or even paedophiles who were also apparently phoning around the relevant time scale and at least one of whom, according to Amaral, had been ruled out .
Perhaps Brueckner's Lawyer has been having words with Amaral and believes him.
Now that really would make me fall off my chair.
With Amarals record, that would make me extremely angry
No need to be angry, Sadie. Amaral would be laughed out of court.
No investigation would analyse 7,000 phone calls for no reason. The information was gathered to help with the ongoing enquiries, such as checking if a suspect was in the area, not to identify possible suspects imo."This inquiry aims to preserve information of relative importance that could in the future help the investigation to discover the truth of the facts."
As it of interest to the ongoing investigation NUIPC 201/07.0 GALGS which is investing the ABDUCTION of the English girl Madeleine McCann, we URGENTLY ask that a request is made to the competent authorities for the following:
- The telephone operators TMN, Vodaphone and Optimus be asked for the preservation and conservation in digital format (CD or DVD) of all the information relating to MOBILE PHONE TRAFFIC, including roaming calls, with an indication of the mobile phone numbers, date and time of the telephone conversations that took place on 2, 3 and 4th May 2007 with respect to the mobile phones that cover the following geographical locations:
Apartment:
N - 37,088863 // N37º 5' 19,91"
W - 8,730775...// W 8º 43' 50,79"
Tapas Restaurant
N - 37,088378 // N37º 5' 18,16"
W - 8,730979...// W 8º 43' 51,52"
Both locations are situated in the OC resort next to Rua Agostinho da Silva and Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins in P da L.
This inquiry aims to preserve information of relative importance that could in the future help the investigation to discover the truth of the facts.
I bring this to your attention
Inspector Ricardo Paiva
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
"This inquiry aims to preserve information of relative importance that could in the future help the investigation to discover the truth of the facts."
And how exactly did exhaustive analysis of the phone calls made by the McCanns and their friends and Murat and his achieve that aim?
It seems like Amaral, you do not understand the basics that once something has been investigated without bearing fruit it is necessary to move on to investigate information to enable actually coming close to or even achieving the aim you have highlighted in bold.
Going at the one line of inquiry and revisiting it like a terrier doesn't do it. Progress is made by moving on.
It took until 2014 and sometime between then and 2020 for the case to be moved forward to include investigating criminal and paedophile phone activity which lay dormant since it became available in 2007.
I think it was missed because it wasn't even looked for because Amaral had his woman.
Pity that like every other conclusion he reached in his wrecking ball of an investigation it was wrong. And all he had to do was to change direction and investigate information he had to hand.
It leapt out of the information available in the PJ files when Heri studied those that he could which were in the public domain. He posted about it on his blog as well as contacting the reopened investigation with it.
So the relevant information was there ... it just wasn't looked for and that is tragic.
I do wish you'd face facts. Amaral was not in charge, he was part of a team run by Encarnacao and Neves, overseen by the prosecutor who was himself overseen by a judge. As yet, the first investigation's conclusions and actions haven't been replaced with anything else either, despite your eager acceptance of any theory which disagrees with it.
In my opinion Heri's interference and the acceptance of it by OG merely shows how devoid of ideas OG were. Since when did 'Britain's finest' need help from random Spanish people? Help, by the way, which wasted time chasing after people who had nothing to do with the events of 3rd May 2017.
The first investigations conclusions were superceded by the archiving despatch which explained none of the evidence the first investigation thought was valid was in fact confirmed. PDC has confirmed there is no evidence against the McCanns and they are not suspects
Unless Wolters finds something to take to court he could find himself in exactly the same situation.
I do wish you'd face facts. Amaral was not in charge, he was part of a team run by Encarnacao and Neves, overseen by the prosecutor who was himself overseen by a judge. As yet, the first investigation's conclusions and actions haven't been replaced with anything else either, despite your eager acceptance of any theory which disagrees with it.
In my opinion Heri's interference and the acceptance of it by OG merely shows how devoid of ideas OG were. Since when did 'Britain's finest' need help from random Spanish people? Help, by the way, which wasted time chasing after people who had nothing to do with the events of 3rd May 2017.
Unless Wolters finds something to take to court he could find himself in exactly the same situation.
Not every police investigation is successful but some are conducted with more diligence than others and in my opinion the Germans are inadvertently giving the Portuguese a masterclass in how to conduct failed Portuguese investigations from Germany.
The victims in the cases the Germans have taken on were failed by Portugal. For example, the torture, rape and humiliation of two women and Madeleine's disappearance to name but three.
Brueckner has been convicted of one rape and is the prime suspect in the other two.
Perhaps if the Portuguese had done their job in the first instance and achieved the result the Germans did Madeleine McCann might have been able to return safely home when her holiday was over instead of her disappearance becoming a mystery.
If the German version of the crime is correct Madeleine wouldn't have returned safely home.
It appears that point has also escaped the three people who liked Brietta’s comment.
Wolters is certainly giving both the Portuguese and British police a masterclass in embracing publicity. Time will tell if he is as skilled at investigating as some seem to believe.
looks like you are now willing to acceot that as a possibility
I've never claimed to know what happened to Madeleine McCann.
If the German version of the crime is correct Madeleine wouldn't have returned safely home.
If the rape cases had been handled properly by the Portuguese the eventually convicted perpetrator of one crime at least should have been under lock and key.
The crime for which Brueckner was convicted took place in Praia da Luz in 2005 and the evidence was there to be used to secure a conviction and take a dangerous man off the streets, it seems the Portuguese police didn't bother.
Brueckner is the prime suspect in the rape of a young woman the previous year. He is the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Justice is still to be done in both of these cases.
If the current poster boy for apologists of what appears to have been a major crime wave in the Algarve during the short time Madeleine was there, had paid for his violent crime of 2005 there might have been no ping from his phone registered on a mast in Luz in 2007.
Therefore with one piece of the current jigsaw displaced would he ever have been brought to the attention of investigators to assume his unique position as chief suspect.
The conundrum is were Brueckner to have been where he belonged in 2007 would Madeleine have enjoyed her holiday and returned safely from it.
I think your post evidences that you are looking from entirely the wrong perspective.
The conundrum is were Brueckner to have been where he belonged in 2007 would Madeleine have enjoyed her holiday and returned safely from it.
So a couple of times you have now mentioned if this ..if that if the other. the main conundrum though is.
If Maddie had had the protection she had a right to as their child ....she would have defiantly returned home safely from it.
The conundrum is were Brueckner to have been where he belonged in 2007 would Madeleine have enjoyed her holiday and returned safely from it.
So a couple of times you have now mentioned if this ..if that if the other. the main conundrum though is.
If Maddie had had the protection she had a right to as their child ....she would have defiantly returned home safely from it.
You're quite right, of course. If Madeleine was abducted and murdered her parents played a part by leaving her vulnerable.The sceptic fall back position for when they are proven wrong - it was STILL the parents wot dunnit through their "neglect". Poor child abductor who couldn't help himself was virtually invited in and asked to remove the child because of the evil parents' actions.
It appears that point has also escaped the three people who liked Brietta’s comment.
If the rape cases had been handled properly by the Portuguese the eventually convicted perpetrator of one crime at least should have been under lock and key.
The crime for which Brueckner was convicted took place in Praia da Luz in 2005 and the evidence was there to be used to secure a conviction and take a dangerous man off the streets, it seems the Portuguese police didn't bother.
Brueckner is the prime suspect in the rape of a young woman the previous year. He is the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.
Justice is still to be done in both of these cases.
If the current poster boy for apologists of what appears to have been a major crime wave in the Algarve during the short time Madeleine was there, had paid for his violent crime of 2005 there might have been no ping from his phone registered on a mast in Luz in 2007.
Therefore with one piece of the current jigsaw displaced would he ever have been brought to the attention of investigators to assume his unique position as chief suspect.
The conundrum is were Brueckner to have been where he belonged in 2007 would Madeleine have enjoyed her holiday and returned safely from it.
I think your post evidences that you are looking from entirely the wrong perspective.
Who Liked Brietta's Comment is entirely irrelevant. We all have a right to Comment. Likes are none of your business.
That doesn't necessarily follow. There are holiday tragedies every year ensuring that somebody's well protected child does not return from holiday.
But in my opinion the state which allows a rapist and paedophile to walk amongst it's people and those they have invited to their country is one which should be seriously questioned.
If Brueckner had been traced and prosecuted as he should have been in 2005 a very dangerous criminal should have been where he could harm no-one or even be suspected of further criminal activity during that time.
But most of all by delivering justice the State would have been adopting its duty of care. But it seems no-one bothered about justice until the Germans did.
This all such a waste of time in so far as this Forum is concerned. One rule for some and another rule for others.
I don't really care anymore, much as I want for Madeleine to be alive. The nastiness defeats me.
But if The Sceptics want Madeleine to be dead by the hand of her own parents, which they obviously do, then something isn't quite right in the heads of these people.
Apologies but I was just surprised that so many people had missed that very pertinent point.
What point? There were no comments.
I should take that up with John if I were you. Somedebody Liked A Comment. What next?
Likewise I fail to understand the tenacity with which supporters desperately try to prove that Madeleine was murdered by a vicious sex fiend. Now that really is shocking.
Why would I take it up with John ? It’s you who seems to have the problem.
Now I’ve apologised so shall we just move on ?
HCW is the one collecting evidence to prove the case...not posters hereBy some sceptic logic HCW must be really sick to be building a case against a murdering paedophile when it would be so much more palatable if he tried to make a case for “had too much Calpol and plummeted to death off the sofa” scenario.
Gosh, was that an apology?LOL
I don't need to move on to anywhere. I know exactly where I am.
However, it does interest me for the fact that you always pick up on my comments. Is this a kindness on your part? I tend to think that it is.
HCW is the one collecting evidence to prove the case...not posters here
Gosh, was that an apology?
I don't need to move on to anywhere. I know exactly where I am.
However, it does interest me for the fact that you always pick up on my comments. Is this a kindness on your part? I tend to think that it is.
Can you explain why Wolter is telling the world that he ‘possibly’ has found a forensic link to Bruckner in 5a before telling Bruckner himself ?
You're quite right, of course. If Madeleine was abducted and murdered her parents played a part by leaving her vulnerable.
Not entirely sure the point you’re trying to make but I wasn’t aware that I do pick up on your comments.
You're quite right, of course. If Madeleine was abducted and murdered her parents played a part by leaving her vulnerable.
You're quite right, of course. If Madeleine was abducted and murdered her parents played a part by leaving her vulnerable.You are right. Contextually you are wrong.
Oh Really?
Gunit isn't being very sensible. Only the perpetrator will be held to account, much as she would prefer otherwise. One can only wonder about her state of mind.
I thought you were better than your recent posts suggest Eleanor.
Like those women who get drunk and are raped... Do you think it's their fault
Off topic
You're quite right, of course. If Madeleine was abducted and murdered her parents played a part by leaving her vulnerable.
off topicA lot of it was off topic but you (you all, not just you D) need to get it off your chest.
Like those women who get drunk and are raped... Do you think it's their fault
That doesn't necessarily follow. There are holiday tragedies every year ensuring that somebody's well protected child does not return from holiday.
But in my opinion the state which allows a rapist and paedophile to walk amongst it's people and those they have invited to their country is one which should be seriously questioned.
If Brueckner had been traced and prosecuted as he should have been in 2005 a very dangerous criminal should have been where he could harm no-one or even be suspected of further criminal activity during that time.
But most of all by delivering justice the State would have been adopting its duty of care. But it seems no-one bothered about justice until the Germans did.
Partly yes. People should act responsibly when out in public and getting drunk to the extent they don't know what is happening to them is extremely irresponsible.
That doesn't necessarily follow. There are holiday tragedies every year ensuring that somebody's well protected child does not return from holiday.
Yes, there are tragedies but I think you will find... not through abandonment.
This one could have been prevented.
Maddie never returned because of the mccs choice to leave the children alone.
You post about CB as if it is concrete evidence that the PJ missed proving CB was the abductor. you don't know.
As for duty of care they also missed that by not charging the mccs with abandonment.
A former minister has revealed that the parents were never prosecuted because Portuguese officials thought it was a ‘peculiar’ English custom.
Ex-minister of internal affairs, Rui Pereira, attacked Portuguese police for not making Kate and Gerry McCann suspects for alleged abandonment.
Mr Pereira told Portuguese channel CMTV: ‘At the beginning, there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory that said the English have very peculiar cultural customs.
HCW He said: 'Everything we have points to her being dead...yet no charges have been brought
But what the media don't report is that the PJ thought that at the beginning.
when Maddie wasnt found after a few hours it was almost certain she was deadDoesn't have to be.
Doesn't have to be.
Has anyone discovered the lies told about Brueckner?
good question and one that no one seems to have an answer to
Well, it seems it could be all lies....as yet no charges have been made.
Has anyone discovered the lies told about Brueckner?Has anyone discovered the truth about the allegations about CB apart from those he's been charged and served a sentence for?
Has anyone discovered the truth about the allegations about CB apart from those he's been charged and served a sentence for?
Parallels any one,Murat was a suspect,as is CB,there it ends,Murat's arguido status was removed,now if CB ends up the same way????
Although he was questioned by Portuguese police soon after Madeleine McCann went missing from her parent’s holiday apartment in the resort of Praia da Luz and later declared a formal suspect, he was never charged and denied any involvement.
However, tabloid newspapers in Britain made a series of “made-up” allegations. The court heard these included claims Murat had an interest in child pornography and might have been part of a paedophile ring involved in McCann’s abduction.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-murat/robert-murat-wins-libel-case-in-mccann-probe-idUKL1754490420080717
Well, it seems it could be all lies....as yet no charges have been made.Give me one example of anything claimed as a fact by the media that could actually be a lie.
Parallels any one,Murat was a suspect,as is CB,there it ends,Murat's arguido status was removed,now if CB ends up the same way????
Although he was questioned by Portuguese police soon after Madeleine McCann went missing from her parent’s holiday apartment in the resort of Praia da Luz and later declared a formal suspect, he was never charged and denied any involvement.
However, tabloid newspapers in Britain made a series of “made-up” allegations. The court heard these included claims Murat had an interest in child pornography and might have been part of a paedophile ring involved in McCann’s abduction.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-murat/robert-murat-wins-libel-case-in-mccann-probe-idUKL1754490420080717
what could be lies....everything Wolters has said...are you really calling him a liar?
its all lies your honour...thats my defence...lol
Has any of it been proved to be true then. D
Has it been to court yet....thats where things are proved..
Amarals had 13 years
Wolters 13 weeks...
thats 52 times as long
We shall know soon...amaral couldnt prove his barmy theory..lets see what Wolters can do. If Wolters does prove it then amaral is proven wrong
How would Amaral have been able to prove his theory?
Wrong ameral didn't get chance to prove his theory.
May end up the same with wolters.
Then what will u do
How would Amaral have been able to prove his theory?
What that maddie was dead.His theory that Madeleine had an overdose of calpol and fell off the sofa, was hidden in a freezer and moved in the hire car more than three weeks later - that theory.
Isnt HCW saying the same ......13 years later.
His theory that Madeleine had an overdose of calpol and fell off the sofa, was hidden in a freezer and moved in the hire car more than three weeks later - that theory.
What do u reckon Wolters theory is.
What do u reckon Wolters theory is.I don’t know - unlike Amaral he hasn’t written up a best selling book describing it. Now how would Amaral have proven his theory if he hadn’t been thrown off the case?
He has told us he has enough evidence to show CB murdered MM
He told us the Ocean Club owned a phone antenna too.
He told us the Ocean Club owned a phone antenna too.
The only reason supporters believe Wolter’s theory is any more credible than Amaral’s is that it doesn’t involve the parents.
He told us the Ocean Club owned a phone antenna too.Cite?
Cite?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=665sIt sounds like the mast was on the property owned by the Ocean Club. I'm sure the mast itself would be owned by a telephone company.
10:07
The phone call doesn't, in fact, place CB at the scene.
No he didnt...cite...he never used the word owned...now you are making things up. Do you have adirect quote for thisIt is said the mast is a one-minute walk from the OC.
It is said the mast is a one-minute walk from the OC.It seems confusing what HCW said. Properties owned by the Ocean Club seem to be scattered around PdL.
It seems confusing what HCW said. Properties owned by the Ocean Club seem to be scattered around PdL.I presume from the OC entrance to the Tapas, Rob.
"mast is a one-minute walk from the OC" which part of Ocean Club?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q&t=665s
10:07
The phone call doesn't, in fact, place CB at the scene.
It seems confusing what HCW said. Properties owned by the Ocean Club seem to be scattered around PdL.It's like having a mast in your back garden
"mast is a one-minute walk from the OC" which part of Ocean Club?
It sounds like the mast was on the property owned by the Ocean Club. I'm sure the mast itself would be owned by a telephone company.
According to SIL the Luz Masts were on a water tower to the north-west, and on top of 2 Rua Primeiro de Maio. Neither location has any connection to the Ocean Club.Those masts are chillingly close to the Ocean Club. And the ocean itself. And that farm up there (could be a well there).
The green lines are the areas covered by the Optimus mast, located on the Luz water tower. The yellow lines are the TMN mast. It is on the top of 2 Rua Primeiro de Maio. The red lines are the Vodaphone mast boundaries. Heriberto puts the mast slightly elsewhere, but I think it is also on top of 2 Rua Primeiro de Maio.
(https://shininginluz.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/luz-pie.jpg)
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/vodaphone/
According to SIL the Luz Masts were on a water tower to the north-west, and on top of 2 Rua Primeiro de Maio. Neither location has any connection to the Ocean Club.A line can't be an area. I think the physics of the coverage has not been explained properly.
The green lines are the areas covered by the Optimus mast, located on the Luz water tower. The yellow lines are the TMN mast. It is on the top of 2 Rua Primeiro de Maio. The red lines are the Vodaphone mast boundaries. Heriberto puts the mast slightly elsewhere, but I think it is also on top of 2 Rua Primeiro de Maio.
(https://shininginluz.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/luz-pie.jpg)
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/vodaphone/
A line can't be an area. I think the physics of the coverage has not been explained properly.Basically, measure 600m from all masts in any direction to get a radius,then draw a circle - you'll get a rough idea of the sheer area we are talking about 2007 stylee.
A line can't be an area. I think the physics of the coverage has not been explained properly.
However you want to downplay it, it’s clear CB was within a minutes drive of Madeleine McCann at the very most.
I'm afraid that's not true. The phone allegedly used by CB could have been outside Luz, depending on the area covered by the Vodaphone mast.Wolters said it activated a mast within Luz. Is he lying again? So what is the maximum distance away from the mast CB could have been?
Wolters said it activated a mast within Luz. Is he lying again? So what is the maximum distance away from the mast CB could have been?You would have to know so much about the phone system no one here could answer that IMO.
You would have to know so much about the phone system no one here could answer that IMO.Yes, let's leave it to the expert investigators with access to all the relevant information - they say the ping puts CB in PdL in close proximity to Apartment 5a at the time of the abduction and no one in here is in any position of authority or knowledge to dispute that IMO.
Yes, let's leave it to the expert investigators with access to all the relevant information - they say the ping puts CB in PdL in close proximity to Apartment 5a at the time of the abduction and no one in here is in any position of authority or knowledge to dispute that IMO.if they explained it fully we would attempt to understand it. Remember how they tried to track where the airliner MH 370 ended up. The scientist gave the world the data to analyse.
You would have to know so much about the phone system no one here could answer that IMO.Not really Rob, there's plenty of factual information available pertaining to historical mobile phone technology.
Wolters said it activated a mast within Luz. Is he lying again? So what is the maximum distance away from the mast CB could have been?
8km.8km radius. About 200 Km2
Wrong ameral didn't get chance to prove his theory.
May end up the same with wolters.
Then what will u do
I'm afraid that's not true. The phone allegedly used by CB could have been outside Luz, depending on the area covered by the Vodaphone mast.
I prefer to believe the experts, as the German Police would have experts to deal with this.Only certain experts though, eh.
I prefer to believe the experts, as the German Police would have experts to deal with this.
Only certain experts though, eh.
Martin Grime?
Everyone is an "expert" though when it comes to exactly what the McCanns and their friends were doing based on pings as exhaustively discussed in the files.
Every suspicious trip to the airport to pick people up and every antenna activated on the way there and on the way back.
We now know of burglars having activated masts in Luz at the relevant time of Madeleine's disappearance. We now know of at least one paedophile whose phone activated masts in Luz.
None of them were checked out were they until reviews revealed information which was already slap bang and right in the face of Amaral's sloppy investigation proving exactly just how inadequate it really was.
Now what about these lies told about Brueckner ... anyone found one yet?
Wolters said it activated a mast within Luz. Is he lying again? So what is the maximum distance away from the mast CB could have been?45 miles
If CB was 45 miles from home the night Madeleine was abducted he will no doubt be able to account for his movements, his alibi will check out, case closed. If on the other hand any of his buddies have claimed hat he was in PdL that night, then it doesn't look so good. HCW is obviously lying to us as well then, I wonder why a man of his standing would do such a wicked thing...?Not many of the other results gave such a high distance, but there are cases where someone is lost in the wilderness and still able to use the cellphone.
As I understand there are two pings... One in and one out... And the time between the two pings gives the distance2007 'phone pings', or 'putting someone at the scene' using RF requests and connections is pure junk science.
2007 'phone pings', or 'putting someone at the scene' using RF requests and connections is pure junk science.
we dont know what evidence HCW.....Well unless he's lying, we know he's looking to trace someone who called his phone for 30 minutes, etc.
2007 'phone pings', or 'putting someone at the scene' using RF requests and connections is pure junk science.Bit like the dog alerts then.
we dont know what evidence HCW.....
The only phone evidence in existence is that requested by the PJ and passed on to OG. There is no other evidence available to Wolters. SIL is very clear about what that data could and could not reveal if you're interested;Are you serious... You think you know as a fact Wolters has no evidence apart from the phone... And you state that as a fact... Reality... You don't know what evidence HCW has so stop pretending that you do
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/
Well unless he's lying, we know he's looking to trace someone who called his phone for 30 minutes, etc.
And we know that he thinks that contemporaneous mobile technology places him 'at the scene' because of this call.
So we actually do know. And if he is insisting the latter, then he's utterly and spectacular wrong. No wonder he can't pull sufficient evidence together if he's going to the prosecutor with such quackery.
Only certain experts though, eh.
Martin Grime?
I'm saying nothingThought so. Pick your expert. He's only been doing it for 25 years. But according to some (Davel) he's nothing more than a canine Russell Grant.
Thought so. Pick your expert. He's only been doing it for 25 years. But according to some (Davel) he's nothing more than a canine Russell Grant.
Are you serious... You think you know as a fact Wolters has no evidence apart from the phone... And you state that as a fact... Reality... You don't know what evidence HCW has so stop pretending that you do
Who decided sil was an expert in phone tracking
It's the phone evidence I'm discussing. I'm not daft enough to discuss evidence I don't know about. SIL and Heri did quite a bit of work on the phone masts and what it could and couldn't reveal in 2007. You can read and learn or not, it's up to you.
How long has Wolters worked in his profession.You've a lot to say? I've said it before, put your **** on the block and tell him what you've got to say.
I've alot to say about Grime but unfortunately its only possible to trash the reputations of anyone connected to or supporting the McCanns
You've a lot to say? I've said it before, put your **** on the block and tell him what you've got to say.
He's on Linkedin, but I think you're too intimidated by a real expert to actually challenge him.
I don't really care what they've discussed.. I prefer to wait and hear what the concrete evidence is. I'm not daft enough to try and claim Wolters has nothing of any significance
You can wait as long as you like, the facts on mobile phone evidence in 2007 isn't going to change.
An interesting article on the subject, written in 2008
Below, you’ll find the text of the original 2008 article by L. Scott Harrell:
I hesitated to include this article since cell phone pinging has always been something of an urban legend among the private investigation and bail enforcement communities. However, I do know for certain that it is absolutely possible and that many fugitives and abducted children have been recovered through the use of cell phone pinging by various State and Federal law enforcement agencies.
Do you remember when President Bush went to the Middle East on a surprise visit to the troops not too long ago? The media made a big deal about the fact that the Secret Service made everyone onboard Air Force One, including the President, take the battery out of their cell phones so that the “real bad guys” didn’t know of their location.
Voila! (Cell phone pinging has gotten someone’s attention.) I was convinced to include the article because a trusted peer indicated that he too had luck with a locate at one time and anyone interested in locating another person may at least have the need to understand the technology and the process of locating cellular phones.
There are two ways a cellular network provider can locate a phone connected to their network, either through pinging or triangulation. Pinging is a digital process and triangulation is an analog process.
A cell phone “ping” is quite simply the process of determining the location, with reasonable accuracy, of a cell phone at any given point in time by utilizing the phone GPS location aware capabilities, it is very similar to GPS vehicle tracking systems. To “ping” in this context means to send a signal to a particular cell phone and have it respond with the requested data.
The term is derived from SONAR and echolocation when a technician would send out a sound wave, or ping, and wait for its return to locate another object. New generation cell phones and mobile service providers are required by federal mandate, via the “E-911” program, to be or become GPS capable so that 911 operators will be able to determine the location of a caller who is making an emergency phone call. When a new digital cell phone is pinged, it determines its latitude and longitude via GPS and sends these coordinates back via the SMS system (the same system used to send text messages). This means that in instances where a fugitive or other missing person has a GPS enabled cell phone (and that the phone has power when being polled, or pinged) that the cell phone can be located within a reasonable geographic area- some say within several feet of the cell phone.
With the older style analog cellular phones and digital mobile phones that are not GPS capable the cellular network provider can determine where the phone is to within a hundred feet or so using “triangulation” because at any one time, the phone is usually able to communicate with more than one of the aerial arrays provided by the phone network. The cell towers are typically 6 to 12 miles apart (less in cities) and a phone is usually within range of at least three of them. By comparing the signal strength and time lag for the phone’s carrier signal to reach at each tower, the network provider can triangulate the phone’s approximate position.
Similar technology is used to track down lost aircraft and yachts through their radio beacons. It’s not identical because most radio beacons use satellites and older cell phones use land-based aerial arrays but the principle is the same.
Not surprisingly, the phone network companies are shy about admitting they have this ability. The triangulation and pinging capability of mobile phone network companies varies according to the age of their equipment. A few can only do it manually with a big drain on skilled manpower. But these days most companies can generate the information automatically, which makes it cheap enough to sell.
Some nefarious service providers have indicated that they have either developed sources within mobile telephone service providers to be able to get this information upon request or have access to the software interfaces to accomplish this on their own (or some variant thereof). I highly suspect that these “cell phone ping service providers” I see advertising from time to time are actually using a good ol’ fashioned pretext to obtain the location of a cell phone rather than using an actual ping. If you do come across a real provider, please let me know.
There you have it- the short course regarding the technical capability of locating cell phones and those who possess them either through pinging or triangulation. Again, I cannot speak to the commercial availability of such a service but like anything else in the investigative business; for now I believe that mobile-phone pinging is largely urban myth among private investigators, fugitive recovery investigators and skip tracers.
https://pursuitmag.com/locating-mobile-phones-through-pinging-and-triangulation/
Criminals amongst others still haven't sussed that Cell phones place you where you are.What about taking someone else's phone when you are committing a crime.
Never take your cell phone with you if you are likely to commit a crime.
What about taking someone else's phone when you are committing a crime.
Did someone else borrow CB phone on the 3rd?
What about taking someone else's phone when you are committing a crime.
Did someone else borrow CB phone on the 3rd?
That's why they were looking for the person who made the call; to ask them who they spoke to.
Or to find out if the mystery phone man commissioned CB to do the job of abducting Madeleine ? And who he was ?
Was he the one who gave the orders and instructions to CB ?
Just one of several possibilities.
There is a serious lack of common sense going on here.
You think? But there is the rub. But then Brueckner would know who borrowed his phone.Maybe not if he left it at home, and was out long enough for it to be returned before he got back. Has anyone on the forum ever did this of naughty prank?
Maybe not if he left it at home, and was out long enough for it to be returned before he got back. Has anyone on the forum ever did this of naughty prank?He lived in PdL.
Send a text on someone else's phone? Or make a phonecall using a phone lying around? It would feel wrong but would they really care? It could be his excuse of why his phone was in PDL.
You can wait as long as you like, the facts on mobile phone evidence in 2007 isn't going to change.
He lived in PdL.I thought it was a little bit out of the village. Only my impression. Stand to be corrected.
I thought it was a little bit out of the village. Only my impression. Stand to be corrected.I think the likelihood that CB, a burglar / drug dealer / rapist / child molestor would be sat at home miles from PdL cosily watching the telly or tending his plants while a mate had made off with his phone to PdL as a prank (or for any other reason) is extremely implausible.
I thought it was a little bit out of the village. Only my impression. Stand to be corrected.
Or to find out if the mystery phone man commissioned CB to do the job of abducting Madeleine ? And who he was ?
Was he the one who gave the orders and instructions to CB ?
Just one of several possibilities.
If so he was never going to come forward, was he? Therefore they will never know who took part in that phone call, they will be left with just with the suspicion that one of them was CB.
If so he was never going to come forward, was he? Therefore they will never know who took part in that phone call, they will be left with just with the suspicion that one of them was CB.
If so he was never going to come forward, was he? Therefore they will never know who took part in that phone call, they will be left with just with the suspicion that one of them was CB.There's very limited investigation avenues available on a solitary phone call.
There's very limited investigation avenues available on a solitary phone call.
If it's a burner and it's looking like it is, once you have the number, traced it and requested the network provider to provide a log of all calls / messages in or out, and then tried to find it's purchase point, you're at a dead end (bearing in mind the time lag).
What I would say, is that if that phone had either very limited use or only one use, then that's deeply suspicious and evidence in itself. But the chances of a nefarious character voluntarily popping by and telling the police they were the other party they are looking for is......it's not happening.
Having said all that, if one party in this alleged call is savvy enough to use a burner, but then CB, the career criminal / sex case isn't, then that's not scanning at all. They'd both be on burners if they're planning a kidnapping.
Yeh, yeh, keep banging that drum, we get it.
If CB is charged he needs to be able to expalin where he was and who he spoke to that evening. To a certain extent that can be taken as circumstantail evidence of guilt. Its next to nothing on its own but combined with other evidence can be important. HCW is building a circumstantial case .......and doing avery good job imo
Yeh, yeh, keep banging that drum, we get it.
It's pretty apparent that they will never know who he spoke to, if he spoke to anyone. So there's a piece of circumstantial evidence that is not evidence at all.
Yeh, yeh, keep banging that drum, we get it.Defeatist talk.
It's pretty apparent that they will never know who he spoke to, if he spoke to anyone. So there's a piece of circumstantial evidence that is not evidence at all.
Its up to CB to provide evidence of where he was that evening...failure to do so can be taken as evidence of guilt.....HCW has asked everyone else on the planet who he was talking to, but haven't asked the guy sat in a jail cell 5 minutes down the road. There's keeping your cards close to your chest and then there's, as the German phrase goes 'wrestling a wild hog in the forest for a pine cone' - you're going to come off worse and the rewards are not worth it.
Dave L....QC
...HCW has asked everyone else on the planet who he was talking to, but haven't asked the guy sat in a jail cell 5 minutes down the road. There's keeping your cards close to your chest and then there's, as the German phrase goes 'wrestling a wild hog in the forest for a pine cone' - you're going to come off worse and the rewards are not worth it.Like he's going to tell HCW anything. His lawyer has already confirmed he has nothing to say on the matter.
...HCW has asked everyone else on the planet who he was talking to, but haven't asked the guy sat in a jail cell 5 minutes down the road. There's keeping your cards close to your chest and then there's, as the German phrase goes 'wrestling a wild hog in the forest for a pine cone' - you're going to come off worse and the rewards are not worth it.
It's a double edged sword. If CB cannot say who he spoke to then further evidence of guilt
Do you remember where you were and who phoned you on 3rd May 2007? I certainly don't and that's not because I was up to something illegal. It's because I don't remember.I remember where I was on the night of the 4th May 2007 - in the pub with friends. We were all discussing the disappearance, that's how I know. You would have thought EVERYONE in PdL would remember exactly what they were doing that night.
Do you remember where you were and who phoned you on 3rd May 2007? I certainly don't and that's not because I was up to something illegal. It's because I don't remember.
I think you totally miss the point. CB was in Luz...the whole town was in uproar. It was a major event. I would think everyone in Luz rembers where thye were when they heard the news.perhaps he sforgotten why he changed his car reg the next day...it wont wash.
It's a double edged sword. If CB cannot say who he spoke to then further evidence of guilt
I think you totally miss the point. CB was in Luz...the whole town was in uproar. It was a major event. I would think everyone in Luz rembers where thye were when they heard the news.perhaps he sforgotten why he changed his car reg the next day...it wont wash.
Many of those who have given statements knew nothing until the morning of 4th. Robert Murat, Steve Carpenter, and various employees said that. Jeremy Wilkins only knew because they knocked him up. Only one year later a close friend of the McCanns couldn't remember who he phoned the day after the disappearance.
Im sure JW knew where he was the night before. Its pointless discussing because we will see what happens.Jez Wilkins is not that detailed in his rogatory interview.
Many of those who have given statements knew nothing until the morning of 4th. Robert Murat, Steve Carpenter, and various employees said that. Jeremy Wilkins only knew because they knocked him up. Only one year later a close friend of the McCanns couldn't remember who he phoned the day after the disappearance.
Jez Wilkins is not that detailed in his rogatory interview.
There's very limited investigation avenues available on a solitary phone call.
If it's a burner and it's looking like it is, once you have the number, traced it and requested the network provider to provide a log of all calls / messages in or out, and then tried to find it's purchase point, you're at a dead end (bearing in mind the time lag).
What I would say, is that if that phone had either very limited use or only one use, then that's deeply suspicious and evidence in itself. But the chances of a nefarious character voluntarily popping by and telling the police they were the other party they are looking for is......it's not happening.
Having said all that, if one party in this alleged call is savvy enough to use a burner, but then CB, the career criminal / sex case isn't, then that's not scanning at all. They'd both be on burners if they're planning a kidnapping.
Interesting police programme on channel 5 last night (Police: suspect no1),they could place a phone registered to a suspect to mast's, their problem and it would be the same with CB,how do you prove it was him using it.
They cant prove it as such....but again ...taken with an absolute tsunami of circumstantail evidence...it can provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of a crime. I really like what HCW is doing. Hes a very smart man IMO.
Imo scepetics are totally missing the point. They are considering each piece of evidence in isolation...thats amistake. they have to be seen as individual pieces of the puzzle
Well it looks like phone evidence will not be a piece of Wolter's puzzle if the person who called CB's alleged mobile doesn't come forward. At the moment that's all he's shared.
They cant prove it as such....but again ...taken with an absolute tsunami of circumstantail evidence...it can provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of a crime. I really like what HCW is doing. Hes a very smart man IMO.
Imo scepetics are totally missing the point. They are considering each piece of evidence in isolation...thats amistake. they have to be seen as individual pieces of the puzzle...now who said that this week
depends on what the accuracy of positioning is....and of course...if CB wont answer who he was talking to during that phone call the judge is entitled to draw a negative inference..just how many negative inferences will it take.
if it was an innocent phone call...whats the problem. if all Cbs friends have been accounted for...who was it.
its like the police finding 100k in your car....its up to you to expalin how it got there. ...the police dont have to prove anything
It was forensics that did for one of the suspect's,the circumstantial meant jack all without it.
Mods can you move this to the circumstantial thread.
not sure what you are talking about...what forensics...what case. HCW has said...he doesnt need a body...weve seen gilroy convicted on purely circumstantial evidence...Im on the right track...im absolutely sure
Of course they do,up to and beyond reasonable doubt.
Police: Suspect no 1,on catch up on 5,watch it you might learn how a case is built.
Police: Suspect no 1,on catch up on 5,watch it you might learn how a case is built.Did you not watch the one on Shipman? Named as a suspect months before he was charged. Stories in the paperson a daily basis before he was even charged. I expect if there’d been internet forums like this some smartarse would have been saying “won’t be long before he’s charged” ironically then as well.
sorry rob...I wont be responding to your post. You are not quoting my post but one written by gunitBS http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11698.msg620145#msg620145
BS http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11698.msg620145#msg620145
that post may have my name but has been edited by gunit and is therefore no longer what I posted
I edited out your immaterial opinion on my viewpoint. Your post made no sense anyway. My point was that many in PdL knew nothing about the events of 3rd May until the morning of the 4th. Jeremy Wilkins only knew because some people knocked him up to tell him. He may have known where he was on 3rd May, but that was beside the point.
His memory, incidentally, was no more precise than anyone else's. He said he saw a man with dreadlocks on the evening of 3rd, but where? In the road, the restaurant, the toilet, the bar? It couldn't have been the restaurant because he said he couldn't see inside there. (three days earlier he said he himself was in there, mind)
4th May
He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant.
7th May
I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
5th Nov 2007
He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
8th April 2008
At the next crossing, I turned right and continued on down the hill. At this point, I saw a man that was coming from the road and was headed to the reception. I believe that he was with a woman but I cannot be precise of any detail about her. It was a tall Caucasian man, with blonde hair in 'rasta style' tied with a band instead of free flowing. When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area. He also was in the WC but appeared to be a taking a long time. I do not remember if he was still in that place when I left.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
My opinion is only immaterial in your opinion..how dare you edit out my opinion..utter disgrace..since when has having an opinion been against the rules
I will be contacting John to ask if editing out a posters opinion when it breaks no forum rules is in any way justified
I edited out your immaterial opinion on my viewpoint. Your post made no sense anyway. My point was that many in PdL knew nothing about the events of 3rd May until the morning of the 4th. Jeremy Wilkins only knew because some people knocked him up to tell him. He may have known where he was on 3rd May, but that was beside the point.Talk about nit-picking. All the above goes to prove the point that a) memory isn’t photographic and b) there are often inconsistencies between first and third party accounts of the same recollection.
His memory, incidentally, was no more precise than anyone else's. He said he saw a man with dreadlocks on the evening of 3rd, but where? In the road, the restaurant, the toilet, the bar? It couldn't have been the restaurant because he said he couldn't see inside there. (three days earlier he said he himself was in there, mind)
4th May
He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant.
7th May
I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
5th Nov 2007
He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
8th April 2008
At the next crossing, I turned right and continued on down the hill. At this point, I saw a man that was coming from the road and was headed to the reception. I believe that he was with a woman but I cannot be precise of any detail about her. It was a tall Caucasian man, with blonde hair in 'rasta style' tied with a band instead of free flowing. When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area. He also was in the WC but appeared to be a taking a long time. I do not remember if he was still in that place when I left.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
The title of this thread is misleading, imo. Telling a lie is a deliberate act and in my opinion the media have done what they always do; repeating stories without knowing or caring if they are rumour or truth. Having joined in the feeding frenzy for a while they now seem to be losing interest.What gives you the impression that the media have lost interest? Did you really expect a daily story in the papers four months after the story first broke? The last media report was only a few days ago. Would you prefer it if newspapers did not report opinions and first hand accounts from those with first hand experience of criminal suspects? Most anecdotes are not proveable. Should the media be silenced until a criminal is found guilty in a court of law in your opinion? Which stories in the press do you believe to be untrue and therefore likely to be the subject of legal action by the suspect?
What gives you the impression that the media have lost interest? Did you really expect a daily story in the papers four months after the story first broke? The last media report was only a few days ago. Would you prefer it if newspapers did not report opinions and first hand accounts from those with first hand experience of criminal suspects? Most anecdotes are not proveable. Should the media be silenced until a criminal is found guilty in a court of law in your opinion? Which stories in the press do you believe to be untrue and therefore likely to be the subject of legal action by the suspect?
By reporting 'opinions and first hand accounts' the media don't clarify a subject, they cloud it imo. They give gossips, nosy neighbours, and people who have an axe to grind a platform (and sometimes payment) to say what they like about others. I don't class that as news, so I would prefer it if they showed some restraint.
I think their lawyers check to make sure such restraint is applied which is probably why no-one has been able to point to a single lie about Brueckner in the media.
By reporting 'opinions and first hand accounts' the media don't clarify a subject, they cloud it imo. They give gossips, nosy neighbours, and people who have an axe to grind a platform (and sometimes payment) to say what they like about others. I don't class that as news, so I would prefer it if they showed some restraint.So do online forums, do you wish they’d show similar restraint too, or don’t they count?
By reporting 'opinions and first hand accounts' the media don't clarify a subject, they cloud it imo. They give gossips, nosy neighbours, and people who have an axe to grind a platform (and sometimes payment) to say what they like about others. I don't class that as news, so I would prefer it if they showed some restraint.
The title of this thread is misleading, imo. Telling a lie is a deliberate act and in my opinion the media have done what they always do; repeating stories without knowing or caring if they are rumour or truth. Having joined in the feeding frenzy for a while they now seem to be losing interest.Losing interest? You’ll be pleased with this latest news story (though we can of couse dismiss as gossip, rumour and speculation because it’s in the Mirror)
Interesting how people had him pegged for this rape, when it appears that he may not have anything to do with it.Who pegged him for this rape? One the face of it he seemed a strong contender but I don’t think anyone here has claimed he definitely did it have they?
Give a dog a bad name and all that.
So do online forums, do you wish they’d show similar restraint too, or don’t they count?
That's a different subject.OK, back on track - do you disapprove of investigative journalism which often relies on interviewing sources (often unnamed) but which can reveal great truths which may otherwise remain covered up?
OK, back on track - do you disapprove of investigative journalism which often relies on interviewing sources (often unnamed) but which can reveal great truths which may otherwise remain covered up?
I think their lawyers check to make sure such restraint is applied which is probably why no-one has been able to point to a single lie about Brueckner in the media.
There have been some excellent investigative journalists over the years who have taken the time to investigate cases in depth and have found evidence which withstood criticism. I can't think of any at the moment though.you didn’t really answer the question did you?
There have been some excellent investigative journalists over the years who have taken the time to investigate cases in depth and have found evidence which withstood criticism. I can't think of any at the moment though.Sandra F may just surprise us all.
you didn’t really answer the question did you?
In my opinion I did.Not in my opinion you didn’t. In my opinion you did not give a straight answer to a straight question.
The strange thing about this latest report is - I thought we were told all the DNA evidence had been destroyed?
Touchee, VS. Well spotted.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
So what do we make of this?
Someone altering the evidence ?
Who? and Why?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
Perhaps Amaral found some at the back of a dusty filing cabinet and handed it over to get his pal’s client Bruckner off the hook
So is the latest news that in all likelihood the German suspect in the Madeleine case is ruled out of the rape case against the Irish woman because his DNA does not match all lies, or was the tale about the DNA being destroyed lies,pays your money takes your choice.Hook or by crook it seems someone one wants to link CB to all manner of cases.
So is the latest news that in all likelihood the German suspect in the Madeleine case is ruled out of the rape case against the Irish woman because his DNA does not match all lies, or was the tale about the DNA being destroyed lies,pays your money takes your choice.Hook or by crook it seems someone one wants to link CB to all manner of cases.
So is the latest news that in all likelihood the German suspect in the Madeleine case is ruled out of the rape case against the Irish woman because his DNA does not match all lies, or was the tale about the DNA being destroyed lies,pays your money takes your choice.Hook or by crook it seems someone one wants to link CB to all manner of cases.
This is what the media said;
But today it emerged the DNA evidence collected from the crime scene was destroyed around two months before Madeleine's disappearance, meaning the chance of making any solid link between the two cases if the same offender was responsible could now prove impossible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
This is what was actually destroyed;
'On March 15 2007 when the judge decides to archive the investigation, the Public Ministry decide any biological material should be destroyed.
They add: 'As they are in a bad condition it is improbable that if this re-investigation was reopened the material could be subjected to counterproof analysis.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
They did find DNA;
The documents make it clear DNA was obtained but no match.
So did they destroy this DNA? No, they destroyed the source of the DNA. The DNA profile(s) they obtained would have been recorded in reports and those reports were not destroyed.
It's normal to destroy the samples; the FSS were suggesting they were going to destroy the biological samples in the McCann case very early on, but they kept the results.
What if the samples were hairs?
Telling how she was woken at 1am by the sound of someone calling her name who then removed her clothes with scissors and gagged her with cloth, she said: 'My mind was blown when I read how he had attacked a woman in 2005, both the tactics and the methods he used, the tools he had with him, how well he had planned it out.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
We have no idea in what circumstances the rape which occurred in Praia da Luz for which Brueckner was prosecuted and found guilty by the Germans was not linked to the later rape by the Portuguese despite the matching MO being used.
I believe Ms Behan was told regarding the similar assault carried out on her that it was "bad for tourism".
What it does appear to show is that the Portuguese authorities have an innate inability to link any two similar cases in crime checks.
Much as they failed to do with missing little girls one from Figueira and the other from Luz both of whom vanished without trace.
In my opinion there have been plenty of lies told in the media fed by leaks in both these cases (aided and abetted by a book by Cristovao on one and a book by Amaral on the other). To date I have not seen Brueckner being subjected to the same treatment.
Wonder what I'm missing.
Also the following, Brietta:
“Hazel Behan ... filed a complaint for a violation almost identical to that of Diana Menkes except that at Praia da Rocha in this development near the Casino where Christian Brueckner had a customer card."
Sexta às 9 Episódio 25 - de 10 Jul 2020.
This is what the media said;
But today it emerged the DNA evidence collected from the crime scene was destroyed around two months before Madeleine's disappearance, meaning the chance of making any solid link between the two cases if the same offender was responsible could now prove impossible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
This is what was actually destroyed;
'On March 15 2007 when the judge decides to archive the investigation, the Public Ministry decide any biological material should be destroyed.
They add: 'As they are in a bad condition it is improbable that if this re-investigation was reopened the material could be subjected to counterproof analysis.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442487/Portuguese-prosecutors-DESTROYED-vital-DNA-evidence.html
They did find DNA;
The documents make it clear DNA was obtained but no match.
So did they destroy this DNA? No, they destroyed the source of the DNA. The DNA profile(s) they obtained would have been recorded in reports and those reports were not destroyed.
It's normal to destroy the samples; the FSS were suggesting they were going to destroy the biological samples in the McCann case very early on, but they kept the results.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Journalists seem to have confused actual samples with DNA on them and the evidence produced from those samples in my opinion. It seems the evidence doesn't show a DNA match with CB, and neither does the victim's description of his bodily blemishes. What I don't understand is why the victim went public. What did she hope to gain?
Well it looks as if CB is not responsible, nor has she got closure.
We don't know where the evidence will take the German investigation. I think it would be a good idea to wait and see.
The victim obviously went public as she wanted the Police to open her case, she wanted to know if CB was responsible, to have closure.
If it doesn't involve CB, then they won't be interested - IMO
Which came first then? Her interview with 'London Police' who allegedly told her that;
they were taking her case very seriously and would be contacting Portuguese police.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann/irish-womans-rape-in-portugal-may-be-linked-to-madeleine-mccann-suspect-39389764.html
or her decision to speak to the newspapers in June?
An Irish victim, A Portuguese crime scene, a German investigation team and a perpetrator of unknown nationality.
I don't think the Germans would pursue that one too far.
If CB is out of the frame for this rape, then the Germans will lose interest.
All IMO
You can only keep on hoping.
Therefore he had known close proximity to both rape crime scenes and plenty of opportunity to watch and wait at both without any casual observer thinking a thing about seeing him there.
If anyone had any suspicion and had challenged him as a result, he was legitimately on a beach path leading to his home and in an hotel in which he had membership of the casino. Absolutely bomb proof explanations in both instances.
A beach path leading to his home? Where was that then?Surely Brietta is referring to D Menkes’ property at the end of Brückner’s path leading to her home ‘Casa Jacaranda’ and the beach.
Was the Irish woman raped in the Hotel which housed the Casino?
They won't know who might be in the frame for the vicious rape until they have checked out all the evidence and I doubt very much if he would have left much since he came well prepared.
Not all police are like the Portuguese who don't seem to attach too much importance to thoroughly investigating crimes such as this or treating the victims with appropriate sensibility.
Whether the perpetrator is thought to be Brueckner or another pervert entirely I think the Germans will take the investigation as far as it will go in the interests of justice.
Snip
Ms Behan’s attacker, who removed his shoes at the door and set up a video camera in the room, told her not to scream. He dragged her into the living area and tied her to the countertop of the breakfast bar, before producing a bag of whips and chains. Using scissors to remove her clothes, he gagged her with cloth so she could not scream, and proceeded to beat and rape her.
She said: “It seemed to me he had worked everything out, he had a plan and was very deliberate. He consistently cleaned his hands, and repeatedly changed condoms. This went on, I guess, for around four or five hours.
_________________________________________________________________
Ms Behan was taken to the local hospital where a gynaecologist examined her, but she does not know if any forensic evidence was taken. She says no attempt was made to examine her wounds for evidence. When she returned to the room several days later with her parents, “my Mam found a nail of mine on the bed which must have come off in the initial scuffle. So I am not very confident that they examined the room closely.”
Ms Behan added: “I had little hope over the last 16 years that they would find the man who did this. I was told at the time that I should just be quiet, that if I talked about what had happened I would bring bad publicity to the resort and put off the tourists.
“Then I read about the poor American woman who was raped in September 2005 - who I would love to talk to - and the possible link that was being made between her attack and the person who abducted Madeleine McCann, and I was so full of anger, I knew in my gut it was the right thing to do to speak out.
“I think if the police had done their job investigating what happened to me, if this is indeed the same man that attacked the American and abducted Madeleine McCann, they might have prevented the attack on her, and Madeleine would now be at home with her parents.”
German police and London’s Metropolitan police are thought to have identified the German man as a key suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance. They have appealed to the public for any information and have received about 400 calls.
Ms Behan, who lives in Ireland with her husband and two children, has given a statement to the UK’s Met, who informed her they were taking her case seriously and would be contacting Portuguese police. Ms Behan said the Met had informed her that other people had contacted them independently about her attack.
“They offered everything they can do to help me,” she said. “It’s the first time in 16 years that I’ve been offered any help from an official. I live in hope of finally getting closure on an extremely difficult chapter in my life.” She added: “Speaking out about this is difficult, but in my gut I feel it is the right thing to do.”
The Met would not comment on Ms Behan’s case but the force reiterated its appeal for “anyone with information to come forward and speak with us”. Portuguese police have not responded to a request for comment.– Guardian
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/irish-rape-victim-asks-mccann-detectives-to-review-her-case-after-hearing-about-new-suspect-1.4274446
Obviously forensics were taken as Brueckner’s DNA has been ruled out. It’s surprising the victim didn’t know this.
Well it looks as if CB is not responsible, nor has she got closure.
Nor is she ever likely to now. Of course some sceptics elsewhere think she made the whole thing up, which is par for the course, but quite illogical when you think about it.
Well she knows CB isn't responsible now doesn't she, she didn't before they investigated her case, you can't blame her for wanting to know one way or the other. No she hasn't got closure as you point out, poor woman.
Indeed Lace. This is Hazel B’s description of her ordeal:
Well she knows CB isn't responsible now doesn't she, she didn't before they investigated her case, you can't blame her for wanting to know one way or the other. No she hasn't got closure as you point out, poor woman.
Not surprising at all. It is only now that the German investigation has checked the evidence out that we have learned anything; the victim couldn't be expected to know anything till then.
Surely Brietta is referring to D Menkes’ property at the end of Brückner’s path leading to her home ‘Casa Jacaranda’ and the beach.
I'm afraid I don't know where CB was living in 2005. I thought it was outside PdL.
I always thought he lived in the blue windowed house in Monte Judeu until he was jailed in 2006.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB0QAm1e5Co
I'm sure a lot of people do. It doesn't seem to be a particularly large place.
Quite.
When one is in his line of business I imagine it is as well to know every nook and cranny there is.
For example dark areas to stand in unobserved while surveying all around.
The quickest and most unobtrusive lanes connecting one to the other either for escaping on foot or to a vehicle. And a host of other things a casual observer would never know ... but which individuals like him would.
Well I would think being there a week would surface to know your way around in a very small complex.
Absolutely. The McCanns were hardly in the place and on the verge of leaving it but with their superhuman knowledge some believe they managed to flummox the best brains the Judicial police had on offer 😮 as they ran rings around them secreting their much loved daughter in fridges - in a big dog - in coffins and even in the boot of a rental car they hadn't yet rented.
Wonder where the blue bag disappeared to ...
Wonder where the blue bag disappeared to ...
I am more interested in were Maddie disappeared to.
But are we not off topic here a CB and media thread.
The victim obviously went public as she wanted the Police to open her case, she wanted to know if CB was responsible, to have closure.And she wanted Justice.
And she wanted Justice.
Maybe she also hoped that her info would help the Police find out what happened to Madeleine.
The fact that the authorities spread-eagled her nude on a table, certainly rings a bell with me. Sounds like they are trying to put off any other victim of rape and violent assault from reporting it to the police
What's going on ?
British media,who knows?Fair enough.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-hired-inmate-22777780
Snippets.
Madeleine McCann police 'hired inmate to get confession from prime suspect in jail'
Asked about the claim tonight, the public prosecutor’s office would not deny it, simply saying: “No comment.”
British media,who knows?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-hired-inmate-22777780
Snippets.
Madeleine McCann police 'hired inmate to get confession from prime suspect in jail'
Asked about the claim tonight, the public prosecutor’s office would not deny it, simply saying: “No comment.”
This is what I call junk journalism. The headline says..
Madeleine McCann police 'hired inmate to get confession from prime suspect in jail
yet the actual article says..
An inmate may have been recruited
no named sources...probably CB's lawyer imo.
So who did they speak to at the prosecutors office...the tea boy. we just dont knw how relaible any of this is...but if it suits peoples agenda they beleive it anyway
This is what I call junk journalism. The headline says..
Madeleine McCann police 'hired inmate to get confession from prime suspect in jail
yet the actual article says..
An inmate may have been recruited
no named sources...probably CB's lawyer imo.
So who did they speak to at the prosecutors office...the tea boy. we just dont knw how relaible any of this is...but if it suits peoples agenda they beleive it anyway
I know which is why I added the caveat at the beginning of my post,Rowley 2017:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
I think its safe to say all of the stories about CB fall into that category.
I think the notion is risible that that prosecutors would jeopardise the investigation by using such a transparent tactic which is apparently against German law.
Like the initial "scapegoat" propaganda put about by Amaral I am sure releasing this unattributed conjecture into the public domain is yet another ruse which will run and run for those who are in a bit of denial about Brueckner.
Who is in denial about Brueckner?Hear,hear.
Certainly not me.
I don't deny he didn't do it.
Hear,hear.You know he didn't do it? Based on what certain knowledge?
You know he didn't do it? Based on what certain knowledge?He is just not "deny(ing) he didn't do it"
He is just not "deny(ing) he didn't do it"how can he do that then?
how can he do that then?Who knows?
Who knows?That's why I asked, to find out.
You know he didn't do it? Based on what certain knowledge?
The same as those that suppose he did.No one here is "denying he didn't do it"
Who is in denial about Brueckner?
Certainly not me.
I don't deny he didn't do it.
You know he didn't do it? Based on what certain knowledge?
Based on the fact that I know who dunnit.Was it Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory with a lead pipe? I bet you knew who dunnit when playing Cluedo before the first throw of the dice, you little Sherlock you.
Based on the fact that I know who dunnit.
I believe Spammy sent a file in a coloured folder.
I believe Spammy sent a file in a coloured folder.
I would hazard a guess that OG were above their knees deep in missives from all and sundry.
Was it shown on Crimewatch, like two and maybe three, of mine were ?
What colour was it?
Oh that doesn't matter really because the colour can so easily be changed by internet Magick. Note the K.
Magick, with a K, (i.e. deception) is important to these people.
I’m sure my hole punch was shown too. It’d certainly explain where it disappeared to.
Oh really ?
How interesting 8(>((
It was. You’d think with a £12 million pound budget they’d be able to afford their own hole punches.
Everything that I sent was grouped into small subject areas. Each subject area was placed in a separate clear already hole punched pocket.
Why would they want to hole punch it again?
These individual pockets were named and numbered, and placed in a large Lavender coloured substantial folder. In the big folder at the middle of the top shelf of the OG investigation room, there was a complete index.
There was one massive folder and three or four others IIRC. Unfortunately I fell ill with cancer and am not sure if I sent one/maybe two of them, but they were lesser folders anyhow. Whilst working diligently producing my theory (with a multitude of facts) for four years over extra- ordinarily long hours, I am untidy and my papers are massive and poorly filed.. I have been very ill with a series of different serious illnesses over the past five tears and no longer have the energy to search for them.
Ok? So after that long diatribe, the long and short of it is that OG didn't need a hole punch cos the papers were sorted into groups and placed into already punched pockets before being sent
Soz, faith but you are wrong …………………….. again
Stick in there Sadie. I have seen some of your research and it was jolly well done.
Thanks Elli - and you only saw some of the after-OG-left-over-bits, which were poorly filed. I don't think I explained them very well to you either. Soz about that
I still occasionally find things, but sadly no longer have the energy to organise and send them off. Everything I sent in before was actually passed over by me, hand to hand, at Belgravia Police station. I was lucky cos Victoria Coach station was virtually next door and the coach ride wasn't so expensive.
Nevertheless, the whole search was horrendously expensive, including trips to Portugal and visiting a number of towns there which were of interest - The Stationary and inks cost a fortune, but I think that I got there in the end.
Hopefully we will get Madeleine back and maybe some of the other missing children? And stop these gawd awful abductions by finding the right people who did them.
I doubt that it will permanently stop them though, cos like The Phoenix, sadly they will rise again with even more sophisticated methods of abducting and trafficking.
Such is the lure of mega money and mens (mainly) sexual and other urges 8(8-))
No Sadie, you didn't explain these things badly to me. I did understand. But my mind has no sides beyond who perpetrated this particular act.
There will always have been a reason, but the reason itself is not that important to me. Beyond that I only need to know that The McCanns could not have done this. So it must have been someone else.
It certainly isn't good enough to assume that Brueckner did this, on the limited evidence that we have at the moment.
I am currently dubious about The German thing, although translation might come into this, plus a bit of prestige on their part.
I have completely lost track of why Britain would not be allowed to prosecute a British Subject when Germany appears to be able to prosecute a German Subject. Has Portugal conceded defeat on this? If so then they should say so.
I don't have a problem with Britain treating this as a Missing Person Enquiry simply because no one knows. Unless Germany has more evidence than they are telling. I could speculate but I don't want to do that. I want this to be straight forward and proper and without doubt.
So don't doubt yourself, Sadie. Just try not to take this all too wide and beyond the comprehension of most people.
I am a Celt to the core, but no one is really interested in the bloodlines of my people, only in who I am and how I behave towards others personally.
I don't understand unkindness or lack of logic and I always give the benefit of the doubt. Some people are not so fortunate as I am.
And self praise is no honour.
I see no self praise, but I do see honour, compassion and integrity in Ellis post.
It is a shame that so many people lack that.
Agreed, Sadie, which is why I 'liked' it.
Also it was a delight to read posts devoid of what seems to be the prevalent de rigueur rancour and nastiness for a change.
I see no self praise, but I do see honour, compassion and integrity in Ellis post.
It is a shame that so many people lack that.
I'll second that. At the moment the board seems relatively free of rancour and nastiness. It would be nice if it could continue.
Taking some of the media stories with a pinch of salt might help. There have been so many which seem to contain speculation, gossip and innuendo rather than facts. Perhaps because facts are thin on the ground, as has always been the norm in this case in my opinion.
What lies have the media told about Brueckner?
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando.
What year did Barry George win his damages? I think the law has changed since then, and as I quoted above the claimant has to prove serious harm to his reputation, in any case was this not after he had been acquitted and did they not make up false quotes attributed to him?
amicably settled following successful mediation and without the need for litigation.”[/i]
If this is true
This is a myth
Payment was made ‘over false harassment claims‘ https://www.5rb.com/news/barry-george-wins-libel-damages/
Mr George said: “I am pleased that the matter between me and News Group Newspapers has been amicably settled following successful mediation and without the need for litigation.”
The false accusation was accusing him of admitting to being a stalker
Payment was made ‘over false harassment claims‘ https://www.5rb.com/news/barry-george-wins-libel-damages/
“The story of extreme racial prejudice appalled the country. But it was not true.
Cotter had set up the assault himself in a bizarre plan to revive the couple's relationship. The plot backfired when a jury at Birmingham crown court found him and his co-defendants, Craig Wynn and Surjit Singh Clair, guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Not only did he waste weeks of police time, but he made the woman he hoped to marry fear for her life.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/09/race.world1
Do you think Barry George said ‘talking’ or ‘stalking’ ?Talking is followed by to in a sentence. You can be caught "stalking" or "talking to" another woman.
Surjit Singh Clair represented Barry George during this time http://effectivemedialtd.com/
‘The judge said Clair's behaviour was worse because he tried to make a "significant personal profit" by selling the story. The Express newspaper agreed to pay £6,000 to Clair for the tale of the attack, but the money was never handed over after police became suspicious of Cotter's claims.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/olympian-s-boyfriend-jailed-fake-attack-9131683.html
Do you think Barry George said ‘talking’ or ‘stalking’ ?
Surjit Singh Clair represented Barry George during this time http://effectivemedialtd.com/
‘The judge said Clair's behaviour was worse because he tried to make a "significant personal profit" by selling the story. The Express newspaper agreed to pay £6,000 to Clair for the tale of the attack, but the money was never handed over after police became suspicious of Cotter's claims.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/olympian-s-boyfriend-jailed-fake-attack-9131683.html
Talking is followed by to in a sentence. You can be caught "stalking" or "talking to" another woman.
Michelle Diskin Bates states in her book Stand Against Injustice:
“On Sunday, the News of the World ran the story and it was a hatchet job. Barry’s piece was fine, except for the headline . . . ‘I couldn’t have done it, I was stalking another woman at the time!’
Barry absolutely did not say this. We’d been there the entire time, we’d gone over everything. Barry told them, “I couldn’t have killed Jill Dando. I was talking with another woman at the time.” Actually, he was wrong. When Ms Dando was killed, Barry was at the HAFAD centre.
The point I made and will make again is that Barry george never received damages becasue newspaers reported he was asuspect in the Dando murder...thats what gunit tried to show. In the same way saying CB is a suspect in the McCann case is not libellous.
Barry George received damages because the papers reported a statement they claimed he had made which they had no proof he made.
“The headline for the article was ‘I didn’t kill Jill Dando… I was stalking someone else at the time’. The defendant accepts that Mr George never made that statement.”
Michael Bourke
“Outside the courtroom I spoke with Mr Clegg and Samuels. We discussed Julia Moorhouse, the women who described being spoken to by a man who could have been Barry approx an hour after Jill Dando’s murder. I felt her description of the man was too like Barry to be coincidence, and as she reported the meeting to the police straight away on that day it sounded genuine.
We agreed the man she met probably was Barry but disagreed as to whether they met before of after he had visited HAFAD. The Crown claimed before, which would support their case.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ltgorwROQfwC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=julia+moorhoise+barry+george&source=bl&ots=Osy93KB1cB&sig=ACfU3U0FTXfq_4eMlR8wsXOK6kqzD1zjZQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNlMqAqObhAhXbURUIHaD5DjkQ6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=julia%20moorhoise%20barry%20george&f=false
This is a myth
Payment was made ‘over false harassment claims‘ https://www.5rb.com/news/barry-george-wins-libel-damages/
Mr George said: “I am pleased that the matter between me and News Group Newspapers has been amicably settled following successful mediation and without the need for litigation.”
News Group has now admitted that the articles "would have been understood to mean that there were grounds to suspect Mr George of the murder despite his acquittal. (They) accept that the verdict of the second jury in acquitting Mr George was correct and it apologises to Mr George for any suggestion otherwise."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/16/barry-george-news-of-world
Payment was made ‘over false harassment claims‘ https://www.5rb.com/news/barry-george-wins-libel-damages/
Mr George said: “I am pleased that the matter between me and News Group Newspapers has been amicably settled following successful mediation and without the need for litigation.”
I imagine that if the Germans failed to charge CB & he embarked on a defamation claim against various media outlets he'd have less financial support than Malinka when the latter wanted to publish a book. CB's actions would cause no harm to (or even involve) the McCanns, which is the main incentive for those who contributed to Amaral's "defence" fund.
IMO the reason for German police not sharing the concrete evidence they have with SY or PJ is because such evidence shows others who were present just prior to or at the time the alleged murder was committed.
Surjit Singh Clair represented Barry George during this time http://effectivemedialtd.com/
‘The judge said Clair's behaviour was worse because he tried to make a "significant personal profit" by selling the story. The Express newspaper agreed to pay £6,000 to Clair for the tale of the attack, but the money was never handed over after police became suspicious of Cotter's claims.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/olympian-s-boyfriend-jailed-fake-attack-9131683.html
Interesting, Misty.
I hadn't thought of that. So, IYO, some people (important people?) are being covered for? Protected ?
Perhaps they just don't have any concrete evidence. If they did CB would have been charged. The parents are remarkably quiet about this current situation, imo.The parents will be because they believe Madeleine's alive and can be found and I expect they have their two other children to keep buoyed up with this ?
Perhaps they just don't have any concrete evidence. If they did CB would have been charged. The parents are remarkably quiet about this current situation, imo.