UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Brietta on August 31, 2022, 09:26:08 AM
-
A member has rightly said of the "new suspect" thread that Brueckner can no longer be described as "new" so taking off from there I thought we might have a go at keeping up to date - keeping debate civil - and staying on topic.
Madeleine McCann suspect named as Christian Brueckner
Elisa Menendez
Thursday 4 Jun 2020
Met Police revealed on Wednesday that a 43-year-old German child sex offender is now a suspect in the case. German media have named the suspect as ‘Christian B’, while Portuguese sources are understood to have confirmed his full name to The Telegraph – however, police have not yet revealed his name.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-named-christian-brueckner-12803974/
-
A member has rightly said of the "new suspect" thread that Brueckner can no longer be described as "new" so taking off from there I thought we might have a go at keeping up to date - keeping debate civil - and staying on topic.
Madeleine McCann suspect named as Christian Brueckner
Elisa Menendez
Thursday 4 Jun 2020
Met Police revealed on Wednesday that a 43-year-old German child sex offender is now a suspect in the case. German media have named the suspect as ‘Christian B’, while Portuguese sources are understood to have confirmed his full name to The Telegraph – however, police have not yet revealed his name.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-named-christian-brueckner-12803974/
Two years ago is up to date is It?
-
A member has rightly said of the "new suspect" thread that Brueckner can no longer be described as "new" so taking off from there I thought we might have a go at keeping up to date - keeping debate civil - and staying on topic.
Madeleine McCann suspect named as Christian Brueckner
Elisa Menendez
Thursday 4 Jun 2020
Met Police revealed on Wednesday that a 43-year-old German child sex offender is now a suspect in the case. German media have named the suspect as ‘Christian B’, while Portuguese sources are understood to have confirmed his full name to The Telegraph – however, police have not yet revealed his name.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-named-christian-brueckner-12803974/
All the while you have certain forum members stuck in a rut repeating the same old goady nonsense like “it shouldn’t be much longer now” on a daily if not hourly basis I don’t really think there’s much hope of civil debate.
-
Anyhow, it won't be long before the sceptics' manage to uncover the missing piece of information that leads to the McCanns arrests and charge of first degree murder, any day now....
-
Anyhow, it won't be long before the sceptics' manage to uncover the missing piece of information that leads to the McCanns arrests and charge of first degree murder, any day now....
No, that doesn't work, because the McCanns aren't prime suspects of the three investigative forces & there isn't concrete evidence against them.
-
Stop believing rubbish then we wouldn't have the opportunity to rib you over it.
You could try that.
A good exanple to follow would be Heriberto's imo. He wasn't convinced by the rubbish and was very sensibly sceptical when he found that the evidence to support the publicised claims was not reliable.
-
A good exanple to follow would be Heriberto's imo. He wasn't convinced by the rubbish and was very sensibly sceptical when he found that the evidence to support the publicised claims was not reliable.
What rubbish do you think I believe exactly? Do you think Heriberto is not convinced Madeleine was taken by a stranger? Seriously??
-
A suspect being investigated in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been locally identified as Christian Brueckner, according to reports, as German officials reveal the case is being treated as a murder.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Officers confirmed that the man is a white German national with short blonde hair, possibly fair, and about 6ft tall with a slim build at the time Madeleine vanished. Police said he was seen in the area around the resort of Praia da Luz, on the Algarve coast in the days and weeks ahead of her disappearance, in Portugal on May 3, 2007.
It is understood the suspect is carrying out a seven-year prison sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old American woman in Portugal in 2005, reported German newspaper Braunschweiger Zeitung. He was convicted of the offence in Braunschweig district court in December last year, the newspaper reported.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-named-christian-brueckner-12803974/
I think it highly unlikely that the German police were deliberately looking for a 'patsy' to clear up the crime rate in Portugal.
I think it far more likely that one piece of evidence led to another which tied into something else which just could not be ignored.
'We DO have new evidence… but we did NOT find fibres in Madeleine McCann suspect's van': German prosecutor DENIES bombshell claim but says new clue points to Christian Brueckner
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10785769/Madeleine-McCann-didnt-clothes-fibres-prosecutor-says.html
This is an evidence led inquiry and rightly so, that evidence has not yet been released into the public domain. Why anyone thinks it should, is merely another mystery associated with everything to do with genuine attempts to solve Madeleine's case.
-
Maybe they just don't have any evidence, beyond Brueckner's bravado.
That could be why the case isn't being put before a judge anytime in the foreseeable future, couldn't it.
-
A good exanple to follow would be Heriberto's imo. He wasn't convinced by the rubbish and was very sensibly sceptical when he found that the evidence to support the publicised claims was not reliable.
All of Heri's research is painstakingly collected and subject to unbiased analysis pointing out the pros and cons of evidence or the lack of.
"Now we know that the Portuguese investigators did not collect all the possible sources of nuclear DNA at the scene of the crime, hours after it happened. The traces were there, and it is not understood why they were not collected. We are referring to an unknown number of cigarette butts that were found outside, but very close to, apartment 5A."
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com/2022/01/an-error-by-portuguese-investigators.html
I think you are way off tangent in your attempts to devalue the integrity of his clearly documented work. which is as it is without fear or favour.
-
A suspect being investigated in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been locally identified as Christian Brueckner, according to reports, as German officials reveal the case is being treated as a murder.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Officers confirmed that the man is a white German national with short blonde hair, possibly fair, and about 6ft tall with a slim build at the time Madeleine vanished. Police said he was seen in the area around the resort of Praia da Luz, on the Algarve coast in the days and weeks ahead of her disappearance, in Portugal on May 3, 2007.
It is understood the suspect is carrying out a seven-year prison sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old American woman in Portugal in 2005, reported German newspaper Braunschweiger Zeitung. He was convicted of the offence in Braunschweig district court in December last year, the newspaper reported.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/04/madeleine-mccann-suspect-named-christian-brueckner-12803974/
I think it highly unlikely that the German police were deliberately looking for a 'patsy' to clear up the crime rate in Portugal.
I think it far more likely that one piece of evidence led to another which tied into something else which just could not be ignored.
'We DO have new evidence… but we did NOT find fibres in Madeleine McCann suspect's van': German prosecutor DENIES bombshell claim but says new clue points to Christian Brueckner
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10785769/Madeleine-McCann-didnt-clothes-fibres-prosecutor-says.html
This is an evidence led inquiry and rightly so, that evidence has not yet been released into the public domain. Why anyone thinks it should, is merely another mystery associated with everything to do with genuine attempts to solve Madeleine's case.
This is not up to date information is it? Regardless of what has gone before the very latest information I have seen was the German prosecutor telling 60 minutes that it could take years to bring his suspect to trial. The investigation may be evidence led, but they obviously haven't yet found the definitive evidence they need.
-
A good exanple to follow would be Heriberto's imo. He wasn't convinced by the rubbish and was very sensibly sceptical when he found that the evidence to support the publicised claims was not reliable.
nonsense..heri doubted the telephone evidence thats all. He seemed to think that was the major piece of evidence...he was wrong
-
This is not up to date information is it? Regardless of what has gone before the very latest information I have seen was the German prosecutor telling 60 minutes that it could take years to bring his suspect to trial. The investigation may be evidence led, but they obviously haven't yet found the definitive evidence they need.
its tiresome to keep having to correct you. Wolters is trying to build an absolyely watertight case..that doesnt mean he doesnt have enough evidence yet to charge or prosecute
-
its tiresome to keep having to correct you. Wolters is trying to build an absolyely watertight case..that doesnt mean he doesnt have enough evidence yet to charge or prosecute
His case, the evidence is already 100% convincing, isn't It?
Can't get much more watertight than that really.
-
its tiresome to keep having to correct you. Wolters is trying to build an absolyely watertight case..that doesnt mean he doesnt have enough evidence yet to charge or prosecute
It's like trying to reason with six year olds. Never mind, they will understand one day if and when they ever grow up.
-
Schrödinger's Brueckner evidence.
100% convincing, whilst simultaneously, not entirely convincing.
-
its tiresome to keep having to correct you. Wolters is trying to build an absolyely watertight case..that doesnt mean he doesnt have enough evidence yet to charge or prosecute
You are in no position to correct me because you have no more information than I have. The difference is that you are happy to believe what you are told.
-
You are in no position to correct me because you have no more information than I have. The difference is that you are happy to believe what you are told.
So are you saying that Wolters ISN'T trying to build a watertight case? Isn't what Davel wrote perfectly logical?
-
You are in no position to correct me because you have no more information than I have. The difference is that you are happy to believe what you are told.
need to correct you again....I dont simply believe what Im told...that is a stupid allegation. I have explained why I find Wolters claims credible...if you dont read the posts or cant remember them fine....but to accuse me of believing what Im told is just stupid
-
This is not up to date information is it? Regardless of what has gone before the very latest information I have seen was the German prosecutor telling 60 minutes that it could take years to bring his suspect to trial. The investigation may be evidence led, but they obviously haven't yet found the definitive evidence they need.
We are dealing with a cold case and we are dealing with the evidence which was ignored at the time but which should not have been
Quite obviously the German investigation has been able to circumvent such derelictions.
Off which there were many - and have carried out the necessary diligences to enable them to build a very up to date evidence based case against the prime suspect.
-
His case, the evidence is already 100% convincing, isn't It?
Can't get much more watertight than that really.
Can't be bothered to explained
-
We are dealing with a cold case and we are dealing with the evidence which was ignored at the time but which should not have been
Quite obviously the German investigation has been able to circumvent such derelictions.
Off which there were many - and have carried out the necessary diligences to enable them to build a very up to date evidence based case against the prime suspect.
Not a very good case they've built though is it.
Certainly, Brueckner isn't convinced by it, & he of all people should be in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not.
-
Can't be bothered to explained
Wolters will explain, perhaps one day.
Just not anytime in the foreseeable future though.
But maybe after that.
-
Can't be bothered to explained
My advice - stop feeding the troll.
-
My advice - stop feeding the troll.
agreed...putting him on ignore
-
My advice - stop feeding the troll.
Well, you'll all have to remain silent until Wolters wraps things up then really, because I'm going to be here, quite happy to remind you, every time you fantasise over the concrete evidence, that Brueckner simply isn't being charged either today, tomorrow, next year, or until hell freezes over.
But maybe after that aye, maybe Wolters will finally be able to prove Maddie was ever abducted in the first place once that happens.
-
agreed...putting him on ignore
you won't regret it
-
We are dealing with a cold case and we are dealing with the evidence which was ignored at the time but which should not have been
Quite obviously the German investigation has been able to circumvent such derelictions.
Off which there were many - and have carried out the necessary diligences to enable them to build a very up to date evidence based case against the prime suspect.
The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.
-
The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.
You are confusing innocence and the POI. He may or may not be innocent....a court verdict is not definitive
For instance if he was found guilty on the basis of a confession beaten out if him...would the verdict convince you
-
The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.
And by the same argument you will of course wholeheartedly agree that the McCanns and their friends including DP are innocent no matter what nasty allegations are made about them on here and elsewhere, right?
-
The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.
A serial child sex abuser and likely a serial rapist, who was wandering around Europe, seemingly doing as he pleased Until Germany caught up with him for crimes committed in Portugal that Portugal couldn't be bothered with.
I am more than happy to leave it to Germany.
-
You are confusing innocence and the POI. He may or may not be innocent....a court verdict is not definitive
For instance if he was found guilty on the basis of a confession beaten out if him...would the verdict convince you
If there is a verdict against Brueckner, even without a beating, some persons will never believe it.
-
And by the same argument you will of course wholeheartedly agree that the McCanns and their friends including DP are innocent no matter what nasty allegations are made about them on here and elsewhere, right?
Please try not to be too silly. This lark only works one way.
-
If there is a verdict against Brueckner, even without a beating, some persons will never believe it.
When does the trial start, anytime soon?
-
A serial child sex abuser and likely a serial rapist, who was wandering around Europe, seemingly doing as he pleased Until Germany caught up with him for crimes committed in Portugal that Portugal couldn't be bothered with.
I am more than happy to leave it to Germany.
You'll be long dead before Germany ever prove Maddie was abducted.
-
Please try not to be too silly. This lark only works one way.
Oh course! What an idiot I am to think G-Unit would agree, or even deign to answer my post.
-
Oh course! What an idiot I am to think G-Unit would agree, or even deign to answer my post.
It's called Idiosyncratic Hypocrisy. But don't worry about it. It isn't catching.
-
The proof of the pudding lies in a court of law, not in the speculations of forum members or the pronouncements of prosecutors. CB remains innocent until proved guilty atm no matter what is said.
Innocent just as the McCanns have been for fifteen years. One main difference is that when the McCanns worried that their daughter had been abducted by a paedophile, they were mocked and derided. The other main difference to that is that Brueckner is a convicted paedophile who the tormentors who slur the McCanns feel bound to defend his innocence.
Well the truth of the matter is that Brueckner is a convicted paedophile. The other truth is that Brueckner is a convicted torturer and rapist. His rights will be defended throughout the process to which he will be subjected; why therefore do you not defend those demonstrably innocent of any such crimes against the female person or any crime whatsoever, but instead trample their inalienable rights into the dust at every opportunity.
-
Innocent just as the McCanns have been for fifteen years. One main difference is that when the McCanns worried that their daughter had been abducted by a paedophile, they were mocked and derided. The other main difference to that is that Brueckner is a convicted paedophile who the tormentors who slur the McCanns feel bound to defend his innocence.
Well the truth of the matter is that Brueckner is a convicted paedophile. The other truth is that Brueckner is a convicted torturer and rapist. His rights will be defended throughout the process to which he will be subjected; why therefore do you not defend those demonstrably innocent of any such crimes against the female person or any crime whatsoever, but instead trample their inalienable rights into the dust at every opportunity.
This all began when Brueckner was first named as a suspect with all attending previous convictions. While I have never said that Brueckner wasn't entitled to the presumption of innocence.
I just don't understand how Sceptics can continue to accuse The McCanns, beyond some sort of madness or badness, or some sort of deep rooted genetics. Although why this is so does defeat me when they defend Brueckner.
But there is nothing to be done about it now. It is beyond redemption. So we will just have to stagger on.
-
Prosecutor's Office: New Evidence Against B. in the "Maddie" Case
Last modified: 05.05.2022
15 years ago, Madeleine McCann disappeared from a resort in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz. The Braunschweig public prosecutor's office now has new evidence against a suspect.
The authority assumes that the imprisoned multiple offender Christian B. kidnapped and killed the girl called "Maddie". "We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann," said Braunschweig prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters on Tuesday evening in an interview with the Portuguese broadcaster CMTV. "The investigation is ongoing and we have found some new facts, some new evidence." Wolters did not give details. Two weeks ago, a Portuguese public prosecutor's office announced that it was now officially accusing Christian B. of the murder of "Maddie".
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Staatsanwaltschaft-Neue-Beweise-gegen-B-im-Fall-Maddie,maddie294.html
I don't think the German prosecutors are trying to 'set someone up' or otherwise interfere with the course of justice in Madeleine's case.
They have the evidence and they are very sure of its significance. I think it is certainly worth noting that the Portuguese authorities are of a like mind whatever blind alley down which Amaral tried to direct them.
-
Prosecutor's Office: New Evidence Against B. in the "Maddie" Case
Last modified: 05.05.2022
15 years ago, Madeleine McCann disappeared from a resort in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz. The Braunschweig public prosecutor's office now has new evidence against a suspect.
The authority assumes that the imprisoned multiple offender Christian B. kidnapped and killed the girl called "Maddie". "We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann," said Braunschweig prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters on Tuesday evening in an interview with the Portuguese broadcaster CMTV. "The investigation is ongoing and we have found some new facts, some new evidence." Wolters did not give details. Two weeks ago, a Portuguese public prosecutor's office announced that it was now officially accusing Christian B. of the murder of "Maddie".
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Staatsanwaltschaft-Neue-Beweise-gegen-B-im-Fall-Maddie,maddie294.html
I don't think the German prosecutors are trying to 'set someone up' or otherwise interfere with the course of justice in Madeleine's case.
They have the evidence and they are very sure of its significance. I think it is certainly worth noting that the Portuguese authorities are of a like mind whatever blind alley down which Amaral tried to direct them.
Meanwhile, I will continue to defend Brueckner's Right to Innocence, as I have always done. And I am not sure anyway. I need to see Evidence. But I don't think there will ever be much chance of that. We will not be treated to that. And I don't want to see it anyway. The Panel of Judges will deal with that, whether Brueckner is guilty or not.
-
This all began when Brueckner was first named as a suspect with all attending previous convictions. While I have never said that Brueckner wasn't entitled to the presumption of innocence.
I just don't understand how Sceptics can continue to accuse The McCanns, beyond some sort of madness or badness, or some sort of deep rooted genetics. Although why this is so does defeat me when they defend Brueckner.
But there is nothing to be done about it now. It is beyond redemption. So we will just have to stagger on.
There are two sides to this perennial argument.
There are those like thee and me who have NEVER impugned Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence and who have had to argue on a daily basis for the McCann right to the same.
There are those who argue on a daily basis with intent to destroy any human right to which the McCann's are entitled even if just by dint of being human beings, but who defend Brueckner's right - which absolutely none but they are challenging.
Really funny old world isn't it.
-
Meanwhile, I will continue to defend Brueckner's Right to Innocence, as I have always done. And I am not sure anyway. I need to see Evidence. But I don't think there will ever be much chance of that. We will not be treated to that. And I don't want to see it anyway. The Panel of Judges will deal with that, whether Brueckner is guilty or not.
Suspect B. "has no alibi"
According to investigators in Germany, telephone records prove that Christian B. was at the time of the crime near the hotel complex in Praia da Luz, from which the girl had disappeared on the evening of May 3.
By whom B. had been called that evening, will be further investigated, said Wolters in the interview.
Wolters emphasized that the suspect could not prove that he had not been at the scene.
"Christian B. has no alibi," the prosecutor said.
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Staatsanwaltschaft-Neue-Beweise-gegen-B-im-Fall-Maddie,maddie294.html
I agree, Eleanor.
Furthermore I do not think we need to know anymore like the above about him. It should always have been sufficient for us to know only that the McCann investigation was ongoing and the police had persons of interest who they were under investigation.
Which is precisely what they were doing in the face of sceptic ridicule and complaint until the 2019 Saunokonoko podcast featuring Amaral which eventually introduced Brueckner to the world in 2020.
-
Meanwhile, I will continue to defend Brueckner's Right to Innocence, as I have always done. And I am not sure anyway. I need to see Evidence. But I don't think there will ever be much chance of that. We will not be treated to that. And I don't want to see it anyway. The Panel of Judges will deal with that, whether Brueckner is guilty or not.
You'll be long dead before Wolters puts the concrete evidence before a court.
-
Suspect B. "has no alibi"
According to investigators in Germany, telephone records prove that Christian B. was at the time of the crime near the hotel complex in Praia da Luz, from which the girl had disappeared on the evening of May 3.
By whom B. had been called that evening, will be further investigated, said Wolters in the interview.
Wolters emphasized that the suspect could not prove that he had not been at the scene.
"Christian B. has no alibi," the prosecutor said.
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Staatsanwaltschaft-Neue-Beweise-gegen-B-im-Fall-Maddie,maddie294.html
I agree, Eleanor.
Furthermore I do not think we need to know anymore like the above about him. It should always have been sufficient for us to know only that the McCann investigation was ongoing and the police had persons of interest who they were under investigation.
Which is precisely what they were doing in the face of sceptic ridicule and complaint until the 2019 Saunokonoko podcast featuring Amaral which eventually introduced Brueckner to the world in 2020.
We're still ridiculing them now, & anyone who believes Wolters, & will be continuing to do so for the foreseeable future, unless Wolters proves us all wrong that is, which simply isn't going to happen.
-
There are two sides to this perennial argument.
There are those like thee and me who have NEVER impugned Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence and who have had to argue on a daily basis for the McCann right to the same.
There are those who argue on a daily basis with intent to destroy any human right to which the McCann's are entitled even if just by dint of being human beings, but who defend Brueckner's right - which absolutely none but they are challenging.
Really funny old world isn't it.
It is insane. They may think whatever they please, but it has to apply to everyone who believes in The Law. These people only believe in The Law when it suits them, for whatever Law they understand.
-
There is a difference between a prosecutor announcing that a suspect is guilty and people on forums saying that the McCanns are guilty of something. The prosecutor's words can affect the suspect's right to a fair trial (if he's ever charged), which makes it something which can be brought before the ECHR. The accusations made on forums can only be dealt with by the McCanns suing for libel.
-
There is a difference between a prosecutor announcing that a suspect is guilty and people on forums saying that the McCanns are guilty of something. The prosecutor's words can affect the suspect's right to a fair trial (if he's ever charged), which makes it something which can be brought before the ECHR. The accusations made on forums can only be dealt with by the McCanns suing for libel.
or by mods fulfilling their duty to uphold the rules pinned to the top of the board.
-
or by mods fulfilling their duty to uphold the rules pinned to the top of the board.
So the solution is in the hands of moderators? One wonders then why some of them are complaining about sceptics trampling the McCann's inalienable rights into the dust. An example of such a post might make things clearer.
-
So the solution is in the hands of moderators? One wonders then why some of them are complaining about sceptics trampling the McCann's inalienable rights into the dust. An example of such a post might make things clearer.
have a look at spams posts to start....some of which you have liked
-
So the solution is in the hands of moderators? One wonders then why some of them are complaining about sceptics trampling the McCann's inalienable rights into the dust. An example of such a post might make things clearer.
Are you a mod, and does it not say at the top of the forum that defamatory or libellous posts will be removed on sight? It seems this rule has been abandoned recently and it's quite ok now to insinuate that DP is a paedophile and that the McCanns murdered their child. Also, to accuse witnesses of lying to line their own pockets seems quite acceptable also.
-
Are you a mod, and does it not say at the top of the forum that defamatory or libellous posts will be removed on sight? It seems this rule has been abandoned recently and it's quite ok now to insinuate that DP is a paedophile and that the McCanns murdered their child. Also, to accuse witnesses of lying to line their own pockets seems quite acceptable also.
Seems it's OK to accuse Wolters of lying to
-
Seems it's OK to accuse Wolters of lying to
If it's OK to offer an opinion that Brueckner might be a child abductor & murderer then it's fair game all round really, isn't it.
-
have a look at spams posts to start....some of which you have liked
I'm not the one complaining about sceptic's posts, am I?
-
I'm not the one complaining about sceptic's posts, am I?
just for the sake of clarity, is it OK to accuse people of lying and of commiting criminal acts without proof?
-
Are you a mod, and does it not say at the top of the forum that defamatory or libellous posts will be removed on sight? It seems this rule has been abandoned recently and it's quite ok now to insinuate that DP is a paedophile and that the McCanns murdered their child. Also, to accuse witnesses of lying to line their own pockets seems quite acceptable also.
Witnesses mentioned DP in the case files. Discussion of those witness statements can't be outlawed, surely? How about Amaral being accused of writing a book purely to make money? Is that accusation acceptable? It's just an opinion, after all.
-
just for the sake of clarity, is it OK to accuse people of lying and of commiting criminal acts without proof?
It would be helpful if you provided an example. My interpretation of what posts are saying isn't always the same as yours.
-
just for the sake of clarity, is it OK to accuse people of lying and of commiting criminal acts without proof?
Your side have been accusing paedophiles of abducting Maddie, without any proof, for over 15 years now.
That's OK is It?
Mass discrimination against an entire group of society.
I don't think it's acceptable to tarnish the good reputations of millions of innocent paedophiles.
-
Male paedophiles at that.
No one ever suggests a female abductor either, do they, it's always men in the frame & I think that's a disgusting smear against the better half of the world's population.
-
Witnesses mentioned DP in the case files. Discussion of those witness statements can't be outlawed, surely? How about Amaral being accused of writing a book purely to make money? Is that accusation acceptable? It's just an opinion, after all.
I don't think accusing Amaral of writing a book to make money is libellous, as clearly he did write a book with the intention of selling it and making a profit from doing so, a bit different from accusing witnesses of lying to make money don't you think? Also
Faithlilly has described DP's actions as pertaining to child abuse, not her opinion but stated as fact. Is that acceptable in your view?
-
I remember seeing an interview in which Kate said she had told the twins that a bad man had taken Maddie.
Smearing all men to her impressionable young children when they had absolutely no way of knowing which gender identity abducted Maddie.
So it's OK for the McCanns to libel all men is it?
-
It would be helpful if you provided an example. My interpretation of what posts are saying isn't always the same as yours.
How do you think I know that Spam believes the McCanns murdered Madeleine? Do you think I'm psychic, or could it be that he was written so on this forum? Furthermore, we had a long and protracted argument some months ago about Faithlilly's repeated claims that Tasmin Sillence's dad had lied in an interview for financial gain, despite the fact that she produced no evidence to back up her claim. As I recall you refused to remove the libellous posts so one can only conclude that you don't have a problem with accusing people of such actions, right?
-
I don't think accusing Amaral of writing a book to make money is libellous, as clearly he did write a book with the intention of selling it and making a profit from doing so, a bit different from accusing witnesses of lying to make money don't you think? Also
Faithlilly has described DP's actions as pertaining to child abuse, not her opinion but stated as fact. Is that acceptable in your view?
So it's not libel if I say Jon Clarke wrote a book to make a profit for himself?
-
So it's not libel if I say Jon Clarke wrote a book to make a profit for himself?
Of course not, don't be silly!!
-
How do you think I know that Spam believes the McCanns murdered Madeleine? Do you think I'm psychic, or could it be that he was written so on this forum? Furthermore, we had a long and protracted argument some months ago about Faithlilly's repeated claims that Tasmin Sillence's dad had lied in an interview for financial gain, despite the fact that she produced no evidence to back up her claim. As I recall you refused to remove the libellous posts so one can only conclude that you don't have a problem with accusing people of such actions, right?
I don't appreciate being bullied and instructed what to think and do by members; I make my own decisions. I'm sure other mods would be more than happy to bow to your wishes. I notice there are still no examples provided. Does that mean that moderators are complaining about posts which no longer exist because they have been moderated?
-
I don't appreciate being bullied and instructed what to think and do by members; I make my own decisions. I'm sure other mods would be more than happy to bow to your wishes. I notice there are still no examples provided. Does that mean that moderators are complaining about posts which no longer exist because they have been moderated?
So what you're saying is, if I point out that something is clearly libellous and should be removed you will stubbornly refuse to do anything about it because it was me (someone you clearly view as having a worthless opinion) who pointed it out? I suspected as much, thanks for the clarification.
-
The TOPIC is Re: Madeleine McCann suspect named as Christian Brueckner
Please post On Topic ~ thank you
-
I remember seeing an interview in which Kate said she had told the twins that a bad man had taken Maddie.
Smearing all men to her impressionable young children when they had absolutely no way of knowing which gender identity abducted Maddie.
So it's OK for the McCanns to libel all men is it?
I think we can be pretty certain that a man was involved given the names of suspects so far. Spottyman, Tannerman, Tractorman, Scruffyman etc all come to mind. Even Totman entered the arena for all the wrong reasons.
-
I think we can be pretty certain that a man was involved given the names of suspects so far. Spottyman, Tannerman, Tractorman, Scruffyman etc all come to mind. Even Totman entered the arena for all the wrong reasons.
There was other sightings in the area leading up and no efits were taken i believe.
-
So it's not libel if I say Jon Clarke wrote a book to make a profit for himself?
It would also be untrue.
-
I think we can be pretty certain that a man was involved given the names of suspects so far. Spottyman, Tannerman, Tractorman, Scruffyman etc all come to mind. Even Totman entered the arena for all the wrong reasons.
I think we can be pretty certain that the troll was just wumming as usual.
-
There was other sightings in the area leading up and no efits were taken i believe.
What were these men doing that aroused suspicion?
Or was it just by way of them being male that they should be suspected of involvement in Madeleine's dissappeance?
-
There was other sightings in the area leading up and no efits were taken i believe.
In the past it has been suggested that the prime suspect might have had an accomplice. There are various reports of sightings involving a woman. For example George Burke and the Marina sighting.
-
I think we can be pretty certain that the troll was just wumming as usual.
No, I'm quite serious.
I've never been happy with the way the McCanns have singled men out as being responsible for their daughters dissappeance.
It simply isn't fair on men & as a man I'm deeply offended by their accusation & will be taking the matter up with my M.P.
-
In the past it has been suggested that the prime suspect might have had an accomplice. There are various reports of sightings involving a woman. For example George Burke and the Marina sighting.
that sighting has always struck me as potentially significant, but was hastily deemed not relevsnt to the investigation by the PJ for reasons best known to themselves.
-
What were these men doing that aroused suspicion?
Or was it just by way of them being male that they should be suspected of involvement in Madeleine's dissappeance?
That's never been really explained. And only after the event.
The 'witnesses' were quite content for these men to be suspicious before the event and to do nothing about it.
-
That's never been really explained. And only after the event.
The 'witnesses' were quite content for these men to be suspicious before the event and to do nothing about it.
Yeah, because this is the only case ever where witnesses have come forward after the event to say that they saw someone acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene.
-
It would also be untrue.
As are the accusations that money was Amaral's motivation imo.
-
As are the accusations that money was Amaral's motivation imo.
If it wasn’t a motivation he would have donated the entire proceeds to charity, or published online for free. Of course it was a motivation, just because he claimed more principled reasons for writing it (snort!) it doesn’t mean that money was not also a motivating factor. Being an author, a writer is a chosen career. Careers are usually remunerative.
-
So it's not libel if I say Jon Clarke wrote a book to make a profit for himself?
I seem to remember Brueckner describing Jon Clarke's search for Maddie as a 'comic'.
Anyway, true story, I remember at early primary school, we had been asked to read a short book & then write a brief review about it afterward, I read 'The Elves & The Shoemaker', keen of wit even at a young age, my one word review of the book simply read 'cobblers'. My teacher was not impressed.
-
As are the accusations that money was Amaral's motivation imo.
I wonder what Paulo Pereira C’s motivation was to publish three books on missing children in the Algarve.
-
If it wasn’t a motivation he would have donated the entire proceeds to charity, or published online for free. Of course it was a motivation, just because he claimed more principled reasons for writing it (snort!) it doesn’t mean that money was not also a motivating factor. Being an author, a writer is a chosen career. Careers are usually remunerative.
But not his sole motivation as has been insinuated.
-
But not his sole motivation as has been insinuated.
I don’t think anyone has insinuated any such thing however far more direct accusations of witnesses lying for money have been made. I reckon if it’s ok to do this without any actual evidence then it’s fine to accuse Amaral of lying for money too, what say you?
-
I don’t think anyone has insinuated any such thing however far more direct accusations of witnesses lying for money have been made. I reckon if it’s ok to do this without any actual evidence then it’s fine to accuse Amaral of lying for money too, what say you?
It's claimed he wrote his book to defend his honour which I don't believe...otherwise why didn't he write a book defending his attempt to cover up the torture of a suspect
-
I don’t think anyone has insinuated any such thing however far more direct accusations of witnesses lying for money have been made. I reckon if it’s ok to do this without any actual evidence then it’s fine to accuse Amaral of lying for money too, what say you?
Amaral has been accused of all sorts without any evidence. Perhaps because he made it difficult for the McCanns to regain their reputations. His opinion that the suspect produced by the Germans and Operation Grange was being set up as a patsy probably ensured that the evidence against him had to be definitive. At the moment that doesn't seem to have been achieved.
-
that sighting has always struck me as potentially significant, but was hastily deemed not relevsnt to the investigation by the PJ for reasons best known to themselves.
Regarding the facts in question, he states that he had already contacted the OH in May of 2007 and at this time relayed to the police that at around 06H00 in the morning on the 4th May, 2007, he saw a couple passing the Marina de Lagos. The man was carrying the child. It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation. Date: 2008/04/24
According to the witness - it was reported to the police at the time
- it was decided that it would be of no interest to the investigation
Bearing in mind the investigation concerned a missing child I too find it quite extraordinary that someone made that assessment and nothing was recorded in the interim report.
-
Amaral has been accused of all sorts without any evidence. Perhaps because he made it difficult for the McCanns to regain their reputations. His opinion that the suspect produced by the Germans and Operation Grange was being set up as a patsy probably ensured that the evidence against him had to be definitive. At the moment that doesn't seem to have been achieved.
Why do you think Amaral felt it necessary to lie about the suspect’s physical appearance and that of his vehicle?
-
Amaral has been accused of all sorts without any evidence. Perhaps because he made it difficult for the McCanns to regain their reputations. His opinion that the suspect produced by the Germans and Operation Grange was being set up as a patsy probably ensured that the evidence against him had to be definitive. At the moment that doesn't seem to have been achieved.
When is it going to penetrate that to date, Amaral has got absolutely nothing right from Calpol and dogs to false photoshopped images of Brueckner.
Neither was his propaganda war against the McCanns really anything to do with them other than a means to an end because they refused to give up on their daughter as he wished them to do.
Brueckner is prime suspect in crime against Madeleine McCann in Germany and in Britain. In Portugal he is arguido.
Unlike you I rather think that quite a lot has been achieved among which has been the total destruction of the facade which was Amaral and the vindication of Madeleine's parents whose constant presence demanded that the Amaral theories have at long last hit the dustbin which is where all disproven theories end up.
-
Amaral has been accused of all sorts without any evidence. Perhaps because he made it difficult for the McCanns to regain their reputations. His opinion that the suspect produced by the Germans and Operation Grange was being set up as a patsy probably ensured that the evidence against him had to be definitive. At the moment that doesn't seem to have been achieved.
Amarals understanding of the dog alerts and dna was pathetic...that's a proven fact....he was found guilty of lying in court......another proven fact..he tried to cover up the torture of a suspect...another proven fact
-
Amarals understanding of the dog alerts and dna was pathetic...that's a proven fact....he was found guilty of lying in court......another proven fact..he tried to cover up the torture of a suspect...another proven fact
Amaral said there wasn't any abductor, fact.
The three investigative forces are having no success in proving him wrong, another fact.
-
When is it going to penetrate that to date, Amaral has got absolutely nothing right from Calpol and dogs to false photoshopped images of Brueckner.
Neither was his propaganda war against the McCanns really anything to do with them other than a means to an end because they refused to give up on their daughter as he wished them to do.
Brueckner is prime suspect in crime against Madeleine McCann in Germany and in Britain. In Portugal he is arguido.
Unlike you I rather think that quite a lot has been achieved among which has been the total destruction of the facade which was Amaral and the vindication of Madeleine's parents whose constant presence demanded that the Amaral theories have at long last hit the dustbin which is where all disproven theories end up.
IYO, maybe, but I don't know if this has escaped your attention or not, the case against this prime suspect is getting absolutely nowhere, & that's most likely due to the overwhelming absence of credible evidence Maddie was ever abducted by him, or anyone else for that matter.
-
When is it going to penetrate that to date, Amaral has got absolutely nothing right from Calpol and dogs to false photoshopped images of Brueckner.
Neither was his propaganda war against the McCanns really anything to do with them other than a means to an end because they refused to give up on their daughter as he wished them to do.
Brueckner is prime suspect in crime against Madeleine McCann in Germany and in Britain. In Portugal he is arguido.
Unlike you I rather think that quite a lot has been achieved among which has been the total destruction of the facade which was Amaral and the vindication of Madeleine's parents whose constant presence demanded that the Amaral theories have at long last hit the dustbin which is where all disproven theories end up.
In order for other theories to be dismissed a perpetrator needs to be convicted, not just named.
-
In order for other theories to be dismissed a perpetrator needs to be convicted, not just named.
Four months now since Wolters admitted the case against the prime suspect is dead, supporters still haven't come to terms with this fact. Oh well, maybe they'll accept reality eventually, but I doubt it.
-
In order for other theories to be dismissed a perpetrator needs to be convicted, not just named.
They were dismissed a long time ago by the people that matter. Sadly for you, you are not one of them.
-
They were dismissed a long time ago by the people that matter. Sadly for you, you are not one of them.
By the people that matter I assume you mean the people with the power to insist that their opinions are the correct ones. Think on this;
“The people that mind don't matter, and the people that matter don't mind.”
― -Dr. Seuss
The people who mind can become the people who matter as the Hillsborough debale illustrates.
-
They were dismissed a long time ago by the people that matter. Sadly for you, you are not one of them.
Silly old you. They are all playing a blinder. Softly, softly, catch monkey.
The fact that Brueckner is an Arguido means nothing. Everybody who is anybody in Portugal has been an Arguido. Apparently only Amaral ever hit the hot spot so far. Kate and Gerry will be next. In a minute.
-
By the people that matter I assume you mean the people with the power to insist that their opinions are the correct ones. Think on this;
“The people that mind don't matter, and the people that matter don't mind.”
― -Dr. Seuss
The people who mind can become the people who matter as the Hillsborough debale illustrates.
Oh dear, well when you've all bandied together and exerted the monumental effort that the relatives of the Hillsborough disaster put in to get half way to justice for their loved ones, then perhaps you might have a point, but all the while you're collectively just bitching online on some internet backwater, don't expect your opinions to be taken very seriously at all. In fact the very idea that you are comparing your "only asking questions" activities with the Hillsborough survivors' and victims' families struggles is in very poor taste indeed IMO.
-
Silly old you. They are all playing a blinder. Softly, softly, catch monkey.
The fact that Brueckner is an Arguido means nothing. Everybody who is anybody in Portugal has been an Arguido. Apparently only Amaral ever hit the hot spot so far. Kate and Gerry will be next. In a minute.
Well they'll have to go back to square one eventually, because they aren't having any luck with abduction as a line of investigation.
-
Oh dear, well when you've all bandied together and exerted the monumental effort that the relatives of the Hillsborough disaster put in to get half way to justice for their loved ones, then perhaps you might have a point, but all the while you're collectively just bitching online on some internet backwater, don't expect your opinions to be taken very seriously at all. In fact the very idea that you are comparing your "only asking questions" activities with the Hillsborough survivors' and victims' families struggles is in very poor taste indeed IMO.
One day questions will need to be asked and answered. A lot of taxpayer's money has been spent and nothing has been achieved.
-
One day questions will need to be asked and answered. A lot of taxpayer's money has been spent and nothing has been achieved.
Right, so you think one day there will be a Hillsborough-style public inquiry do you? Dream on! @)(++(*
-
One day questions will need to be asked and answered. A lot of taxpayer's money has been spent and nothing has been achieved.
This is opinion and not fact.
-
In order for other theories to be dismissed a perpetrator needs to be convicted, not just named.
Brueckner WAS named.
Unfortunately back in 2007 no-one bothered to follow it through by collating the evidence and tracking him as a matter of urgency.
At the moment Brueckner is not the 'perpetrator'. in accordance with his right to the presumption of innocence Brueckner is merely the arguido.
-
Brueckner WAS named.
Unfortunately back in 2007 no-one bothered to follow it through by collating the evidence and tracking him as a matter of urgency.
At the moment Brueckner is not the 'perpetrator'. in accordance with his right to the presumption of innocence Brueckner is merely the arguido.
Who name dropped him in 2007?
Helge Busching kept Brueckner's confession a secret until 2017.
They had absolutely nothing on him before that, & that's pretty much all they have still.
-
Brueckner WAS named.
Unfortunately back in 2007 no-one bothered to follow it through by collating the evidence and tracking him as a matter of urgency.
At the moment Brueckner is not the 'perpetrator'. in accordance with his right to the presumption of innocence Brueckner is merely the arguido.
Wolters has no intention of ackowledging that CB is merely a suspect;
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
-
Is it possible that sceptics could read these words of HCW taken from the above link and actually digest them for once?
“It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.
“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”
-
Is it possible that sceptics could read these words of HCW taken from the above link and actually digest them for once?
“It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.
“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”
Wolters says this, Wolters says that, & nothing he says amounts to a hill of beans.
-
And of course, if anyone has some actual evidence that what HCW said in the aforementioned quote is a lie or simply incorrect then feel free to share it with us.
-
Wolters has no intention of ackowledging that CB is merely a suspect;
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
Yes, Brueckner is the abductor & murderer, only, Wolters won't be proving as much anytime in the foreseeable future. But maybe after that.
-
And of course, if anyone has some actual evidence that what HCW said in the aforementioned quote is a lie or simply incorrect then feel free to share it with us.
No, the burden of proof is all on Wolters, & he's completely unable to prove that Maddie was ever abducted. Which is quite understandable really.
-
By the people that matter I assume you mean the people with the power to insist that their opinions are the correct ones. Think on this;
“The people that mind don't matter, and the people that matter don't mind.”
― -Dr. Seuss
The people who mind can become the people who matter as the Hillsborough debale illustrates.
You have been banging a particular drum for fifteen+ years and all without one single piece of supporting evidence.
How boring for you.
There has been a 'catch up' process on the go for some years.
Remember the questions that Kate couldn't add anything to the answers she had already given? That was back in 2007 if memory serves me well.
Well the police have now tracked down the paedophile they neglected to chase up on in that same year. Brueckner will eventually be given the opportunity to bring them up to speed by answering the questions they might have asked him - or not - had they bothered to catch up with him as intended in 2007.
They seem very sure they have the evidence which puts Brueckner firmly in the frame and good on them! What a pity so much time was allowed to pass before police seriously gave attention to the evidence and to seriously consider and collate it in conjunction with Madeleine's inquiry.
-
It seems some people are completely incapable of exercising patience and have decided that they know what is going on within the German investigation and that it has all fallen apart behind the scenes. Let's not forget this is simply a product of their own fertile imaginations and has no actual bearing in anything we actually know in fact. We were told months ago that HCW was to be demoted to the position of traffic cop or worse, sacked. That doesn't appear to have happened. We were told that CB was going to sue HCW and that hasn't happened. People who claim to know what is going on or what is about to happen are in danger of becoming victims of their own hubris, so I would advise caution, and quit the incredibly boring daily mantras which serve only one purpose and that is to make the authors of such posts look like petulant silly children.
-
You have been banging a particular drum for fifteen+ years and all without one single piece of supporting evidence.
How boring for you.
There has been a 'catch up' process on the go for some years.
Remember the questions that Kate couldn't add anything to the answers she had already given? That was back in 2007 if memory serves me well.
Well the police have now tracked down the paedophile they neglected to chase up on in that same year. Brueckner will eventually be given the opportunity to bring them up to speed by answering the questions they might have asked him - or not - had they bothered to catch up with him as intended in 2007.
They seem very sure they have the evidence which puts Brueckner firmly in the frame and good on them! What a pity so much time was allowed to pass before police seriously gave attention to the evidence and to seriously consider and collate it in conjunction with Madeleine's inquiry.
Yes, yes, the seem very sure they have evidence that puts Brueckner in the frame, but they won't be proving anything at anytime in the foreseeable future.
-
It seems some people are completely incapable of exercising patience and have decided that they know what is going on within the German investigation and that it has all fallen apart behind the scenes. Let's not forget this is simply a product of their own fertile imaginations and has no actual bearing in anything we actually know in fact. We were told months ago that HCW was to be demoted to the position of traffic cop or worse, sacked. That doesn't appear to have happened. We were told that CB was going to sue HCW and that hasn't happened. People who claim to know what is going on or what is about to happen are in danger of becoming victims of their own hubris, so I would advise caution, and quit the incredibly boring daily mantras which serve only one purpose and that is to make the authors of such posts look like petulant silly children.
I'm going to look pretty foolish when Wolters wraps things up, shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Wolters says this, Wolters says that, & nothing he says amounts to a hill of beans.
Ah, but he is worth listening to apparently because he matters. Even the PJ matter since CB was made an arguido. With (allegedly) three country's police forces working in harmony they can surely dredge up enough evidence to charge him? Or maybe not, in which case none of them matter, do they?
-
Ah, but he is worth listening to apparently because he matters. Even the PJ matter since CB was made an arguido. With (allegedly) three country's police forces working in harmony they can surely dredge up enough evidence to charge him? Or maybe not, in which case none of them matter, do they?
Ah but they already have enough 100% convincing, concrete evidence with which to charge him, they're just taking their time to make the case against him watertight, even though according to Wolters, it already is.
-
It seems some people are completely incapable of exercising patience and have decided that they know what is going on within the German investigation and that it has all fallen apart behind the scenes. Let's not forget this is simply a product of their own fertile imaginations and has no actual bearing in anything we actually know in fact. We were told months ago that HCW was to be demoted to the position of traffic cop or worse, sacked. That doesn't appear to have happened. We were told that CB was going to sue HCW and that hasn't happened. People who claim to know what is going on or what is about to happen are in danger of becoming victims of their own hubris, so I would advise caution, and quit the incredibly boring daily mantras which serve only one purpose and that is to make the authors of such posts look like petulant silly children.
You don't actually know anything, in fact. All you do is put your faith in others; first in OG and then in the Germans.
In which alternative world does demoting a prosecutor end up with him being a traffic cop? Wouldn't that only happen to a policeman? I don't know who told you that CB was going to sue Wolters. Wolters endangered his chances of getting a conviction by declaring his suspect guilty before he was even able to charge him. That's not something that involves the victim having to sue. Insulting others is no longer affective either - we all know it's a sign that the argument is being lost.
-
You don't actually know anything, in fact. All you do is put your faith in others; first in OG and then in the Germans.
In which alternative world does demoting a prosecutor end up with him being a traffic cop? Wouldn't that only happen to a policeman? I don't know who told you that CB was going to sue Wolters. Wolters endangered his chances of getting a conviction by declaring his suspect guilty before he was even able to charge him. That's not something that involves the victim having to sue. Insulting others is no longer affective either - we all know it's a sign that the argument is being lost.
need to correct you again...its not faith...its reasoning and logic
-
need to correct you again...its not faith...its reasoning and logic
Some people are simply not capable of logical reasoning. There is nothing to be done about it.
-
need to correct you again...its not faith...its reasoning and logic
Let's test that shall we.
What good reason is there to believe Maddie was abducted?
Is it because the McCanns said so?
-
Some people are simply not capable of logical reasoning. There is nothing to be done about it.
I know right, some people believe anything they're told aswell.
-
Let's test that shall we.
What good reason is there to believe Maddie was abducted?
Is it because the McCanns said so?
It's logic, Jim. but not as we know it. 8(0(*
-
It's logic, Jim. but not as we know it. 8(0(*
Exactly. You simply don't understand that The McCanns could not have disposed of the body of their daughter given the circumstances.
-
Exactly. You simply don't understand that The McCanns could not have disposed of the body of their daughter given the circumstances.
How have you determined what the circumstances were ?
-
It's logic, Jim. but not as we know it. 8(0(*
That logical realm where Brueckner hid in the apartment during Gerry's check, messed around with the window & shutters, got clean away with his favourite fantasy of abducting, raping & murdering a child, then gave up doing abductions after that. Just the one abduction & murder was enough for him, running a kiosk became more preferable thereafter.
-
You don't actually know anything, in fact. All you do is put your faith in others; first in OG and then in the Germans.
In which alternative world does demoting a prosecutor end up with him being a traffic cop? Wouldn't that only happen to a policeman? I don't know who told you that CB was going to sue Wolters. Wolters endangered his chances of getting a conviction by declaring his suspect guilty before he was even able to charge him. That's not something that involves the victim having to sue. Insulting others is no longer affective either - we all know it's a sign that the argument is being lost.
What argument do you think I have lost exactly? Do you think I am wrong to call out those constantly repeating the same stupid questions on this forum day in, day out as petulant and childish? What do you call it?
-
Ah, but he is worth listening to apparently because he matters. Even the PJ matter since CB was made an arguido. With (allegedly) three country's police forces working in harmony they can surely dredge up enough evidence to charge him? Or maybe not, in which case none of them matter, do they?
Do you know why HCW and the PJ and The Met are worth listening to, more so than you and the troll? It's because they have access to far more information and evidence than you do - or do you think we should listen to you because you are better informed? Seriously?
-
How have you determined what the circumstances were ?
I guess she'd just have to take the McCanns word for them really.
I mean, I can't think of any other way, can you?
Yes, we can be 100% certain Maddie was definitely alive & in her bed that night, because the McCanns said she was & there's simply no possible alternative.
-
Do you know why HCW and the PJ and The Met are worth listening to, more so than you and the troll? It's because they have access to far more information and evidence than you do - or do you think we should listen to you because you are better informed? Seriously?
....and how are they getting on with making the 'evidence' prove there actually was an abduction?
Abductor due in court anytime in the foreseeable future is he?
-
Ah, but he is worth listening to apparently because he matters. Even the PJ matter since CB was made an arguido. With (allegedly) three country's police forces working in harmony they can surely dredge up enough evidence to charge him? Or maybe not, in which case none of them matter, do they?
That is an interesting turn of phrase "dredge up enough evidence" with reference to Brueckner and his crimes. Which seems to intimate a suggestion that there has been a long term vendetta conducted against him.
Brueckner is a long term career criminal of many talents and if you wish to swing with the notion of his victimisation please be my guest.
What I wish for you is that you never find yourself in a vulnerably helpless situation at the mercy of Brueckner or another of his ilk because I don't think they actually 'do' mercy.
What is it about the Portuguese making Brueckner an Arguido in Madeleine's case which seems to cause you irritation ... in fact don't bother answering that rhetorical question.
I know exactly why and the more you "dredge up" carping comments against those tasked with solving what happened to a missing child all those years ago - the better I like it.
-
Exactly. You simply don't understand that The McCanns could not have disposed of the body of their daughter given the circumstances.
Not even Amaral could conjure anything and it wasn't for the want of trying.
Brueckner on the other hand ticks all the boxes. And the truly disgusting thing is that there were pointers available early in 2007 but nobody bothered to seek them out.
-
Not even Amaral could conjure anything and it wasn't for the want of trying.
Brueckner on the other hand ticks all the boxes. And the truly disgusting thing is that there were pointers available early in 2007 but nobody bothered to seek them out.
Pointers in 2007 such as what exactly?
You mean him allegedly confessing a year later?
Yes, Amaral should have known about that in advance really shouldn't he.
-
P.S Brietta.
If you're planning on posting anymore articles about Brueckner, can you post the bit where Wolters talks about the evidential link between the Behan rape & Madeleine's abduction please?
-
Pointers in 2007 such as what exactly?
You mean him allegedly confessing a year later?
Yes, Amaral should have known about that in advance really shouldn't he.
The PJ spent a lot of their time analysing McCann mobile phone traffic. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
What a pity they didn't carry out similar diligences on the phones of known burglars and known paedophiles. NO CRYSTAL BALLS REQUIRED - only competent policing.
Did anyone mention to you that Brueckner's phone activity is in evidence having been recently checked out.
-
How have you determined what the circumstances were ?
I amn't stupid. We have seen it all at great length repeatedly and over and over.
-
The PJ spent a lot of their time analysing McCann mobile phone traffic. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
What a pity they didn't carry out similar diligences on the phones of known burglars and known paedophiles. NO CRYSTAL BALLS REQUIRED - only competent policing.
Did anyone mention to you that Brueckner's phone activity is in evidence having been recently checked out.
I'm sorry, what does his half phone call prove exactly?
That he had a conversation?
Well that's not much use really is it.
-
Do you know why HCW and the PJ and The Met are worth listening to, more so than you and the troll? It's because they have access to far more information and evidence than you do - or do you think we should listen to you because you are better informed? Seriously?
This is all just a game of soldiers now. And what we have to say is of no importance. The McCanns will never be indicted. The Sceptics can say whatever they like. They will never prove anything against their prime target.
Meanwhile, I don't have to prove the innocence of The McCanns. So don't let me stop trying when I have nothing better to do.
-
This is all just a game of soldiers now. And what we have to say is of no importance. The McCanns will never be indicted. The Sceptics can say whatever they like. They will never prove anything against their prime target.
Meanwhile, I don't have to prove the innocence of The McCanns. So don't let me stop trying when I have nothing better to do.
...and I hate to have to break it to you again, but Wolters won't be proving anything against his prime suspect anytime in the foreseeable future either.
Maybe it will sink in eventually, but I doubt it.
-
This is all just a game of soldiers now. And what we have to say is of no importance. The McCanns will never be indicted. The Sceptics can say whatever they like. They will never prove anything against their prime target.
Meanwhile, I don't have to prove the innocence of The McCanns. So don't let me stop trying when I have nothing better to do.
Just who do these people think they are, that they can claim to know more than the people actually investigating the suspect and with full access to the entire case files and evidence. Their arrogance is bewildering.
-
Not even Amaral could conjure anything and it wasn't for the want of trying.
Brueckner on the other hand ticks all the boxes. And the truly disgusting thing is that there were pointers available early in 2007 but nobody bothered to seek them out.
I remain wary of accusing Brueckner. Sorry about that. But nothing different from what I have always done. But the one thing I do know is that The McCanns could not have disposed of the body of their daughter at that time.
I don't really understand why I go on doing this, other than to counteract blatant stupidity and what a waste of time that is. You can't beat stupidity. It is some obscure form of narcissism that leaves their own problems exposed.
-
P.S Brietta.
If you're planning on posting anymore articles about Brueckner, can you post the bit where Wolters talks about the evidential link between the Behan rape & Madeleine's abduction please?
Pre-convicted child molester
German suspect in Maddie case officially accused
Again a bit closer to the solution of the case...
By Thomas Kielhorn
The Portuguese public prosecutor's office announced on Thursday in the port city of Portimão that it officially suspects a German of having kidnapped and murdered the then three-year-old Madeleine McCann in early May 2007.
As BILD had previously exclusively learned, the convicted child molester Christian Brückner (45) is listed by the Portuguese authorities as an "Arguido" (formal suspect). He now faces another indictment in the Maddie case.
This procedure is a small sensation: Since the parents Kate and Gerry McCann were considered suspects for five months 15 years ago, there has been no suspect in the Case in the Algarve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Germany, however, murder is not time-barred. However, it is still unclear whether the Portuguese authorities intend to base their proceedings on the investigations of the German authorities. In Germany, Brückner is still being investigated in the Maddie murder case. An indictment for the rape of waitress Hazel Behan in Portugal in 2004 is also still open.
https://www.bz-berlin.de/welt/deutscher-verdaechtiger-im-fall-maddie-offiziell-beschuldigt
Your post is incredibly obtuse ~ but I don't think you are as much in denial as you make out to be ~ you know the writing is on the wall and you'll be forced to find something which won't be as much fun to troll about.
Oh well ...
-
Just who do these people think they are, that they can claim to know more than the people actually investigating the suspect and with full access to the entire case files and evidence. Their arrogance is bewildering.
Who could deny the concrete evidence?
Well, Wolters thinks a judge could apparently. They might not be convinced by it & neither am I.
-
Pre-convicted child molester
German suspect in Maddie case officially accused
Again a bit closer to the solution of the case...
By Thomas Kielhorn
The Portuguese public prosecutor's office announced on Thursday in the port city of Portimão that it officially suspects a German of having kidnapped and murdered the then three-year-old Madeleine McCann in early May 2007.
As BILD had previously exclusively learned, the convicted child molester Christian Brückner (45) is listed by the Portuguese authorities as an "Arguido" (formal suspect). He now faces another indictment in the Maddie case.
This procedure is a small sensation: Since the parents Kate and Gerry McCann were considered suspects for five months 15 years ago, there has been no suspect in the Case in the Algarve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Germany, however, murder is not time-barred. However, it is still unclear whether the Portuguese authorities intend to base their proceedings on the investigations of the German authorities. In Germany, Brückner is still being investigated in the Maddie murder case. An indictment for the rape of waitress Hazel Behan in Portugal in 2004 is also still open.
https://www.bz-berlin.de/welt/deutscher-verdaechtiger-im-fall-maddie-offiziell-beschuldigt
Your post is incredibly obtuse ~ but I don't think you are as much in denial as you make out to be ~ you know the writing is on the wall and you'll be forced to find something which won't be as much fun to troll about.
Oh well ...
Get back to me when, won't you dearie, aye.
Shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Just who do these people think they are, that they can claim to know more than the people actually investigating the suspect and with full access to the entire case files and evidence. Their arrogance is bewildering.
Actually, it is all a bit of a joke now. There never was any evidence against The McCanns. But that is what they are up to proving. It is only the vociferous nature of their minds that worries me, although only for their sakes.
-
Actually, it is all a bit of a joke now. There never was any evidence against The McCanns. But that is what they are up to proving. It is only the vociferous nature of their minds that worries me, although only for their sakes.
No, the onus is on the three expert investigative forces to prove Maddie was abducted, and they're not having much luck with that.
-
Actually, it is all a bit of a joke now. There never was any evidence against The McCanns. But that is what they are up to proving. It is only the vociferous nature of their minds that worries me, although only for their sakes.
Yes it is a joke, and IMO these people probably know in their heart of hearts that stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance, they just can’t bring themselves to admit it, least of all to themselves.
-
Yes it is a joke, and IMO these people probably know in their heart of hearts that stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance, they just can’t bring themselves to admit it, least of all to themselves.
They don't have to admit to anything. They are irrelevant now. Their opinions are of no importance in the real world. And every time they comment on this Forum they only prove how useless they are.
-
Yes it is a joke, and IMO these people probably know in their heart of hearts that stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance, they just can’t bring themselves to admit it, least of all to themselves.
Yep, you got me , the whole bin theory thing is just me wumming & isn't even remotely plausible, & Wolters will be proving the curtains really did blow open any day now.
-
They don't have to admit to anything. They are irrelevant now. Their opinions are of no importance in the real world. And every time they comment on this Forum they only prove how useless they are.
Nobodies opinion is of any importance in the real world, not even yours.
A legal court will make a decision and even they may not be correct.
And so it goes on and on and on.
-
Nobodies opinion is of any importance in the real world, not even yours.
A legal court will make a decision and even they may not be correct.
And so it goes on and on and on.
I don't need you to tell me anything about Opinions. I don't spend my life making assumptions about anyone.
-
I don't need you to tell me anything about Opinions. I don't spend my life making assumptions about anyone.
good for you.
-
Just who do these people think they are, that they can claim to know more than the people actually investigating the suspect and with full access to the entire case files and evidence. Their arrogance is bewildering.
I think ignorance and stupidity is a better description ...and what better example is there than amarals theory based on ignorance
-
I think ignorance and stupidity is a better description ...and what better example is there than amarals theory based on ignorance
Amaral is old hat now, Wolters has made him history.
He's going to look even more stupid & ignorant than he already does just as soon as Wolters whips out the concrete evidence.
-
Amaral is old hat now, Wolters has made him history.
He's going to look even more stupid & ignorant than he already does just as soon as Wolters whips out the concrete evidence.
Pretty much always has been. His only value today is his ability to wind up supporters by his very existence.
.
-
Pretty much always has been. His only value today is his ability to wind up supporters by his very existence.
.
Sceptics seem too think that they are winding people up when in reality I see them as a bunch of fools
-
I admit, I've always found brazen stupidity quite annoying.
-
I admit, I've always found brazen stupidity quite annoying.
Forgive them because they cannot help themselves
-
Sceptics seem too think that they are winding people up when in reality I see them as a bunch of fools
Says the guy who is utterly convinced by claims of concrete evidence.
You know, if Wolters says that's what he's got them he most definitely has.
Brueckner is a murderer isn't he, & it's time sceptics just accepted this undeniable reality.
It's over for sceptics.
-
Forgive them because they cannot help themselves
I think they could if they tried a bit harder.
-
Anyway, enough of all the bickering, insults & wummery.
Today, please let's have a very serious & sensible discussion about the paedophile & murderer CB & the concrete evidence against him.
-
I admit, I've always found brazen stupidity quite annoying.
I think there has to be an element of trust in investigative authorities which are properly trained, scrutinised and accountable.
I think there is reason to suspect that without the international attention Madeleine McCann's abduction received that her parents would have been subject to a miscarriage of justice
The manifest stupidity of that time in 2007 can nowhere be exemplified better than in the protest of the corrupt cop still playing his role of bad cop v bad cop in the smears still being levelled by him at Madeleine's parents.
I don't know what Brueckner was up to in 2007. I don't know what Amaral knows about what Brueckner was up to in 2007. Although it does intrigue me why he came out with all guns blazing in Brueckner's defence still slurring the parents.
Suffice it to say, I do believe the evidence painfully gathered over a period of years against Brueckner deserves to have its day of being heard in court.
I believe that is the aim of all concerned with justice. And I must confess to utter bemusement at the displays of utter stupidity regarding the case of a missing child simply because she is who she is.
-
Well, Brueckner has been asking Wolters to give him his day in court & have the concrete evidence against him weighed on the judicial scales, but Wolters isn't up to Brueckners challenge right now. He just needs a bit more time to gather extra evidence, so be patient, Wolters will get there eventually, really, he will.
-
You know what, I really don't believe it is going to be much longer now, & I reckon of we all just close our eyes & pray hard enough, Wolters will get the breakthrough he needs.
-
Pretty much always has been. His only value today is his ability to wind up supporters by his very existence.
.
Is there much Amaral bashing on the more serious & sensible forum, websleuths, or are they too busy sleuthing out all the abduction evidence?
-
Is there much Amaral bashing on the more serious & sensible forum, websleuths, or are they too busy sleuthing out all the abduction evidence?
Their bogeyman seems to be Grime at the moment.
-
You know what, I really don't believe it is going to be much longer now, & I reckon of we all just close our eyes & pray hard enough, Wolters will get the breakthrough he needs.
Major 'breakthroughs' seem to happen when I go on holiday, so stand by for one any day now
-
Their bogeyman seems to be Grime at the moment.
I think Grime is responsible for a lot of problems....Grime really should have corrected amaral imo
-
All in the past and certainly not relevant to the current pursuit of Brueckner
-
All in the past and certainly not relevant to the current pursuit of Brueckner
agreed...and neither is the alleged involvement of the mccanns....thats been dealt with
-
All in the past and certainly not relevant to the current pursuit of Brueckner
Shame sceptics can't get past the dog alerts then isn't it?
-
Shame sceptics can't get past the dog alerts then isn't it?
As I have repeatedly said, my opinion of Grime is unprintable.
-
Shame sceptics can't get past the dog alerts then isn't it?
Mark Saunokonoko said the dog alerts make it difficult for him to accept CB as a genuine suspect,...thats how misguided he is
-
Mark Saunokonoko said the dog alerts make it difficult for him to accept CB as a genuine suspect,...thats how misguided he is
IMO many sceptics demonstrate a belief in the dogs that is quite religious in its fervour and ferocity.
-
agreed...and neither is the alleged involvement of the mccanns....thats been dealt with
Whereas the case in place against Brueckner has not yet been tested for the simple reason that there are a few other offences requiring to be got out of the way first.
The hold up appears to be from Brueckner's side. The last I heard was that the files on these other cases all of which involve sexual deviancy I think, have been passed from the prosecutor to Brueckner's legal team. Once Brueckner's legals have dealt with and returned them, proceedings can be instituted.
They seem to be in no rush.
-
Whereas the case in place against Brueckner has not yet been tested for the simple reason that there are a few other offences requiring to be got out of the way first.
The hold up appears to be from Brueckner's side. The last I heard was that the files on these other cases all of which involve sexual deviancy I think, have been passed from the prosecutor to Brueckner's legal team. Once Brueckner's legals have dealt with and returned them, proceedings can be instituted.
They seem to be in no rush.
Yes yes Brietta, just got to get them other cases out of the way first then Wolters can nail Brueckner for the murder, isn't it.
It's only a matter of time.
Not much longer now.
-
As I have repeatedly said, my opinion of Grime is unprintable.
He didn't do much good for Lenny Harper's reputation or career
How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children's home 'murders'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html
My opinion is that the hysteria generated at the time did absolutely nothing for Madeleine McCann. Demonstrably the errors made re the dog 'evidence' which convinced Amaral compounded the sum total of the incompetent investigation.
Yet this man remained so convinced of his infallibility that he actually produced false information as evidence that deliberately interfered with the active German investigation into Brueckner.
There is evidence everywhere as well as on this forum that people were convinced.
-
He didn't do much good for Lenny Harper's reputation or career
How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children's home 'murders'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html
My opinion is that the hysteria generated at the time did absolutely nothing for Madeleine McCann. Demonstrably the errors made re the dog 'evidence' which convinced Amaral compounded the sum total of the incompetent investigation.
Yet this man remained so convinced of his infallibility that he actually produced false information as evidence that deliberately interfered with the active German investigation into Brueckner.
There is evidence everywhere as well as on this forum that people were convinced.
Has Wolters complained about any active interference in the live investigation hampering his pursuit of Brueckner, or is it just supporters that moan about It?
It's just the supporters complaining really isn't it.
-
He didn't do much good for Lenny Harper's reputation or career
How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children's home 'murders'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html
My opinion is that the hysteria generated at the time did absolutely nothing for Madeleine McCann. Demonstrably the errors made re the dog 'evidence' which convinced Amaral compounded the sum total of the incompetent investigation.
Yet this man remained so convinced of his infallibility that he actually produced false information as evidence that deliberately interfered with the active German investigation into Brueckner.
There is evidence everywhere as well as on this forum that people were convinced.
Are you not drifting off topic, a crime you are often accusing others of ?
-
Are you not drifting off topic, a crime you are often accusing others of ?
You're right, we should be talking about the concrete evidence against the prime suspect, but to be fair here, there simply isn't any to speak of really is there.
-
The investigation is still ongoing..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11172649/Madeleine-McCann-suspects-lawyers-reveal-evidence-claim-release-jail.html
-
The investigation is still ongoing..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11172649/Madeleine-McCann-suspects-lawyers-reveal-evidence-claim-release-jail.html
So I guess if Bruckner doesn't have the mark on his leg, then by the same logic DP cannot be the man YM identified as he doesn't have scars on his face.
-
The investigation is still ongoing..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11172649/Madeleine-McCann-suspects-lawyers-reveal-evidence-claim-release-jail.html
Total lack of logic in Fuelscher's reasoning.
-
Total lack of logic in Fuelscher's reasoning.
Was a scar on the leg part of the original rape case evidence?
-
You're right, we should be talking about the concrete evidence against the prime suspect, but to be fair here, there simply isn't any to speak of really is there.
For Information
Investigators: Parents of Madeleine "Maddie" McCann are innocent
For a long time, they themselves were considered suspicious,
now the German prosecutor's office has made it clear: There is no evidence that the parents of Madeleine "Maddie" McCann have anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter.
The girl was kidnapped in 2007 at the age of three from a holiday resort in the Portuguese Algarve.
Goncalo Amaral believes Maddie's parents hid her body
The investigation so far has shown that Kate and Gerry McCann are completely innocent, said Hans Christian Wolters of the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office on Portuguese television.
The reason for clarification were repeated accusations of the ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral.
The former Portuguese chief investigator had claimed in his book "The Truth About the Lie" that Maddie was dead and that her parents had covered it up. In his opinion, Maddie died in an accident and her parents hid her body. After leading the investigation into the case for five months, he was removed from office. Amaral had criticized the authorities in the past for allegedly only following the traces of a kidnapping and not taking into account his accident theory.
"I know that the ex-policeman often comments on this matter"
Amaral had recently described the main suspect Christian B. as a "scapegoat".
Prosecutor Wolters said: "I know that the former police officer often comments on this matter and comments on our work."
He does not intend to engage in discussions about this.
"We have conducted a very thorough investigation and there is no evidence that Madeleine McCann's parents have anything to do with her disappearance."
According to Wolters, instead everything indicates that the girl is dead and Christian B. is responsible.
It is not up to the public prosecutor's office to assess the conclusions of Goncalo Amaral.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/ermittler-im-fall-maddie-mccann-eltern-der-vermissten-sind-unschuldig-4617358.html
-
Was a scar on the leg part of the original rape case evidence?
No. But a pubic hair belonging to Brueckner was.
This is something to do with similarities in the two Rapes. Just a load of illogical nonsense.
-
The wearisome continuation of a never-ending story...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11177297/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-face-fresh-sex-assault-charges-weeks.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11177297/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-face-fresh-sex-assault-charges-weeks.html)
-
The wearisome continuation of a never-ending story...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11177297/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-face-fresh-sex-assault-charges-weeks.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11177297/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-face-fresh-sex-assault-charges-weeks.html)
He said: 'The investigation into Maddie is still ongoing. A conclusion is not in sight.
'I really can’t say how long the investigation will take. It is also not certain whether an indictment can be made in the end.'
'Regarding all allegations except Maddie, we will issue a press release in about 2-3 weeks,' he added. 'It may well go in the direction of an indictment.
Nothing like hedging your bets.
-
He said: 'The investigation into Maddie is still ongoing. A conclusion is not in sight.
'I really can’t say how long the investigation will take. It is also not certain whether an indictment can be made in the end.'
'Regarding all allegations except Maddie, we will issue a press release in about 2-3 weeks,' he added. 'It may well go in the direction of an indictment.
Nothing like hedging your bets.
The morally correct response to the news that an indictment against CB is not certain according to some on this forum is to rejoice at the news. Because I have a broken moral compass however I see this admission by HCW as both worrying and disapointing.
-
The morally correct response to the news that an indictment against CB is not certain according to some on this forum is to rejoice at the news. Because I have a broken moral compass however I see this admission by HCW as both worrying and disapointing.
I'd rather wait and hear what HCW actually says rather Han what the Mail prints
-
The morally correct response to the news that an indictment against CB is not certain according to some on this forum is to rejoice at the news. Because I have a broken moral compass however I see this admission by HCW as both worrying and disapointing.
It was never a certainty that Wolters had found the person who harmed Madeleine McCann, even though he seems to have convinced you. Why be worried and disappointed if an innocent man is no longer going to be accused?
-
It was never a certainty that Wolters had found the person who harmed Madeleine McCann, even though he seems to have convinced you. Why be worried and disappointed if an innocent man is no longer going to be accused?
Not sure Brueckner can be called an 'innocent', but there seems a strong possibility that he cannot be linked to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Not sure Brueckner can be called an 'innocent', but there seems a strong possibility that he cannot be linked to Madeleine's disappearance.
Innocent in relation to harming Madeleine, not innocent of other crimes.
-
Innocent in relation to harming Madeleine, not innocent of other crimes.
So you have decided CB is innocent....even a court does not do that
-
Not sure Brueckner can be called an 'innocent', but there seems a strong possibility that he cannot be linked to Madeleine's disappearance.
He already has been
-
It was never a certainty that Wolters had found the person who harmed Madeleine McCann, even though he seems to have convinced you. Why be worried and disappointed if an innocent man is no longer going to be accused?
I have never been 100% convinced so that’s where you are wrong on the first count. On the second count you are twisting what I wrote. I am not disappointed that an innocent man will no longer be accused, I am disappointed that years of hard investigative work may come to nothing and there may never be a resolution to this case. Can you see the he difference? Probably not! Of course this makes me morally bankrupt I expect you agree with that.
-
I am not giving up on Wolters. If he can lock up Brueckner on other crimes, the like of which Brueckner has already been found guilty of then that is fine by me.
Brueckner is a serial abuser and has been for a very long time, largely in Portugal where no one cared. And I don't want him wandering around Europe unchecked.
-
He already has been
But not by evidence. He's been linked to the crime only by the words of another criminal and an over-excited prosecutor.
-
I have never been 100% convinced so that’s where you are wrong on the first count. On the second count you are twisting what I wrote. I am not disappointed that an innocent man will no longer be accused, I am disappointed that years of hard investigative work may come to nothing and there may never be a resolution to this case. Can you see the he difference? Probably not! Of course this makes me morally bankrupt I expect you agree with that.
Maybe you weren't 100% convinced, but you chose to close your eyes and ears to the lack of evidence which was gradually revealed. Had you been sceptical you might have been more prepared to be disappointed.
-
But not by evidence. He's been linked to the crime only by the words of another criminal and an over-excited prosecutor.
Ah, but Brueckner did say to some paedo in a chat room that he'd murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
That'll be why Brueckner is so confident he won't be serving time for Maddie, because he destroyed the evidence & definitely not because he simply had no involvement whatsoever Madeleine's dissappeance.
-
But not by evidence. He's been linked to the crime only by the words of another criminal and an over-excited prosecutor.
Are you so ignorant you don't understand that the words from an informant are evidence admissible in court....
How do you know what the prosecutors opinion are based on. You have decided he's over-excited and dismissed the evidence he claims to have.
Your post is pure opinion which you are convinced is fact...which I see as pure junk
-
Are you so ignorant you don't understand that the words from an informant are evidence admissible in court....
How do you know what the prosecutors opinion are based on. You have decided he's over-excited and dismissed the evidence he claims to have.
Your post is pure opinion which you are convinced is fact...which I see as pure junk
Maybe the evidence he claims to have will result in charges sometime. Just not any time in the foreseeable future though.
Doesn't say much for his evidence really.
-
Are you so ignorant you don't understand that the words from an informant are evidence admissible in court....
How do you know what the prosecutors opinion are based on. You have decided he's over-excited and dismissed the evidence he claims to have.
Your post is pure opinion which you are convinced is fact...which I see as pure junk
So the informant tells the court that CB told him he did it. CB tells the court he said no such thing. Neither are reliable witnesses and the nine year delay in informing the authorities needs to be convincingly explained.
-
So the informant tells the court that CB told him he did it. CB tells the court he said no such thing. Neither are reliable witnesses and the nine year delay in informing the authorities needs to be convincingly explained.
You said there was no evidence...you now admit there is and you were wrong....it's tiresome having to continually having to point out your mistakes
-
You said there was no evidence...you now admit there is and you were wrong....it's tiresome having to continually having to point out your mistakes
So sorry. The last thing I want is for you to have to make any effort. I do try to be clear and apologise for not emphasising that I was referring to useful evidence.
-
So sorry. The last thing I want is for you to have to make any effort. I do try to be clear and apologise for not emphasising that I was referring to useful evidence.
so you accept that you were wrong and that there is evidence but in your opinion its not useful....... Im sure you will find out you are wrong there too. If CB is convicted of any serious crime as a result of this evidence you would have to agree its been very useful
-
Innocent in relation to harming Madeleine, not innocent of other crimes.
Of course he is not innocent of many other crimes. Most of which we will never know about. German prosecutors are obviously anxious not to replicate the mistakes of the past. They have evidence which points to Brueckner's involvement in Madeleine's abduction and intend to test that at the optimum time.
Brueckner's guilt or innocence will be determined in a German court or perhaps even a Portuguese one. Internet fora detectives won't have a role in that however hard they try.
Snip
For the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office, it is clear: 45-year-old Christian B. from Würzburg is the kidnapper and murderer of Maddie McCann. They want to be able to prove it and will have to do so in the process. Christian B. is currently serving another prison sentence. Five years for raping a 72-year-old American woman. Done in the Algarve, Portugal, in 2005. A holiday paradise.
Christian B. had literally fled there in 1995. In front of the German judiciary, which at that time lost sight of a dangerous sex offender.
Christian B. was 20 years old.
He had just come out of prison.
He was there for two years.
Because of attempted and successful abuse of children.
One six years old, the other 9 years old.
Christian B. was only 17 years old at the time of the crimes.
In other cases, an offender could have hoped for a suspended sentence. But here the judge remained tough. For two reasons:
The second abuse happened only three days before the start of the trial.
This is not how anyone behaves who regrets or at least is afraid of justice.
The court expert also saw it that way and came to the conclusion that 17-year-old Christian B. was still dangerous. One must expect further deeds. It was also a warning to the judiciary, the authorities and also society. It went unheard.
One might have expected to take care of the young man after imprisonment, keeping an eye on him at best, but far from it.
Christian B. moves to Portugal and will commit further acts there. Completely undisturbed and unobserved. And in Germany, apparently, no one wondered where the dangerous sex offender had gone.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/doku-verdaechtig-im-fall-maddie-wer-ist-christian-b-deckt-auf-wie-polizei-und-justiz-versagt-haben-4907463.html
This set of circumstances has been flagged up by the author as one of the major derelictions in the kidnap case of Madeleine McCann by allowing a dangerous and known sexual predator free licence to offend at will and off radar.
-
But not by evidence. He's been linked to the crime only by the words of another criminal and an over-excited prosecutor.
Your ignorance is appalling. You have absolutely no idea what evidence there is linking Brueckner to the crime against Madeleine of any other of which he is accused. Best for you to do what most everyone else is ~ which is to wait for the conclusion of the criminal cases against him.
-
Brueckner chose well when he left Germany for pastures new in Portugal and throughout his time there made a good living from his criminal activities.
Snip
The Algarve - a paradise for criminals?
Sandra Felgueiras is a TV journalist in Portugal. She researches the Maddie case from the very beginning. For 15 years – and paints a frightening picture of their own homeland.
"The image I have of Christian B. is that of a criminal teenager who came to Portugal and did a lot of things that are intolerable. But the system was not attuned to this kind of crime. I found out that the Algarve had an eerie side. With many strangers coming and going. No one knew where they were. Many lived in motorhomes."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Portugal, Christian B. works as a waiter, bartender and fitter.
Sometimes he also sells cars from Germany.
But he earns most of his money illegally.
With burglaries. With diesel theft on a grand scale.
Manfred Seyfehrt met the young man by chance and described it as follows: "Burglaries, solar panels, diesel. That was the main business in the Algarve. He really made money there, not like us. They stole diesel barrels and emptied trucks. Money was there with them."
All this goes well for years. The police seem completely overwhelmed.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/doku-verdaechtig-im-fall-maddie-wer-ist-christian-b-deckt-auf-wie-polizei-und-justiz-versagt-haben-4907463.html
-
Your ignorance is appalling. You have absolutely no idea what evidence there is linking Brueckner to the crime against Madeleine of any other of which he is accused. Best for you to do what most everyone else is ~ which is to wait for the conclusion of the criminal cases against him.
You're thinking he'll actually be charged some day re Maddie? Then you'll be waiting a long time imo.
-
Just got to get these other cases dealt with first, isn't it.
Just over the horizon lies the promised land of finally proving Maddie was actually abducted.
Not much further now guys, just be patient.
-
Of course he is not innocent of many other crimes. Most of which we will never know about. German prosecutors are obviously anxious not to replicate the mistakes of the past. They have evidence which points to Brueckner's involvement in Madeleine's abduction and intend to test that at the optimum time.
Brueckner's guilt or innocence will be determined in a German court or perhaps even a Portuguese one. Internet fora detectives won't have a role in that however hard they try.
Snip
For the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office, it is clear: 45-year-old Christian B. from Würzburg is the kidnapper and murderer of Maddie McCann. They want to be able to prove it and will have to do so in the process. Christian B. is currently serving another prison sentence. Five years for raping a 72-year-old American woman. Done in the Algarve, Portugal, in 2005. A holiday paradise.
Christian B. had literally fled there in 1995. In front of the German judiciary, which at that time lost sight of a dangerous sex offender.
Christian B. was 20 years old.
He had just come out of prison.
He was there for two years.
Because of attempted and successful abuse of children.
One six years old, the other 9 years old.
Christian B. was only 17 years old at the time of the crimes.
In other cases, an offender could have hoped for a suspended sentence. But here the judge remained tough. For two reasons:
The second abuse happened only three days before the start of the trial.
This is not how anyone behaves who regrets or at least is afraid of justice.
The court expert also saw it that way and came to the conclusion that 17-year-old Christian B. was still dangerous. One must expect further deeds. It was also a warning to the judiciary, the authorities and also society. It went unheard.
One might have expected to take care of the young man after imprisonment, keeping an eye on him at best, but far from it.
Christian B. moves to Portugal and will commit further acts there. Completely undisturbed and unobserved. And in Germany, apparently, no one wondered where the dangerous sex offender had gone.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/doku-verdaechtig-im-fall-maddie-wer-ist-christian-b-deckt-auf-wie-polizei-und-justiz-versagt-haben-4907463.html
This set of circumstances has been flagged up by the author as one of the major derelictions in the kidnap case of Madeleine McCann by allowing a dangerous and known sexual predator free licence to offend at will and off radar.
Just the one abduction & murder for Brueckner, wasn't it.
Maddie was more than enough for him.
He just didn't feel up to snatching anymore kids after that.
That'll be the reason his reign of child abducting terror ceased abruptly after May 2007.
-
so you accept that you were wrong and that there is evidence but in your opinion its not useful....... Im sure you will find out you are wrong there too. If CB is convicted of any serious crime as a result of this evidence you would have to agree its been very useful
Most courts need more than the word of a convicted criminal to convict another criminal.
-
Most courts need more than the word of a convicted criminal to convict another criminal.
I thought the words of a prosecutor would be enough to convince a judge?
I mean, they convinced a scientist.
-
Most courts need more than the word of a convicted criminal to convict another criminal.
Let me try and expalin this to you very simply...you said there was no evidence linking CB to MM...I pointed out you were wrong and there was..
It really is that simple
-
Let me try and expalin this to you very simply...you said there was no evidence linking CB to MM...I pointed out you were wrong and there was..
It really is that simple
I don’t talk for G but perhaps she meant credible evidence? While testimony of another criminal given 9 years after the event might convince an over-eager prosecutor with an eye on his legacy unfortunately it won’t cut the mustard when it comes to a rather more impartial judge.
-
I don’t talk for G but perhaps she meant credible evidence? While testimony of another criminal given 9 years after the event might convince an over-eager prosecutor with an eye on his legacy unfortunately it won’t cut the mustard when it comes to a rather more impartial judge.
But that testimony will be bolstered by the evidence from the Behan rape case, along with the photo of Maddie from when she was tied up in the back of the campervan.
-
Maybe you weren't 100% convinced, but you chose to close your eyes and ears to the lack of evidence which was gradually revealed. Had you been sceptical you might have been more prepared to be disappointed.
Please don’t write rubbish. I did not close my eye and ears to anything, I simply refuse to join in with the chorus of know-it-alls claiming HCW has no evidence at all. I have always preferred the “wait and see” approach and to take people at face value until the evidence suggests they are wrong or lying. So far as the investigation and HCW are concerned I am still at that point. Is there anything wrong with this approach in your view?
-
Please don’t write rubbish. I did not close my eye and ears to anything, I simply refuse to join in with the chorus of know-it-alls claiming HCW has no evidence at all. I have always preferred the “wait and see” approach and to take people at face value until the evidence suggests they are wrong or lying. So far as the investigation and HCW are concerned I am still at that point. Is there anything wrong with this approach in your view?
Well, your 'wait & see' approach will have you waiting a long time.
For the foreseeable future as it happens, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that before.
-
I've been away for a bit, some of which was spent in Des Deutschen Vaterland, what's the latest with suspect / arguido nummer eins?