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: Admin on January 17, 2025, 01:44:22 PM
-
The man suspected of kidnapping Madeleine McCann will not face any charges in the foreseeable future, with the German man set to be freed from an unrelated jail sentence in just months.
Christian Brueckner, 47, was publicly identified by German authorities in June 2020 as the prime suspect in Maddie's case, though no formal charges have been brought against him.
He had been accused of three rapes and two cases of child sexual abuse between 2000 and 2017, all of which occurred in Portugal, near the Praia da Luz resort where Madeleine went missing on a family vacation.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told Sky News: “There is currently no prospect of an indictment in the Maddie case.
“As things stand, the accused Christian B's imprisonment will end in early September.”
His lawyer, Friedrich Fuelscher, suggested in his closing remarks that he should be cleared due to a lack of evidence and the convicted rapist was only on trial because of his connection with McCann's internationally recognised case.
The court agreed with Fuelscher's argument and found his client not guilty on all charges.
He showed no emotion as the verdict was delivered.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-charges-jail-sentence-end-latest
-
I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.
-
I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.
Clearly there is no evidence to justify charging Bruckner in the Maddie case. All this hullabaloo about nothing really.
It looks like he's set for release this September.
-
Clearly there is no evidence to justify charging Bruckner in the Maddie case. All this hullabaloo about nothing really.
It looks like he's set for release this September.
Genuinely, it's disappointing. When a prosecutor proclaims to the world that he's solved the biggest missing person case in decades, then quite rightly we should hear him out. 5 years later and we have this pathetic volte face, preparing the way for an admission that they've vastly overestimated their evidence, and that's being generous.
Wholesale egregious incompetence is more accurate. Heads should roll.
And what now? How do you resolve this legally? Just wait for him to be released and brace yourself for the multitude of libel suits?
And what about Hazel B, used as a pawn in an ill-conceived gambit, robbed of justice until they find another grubby sex case to pin it on? If ever a case deserved the phrase travesty of justice, it's this.
-
I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.
Now don't say that.
OG thought it had got rid of the millstone that was MM and was just waiting for things to be wrapped up.
Not sure they could face doing some proper police work after all this time.
-
I really don't know how Wolters can obtain forensic evidence after all these years. I hope a very detailed forensic search was done on his cars.
-
I wonder how the McCanns feel about this news.
-
I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.
Who’s angry? I’d be a bit miffed if I were CB and knew I was innocent not to have been given my day in court to clear my name tbh.
-
Genuinely, it's disappointing. When a prosecutor proclaims to the world that he's solved the biggest missing person case in decades, then quite rightly we should hear him out. 5 years later and we have this pathetic volte face, preparing the way for an admission that they've vastly overestimated their evidence, and that's being generous.
Wholesale egregious incompetence is more accurate. Heads should roll.
And what now? How do you resolve this legally? Just wait for him to be released and brace yourself for the multitude of libel suits?
And what about Hazel B, used as a pawn in an ill-conceived gambit, robbed of justice until they find another grubby sex case to pin it on? If ever a case deserved the phrase travesty of justice, it's this.
ORLY?
What was the XprosecutorsX Judges name ? At the very least, Hazel B was shabbily treated
Editted: Soz for such a basic mistake
-
Who’s angry? I’d be a bit miffed if I were CB and knew I was innocent not to have been given my day in court to clear my name tbh.
Perhaps the parents would have benefited from that too.
-
Perhaps the parents would have benefited from that too.
Yes I agree.
-
Yes I agree.
Fabulous, we agree.
Perhaps if they had had their day in court the suspicion that follows them still may have evaporated.
-
Fabulous, we agree.
Perhaps if they had had their day in court the suspicion that follows them still may have evaporated.
I’ve always said that. But that said, had I been them I wouldn’t have felt I would have got a fair trial in Portugal. And - if they that been “found innocent” (as you like to describe a not guilty verdict) I very much doubt that your opinion about what happened to Madeleine that night would have changed much.
-
I’ve always said that. But that said, had I been them I wouldn’t have felt I would have got a fair trial in Portugal. And - if they that been “found innocent” (as you like to describe a not guilty verdict) I very much doubt that your opinion about what happened to Madeleine that night would have changed much.
We’ll never know.
TBH I think that both the parents and Brueckner would have both been severally harmed by the bad publicity surrounding them if either had faced trial over Madeleine’s disappearance.
As to ‘not innocent’…semantics. To be ‘not guilty’ is to be innocent.
-
We’ll never know.
TBH I think that both the parents and Brueckner would have both been severally harmed by the bad publicity surrounding them if either had faced trial over Madeleine’s disappearance.
As to ‘not innocent’…semantics. To be ‘not guilty’ is to be innocent.
Firstly, I don’t think the reputations of either set of suspects could be any more harmed unless found guilty in which case obviously yes.
Secondly,
“ What's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?
In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.
It’s not semantics Faithlilly.
Thirdly, if the McCanns were pronounced not guilty by any court you and your mates would be howling about an establishment cover up and a travesty of justice I can 99.99% guarantee it. And at that point you’d be very careful to refer to them as “found not guilty” instead of “proven innocent” I’m sure.
-
But a defendant is 'presumed innocent' until proven guilty. They're not presumed 'not guilty'???
-
Firstly, I don’t think the reputations of either set of suspects could be any more harmed unless found guilty in which case obviously yes.
Secondly,
“ What's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?
In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.
It’s not semantics Faithlilly.
Thirdly, if the McCanns were pronounced not guilty by any court you and your mates would be howling about an establishment cover up and a travesty of justice I can 99.99% guarantee it. And at that point you’d be very careful to refer to them as “found not guilty” instead of “proven innocent” I’m sure.
Fair enough. So by the same reasoning, the parents were never cleared of any part in their daughter’s abduction….the PJ just lacked sufficient evidence to charge them.
-
Fair enough. So by the same reasoning, the parents were never cleared of any part in their daughter’s abduction….the PJ just lacked sufficient evidence to charge them.
Amaral did his best to make it up. Short of putting a bag over her head and beating her.
-
Fair enough. So by the same reasoning, the parents were never cleared of any part in their daughter’s abduction….the PJ just lacked sufficient evidence to charge them.
Correct. Same as Murat, same as CB and all the other arguidos over the years. Of course they can’t all have been involved…can they?
PS: you used the A word. Oops!
-
But a defendant is 'presumed innocent' until proven guilty. They're not presumed 'not guilty'???
Presumed being the operative word there. Don’t complain to me about it, it’s the way the law is. Defendants are not found innocent, they are simply found not guilty as the prosecution case did not demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.“
-
Presumed being the operative word there. Don’t complain to me about it, it’s the way the law is. Defendants are not found innocent, they are simply found not guilty as the prosecution case did not demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.“
My you do like your rabbit holes. I’m sure your semantics won’t matter to Hazel Behan
-
My you do like your rabbit holes. I’m sure your semantics won’t matter to Hazel Behan
What a very odd (but typically snide) post. I doubt Hazel Behan is reading this and I don’t know where rabbit holes come into it, just pointing out plain old boring facts.
-
Here’s another fact. Christian Bruckner has not been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. This means he can expect the finger of suspicion to be firmly pointing at him probably for the rest of his life. He can try and sue HCW but as we saw from the McCanns v Amaral case the ECHR will be on Wolters’ side. Oh dear what a shame. In fact I hope HCW makes a million writing a book about it, revealing his “thesis” about what happened that night. That would be fun.
-
No. I'd be more interested in Brueckner's book & I'm hoping he releases a movie.
-
What a very odd (but typically snide) post. I doubt Hazel Behan is reading this and I don’t know where rabbit holes come into it, just pointing out plain old boring facts.
I doubt she is either, poor girl. I hope she has the support around her that she needs.
-
Here’s another fact. Christian Bruckner has not been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. This means he can expect the finger of suspicion to be firmly pointing at him probably for the rest of his life. He can try and sue HCW but as we saw from the McCanns v Amaral case the ECHR will be on Wolters’ side. Oh dear what a shame. In fact I hope HCW makes a million writing a book about it, revealing his “thesis” about what happened that night. That would be fun.
I’d buy that book….it would certainly be interesting to discover what evidence he ACTUALLY had.
-
Here’s another fact. Christian Bruckner has not been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. This means he can expect the finger of suspicion to be firmly pointing at him probably for the rest of his life. He can try and sue HCW but as we saw from the McCanns v Amaral case the ECHR will be on Wolters’ side. Oh dear what a shame. In fact I hope HCW makes a million writing a book about it, revealing his “thesis” about what happened that night. That would be fun.
Well now, this is an excellent idea. I would buy that one. And I bet it would be a jolly sight more interesting than Amaral's book ever was.
-
No. I'd be more interested in Brueckner's book & I'm hoping he releases a movie.
Don’t hold your breath for that.
-
No. I'd be more interested in Brueckner's book & I'm hoping he releases a movie.
You would be, although I am not sure what this might say about your proclivities. Probably nothing much at all beyond you being all mouth and no trousers.
-
I doubt she is either, poor girl. I hope she has the support around her that she needs.
It’s worth repeating some of her evidence here, to remind ourselves what she went through and how convinced she was that her assailant was sat in court opposite her.
“When you spend time in a situation like that with a person and there’s nothing else you can see on this human except their eyes, it’s the only thing you can remember. They bored into my skull. I’ll never forget it,” she said. She added that she thought the effect of her attacker’s eyes was intensified by the fact that otherwise he was completely dressed in black.
“They were just so blue … everything so dark … they were like lights, they were so bright. I just know them,” she said.
She said she suffered from recurring post-traumatic stress disorder and frequent panic attacks as a result of the assault. The court was shown pictures of scars on the backs of her legs that remain to this day, from where she was tied with rope to a breakfast bar during the prolonged attack at the flat where she lived.
She also said she still bled from wounds received during the violent attack.
Her attacker had been masked and was covered head to toe in a leotard-style body suit of about 60-denier thickness, and wore leather, or fake leather, gloves, she said, adding that only his eyes had been visible.
He spoke to her in English, in what she said was a German accent.
Over two days, Behan told the court in graphic detail how she was repeatedly raped, whipped and tied up in her apartment, the attacker filming the ordeal on a camera he had set up on top of the television in her room. The attacker threatened her, saying: “If you scream, I’ll kill you.” At one point she said she feared she would be beheaded after he wielded a knife at her.“
So, somewhere in the Algarve is a violent German rapist with piercing blue eyes who likes to enter women’s homes, dressed in a mask to inflict torture on his victims, who also videos his attacks but who ISN’T the German rapist with piercing blue eyes who committed a very similar rape on an American woman and who was seen committing other similar rapes on a video by witnesses whose testimony helped bring him to justice.
How utterly incredible.
-
It’s worth repeating some of her evidence here, to remind ourselves what she went through and how convinced she was that her assailant was sat in court opposite her.
“When you spend time in a situation like that with a person and there’s nothing else you can see on this human except their eyes, it’s the only thing you can remember. They bored into my skull. I’ll never forget it,” she said. She added that she thought the effect of her attacker’s eyes was intensified by the fact that otherwise he was completely dressed in black.
“They were just so blue … everything so dark … they were like lights, they were so bright. I just know them,” she said.
She said she suffered from recurring post-traumatic stress disorder and frequent panic attacks as a result of the assault. The court was shown pictures of scars on the backs of her legs that remain to this day, from where she was tied with rope to a breakfast bar during the prolonged attack at the flat where she lived.
She also said she still bled from wounds received during the violent attack.
Her attacker had been masked and was covered head to toe in a leotard-style body suit of about 60-denier thickness, and wore leather, or fake leather, gloves, she said, adding that only his eyes had been visible.
He spoke to her in English, in what she said was a German accent.
Over two days, Behan told the court in graphic detail how she was repeatedly raped, whipped and tied up in her apartment, the attacker filming the ordeal on a camera he had set up on top of the television in her room. The attacker threatened her, saying: “If you scream, I’ll kill you.” At one point she said she feared she would be beheaded after he wielded a knife at her.“
So, somewhere in the Algarve is a violent German rapist with piercing blue eyes who likes to enter women’s homes, dressed in a mask to inflict torture on his victims, who also videos his attacks but who ISN’T the German rapist with piercing blue eyes who committed a very similar rape on an American woman and who was seen committing other similar rapes on a video by witnesses whose testimony helped bring him to justice.
How utterly incredible.
As I have said before how very sad, if it was Brueckner who raped Hazel, and she seems convinced that it was, that she will never now receive any kind of justice and that her attacker will more than likely gain his freedom in September. Why did the German prosecutors think it was appropriate to lump her brutal attack in with two rapes cases that there is no evidence actually happened and rested solely on the testimony of two career criminals and liars? How awful.
-
As I have said before how very sad, if it was Brueckner who raped Hazel, and she seems convinced that it was, that she will never now receive any kind of justice and that her attacker will more than likely gain his freedom in September. Why did the German prosecutors think it was appropriate to lump her brutal attack in with two rapes cases that there is no evidence actually happened and rested solely on the testimony of two career criminals and liars? How awful.
How would you have dealt with it then? Relied solely on her testimony alone with no reference whatsoever to any other rapes committed by her alleged assailant or to the video footage seen by the career criminals which by some miraculous coincidence closely mirrored her own experience? Do you think that would have resulted in a successful conviction?
You’ve yet to explain how the men managed to make up the video tape which closely mirrored both her rape and the American woman’s rape btw. I guess you simply don’t have an answer for that. Could it be that they weren’t lying, or is that explanation too obvious?
-
How would you have dealt with it then? Relied solely on her testimony alone with no reference whatsoever to any other rapes committed by her alleged assailant or to the video footage seen by the career criminals which by some miraculous coincidence closely mirrored her own experience? Do you think that would have resulted in a successful conviction?
You’ve yet to explain how the men managed to make up the video tape which closely mirrored both her rape and the American woman’s rape btw. I guess you simply don’t have an answer for that. Could it be that they weren’t lying, or is that explanation too obvious?
Well the way that was chosen certainly didn’t work, did it?
As to your second question Busching and Seyferth certainly didn’t convince the judge that a tape existed and they must have had before them much more information than we are privy to.
-
Well the way that was chosen certainly didn’t work, did it?
As to your second question Busching and Seyferth certainly didn’t convince the judge that a tape existed and they must have had before them much more information than we are privy to.
Who was The Judge ?
-
Well the way that was chosen certainly didn’t work, did it?
As to your second question Busching and Seyferth certainly didn’t convince the judge that a tape existed and they must have had before them much more information than we are privy to.
So, no clue as to how to bring a successful prosecution in HB’s case then, well that’s a surprise. I doubt you will answer this but do you at least concede that without the Germans’ efforts HB’s chances of justice were precisely zero, given the PJ’s complete lack of interest in investigating the case properly?
The fact of the matter is that irrespective of the video tape evidence the judge was clearly not convinced by HB’s testimony otherwise a guilty verdict would have been reached so how is it HCW’s fault that she did not receive justice? I’d have liked the judge to explain in their summing up what you clearly can’t and that is how the two witnesses described rapes that closely mirrored at least two other rapes known to have occurred, one of which was found to have been committed by the accused in an earlier trial and for which he has repeatedly been refused an appeal.
-
So, no clue as to how to bring a successful prosecution in HB’s case then, well that’s a surprise. I doubt you will answer this but do you at least concede that without the Germans’ efforts HB’s chances of justice were precisely zero, given the PJ’s complete lack of interest in investigating the case properly?
The fact of the matter is that irrespective of the video tape evidence the judge was clearly not convinced by HB’s testimony otherwise a guilty verdict would have been reached so how is it HCW’s fault that she did not receive justice? I’d have liked the judge to explain in their summing up what you clearly can’t and that is how the two witnesses described rapes that closely mirrored at least two other rapes known to have occurred, one of which was found to have been committed by the accused in an earlier trial and for which he has repeatedly been refused an appeal.
I think Hazel Behan was badly let down by both the Portuguese and the German judicial system.
There was evidence presented by Busching and Seyferth that obviously the judge felt didn’t hold up once scrutinised. I believe they also changed their story. Of course to understand the judge’s reasoning we’d have to have full access to all the information she had. I read that an English bar owner also saw the tape. If this is true why wasn’t he brought to court?
-
I think Hazel Behan was badly let down by both the Portuguese and the German judicial system.
There was evidence presented by Busching and Seyferth that obviously the judge felt didn’t hold up once scrutinised. I believe they also changed their story. Of course to understand the judge’s reasoning we’d have to have full access to all the information she had. I read that an English bar owner also saw the tape. If this is true why wasn’t he brought to court?
The judge’s main reason seems to be that none of the witnesses could be trusted because of the bad publicity surrounding CB because of his alleged involvement in the Madeleine case. However, as he had already been apprehended and identified in at least one of the cases against him before his name and face were in the public domain I don’t think this argument holds water. It certainly doesn’t hold water in the playground incident case, nor the rapes of the unknown women. I can’t remember the circumstances by which HB came to recognise CB as her attacker - was it before or after the 2020 press revelations?
Furthermore, if it was deemed CB could not receive a fair trial because of all the adverse publicity beforehand why did these cases ever go to trial in the first place?
-
The judge’s main reason seems to be that none of the witnesses could be trusted because of the bad publicity surrounding CB because of his alleged involvement in the Madeleine case. However, as he had already been apprehended and identified in at least one of the cases against him before his name and face were in the public domain I don’t think this argument holds water. It certainly doesn’t hold water in the playground incident case, nor the rapes of the unknown women. I can’t remember the circumstances by which HB came to recognise CB as her attacker - was it before or after the 2020 press revelations?
Furthermore, if it was deemed CB could not receive a fair trial because of all the adverse publicity beforehand why did these cases ever go to trial in the first place?
The case for at least two of the rapes rested solely on the word of two career criminals, criminals who had a track record of lying. Miss Behan was collateral damage I’m afraid.
I’m not sure why you are banging the drum for two low lives who, if the tape actually existed, kept the knowledge of two rapes to themselves denying those victims justice and, if Brueckner did abduct Madeleine, a child of her future. Absolutely abhorrent.
-
The case for at least two of the rapes rested solely on the word of two career criminals, criminals who had a track record of lying. Miss Behan was collateral damage I’m afraid.
I’m not sure why you are banging the drum for two low lives who, if the tape actually existed, kept the knowledge of two rapes to themselves denying those victims justice and, if Brueckner did abduct Madeleine, a child of her future. Absolutely abhorrent.
Perhaps you could point out what part of my post represents “banging a drum for two low lives”? I didn’t even mention them in my post! The drum I am banging is the drum of logical thought which sadly seems to elude you. If the tape never existed you would need to explain
1) how the two low lives were able to describe rape scenarios which closely matched descriptions of actual rapes hitherto unknown to them.
2) Why it was that DNA of the rapist they identified in the video was found in one of the victim’s beds.
Are you preferring to believe that these are simply two phenomenal coincidences rather than accept the possibity (ney probability) that two criminal lowlives actually did see such a tape? Does the massive coincidence explanation sit better with you because it suits your agenda better? And can you actually make a post which responds to this point without resorting to emotive deflection for the umpteenth time? Look, I’ll help you out. Yes these two witnesses were abhorrent and should have come forward sooner but if Madeleine was abducted and abused by CB then it’s highly unlikely she had a future to rob by time CB allegedly got round to bragging to them about his exploits. So, leaving that point to one side, kindly explain why if the tape never existed it closely matched two rapes in the Algarve that we know occurred and how the lowlives were able to identify the rapist prior to his DNA being identified as being present in the victim’s bed.
-
Perhaps you could point out what part of my post represents “banging a drum for two low lives”? I didn’t even mention them in my post! The drum I am banging is the drum of logical thought which sadly seems to elude you. If the tape never existed you would need to explain
1) how the two low lives were able to describe rape scenarios which closely matched descriptions of actual rapes hitherto unknown to them.
2) Why it was that DNA of the rapist they identified in the video was found in one of the victim’s beds.
Are you preferring to believe that these are simply two phenomenal coincidences rather than accept the possibity (ney probability) that two criminal lowlives actually did see such a tape? Does the massive coincidence explanation sit better with you because it suits your agenda better? And can you actually make a post which responds to this point without resorting to emotive deflection for the umpteenth time? Look, I’ll help you out. Yes these two witnesses were abhorrent and should have come forward sooner but if Madeleine was abducted and abused by CB then it’s highly unlikely she had a future to rob by time CB allegedly got round to bragging to them about his exploits. So, leaving that point to one side, kindly explain why if the tape never existed it closely matched two rapes in the Algarve that we know occurred and how the lowlives were able to identify the rapist prior to his DNA being identified as being present in the victim’s bed.
Is it churlish of me to point out to you that Busching and Seyferth allegedly found the tape around 2006? If they had gone with it immediately to the police then Brueckner would have been off the streets of PDL and unable to abduct anyone let alone Madeleine.
Of course if either Busching or Seyferth had committed the rape of Diane Menkes themselves then that would be an explanation why they knew the details and also how Brueckner’s just one hair found its way into Menkes bed, transference. I’m not saying that this is what happened but it is at least possible. Was the pair ever forensically tested for elimination purposes? Aren’t Seyferth and Busching German too?
-
Is it churlish of me to point out to you that Busching and Seyferth allegedly found the tape around 2006? If they had gone with it immediately to the police then Brueckner would have been off the streets of PDL and unable to abduct anyone let alone Madeleine.
Of course if either Busching or Seyferth had committed the rape of Diane Menkes themselves then that would be an explanation why they knew the details and also how Brueckner’s just one hair found its way into Menkes bed, transference. I’m not saying that this is what happened but it is at least possible. Was the pair ever forensically tested for elimination purposes? Aren’t Seyferth and Busching German too?
It would be odd to commit such rapes, tell your mate all about them and then draw attention to yourself by going to the police about them many years later don’t you think? Indeed, why drag your mate into it at all (who could dob you in it) unless you’re suggesting they were both committing separate rapes in a similar fashion? If they wanted to frame CB for a rape that had actually happened why not describe details of a video of the HB or DM rapes then? And how does one of them manage to rape DM and leave behind no trace of themselves but a trace of someone apparently unconnected instead? I think one or both men are German (not sure) but does either have a history of sex crime convictions like Bruckner? I mean it’s a valiant attempt at an alternative theory on your part but I doubt the police could be that stupid as to not consider the possibility themselves or fail to discount it through investigation and elimination. Is all this more likely than they were actually telling the truth (or their version of it) about what they saw on the tape?
-
It would be odd to commit such rapes, tell your mate all about them and then draw attention to yourself by going to the police about them many years later don’t you think? Indeed, why drag your mate into it at all (who could dob you in it) unless you’re suggesting they were both committing separate rapes in a similar fashion? If they wanted to frame CB for a rape that had actually happened why not describe details of a video of the HB or DM rapes then? And how does one of them manage to rape DM and leave behind no trace of themselves but a trace of someone apparently unconnected instead? I think one or both men are German (not sure) but does either have a history of sex crime convictions like Bruckner? I mean it’s a valiant attempt at an alternative theory on your part but I doubt the police could be that stupid as to not consider the possibility themselves or fail to discount it through investigation and elimination. Is all this more likely than they were actually telling the truth (or their version of it) about what they saw on the tape?
Who knows what they have on each other that would necessitate silence.
Further who knows what crimes Busching and Seyferth have been convicted of or what crimes they have committed without detection.
Do you really think that if the police are given a perpetrator on a plate they will look deeply at their source? Is there any evidence that the police did?
As to the pair’s credibility, a few snippets from the trial.
‘ During extensive questioning by the judge and the defendant's lawyer, Seyferth repeatedly claimed to not remember crucial details. His testimony also diverged from statements given at a trial in 2019, which saw Christian B be convicted of rape.’
And.
‘During cross-examination of the witness, which went on for over three hours, the defence accused Seyferth of having memory loss and continually changing his statement.
In particular, they highlighted that he had made money from press interviews and previously said the older woman was ‘around 40’, but now she was in her 60s.’
-
Who knows what they have on each other that would necessitate silence.
Further who knows what crimes Busching and Seyferth have been convicted of or what crimes they have committed without detection.
Do you really think that if the police are given a perpetrator on a plate they will look deeply at their source? Is there any evidence that the police did?
As to the pair’s credibility, a few snippets from the trial.
‘ During extensive questioning by the judge and the defendant's lawyer, Seyferth repeatedly claimed to not remember crucial details. His testimony also diverged from statements given at a trial in 2019, which saw Christian B be convicted of rape.’
And.
‘During cross-examination of the witness, which went on for over three hours, the defence accused Seyferth of having memory loss and continually changing his statement.
In particular, they highlighted that he had made money from press interviews and previously said the older woman was ‘around 40’, but now she was in her 60s.’
Can I ask - are you now of the opinion that CB probably didn’t rape Hazel Behan after all and actually poses no threat to women? You seem to have done something of a 180 on this in recent days. In fact one could say you’re banging a drum for a career criminal who has convictions for rape and child abuse.
-
Who knows what they have on each other that would necessitate silence.
Further who knows what crimes Busching and Seyferth have been convicted of or what crimes they have committed without detection.
Do you really think that if the police are given a perpetrator on a plate they will look deeply at their source? Is there any evidence that the police did?
As to the pair’s credibility, a few snippets from the trial.
‘ During extensive questioning by the judge and the defendant's lawyer, Seyferth repeatedly claimed to not remember crucial details. His testimony also diverged from statements given at a trial in 2019, which saw Christian B be convicted of rape.’
And.
‘During cross-examination of the witness, which went on for over three hours, the defence accused Seyferth of having memory loss and continually changing his statement.
In particular, they highlighted that he had made money from press interviews and previously said the older woman was ‘around 40’, but now she was in her 60s.’
BIB. Yes I do. If I went to the police and said I once saw you in a video holding a “Death To All Jews” placard at a Pro Palestine march I think they might want a little bit more evidence than that and to check out if I had had any previous acrimonious dealings with you don’t you?
-
Can I ask - are you now of the opinion that CB probably didn’t rape Hazel Behan after all and actually poses no threat to women? You seem to have done something of a 180 on this in recent days. In fact one could say you’re banging a drum for a career criminal who has convictions for rape and child abuse.
I said that Hazel Behan believes that Brueckner raped her.
-
BIB. Yes I do. If I went to the police and said I once saw you in a video holding a “Death To All Jews” placard at a Pro Palestine march I think they might want a little bit more evidence than that and to check out if I had had any previous acrimonious dealings with you don’t you?
By the time Busching told the police about the alleged tape in 2017 what evidence do you think there could have been that it existed? Did the police ever try to find the women?
-
I said that Hazel Behan believes that Brueckner raped her.
You have said on this forum that CB probably did rape her, don’t make me go look for your post. Are you now of the view that he probably didn’t?
-
By the time Busching told the police about the alleged tape in 2017 what evidence do you think there could have been that it existed? Did the police ever try to find the women?
I believe he told them in 2016 and furthermore I believe he tried to interest them in this information much earlier but they weren’t bothered at the time. I would expect the police to check out Busching, and whether or not he could have been in the area at the time the rapes occurred, yes. As he was such a bad ‘un he may well have been in prison at the time the rapes were committed or out of the country for example.. I very much doubt the PJ looked for these women but perhaps thr Germans tried, and perhaps part of their attempt to gather more info about them was to go public in the first place.
-
Who was The Judge ?
Uta Engemann...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612)
Engemann's summing up...
-
You have said on this forum that CB probably did rape her, don’t make me go look for your post. Are you now of the view that he probably didn’t?
I’m of the view that Miss Behan said that he did and I have no reason to believe that she isn’t truthful. Of course she could be wrong and telling the truth.
-
I’m of the view that Miss Behan said that he did and I have no reason to believe that she isn’t truthful. Of course she could be wrong and telling the truth.
A politician’s answer. I know what HB believes already, I’m asking if you have changed your mind from”probably did it” to “probably didn’t do it”.
-
I believe he told them in 2016 and furthermore I believe he tried to interest them in this information much earlier but they weren’t bothered at the time. I would expect the police to check out Busching, and whether or not he could have been in the area at the time the rapes occurred, yes. As he was such a bad ‘un he may well have been in prison at the time the rapes were committed or out of the country for example.. I very much doubt the PJ looked for these women but perhaps thr Germans tried, and perhaps part of their attempt to gather more info about them was to go public in the first place.
As I was debating the point I looked back over the information available. Busching and Seyforth found the tape around 2006. Seyferth, I believe, said he tried to interest the parent’s detectives in the information after he had seen an appeal by Edgar. He, however, didn’t contact the police at the time or subsequently. Busching, I believe, asked to talk to OG after being charged with people trafficking in 2017. Hope that helps.
This interested me from a Mail article.
‘ He ( Fulscher) pointed out how witnesses they had said had seen 'the rape video' denied having ever set eyes on it and Mr Fulscher said Busching's aim was 'solely to profit from the multi-million reward' in the Madeleine case.’
Could this be the British bartender from Santa Clara who was said to have seen the tape but, mysteriously,was never called as a witness either at this or Diane Menkes trial?
If the police were hoping that somehow the victims on the alleged tape were going to recognise Brueckner then they were sadly wrong. Surely any appeal for those victims to come forward should have been made directly to
them?
-
A politician’s answer. I know what HB believes already, I’m asking if you have changed your mind from”probably did it” to “probably didn’t do it”.
I’ve already answered you.
-
Uta Engemann...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612)
Engemann's summing up...
Thank you Myster. Very interesting.
-
As I was debating the point I looked back over the information available. Busching and Seyforth found the tape around 2006. Seyferth, I believe, said he tried to interest the parent’s detectives in the information after he had seen an appeal by Edgar. He, however, didn’t contact the police at the time or subsequently. Busching, I believe, asked to talk to OG after being charged with people trafficking in 2017. Hope that helps.
This interested me from a Mail article.
‘ He ( Fulscher) pointed out how witnesses they had said had seen 'the rape video' denied having ever set eyes on it and Mr Fulscher said Busching's aim was 'solely to profit from the multi-million reward' in the Madeleine case.’
Could this be the British bartender from Santa Clara who was said to have seen the tape but, mysteriously,was never called as a witness either at this or Diane Menkes trial?
If the police were hoping that somehow the victims on the alleged tape were going to recognise Brueckner then they were sadly wrong. Surely any appeal for those victims to come forward should have been made directly to
them?
And how do you appeal to witnesses directly if you don’t know who they are in the first place?
-
I’ve already answered you.
Do you still think Christian Bruckner is undoubtedly a danger to women?
-
Can I ask - are you now of the opinion that CB probably didn’t rape Hazel Behan after all and actually poses no threat to women? You seem to have done something of a 180 on this in recent days. In fact one could say you’re banging a drum for a career criminal who has convictions for rape and child abuse.
Brueckner has served his sentence for child abuse. He has repaid his debt to society. I think it’s wrong to keep holding his past convictions against him. Just leave him alone. Okay!
-
As I was debating the point I looked back over the information available. Busching and Seyforth found the tape around 2006. Seyferth, I believe, said he tried to interest the parent’s detectives in the information after he had seen an appeal by Edgar. He, however, didn’t contact the police at the time or subsequently. Busching, I believe, asked to talk to OG after being charged with people trafficking in 2017. Hope that helps.
This interested me from a Mail article.
‘ He ( Fulscher) pointed out how witnesses they had said had seen 'the rape video' denied having ever set eyes on it and Mr Fulscher said Busching's aim was 'solely to profit from the multi-million reward' in the Madeleine case.’
Could this be the British bartender from Santa Clara who was said to have seen the tape but, mysteriously,was never called as a witness either at this or Diane Menkes trial?
If the police were hoping that somehow the victims on the alleged tape were going to recognise Brueckner then they were sadly wrong. Surely any appeal for those victims to come forward should have been made directly to
them?
You do know defence lawyers will say anything to try and destroy the prosecution’s case don’t you? Can any of these so-called facts be backed up with evidence? I seem to recall Greek police confirming that no payments were sought or made to Busching when he first gave his statment so do you have evidence that contradicts this?
-
Brueckner has served his sentence for child abuse. He has repaid his debt to society. I think it’s wrong to keep holding his past convictions against him. Just leave him alone. Okay!
Have you offered him your spare room when he’s released? Perhaps he can earn a few quid babysitting the kids in the neighbourhood.
-
Uta Engemann...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612)
Engemann's summing up...
No direct evidence that CB was at the scene of the crime at the time.
-
There is room for reasonable doubt in the HB case. Yes the crime is very similar to DM but there's nothing placing CB at the scene & it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that someone else could have dunnit. If I were a juror, on the evidence, personally I don't think I could find him guilty & risk sending an innocent man to prison. Or maybe I'm just biased in support of rapists murderers & paedophiles?
-
Have you offered him your spare room when he’s released? Perhaps he can earn a few quid babysitting the kids in the neighbourhood.
Spammy is already in the spare room.
-
There is room for reasonable doubt in the HB case. Yes the crime is very similar to DM but there's nothing placing CB at the scene & it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that someone else could have dunnit. If I were a juror, on the evidence, personally I don't think I could find him guilty & risk sending an innocent man to prison. Or maybe I'm just biased in support of rapists murderers & paedophiles?
Nothing placing him at the scene of the crime except his victimwho is 100% certain it was him. There’s nothing placing Gerry in downtown PdL carrying a child except a witness who was less certain than HB was yet as a juror in that case I’m sure you’d have no doubt finding him guilty.
-
Nothing placing him at the scene of the crime except his victimwho is 100% certain it was him. There’s nothing placing Gerry in downtown PdL carrying a child except a witness who was less certain than HB was yet as a juror in that case I’m sure you’d have no doubt finding him guilty.
No I'm sorry. HB can be as sure as she likes but 'he had blue eyes' isn't enough. Did the BKA manage to interview & rule out every other six foot blonde blue eyed German in Portugal at the time?
-
Spammy is already in the spare room.
No. The padded cell.
-
No I'm sorry. HB can be as sure as she likes but 'he had blue eyes' isn't enough. Did the BKA manage to interview & rule out every other six foot blonde blue eyed German in Portugal at the time?
Did the PJ manage to interview and rule out every man who was in PdL on the night of 3rd May?
-
Did the PJ manage to interview and rule out every man in PdL with a young daughter who was in PdL on the night of 3rd May?
Why are you changing the subject?
We are talking about HB. The McCann case is entirely unrelated. Could you really convict Brueckner on such scant evidence?
-
You do know defence lawyers will say anything to try and destroy the prosecution’s case don’t you? Can any of these so-called facts be backed up with evidence? I seem to recall Greek police confirming that no payments were sought or made to Busching when he first gave his statment so do you have evidence that contradicts this?
I haven’t read anything from the prosecution correcting Fuelscher claims, have you and it would have been very easy to check.
Absolutely the Greek police said that but do you think that perhaps Busching was playing the long game with his eye on the ‘reward’ prize….but sssshhhh he wasn’t telling the police about that?
-
Why are you changing the subject?
We are talking about HB. The McCann case is entirely unrelated. Could you really convict Brueckner on such scant evidence?
Entirely unrelated. Sure, that’s why we’re discussing him and his crimes on the Madeleine McCann forum on a thread about no charges for Bruckner wrt to her disappearance. I was merely illustrating your double standards when it comes to the strength of evidence in each case.
-
I haven’t read anything from the prosecution correcting Fuelscher claims, have you and it would have been very easy to check.
Absolutely the Greek police said that but do you think that perhaps Busching was playing the long game with his eye on the ‘reward’ prize….but sssshhhh he wasn’t telling the police about that?
Right so let’s try and work this out:
1) Busching commits at least two rapes in the Algarve in 2004 / 2005.
2) Madeleine disappears 2007
3) Busching decides to claim the reward money by enlisting the support of Seyferth to concoct a plot framing his old mate CB by going to the McCanns detectives with details of a bogus video and a made-up story about CB confessing to taking Madeleine.
4) Nothing happens and many years pass
5) After serving time for people smuggling Busching decides to resurrect his plot to claim the reward money and tells the Greek authorities about CB’s confession and the videos depicting rapes similar to those he himself committed but with different individuals and locations involved.
6) Police check this information out and see that the details closely match those of the rape of DM reported many years before
7) DNA from that rape (committed lets not forget by Busching) turns out by some bizarre twist of fate to belong to the innocent man he accuses of committing that rape, CB.
8) CB is found guilty of a rape he didn’t commit and jailed for 7 years.
9) Further investigations reveal details of another reported rape that is similar to but not identical to the rapes described by Bushing on the video tapes,, this time that of a young Irish woman who comes to believe 100% that her rapist is CB, but unbenownst to her the rapist is actually Busching.
10) Busching together with his terminally ill accomplice Seyferth, agree to give evidence in a new trial brought against CB. They’re playing the long game (but probably not that long in Seyferth’s case) in the hopes that eventually they will get their hands on the Madeleine reward money.
11) At the trial, despite a previous court finding CB guilty on the back of Busching’s alleged video tape revelations this time the judge finds him not guilty because the judge feels the publicity surrounding the case means he could not get a fair trial, though why this could not have been ascertained before the trial ever got started is not quite clear.
12) Meanwhile the victim HB continies to claim CB was 100% her attacker, little realising that the real culprit was one of the witnesses who deliberately put himself back in the courtroom with his unsuspecting victim sitting close by in the witness box.
Phew. Complicated innit. Did I miss anything out?
-
Entirely unrelated. Sure, that’s why we’re discussing him and his crimes on the Madeleine McCann forum on a thread about no charges for Bruckner wrt to her disappearance. I was merely illustrating your double standards when it comes to the strength of evidence in each case.
OK, so what is the connection between the HB case & Madeleine’s disappearance?
And I never said anything about being able to convict the McCanns on the evidence in that case. You're making an assumption here. It is possible to be 100% certain the McCanns dunnit but also understand that there isn't enough evidence against them to charge them with anything.
Anyway. About HB. Brueckner didn't do it.
-
OK, so what is the connection between the HB case & Madeleine’s disappearance?
And I never said anything about being able to convict the McCanns on the evidence in that case. You're making an assumption here. It is possible to be 100% certain the McCanns dunnit but also understand that there isn't enough evidence against them to charge them with anything.
Anyway. About HB. Brueckner didn't do it.
It’s also possible to be 100% certain CB dunnit but also understand there isn’t enough evidence to charge him or to find him guilty of the HB rape which some people on this forum don’t seem able to grasp.
-
It’s also possible to be 100% certain CB dunnit but also understand there isn’t enough evidence to charge him or to find him guilty of the HB rape which some people on this forum don’t seem able to grasp.
Enough? There's none, that's the problem.
HCW seems to be pretty old school, going to court with no forensics and proclaiming an innocent man guilty with none either. Quite a novel approach to prosection and one which I very much doubt he will get a chance to deploy again.
Even Captain Cringe must be cringing for HCW right now.
-
Enough? There's none, that's the problem.
HCW seems to be pretty old school, going to court with no forensics and proclaiming an innocent man guilty with none either. Quite a novel approach to prosection and one which I very much doubt he will get a chance to deploy again.
Even Captain Cringe must be cringing for HCW right now.
Of course there was evidence, don’t be so silly. For one, there were 5 separate cases tried and in one of them CB (a convicted paedo) was literally caught pants down, todger out in a children’s playground with kids in it. You don’t think there was enough evidence there to convict for at the very least indecent exposure? I’m not cringing for HCW brcsuse unlike you I can’t summon up enough emotion to feel very much at all about the man. I think he has tried damned hard to keep a dangerous man off the steeets though, perhaps too hard.
-
Of course there was evidence, don’t be so silly. For one, there were 5 separate cases tried and in one of them CB (a convicted paedo) was literally caught pants down, todger out in a children’s playground with kids in it. You don’t think there was enough evidence there to convict for at the very least indecent exposure? I’m not cringing for HCW brcsuse unlike you I can’t summon up enough emotion to feel very much at all about the man. I think he has tried damned hard to keep a dangerous man off the steeets though, perhaps too hard.
He's been chasing his dream. Why did he prosecute these cases?
-
Of course there was evidence, don’t be so silly. For one, there were 5 separate cases tried and in one of them CB (a convicted paedo) was literally caught pants down, todger out in a children’s playground with kids in it. You don’t think there was enough evidence there to convict for at the very least indecent exposure? I’m not cringing for HCW brcsuse unlike you I can’t summon up enough emotion to feel very much at all about the man. I think he has tried damned hard to keep a dangerous man off the steeets though, perhaps too hard.
What evidence is there of paedophilia in the MM case ?
-
What evidence is there of paedophilia in the MM case ?
It's the Convenient Hobo fallacy. There will probably be another one 'found' when this latest one is exonerated or dies in dubious circumstances (not under a tractor again, though).
Or there is a limbo status, and one that suits MACA and BKA - he's just released and let the suspicion hang over him. Yes, he will have a shopping list of law suits to instigate, but at least for a few years he'll still be 'the man'. The Convenient Hobo.
-
Of course there was evidence, don’t be so silly. For one, there were 5 separate cases tried and in one of them CB (a convicted paedo) was literally caught pants down, todger out in a children’s playground with kids in it. You don’t think there was enough evidence there to convict for at the very least indecent exposure? I’m not cringing for HCW brcsuse unlike you I can’t summon up enough emotion to feel very much at all about the man. I think he has tried damned hard to keep a dangerous man off the steeets though, perhaps too hard.
Did you read the judge’s summing up as posted by Myster?
-
What evidence is there of paedophilia in the MM case ?
There is none, & this is why I maintain it is wrong to blame paedophiles for Madeleine's disappearance. It is discrimination, against paedophiles.
-
Did you read the judge’s summing up as posted by Myster?
Clearly not. The young girl apparently failed to pick out Brueckner when the police showed her mugshots.
-
Clearly not. The young girl apparently failed to pick out Brueckner when the police showed her mugshots.
Yet HCW still persisted with his kangaroo court.
-
Clearly not. The young girl apparently failed to pick out Brueckner when the police showed her mugshots.
Sigh. You really do make it up as you go along.
- 28 May 2024: The trial now turns to the fifth accused case from 2007:
The victim, now 27 years old, is "very, very sure" that Christian B. was her perpetrator.
According to the indictment, B. is said to have ambushed, grabbed and masturbated the then ten-year-old girl on a stretch of beach.
She wants to recognize B. by his grin and teeth.
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/niedersachsen/braunschweig/article405797055/braunschweig-prozess-gegen-christian-b-das-ist-bisher-passiert.html
A positive identification and a truthful witness despite the presiding judge's contrary opinion.[/list]
-
Latest from TOP on HCW's Appeal...
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2025/01/20/exclusive-prosecutor-confirms-appeal-proceedings-into-madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-be-heard-in-leipzig-in-march/ (https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2025/01/20/exclusive-prosecutor-confirms-appeal-proceedings-into-madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-be-heard-in-leipzig-in-march/)
-
Sigh. You really do make it up as you go along.
- 28 May 2024: The trial now turns to the fifth accused case from 2007:
The victim, now 27 years old, is "very, very sure" that Christian B. was her perpetrator.
According to the indictment, B. is said to have ambushed, grabbed and masturbated the then ten-year-old girl on a stretch of beach.
She wants to recognize B. by his grin and teeth.
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/niedersachsen/braunschweig/article405797055/braunschweig-prozess-gegen-christian-b-das-ist-bisher-passiert.html
A positive identification and a truthful witness despite the presiding judge's contrary opinion.
Seems you know better than the judge.
....oh wait, you're in the tainted judge camp. Desparately clinging to your latest hobo. And I'm the one with a fondness for nonces apparently!
-
Seems you know better than the judge.
....oh wait, you're in the tainted judge camp. Desparately clinging to your latest hobo. And I'm the one with a fondness for nonces apparently!
Apparently.
-
Apparently.
Apparently what?
-
He's been chasing his dream. Why did he prosecute these cases?
I doubt it’s a dream of his and I very much doubt he acted alone without any consultation with colleagues and superiors. Why does any case go to trial? Obviously in the hope of securing a conviction and keeping bad people off the streets, sometimes trials end in a not guilty verdict, even when it seems mystifying that they have (I know you’re not mystified by it, but I am surprised at least one or two of those charges didn’t result in a conviction).
-
Did you read the judge’s summing up as posted by Myster?
I did.
-
Clearly not. The young girl apparently failed to pick out Brueckner when the police showed her mugshots.
No, at least one child testified that he was caught masturbating in a playground but the judge in her infinite wisdom decided he was peeing instead (she must have been there) and apparently it is perfectly legal now to pee in front of other peoples’ kids, in public. Who knew?
-
What evidence is there of paedophilia in the MM case ?
ask Spammy, I’m sure he’d be pleased to tell you all about it.
-
There is none, & this is why I maintain it is wrong to blame paedophiles for Madeleine's disappearance. It is discrimination, against paedophiles.
Really? So we must have no more talk of Gaspars, of nipple twiddling and of dodgy Tapas paedo rings involving Clement Freud?? Are you really ready to relinquish that angle?? I’m v. surprised. So, it was just a plain old murder for the sake of it then. They just didn’t like her much and wanted rid?
-
I doubt it’s a dream of his and I very much doubt he acted alone without any consultation with colleagues and superiors. Why does any case go to trial? Obviously in the hope of securing a conviction and keeping bad people off the streets, sometimes trials end in a not guilty verdict, even when it seems mystifying that they have (I know you’re not mystified by it, but I am surprised at least one or two of those charges didn’t result in a conviction).
I don't think it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, it looks to me to my totally untrained eye, although I have seen The Lincoln Lawyer, that lumping them all in together was a mistake.
It also looks to me, with my flimsy legal acumen, that HCW gambled with HB's chance of getting justice for a chance to bolster his very thin evidence file.
It's staggering that it went to trial, according to my relatively scant knowledge of the process, but that's what pressure does, makes people and organisations make irrational choices.
-
Really? So we must have no more talk of Gaspars, of nipple twiddling and of dodgy Tapas paedo rings involving Clement Freud?? Are you really ready to relinquish that angle?? I’m v. surprised. So, it was just a plain old murder for the sake of it then. They just didn’t like her much and wanted rid?
I wonder if Clement Freud was widely acknowledged as super creepy in 2007? Probably.
Talking of bathwater and babies (no, not Davie Payne), one of my favourite arists, Lucian.
-
I wonder if Clement Freud was widely acknowledged as super creepy in 2007? Probably.
Talking of bathwater and babies (no, not Davie Payne), one of my favourite arists, Lucian.
Ugh.
-
I don't think it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, it looks to me to my totally untrained eye, although I have seen The Lincoln Lawyer, that lumping them all in together was a mistake.
It also looks to me, with my flimsy legal acumen, that HCW gambled with HB's chance of getting justice for a chance to bolster his very thin evidence file.
It's staggering that it went to trial, according to my relatively scant knowledge of the process, but that's what pressure does, makes people and organisations make irrational choices.
Yeah well, probably best put your crowing on hold until after the appeal is heard, then you can give Cock-a-Doodle-Dandy a proper run for his money.
-
Yeah well, probably best put your crowing on hold until after the appeal is heard, then you can give Cock-a-Doodle-Dandy a proper run for his money.
That's right, whatever the fck all that means.
-
I doubt it’s a dream of his and I very much doubt he acted alone without any consultation with colleagues and superiors. Why does any case go to trial? Obviously in the hope of securing a conviction and keeping bad people off the streets, sometimes trials end in a not guilty verdict, even when it seems mystifying that they have (I know you’re not mystified by it, but I am surprised at least one or two of those charges didn’t result in a conviction).
I am stunned. What on earth does The German Judiciary think they are up to?
Bruecker will commit these crimes again and with the blessing and encouragement of this Court. And then Fulcher will defy them to find Brueckner guilty again. No doubt with success.
The whole thing would be utterly laughable, if only it were funny.
-
That's right, whatever the fck all that means.
And I thought you were smart.
-
I am stunned. What on earth does The German Judiciary think they are up to?
Bruecker will commit these crimes again and with the blessing and encouragement of this Court. And then Fulcher will defy them to find Brueckner guilty again. No doubt with success.
The whole thing would be utterly laughable, if only it were funny.
Apparently Bruckner plans to go to Africa or Cambodia when he is released, which is quite a nauseating prospect for the countless children in these places who are sexually exloited by vile creeps like him.
-
I don't think it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, it looks to me to my totally untrained eye, although I have seen The Lincoln Lawyer, that lumping them all in together was a mistake.
It also looks to me, with my flimsy legal acumen, that HCW gambled with HB's chance of getting justice for a chance to bolster his very thin evidence file.
It's staggering that it went to trial, according to my relatively scant knowledge of the process, but that's what pressure does, makes people and organisations make irrational choices.
And not one case remotely similar to Madeleine’s has he shown any evidence of. It appears he thinks giving a dog a bad name is enough.
-
Uta Engemann...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612)
Engemann's summing up...
" She did not recognise the defendant safely when shown photos of possible perpetrators"
-
And not one case remotely similar to Madeleine’s has he shown any evidence of. It appears he thinks giving a dog a bad name is enough.
I hate to break it to you but Christian Bruckner already had a bad name. He was a convicted rapist and paedophile before HCW came onto thr scene. Do you think it’s not possible to be a child abductor unless you’ve got a history of child abduction crimes under your belt?
-
I hate to break it to you but Christian Bruckner already had a bad name. He was a convicted rapist and paedophile before HCW came onto thr scene. Do you think it’s not possible to be a child abductor unless you’ve got a history of child abduction crimes under your belt?
Christian Brueckner did not have a bad name. Had you heard of him before Wolters called him a murderer?
-
Christian Brueckner did not have a bad name. Had you heard of him before Wolters called him a murderer?
It is possible to have a bad name or reputation without being infamous, or are you claiming he had a good name before it was revealed by the press?
-
It is possible to have a bad name or reputation without being infamous, or are you claiming he had a good name before it was revealed by the press?
Yes. His ex girlfriend testified during the trial & said some very positive things about him.
-
Yes. His ex girlfriend testified during the trial & said some very positive things about him.
Right you are then. Christian Bruckner was a well respected and upright member of the community, well liked and with a good reputation - this is your truth and you are entitled to believe your truth.
-
Right you are then. Christian Bruckner was a well respected and upright member of the community, well liked and with a good reputation - this is your truth and you are entitled to believe your truth.
Well I'm sorry but I I think Brueckner 's girlfriend knew him better than any of us so I think she is better placed to judge. She gave evidence of his good character under oath.
-
Well I'm sorry but I I think Brueckner 's girlfriend knew him better than any of us so I think she is better placed to judge. She gave evidence of his good character under oath.
I believe Rosemary West was very fond of Fred too and thought he was a great guy.
-
I believe Rosemary West was very fond of Fred too and thought he was a great guy.
Fred West died an innocent man. His wife was convicted of murder though.
-
Fred West died an innocent man. His wife was convicted of murder though.
Fred West committed suicide whilst on remand for multiple murders. Before he was arrested he was of course a fine upstanding and decent member of the community and loving family man. I expect you’re a big admirer of the poor guy.
-
Fred West committed suicide whilst on remand for multiple murders. Before he was arrested he was of course a fine upstanding and decent member of the community and loving family man. I expect you’re a big admirer of the poor guy.
He was never tried & found guilty in a court of law. He therefore died an innocent man. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Christian Brueckner though.
-
He was never tried & found guilty in a court of law. He therefore died an innocent man. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Christian Brueckner though.
If I mugged you in the street and stole your phone off you would you consider me innocent of the crime if the police cba’ed to arrest me? I know you’re a troll but sometimes I think you actually believe what you write. Christian Bruckner is a convicted paedophile and rapist. He is currently in prison. He does not have a good name to defend. That’s all there is to it basically.
-
Uta Engemann...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/uta-engemann-presiding-judge-in-the-trial-against-defendant-news-photo/2175353612)
Engemann's summing up...
Quite a long list ! Trouble is that each entry is basically the same as the others and all seem to be written by the sme person. The author has just shuffled the images and words around to make them look at a glance as different and a long list.
So the list is just one long piece of misinformation $65*
Who wrote it /them Myster?
-
Quite a long list ! Trouble is that each entry is basically the same as the others and all seem to be written by the sme person. The author has just shuffled the images and words around to make them look at a glance as different and a long list.
So the list is just one long piece of misinformation $65*
Who wrote it /them Myster?
Errrmm... Kai Feldhaus, the journo who thinks Maddie was abducted and Stellander's weighty doorstop is pants? Other than that, being the resident conspiracy theorist, you tell me or is that another secret you can't reveal?
-
Well I'm sorry but I I think Brueckner 's girlfriend knew him better than any of us so I think she is better placed to judge. She gave evidence of his good character under oath.
Psychopaths know how to manipulate. Many said he came across as friendly he was able to hide his sordid inner self.
-
Psychopaths know how to manipulate. Many said he came across as friendly he was able to hide his sordid inner self.
Re: Harold Shipman: "Those patients were shocked when their friendly, efficient and hard-working GP was arrested in September 1998. A surge of support engulfed him. Patients refused to believe he could be a murderer, paying tribute to his dedication and efficiency, his hard work and his friendliness. Well-wishers filled his surgery with cards urging him to "be strong" and "keep smiling". One patient remembered him as a lovely man "with twinkly eyes"; another with heart problems said simply: "He saved my life."
Mind you I expect Spam thinks he was innocent too.
-
Re: Harold Shipman: "Those patients were shocked when their friendly, efficient and hard-working GP was arrested in September 1998. A surge of support engulfed him. Patients refused to believe he could be a murderer, paying tribute to his dedication and efficiency, his hard work and his friendliness. Well-wishers filled his surgery with cards urging him to "be strong" and "keep smiling". One patient remembered him as a lovely man "with twinkly eyes"; another with heart problems said simply: "He saved my life."
Mind you I expect Spam thinks he was innocent too.
CB's Lawyer said he was a nice friendly man!! Look how CB has been in court they said he answered in a quiet voice. He's such a good actor it's a far cry from swaggering around carrying a gun and bragging about the thefts he committed isn't it.
-
CB's Lawyer said he was a nice friendly man!! Look how CB has been in court they said he answered in a quiet voice. He's such a good actor it's a far cry from swaggering around carrying a gun and bragging about the thefts he committed isn't it.
You been reading one of them tabloidy things again ?
-
CB's Lawyer said he was a nice friendly man!! Look how CB has been in court they said he answered in a quiet voice. He's such a good actor it's a far cry from swaggering around carrying a gun and bragging about the thefts he committed isn't it.
That's great, but I don't see how that adds to the total absence of evidence against him in the MM case.
I understand it's difficult having to find another hobo sex case to pin it on at this later hour, but that's the harsh reality.
Best to stop fixating on him and move on.
-
That's great, but I don't see how that adds to the total absence of evidence against him in the MM case.
I understand it's difficult having to find another hobo sex case to pin it on at this later hour, but that's the harsh reality.
Best to stop fixating on him and move on.
Difficult to do when he's your only hate figure still in the game.
-
That's great, but I don't see how that adds to the total absence of evidence against him in the MM case.
I understand it's difficult having to find another hobo sex case to pin it on at this later hour, but that's the harsh reality.
Best to stop fixating on him and move on.
Like sceptics have moved on from fixating about the McCanns you mean? Okie dokes.
-
There isn’t a “total absence of evidence” against CB. That is patently false. There is evidence (all circumstantial) which we know about which is the reason he was made an arguido in the first place. There is also allegedly evidence that we don’t know about, which makes sense as investigators rarely reveal their entire hand until it is wise to do so. You can’t be made an arguido on the basis of a German prosecutor’s whim as far as I understand. The time to move on from CB being the prime suspect is if and when his status as arguido is removed and the Germans drop the case agaisnst him. That is a reasonable and mature postion to take on the matter, so for that reason I doubt it’s likely to be adopted by any of the sceptics on this forum.
-
You been reading one of them tabloidy things again ?
Not all the people they interviewed can be wrong about him.
-
That's great, but I don't see how that adds to the total absence of evidence against him in the MM case.
I understand it's difficult having to find another hobo sex case to pin it on at this later hour, but that's the harsh reality.
Best to stop fixating on him and move on.
What total absence of evidence. It's obvious he was the man staring at 5a he was observed three times if I remember correctly. Looking at him the girl described him very well she also said he was wearing a leather jacket something CB wore. The things he wrote on his computer which were read out in court shows him to have fantasies about abducting little girls coincidence? I believe he did boast about taking Madeleine you don't believe in the 'hobo's' recollection of what he saw or heard but I believe him. He said he lost his job and had to go to a safe house. Why would he go through all that?
-
CB's Lawyer said he was a nice friendly man!! Look how CB has been in court they said he answered in a quiet voice. He's such a good actor it's a far cry from swaggering around carrying a gun and bragging about the thefts he committed isn't it.
There was an interesting appearance by the accused during the trial when he was wheeled into court in a wheelchair. Never explained but apparently he had a sore foot.
The fact he was in full restraint gear of shackles inclusive of a restraining belt strapped around his waist completed the look.
Never explained or referred to.
Nonetheless there had to be a reason for it particularly as he had penalties for meltdowns and violent episodes during his time behind bars.
He is incapable of keeping up the mask of being Mr Nice for long. He has violent episodes despite being under supervision.
Diane and Hazel both testified what his behaviour is when he is in complete control of the prey he staked out for himself and it does not make for pleasant reading.
-
Difficult to do when he's your only hate figure still in the game.
With respect, there are countless 'hate figures' who have never been out of the frame or out of the game starting with Madeleine and the rest of the McCann family.
Christian Brueckner is an habitual sex offender who should have been interrogated in 2007 along with the other recorded paedophiles who were there at the time.
Surely it must raise questions as to why the guy whose duty it was to oversee that diligence but omitted to do so; introduced Brueckner to Joe Public as the fall-guy / scapegoat or whatever.
Thereby playing yet another 'get out of jail card' for both prime actors while setting the slavering internet following in their place in the script and direction they should be following.
One simply cannot believe how the forces of law and order are the bad guys and
a serial sex offender is the hero until one becomes acquainted with the denizens inhabiting the hate zones which are the underbelly of the internet where the erstwhile 'Justice for Maddie' crew still lurk perhaps under their new sobriquet of 'Christian is an innocent scapegoat', much as they were told to do.
-
With respect, there are countless 'hate figures' who have never been out of the frame or out of the game starting with Madeleine and the rest of the McCann family.
Christian Brueckner is an habitual sex offender who should have been interrogated in 2007 along with the other recorded paedophiles who were there at the time.
Surely it must raise questions as to why the guy whose duty it was to oversee that diligence but omitted to do so; introduced Brueckner to Joe Public as the fall-guy / scapegoat or whatever.
Thereby playing yet another 'get out of jail card' for both prime actors while setting the slavering internet following in their place in the script and direction they should be following.
One simply cannot believe how the forces of law and order are the bad guys and
a serial sex offender is the hero until one becomes acquainted with the denizens inhabiting the hate zones which are the underbelly of the internet where the erstwhile 'Justice for Maddie' crew still lurk perhaps under their new sobriquet of 'Christian is an innocent scapegoat', much as they were told to do.
The old 'interrogate the paedos' fallacy. As if the PJ could just round up anyone with an historic sex offence conviction & compell them to talk, when there's no evidence implicating them in Madeleine’s disappearance in the first place.
-
The old 'interrogate the paedos' fallacy. As if the PJ could just round up anyone with an historic sex offence conviction & compell them to talk, when there's no evidence implicating them in Madeleine’s disappearance in the first place.
I know you don’t have kids Spam, but if you did and one of them disappeared from their bed in the middle of the night never to be seen again would you rule out that she or he had been taken by a paedo on the basis that there was no evidence left at the scene which pointed to a paedo? What would be a more plausible explanation? That you murdered her, even though you knew you hadn’t?
-
equally plausible scenarios were that she was taken by child traffickers or stolen to order by someone who wanted a white child of a certain age for whatever purpose. Why concentrate on paedophilia without evidence?
-
I know you don’t have kids Spam, but if you did and one of them disappeared from their bed in the middle of the night never to be seen again would you rule out that she or he had been taken by a paedo on the basis that there was no evidence left at the scene which pointed to a paedo? What would be a more plausible explanation? That you murdered her, even though you knew you hadn’t?
All of this is irrelevant to the point I made. Even if the PJ suspected a sex offender had stolen Maddie, on no evidence, they'd be powerless. They can't force anyone to talk & give an alibi. As it was, the PJ had no evidence whatsoever against CB so it's not surprising to me that a SWAT team wasn't sent to his campervan the moment the police were informed that a child had disappeared.
-
equally plausible scenarios were that she was taken by child traffickers or stolen to order by someone who wanted a white child of a certain age for whatever purpose. Why concentrate on paedophilia without evidence?
Because child traffickers are often involved in the sex trade as well and it’s the simply the most obvious explanation, Occams Razor.
-
All of this is irrelevant to the point I made. Even if the PJ suspected a sex offender had stolen Maddie, on no evidence, they'd be powerless. They can't force anyone to talk & give an alibi. As it was, the PJ had no evidence whatsoever against CB so it's not surprising to me that a SWAT team wasn't sent to his campervan the moment the police were informed that a child had disappeared.
And yet according to Amaral, the police did go to his campervan but gave up when he didn’t answer the door. Who ever suggested that police can force people to talk or give an alibi? Who suggested SWAT teams the moment a child was reported missing? They way you’re talking you seem to be suggesting police should simply not bother investigating a child’s disappearance at all if no early leads present themselves.
-
And yet according to Amaral, the police did go to his campervan but gave up when he didn’t answer the door. Who ever suggested that police can force people to talk or give an alibi? Who suggested SWAT teams the moment a child was reported missing? They way you’re talking you seem to be suggesting police should simply not bother investigating a child’s disappearance at all if no early leads present themselves.
What I'm saying is, the PJ had no evidence whatsoever that Christian Brueckner, specifically, or any other paedo for that matter, could have been responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. But of course, things have changed now. There's an abundance of evidence against Christian Brueckner. Maybe he'll even be charged some day.
-
P.S It was Brietta who suggested Brueckner should have been "interrogated" by the PJ. I was just pointing out that they had no reason to suspect him specifically & he would be under no obligation to answer to anything anyway & furthermore they'd need a warrant if they wanted to tear his home apart or check his electronic devices.
-
P.S It was Brietta who suggested Brueckner should have been "interrogated" by the PJ. I was just pointing out that they had no reason to suspect him specifically & he would be under no obligation to answer to anything anyway & furthermore they'd need a warrant if they wanted to tear his home apart or check his electronic devices.
All known paedos should have been checked out straight away as a matter of course, it’s normal for police to do this when young children go missing for any length of time, it’s standard police procedure, I’m not sure why youwould object to it frankly.
-
All known paedos should have been checked out straight away as a matter of course, it’s normal for police to do this when young children go missing for any length of time, it’s standard police procedure, I’m not sure why youwould object to it frankly.
What do you mean by 'checked out' what do you suppose the police Do? Despatch all units & start kicking down the front doors of everyone who molested a child a decade prior?
-
It's none of the Police business where Brueckner was or what he was or wasn't doing on May 3rd or any other day. He's under no obligation to answer to anything. The onus is on the three expert investigative forces to prove he abducted Maddie & they're not going to be doing that anytime in the foreseeable future.
-
What do you mean by 'checked out' what do you suppose the police Do? Despatch all units & start kicking down the front doors of everyone who molested a child a decade prior?
What on earth are you talking about?
-
It's none of the Police business where Brueckner was or what he was or wasn't doing on May 3rd or any other day. He's under no obligation to answer to anything. The onus is on the three expert investigative forces to prove he abducted Maddie & they're not going to be doing that anytime in the foreseeable future.
You seem to be completely ignorant about the role of the police and how and why they go about gathering evidence and intelligence, in fact your post makes no sense. If the onus is on the police to prove CB abducted Madeleine then it absolutely IS their business to find out where he was on the 3rd May and what he was doing. You going a bit barmy in your old age Spammy?
-
You seem to be completely ignorant about the role of the police and how and why they go about gathering evidence and intelligence, in fact your post makes no sense. If the onus is on the police to prove CB abducted Madeleine then it absolutely IS their business to find out where he was on the 3rd May and what he was doing. You going a bit barmy in your old age Spammy?
It's none of their business in as much as Brueckner has to tell them nothing. The idea that the PJ could have interrogated him along with all the convicted sex offenders in southern Portugal is the stuff of fantasy.
-
It's none of their business in as much as Brueckner has to tell them nothing. The idea that the PJ could have interrogated him along with all the convicted sex offenders in southern Portugal is the stuff of fantasy.
They could have started by asking the local lowlifes if the immediate area if had any information about the missing girl. They could have asked them if they could have a look around their premises and if they refused then that might be seen as grounds for suspicion and further action taken, such as surveillance or a search warrant. This is not beyond the scope of normal investigative procedures. You seem to think that unless a note is left behind in the child’s bed saying hello, this child was taken by a paedo that the police should not bother checking them out at all which is damn bizarre. If your young child disappears in the night from her bedroom where do you want the police concentrating their efforts then?
-
They could have started by asking the local lowlifes if the immediate area if had any information about the missing girl. They could have asked them if they could have a look around their premises and if they refused then that might be seen as grounds for suspicion and further action taken, such as surveillance or a search warrant. This is not beyond the scope of normal investigative procedures. You seem to think that unless a note is left behind in the child’s bed saying hello, this child was taken by a paedo that the police should not bother checking them out at all which is damn bizarre. If your young child disappears in the night from her bedroom where do you want the police concentrating their efforts then?
On the person(s) who saw them last. That seems the most sensible place to start.
-
All known paedos should have been checked out straight away as a matter of course, it’s normal for police to do this when young children go missing for any length of time, it’s standard police procedure, I’m not sure why youwould object to it frankly.
According to Amaral Brueckner was on police radar.
They looked for him.
They didn't find him.
In the midst of the search for a missing child a known sex offender with a conviction for assaulting a little girl disappears from his usual haunts and the police didn't bother to follow through on their investigation of him to eliminate him from their inquiry.
Obviously nobody wondered where he was. Probably because as Amaral told us in the first chapter of his book that his suspicion was focused on the mother not focused on paedophiles although the files tell us he had a good bash at turning a British resident into one.
-
On the person(s) who saw them last. That seems the most sensible place to start.
So that would be you then. Whilst your child is God knows where you want the police to be solely focussed on you, not on any other possibility even though you know you had nothing to do with her disappearance? How long before you would expect them to stop investigating you and what would you expect them do do next? Just give up?
-
According to Amaral Brueckner was on police radar.
They looked for him.
They didn't find him.
In the midst of the search for a missing child a known sex offender with a conviction for assaulting a little girl disappears from his usual haunts and the police didn't bother to follow through on their investigation of him to eliminate him from their inquiry.
Obviously nobody wondered where he was. Probably because as Amaral told us in the first chapter of his book that his suspicion was focused on the mother not focused on paedophiles although the files tell us he had a good bash at turning a British resident into one.
It's just as well he didn't waste resources trying to find someone who clearly wasn't involved, given the absolute black void of evidence confirmed by HCW.
So there's that, but feel free to keep bleating on about it.
-
It's none of their business in as much as Brueckner has to tell them nothing. The idea that the PJ could have interrogated him along with all the convicted sex offenders in southern Portugal is the stuff of fantasy.
There's still a few stoic MACA here who refuse to acknowledge burden of proof and presumption of innocence.
They naively think that persons of interest and suspects have to explain anything, but it seems it's OK when Kate, quite rightly, keeps her trap shut (probably for the best).
Been watching too many Matlock re-runs while sat there knitting scarves for non-existent loved ones.
-
There's still a few stoic MACA here who refuse to acknowledge burden of proof and presumption of innocence.
They naively think that persons of interest and suspects have to explain anything, but it seems it's OK when Kate, quite rightly, keeps her trap shut (probably for the best).
Been watching too many Matlock re-runs while sat there knitting scarves for non-existent loved ones.
You two are talking trash. No one has said they expect suspects to explain themselves but all suspects should be questioned, unless you can give me a good reason why you think they shouldn’t?
-
It's just as well he didn't waste resources trying to find someone who clearly wasn't involved, given the absolute black void of evidence confirmed by HCW.
So there's that, but feel free to keep bleating on about it.
More complete trash from you, you continue to disappoint. I thought you were intelligent? How is CB “clearly not involved”? What evidence has cleared him of involvement? What evidence could have been gathered had he been properly investigated in the first place? If there was a black void of evidence how is it that he was made an arguido? Did the Germans insist that Portugal make him one off the back of nothing at all? Do you think they just stuck a pin in a list of local paedos and said “he’ll do”? Absolute nonsense you two are spouting.
-
More complete trash from you, you continue to disappoint. I thought you were intelligent? How is CB “clearly not involved”? What evidence has cleared him of involvement? What evidence could have been gathered had he been properly investigated in the first place? If there was a black void of evidence how is it that he was made an arguido? Did the Germans insist that Portugal make him one off the back of nothing at all? Do you think they just stuck a pin in a list of local paedos and said “he’ll do”? Absolute nonsense you two are spouting.
I've asked you before what evidence is there do you think?
As for the pin sticking exercise - we are on Hobo No. 2 now.
But back to the evidence, feel free to speculate (Hobo Hearsay is excluded as it's been proven to be more than useless in a German court).
-
You two are talking trash. No one has said they expect suspects to explain themselves but all suspects should be questioned, unless you can give me a good reason why you think they shouldn’t?
Except Kate, of course.
-
Except Kate, of course.
More trash. Find me one so called MACA who think Kate should not have been questioned by the police. As a supporter of Spam’s recent idiotic posts I suppose your view is that Kate’s business was none of the police’s business and should not have been interrogated. You lot are absurd.
-
I've asked you before what evidence is there do you think?
As for the pin sticking exercise - we are on Hobo No. 2 now.
But back to the evidence, feel free to speculate (Hobo Hearsay is excluded as it's been proven to be more than useless in a German court).
One German court secured a successful conviction off the back of it with several appeals denied, and there is an appeal pending on the latest trial. I don’t think everyone who has come forward with evidence pertaining to CB and Madeleine McCann was put in the witness box for cases which had absolutely nothing to do with her disappearance so once again you’re talking rubbish.
-
More complete trash from you, you continue to disappoint. I thought you were intelligent? How is CB “clearly not involved”? What evidence has cleared him of involvement? What evidence could have been gathered had he been properly investigated in the first place? If there was a black void of evidence how is it that he was made an arguido? Did the Germans insist that Portugal make him one off the back of nothing at all? Do you think they just stuck a pin in a list of local paedos and said “he’ll do”? Absolute nonsense you two are spouting.
He was made an arguido because Busching got nicked for people trafficking & decided to grass him up for 'knowing all about what happened to Maddie'. Prior to that there was no reason for the cops to suspect CB, so it's little wonder to me why the PJ didn't beat a path directly to his door the moment Kate screamed that 'they' had taken Maddie.
-
I've asked you before what evidence is there do you think?
As for the pin sticking exercise - we are on Hobo No. 2 now.
But back to the evidence, feel free to speculate (Hobo Hearsay is excluded as it's been proven to be more than useless in a German court).
The evidence God dammit. There's loads of it. Brueckner wore a leather jacket & boasted online & to fellow prisoners about snatching & murdering kids. It's all real credible stuff. He might even be charged with something some day. Just not any time in the foreseeable future though.
-
He was made an arguido because Busching got nicked for people trafficking & decided to grass him up for 'knowing all about what happened to Maddie'. Prior to that there was no reason for the cops to suspect CB, so it's little wonder to me why the PJ didn't beat a path directly to his door the moment Kate screamed that 'they' had taken Maddie.
Firstly Busching attempted to "grass him up" years before his conviction for people trafficking. Secondly he served time for his offence and received no special favours for his information, according to the Greek police ho held him at the time. Thirdly, the police DID pay CB's abode a visit, they just gave up any further investigation when he didn't answer the door.
-
The evidence God dammit. There's loads of it. Brueckner wore a leather jacket & boasted online & to fellow prisoners about snatching & murdering kids. It's all real credible stuff. He might even be charged with something some day. Just not any time in the foreseeable future though.
Police often solve crimes based on tip offs from other ne'er do wells, CB has not been cleared and there will hopefully be a trial one day. It's his only chance of being cleared if he's innocent so as one of his biggest supporters you should be hoping that day eventuates.
-
Re: Harold Shipman: "Those patients were shocked when their friendly, efficient and hard-working GP was arrested in September 1998. A surge of support engulfed him. Patients refused to believe he could be a murderer, paying tribute to his dedication and efficiency, his hard work and his friendliness. Well-wishers filled his surgery with cards urging him to "be strong" and "keep smiling". One patient remembered him as a lovely man "with twinkly eyes"; another with heart problems said simply: "He saved my life."
Mind you I expect Spam thinks he was innocent too.
Much like the ‘surge’of support for the parents?
-
Firstly Busching attempted to "grass him up" years before his conviction for people trafficking. Secondly he served time for his offence and received no special favours for his information, according to the Greek police ho held him at the time. Thirdly, the police DID pay CB's abode a visit, they just gave up any further investigation when he didn't answer the door.
In your opinion do you think the police EVER admit that a an arrested individual was offered special favours for information? Further how much time did Busching serve for people trafficking? Was it comparable with other sentences for the same offence?
Busching tried to ‘grass him up’? Says who? To who?
-
More trash. Find me one so called MACA who think Kate should not have been questioned by the police. As a supporter of Spam’s recent idiotic posts I suppose your view is that Kate’s business was none of the police’s business and should not have been interrogated. You lot are absurd.
I thought you were our lot?
-
The evidence God dammit. There's loads of it. Brueckner wore a leather jacket & boasted online & to fellow prisoners about snatching & murdering kids. It's all real credible stuff. He might even be charged with something some day. Just not any time in the foreseeable future though.
Do you think the fact that the girl described the man she saw with acne wearing a leather jacket a coincidence?
-
Police often solve crimes based on tip offs from other ne'er do wells, CB has not been cleared and there will hopefully be a trial one day. It's his only chance of being cleared if he's innocent so as one of his biggest supporters you should be hoping that day eventuates.
There will hopefully be a trial one day @)(++(*
-
Do you think the fact that the girl described the man she saw with acne wearing a leather jacket a coincidence?
I've seen the E-Fit that T.S had produced. It looks nothing like Brueckner.
-
I've seen the E-Fit that T.S had produced. It looks nothing like Brueckner.
Have you read the description she give?
-
I don't think it's a coincidence that the only 'evidence' that HCW leaked, and therefore was happy to let CB / FF aware of, was the supposed existence of memory sticks depicting MM dead found in CB's belongings.
Clearly this wasn't the case, as he would have been charged, but HCW decided to leak this guff to put pressure on CB.
And all because a bag-head, pissed up hobo blabbed some incoherent tommyrot to get preferential treatment (and a pay off from Bild for an exclusive interview - I bet that was an experience, fck me.)
-
Have you read the description she give?
Yes, & I've seen the e-fit. Have you seen the e-fit? The resemblance is uncanny isn't it.
-
Much like the ‘surge’of support for the parents?
I remember a massive surge of hate for them, but yes of course many victims of crime do enjoy a surge of support. Do you think that the McCanns are like Harold Shipman then, is that the inference you are attempting to draw from my comment?
-
In your opinion do you think the police EVER admit that a an arrested individual was offered special favours for information? Further how much time did Busching serve for people trafficking? Was it comparable with other sentences for the same offence?
Busching tried to ‘grass him up’? Says who? To who?
I see, so if the police say that an individual received no special favours then they are always lying, right got you. Busching drove three people across a border when he shouldn't have. He wasn't as far as I know bundling 100 Vietnamese into the back of an airtight truck every other week and driving them across continents. I don't know what the usual sentence is for a crime such as his, you tell me. Busching claims he took his information regarding CB to the McCanns' detectives. If they have denied this, then feel free to post the link. But - even if he's lying, and even if the police are lying, and even if he's a despicable people smuggler, and even if he should have come forward sooner, that doesn't mean he didn't see those videos or that CB confided in him. We know the videos almost certainly existed because they helped bring DM's rapist - CB - to justice. Any suggestion that Busching himself raped her is fanciful to say the least as I demonstrated in a post a few days ago.
-
I thought you were our lot?
I can do another 180 if it makes things easier for you? I was under the impression however that you wanted me to "drop the veil" or was it the "mask"? I'll be whatever you want to be baby.
-
There will hopefully be a trial one day @)(++(*
You should be hoping for that too, or don't you want the case to ever be solved so you can go on posting trash like the above?
-
I can do another 180 if it makes things easier for you? I was under the impression however that you wanted me to "drop the veil" or was it the "mask"? I'll be whatever you want to be baby.
Behind The Mask, Eric Clapton:
All along, had to talk about it
Like a two-edged sword, it cuts you and it stabs me
All along, knew you were a phony girl
Sit behind the mask where you control your world
Uncanny.
I'm glad you've 720'd, at least we know where we all stand.
-
You should be hoping for that too, or don't you want the case to ever be solved so you can go on posting trash like the above?
It was solved by Amaral in 2007.
-
Behind The Mask, Eric Clapton:
All along, had to talk about it
Like a two-edged sword, it cuts you and it stabs me
All along, knew you were a phony girl
Sit behind the mask where you control your world
Uncanny.
I'm glad you've 720'd, at least we know where we all stand.
Jeez, who knew you were so perceptive and could see through my utterly convincing performance as a numpty sceptic all along. Kudos mate.
-
It was solved by Amaral in 2007.
@)(++(*
I thought you thought the McCanns murdered Maddie and shoved her in a bin? How does that fit in with the Great Man's thesis?
-
@)(++(*
I thought you thought the McCanns murdered Maddie and shoved her in a bin? How does that fit in with the Great Man's thesis?
Both don't include a hobo?
-
Both don't include a hobo?
I think that sentence would be better written as “neither of them includes a hobo”. That’s true. However Spam’s theory and Amaral’s theory cannot both be correct. So for Spam to say that Amaral solved it back in 2007 is nonsensical, unless of course what he really means is that they both believe the McCanns dunnit, but as far as the finer details of how, why, when, where etc are concerned these don’t really matter, and are just trivial details to be brushed under the carpet.
-
I remember a massive surge of hate for them, but yes of course many victims of crime do enjoy a surge of support. Do you think that the McCanns are like Harold Shipman then, is that the inference you are attempting to draw from my comment?
Not what I said.
-
Not what I said.
What was the point of your comment then?
-
I see, so if the police say that an individual received no special favours then they are always lying, right got you. Busching drove three people across a border when he shouldn't have. He wasn't as far as I know bundling 100 Vietnamese into the back of an airtight truck every other week and driving them across continents. I don't know what the usual sentence is for a crime such as his, you tell me. Busching claims he took his information regarding CB to the McCanns' detectives. If they have denied this, then feel free to post the link. But - even if he's lying, and even if the police are lying, and even if he's a despicable people smuggler, and even if he should have come forward sooner, that doesn't mean he didn't see those videos or that CB confided in him. We know the videos almost certainly existed because they helped bring DM's rapist - CB - to justice. Any suggestion that Busching himself raped her is fanciful to say the least as I demonstrated in a post a few days ago.
Always lying…absolutely not….sometimes….absolutely. Context again. Why did the Greek police feel the need to defend themselves?
As to sentencing how do you know if Busching received a lighter sentence for the information if you don’t know what the sentence should have been?
If the video existed and there were three witnesses who allegedly saw it…two criminals and an English bar owner…who would you call as a witness?
-
What was the point of your comment then?
That you can be guilty and people will still believe you’re not.
Simple.
-
Always lying…absolutely not….sometimes….absolutely. Context again. Why did the Greek police feel the need to defend themselves?
As to sentencing how do you know if Busching received a lighter sentence for the information if you don’t know what the sentence should have been?
If the video existed and there were three witnesses who allegedly saw it…two criminals and an English bar owner…who would you call as a witness?
Perhaps the Greek police were asked by the media if Busching had received any special favours? I really don’t think it matters one way or the other actually, and I think giving criminals incentives to spill the beans on others is accepted practice is it not?
As for sentencing you’re the one implying he got a lighter sentence than he should have, not me. Again not relevant.
The video did exist unless you can come up with a plausible and logical reason why it did not, bearing in mind the detsils of the rapes they described matching those of HB and DM and the forensic evidence that confirmed it was the rapist they said they saw in the video. Who is this English bar owner? I know nothing about him or his role in this. Is he a fine upstanding sort then? What’s his name? Is he still alive? Tell me more.
-
That you can be guilty and people will still believe you’re not.
Simple.
Oh, like Christian Bruckner you mean?
-
Perhaps the Greek police were asked by the media if Busching had received any special favours? I really don’t think it matters one way or the other actually, and I think giving criminals incentives to spill the beans on others is accepted practice is it not?
As for sentencing you’re the one implying he got a lighter sentence than he should have, not me. Again not relevant.
The video did exist unless you can come up with a plausible and logical reason why it did not, bearing in mind the detsils of the rapes they described matching those of HB and DM and the forensic evidence that confirmed it was the rapist they said they saw in the video. Who is this English bar owner? I know nothing about him or his role in this. Is he a fine upstanding sort then? What’s his name? Is he still alive? Tell me more.
It is but like information given under torture you’re never quite sure the quality of that information.
Of course incentives are relevant.
How did the tapes match the rapes of Behan and Menkes? Were the Behan and Menkes rapes filmed? Was the elderly lady 40 or 70? What else was similar? As to the pubic hair…have you seen how Portuguese scene of crime officers treat crime scenes? It’s shocking!
As to the bar owner from Santa Clara Fulscher is possibly talking about him here.
‘ He ( Fulscher) pointed out how witnesses they had said had seen 'the rape video' denied having ever set eyes on it and Mr Fulscher said Busching's aim was 'solely to profit from the multi-million reward' in the Madeleine case.’
-
It is but like information given under torture you’re never quite sure the quality of that information.
Of course incentives are relevant.
How did the tapes match the rapes of Behan and Menkes? Were the Behan and Menkes rapes filmed? Was the elderly lady 40 or 70? What else was similar? As to the pubic hair…have you seen how Portuguese scene of crime officers treat crime scenes? It’s shocking!
As to the bar owner from Santa Clara Fulscher is possibly talking about him here.
‘ He ( Fulscher) pointed out how witnesses they had said had seen 'the rape video' denied having ever set eyes on it and Mr Fulscher said Busching's aim was 'solely to profit from the multi-million reward' in the Madeleine case.’
So now you don’t think Christian Bruckner is a rapist after all? You don’t see any similarities between what was described on the tapes and the two rapes as described by the victims? Wow, and only a few years ago you described CB as undoubtedly a danger to women and as Hazel Behan’s probable attacker. What changed your opinion about him? Mr Fulscher will of course say anything to cast doubt on the evidence against his client, it’s what lawyers do, did you not know that? Why did he not put these witnesses on the stand himself then?
ETA - your words “ To me Brueckner is an abhorrent individual who will always pose a danger to females of any age.” https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11913.msg641593#msg641593
-
So now you don’t think Christian Bruckner is a rapist after all? You don’t see any similarities between what was described on the tapes and the two rapes as described by the victims? Wow, and only a few years ago you described CB as undoubtedly a danger to women and as Hazel Behan’s probable attacker. What changed your opinion about him? Mr Fulscher will of course say anything to cast doubt on the evidence against his client, it’s what lawyers do, did you not know that? Why did he not put these witnesses on the stand himself then?
ETA - your words “ To me Brueckner is an abhorrent individual who will always pose a danger to females of any age.” https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11913.msg641593#msg641593
On you go then. Apart from the things that probably are present in most stranger rapes what are the similarities?
-
On you go then. Apart from the things that probably are present in most stranger rapes what are the similarities?
OK but first you list all the things that are “probably present in most stranger rapes” just so I’m sure not to include them.
PS: why did you not answer my question about what made you completely chang your mind about the danger CB poses to women?
-
Well I must say, if this is the sum total of the evidence that any of you shower can rake together, then it's a poor show indeed.
Still desperately leaning on a video that clearly never existed and the new Marcia Clark Hansie Wolters alluding to dead Maddie on photos, yet failing to charge CB.
Gotta get another hobo guys; this one wasn't there. Gotta get another prosecutor; this one is sh1te.
-
Well I must say, if this is the sum total of the evidence that any of you shower can rake together, then it's a poor show indeed.
Still desperately leaning on a video that clearly never existed and the new Marcia Clark Hansie Wolters alluding to dead Maddie on photos, yet failing to charge CB.
Gotta get another hobo guys; this one wasn't there. Gotta get another prosecutor; this one is sh1te.
OK, perhaps you can explain the incredible coincidence of the bogus video tape closely matching actual reported rapes and leading to a successful conviction of the perpetrator that was allegedly seen on the video. Explain the chain of events as you see it.
-
OK, perhaps you can explain the incredible coincidence of the bogus video tape closely matching actual reported rapes and leading to a successful conviction of the perpetrator that was allegedly seen on the video. Explain the chain of events as you see it.
Collusion. But I can't believe we're discussing the existence or otherwise of a video tape and attempting to compare and contrast using the second-hand testimony of a tainted statement of a drug-addled, people trafficking tramp.
It's not evidence. In Chad or North Korea maybe, but not here guys.
Which events do you need explaining?
But again, where's the evidence? No forensics, no pictures of dead Maddie, flimsy circumstantial evidence. But we do have someone talking about a video tape of a rape that someone saw, but someone swears didn't exist, off a camera that doesn't exist.
Why do you think Busching walked away from all this in a much better position in life than he's experienced for a while? Off the smack, got himself a pad, had a wash. If he continues on this trajectory he'll be Special German Envoy to Trump's cabinet in a few weeks.
Why do the BKA have to come out last week and grovel to the planet? - 'yeh, so, that thing we were convinced of nearly 5 years ago, we can't find any evidence'. Talk about 180's - this is the biggest volte face since the Edict of Milan.
Why?
And why didn't HCW come out and say it himself? Not because he didn't want to I'll bet.
Doesn't the timing strike anyone as odd? Come on man, think about it. We're all about timelines here.
-
Collusion. But I can't believe we're discussing the existence or otherwise of a video tape and attempting to compare and contrast using the second-hand testimony of a tainted statement of a drug-addled, people trafficking tramp.
It's not evidence. In Chad or North Korea maybe, but not here guys.
Which events do you need explaining?
But again, where's the evidence? No forensics, no pictures of dead Maddie, flimsy circumstantial evidence. But we do have someone talking about a video tape of a rape that someone saw, but someone swears didn't exist, off a camera that doesn't exist.
Why do you think Busching walked away from all this in a much better position in life than he's experienced for a while? Off the smack, got himself a pad, had a wash. If he continues on this trajectory he'll be Special German Envoy to Trump's cabinet in a few weeks.
Why do the BKA have to come out last week and grovel to the planet? - 'yeh, so, that thing we were convinced of nearly 5 years ago, we can't find any evidence'. Talk about 180's - this is the biggest volte face since the Edict of Milan.
Why?
And why didn't HCW come out and say it himself? Not because he didn't want to I'll bet.
Doesn't the timing strike anyone as odd? Come on man, think about it. We're all about timelines here.
What a load of bluster to deflect from the question I asked you. You think the video tape was invented. OK so, first question is - why. Motive. Why did Busching invent this tale, and why did Seyferth back it up. We can proceed from there when I get back from work later.
-
What a load of bluster to deflect from the question I asked you. You think the video tape was invented. OK so, first question is - why. Motive. Why did Busching invent this tale, and why did Seyferth back it up. We can proceed from there when I get back from work later.
How dare you, etc.
As I've said, all of this video specualtion is pointless. Whether it exists, existed, never existed, was the same in both crimes, whether Busching and Siefert saw something. None of it is of any use to anyone. It's uncorroborated hearsay. When questioned they clearly colluded, badly, and there may have been some 'memory assistance' from the polus.
But who cares? It's not evidence, a fact that was brought starkly in to the light in the most recent trial. Not only that, but they're now useless, tainted witnesses who weren't believed to be remotely reliable.
So what have we got with this strand? Nothing. Move on.
What do we have? Nowt.
Why did they come out and say as much last week and why then, when the legal process from his acquittal hasn't been completed? Now that is a question worth pursuing.
Here's what I think. The BKA now have to distance themselves from the whole debacle. Damage limitation time.
So they now (reluctantly) proclaim that they have no evidence and charges against CB won't come any time soon. They have to get away from the Doofus Brothers ruining their trial and concentrate on the due process element of the proceedings to have any hope of a successful appeal. They have to try to make it appear that these are two succinct proceedings, with the first having little or no bearing on the first.
The gamble backfired in the most horrible way first time round, so chop the gammy leg off until after the appeal.
Go again with the appeal and start again with a tweaked strategy, although quite what that would be is a mystery, given that they played their hand and it was found to contain the king of stupidity and the jack of incompetence.
-
And.........I haven't finished. The appeal being lodged was mostly a face-saving exercise, they were quick to criticise the judges, even tried to have them removed if memory serves.
Now they have to go back to court and find some way of proving due process wasn't followed or some prejudice was at work (which is chronically ironic and extraordinarily conceited, given the fact that CB will never be able to have a fair, unprejudiced trial, even without a jury). They will attack the post trial comments and summing up, no doubt, probably claiming some bias, although what that could be is yet to be discovered.
What happens when the appeal is denied? Well they tried, 'we were badly done to', 'they were biased', etc. I think they have little to lose as there are no further depths to plumb, with their reputations in tatters.
Would any CB / MM trial even happen in Germany? Would SY intervene? Would there be a public clamour for a trial in England? Is there juristiction?
It's exciting, isn't it everyone?
-
....and.....anyone remember Winnebagogate? You won't, I just made it up.
But Wolters also proclaimed that he had found new evidence making him 'sure' CB killed MM.
The date, remarkably, coincidentally, was around the beginning of May 2022. He didn't say it was the camper van, but he didn't deny it either. The caboose on the loose, found in one of CB's dungeons or secret satanic lairs.
What happened to this almost certainly forensic, tangible evidence?
The procession of let downs would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.
Think of the parents, continually being built up only to be callously disappointed time and again, prolonging the agony and robbing them of closure. [insert crying emoji]
-
....and.....anyone remember Winnebagogate? You won't, I just made it up.
But Wolters also proclaimed that he had found new evidence making him 'sure' CB killed MM.
The date, remarkably, coincidentally, was around the beginning of May 2022. He didn't say it was the camper van, but he didn't deny it either. The caboose on the loose, found in one of CB's dungeons or secret satanic lairs.
What happened to this almost certainly forensic, tangible evidence?
The procession of let downs would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.
Think of the parents, continually being built up only to be callously disappointed time and again, prolonging the agony and robbing them of closure. [insert crying emoji]
Oh the parents have been left in the rear view mirror, along with Madeleine and her siblings, a long time ago.
-
Both don't include a hobo?
Without the 'Hobo' CB would never have been arrested.
-
Maybe if Amaral had perservered and found CB just maybe Madeleine could have been saved or at least DNA could have been found to connect him to the crime. Amaral should have made sure all Paedophiles had been spoken to.
-
Maybe if Amaral had perservered and found CB just maybe Madeleine could have been saved or at least DNA could have been found to connect him to the crime. Amaral should have made sure all Paedophiles had been spoken to.
He did find him. He was ruled out quite early on.
And I'm pretty sure, but don't quote me on this as I'm a Hobo Expert, not a DNA expert, but I believe they would need some DNA to match to the sample from CB. Unless, of course, you're suggesting it could be planted if they had a workable sample?
-
He did find him. He was ruled out quite early on.
And I'm pretty sure, but don't quote me on this as I'm a Hobo Expert, not a DNA expert, but I believe they would need some DNA to match to the sample from CB. Unless, of course, you're suggesting it could be planted if they had a workable sample?
DNA of Madeleine.
-
DNA of Madeleine.
I'm also sure they obtained a sample of MM's DNA. Eventually.
-
I'm also sure they obtained a sample of MM's DNA. Eventually.
Christian Brueckner, 45, has been made an "arguido", but Portuguese authorities have not formally revealed the suspect's name.
Changed their minds in 2022.
-
Christian Brueckner, 45, has been made an "arguido", but Portuguese authorities have not formally revealed the suspect's name.
Changed their minds in 2022.
How long do you expect you'll have to wait? 'No charges for the foreseeable future', according to BKA and they're concerned that he'll be free in September, which means at least beyond September. Which may as well be next year as a minimum.
That will be getting on for 6 years.
So how many more years, bearing in mind it got really old really quick?
He'll be the wealthiest hobo in Europe by Chrimbo, probably noncing around Asia on your ticket.
....and he was made arguido as part of due legal process, like Kate, Gerry and Robert Murat (thanks to dopey Jane).
-
How long do you expect you'll have to wait? 'No charges for the foreseeable future', according to BKA and they're concerned that he'll be free in September, which means at least beyond September. Which may as well be next year as a minimum.
That will be getting on for 6 years.
So how many more years, bearing in mind it got really old really quick?
He'll be the wealthiest hobo in Europe by Chrimbo, probably noncing around Asia on your ticket.
....and he was made arguido as part of due legal process, like Kate, Gerry and Robert Murat (thanks to dopey Jane).
Not the same thing at all. There has to be Evidence these days before someone can be declared Arguido. Do keep up.
-
How dare you, etc.
As I've said, all of this video specualtion is pointless. Whether it exists, existed, never existed, was the same in both crimes, whether Busching and Siefert saw something. None of it is of any use to anyone. It's uncorroborated hearsay. When questioned they clearly colluded, badly, and there may have been some 'memory assistance' from the polus.
But who cares? It's not evidence, a fact that was brought starkly in to the light in the most recent trial. Not only that, but they're now useless, tainted witnesses who weren't believed to be remotely reliable.
So what have we got with this strand? Nothing. Move on.
What do we have? Nowt.
Why did they come out and say as much last week and why then, when the legal process from his acquittal hasn't been completed? Now that is a question worth pursuing.
Here's what I think. The BKA now have to distance themselves from the whole debacle. Damage limitation time.
So they now (reluctantly) proclaim that they have no evidence and charges against CB won't come any time soon. They have to get away from the Doofus Brothers ruining their trial and concentrate on the due process element of the proceedings to have any hope of a successful appeal. They have to try to make it appear that these are two succinct proceedings, with the first having little or no bearing on the first.
The gamble backfired in the most horrible way first time round, so chop the gammy leg off until after the appeal.
Go again with the appeal and start again with a tweaked strategy, although quite what that would be is a mystery, given that they played their hand and it was found to contain the king of stupidity and the jack of incompetence.
It’s corroborated hearsay. Now answer the question.
-
....and.....anyone remember Winnebagogate? You won't, I just made it up.
But Wolters also proclaimed that he had found new evidence making him 'sure' CB killed MM.
The date, remarkably, coincidentally, was around the beginning of May 2022. He didn't say it was the camper van, but he didn't deny it either. The caboose on the loose, found in one of CB's dungeons or secret satanic lairs.
What happened to this almost certainly forensic, tangible evidence?
The procession of let downs would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.
Think of the parents, continually being built up only to be callously disappointed time and again, prolonging the agony and robbing them of closure. [insert crying emoji]
Once again may I remind you that HCW has always been clear that they have not got forensic evidence.
-
Not the same thing at all. There has to be Evidence these days before someone can be declared Arguido. Do keep up.
I've no doubt that the Portuguese were assured that there was evidence, even it it didn't amount to much.
-
I've no doubt that the Portuguese were assured that there was evidence, even it it didn't amount to much.
That simply will not do. The Portuguese Police have to have the evidence themselves.
-
That simply will not do. The Portuguese Police have to have the evidence themselves.
Nah, they just rolled over and accepted whatever the Germans said. They are just going with the flow.
-
Nah, they just rolled over and accepted whatever the Germans said. They are just going with the flow.
What do you know about it?
-
What do you know about it?
Certainly as much as you, probably more as I question things rather than blindly accepting whatever comes your way.
-
Certainly as much as you, probably more as I question things rather than blindly accepting whatever comes your way.
If I blindly accepted everything that comes my way I would have accepted that you know what you’re talking about - which I don’t.
-
Nah, they just rolled over and accepted whatever the Germans said. They are just going with the flow.
Criminally stupid as ever. And still breaking their own Laws, As if they ever had any that didn't suit their corrupt Police Force. Some things never change I guess.
-
Criminally stupid as ever. And still breaking their own Laws, As if they ever had any that didn't suit their corrupt Police Force. Some things never change I guess.
Pffft.....
Anyway, back to the topic.
Clock's ticking - 36 weeks 'til CB's a free hobo again.
With my extensive knowledge of recidivist hobo nonces / nonces / hobos, ordinarily one would expect him to revert to type. But given that the entire planet knows what he looks like and, thanks to the ineptitude of the BKA, most will think he killed MM, that is unlikely. Not in the conventional sense, as he will have no need to return to his previous life.
Once the cash starts rolling in from the innumerable libel actions, I expect that him to go to ground. A new face, paid for courtesy of the fairy tales spun by Hans Christian, all the trappings of a wealthy nonce about town, free to nonce with impunity.
Well done BKA and MACA, well done. Look what you did.
...nah, not really. He probably won't last 6 months, he'll be back inside, probably on some dodgy pretext. He'll be minted though - the richest man in Gefängnis.
-
Which laws? Be specific.
Anything that suits them, that's the point, so you never know.
-
Anything that suits them, that's the point, so you never know.
Thanks for that.
-
He did find him. He was ruled out quite early on.
And I'm pretty sure, but don't quote me on this as I'm a Hobo Expert, not a DNA expert, but I believe they would need some DNA to match to the sample from CB. Unless, of course, you're suggesting it could be planted if they had a workable sample?
They ruled him out quite early. Is that because Amaral said he had long hair and cartoon characters on his van?
-
They ruled him out quite early. Is that because Amaral said he had long hair and cartoon characters on his van?
Yes, probably. And he didn't think he did it.
Both of those.
You're staunchly sticking to CB as your man, despite the now confirmed lack of sufficient evidence. I like that, stoically sticking to you guns. If I was an emoji user I'd insert a confirmatory hand-clap one or a thumbs up.
I know what you're driving at, your essentially stating that the bloody inept PJ could've had him in, charged and banged up within a year of it happening, saving all this.
Yet you constantly bleat about the bloody corrupt PJ banging up innocent people all the time. If they were so corrupt, inept and inclined to torture suspects into confessing, why didn't they fit up CB when he seemingly fit the bill perfectly (history, phone pings, access, etc)? Of all cases post Cipriano, this had real pressure to get a result. CB was known to them, yet they didn't even bother. They didn't even reconsider him when they booted Amaral off the case, so you can't try the old tunnel vision one.
Best Regards,
The General
-
Maybe if Amaral had perservered and found CB just maybe Madeleine could have been saved or at least DNA could have been found to connect him to the crime. Amaral should have made sure all Paedophiles had been spoken to.
Well, while you are on the - who is to blame game.
First and foremost the main culprits are the mccs - who left there children with no protection....none
They are the ones who should have persevered in proper parenting ...the children's last line of defence for safety
-
Once again may I remind you that HCW has always been clear that they have not got forensic evidence.
Or any other evidence.
Lets be perfectly clear on that.
-
Yes, probably. And he didn't think he did it.
Both of those.
You're staunchly sticking to CB as your man, despite the now confirmed lack of sufficient evidence. I like that, stoically sticking to you guns. If I was an emoji user I'd insert a confirmatory hand-clap one or a thumbs up.
I know what you're driving at, your essentially stating that the bloody inept PJ could've had him in, charged and banged up within a year of it happening, saving all this.
Yet you constantly bleat about the bloody corrupt PJ banging up innocent people all the time. If they were so corrupt, inept and inclined to torture suspects into confessing, why didn't they fit up CB when he seemingly fit the bill perfectly (history, phone pings, access, etc)? Of all cases post Cipriano, this had real pressure to get a result. CB was known to them, yet they didn't even bother. They didn't even reconsider him when they booted Amaral off the case, so you can't try the old tunnel vision one.
Best Regards,
The General
They booted Amaral off the case.
-
They booted Amaral off the case.
They certainly did and since then there's been much water under the bridge, with many millions of pounds being spent on fruitless investigation.
-
Yes, probably. And he didn't think he did it.
Both of those.
You're staunchly sticking to CB as your man, despite the now confirmed lack of sufficient evidence. I like that, stoically sticking to you guns. If I was an emoji user I'd insert a confirmatory hand-clap one or a thumbs up.
I know what you're driving at, your essentially stating that the bloody inept PJ could've had him in, charged and banged up within a year of it happening, saving all this.
Yet you constantly bleat about the bloody corrupt PJ banging up innocent people all the time. If they were so corrupt, inept and inclined to torture suspects into confessing, why didn't they fit up CB when he seemingly fit the bill perfectly (history, phone pings, access, etc)? Of all cases post Cipriano, this had real pressure to get a result. CB was known to them, yet they didn't even bother. They didn't even reconsider him when they booted Amaral off the case, so you can't try the old tunnel vision one.
Best Regards,
The General
They were too busy trying to stitch the parents up to look for a paedo to fit up. He wasn’t at home remember? What a fag to actually have to look for someone else when the parents were right there like a pair of sitting ducks..
-
Or any other evidence.
Lets be perfectly clear on that.
Have you a link to where HCW has said they don’t have any other evidence? Just to perfectly clear, ta.
-
Have you a limk to where HCW has said they don’t have any other evidence? Just to perfectly clear, ta.
What's a limk,
Can you be more perfectly clearer.
-
What's a limk,
Can you be more perfectly clearer.
very good.
-
They certainly did and since then there's been much water under the bridge, with many millions of pounds being spent on fruitless investigation.
Think of all that money that could have been saved if they’d been successful at fitting up the parents in the first place. Shame the Portuguese are so weak they cave in to British pressure at the click of a Limey ambassadorial finger eh?
-
How long do you expect you'll have to wait? 'No charges for the foreseeable future', according to BKA and they're concerned that he'll be free in September, which means at least beyond September. Which may as well be next year as a minimum.
That will be getting on for 6 years.
So how many more years, bearing in mind it got really old really quick?
He'll be the wealthiest hobo in Europe by Chrimbo, probably noncing around Asia on your ticket.
....and he was made arguido as part of due legal process, like Kate, Gerry and Robert Murat (thanks to dopey Jane).
I actually feel sorry for CB.
If I am right, he will rapidly vanish for ever, or be found dead, compliment of the trafficking Mafia and his boss.
Have to protect the top guys, don'ya?
Only my opinion and I hope that I am wrong.
-
Lawyer, Philipp Marquort giving Brueckner some useful advice on release...
'If I were him, I would leave Europe and look for a state which doesn't extradite to Europe or Great Britain, maybe like Suriname,' Marquort told the Mirror
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14323475/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-plans-disappear-change-face-dodge-probes-missing-girl.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14323475/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-plans-disappear-change-face-dodge-probes-missing-girl.html)
Seems an ideal place for kiddy-fiddlers providing they don't get caught...
http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/7-paedophile-teachers-fired-in-suriname (http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/7-paedophile-teachers-fired-in-suriname)
On the way there he could grow a zapata and call in at Turkey for some cut-price Katie Price gnashers, and finish up looking like this, Oh dear!...
-
“The lawyer added that if he were Brueckner he would undergo surgery to change his face but said due to lack of finances this isn't an option for him and he will have to settle for a 'fake moustache or sunglasses or a hat' instead” - lol. Is this lawyer meant to be on his side?
-
German Prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner.
No surprise to most people who said four year ago +.. he will never be charged with abduction.
His only connection with Maddie was the word Suspect.
Oh, and the words of HCW who now it seems can go no further with the so called evidence he has.
Now it seems he is eligible for day release.
How many times was HCW on the brink of charging CB....sad really it brought so much hope to some on here.
I me myself...was 100% sure he was not the abductor...because there was no abduction in the first place
-
Lawyer, Philipp Marquort giving Brueckner some useful advice on release...
'If I were him, I would leave Europe and look for a state which doesn't extradite to Europe or Great Britain, maybe like Suriname,' Marquort told the Mirror
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14323475/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-plans-disappear-change-face-dodge-probes-missing-girl.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14323475/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-plans-disappear-change-face-dodge-probes-missing-girl.html)
Seems an ideal place for kiddy-fiddlers providing they don't get caught...
http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/7-paedophile-teachers-fired-in-suriname (http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/7-paedophile-teachers-fired-in-suriname)
On the way there he could grow a zapata and call in at Turkey for some cut-price Katie Price gnashers, and finish up looking like this, Oh dear!...
If that’s not setting Brueckner’s stall out for a defamation trial I don’t know what is.
-
Lawyer, Philipp Marquort giving Brueckner some useful advice on release...
'If I were him, I would leave Europe and look for a state which doesn't extradite to Europe or Great Britain, maybe like Suriname,' Marquort told the Mirror
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14323475/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-plans-disappear-change-face-dodge-probes-missing-girl.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14323475/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-plans-disappear-change-face-dodge-probes-missing-girl.html)
Seems an ideal place for kiddy-fiddlers providing they don't get caught...
http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/7-paedophile-teachers-fired-in-suriname (http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/7-paedophile-teachers-fired-in-suriname)
On the way there he could grow a zapata and call in at Turkey for some cut-price Katie Price gnashers, and finish up looking like this, Oh dear!...
The comments on the Daily Mail article are shocking. It seems the majority of people believe he should never be released. Well I'm sorry but he only raped one woman. That really doesn't warrant a life sentence imo
-
If that’s not setting Brueckner’s stall out for a defamation trial I don’t know what is.
It surely takes a particular type of individual to laud the notion that it is possible to ''defame'' a sexual torturer and rapist who is also a sexual abuser of children.
-
German Prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner.
No surprise to most people who said four year ago +.. he will never be charged with abduction.
His only connection with Maddie was the word Suspect.
Oh, and the words of HCW who now it seems can go no further with the so called evidence he has.
Now it seems he is eligible for day release.
How many times was HCW on the brink of charging CB....sad really it brought so much hope to some on here.
I me myself...was 100% sure he was not the abductor...because there was no abduction in the first place
He hasn’t been ruled out and unless you were with him on the night of 3rd May 2007 it’s impossible for you to be 100% sure he wasn’t involved.
-
If that’s not setting Brueckner’s stall out for a defamation trial I don’t know what is.
What have the Germans done to Bruckner’s reputation that the Portuguese and Amaral didn’t do to the McCanns back in the day? I seem to recall you being on the side of the PJ and Amaral and “Freadom of Speach” so what’s changed? Of course the ECHR cleared Amaral of any wrongdoing and presumably will do the same if CB attempts to sue anyone.
-
Brueckner has long since served his sentences for child abuse & almost completed his sentence for the only rape he has ever committed. He has almost fully repaid his debt to society & has been reformed by the justice system. It is completely wrong to hold his previous mistakes against him all the time. He should be released as soon as possible imo & be free to live a life of religious fulfilment.
-
He hasn’t been ruled out and unless you were with him on the night of 3rd May 2007 it’s impossible for you to be 100% sure he wasn’t involved.
Well, no - but I don't have to be with him to know he wasn't the so called abductor.
you cant be 100% sure he was involved either.
We both know though 100%...who was there though - the day Maddie went missing. Don't we
-
Brueckner has long since served his sentences for child abuse & almost completed his sentence for the only rape he has ever committed. He has almost fully repaid his debt to society & has been reformed by the justice system. It is completely wrong to hold his previous mistakes against him all the time. He should be released as soon as possible imo & be free to live a life of religious fulfilment.
Since when has he become religious? Perhaps he has embraced Satanism whilst in prison?
-
Well, no - but I don't have to be with him to know he wasn't the so called abductor.
you cant be 100% sure he was involved either.
We both know though 100%...who was there though - the day Maddie went missing. Don't we
How do you know for certain he wasn’t the abdutor then? You really should share your evidence with the German investigation if you know something they clearly don’t.
-
It surely takes a particular type of individual to laud the notion that it is possible to ''defame'' a sexual torturer and rapist who is also a sexual abuser of children.
I don’t think anyone is lauding any such thing.
Due to Wolters actions Brueckner will ultimately be less safe when he leaves prison, possibly in September. You may believe that he should bebut that’s not the point. Wolters has accused Brueckner of a crime yet brought no evidence to the table…that’s defamation.The newspapers printed scurrilous story after scurrilous story about him…that’s defamation. It’s exactly what happened to the parents and, in all likelihood, it will have the same outcome with a huge settlement coming his way.
-
I don’t think anyone is lauding any such thing.
Due to Wolters actions Brueckner will ultimately be less safe when he leaves prison, possibly in September. You may believe that he should bebut that’s not the point. Wolters has accused Brueckner of a crime yet brought no evidence to the table…that’s defamation.The newspapers printed scurrilous story after scurrilous story about him…that’s defamation. It’s exactly what happened to the parents and, in all likelihood, it will have the same outcome with a huge settlement coming his way.
The PJ accused the McCanns of a crime and almost certainly leaked stories to the press about them in 2007. Unlike Bruckner the McCanns were not criminals with a proven history of rape and child abuse yet they didn’t sue the PJ. They did sue Amaral and were ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps Bruckner will sue every newspaper that reported he was a suspect in the MM case but he’s going to need very generous lawyers or a crowdfunder for that. Perhaps you should start one now if you haven’t already?
-
The PJ accused the McCanns of a crime and almost certainly leaked stories to the press about them in 2007. Unlike Bruckner the McCanns were not criminals with a proven history of rape and child abuse yet they didn’t sue the PJ. They did sue Amaral and were ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps Bruckner will sue every newspaper that reported he was a suspect in the MM case but he’s going to need very generous lawyers or a crowdfunder for that. Perhaps you should start one now if you haven’t already?
Only for the first case. He could then settle out of court, have his costs paid, then repeat and rinse his way through the rest of tabloid publishers.
-
Only for the first case. He could then settle out of court, have his costs paid, then repeat and rinse his way through the rest of tabloid publishers.
Well the very best of British to him. He should be a billionaire by this time next year then - no need to break into people’s apartments and steal their kids he’ll be able to afford to hire someone else to do it for him.
-
How do you know for certain he wasn’t the abdutor then? You really should share your evidence with the German investigation if you know something they clearly don’t.
Well its clear they don't know anything...or have any evidence
It seems before long CB could be out on day relese
So if HCW has - anything - on CB he is running out of tuime.
Or is he just going to sit on it an let what he thinks is a child killer walk the strees.
What part of Re: German Prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner.don't you understand
-
The PJ accused the McCanns of a crime and almost certainly leaked stories to the press about them in 2007. Unlike Bruckner the McCanns were not criminals with a proven history of rape and child abuse yet they didn’t sue the PJ. They did sue Amaral and were ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps Bruckner will sue every newspaper that reported he was a suspect in the MM case but he’s going to need very generous lawyers or a crowdfunder for that. Perhaps you should start one now if you haven’t already?
Ah yes Wolters not only accused Brueckner of a crime but went on national television again and again accusing him of the murder of Madeleine…so yes, it is different….and the ‘already a criminal’ spiel, I don’t think that it’ll matter a jot.
The parents didn’t lose, Amaral won.
As to how it is going to be funded he can, again, take a leaf from the parent’s handbook and seek out a no win, no fee arrangement as the parents did with Carter Ruck. Lawyers tend not to be to squeamish about the past crimes of their clients.
-
Well its clear they don't know anything...or have any evidence
It seems before long CB could be out on day relese
So if HCW has - anything - on CB he is running out of tuime.
Or is he just going to sit on it an let what he thinks is a child killer walk the strees.
What part of Re: German Prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner.don't you understand
What is tuime and what happens when it runs out? And these strees that child killers walk on - what are they?
Sorry but you did ask for it. Isn’t it tiresome when people use typos to try and score points, eh?
Getting back to your (badly made) point: I understand fully the sentence “German prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner” what I don’t understand is how that leads you to conclude that he is 100% innocent of involvement in her disappearance. Perhaps you can explain the logic (doubtful!)
-
Ah yes Wolters not only accused Brueckner of a crime but went on national television again and again accusing him of the murder of Madeleine…so yes, it is different….and the ‘already a criminal’ spiel, I don’t think that it’ll matter a jot.
The parents didn’t lose, Amaral won.
As to how it is going to be funded he can, again, take a leaf from the parent’s handbook and seek out a no win, no fee arrangement as the parents did with Carter Ruck. Lawyers tend not to be to squeamish about the past crimes of their clients.
How many times has Amaral appeared on TV blatantly accusing the parents? He made a video too and wrote a book if I recall correctly. And as the lawsuit was brought by the McCanns they lost - ultimately. I wonder if Carter Ruck (or similar) will be interested in taking on claims of defamation on behalf of a convicted rapist and child molester. I mean his reputation and standing were already in tatters before the world had even heard of him. Time will tell I guess. In the meantime it would be interesting to read of other cases of defamation that have been won be convicted rapists and child abusers. There must be some I guess.
-
To those who supported Amaral’s right to write a book expounding his thesis and all his strenuous efforts to promote it by way of tv and newspaper interviews and a video, do you support HCW’s to do likewise if he so chooses? Presumably in order to be consistent you would and would therefore not suport any attempts to silence him in the libel courts right?
-
How many times has Amaral appeared on TV blatantly accusing the parents? He made a video too and wrote a book if I recall correctly. And as the lawsuit was brought by the McCanns they lost - ultimately. I wonder if Carter Ruck (or similar) will be interested in taking on claims of defamation on behalf of a convicted rapist and child molester. I mean his reputation and standing were already in tatters before the world had even heard of him. Time will tell I guess. In the meantime it would be interesting to read of other cases of defamation that have been won be convicted rapists and child abusers. There must be some I guess.
I’d google Carter Ruck’s clients if I were you. The mendacity of who they’ll represent knows no bounds….from Russian Oligarchs to Kevin Spacey who was facing criminal charges for rape. They’re really not fussy.
-
I’d google Carter Ruck’s clients if I were you. The mendacity of who they’ll represent knows no bounds….from Russian Oligarchs to Kevin Spacey who was facing criminal charges for rape. They’re really not fussy.
That wasn’t quite what I asked for was it? To be clear: have Carter Ruck (or any other renowned legal firm) successfully represented any convicted rapists or child molesters in a defamation case against the judiciary or the media? If so it would be interesting to read about these cases.
ETA: Kevin Spacey has no criminal convictions and therefore is as innocent as the day he was born.
-
That wasn’t quite what I asked for was it? To be clear: have Carter Ruck (or any other renowned legal firm) successfully represented any convicted rapists or child molesters in a defamation case against the judiciary or the media? If so it would be interesting to read about these cases.
ETA: Kevin Spacey has no criminal convictions and therefore is as innocent as the day he was born.
As is Brueckner of any part of Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
To those who supported Amaral’s right to write a book expounding his thesis and all his strenuous efforts to promote it by way of tv and newspaper interviews and a video, do you support HCW’s to do likewise if he so chooses? Presumably in order to be consistent you would and would therefore not suport any attempts to silence him in the libel courts right?
Amaral never accused the McCanns of murder though.
-
Amaral never accused the McCanns of murder though.
Doesn’t make any difference. What he did accuse them of was quite heinous enough.
-
As is Brueckner of any part of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Technically yes. But Spacey has never been found guilty of any crime and has a reputation and livlihood to protect , unlike CB who has a hobo grifter with a long string of convictions including rape and child molestation and whose reputation was in tatters before any of us had even heard his name.
-
Doesn’t make any difference. What he did accuse them of was quite heinous enough.
No I think it was a much lesser crime. Staging an abduction & concealing a corpse. That would probably only be a couple of years sentence. Murder can be punishable by life without parole. It's a much more serious offence.
-
Technically yes. But Spacey has never been found guilty of any crime and has a reputation and livlihood to protect , unlike CB who has a hobo grifter with a long string of convictions including rape and child molestation and whose reputation was in tatters before any of us had even heard his name.
You keep saying his reputation was in tatters. But most people who knew him probably had no idea he'd been convicted for child sex offences a decade prior & I doubt he was in the habit of admitting to it.
-
As is Brueckner of any part of Madeleine’s disappearance.
How do you know that? He resembles the person who was seen staring at 5a. He fantasises about kidnapping a young girl. He has sexually assaulted young girls.
He is a prime candidate for taking Madeleine IMO.
-
How do you know that? He resembles the person who was seen staring at 5a. He fantasises about kidnapping a young girl. He has sexually assaulted young girls.
He is a prime candidate for taking Madeleine IMO.
Show us the E-fit TS had produced & point out the similarities for us.
-
Anyway. He hasn't robbed, raped or molested anyone in well over seven years now so just give the guy break.
-
What is tuime and what happens when it runs out? And these strees that child killers walk on - what are they?
Sorry but you did ask for it. Isn’t it tiresome when people use typos to try and score points, eh?
Getting back to your (badly made) point: I understand fully the sentence “German prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner” what I don’t understand is how that leads you to conclude that he is 100% innocent of involvement in her disappearance. Perhaps you can explain the logic (doubtful!)
Sorry but you did ask for it.
Ask for what......what ever you meant by that is your problem ...not mine.
"Detectives appear no closer to proving he abducted and killed Madeleine - despite claiming they have proof she is dead
Yet if they hold onto that proof.......knowing CB could be out on day release anytime soon.
HCW is willing it seems to let what he thinks is a child murderer back on the streets
The proof must be very very weak...even weaker than the point you was trying to make in your post.
-
How do you know that? He resembles the person who was seen staring at 5a. He fantasises about kidnapping a young girl. He has sexually assaulted young girls.
He is a prime candidate for taking Madeleine IMO.
OFFS.......seems it must be him then...now how about the thousands of others that description could fit.
-
OFFS.......seems it must be him then...now how about the thousands of others that description could fit.
It fitted him!! With his acne and his leather jacket. I just hope Wolters can get more evidence before it's too late. They will be letting a very dangerous Paedophile out to roam the streets. He'll never change.
-
You don't want it to be him as it would mean the McCann's are innocent [which they are]. You so don't want to be wrong that you are willing to want CB let out on the streets. No child will be safe. Everything points to him being the person who abducted Madeleine.
A 'dangerous psychopathic sadist' in 'the absolute top league of dangerousness': The shocking assessment of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner by his horrified psychologist
-
You don't want it to be him as it would mean the McCann's are innocent [which they are]. You so don't want to be wrong that you are willing to want CB let out on the streets. No child will be safe. Everything points to him being the person who abducted Madeleine.
OK dear. If you say so. Get back to us when Wolters reveals the abduction evidence which proves the McCanns innocence. It shouldn't be much longer now.
-
How do you know that? He resembles the person who was seen staring at 5a. He fantasises about kidnapping a young girl. He has sexually assaulted young girls.
He is a prime candidate for taking Madeleine IMO.
How do you know that the parents didn’t play a part in Madeleine’s disappearance? Martin Smith not only thought he saw a man with Madeleine in his arms he named him as being Gerry. Then there’s the Gaspar statement of nefarious behaviour between Gerry and David Payne describing child abuse.
-
Anyway. It makes no difference at all whether we wish Brueckner be free or otherwise. He has almost served his sentence & so he'll have the right to be released. It's up to the three expert investigative forces to charge & try him for the alleged abduction & murder if they have so much compelling evidence of his crimes, but they're not going to be charging him anytime in the foreseeable future. Which kind of says something about the strength of their evidence really.
-
No I think it was a much lesser crime. Staging an abduction & concealing a corpse. That would probably only be a couple of years sentence. Murder can be punishable by life without parole. It's a much more serious offence.
We’re talking about defamation here, you do realise that don’t you? Defamation doesn’t only cover accusations of murder, were you not aware of that?
-
You keep saying his reputation was in tatters. But most people who knew him probably had no idea he'd been convicted for child sex offences a decade prior & I doubt he was in the habit of admitting to it.
Fact - he is a convicted rapist amd child molester. He does not have a good name or reputation to protect. The end.
-
Fact - he is a convicted rapist amd child molester. He does not have a good name or reputation to protect. The end.
It depends on who you ask. The tourists who hitched a ride in his campervan had no idea he was a sex offender & they probably thought he was a nice guy. Anyway, I don’t care what you have to say about him. I really like him.
-
Sorry but you did ask for it.
Ask for what......what ever you meant by that is your problem ...not mine.
"Detectives appear no closer to proving he abducted and killed Madeleine - despite claiming they have proof she is dead
Yet if they hold onto that proof.......knowing CB could be out on day release anytime soon.
HCW is willing it seems to let what he thinks is a child murderer back on the streets
The proof must be very very weak...even weaker than the point you was trying to make in your post.
You have a short memory Kizzy. May I draw your attention to reply 221 on this thread where you attempted to score a silly point by highlighting my typo. I was merely illustrating how irritating it is when people do that, hopefully you understand that now though I’m not holding my breath as your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired imo.
HCW is the opposite of willing to let a child murderer back on the streets, that’s what the last 4 years have been about. But if the burden of proof is insufficient to bring a successful case against the suspect then there’s not much he can do about it is there, short of manufacturing evidence against him, which I’m sure you wouldn’t want him to do, eh?
-
How do you know that the parents didn’t play a part in Madeleine’s disappearance? Martin Smith not only thought he saw a man with Madeleine in his arms he named him as being Gerry. Then there’s the Gaspar statement of nefarious behaviour between Gerry and David Payne describing child abuse.
It couldn't have been Gerry as he was at the Tapas Bar when Smith is supposed to have seen him. I dismiss the Gasper statement. Who in their right mind would discuss Paedophilia with Mrs Gaspar sitting between them.
-
We’re talking about defamation here, you do realise that don’t you? Defamation doesn’t only cover accusations of murder, were you not aware of that?
The level of defamation is different in the two cases. Murder is a worse stain on one's reputation than panicking after an accident & shoving your 3 year old body in a freezer imo
-
It depends on who you ask. The tourists who hitched a ride in his campervan had no idea he was a sex offender & they probably thought he was a nice guy. Anyway, I don’t care what you have to say about him. I really like him.
Yeah, and loads of people liked Ted Bundy, I expect you have pin-ups of him on your wall too. What is your point?
-
The level of defamation is different in the two cases. Murder is a worse stain on one's reputation than panicking after an accident & shoving your 3 year old body in a freezer imo
There aren’t grades of defamation as far as the law is concerned. You’ve either been defamed or you haven’t.
-
You don't want it to be him as it would mean the McCann's are innocent [which they are]. You so don't want to be wrong that you are willing to want CB let out on the streets. No child will be safe. Everything points to him being the person who abducted Madeleine.
A 'dangerous psychopathic sadist' in 'the absolute top league of dangerousness': The shocking assessment of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner by his horrified psychologist
The shocking assessment of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner by his horrified psychologist
So what does that have to do with him being involved with abducting Maddie.
CB is not going to come out of this smelling of roses ...everyone knows what he is.
FF who is defending him would not let him look after his dog ...but he is defending him
He knows a lot more about him warts and all more than any one ...yet believes he is not the abductor or involved with Maddie.
-
Yeah, and loads of people liked Ted Bundy, I expect you have pin-ups of him on your wall too. What is your point?
My point is his reputation will be different depending on who you ask. Those that didn't know he molested some children over twenty years ago probably thought he was a nice guy. He was popular with the girls by most accounts. Strange that they chose to enter into relationships with him, given his reputation?
-
How do you know that the parents didn’t play a part in Madeleine’s disappearance? Martin Smith not only thought he saw a man with Madeleine in his arms he named him as being Gerry. Then there’s the Gaspar statement of nefarious behaviour between Gerry and David Payne describing child abuse.
The Gaspar statement did not describe any nefarious behaviour by Gerry, are you trying to imply otherwise?
-
The shocking assessment of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner by his horrified psychologist
So what does that have to do with him being involved with abducting Maddie.
CB is not going to come out of this smelling of roses ...everyone knows what he is.
FF who is defending him would not let him look after his dog ...but he is defending him
He knows a lot more about him warts and all more than any one ...yet believes he is not the abductor or involved with Maddie.
FF is Bruckner’s lawyer. Professionally speaking he HAS to believe him. I think FF said he would be ok with CB looking after his dog btw, just not his kids. How very defamatory of him to say that!
-
My point is his reputation will be different depending on who you ask. Those that didn't know he molested some children over twenty years ago probably thought he was a nice guy. He was popular with the girls by most accounts. Strange that they chose to enter into relationships with him, given his reputation?
Yes, and some people probably still think Ted Bundy was a nice guy who was a big hit with the ladies, so what?
-
You have a short memory Kizzy. May I draw your attention to reply 221 on this thread where you attempted to score a silly point by highlighting my typo. I was merely illustrating how irritating it is when people do that, hopefully you understand that now though I’m not holding my breath as your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired imo.
HCW is the opposite of willing to let a child murderer back on the streets, that’s what the last 4 years have been about. But if the burden of proof is insufficient to bring a successful case against the suspect then there’s not much he can do about it is there, short of manufacturing evidence against him, which I’m sure you wouldn’t want him to do, eh?
Oh do grow up.........seems I didn't attempt to score a silly point ...I did.
Just to let you know ..you havent
-
Oh do grow up.........seems I didn't attempt to score a silly point ...I did.
Just to let you know ..you havent
Jesus wept. Talk about childish.
-
Anyway. The main thing is he will one day be released, before Wolters ever gets around with charging him, and if that annoys McCann supporters it can only be a good thing imo
-
Anyway. The main thing is he will one day be released, before Wolters ever gets around with charging him, and if that annoys McCann supporters it can only be a good thing imo
I won’t be annoyed but I will be concerned for the safety of any children who happen to cross his path in future. As someone on this forum once said he’s undoubtedly a danger to women and girls.
-
I won’t be annoyed but I will be concerned for the safety of any children who happen to cross his path in future. As someone on this forum once said he’s undoubtedly a danger to women and girls.
He doesn't appear to be a danger to men & boys though. Which proves he's only half bad.
-
FF is Bruckner’s lawyer. Professionally speaking he HAS to believe him. I think FF said he would be ok with CB looking after his dog btw, just not his kids. How very defamatory of him to say that!
FF doesnt have to believe CB ...he has to defend him ....seems to be doing a very good job though in believing in him as being innocent.
In his final remarks today, Brueckner's defence attorney Friedrich Fuelscher heavily criticised key witness Busching, calling him a liar and accusing him of fabricating stories to gain attention,
Mr Fuelscher criticised the courts at Braunschweig regional court, saying: "There is no evidence at all which supports what he said."
Brueckner, who has maintained a stoic presence throughout his eight-month trial, was seen sitting still next to his lawyer, dressed in the same grey blazer. Mr Fuelscher expressed to the judges: "This trial should never have taken place."
He added, "If it was any other person, then on the basis of the evidence it would never have come to trial. The day has long passed whereby we lock away people based on them and not their crime."
He asserted that prosecutors are "trying to influence the opinion of the public".
He is right though prosecutors are trying to influence the opinion of the public. you it seems a prime example.
-
FF doesnt have to believe CB ...he has to defend him ....seems to be doing a very good job though in believing in him as being innocent.
In his final remarks today, Brueckner's defence attorney Friedrich Fuelscher heavily criticised key witness Busching, calling him a liar and accusing him of fabricating stories to gain attention,
Mr Fuelscher criticised the courts at Braunschweig regional court, saying: "There is no evidence at all which supports what he said."
Brueckner, who has maintained a stoic presence throughout his eight-month trial, was seen sitting still next to his lawyer, dressed in the same grey blazer. Mr Fuelscher expressed to the judges: "This trial should never have taken place."
He added, "If it was any other person, then on the basis of the evidence it would never have come to trial. The day has long passed whereby we lock away people based on them and not their crime."
He asserted that prosecutors are "trying to influence the opinion of the public".
He is right though prosecutors are trying to influence the opinion of the public. you it seems a prime example.
There is nothing there about FF’s beliefs regarding CB’s innocence one way or the other. We do know however that he believes CB to be a danger to children. If I am a prime example of someone influenced by HCW then you are a prime example of someone who has been influenced by Amaral.
-
Anyway. The main thing is he will one day be released, before Wolters ever gets around with charging him, and if that annoys McCann supporters it can only be a good thing imo
@)(++(*
-
There is nothing there about FF’s beliefs regarding CB’s innocence one way or the other. We do know however that he believes CB to be a danger to children. If I am a prime example of someone influenced by HCW then you are a prime example of someone who has been influenced by Amaral.
No. the mccs themselves influenced me and them being involved in what happed to Maddie,
Way back in 2007...nothing to do with GA,
Where as you didn't even know CB existed till a few year ago...seems all it took was this.
Quote from: Brietta on June 03, 2020, 11:55:09 PM
Madeleine McCann police 'have enough evidence to charge suspect with abduction and murder'
Christian Hoppe, director of Germany's National Crime Agency, said police think they have enough evidence to charge the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's disappearance with murdering her
By Jeremy Armstrong & Martin Fricker
21:49, 3 JUN 2020 UPDATED 22:11, 3 JUN 2020
-
No. the mccs themselves influenced me and them being involved in what happed to Maddie,
Way back in 2007...nothing to do with GA,
Where as you didn't even know CB existed till a few year ago...seems all it took was this.
Quote from: Brietta on June 03, 2020, 11:55:09 PM
Madeleine McCann police 'have enough evidence to charge suspect with abduction and murder'
Christian Hoppe, director of Germany's National Crime Agency, said police think they have enough evidence to charge the prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's disappearance with murdering her
By Jeremy Armstrong & Martin Fricker
21:49, 3 JUN 2020 UPDATED 22:11, 3 JUN 2020
So when did you decide the McCanns dunnit and why?
-
I don’t think anyone is lauding any such thing.
Due to Wolters actions Brueckner will ultimately be less safe when he leaves prison, possibly in September. You may believe that he should bebut that’s not the point. Wolters has accused Brueckner of a crime yet brought no evidence to the table…that’s defamation.The newspapers printed scurrilous story after scurrilous story about him…that’s defamation. It’s exactly what happened to the parents and, in all likelihood, it will have the same outcome with a huge settlement coming his way.
O course you do not think.
That is evident.
-
How do you know that the parents didn’t play a part in Madeleine’s disappearance? Martin Smith not only thought he saw a man with Madeleine in his arms he named him as being Gerry. Then there’s the Gaspar statement of nefarious behaviour between Gerry and David Payne describing child abuse.
Dear GOD in heaven. Are you for real.
Please do not waste our time or insulting members by rehearsing yet again the tropes and lies of your personal beliefs.
Do move on. The rest of the world has. PARTICULARLY the forces of law and order.
-
Dear GOD in heaven. Are you for real.
Please do not waste our time or insulting members by rehearsing yet again the tropes and lies of your personal beliefs.
Do move on. The rest of the world has. PARTICULARLY the forces of law and order.
Hardly, I think they've just about given up.
-
So when did you decide the McCanns dunnit and why?
I don't have to explained that to you.....because if you don't know that by now you never will.
You have been around long enough
-
Dear GOD in heaven. Are you for real.
Please do not waste our time or insulting members by rehearsing yet again the tropes and lies of your personal beliefs.
Do move on. The rest of the world has. PARTICULARLY the forces of law and order.
Please do not waste our time or insulting members
A bit of a dominant post don't you think B....who is the our
Who are you to decide what insults member's.......I for one was not insulted.
But for the record I was by yours.
-
Brietta is a Senior Moderator and it is part of her office to decide on what is acceptable and what isn't.
Please let us not have any more of this behaviour.
-
I don't have to explained that to you.....because if you don't know that by now you never will.
You have been around long enough
No I have no idea when you became convinced the McCanns dunnit or why. Why on earth would I?
-
Hardly, I think they've just about given up.
I don’t think you understood the post you commented on. The forces of law and order have moved on from stroking their chins over the Gaspar statement and Martin Smith’s 60-80% sighting. They moved on from all that crap about 16 years ago.
-
It couldn't have been Gerry as he was at the Tapas Bar when Smith is supposed to have seen him. I dismiss the Gasper statement. Who in their right mind would discuss Paedophilia with Mrs Gaspar sitting between them.
You dismiss the statement of a doctor with not a stain on her character yet believe a pair of career criminals with everything to gain from giving Brueckner up to the police?
-
The Gaspar statement did not describe any nefarious behaviour by Gerry, are you trying to imply otherwise?
Doesn't watching your friend circling his nipple while talking about a child and not being absolutely appalled not ‘nefarious behaviour’ to you?
-
O course you do not think.
That is evident.
‘Sigh’
-
Doesn't watching your friend circling his nipple while talking about a child and not being absolutely appalled not ‘nefarious behaviour’ to you?
LOL. No. “Nefarious - wicked or criminal”.
Please explain how “not being absolutely appalled” in such a scenario many months before Madeleine’s disappearance (did anyone actually ask him how he felt about it anyway?) constitute evidence that he threw his daughter’s body in a bin after she accidentally fell off the verandah. Explain the connection (not expecting a reply, it’s just another question you won’t be able to answer).
-
LOL. No. “Nefarious - wicked or criminal”.
Please explain how “not being absolutely appalled” in such a scenario many months before Madeleine’s disappearance (did anyone actually ask him how he felt about it anyway?) constitute evidence that he threw his daughter’s body in a bin after she accidentally fell off the verandah. Explain the connection (not expecting a reply, it’s just another question you won’t be able to answer).
It doesn’t but to listen to your friend talking about a child in the way Payne did and do nothing would certainly be described by most right thinking individuals as ‘wicked’.
-
You dismiss the statement of a doctor with not a stain on her character yet believe a pair of career criminals with everything to gain from giving Brueckner up to the police?
Well it’s very clear the police have.
-
Katerina Gaspar's husband, also a doctor, found nothing questionable about the exchange with David Payne and said so.
So easy to forget things that don't suit.
-
Well it’s very clear the police have.
As they did with Rotherham.
-
As they did with Rotherham.
Eh what?! What have The Gaspar statements and Martin Smith got to do with Rotherham?! You’re flailing Faithlilly, flailing absurdly. Get a grip.
-
It doesn’t but to listen to your friend talking about a child in the way Payne did and do nothing would certainly be described by most right thinking individuals as ‘wicked’.
What did the Gaspars do about it then? Are they wicked too?
If it has nothing to dowith Madeleine’s disappearance as you admit then why shouldn’t the police have moved on from it? Flail, flailing Faithlilly, flail.
-
Anyway. The investigation has moved on. Moved on to a complete investigative dead end. Where there are no plans to charge the new prime suspect, anytime in the foreseeable future. What progress.
-
Eh what?! What have The Gaspar statements and Martin Smith got to do with Rotherham?! You’re flailing Faithlilly, flailing absurdly. Get a grip.
You said that the police dismissed the statements of Katerina Gaspar and Martin Smith. I simply pointed out that they also dismissed the statements from the poor young girls groomed in Rotherham and their families. Often the dismissal of statements by the police has little to do with the veracity of those statements.
What was it Colin Sutton said? Something about not being able to go where he wanted….or was he making things up too?
-
You said that the police dismissed the statements of Katerina Gaspar and Martin Smith. I simply pointed out that they also dismissed the statements from the poor young girls groomed in Rotherham and their families. Often the dismissal of statements by the police has little to do with the veracity of those statements.
What was it Colin Sutton said? Something about not being able to go where he wanted….or was he making things up too?
They dismissed the statement because as you yourself pointed out just now they had NOTHING TO DO WITH MADELEINE’S DISAPPEARANCE. Police regularly dismiss all sorts of irrelevant information every day for perfectly sound reasons, and dragging Rotherham into the discussion is itself completely irrelevant and desperate.
-
What did the Gaspars do about it then? Are they wicked too?
If it has nothing to dowith Madeleine’s disappearance as you admit then why shouldn’t the police have moved on from it? Flail, flailing Faithlilly, flail.
It’s just interesting how different statements are dealt with by the faithful. It’s funny but after years of watching you all defend the indefensible I absolutely can understand how Trump convinces the MAGA faithful that black is white.
-
Anyway. The investigation has moved on. Moved on to a complete investigative dead end. Where there are no plans to charge the new prime suspect, anytime in the foreseeable future. What progress.
Yeah they should just charge the McCanns instead to make you happy.
-
It’s just interesting how different statements are dealt with by the faithful. It’s funny but after years of watching you all defend the indefensible I absolutely can understand how Trump convinces the MAGA faithful that black is white.
WTF has that got to do with my post? Obviously you are unable to address any of my points with anything approaching a cogent argument so are flailing about dragging totally unrelated topics into the discussion to deflect, deflect, deflect. It’s pitiful.
-
They dismissed the statement because as you yourself pointed out just now they had NOTHING TO DO WITH MADELEINE’S DISAPPEARANCE. Police regularly dismiss all sorts of irrelevant information every day for perfectly sound reasons, and dragging Rotherham into the discussion is itself completely irrelevant and desperate.
At the time the statement was given the police could have had no idea how relevant it was. Who knows how it would have been handled if it had been passed to the PJ in a timely fashion.
-
It’s just interesting how different statements are dealt with by the faithful. It’s funny but after years of watching you all defend the indefensible I absolutely can understand how Trump convinces the MAGA faithful that black is white.
If it is wicked to do nothing about an observed incident of nipple twiddling in front of a child then Dr Gaspar and her husband are, by your definition, wicked, right?
-
WTF has that got to do with my post? Obviously you are unable to address any of my points with anything approaching a cogent argument so are flailing about dragging totally unrelated topics into the discussion to deflect, deflect, deflect. It’s pitiful.
And Colin Sutton? What of his claim?
-
At the time the statement was given the police could have had no idea how relevant it was. Who knows how it would have been handled if it had been passed to the PJ in a timely fashion.
You’ve already agreed it is irrelevant so why do you keep going on about it?
-
And Colin Sutton? What of his claim?
What of it? It’s a claim that can’t be verified either way.
-
You’ve already agreed it is irrelevant so why do you keep going on about it?
You asked how the Gaspar statement constituted evidence that Gerry threw his daughter’s body in a bin after she accidentally fell off the verandah. I said it didn’t. I however didn’t say it was irrelevant.
-
What of it? It’s a claim that can’t be verified either way.
Do you have any reason to believe that it’s not true? Is he…say….a criminal?
-
You asked how the Gaspar statement constituted evidence that Gerry threw his daughter’s body in a bin after she accidentally fell off the verandah. I said it didn’t. I however didn’t say it was irrelevant.
So you now think it does have something to do with Madeleine’s accident? Go on then, explain.
-
Do you have any reason to believe that it’s not true? Is he…say….a criminal?
Only criminals lie? I thought a few days ago you were explaining how the police lied about not giving incentives to Helge Busching. Are they criminals as well as being police then?
I don’t know what Colin Sutton thinks he was told, but like I say it can’t be verified so is completely disputable information imo.
Now, tell me - were the Gaspars wicked like Gerry for not reporting David Payne for being a paedo on the basis of a supposedly inappropriate gesture? Perhaps they’re culpable then because had they not gone running to the police with this horrific tale of nipple twiddling then maybe Madeleine would still be here today right?
-
So you now think it does have something to do with Madeleine’s accident? Go on then, explain.
I think you might need to wind your neck in just a tad or you’ll be back in the naughty corner.
-
I think you might need to wind your neck in just a tad or you’ll be back in the naughty corner.
Well this conversation has followed the usual predictable path. I point out the humungous holes in your logic, you get the hump and put me back on ignore. See ya then.
-
Only criminals lie? I thought a few days ago you were explaining how the police lied about not giving incentives to Helge Busching. Are they criminals as well as being police then?
I don’t know what Colin Sutton thinks he was told, but like I say it can’t be verified so is completely disputable information imo.
Now, tell me - were the Gaspars wicked like Gerry for not reporting David Payne for being a paedo on the basis of a supposedly inappropriate gesture? Perhaps they’re culpable then because had they not gone running to the police with this horrific tale of nipple twiddling then maybe Madeleine would still be here today right?
You do know what Sutton ‘thinks’ he was told because he told us. You simply don’t want it to be true. Sadly the odds are though on his claim being absolutely true.
-
Well this conversation has followed the usual predictable path. I point out the humungous holes in your logic, you get the hump and put me back on ignore. See ya then.
I really hope you’re not like this in RL.
TBH putting you on ignore doesn’t work, you then simply follow me around the boards. Best to laugh at your antics but not to engage.
You really are your own worst enemy.
-
Yeah they should just charge the McCanns instead to make you happy.
I don't think the McCanns should be charged. I think they should be thrown in prison without charge. Purely on the grounds that I don't like them.
-
You do know what Sutton ‘thinks’ he was told because he told us. You simply don’t want it to be true. Sadly the odds are though on his claim being absolutely true.
No, I simply don’t care what he has to say as it’s of precisely zero consequence to me or to the current investigation. If I recall correctly he wasn’t even a policeman when he injected himself into the narrative, was probably paid for his interview with whichever tabloid or media outlet he spoke to, and as he gave no names or details which could be verified it was merely hearsay. I lose absolutely no sleep over Colin Sutton’s opinion I can assure you.
-
The Gaspar statement did not describe any nefarious behaviour by Gerry, are you trying to imply otherwise?
The fact that Gerry didn't punch his c*** in speaks volumes.
-
So you now think it does have something to do with Madeleine’s accident? Go on then, explain.
Take this allegation in isolation. Once they had conducted the Gaspar statements, do you think that they did not warrant investigating?
-
I really hope you’re not like this in RL.
TBH putting you on ignore doesn’t work, you then simply follow me around the boards. Best to laugh at your antics but not to engage.
You really are your own worst enemy.
Sorry for exposing your illogical and inconsistent views, I know it must be embarrassing for you. But all the while you continue to post tripe I will comment on it as I see fit. If you choose not to respond then that’s absolutely fine by me, though it does seem rather cowardly to continually refuse to address the flaws in your argument.
We have been here numerous times in the past though and I know you won’t be able to resist the occasional snide-swipe at my posts so until the next time then.
-
The fact that Gerry didn't punch his c*** in speaks volumes.
What an odd reply. Neither Gaspar punched his whatever that was either so what does that say about them?
-
Take this allegation in isolation. Once they had conducted the Gaspar statements, do you think that they did not warrant investigating?
No I don’t tbh. How would you have investigated them further out of interest? Arrest a man for sucking his finger in a suggestive manner months before Madeleine disappeared?
-
Yeah they should just charge the McCanns instead to make you happy.
Repalce McCann's with Brueckner. Now do you see?
-
Repalce McCann's with Brueckner. Now do you see?
No. What do you want me to see? I only want Bruckner charged if there is enough evidence to secure a conviction. If he is ever convicted then that would make me happy however.
-
No. What do you want me to see? I only want Bruckner charged if there is enough evidence to secure a conviction. If he is ever convicted then that would make me happy however.
But there's insufficient evidence Lord Alf. Make your mind up.
If you look back about 4 years, not that anyone would want to, there's a wager I set re: CB being charged.
It still stands, except the prize is now £88.32 for each of the blessed few remaining MACA loyalists.
It was apparent even then that this was a fit up.
-
What an odd reply. Neither Gaspar punched his whatever that was either so what does that say about them?
Well it wasn't his daughter creepy Dave was *allegedly* referring to, so the polite course of action they took was probably warranted.
Again, Gerry should have punched his c*** right in, and booted him senseless. Yet not even a raised eyebrow; quite the opposite, in fact.
Hang on, you're not in the Dav camp are you, 'it never happened'?
-
No I don’t tbh. How would you have investigated them further out of interest? Arrest a man for sucking his finger in a suggestive manner months before Madeleine disappeared?
They investigated as much as they could, perhaps.
They may have got round to asking Gerry specifically once he was charged.
-
Well it wasn't his daughter creepy Dave was *allegedly* referring to, so the polite course of action they took was probably warranted.
Again, Gerry should have punched his c*** right in, and booted him senseless. Yet not even a raised eyebrow; quite the opposite, in fact.
Hang on, you're not in the Dav camp are you, 'it never happened'?
It was without doubt about breast feeding. If anyone should be suing it's David the disgusting comments said about him.
If Mrs Gaspar was so concerned why didn't she say something when it happened?
-
It was without doubt about breast feeding. If anyone should be suing it's David the disgusting comments said about him.
If Mrs Gaspar was so concerned why didn't she say something when it happened?
Why did she bother months down the line? Are you suggesting she was lying? What did she have to gain?
-
Why did she bother months down the line? Are you suggesting she was lying? What did she have to gain?
Why did her husband disagree with her?
-
It was without doubt about breast feeding. If anyone should be suing it's David the disgusting comments said about him.
If Mrs Gaspar was so concerned why didn't she say something when it happened?
Explain to me how circling your nipple while putting your finger in and out your mouth could possibly describe breat feeding?
-
Explain to me how circling your nipple while putting your finger in and out your mouth could possibly describe breat feeding?
Why did her husband disagree with her?
-
Explain to me how circling your nipple while putting your finger in and out your mouth could possibly describe breat feeding?
Well to spell it out. Babies circle the mothers nipple with their finger sometimes when breast feeding and make the gesture of feeding putting their finger in their mouths.
-
Why did she bother months down the line? Are you suggesting she was lying? What did she have to gain?
I'm not suggesting she was lying. I'm suggesting she jumped to conclusions. She couldn't have been that worried about what she saw at the time as she would have said something.
-
They investigated as much as they could, perhaps.
They may have got round to asking Gerry specifically once he was charged.
Charged? With what?
-
I'm not suggesting she was lying. I'm suggesting she jumped to conclusions. She couldn't have been that worried about what she saw at the time as she would have said something.
In fairness it happened twice. If you read her statement she was deffo worried and took action. She thought he ight be a nonce and she told her husband to supervise bath time. So there's that.
-
Charged? With what?
Occulation of a corpse, failing to report a death, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice, fraud, obtaining monies by deception, false representation, coercive behaviour. I don't know if he would have been charged with any of these, but if sufficient evidence was obtained, and that must've been a close run thing, then who knows.
A bit like CB being charged with kidnap, rape, murder if sufficient evidence was available.
Which leads me to my next revelation: there's more circumstantial evidence in relation to GM and KM being involved than in relation to CB.
Couple that with the same for forensic evidence and we have quite a compelling state of affairs.
-
In fairness it happened twice. If you read her statement she was deffo worried and took action. She thought he ight be a nonce and she told her husband to supervise bath time. So there's that.
So he repeated what he had done. Sounds to me that he wasn't at all worried about anyone seeing him. The first time with them all sat around the table with Mrs Gaspar between them. She admitted she didn't know what their conversation had been about. So was David Payne showing signs of Paedophilia not only in front of Mrs Gaspar but in front of all who sat at the table. Plus he did it again later on. Also she only thought it was David who was showing an act of Paedophilia nothing about Gerry who was conversing with him!! Come on please.
-
Occulation of a corpse, failing to report a death, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice, fraud, obtaining monies by deception, false representation, coercive behaviour. I don't know if he would have been charged with any of these, but if sufficient evidence was obtained, and that must've been a close run thing, then who knows.
A bit like CB being charged with kidnap, rape, murder if sufficient evidence was available.
Which leads me to my next revelation: there's more circumstantial evidence in relation to GM and KM being involved than in relation to CB.
Couple that with the same for forensic evidence and we have quite a compelling state of affairs.
What evidence? Gerry and Kate were eating dinner laughing and joking with friends. When are they supposed to have disposed of a body? Before dinner? Then sit and laugh as usual with their friends?
-
Why did her husband disagree with her?
He certainly saw the gesture and found it ‘distasteful’. Why he didn’t hear what his wife heard? Perhaps he was too far away?
-
In fairness it happened twice. If you read her statement she was deffo worried and took action. She thought he ight be a nonce and she told her husband to supervise bath time. So there's that.
But she didn't insist on leaving.
-
Well to spell it out. Babies circle the mothers nipple with their finger sometimes when breast feeding and make the gesture of feeding putting their finger in their mouths.
Were any of their children breastfeeding?
-
He certainly saw the gesture and found it ‘distasteful’. Why he didn’t hear what his wife heard? Perhaps he was too far away?
Across a dinner table? But then even she didn't know what they were talking about, despite sitting between them.
-
Were any of their children breastfeeding?
I don't know. What do you think he was imitating?
-
He certainly saw the gesture and found it ‘distasteful’. Why he didn’t hear what his wife heard? Perhaps he was too far away?
Distasteful not Paedophilia then.
-
So he repeated what he had done. Sounds to me that he wasn't at all worried about anyone seeing him. The first time with them all sat around the table with Mrs Gaspar between them. She admitted she didn't know what their conversation had been about. So was David Payne showing signs of Paedophilia not only in front of Mrs Gaspar but in front of all who sat at the table. Plus he did it again later on. Also she only thought it was David who was showing an act of Paedophilia nothing about Gerry who was conversing with him!! Come on please.
This is what she said that their conversation was about.
“ I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".
When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.”
-
Mrs Gaspar said she thought he must have been watching Porn!! Doesn't say much for her does it. Who automatically jumps to that conclusion.
-
Were any of their children breastfeeding?
What has that got to do with it. Recent memories probably.
-
This is what she said that their conversation was about.
“ I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".
When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.”
Provocative Manner? How did she know that?
-
This is what she said that their conversation was about.
“ I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".
When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.”
So why didn't she say 'what was that all about'. No she jumped to conclusions when Madeleine disappeared. Amaral made all of this public, in order to accuse David of being a Paedophile. Even his wife called him a Paedophile. Maybe he should have been questioning the real Paedophile. It was investigated and nothing came of it which shows it was nothing but a built uo scenario by Amaral
-
I don't know. What do you think he was imitating?
It’s obvious that Katerina Gaspar believed that the gesture was disturbing enough to report to the police. Why she didn’t do it at the time? Perhaps she was cowardly and put her friendship with the parents above taking action. Perhaps she thought she had too little evidence to report it? She certainly made sure that her daughter wasn’t alone with Payne again so that says a lot.
-
What has that got to do with it. Recent memories probably.
Absolute nonsense and you know it.
-
So why didn't she say 'what was that all about'. No she jumped to conclusions when Madeleine disappeared. Amaral made all of this public, in order to accuse David of being a Paedophile. Even his wife called him a Paedophile. Maybe he should have been questioning the real Paedophile. It was investigated and nothing came of it which shows it was nothing but a built uo scenario by Amaral
I believe the Gaspar statements were made public when the Portuguese files were made public and that was months after Amaral had been removed from the case.
I also believe that the statements were sent to the PJ from the British police after Amaral had been removed from the case but I’m willing to be corrected if that’s not so.
-
Absolute nonsense and you know it.
I obviously know a lot more about this than you do and there is no proof of paedophilia anywhere. And you know it.
-
It’s obvious that Katerina Gaspar believed that the gesture was disturbing enough to report to the police. Why she didn’t do it at the time? Perhaps she was cowardly and put her friendship with the parents above taking action. Perhaps she thought she had too little evidence to report it? She certainly made sure that her daughter wasn’t alone with Payne again so that says a lot.
Do you honestly think that David Payne was bathing all the children? It was more likely that the fathers were bathing their children. So I don't know where the idea came from that David Payne was going to bathe her child. I'm wondering if things have been added to her statement.
-
I believe the Gaspar statements were made public when the Portuguese files were made public and that was months after Amaral had been removed from the case.
I also believe that the statements were sent to the PJ from the British police after Amaral had been removed from the case but I’m willing to be corrected if that’s not so.
When did he write his book? It's in that. David Payne should have sued him.
-
I obviously know a lot more about this than you do and there is no proof of paedophilia anywhere. And you know it.
You obviously don’t.
-
You obviously don’t.
Well it was investigated do you know more than anyone else? David Payne is still working.
-
Do you honestly think that David Payne was bathing all the children? It was more likely that the fathers were bathing their children. So I don't know where the idea came from that David Payne was going to bathe her child. I'm wondering if things have been added to her statement.
No matter, Katerina was wary of leaving her child with Payne.
So are you saying that as her statement stands she was right to be concerned? The only reason that someone would add to a statement is if they wished to make it more incriminating.
-
When did he write his book? It's in that. David Payne should have sued him.
Indeed Payne should have sued him….if it wasn’t true.
-
What evidence? Gerry and Kate were eating dinner laughing and joking with friends. When are they supposed to have disposed of a body? Before dinner? Then sit and laugh as usual with their friends?
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating what the police are saying.
-
Well it was investigated do you know more than anyone else? David Payne is still working.
Thank You, Lace.
-
Well it was investigated do you know more than anyone else? David Payne is still working.
Do we know if it was investigated?
Why wouldn’t he be?
-
Do we know if it was investigated?
Why wouldn’t he be?
Someone on twitter years ago got in touch with the Police to find out if it had been investigated she showed her reply saying it had been. I won't be able to find it now.
If he had been found to be a Paedophile it would have affected his job.
-
Indeed Payne should have sued him….if it wasn’t true.
It's all gone quiet on the legal action front.
Even Berndt Stellander with his apparent luring of the McCanns to Rocha Negra has gone un-sued. Unleglactionated. Unlitigated.
-
Someone on twitter years ago got in touch with the Police to find out if it had been investigated she showed her reply saying it had been. I won't be able to find it now.
If he had been found to be a Paedophile it would have affected his job.
.....or lack of evidence.
-
.....or lack of evidence.
There was No Evidence.
-
There was No Evidence.
There was, there was a witness statement from a concerned citizen. Not enough in isolation, though.
-
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5775.msg203489#msg203489
There was a reason for setting up a page. Probably in deference to LIBEL LAWS. If you must please continue posting as above.
-
Please post on appropriate thread as requested. Thank You
-
There was, there was a witness statement from a concerned citizen. Not enough in isolation, though.
A statement that her husband disagreed with. And he was there.
-
Please post on appropriate thread as requested. Thank You
Could be he just let the Police deal with it.
-
But there's insufficient evidence Lord Alf. Make your mind up.
If you look back about 4 years, not that anyone would want to, there's a wager I set re: CB being charged.
It still stands, except the prize is now £88.32 for each of the blessed few remaining MACA loyalists.
It was apparent even then that this was a fit up.
What exactly is it you want me to make my mind up about Generally Nonsense?
-
Well it wasn't his daughter creepy Dave was *allegedly* referring to, so the polite course of action they took was probably warranted.
Again, Gerry should have punched his c*** right in, and booted him senseless. Yet not even a raised eyebrow; quite the opposite, in fact.
Hang on, you're not in the Dav camp are you, 'it never happened'?
Your post reveals far more about you than it does anything to do with this case. Have you actually done time for a violent crime? I seem to recall something along those lines, happy to be corrected however.
-
They investigated as much as they could, perhaps.
They may have got round to asking Gerry specifically once he was charged.
Oh yes I can just imagine the interrogation.
“Two years before Madeleine’s disappearance it has been alleged by one of your friends that DP sucked on a finger whilst twiirling the other finger around his nipple area whilst fully clothed. Apparently this was in reference to your daughter Madeleine and apparently you didn’t even punch his c*** in. What do you have to say about this?”
-
Explain to me how circling your nipple while putting your finger in and out your mouth could possibly describe breat feeding?
You don’t have a child do you? So what’s the point of trying to explain? What do you think DP was actually describing then? Go on spell it out.
-
Occulation of a corpse, failing to report a death, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice, fraud, obtaining monies by deception, false representation, coercive behaviour. I don't know if he would have been charged with any of these, but if sufficient evidence was obtained, and that must've been a close run thing, then who knows.
A bit like CB being charged with kidnap, rape, murder if sufficient evidence was available.
Which leads me to my next revelation: there's more circumstantial evidence in relation to GM and KM being involved than in relation to CB.
Couple that with the same for forensic evidence and we have quite a compelling state of affairs.
LOL. Groundhog Day Klaxon. HONK HONK!!!
-
But she didn't insist on leaving.
And she didn’t punch him in the c*** like any normal person would have apparently. Can you imagine? It’s obviously a Scouse thing.
-
This is what she said that their conversation was about.
“ I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".
When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.”
Yes because two paedos usually discuss their sexual exploits with a pearl-clutching female doctor sat between them at the dinner table. My eyes are rolling so far back into my head I can see my brain from here.
-
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating what the police are saying.
What police are saying this? *checks calendar to make sure I’ve not fallen down a wormhole back to 2007*
-
What police are saying this? *checks calendar to make sure I’ve not fallen down a wormhole back to 2007*
The General is making it up as he goes along, again.
-
The General is making it up as he goes along, again.
I don’t think he believes a word he writes anyway. No one with his intelligence possibly could.
-
I don’t think he believes a word he writes anyway. No one with his intelligence possibly could.
It was a, perhaps, obscure reference to the venerable clairvoyant, Clinton Baptiste; a premable to his now ubiquitous pay off line, 'I'm getting the word......'.
Classic British telly at its finest.
-
Someone on twitter years ago got in touch with the Police to find out if it had been investigated she showed her reply saying it had been. I won't be able to find it now.
If he had been found to be a Paedophile it would have affected his job.
Really?
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/uncategorised/doctors-keep-jobs-despite-sex-offence-convictions-cancer-death-rates-to-fall-by-2030-and-eye-clinics-struggle-with-demand-for-sight-saving-drugs/
-
Really?
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/uncategorised/doctors-keep-jobs-despite-sex-offence-convictions-cancer-death-rates-to-fall-by-2030-and-eye-clinics-struggle-with-demand-for-sight-saving-drugs/
OK, so weave together a plausible and logical scenario that includes the following:
David Payne
Paedophilia
Drugs
An accident falling off the balcony
A cover up by Kate and Gerry and all or some other members of thr Tapas group.
I won’t hold my breath.
-
OK, so weave together a plausible and logical scenario that includes the following:
David Payne
Paedophilia
Drugs
An accident falling off the balcony
A cover up by Kate and Gerry and all or some other members of thr Tapas group.
I won’t hold my breath.
That list actually reads like a semi-plausible summary.
Are you 180'ing again?
-
That list actually reads like a semi-plausible summary.
Are you 180'ing again?
So, spin it into a plausible logical narrative. Go on, I dare you.
-
MM fell off a balcony / behind a couch / off a window sill 'had an accident' whilst drowsy, wandering, crying, looking for mummy, having being 'drugged' (sedated) by her parents who like to go out for a bevvy with their mates.
A cover up by Kate and Gerry and all or some other members of the Tapas group ensued, all fearing reputational damage / careers threatened / legal action, with some or all also 'sedating' to go out for a bevvy. They've all shit themselves and, probably after heated debate with a couple of dissenters, a pact was formed which evolved quickly.
Coincidentally, one of the group, Mr. Payne, was known to have odd proclivities and was oft reported making lewd, inappropriate gestures. This had no bearing on the incident or subsequent actions whatsoever. It's just that there's usually a wrong 'un in each large group.
Did I hit all the bases? Plausibility is subjective, so don't come back with 'sounds implausible'. Shannon Matthews - probably deemed to be impausible right up until it wasn't, for example.
Jesus, that looks like Dav typed it! I'll fix it.
-
MM fell off a balcony / behind a couch / off a window sill 'had an accident' whilst drowsy, wandering, crying, looking for mummy, having being 'drugged' (sedated) by her parents who like to go out for a bevvy with their mates.
A cover up by Kate and Gerry and all or some other members of the Tapas group ensued, all fearing reputational damage / careers threatened / legal action, with some or all also 'sedating' to go out for a bevvy. They've all shit themselves and, probably after heated debate with a couple of dissenters, a pact was formed which evolved quickly.
Coincidentally, one of the group, Mr. Payne, was known to have odd proclivities and was oft reported making lewd, inappropriate gestures. This had no bearing on the incident or subsequent actions whatsoever. It's just that there's usually a wrong 'un in each large group.
Did I hit all the bases? Plausibility is subjective, so don't come back with 'sounds implausible'. Shannon Matthews - probably deemed to be impausible right up until it wasn't, for example.
Jesus, that looks like Dav typed it! I'll fix it.
Can you be a bit more detailed? Such as when this accident is supposed to have happened?
-
Can you be a bit more detailed? Such as when this accident is supposed to have happened?
No.
I don't profess to having the answers. Feel free to read back and wade through the shite I've posted on here. You won't find much by way of definitives as to the timeline. The reason is simply that most of the statements and stated timelines cannot be relied upon. This is further complicated by the many investigations and subsequent strands that have been developed over the years e.g. the 'DNA', the dogs, Harrison, blankets, phone pings - all pertinent to a greater or lesser degree, but aare also on a undefined sliding scale of quantum of reliability.
-
No.
I don't profess to having the answers. Feel free to read back and wade through the shite I've posted on here. You won't find much by way of definitives as to the timeline. The reason is simply that most of the statements and stated timelines cannot be relied upon. This is further complicated by the many investigations and subsequent strands that have been developed over the years e.g. the 'DNA', the dogs, Harrison, blankets, phone pings - all pertinent to a greater or lesser degree, but aare also on a undefined sliding scale of quantum of reliability.
LOL. Of course you can't - because it's simply not possible without writing a script with more holes in it than Gruyere. Nor do you want to open yourself and your beliefs to scrutiny because it would just show up how bleedin' daft they are. Understandable, and wise.
-
MM fell off a balcony / behind a couch / off a window sill 'had an accident' whilst drowsy, wandering, crying, looking for mummy, having being 'drugged' (sedated) by her parents who like to go out for a bevvy with their mates.
A cover up by Kate and Gerry and all or some other members of the Tapas group ensued, all fearing reputational damage / careers threatened / legal action, with some or all also 'sedating' to go out for a bevvy. They've all shit themselves and, probably after heated debate with a couple of dissenters, a pact was formed which evolved quickly.
Coincidentally, one of the group, Mr. Payne, was known to have odd proclivities and was oft reported making lewd, inappropriate gestures. This had no bearing on the incident or subsequent actions whatsoever. It's just that there's usually a wrong 'un in each large group.
Did I hit all the bases? Plausibility is subjective, so don't come back with 'sounds implausible'. Shannon Matthews - probably deemed to be impausible right up until it wasn't, for example.
Jesus, that looks like Dav typed it! I'll fix it.
So the Gaspar statements are completely irrelevant to Madeleine's disappearance in the sceptic side of the forum's opinion, so why do you folk keep returning to them like dogs to vomit, over and over again? Cos it's fun?
-
So the Gaspar statements are completely irrelevant to Madeleine's disappearance in the sceptic side of the forum's opinion, so why do you folk keep returning to them like dogs to vomit, over and over again? Cos it's fun?
You could say that about most of the shit we / you constantly refer to.
Having said that, this is all my opinion. The Gaspar statements may prove to be pivotal for all I know, just as Robert Murat might end up being an MI6 operative after all, or, by sheer coincidence, Martin Smith did see a Gerry-a-like carrying a Maddie-a-like. Shit happens.
And it's fun. Exhuming threads is fun. These little exchanges? Fun.
-
You could say that about most of the shit we / you constantly refer to.
Having said that, this is all my opinion. The Gaspar statements may prove to be pivotal for all I know, just as Robert Murat might end up being an MI6 operative after all, or, by sheer coincidence, Martin Smith did see a Gerry-a-like carrying a Maddie-a-like. Shit happens.
And it's fun. Exhuming threads is fun. These little exchanges? Fun.
True. But some people really do believe the McCanns and their friends are part of a psychopathic paedo ring being protected by successive governments and those believers shouldn't be encouraged in my view, coz they are batshit ker-azy.
-
True. But some people really do believe the McCanns and their friends are part of a psychopathic paedo ring being protected by successive governments and those believers shouldn't be encouraged in my view, coz they are batshit ker-azy.
I'm a moderate sceptic, bordering on agnostic.
I don't think the paedo ring has legs, but meeting Clem Freud, in hindsight, was not a good look.
Couple that with the Gaspar statements and you have the rudiments of a conspiracy.
Throw in the completely misinterpreted and widely circulated Podesta e-fits and you have a frenzy.
You only have to look at any comments section on any mildly contentious online article to be able to gauge the intelligence of the common man. They will believe any old tommyrot placed in front of them. And it's getting worse with the advent of social media, alternative facts, AI and general mischief and mendacity.
-
I'm a moderate sceptic, bordering on agnostic.
I don't think the paedo ring has legs, but meeting Clem Freud, in hindsight, was not a good look.
Couple that with the Gaspar statements and you have the rudiments of a conspiracy.
Throw in the completely misinterpreted and widely circulated Podesta e-fits and you have a frenzy.
You only have to look at any comments section on any mildly contentious online article to be able to gauge the intelligence of the common man. They will believe any old tommyrot placed in front of them. And it's getting worse with the advent of social media, alternative facts, AI and general mischief and mendacity.
No one knew that Freud was a paedo at the time, though maybe they should have had an inkling that he was a bit of a deviant considering his family background. Of course the association once this became known was manna from heaven to the sceptic community, I mean how much more evidence do you need that Gerry threw an abused child away in a bin than the fact that they were briefly acquainted with such a creep. It knocks all of CB’s actual paedo and rape convictions into a cocked hat dunnit. As for General Mischief, that is your full name surely? I know, I know don’t call you Shirley.
-
No one knew that Freud was a paedo at the time, though maybe they should have had an inkling that he was a bit of a deviant considering his family background. Of course the association once this became known was manna from heaven to the sceptic community, I mean how much more evidence do you need that Gerry threw an abused child away in a bin than the fact that they were briefly acquainted with such a creep. It knocks all of CB’s actual paedo and rape convictions into a cocked hat dunnit. As for General Mischief, that is your full name surely? I know, I know don’t call you Shirley.
I'd go a bit further than that; his house was raided for child porn in 1995 - not surprisingly no charges were brought.
He was mentioned as being connected to the Elm Guest House, again, all of those cnuts have got away with it, due to half of them being in the Met or government.
He was a mate of Saville, again, his association was known for decades, but only came to light in 2012.
You could argue that, given they were to discuss missing children, a cursory background check may have been prudent if completely ignorant of the history. Easy to say with hindsight.
-
No one knew that Freud was a paedo at the time, though maybe they should have had an inkling that he was a bit of a deviant considering his family background. Of course the association once this became known was manna from heaven to the sceptic community, I mean how much more evidence do you need that Gerry threw an abused child away in a bin than the fact that they were briefly acquainted with such a creep. It knocks all of CB’s actual paedo and rape convictions into a cocked hat dunnit. As for General Mischief, that is your full name surely? I know, I know don’t call you Shirley.
No one knew that Freud was a paedo at the time, though maybe they should have had an inkling that he was a bit of a deviant considering his family background.
There you go .....fellow acquaintances would know
There again you know ......certain people know who they are mingling with...same as CF seems to know who he would rather spend time with...... people with mutual connections.
-
I'd go a bit further than that; his house was raided for child porn in 1995 - not surprisingly no charges were brought.
He was mentioned as being connected to the Elm Guest House, again, all of those cnuts have got away with it, due to half of them being in the Met or government.
He was a mate of Saville, again, his association was known for decades, but only came to light in 2012.
You could argue that, given they were to discuss missing children, a cursory background check may have been prudent if completely ignorant of the history. Easy to say with hindsight.
Is it known where he was that week in May 2007 ?
-
Is it known where he was that week in May 2007 ?
He was at home.
-
I'd go a bit further than that; his house was raided for child porn in 1995 - not surprisingly no charges were brought.
He was mentioned as being connected to the Elm Guest House, again, all of those cnuts have got away with it, due to half of them being in the Met or government.
He was a mate of Saville, again, his association was known for decades, but only came to light in 2012.
You could argue that, given they were to discuss missing children, a cursory background check may have been prudent if completely ignorant of the history. Easy to say with hindsight.
Was it widely known that he was a paedo in 2007? If so please provide the evidence. I once had dinner with Cliff Richard, I guess that makes me a bit dodge too seeing as how he was once raided for child porn too (albeit some years after our dinner date).
Sheesh.
They visited Freud and his wife who offered them the hand of friendship at a difficult time for them both. The Freuds were kind to them and looked after them well according to Kate. But like I say, manna from heaven for the [ censored word ]s once his predilections became known years later.
-
No one knew that Freud was a paedo at the time, though maybe they should have had an inkling that he was a bit of a deviant considering his family background.
There you go .....fellow acquaintances would know
There again you know ......certain people know who they are mingling with...same as CF seems to know who he would rather spend time with...... people with mutual connections.
Behave. There I go what? Do you think his wife knew he was a paedo? Have you any evidence whatsoever that the McCanns and Freud had any connection prior to Madeleine's disappearance or are you just content to smear them by association? I guess all CB's acquaintances and girlfriends at the time knew he was a paedo too then, right?
-
Was it widely known that he was a paedo in 2007? If so please provide the evidence. I once had dinner with Cliff Richard, I guess that makes me a bit dodge too seeing as how he was once raided for child porn too (albeit some years after our dinner date).
Sheesh.
They visited Freud and his wife who offered them the hand of friendship at a difficult time for them both. The Freuds were kind to them and looked after them well according to Kate. But like I say, manna from heaven for the [ censored word ]s once his predilections became known years later.
I see you cherry picked the bit you could attempt to refute.
It was widely known by his victims, that's for sure.
When did you have dinner with Cliff, was it during his Wired for Sound phase? This revelation is more interesting than this thread, ffs.
-
Okay, Watch It. This is getting out of hand again. I don't want to be Deleting, but I will if I must.
-
Okay, Watch It. This is getting out of hand again. I don't want to be Deleting, but I will if I must.
It was VS's Cliff Richard revelation that tipped it over the edge, wasn't it?
-
I see you cherry picked the bit you could attempt to refute.
It was widely known by his victims, that's for sure.
When did you have dinner with Cliff, was it during his Wired for Sound phase? This revelation is more interesting than this thread, ffs.
Unless his victims shared this information with the McCanns prior to their time at Casa Freud it's really not relevant is it? Remember we (you/your mates on here) are trying to taint them by association by suggesting that they knowingly spent time in the company of a paedo, presumably so they could exchange tips and laugh about how they got away with it. But I don't see any evidence whatsoever of this being the case.
Cliff - mid 90s, dinner off the Kings Road with a bunch of around 12 book industry types (he was plugging some Christian rubbish). I found him very up himself and arrogant. And creepy. And crepey, even then. Being the argumentative sort and not intent on sucking up to him as the others were, I gently disagreed with him about something to do with tennis (Wimbledon was on at the time I think) and he cut. me. dead. So I never did stock his stupid book. LOL.
-
No one knew that Freud was a paedo at the time, though maybe they should have had an inkling that he was a bit of a deviant considering his family background.
There you go .....fellow acquaintances would know
There again you know ......certain people know who they are mingling with...same as CF seems to know who he would rather spend time with...... people with mutual connections.
Oh the old conspiracy. So Jill tavern forum
-
Oh the old conspiracy. So Jill tavern forum
Is IT........really
Where is the So Jill Tavern forum
-
Is IT........really
Where is the So Jill Tavern forum
You are so shit hot on the typo jokes these days!
-
Still no plans.