The timeline revisited

[jassi]

By involvement of a third party would be one possibility.

Or even just walking out onto the street on her own

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

You seem to be stuck with obsessing about times long past.  In the here and now the prime suspect Brueckner is having a case built against him which will have one of three repercussions -
( i ) there will be enough evidence to charge him
( ii) there won't be enough evidence to charge him
(iii) the evidence they have exonerates him ~ so back to the drawing board in that case
Whatever happens will be based on the evidence the Germans have on Brueckner and relates to what happened to Madeleine after she was taken from the apartment.

I’m not stuck with anything. There is witness testimony which relates directly to the last days and hours of Madeleine’s known whereabouts. A case against CB will have to be built around this testimony or it will lead to reasonable doubt.

[Brietta]

Or even just walking out onto the street on her own

Sarah Everard was walking in the street on her own and very nearly home ... her assailant admitted to kidnapping her.

How would you define that?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Or even just walking out onto the street on her own

Indeed. I seem to recall testimony that the patio doors were left unlocked so that Madeleine could leave the apartment to find her parents if she woke.

[Brietta]

I’m not stuck with anything. There is witness testimony which relates directly to the last days and hours of Madeleine’s known whereabouts. A case against CB will have to be built around this testimony or it will lead to reasonable doubt.

If charges are laid against Brueckner - they will have nothing at all to do with the last days and hours of Madeleine's happy holiday - they will be all to do with whatever evidence the Germans hold against Brueckner and what happened to Madeleine after she was removed from the apartment.

[Brietta]

Indeed. I seem to recall testimony that the patio doors were left unlocked so that Madeleine could leave the apartment to find her parents if she woke.

I seem to recall testimony about an individual walking briskly away from the apartment block carrying a child - apparently the Irish teenager out for a smoke missed it all though 😁

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

If charges are laid against Brueckner - they will have nothing at all to do with the last days and hours of Madeleine's happy holiday - they will be all to do with whatever evidence the Germans hold against Brueckner and what happened to Madeleine after she was removed from the apartment.

By definition they would be directly centred on Madeleine’s last known hours.

[Mr Gray]

Remember David Gilroy? The CCTV images of Suzanne Pilley placed her 20 metres from her workplace, but not entering. Gilroy argues that she didn't enter and he didn't kill her. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, which included dog alerts suggesting that she did enter and that he removed her body in the boot of his car.

If there's no body and no forensic evidence then the case against CB would also be circumstantial, and it may need to be shown how he and Madeleine came together. Either he entered 5A or she emerged, and it had to be at a time when no-one was around to see.

you are assuming the case is circumstantial when wolters says the evidence is concrete. I beleive you said even if CB was convicted it would not prove abduction...of course it would

[Vertigo Swirl]

Imo it's insane to imagine that abduction can be assumed, which is what you're suggesting.

How about this then. Brueckner says he was parked in the car park opposite the Tapas reception and a little girl came down the road. The door into the Tapas complex was closed, so he moved his van/car near to the street light opposite, called her over and off he went. Maybe the S & R dog evidence got it right. A little girl was not stolen from her bed, a window was not opened by an abductor and a child used the open patio doors to find her parents, as her mother suggested as a possibiity.

You do realise your scenario is still abduction right?

[Mr Gray]

I’m not stuck with anything. There is witness testimony which relates directly to the last days and hours of Madeleine’s known whereabouts. A case against CB will have to be built around this testimony or it will lead to reasonable doubt.

it entirely depends what other evidence they have. Its amaral who said in order to charge you have to prove abduction...hes showing his ignorance again

[Mr Gray]

Remember David Gilroy? The CCTV images of Suzanne Pilley placed her 20 metres from her workplace, but not entering. Gilroy argues that she didn't enter and he didn't kill her. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, which included dog alerts suggesting that she did enter and that he removed her body in the boot of his car.

If there's no body and no forensic evidence then the case against CB would also be circumstantial, and it may need to be shown how he and Madeleine came together. Either he entered 5A or she emerged, and it had to be at a time when no-one was around to see.

you posted..

Perhaps the Germans will be able to convict their suspect without having to address how he met up with Madeleine, but although convicting him of murder may be seen as enough, it leaves the abduction theory from 5A as an unproved thesis.


I posted...if CB is convicted it proves abduction

[Vertigo Swirl]

Which by necessity will involve  confirming entry and exit method from 5A by a means and at a time that fits with a version of the T9 timeline. For example, via the window or patio doors and a time when no check was taking place.

So if they find Madeleine’s body on property belonging to Brückner, photos of her being abused on his phone, can place him via his phone records in the near vicinity, they wouldn’t be able to charge him unless they could prove how he entered and exited the apartment?  Gimme a break.

[Brietta]

By definition they would be directly centred on Madeleine’s last known hours.

Only if the evidence confirms that ~ but whatever - it will have nothing to do with the tapas timeline which some seem so eternally caught up in.

[Brietta]

You do realise your scenario is still abduction right?

I am astounded that anyone can advocate that it isn't abduction.

[jassi]

I am astounded that anyone can advocate that it isn't abduction.

That's because you can't accept anything else.  IMO