New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[faithlilly]

I think he does.. I explained why he cannot confirm death but  believes Maddie is dead but it's quite unpleasant and I would prefer not to repeat it.. In short he says he has evidence of Maddie in such a situation that death was inevitable

So if he can’t confirm death then he can’t have enough evidence to charge Bruckner with murder? Isn’t that simple logic?

[faithlilly]

I think the German investigators are spoilt for choice when it comes to the volume of evidence extant against Brueckner;  the quality of which we have been assured we will be able to assess when it is presented in court.

I’d lay odds on it never getting to court.

[G-Unit]

I'm stating facts which seem to have demolished the argument that SY and the BKA are not in agreement... They are.  In reality both think MM is dead but there is a possibility she  is alive... Again.. Thst is a fact

Not according to Wolters;

‘I can’t tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.’
https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/09/madeleine-mccann-investigators-100-sure-prime-suspect-killed-her-15392191/

[Mr Gray]

So if he can’t confirm death then he can’t have enough evidence to charge Bruckner with murder? Isn’t that simple logic?

Guilt is defined as beyond reasonable doubt.. He's sure beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie is dead.  Therebis no proof Susanne Pilley is dead but there is a conviction for her murder

[Mr Gray]

Not according to Wolters;

‘I can’t tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.’
https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/09/madeleine-mccann-investigators-100-sure-prime-suspect-killed-her-15392191/

Read it again.. Wolters is saying   ..for us... He's quoting opinion not stating an absolute fact

[Brietta]

Wolters concedes its all circumstantial, CB is a nasty piece of work who imo by pure coincidence (circumstantial ) just happened to be around, why not , the three amigos were too.

Your tolerance for criminals who enter homes illegally is quite extraordinary - particularly when it is borne in mind that one of those mentioned is a known rapist and paedophile who is the subject of investigation in more sickening crimes.

[faithlilly]

Guilt is defined as beyond reasonable doubt.. He's sure beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie is dead.  Therebis no proof Susanne Pilley is dead but there is a conviction for her murder

So you believe that Wolter has evidence that Madeleine is dead ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and that Brueckner is the perpetrator, so why doesn’t he charge him?

[faithlilly]

Your tolerance for criminals who enter homes illegally is quite extraordinary - particularly when it is borne in mind that one of those mentioned is a known rapist and paedophile who is the subject of investigation in more sickening crimes.

I don’t think anyone on the forum believes that Brueckner is anything but a loathsome creature who deserves to be exactly where he is. To conflate the desire for the correct person to be brought to justice with a positive opinion of Brueckner is totally disingenuous and a tactic you use far too often.

[Mr Gray]

So you believe that Wolter has evidence that Madeleine is dead ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and that Brueckner is the perpetrator, so why doesn’t he charge him?

That's near enough right... Wolters has explained why he hasn't charged him

[Mr Gray]

I don’t think anyone on the forum believes that Brueckner is anything but a loathsome creature who deserves to be exactly where he is. To conflate the desire for the correct person to be brought to justice with a positive opinion of Brueckner is totally disingenuous and a tactic you use far too often.

Do you think others.. Including me.. Are not just as concerned as you that the right person is brought to justice

[faithlilly]

That's near enough right... Wolters has explained why he hasn't charged him

Unfortunately Wolter’s explanation doesn’t bear scrutiny. You agree that the case, according to Wolter, has been proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, the legal standard by which charges are laid, and he will be able to continue building a case after charges have been laid….so why doesn’t he lay charges?

[Mr Gray]

Unfortunately Wolter’s explanation doesn’t bear scrutiny. You agree that the case, according to Wolter, has been proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, the legal standard by which charges are laid, and he will be able to continue building a case after charges have been laid….so why doesn’t he lay charges?

[faithlilly]

Do you think others.. Including me.. Are not just as concerned as you that the right person is brought to justice

I’m sure you do however even seasoned detectives become tunnel visioned at times.

[Mr Gray]

Unfortunately Wolter’s explanation doesn’t bear scrutiny. You agree that the case, according to Wolter, has been proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, the legal standard by which charges are laid, and he will be able to continue building a case after charges have been laid….so why doesn’t he lay charges?

You are quoting your opinion as fact.
Wolters has never used the word proof or proved
It's a fact that the justice system errs on the sude of getting the guilty go free.
Wolters is looking for more evidence.. Perhaps even the body. There is absolutely no rush.
I think Wolters action do bear scrutiny

[Mr Gray]

I’m sure you do however even seasoned detectives become tunnel visioned at times.

Some do.. Amaral for instance. It all depends in what evidence wolters has... That's what counts