Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[jassi]

The time to critisise CB for not answering questions is when police asked them - just like they did when Kate refused to  answer police questions.

[Mr Gray]

The time to critisise CB for not answering questions is when police asked them - just like they did when Kate refused to  answer police questions.

its quite legitimite to refer to the fact thathis lawyer has said he will not answer questions.

[Eleanor]

I'm sure when Wolters us ready he will be. His lawyer has already said he won't answer any and his previous lawyers ditched him in June

Exactly.  He could prove his innocence by answering this one question.  By refusing to do so it only leads one to suspect that he isn't.

[Eleanor]

The time to critisise CB for not answering questions is when police asked them - just like they did when Kate refused to  answer police questions.

Kate had already answered those questions on a previous occasion.

[jassi]

Exactly.  He could prove his innocence by answering this one question.  By refusing to do so it only leads one to suspect that he isn't.

If its all so simple, why don't police cut to the chase and ask him this vital question? It might save them a lot of time and effort.

[Eleanor]

If its all so simple, why don't police cut to the chase and ask him this vital question? It might save them a lot of time and effort.

Brueckner is banged up for at least the next five years, so no real hurry.

[G-Unit]

The question of this Phone Call could be easily solved.  Either Brueckner admits that he was in possession of the phone at the time, possibly about his innocent business.  Or he tells The Police who did have the phone.

A refusal to do either of these things will only ramp up suspicion and add to the Circumstantial Evidence.

Or he says he can't remember, which is perfectly understandable imo as I can't remember what phone number I had in 2007.

[Eleanor]

Or he says he can't remember, which is perfectly understandable imo as I can't remember what phone number I had in 2007.

He changed the registration of his car on the very next day.  What's not to remember?

The number itself isn't all that important.

[G-Unit]

its quite legitimite to refer to the fact thathis lawyer has said he will not answer questions.

Which is common practice apparently.

"Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said: "Mr B is remaining silent on the allegation at this time on the advice of his defence counsel. This is quite common in criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the state to prove that a suspect committed a crime. No accused person has to prove his innocence to the investigating authorities."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-refuse-22193377

I understand that to mean that no response will be forthcoming if the police go on a fishing expedition.

[barrier]

Exactly.  He could prove his innocence by answering this one question.  By refusing to do so it only leads one to suspect that he isn't.

He is innocent,its up to the authorities to try and establish different.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If its all so simple, why don't police cut to the chase and ask him this vital question? It might save them a lot of time and effort.

Because he has already indicated he will not co-operate. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

He is innocent,its up to the authorities to try and establish different.

And that is what they are trying to do, in the midst of much scorn and mockery from the likes of you.

[Eleanor]

He is innocent,its up to the authorities to try and establish different.

So don't defend yourself if you are innocent.  Don't produce an alibi and don't tell The Police if someone else had your phone.

That doesn't sound very sensible.  In fact it could be construed as Wasting Police Time.  Let alone asking for a Guilty Verdict.

[barrier]

And that is what they are trying to do, in the midst of much scorn and mockery from the likes of you.

Thats your problem in how you perceive me,don't forget the admin post.

A reminder to everyone to stay within the bounds of each topic and not to stray too far from the discussions at hand. I also take this opportunity to remind members that the forum rules are there for a reason.  Please respect each others point of view and conduct responses in a civil manner at all times.

Admin

[Vertigo Swirl]

Which is common practice apparently.

"Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher said: "Mr B is remaining silent on the allegation at this time on the advice of his defence counsel. This is quite common in criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the state to prove that a suspect committed a crime. No accused person has to prove his innocence to the investigating authorities."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/madeleine-mccann-suspect-will-refuse-22193377

I understand that to mean that no response will be forthcoming if the police go on a fishing expedition.

So does that mean you fully understand why Kate McCann refused to answer the PJ's questions and thoroughly support her decision not to take part in a "fishing expedition"?