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

[Mr Gray]

According to the evidence she was and from the street outside.

in your opinion

[Vertigo Swirl]

The statuses of Kate McCann and Brueckner are not the same.

Not currently no, because one is not a suspect.  But when Kate WAS a suspect she refused to take part in a fishing expedition by the PJ.  You seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for Bruckner to do, but it seems you are not so understanding when it comes to Kate McCann.  Kindly explain why not?

[Vertigo Swirl]

For once I totally agree with you. A truly innocent person will speak freely and openly to detectives.

Then you must believe Bruckener has something to hide...and Kate McCann as well!   How does thst work?

[Eleanor]

Not currently no, because one is not a suspect.  But when Kate WAS a suspect she refused to take part in a fishing expedition by the PJ.  You seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for Bruckner to do, but it seems you are not so understanding when it comes to Kate McCann.  Kindly explain why not?

More double standards.

[Mr Gray]

The statuses of Kate McCann and Brueckner are not the same.

When breukner is questioned he will be questioned as  a suspect and read his rights. he ha severy right to silence but at his trial inferences can be drawn from his silence...particularly not accounting for where he was at the time of the incident

[G-Unit]

Not currently no, because one is not a suspect.  But when Kate WAS a suspect she refused to take part in a fishing expedition by the PJ.  You seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for Bruckner to do, but it seems you are not so understanding when it comes to Kate McCann.  Kindly explain why not?

Have I condemned Kate McCann for availing herself of the right to silence?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Have I condemned Kate McCann for availing herself of the right to silence?

It would seem so by your refusal to give my question a straight answer and by attempting to deflect by quibbling about different statuses, when it was the principle not the status under discussion. 

[G-Unit]

It would seem so by your refusal to give my question a straight answer and by attempting to deflect by quibbling about different statuses, when it was the principle not the status under discussion.

Please don't make accusations unless you can support them with evidence rather than opinion.

[faithlilly]

I doubt that the women of Portugal were fully aware of the nature of the beast allowed to walk amongst them and their children until the news broke earlier this year about Bruekner.

And I doubt that the general public knew that the British police had lost sight of hundreds of paedophiles who had changed their name by deed poll...paedophiles who are now living in every community in our country...until a newspaper broke the story several months ago.

[Mr Gray]

Please don't make accusations unless you can support them with evidence rather than opinion.

If you refuse to answer straight forward questions then it's reasonable to draw inferences from that

[Vertigo Swirl]

Please don't make accusations unless you can support them with evidence rather than opinion.

Let’s try again shall we?

do 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"?  If not, why not when you seem to be quite sympathetic towards CB’s decision to remain silent?

[Eleanor]

If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom.  In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.

[faithlilly]

If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom.  In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.

And if he had nothing to do with it ?

[jassi]

If, on the other hand, Brueckner abducted Madeleine for someone else, then he only has to say so and for whom.  In which case he would then avoid a verdict of murder which is by far the most serious charge.

He needs to be charged with such first.

[Brietta]

He needs to be charged with such first.

I believe Wolters has assured we will know what route he will take as soon as possible, even putting a time scale o it.

So there really isn't much to be done for the present until he decides his course of action which in my opinion at the moment does not impinge on Brueckner in the slightest as it makes no difference to his current status.
I think he will know the outcome of how the evidence gathered against him will be used when we do.