Mark Williams-Thomas making new three part crime series for Ch5.

[The General]

I usually am

100% accuracy when replying to one of my posts this hour.

[Wonderfulspam]

Could Breuckner have taken a photograph of Madeleine asleep in her bed in 5a for reasons of identification which was later found somewhere on one of his derelict properties?  This at least would suggest that he abducted her.

That would imply this was some organised & pre-planned abduction with Brueckner as the simple abductor stooge for some other Mr Big Fish abductor paedo guy.

Only, there isn't a shred of evidence to lend any real support to such a ridiculous theory.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's legal fact.

That's as maybe.  It was a conviction based solely on confessions, at least one of which involved torture, from two apparently not very bright individuals - no body, no forensics, not even a bloody dog bark.  Legal Fact my arse. 

[Mr Gray]

He has one or more image of a dead girl who he believes he's ID'd as MM.
He may have stumbled across the image on one of CB's hard drives, buried under someone's dog, while building a nonce case against him (a case that he probably won't pursue now as it's small fry).
So he's been trying to tie him to the scene of 5a ever since and all he seems to have garnered is a couple of jailhouse snitches willing to provide a anything for a packet of snout.
Now it would appear that strategy is knackered.

He doesn't have an image of a dead girl.  You show your ignorance of the facts.  He's made it clear he has no image of a dead MM

[Vertigo Swirl]

His words are not evidence of anything except his convictions. The real evidence is what he has seen to convince him. It's either enough to convince others or it's not. That's the crux of the matter.

Do you think he's the only person involved in the investigation who has seen or who knows of this alleged evidence? 

[The General]

He doesn't have an image of a dead girl.  You show your ignorance of the facts.  He's made it clear he has no image if s dead MM

So no body, no photographic evidence, no forensic evidence.
So what could it be, Ironside?

[Mr Gray]

100% accuracy when replying to one of my posts this hour.

I'm totally bored at your cildish attempts at point scoring
You claim to be the youngest person on the forum... I take it that refers to your mental not biological age

[The General]

Do you think he's the only person involved in the investigation who has seen or who knows of this alleged evidence?

Commissioner Dick was not impressed.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Commissioner Dick was not impressed.

I see, and you obviously hold her opinion in high esteem.  What did she have to say?  I forget...

[Wonderfulspam]

That's as maybe.  It was a conviction based solely on confessions, at least one of which involved torture, from two apparently not very bright individuals - no body, no forensics, not even a bloody dog bark.  Legal Fact my arse.

I still can't understand why, at trial, after the beating had ceased, Leonor insisted through her lawyer that her brother killed Joana during failed attempt to sell her, when, in reality, all that time the poor woman was the innocent parent to a victim of child abduction by a stranger.

Curious but, oh well, not worth giving too much thought I suppose.

It was probably Brueckner.

[Mr Gray]

So no body, no photographic evidence, no forensic evidence.
So what could it be, Ironside?

Photographic evidence of severe abuse from which death is almost inevitable.. But only a link to the involvement of CB
That's why he made an appeal for information of the interiors of any dwelling CB had access to.
Perhaps he had thst now... Still only circumstantial

[The General]

I see, and you obviously hold her opinion in high esteem.  What did she have to say?  I forget...

ting around the is
She said 'look 'ere, you 'orrible lot, we still be looking for a missing person. Now you can call that semantics and skirting around the issue of a potentailly dead girl, and we ain't gonna give the parents false hope or owt like that, so let the Germans do their thang and we will continue to look for MM - and spend the rest of the OG wonga yo'.
I paraphrased.

[The General]

Photographic evidence of severe abuse from which death is almost inevitable.. But only a link to the involvement of CB
That's why he made an appeal for information of the interiors of any dwelling CB had access to.
Perhaps he had thst now... Still only circumstantial

That would be fag paper thin, not just circumstantial. The type of evidence that would only be useful as a 'job lot'; a bagatelle of tenuous offerings thrown in to pad out a flimsy case.

[G-Unit]

The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only Madeleine

Only you think he's implied he has a photo, as far as I can tell. In the UK a formal indentification is required before a body can be named. Are the German authorities allowed to indentify a person from a photo? I doubt it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Only you think he's implied he has a photo, as far as I can tell. In the UK a formal indentification is required before a body can be named. Are the German authorities allowed to indentify a person from a photo? I doubt it.

I expect the distinctive mark in her eye is visible, I mean, some witnesses seem able to spot the thing from several metres away, so it should show up in a child pornography snap quite well. They do tend to focus on the eyes.