The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect

[Brietta]

Police investigate phone data in Madeleine McCann case
Portuguese police have hired people to carry out inquiries on behalf of british police, although this does not mean they will reopen the investigation
From the NewsroomPublished on 10/04/2013

London - British police said Friday they are analysing new cell phone data to advance their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, who disappeared from a resort in Portugal six years ago.
Madeleine, who was three at the time, disappeared from her room in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.

A new inquiry in Britain started two months ago focuses on thousands of phone recordings from the resort at the time.

London police said they had made 31 requests in several countries for information related to the phones used then.

There are 41 suspects, described as "investigative objects", and 15 have British nationality.

British authorities launched a review of the case in 2011 after Madeleine's parents wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron saying not enough was being done to find their daughter.

The Portuguese police have hired six people in Faro to carry out the investigations on behalf of the British police, although this does not mean that they will reopen the investigation.

The two forces will meet to discuss the case in a few weeks.

https://exame.com/mundo/policia-investiga-dados-telefonicos-em-caso-madeleine-mccann/


In the beginning was the evidence.

Unfortunately no-one had bothered to look at it at the time.

It was six years later before the investigation the McCanns had begged throughout those six years took place.

Although not known at the time one of those the London police requested information about was Brueckner, who was later to become the prime suspect in what happened to Madeleine.
It was another eight years before Amaral made his announced and publicised who and what was going on as soon as someone leaked the, until he got hold of it, confidential information on an active police investigation.

So just because it appears nothing much is going on in a police investigation doesn't make it necessarily so.

The known fact is that in one way or another Brueckner has been a feature in this case since 2013.

[Brietta]

Like OG the BKA went off very impressively. We even saw them digging and using dogs just like OG did. I wonder if they're down to a handful of officers like OG yet?

OG produced the goods and worked away assiduously and quietly checking their findings.

I wonder if BKA operated in the same manner as OG.

Both forces ran a very tight ship.

Only when the PJ got access were we confronted by the leaking like a sieve approach preferred by Amaral ~ who did it again.

[sadie]

So many of you don't seem to realise the fall out from this.  Davel can argue Law while I argue Me Too.  The ECHR have just set a precedence  that will allow me to say what ever I like without fear of libel and with no evidence.

Anthony Bennett should have a look at this one.

Profound statement Eleanor   


The ECHRs judgement affects us all, to our detriment.

[Brietta]

As an aside, have Portugal released police files from other cases or was the McCann case a one-off ?

If the latter, I wonder why that should be

In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.

To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part. 

For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.

I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off.  Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward.  So in effect her case was still open.

I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.

But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police.  Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.

[Rossb]

In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.

To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part. 

For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.

I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off.  Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward.  So in effect her case was still open.

I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.

But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police.  Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.

Personally I don't think the files should have been released to the public. Did they require the permission of those involved?

[Brietta]

Personally I don't think the files should have been released to the public. Did they require the permission of those involved?

My opinion is that it was illegally done and certainly no permissions were requested.  Nothing was redacted in the hast to get it all posted on the internet complete with peoples' home addresses - phone numbers - passport details and most important of all the witness statements given in confidence to the police.

It took a lot of organisation.  Squads of translators worked on it.  The question is never asked who organised it all nor why it was done.

The value to a perpetrator is immeasurable ~ did anyone give that a minute's thought.

[sadie]

In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.

To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part. 

For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.

I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off.  Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward.  So in effect her case was still open.

I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.

But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police.  Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.

Exactly.  Well spotted Brie.

It also gave them the opportunity to undermine facts.  There have been changes to images and to the written word.  Always against The Mccanns.

What a mighty operation this undermining has been ... and still is

[Wonderfulspam]

In Portugal case files are released to interested parties on the conclusion of a case.

To my knowledge it has never happened before that these have ever been publicly released either in whole or in part. 

For example none of those with legitimate access to the Cristovao files have released any either anonymously or up front.

I am of the opinion that the McCann files are a one off.  Particularly as we have been assured that archiving of the case did not mean that Madeleine had been written off but merely set aside for the event of new evidence being brought forward.  So in effect her case was still open.

I see one obvious result being the use of twisting information specifically to traduce and libel key witnesses and victims of the crime.

But most importantly of all it gave the perpetrators of the crime an absolutely unique opportunity to check the information held by the police.  Allowing any loose ends to be revisited and tied up.

Maybe by writing a book, constructing a narrative, explaining away any inconsistencies & inconvenient details from within the files. I suppose the perpetrators could do something like that perhaps.

[Brietta]

Claims have been made that Brueckner has an alibi covering the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

The fact is that he does not,

Currently circulating allegations that Christian B. could not be the perpetrator, because he had an alibi for the corresponding time, rejected prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters decisively. As can be read in the British "Daily Star", Wolters explained again: "We have not found anyone who gives Christian B. an alibi. And the suspect is not claiming an alibi."  https://www.news.de/panorama/856272216/maddie-mccann-news-aktuell-wende-in-ermittlungen-tatverdaechtiger-christian-b-hat-laut-staatsanwaltschaft-kein-alibi/1/

[jassi]

Is it a requirement of the German legal system that Brueckner must have an alibi ?

[Brietta]

Is it a requirement of the German legal system that Brueckner must have an alibi ?

It is a requirement of the German legal system that all evidence favourable and unfavourable is subject to thorough investigation.

Brueckner does not have an alibi for the time in question.

[jassi]

It is a requirement of the German legal system that all evidence favourable and unfavourable is subject to thorough investigation.

Brueckner does not have an alibi for the time in question.

Does he need one ?

[Brietta]

Does he need one ?

 "...  the public prosecutor in Germany must always act impartially – in other words, also take into account facts that could exonerate a defendant."    https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/how-public-prosecutors-work-in-germany

Would you be asking that question had the prosecutor's investigation found that he had an alibi as opposed to verifying that he did not?

[jassi]

"...  the public prosecutor in Germany must always act impartially – in other words, also take into account facts that could exonerate a defendant."    https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/how-public-prosecutors-work-in-germany

Would you be asking that question had the prosecutor's investigation found that he had an alibi as opposed to verifying that he did not?

If the prosecutor had found one, the question wouldn't need to be asked. If it was valid then they would need to be looking elsewhere.

[Brietta]

If the prosecutor had found one, the question wouldn't need to be asked. If it was valid then they would need to be looking elsewhere.

We know for a fact that Brueckner does not have an alibi.

You ask ~ "Does he need one ?"

My opinion is that his defence team would find one terribly useful because if he had one as claimed it could well have ruled him out as prime suspect and arguido.