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

[G-Unit]

you don’t what?  You just said you agreed entirely with Heri that the BKA have nothing more than what they have revealed, it can’t be both.

I agreed that no conclusion can be reached based on the information available.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I agreed that no conclusion can be reached based on the information available.

you “completely agreed” with Heri’s post in which he claimed the Germans have nothing more than what they have aleady revealed.  You’re all over the place.

[Ms Para glider]

They have suspicion & flimsy circumstantial evidence.

Like any prosecutor with a less than watertight case, he is boasting about the strength of his evidence, maybe the accused will crack.

Without any of us getting to see this evidence ourselves, this is like an argument over who has the bigger penis, with a refusal to get the tape measure out.

How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.

[The General]

How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.

Calling someone 'pretty dumb' is par for the course from McCann supporters, so you'll fit right in 2030.
So welcome and I look forward to being abused sometime in the near future.

[Vertigo Swirl]

How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.

Welcome to the forum.  You probably won’t be aware of this yet but you’re trying to talk sense with one of the forum’s self professed WUMs therefore don’t expect anything like a reasonable reply to your perfectly reasonable  post.

[The General]

Welcome to the forum.  You probably won’t be aware of this yet but you’re trying to talk sense with one of the forum’s self professed WUMs therefore don’t expect anything like a reasonable reply to your perfectly reasonable  post.

Including this one?

[Wonderfulspam]

How do you know it is only flimsy evidence? Do you work for BKA and have seen what they have but not yet revealed,,? Or just assuming they have already told the public every little bit of evidence they been gathered for the last 4 years. Seems pretty dumb if you think that. It's not how police investigations and appeals work. You should do some resesrch.

Brueckner is mocking the prosecutor & confident they won't be charging him.

I suppose he'd be doing that whilst knowing full well they have his paedo photo of Maddie plus all the other seriously incriminating evidence he left behind.

[The General]

Brueckner is mocking the prosecutor & confident they won't be charging him.

I suppose he'd be doing that whilst knowing full well they have his paedo photo of Maddie plus all the other seriously incriminating evidence he left behind.

That's exactly what he's doing. It's not bravado, or putting up a defiant front, or hubris, or even desperation of a doomed man; it's a man safe in the knowledge that this time they are a set of clueless weapons, barking up the wrong nonce.

[misty]

While Brueckner may be cocksure that there's no evidence to be found of him having carried out any crimes against Madeleine, here's a little reminder of part of the BKA appeal from June 2020.

"Furthermore, there is reason to assume that, in addition to the perpetrator himself, there are other people who have specific knowledge of the possible course of events and, if applicable, where the corpse was deposited. We expressly ask these people to get in touch and share their knowledge."
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#detailinformationen132470

After 3 years of police investigations involving many officers (not a small team of documentary makers researching for a few months) BKA must have had a good reason to make that assumption.

Brueckner has written several letters to different people citing reasons why the BKA have got it wrong in the various crimes he's been accused/convicted of. It's almost like he doesn't trust Schwenn & Fulscher to help prove his innocence in the Madeleine case.

[Wonderfulspam]

While Brueckner may be cocksure that there's no evidence to be found of him having carried out any crimes against Madeleine, here's a little reminder of part of the BKA appeal from June 2020.

"Furthermore, there is reason to assume that, in addition to the perpetrator himself, there are other people who have specific knowledge of the possible course of events and, if applicable, where the corpse was deposited. We expressly ask these people to get in touch and share their knowledge."
https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherheit/Fahndungen/Personen/BekanntePersonen/43_Jaehriger_Deutscher_TV/Sachverhalt.html?nn=26874#detailinformationen132470

After 3 years of police investigations involving many officers (not a small team of documentary makers researching for a few months) BKA must have had a good reason to make that assumption.

Brueckner has written several letters to different people citing reasons why the BKA have got it wrong in the various crimes he's been accused/convicted of. It's almost like he doesn't trust Schwenn & Fulscher to help prove his innocence in the Madeleine case.

Why does he say 'if applicable' prior to 'where the corpse was deposited'?

Is he unsure Maddie is actually dead?

[misty]

Why does he say 'if applicable' prior to 'where the corpse was deposited'?

Is he unsure Maddie is actually dead?

I think BKA are 99% sure Madeleine is dead.
Events between abduction & murder have yet to be clarified and who else may have been involved imo.

[Wonderfulspam]

I think BKA are 99% sure Madeleine is dead.
Events between abduction & murder have yet to be clarified and who else may have been involved imo.

Not according to Wolters, he said there's no hope she is alive, having previously said there was still a little bit of hope.

Cover both bases, just in case.

[misty]

Not according to Wolters, he said there's no hope she is alive, having previously said there was still a little bit of hope.

Cover both bases, just in case.

One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...

Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.

[Wonderfulspam]

One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...

Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.

So some witness popped up after the appeal & said yes, Brueckner definitely murdered Maddie.

I see.

I wonder why they never came forward 15 years ago?

[Brietta]

One wonders why people don't believe Grime was covering both bases with his interpretation of Eddie's alerts but that's for another thread...

Wolters comments regarding "no hope" were made some time after the appeal.

I find it amazing that there appears to be a culture of "flies stuck in aspic" with regard to the progression of Madeleine McCann's investigation and the changes made as fresh information is collated over the years!