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

[Wonderfulspam]

I've got some decent snake oil on sale right now, I can't tell you all the ingredients, but you must believe me when I say it cures all ailments, 100%.

[Brietta]

There is NO evidence Christian Bruckner ever abducted anyone let alone a child so let's keep to the facts please.

In my opinion, HCW is merely grasping at ever decreasing straws and time is running out. In the not very distant future he will have to put up or shut up.

The fact that he has never been able to share any information with Madeleine's parents is in my view a clear indication that he doesn't have anything of significance.

There is evidence which proved that Christian Brueckner carried out a brutal rape in a villa in close proximity to the McCann holiday apartment.
It was found when it was looked for and when the police had a suspect against whom it was checked many years down the line.

I think H C Wolters is in possession of the evidence he claims to have quite simply because in its absence it would not have been possible to designate Brueckner as the prime suspect in a child murder.
He could not have been treated as such without supporting evidence. 
Wolters is not a one man band pursuing his own vendetta here.  He is an official who is following the evidence the BKA have presented to him as head of the chain and he has acted accordingly.

I think he will “put up” when the time is right and it suits him to do so. 

Maybe he is working through things chronologically starting with the Hazel Behan case and the sexual assault on the child on the beach.

Without supporting evidence the suspicion against him cannot be sustained as proven by cases in which he was a suspect or being checked for elimination purposes being shelved through lack of evidence.

 I don’t think it is possible to know what information Kate and Gerry McCann have been given but I  cannot bear to think of what they and their family are going through at this stage in the German inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance.

[Mr Gray]

The Greek police said he confessed. Presumeably they had a written confession in their possession. Wolters said his suspect was guilty but offered no evidence at all to back up his statement.

The Greek police said he confessed..you seem to believe them. Why.. You are now speculating he made a written
statement.. What if he now says he was pressured into it. Can he receive a fair trial

[Brietta]

The Greek police said he confessed. Presumeably they had a written confession in their possession. Wolters said his suspect was guilty but offered no evidence at all to back up his statement.

Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?

I really do not think so.  In fact I think such a suggestion risible.

[Mr Gray]

This is a new one, you're wrong on all counts this time. Usually it's only about 70%

See if you can point out a point im wrong on... Put up or shut up as they say.

CB has made a criminal complaint.. Not started libel proceedings. It remains to be seen if the police investigate it

[The General]

Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?

I really do not think so.  In fact I think such a suggestion risible.

You mean like identifying a prime suspect who's already in custody, releasing his phone number, his whereabouts, his criminal history, declaring he absolutely is guilty and briefing the press on just about anything they ask about him?
Dear God, have a word with yourself, then pop back and edit your post.

[Wonderfulspam]

Is it usual for police to release highly confidential information regarding serious crime which is still under very active investigation?

I really do not think so.  In fact I think such a suggestion risible.

Well, if they had absolute proof Madeleine was murdered, if anyone deserves to see such it would be her parents, rather than letting them live in false hope.

Maybe it's standard police procedure to let families believe a relative could still be alive when there's absolute evidence they are in fact dead.

I don't know, I'm neither a policeman, nor have I ever staged an abduction.

[Mr Gray]

You mean like identifying a prime suspect who's already in custody, releasing his phone number, his whereabouts, his criminal history, declaring he absolutely is guilty and briefing the press on just about anything they ask about him?
Dear God, have a word with yourself, then pop back and edit your post.

Afaiaa... The police have licence to release any information as long as its to help the enquiry. If CB feels he's being unfairly treated he can make a criminal complaint

[The General]

See if you can point out a point im wrong on... Put up or shut up as they say.

OK, give me a few minutes to trawl back through a certain person's posts for a little cracker of a libel example.
Be warned though, bringing this back in to the light might compromise the forum member in the future.

[The General]

Afaiaa... The police have licence to release any information as long as its to help the enquiry. If CB feels he's being unfairly treated he can make a criminal complaint

You're wrong again. As usual. Unless you can show me this carte blanche that runs roughshod across privacy laws.
As for your 2nd point, so they'll happily potentially jeopardise the judicial process to secure a conviction, only for that conviction to be brought in to question legally? Like the Guildford 4? I'm liking your 70's style of judiciary.

[The General]

Well, if they had absolute proof Madeleine was murdered, if anyone deserves to see such it would be her parents, rather than letting them live in false hope.

Maybe it's standard police procedure to let families believe a relative could still be alive when there's absolute evidence they are in fact dead.

I don't know, I'm neither a policeman, nor have I ever staged an abduction.

Seems like they're cherry picking what to disclose. 'Yeh, your daughter's dead, but we don't know how, and we're not sure, but she's deffo dead'. In German. In fact, that was the jist of the letter they didn't get.

[Mr Gray]

You're wrong again. As usual. Unless you can show me this carte blanche that runs roughshod across privacy laws.
As for your 2nd point, so they'll happily potentially jeopardise the judicial process to secure a conviction, only for that conviction to be brought in to question legally? Like the Guildford 4? I'm liking your 70's style of judiciary.

The Guildford 4 case was appealed on the basis the prosecution suppressed evidence of innocence

A conviction will be decided by the evidence...
You accuse me if being wrong again without pointing out where I was wrong in the first place. I'm right in just about everything I say... You provided nothing to counter that claim

Your posts are just flowery waffle.. No substance. If you think Im wrong on any point... Put up or shut up

[The General]

The Guildford 4 case was appealed on the basis the prosecution suppressed evidence of innocence

A conviction will be decided by the evidence...
You accuse me if being wrong again without pointing out where I was wrong in the first place. I'm right in just about everything I say... You provided nothing to counter that claim

Your posts are just flowery waffle.. No substance. If you think Im wrong on any point... Put up or shut up

...still wrong, but you'll carry on anyway.
As I stated, I'm discussing the disregard for overarching judicial process, an abstraction you simply can't comprehend, which you shouldn't be too concerned about as lateral thinking isn't within the capability of everyone.
So the example is valid; drive a horse and cart through the process, in whichever form you choose, secure a conviction, then wait for the appeal process - or not - to iron out the wrinkles, by which time all of the protagonists are either retired or dead. Or both.
But crack on, DAVEL, I'm sure Google will continue to serve you well.

[Brietta]

...still wrong, but you'll carry on anyway.
As I stated, I'm discussing the disregard for overarching judicial process, an abstraction you simply can't comprehend, which you shouldn't be too concerned about as lateral thinking isn't within the capability of everyone.
So the example is valid; drive a horse and cart through the process, in whichever form you choose, secure a conviction, then wait for the appeal process - or not - to iron out the wrinkles, by which time all of the protagonists are either retired or dead. Or both.
But crack on, DAVEL, I'm sure Google will continue to serve you well.

If you feel the necessity to discuss a topic - why not open an appropriate thread.  In the intervening period this thread topic is "The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect"

Thank you for your future cooperation in adhering to the topic of current threads.

[barrier]

I do wonder if this has been the intention all along.
Wolters had his suspicions and facilitated the outing and media assassination of Brueckner because he was lacking the essential evidence.

He could have brought the details of the phone call to the public's attention without  identifying the suspect in any way by just saying that it was a 'German National' who received the  call in PDL.

As it is Wolters can now  say that they couldn't bring him to trial, but have no doubt of his guilt and because of media speculation and a string of dubious documentaries, people will believe that Brueckner is the man - even if he isn't.

Mission accomplished as they say.


IMO.

The legend is writ.