Brueckner charged with sexual offences in cases unrelated to Madeleine

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm not disputing the words but your interpretation. It could mean that people react emotively to his crimes and therefore have no problem accepting he did something even when there doesn't seem to be evidence linking him to the scene. I'd say it's very hard to get meaning and context from so few words and be sure. It's a bit like Wolters 'concrete evidence'. It's well open to interpretation, especially with it being translated in the first place.

It’s very obvious what it means, but if you want to enter into a semantic argument about well I’m not playing that game.  Amaral clearly feels that because of Bruckner’s profile he fits the stereotype of a child abductor.  He wouldn’t be the perfect patsy if for example he was wheelchair bound, had lost both his legs saving children from a burning orphanage, had no previous criminal convictions and everyone who knew him only had positive things to say about him.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That was my train of thought. Didn't Wolters say something about being surprised how seriously the British public took his saying Madeliene was dead?  That would point to him wanting exposure to get more info on his suspect for other crimes IMO.  I seem to remember the Germans made a bit of a mess early on and CB was released early at some point, I think this was a potential embarrassing situation they wanted to rectify be getting as much on him as possible.

Don’t you think it will be very much more embarrassing for them if they never actually press charges on Brückner, after making all those pronouncements?

[Gertrude]

Don’t you think it will be very much more embarrassing for them if they never actually press charges on Brückner, after making all those pronouncements?

Maybe it will. The pronouncements seem very unusual. As far as I'm aware, the prosecutors in Germany have a legal obligation to investigate a crime if they are informed of one, he just seems to be doing his job but maybe there have been some miscalculations regarding the pronouncements and subsequent publicity generated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Maybe it will. The pronouncements seem very unusual. As far as I'm aware, the prosecutors in Germany have a legal obligation to investigate a crime if they are informed of one, he just seems to be doing his job but maybe there have been some miscalculations regarding the pronouncements and subsequent publicity generated.

You’d think if he’d made such serious miscalculations he’d be removed from the case wouldn’t you?

[Gertrude]

You’d think if he’d made such serious miscalculations he’d be removed from the case wouldn’t you?

You said serious, I didn't. It might be worth it to them if they get CB convicted of a number of other crimes. I don't think anyone could deny that Wolter has said things in the media which seem contradictory at various points. I don't think we'll find out exactly why he's followed that strategy until CB is either charged or the investigation ends.

[kizzy]

Just tell me this - are you privy to all the evidence the Germans have collected on CB wrt Madeleine’s case?

What evidence is that...............are you privy to it - to know it even exists.

[kizzy]

That was my train of thought. Didn't Wolters say something about being surprised how seriously the British public took his saying Madeliene was dead?  That would point to him wanting exposure to get more info on his suspect for other crimes IMO.  I seem to remember the Germans made a bit of a mess early on and CB was released early at some point, I think this was a potential embarrassing situation they wanted to rectify be getting as much on him as possible.

IMO, I have always thought the most exposure to put CB out there in the public domain ...was to link him with Maddie.

Seemed it worked, to get info on other cases.

[kizzy]

Don’t you think it will be very much more embarrassing for them if they never actually press charges on Brückner, after making all those pronouncements?

Yes, but will he care.....if he got what he wanted anyway

[Vertigo Swirl]

What evidence is that...............are you privy to it - to know it even exists.

You claimed to know it doesn’t.  The only way you can know that is if you have been fully briefed by the German investigation- have you?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You said serious, I didn't. It might be worth it to them if they get CB convicted of a number of other crimes. I don't think anyone could deny that Wolter has said things in the media which seem contradictory at various points. I don't think we'll find out exactly why he's followed that strategy until CB is either charged or the investigation ends.

Publicly accusing someone (falsely) of abduction and murder is serious isn’t it?  What would you call it, having a laugh?

[Eleanor]

Some people will never be happy.  Brueckner has finally been charged of offences the like of which he has already been convicted but The BKA are still out to stitch up an innocent man.  Heaven help us if he is convicted again.

[Mr Gray]

I'm not disputing the words but your interpretation. It could mean that people react emotively to his crimes and therefore have no problem accepting he did something even when there doesn't seem to be evidence linking him to the scene. I'd say it's very hard to get meaning and context from so few words and be sure. It's a bit like Wolters 'concrete evidence'. It's well open to interpretation, especially with it being translated in the first place.

The evidence that convinces the Germans 100 % that CB murdered Maddie.... Is that open to interpretation too

[Brietta]

That was my train of thought. Didn't Wolters say something about being surprised how seriously the British public took his saying Madeliene was dead?  That would point to him wanting exposure to get more info on his suspect for other crimes IMO.  I seem to remember the Germans made a bit of a mess early on and CB was released early at some point, I think this was a potential embarrassing situation they wanted to rectify be getting as much on him as possible.

Getting "as much on him as possible" only works if there is something there to be got.  It seems there was.  Which has resulted in him being indicted in relation to horrendous sexual crimes.

[Brietta]

I'm not disputing the words but your interpretation. It could mean that people react emotively to his crimes and therefore have no problem accepting he did something even when there doesn't seem to be evidence linking him to the scene. I'd say it's very hard to get meaning and context from so few words and be sure. It's a bit like Wolters 'concrete evidence'. It's well open to interpretation, especially with it being translated in the first place.

Semantics 😁

Amaral interfered with the German investigation when he lied about the appearance of Brueckner's vehicle in 2007.

Amaral also lied about patsy Brueckner's appearance in 2007.

Can you explain why Amaral and his sceptic supporters are so eager to interfere with and destroy the German case to allow Brueckner, an already convicted sexual predator who is facing more charges for heinous sexual crimes, his freedom to walk the streets among us.

[Brietta]

You said serious, I didn't. It might be worth it to them if they get CB convicted of a number of other crimes. I don't think anyone could deny that Wolter has said things in the media which seem contradictory at various points. I don't think we'll find out exactly why he's followed that strategy until CB is either charged or the investigation ends.

Quite an extraordinary sentiment in that post. 

"It might be worth it to them if they get CB convicted of a number of other crimes."

Are you really suggesting Brueckner is being set up (patsy) because that is what that sentence is saying loud and clear to me.

If there is evidence which allows Brueckner to be charged with criminal offences that is no one's fault but Brueckner's.

If the police "get" Brueckner convicted of crimes they will be carrying out their duty of maintaining law and order and protecting the public.