New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[kizzy]

if you think a ping is all he has you are dreaming. From what he has said he has

A photo showing abuse but not the death of MM ...and not showing CB. He doeswnt know exactly how she died after the abuse but from what he has seen she would not have survived.

All my conclusions are based on live video of wolters speakin.

Do you have a direct quote for him saying he has no idea how MM died...you dont..its paraphrased and therefore may well not be accurate

All my conclusions are based on live video of wolters speakin.

IMO that is all you do have D.....doesnt mean to say anything will come of his speech [and how long ago was that]

[Mr Gray]

All my conclusions are based on live video of wolters speakin.

IMO that is all you do have D.....doesnt mean to say anything will come of his speech [and how long ago was that]

I've explained everything but I'm not that brilliant that I can help blind people see.  I will be proved right... Everything based on evidence

[Venturi Swirl]

What you are proposing happened is off the scale silly IMO

So is your post VS - You dont know what happened - an as for wolt.,,seems a ping is all he has.

Mr Wolters now says they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking 44-year-old Brueckner to the alleged murder.

In a direct message to the McCanns he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter.”

Why is my post silly?  I am expressing my opinion that the theory that Bruckner found Madeleine's corpse and photographed it is silly - if you think it's a sensible theory then that's your problem, but my post is not silly.  FACT. 

[Venturi Swirl]

What would it prove if it was him , other than showing he was in the general area at that time ?

It would prove opportunity existed.

[barrier]

They probably have their plus and minus points in equal measure.

It might depend on how strong is the case for Not Guilty.

Brückner will do himself no favours by refusing to speak if he gets charged.  That alone will be seen as veering towards Guilty.

Strangely Wolters seems to want to put his case before the british press rather than CB. How does the Bilge report the latest nonsense ?

[kizzy]

I've explained everything but I'm not that brilliant that I can help blind people see.  I will be proved right... Everything based on evidence

I'm not that brilliant that I can help blind people see.

Oh right as in...I see said the blind man to his deaf daughter.

You are no different to me D apart from -  you see what you see an i see what i see.

[Mr Gray]

I'm not that brilliant that I can help blind people see.

Oh right as in...I see said the blind man to his deaf daughter.

You are no different to me D apart from -  you see what you see an i see what i see.

I'm quite different... But you are blind to that too

[kizzy]

I'm quite different... But you are blind to that too

LOL ...how can I be ....I read your posts.

D you are no different unless you are privy to info that is not in the public domain ..other wise your no different to me a poster with opinion of what happened to Maddie.

[Brietta]

Please desist from personal insult - or expect your posts to be deleted.

[Mr Gray]

LOL ...how can I be ....I read your posts.

D you are no different unless you are privy to info that is not in the public domain ..other wise your no different to me a poster with opinion of what happened to Maddie.

I have to come clean... I'm not just an ordinary poster

[Mr Gray]

LOL ...how can I be ....I read your posts.

D you are no different unless you are privy to info that is not in the public domain ..other wise your no different to me a poster with opinion of what happened to Maddie.

There is lots in the public domain that many are not aware of.  Have you looked at the long list of ECHR cases Re articles 8 and 10

[kizzy]

I have to come clean... I'm not just an ordinary poster

No, your not I can see that by your post count.

[Eleanor]

Less of the insults please.

[faithlilly]

I was passing through WH Smith’s yesterday when my eye was caught by the tabloid headline that Wolter was sure that Brueckner was 100% guilty of Madeleine’s murder.

Any prosecutor worth his salt would know that this kind of briefing to the MSM could seriously jeopardise any future trial of Brueckner. The prejudicial effect of such a pronouncement can’t be underestimated and there is absolutely no way that Wolter wouldn’t have known that.

So why did he do it? Has he been seduced by the thrill of seeing his every word regurgitated on the front covers of the British tabloids or does he know that he will never have enough to charge Brueckner and it’s now a face saving exercise?

[Mr Gray]

I was passing through WH Smith’s yesterday when my eye was caught by the tabloid headline that Wolter was sure that Brueckner was 100% guilty of Madeleine’s murder.

Any prosecutor worth his salt would know that this kind of briefing to the MSM could seriously jeopardise any future trial of Brueckner. The prejudicial effect of such a pronouncement can’t be underestimated and there is absolutely no way that Wolter wouldn’t have known that.

So why did he do it? Has he been seduced by the thrill of seeing his every word regurgitated on the front covers of the British tabloids or does he know that he will never have enough to charge Brueckner and it’s now a face saving exercise?

You seem to think you are an expert on german Law. wolters has alraedy ansered this question