I suspect the thread will bomb because they won't be any cohesive arguments.
But here goes, the alleged confession to his mates, he might have been in Luz although the BKA cannot with any kind of conviction say he was there. He's alleged to have robbed apartments, the MO is not similar in so far as no other children were allegedly abducted.
I suspect the thread will bomb because they won't be any cohesive arguments.
But here goes, the alleged confession to his mates, he might have been in Luz although the BKA cannot with any kind of conviction say he was there. He's alleged to have robbed apartments, the MO is not similar in so far as no other children were allegedly abducted.
Yes, Brueckner is alleged to have confessed to Busching at a kite festival in spain 2008.
That's our first piece of evidence for the list.
Exhibit A - An alleged confession.
...............
Helge Busching says he is the man who gave Brueckner's name to British police in 2017, around the 10th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
Busching, 48, claims that Brueckner told him at a Spanish kite festival in 2008 that he was involved in Madeleine's abduction from Praia da Luz a year earlier.
Nine years later, after Busching was arrested for smuggling migrants in Greece, he said he wanted to speak to British police and was questioned by Madeleine detectives in Athens.
Busching's statement to police spoke of a 'German male person, whom I know by the name of Christian' and promised to 'talk in detail' about Brueckner's alleged connection to Madeleine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8720485/Witness-helped-launch-Madeleine-McCann-investigation-says-Christian-Brueckner-guilty.html
I agree the thread will bomb.
For starters - I have seen no member here attesting that "What evidence convinces forum members of Brueckner's guilt?"
Not a single solitary sausage.
Any one???
On the contrary Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence - unlike that of the McCann's - is respected.
Also the German prosecution have made it plain that they will not be releasing details of the evidence they hold against Brueckner until he is either charged or exonerated.
So there are no facts available - only speculation. + there are other threads on the board where exactly the same issues can be discussed and have been.
Yes, Brueckner is alleged to have confessed to Busching at a kite festival in spain 2008.
That's our first piece of evidence for the list.
Exhibit A - An alleged confession.
...............
Helge Busching says he is the man who gave Brueckner's name to British police in 2017, around the 10th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
Busching, 48, claims that Brueckner told him at a Spanish kite festival in 2008 that he was involved in Madeleine's abduction from Praia da Luz a year earlier.
Nine years later, after Busching was arrested for smuggling migrants in Greece, he said he wanted to speak to British police and was questioned by Madeleine detectives in Athens.
Busching's statement to police spoke of a 'German male person, whom I know by the name of Christian' and promised to 'talk in detail' about Brueckner's alleged connection to Madeleine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8720485/Witness-helped-launch-Madeleine-McCann-investigation-says-Christian-Brueckner-guilty.html
Is that evidence?
Or is it tabloid hearsay?
Yes, Brueckner is alleged to have confessed to Busching at a kite festival in spain 2008.
That's our first piece of evidence for the list.
Exhibit A - An alleged confession.
...............
Helge Busching says he is the man who gave Brueckner's name to British police in 2017, around the 10th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
Busching, 48, claims that Brueckner told him at a Spanish kite festival in 2008 that he was involved in Madeleine's abduction from Praia da Luz a year earlier.
Nine years later, after Busching was arrested for smuggling migrants in Greece, he said he wanted to speak to British police and was questioned by Madeleine detectives in Athens.
Busching's statement to police spoke of a 'German male person, whom I know by the name of Christian' and promised to 'talk in detail' about Brueckner's alleged connection to Madeleine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8720485/Witness-helped-launch-Madeleine-McCann-investigation-says-Christian-Brueckner-guilty.html
Thanks but if you're going to comment, could you try being a little more constructive.
I'd like to hear the evidence against Christian B, thankyou. You are, after all, quite convinced by it, so perhaps you could add something to the list?
Thanks but if you're going to comment, could you try being a little more constructive.
I'd like to hear the evidence against Christian B, thankyou. You are, after all, quite convinced by it, so perhaps you could add something to the list?
Wolters claims to have the only evidence against Bruckner and he ain't for sharing apparently, not even with the missing child's parents.
This entire alleged confession, even if true, could have been Bruckner's attempt to ingratiate himself with Busching. Bigging oneself up is a common theme among these lowlifes.
Wolters claims to have the only evidence against Bruckner in the form of conclusive proof but he ain't for sharing apparently, not even with the missing child's parents.
He is on record that he is not going to share material evidence with witnesses.
I think Madeleine's parents are mature and experienced enough to cope with that. The BKA is their best option for finding out what happened to Madeleine.
The BKA isn't trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, they're trying to find enough evidence to charge Brueckner.
The BKA isn't trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, they're trying to find enough evidence to charge Brueckner.
They already have enough evidence to charge, according to Wolters circa 2020. In this thread we should attempt to present all the known evidence, & discuss the possible unknowns. Wolters says that if we knew the evidence they have, we would be in no doubt.
The point is, no-one will know what evidence will be used against Brueckner in the law courts should his case come to trial.
Tabloid musings are just that - musings. Not evidence.
The point is, no-one will know what evidence will be used against Brueckner in the law courts should his case come to trial.
Tabloid musings are just that - musings. Not evidence.
Busching's testimony is & will be evidence.
The Undertakers testimony, along with the Skype chat may be too.
I think it's quite possible that Brueckner may have confessed & talked about MM to others.
Maybe online & in person.
I think bringing Brueckner to trial would have happened if it was possible.
All supposition.
You simply have no idea what evidence the BKA have. Nor do you have the slightest notion what evidence will be used when or if the case against Brueckner reaches the charging stage.
Give the guy a break. Innocent until proven guilty or unless your surname is McCann.
I think bringing Brueckner to trial would have happened if it was possible.
Weren't there supposed to have been photographs hidden in some bunker in Germany?
This is untrue. We know the evidence against Brueckner is concrete & utterly convincing & if we saw it we'd be in no doubt.
In this thread we can explore the possibilities. The knowns & unknowns.
I've given two examples of the known possible evidence so far. Two confessions.
Can you suggest any other forms or examples of concrete evidence the BKA might have?
No you can't!
The thread title specifies "The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner"
Anything else is speculation. And since the Germans have made it crystal clear they are not sharing - I don't think what you think is evidence or what you think isn't evidence comes into it.
The thread title is the The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner. Yes.
But if you read the opening post I ask a number of questions.
What is the known evidence?
What are the possible unknowns?
No-one on this forum can answer any of those questions. The BKA are playing their cards very close to the chest and are sharing evidence with no-one.
Until they lay or drop charges - the general public and even other investigators - won't know what evidence they are using.
Or if they really have anything of genuine substance.
I mean, there's no way to know Wolters was telling the truth, is there? That he wasn't exaggerating the strength of the evidence. But, we know that Brueckner won't be getting charged anytime in the foreseeable future, which rather suggests something about the evidence really doesn't it.
22 Apr 2022 Prosecutors in Portugal have officially named a German national Christian Brückner as an arguido, or suspect, in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/22/madeleine-mccann-case-what-does-christian-brueckner-arguido-status-mean
The Portuguese have no qualms about German efficiency in this investigation and trust it enough to make Brueckner an arguido on the strength of it.
So that tells you all about the evidence you need to know.
That it's enough for suspicion of a crime, but insufficient to prove it in a court of law.
The evidence the BKA have concerning the suspect Brueckner is confidential. And that is exactly as it should be.
22 Apr 2022 Prosecutors in Portugal have officially named a German national Christian Brückner as an arguido, or suspect, in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/22/madeleine-mccann-case-what-does-christian-brueckner-arguido-status-mean
The Portuguese have no qualms about German efficiency in this investigation and trust it enough to make Brueckner an arguido on the strength of it.
So that tells you all about the evidence you need to know.
Why do you think that? What do you think the rush is?
The Portuguese seem to scatter the arguido cards like confetti when it suits. How many have we had already with every one of them later being revoked?
How about justice for Madeleine & closure for her parents?
Isn't that important enough? And there I was thinking you cared about the McCanns.
It's all a bit weird if I'm honest. We have Wolters saying one thing and the McCanns then rubbishing it, same with Op Grange. Wolters claims Madeleine is dead while the parents and Grange promote optimism and deny that she is definitely deceased.
If it was your or my child wouldn't you want to know exactly what happened to her and especially so when the German Prosecutor's Office claims she is deceased. All very confusing for sure. *%87
If this were my child I'd have Wolters by the shirt & up against the wall, demanding to know what evidence of my precious child's fate he possessed.
The BKA isn't trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, they're trying to find enough evidence to charge Brueckner.The BKA knows what happened to Madeleine.
I totally agree but this isn't happening. Just doesn't add up imo.
The BKA knows what happened to Madeleine.
The Portuguese seem to scatter the arguido cards like confetti when it suits. How many have we had already with every one of them later being revoked?
I totally agree but this isn't happening. Just doesn't add up imo.Excuse me, but how do you know what is happening behind the scenes wrt to communications between the McCanns and HCW?
Excuse me, but how do you know what is happening behind the scenes wrt to communications between the McCanns and HCW?
The BKA knows what happened to Madeleine.
Not hard , she disappeared without leaving a trace to her whereabouts.
Perhaps we could have a show of hands from all supporters who are utterly convinced of CB’s guilt at this stage. Anybody?
Personally I’m 60 to 80% sure. Anyone 100%?
Let’s not forget that amongst some sceptics 60-80% sure = 100% sure, which perhaps explains why some of the less intelligent amongst them simply cannot comprehend that most supporters are not claiming to be certain beyond doubt that CB abducted and murdered Madeleine.
Oh well, best leave these poor fellows to their nonense spamming.
Let’s not forget that amongst some sceptics 60-80% sure = 100% sure, which perhaps explains why some of the less intelligent amongst them simply cannot comprehend that most supporters are not claiming to be certain beyond doubt that CB abducted and murdered Madeleine.
Oh well, best leave these poor fellows to their nonense spamming.
Spammy's Thread. Spammy's Rules. Hokay.
It's not my thread. Everyone is entitled to chime in whenever they please & list the evidence that convinces them of Brueckners guilt, or suggest what the concrete evidence against him could be.
Not getting many takers for that at the moment though, weirdly enough.
No, Thanks.
Let’s not forget that amongst some sceptics 60-80% sure = 100% sure, which perhaps explains why some of the less intelligent amongst them simply cannot comprehend that most supporters are not claiming to be certain beyond doubt that CB abducted and murdered Madeleine.
Oh well, best leave these poor fellows to their nonense spamming.
In rhe case of Mr Smith he explained why he was 60-80% sure that he saw Gerry McCann. Perhaps you could explain what your reasons are for being convinced?Did I say I was convinced? You, like your mate Spam, don’t seem to understand plain English very well.
Did I say I was convinced? You, like your mate Spam, don’t seem to understand plain English very well.
Interesting, isn't it. We are now all convinced that Brueckner done it, despite The Fact that we aren't.I thought you in particular had made it quite clear you weren’t wholly convinced. The problem is these people only see what they want to see.
And a new Myth is born.
Did I say I was convinced? You, like your mate Spam, don’t seem to understand plain English very well.
Interesting, isn't it. We are now all convinced that Brueckner done it, despite The Fact that we aren't.
And a new Myth is born.
What a conundrum, supporters are convinced that a stranger abducted Madeleine yet when one is presented on a platter doubts arrive to the veracity of the claim.
Are Grange doing anything at the moment? I assume that the 4 officers and their dog are still being funded by the taxpayer.
So you'll argue in Wolters' favour, but he hasn't managed to fully convince you.I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this? Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I bet you can't and won't.
What a conundrum, supporters are convinced that a stranger abducted Madeleine yet when one is presented on a platter doubts arrive to the veracity of the claim.There's no conundrum to anyone with half a brain cell. See if you can employ yours and work it out.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty has alway been my stance.
Interesting, isn't it. We are now all convinced that Brueckner done it, despite The Fact that we aren't.
And a new Myth is born.
I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this? Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I bet you can't and won't.
I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this? Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I bet you can't and won't.
I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this? Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I bet you can't and won't.
So you are prepared to accept that he is honest and deserves your trust, even though you have doubts. I prefer to stick with actions speak louder than words.
Because that's a right that belongs to the defendant?
Beyond reasonable doubt, that's what the prosecution has to aim for. If they were sure they could achieve that they would have charged their suspect. Announcing someone's guilt to the world but not charging them is disgraceful imo.
Beyond reasonable doubt, that's what the prosecution has to aim for. If they were sure they could achieve that they would have charged their suspect. Announcing someone's guilt to the world but not charging them is disgraceful imo.
In the Adrian Prout case,Brian Pixton of the SW complex case unit explains .
"The code of the crown prosecutors dictates we must have sufficient evidence for a good prospect of conviction before we charge a suspect.
In the Adrian Prout case,Brian Pixton of the SW complex case unit explains .
"The code of the crown prosecutors dictates we must have sufficient evidence for a good prospect of conviction before we charge a suspect.
So you are prepared to accept that he is honest and deserves your trust, even though you have doubts. I prefer to stick with actions speak louder than words.Why are you not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt? Why do you prefer to criticise him without being in full possession of the facts? Just curious. I know you will never give a straight answer.
As far as I can gather the German prosecutors not only have to satisfy themselves, they have to convince a judge too.Oh it looks like you have joined the club of those sceptics who enjoy accusing supporters of hoping that Madeleine was murdered by a paedophile. I think that is disgraceful, quite frankly - you should be ashamed of yourself.
It seems a few people are relying on hope instead of evidence (again). Not that Madeleine is alive and findable, but that she was murdered in 2007 by Brueckner.
In my opinion some people will support any theory at all so long as it doesn't involve those close to Madeleine.
Why are you not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt? Why do you prefer to criticise him without being in full possession of the facts? Just curious. I know you will never give a straight answer.
Accusing supporters of hoping Madeleine was murdered by a paedo is as inane as accusing Spam of hoping Madeleine was strangled to death by her father, or as stupid as accusing Faithlilly of hoping that Madeleine died after falling off the patio and being dumped like rubbish in a bin. Only a complete sicko would hope any of these happened so please stop making these idiotic claims, thanks.
The possible evidence thus far:
Exhibit A: Witness 1: Brueckner's confession to Busching.
Exhibit B: Witness 2: Brueckner's confession/online chat, with the undertaker.
I have another suggestion for possible evidence.
It's possible Brueckner's phone line could have tapped. There could be a covert recording of Brueckner discussing his involvement in Madeleine's abduction & murder.
Can anyone else suggest any other potential types of evidence that there could be against Brueckner?
Well I'll never give up my right to support murderers, rapists & paedophiles & hoping Madeleine was murdered by her parents, thankyou.
Now, let's get back to the topic at hand. The evidence against Christian Brueckner. There just isn't any. Nothing that will ever stand up in court anyway.
Which is why its not going anywhere near a court any time soon
Ahhh, but you don't know what evidence Wolters has!!!
You're welcome to hazard a guess & make suggestions as to what evidence Wolters might have though.
Please do, because no one else is. Even those who are convinced Wolters really has some. Strangely enough.
What is clear is that some people hope fervently that this case is never resolved so that they can go on accusing the parents forever, all the while knowing that the likelihood of them ever being charged is virtually non-existent.
No. It's called realism. Madeleine simply wasn't abducted. That's why the three expert investigative forces, armed as they are with all the concrete evidence, are completely unable to prove she ever was.
Anyway. Let's get back to the topic.
The evidence against Christian Brueckner. It's concrete apparently. But no one will suggest what it could possibly be.
Only Wolters says it is concrete but I don't believe a word he says. In fact if he had anything concrete linking Bruckner with Maddie's murder he would have been charged by now. The entire thing was nothing more than a ploy imo in an attempt to get someone to come forward with real information. It failed absymally of course which says much for Wolters credibly.And yet over two years later he is still in charge and hasn’t yet been demoted to the role of traffic cop as one of the trolls on here suggested some time ago. Funny that.
They can't even present a shred of credible evidence she ever was, let alone prove anything.
And yet over two years later he is still in charge and hasn’t yet been demoted to the role of traffic cop as one of the trolls on here suggested some time ago. Funny that.
And of course, I can state as fact that Madeleine wasn't abducted, because just the other day a certain Mod stated as fact that she was. You see. This is what's known as fairness. But then, the McCanns weren't very fair to Madeleine, so it's unsurprising their supporters don't play fair either really.
What is clear is that some people hope fervently that this case is never resolved so that they can go on accusing the parents forever, all the while knowing that the likelihood of them ever being charged is virtually non-existent.
He's a prosecutor, not a cop.tell that to the troll who claimed that was going to happen.
Suppose there's some logic in there somewhere *%87Let me know when you find it.
Never say never.It’s never going to happen. There, I said it.
Only Wolters says it is concrete but I don't believe a word he says. In fact if he had anything concrete linking Bruckner with Maddie's murder he would have been charged by now. The entire thing was nothing more than a ploy imo in an attempt to get someone to come forward with real information. It failed absymally of course which says much for Wolters credibly.
Why are you not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt? Why do you prefer to criticise him without being in full possession of the facts? Just curious. I know you will never give a straight answer.
In 2020 Wolters announced that Madeleine was dead and Brueckner did it. He hasn't, and, imo, can't prove the truth of his claim. Such statements shouldn't be made until they've been proved, in court, and the suspect convicted.
In 2020 Wolters announced that Madeleine was dead and Brueckner did it. He hasn't, and, imo, can't prove the truth of his claim. Such statements shouldn't be made until they've been proved, in court, and the suspect convicted.How would a prosecutor prosecute if he or she was not allowed to name their suspect and accuse them until after they were convicted?
How would a prosecutor prosecute if he or she was not allowed to name their suspect and accuse them until after they were convicted?
Has HCW broken German law?
I take it you don’t have a problem with ex-cops announcing who dunnit before it’s been proved in court, right?
In 2020 Wolters announced that Madeleine was dead and Brueckner did it. He hasn't, and, imo, can't prove the truth of his claim. Such statements shouldn't be made until they've been proved, in court, and the suspect convicted.Tell me why you are convinced HCW has already shared all the evidence he has against CB and is lying about having further evidence which has not been revealed.
Tell me why you are convinced HCW has already shared all the evidence he has against CB and is lying about having further evidence which has not been revealed.
How would a prosecutor prosecute if he or she was not allowed to name their suspect and accuse them until after they were convicted?
Has HCW broken German law?
I take it you don’t have a problem with ex-cops announcing who dunnit before it’s been proved in court, right?
You clearly don't understand why Amaral wasn't found to have libelled the McCanns. It wasn't because Portuguese justice was wrong. It wasn't because the Portuguese hoodwinked the ECHR. It was because Amaral didn't libel them.Please link to the ECHR judgement that states HCW has breached Brückner’s human rights, thanks.
Wolters has breached Brueckner's human rights, however. Not by naming him, not by saying he personally thinks he did it, but by saying, as a prosecutor, that Brueckner is guilty.
Tell me why you are convinced HCW has already shared all the evidence he has against CB and is lying about having further evidence which has not been revealed.And while you’re at it, you can answer this one as well.
And while you’re at it, you can answer this one as well.
You clearly don't understand why Amaral wasn't found to have libelled the McCanns. It wasn't because Portuguese justice was wrong. It wasn't because the Portuguese hoodwinked the ECHR. It was because Amaral didn't libel them.
Wolters has breached Brueckner's human rights, however. Not by naming him, not by saying he personally thinks he did it, but by saying, as a prosecutor, that Brueckner is guilty.
Or perhaps, VS, you could answer the question I pose at the beginning of the thread.
What possible evidence against Brueckner could there be?
Still no takers on this then?
Can't imagine why not.
He is on record that he is not going to share material evidence with witnesses.
I think Madeleine's parents are mature and experienced enough to cope with that. The BKA is their best option for finding out what happened to Madeleine.
It’s surprising then that they did nothing but whinge to the tabloids when the PJ wouldn’t share evidence with them.It’s not surprising at all when you actually flex your brain cells and put them to good use.
WIMP !I think PERVERT ! would have been more appropriate there Sadie @)(++(*
The hypocrisy is stunning.Presumably G-Unit would have no problem with HCW if he had kept quiet until the day after CB was no longer an official suspect and then resigned to publish a damning book about the rapist’s involvement in Madeleine’s abduction and murder, a book that went on to be an international bestseller. That would have been perfectly fair of course, and not harmed CB one jot.
It’s surprising then that they did nothing but whinge to the tabloids when the PJ wouldn’t share evidence with them.
Presumably G-Unit would have no problem with HCW if he had kept quiet until the day after CB was no longer an official suspect and then resigned to publish a damning book about the rapist’s involvement in Madeleine’s abduction and murder, a book that went on to be an international bestseller. That would have been perfectly fair of course, and not harmed CB one jot.
If it was written to defend his position and explained the details of the investigation why not?So you don’t think such a book might cause harm to its subject? Or to any future court action that might be brought against the subject? Why not?
Then they went to court to try to force Leicestershire Police to give them their evidence.
If it was written to defend his position and explained the details of the investigation why not?
But was it? I don't think so.I think revenge and money were the primary motivating factors.
This is not true. Just a distortion of what actually happened. Nothing new about that.
But was it? I don't think so.
Please do explain what is untrue in my post?
The McCanns asked The Court for information about the disappearance of their daughter. The Court granted this request.
There was No Force involved in this. You have just tried to distort The Facts yet again. Why do you do this?
I have stromg pointers against Bruckner, some mentioned before, but ignored by you.
There are others mentioned by Brietta and others, but ignored by you.
And there are others which I do not intend to share, but I have no actual proof. Therefore as far as I am concerned, Bruckner is innocent . but he is on the Back burner.
I think Bruckner is a driver, climber and enterer of buildings, He may have taken Madeleine up to Porto area, on the day after Madeleine was abducted, as witnessed by Carlos Moreira at the roadside cafe on the N10 (old main road up to Porto). I believe that he might later have transported her eastwards across Portugal, via interesting ...'sighting' towns to Barcelona and the Victiria Beckham look alike there BUT, I DONT KNOW for sure.
Therefore he is innocent. And if involved, he just works to the orders of the real perps. A paid handyman. IMO
I think that Wolters may well have been conned to give respite to the real perps. If I were the Police, I might be looking at some of his superiors to see their connections.
I believe that Madeleine is very much alive. Her outstanding bloodline is a treasure to someone
Everything above is from my opinion only, but based upon a great deal of deep research
Some interesting points there Sadie. Happy New Year 💖
The McCanns asked The Court for information about the disappearance of their daughter. The Court granted this request.
There was No Force involved in this. You have just tried to distort The Facts yet again. Why do you do this?
They tried to force Leicester Constabulary to release to them all the information relating to the case. Not only did LP refuse, but SOCO and the Attorney General intervened in support of them.
How did The McCanns try to force anyone? Did The McCanns get the information they asked for?
Stop talking bollix.
By authorising their solicitors to take LP to court to force them to comply to their request for information.
I have stromg pointers against Bruckner, some mentioned before, but ignored by you.
There are others mentioned by Brietta and others, but ignored by you.
And there are others which I do not intend to share, but I have no actual proof. Therefore as far as I am concerned, Bruckner is innocent . but he is on the Back burner.
I think Bruckner is a driver, climber and enterer of buildings, He may have taken Madeleine up to Porto area, on the day after Madeleine was abducted, as witnessed by Carlos Moreira at the roadside cafe on the N10 (old main road up to Porto). I believe that he might later have transported her eastwards across Portugal, via interesting ...'sighting' towns to Barcelona and the Victiria Beckham look alike there BUT, I DONT KNOW for sure.
Therefore he is innocent. And if involved, he just works to the orders of the real perps. A paid handyman. IMO
I think that Wolters may well have been conned to give respite to the real perps. If I were the Police, I might be looking at some of his superiors to see their connections.
I believe that Madeleine is very much alive. Her outstanding bloodline is a treasure to someone
Everything above is from my opinion only, but based upon a great deal of deep research
Then they went to court to try to force Leicestershire Police to give them their evidence.
The McCanns asked The Court for information about the disappearance of their daughter. The Court granted this request.
There was No Force involved in this. You have just tried to distort The Facts yet again. Why do you do this?
It would be almost impossible to find a suspect who ticks all the boxes in the way Brueckner does. But having the 'perfect' profile does not a murderer make him.
It will take the evidence to do that.
In the interim - his legal team pretty much have their hands full dealing with the five serious cases they are dealing with on his behalf.
Aggravated rapes are not frivolous accusations - nor are sexually motivated attacks on children.
Did The McCanns get the information?
Yes, Brueckner is a monster. But the scary thing is, there are actually people worse than him. He's like a saint compared to Damien Bendall.
I can think of no lexicon of saints which includes rapists and child molesters among its numbers and I think the degrees in which you determine sainthood are equally perverse.
No. The original order was changed too so it couldn't be used to try to force the police to hand over confidential police evidence again.
Well, he didn't rape any of his victims while they were dying from hammer inflicted head injuries anyway.
He's evil, but not that evil.
You do not know what Brueckner did or what he didn't do. Quite simply - you have not seen the evidence!
Your puerile attempts to "shock" just cannot compensate for your ignorance and do nothing but bring the forum into disrepute - which is probably your intention.
Right.
So, back to my original question, the evidence against Christian Brueckner. Can you suggest what possible evidence against him there might be in the Madeleine McCann murder case?
I've asked this question repeatedly, yet I seem to be the only member giving any suggestions.
The rest of you seem more interested in slagging each other off at the moment.
I know I am right. But thank you for your acknowledgement.
Now please bear in mind the thread topic The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner
You clearly don't understand why Amaral wasn't found to have libelled the McCanns. It wasn't because Portuguese justice was wrong. It wasn't because the Portuguese hoodwinked the ECHR. It was because Amaral didn't libel them.
Wolters has breached Brueckner's human rights, however. Not by naming him, not by saying he personally thinks he did it, but by saying, as a prosecutor, that Brueckner is guilty.
When a troll invites you to speculate you can be sure he only does so in order to mock and deride. Don’t feed him please.
“Wolters has breached Brueckner's human rights, however. Not by naming him, not by saying he personally thinks he did it, but by saying, as a prosecutor, that Brueckner is guilty”.
Has Wolters used the word ‘guilty’?
No, but he has called Brueckner a murderer. Which means the same thing.
Unless Wolters meant he was an innocent murderer.
Yes, that was probably it.
He was quite clear;It’s an opinion not a statement of fact.
“We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/04/some-new-evidence-found-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner
It’s an opinion not a statement of fact.
Some interesting points there Sadie. Happy New Year 💖
No, but he has called Brueckner a murderer. Which means the same thing.No, his guilt will be determined in a court of law. Not by Wolters.
Unless Wolters meant he was an innocent murderer.
Yes, that was probably it.
This post is an admission of defeat on your part. None of the supporters have come up with any sensible suggestions for what the concrete evidence against Brueckner could possibly be. Even those convinced there really is some.
The reason for this is obvious. When tested, the concrete evidence collapses into rubble. It consists of nothing more than hope & hot air coming from Wolters mouth.
No wonder it's never going to make it anywhere near a court room.
Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.
It maybe totally unrelated to the Madeleine case.Yes, I realise that. But eventually in Madeleine’s case.
Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.
Yes, I realise that. But eventually in Madeleine’s case.
Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.
Thanks Anthro, but I already have Busching's testimony on my list of possibilities.
Possible evidence against Brueckner:
Buschings Testimony, a confession?
The Undertaker's Testimony, Skype Chat, a confession?
A wire tapped recording with Brueckner discussing involvement in Madeleine's abduction?
A video or photo of a child?
A diary detailing his crime?
..................
Members are welcome to suggest any other forms of evidence there could be, against CB.
There are others that no-one has noticed but I am being mean and not sharing.
Probably better to keep my powder dry anyway
Yes. The potential evidence against Brueckner is best kept a secret.
Much like the actual evidence. No one gets to see it.
Not the MET, nor Brueckners's lawyers, not even a judge or Madeleine's parents.
Only Wolters gets to see the concrete evidence. Good for him. But keeping it a secret won't be securing a conviction against Brueckner any time.
I'm sure he must realise that, but supporters are incredibly slow at catching on.
Sigh!
How many times do I have to explain to you!!
Madeleine's investigation is a live and active police investigation.
Evidence will not be shared with internet sleuths.
Or judges.
Or judges.
Oe even other police forces/ OG don't seem to think Madeleine is dead & are treating it as missing person.
....& Madeleine's parents haven't given up hope. Even though there's concrete evidence she was murdered by Brueckner. Yeah, there's something doesn't quite tally up about that.
But never mind, it's probably not important. Can we complain about Amaral & dreadlocks instead? That way we won't have to face up to reality.
Maybe we ought book 10cc and have a Dreadlock holiday.
Anyway. Back to the possible evidence against CB:
Buschings testimony
The Undertakers testimony
Web chat
Phone tap recordings
Video or photographic evidence
A diary documenting crimes
..........
Anyone care to add to this list of possibilities?
I don't know - and to be honest I really do not care - but there seems to be more than a co-incidence between our Spammer's fixation with "CONCRETE EVIDENCE" and the rest of the sceptic lexicon.
Maddie case: "They seem not yet to be very sure about concrete evidence"
SIC News
04.06.2020
Carlos Carmo, former coordinator of the Judicial Police, analyzes the new developments in the investigation.
The former inspector of the JUDICIARY considers that the British police work with a budget that allows to pay informants and that, in this way, "from time to time appear some suspects", but that there seems to be no certainty as to concrete evidence regarding the German man considered a formal suspect.
https://sicnoticias.pt/especiais/caso-maddie---10-anos/2020-06-03-Caso-Maddie-Parecem-nao-estar-ainda-bem-seguros-relativamente-a-provas-concretas
Video Transcript:
CC – We just recently had the anniversary marking the disappearance of Maddie McCann. Over the years, occasionally some suspects emerge, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the English police works with quite a high financial budget, what I mean by this is that it is possible to use informants, to pay to informants, to see if the police can gather criminal intelligence. Therefore, I would not be surprised that the case, this case of the German man, that is detained, in jail, is also a case stemming from intelligence collected by the BKA [German Police acronym for Bundeskriminalamt]. However, we do not know what the reliability of that information is; note that the communiqué of the German police is broad, but simultaneously also looks to grasp at something more, it speaks of vehicles, two vehicles, speaks of the stay of this individual in the area of Portimão. So, they do not seem to be very sure about concrete evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
RP – Carlos do Carmo, thank you so much for coming to the night edition with your views about this situation. Have a very good night.
// Translation by J.M. for the Textusa sisters //
*****
Comment from the blog:
A huge thank you to Joana!
We would like to highlight the date of this interview: June 4. This was on the next day after this story broke out on the evening of June 3.
...
But Helge Busching represents a real lost chance in solving Madeleine's case years before he contacted Operation Grange from Greece.
Snip
Greek media reported this summer that their police said he wanted to speak to British cops. Grange detectives flew to Athens to question Busching in 2017.
According to an internal Greek police report, Busching’s information was described as “given voluntarily and without monetary or other consideration”.
It added that it had been “cross-checked and is considered a reliable source”. It also revealed how Busching had tried to report his concerns to the Portuguese police but had been fobbed off.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12638463/witness-mccann-guilty-christian-b/
Busching and Brueckner were at a kite festival in Spain when Brueckner confessed his involvement. This was in 2008 by which time Madeleine had been written off by the Portuguese police and Busching "fobbed off" by them when he tried to report what he knew.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=66epd37tf69m75lg106t4ikho4&topic=12454.msg696046#msg696046
You're the PJ. It's May 4th 2007. The phone is ringing off the hook with every sighting of Maddie from Luz to Lapland. Psychics are calling with all their helpful information. The Tapas 7 are all pointing the finger towards Jane Tanner's sighting of a man carrying Maddie toward Murat's house.
My question.
How many officers should have been sent directly to the houses of every known sex offender within a 50 mile radius of apartment 5a? And at that time, what good reason was there to suspect that Christian Brueckner, specifically, might have abducted Maddie?
I agree, some people just don't realise that the police have more to do than to pursue ever single missing kid report with instant vigour.
In Maddie's case, it had gone midnight and a report was received that a kid had gone missing. Kids go missing all the time in holiday resorts and are usually found unharmed nearby reasonably quickly.
Nobody really expected a mammoth manhunt to immediately swing into action with roadblocks everywhere.
For something to be found it has to be looked for.
I am surprised at your support of the Portuguese police and the ignorance they displayed of the protocols involved in a missing child investigation.
What do you know of the Portuguese protocols Brietta?
The Portuguese Police did all they could reasonably have done the night Maddie disappeared. They were not to blame for the child's disappearance, that lies squarely with the inept parents.
What do you know of the Portuguese protocols Brietta?
The Portuguese Police did all they could reasonably have done the night Maddie disappeared. They were not to blame for the child's disappearance, that lies squarely with the inept parents.
The GNR began to search for the child immediately, including off-duty officers who heard about what had happened and turned up to help.
What do you know of the Portuguese protocols Brietta?
The Portuguese Police did all they could reasonably have done the night Maddie disappeared. They were not to blame for the child's disappearance, that lies squarely with the inept parents.
Note the date on the following media report bearing in mind that Madeleine vanished on 3 May 2007.
Police 'winding down' Madeleine search
Matt Weaver and Esther Addley in Praia da Luz
Thu 10 May 2007
The search for the missing British toddler Madeleine McCann is coming to an end, Portuguese police said tonight.
The Policia Judiciaria (PJ) said tonight that the search had not yet been called off, but admitted it was being wound down.
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa said that a 125 square mile area had been searched, with each area covered more than once by search and rescue and dog teams, and by more than one search team.
"The area that they covered until now, and all the places that have been checked, the results are zero," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/10/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Note the date on the following media report bearing in mind that Madeleine vanished on 3 May 2007.
Police 'winding down' Madeleine search
Matt Weaver and Esther Addley in Praia da Luz
Thu 10 May 2007
The search for the missing British toddler Madeleine McCann is coming to an end, Portuguese police said tonight.
The Policia Judiciaria (PJ) said tonight that the search had not yet been called off, but admitted it was being wound down.
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa said that a 125 square mile area had been searched, with each area covered more than once by search and rescue and dog teams, and by more than one search team.
"The area that they covered until now, and all the places that have been checked, the results are zero," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/10/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Normal procedure in the circumstances to wind down an active search where no witnesses have come forward. Winding down the actual search on the ground though is a separate matter from the actual investigation which continued.
Normal procedure in the circumstances to wind down an active search where no witnesses have come forward. Winding down the actual search on the ground though is a separate matter from the actual investigation which continued.
This group consisted of no-one who had any experience with working on behalf of exploited and/or missing children.
There were experts based in Porto, I believe, who were never called in. And I think the CEOP assistance shipped in from Britain was less than graciously received.
I think that quite simply - they were out of their depth and too arrogant to acknowledge it.
That situation was rectified when Amaral was sacked and replaced by Rebelo who had worked the Casa Pia investigation.
But by that time the golden hours were long since gone along with Madeleine and whoever had taken her.
I cannot recall hearing of the search for a missing child being wound down a week after the disappearance.
At the libel trial Ricardo Paiva testified that even when the case had been archived due to lack of evidence against either the McCanns, or any abductor, the PJ were still conducting investigations when any new information came in.
So he did.
But did you miss the bit where he told the court all the information sent to him had been added to his files marked "NOT RELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY".
Whereupon the trial judge issued the instruction for Paiva's files to be given to the McCann lawyers. The information contained was described as "HEARTBREAKING!" when checked as it should have been in the first instance.
God's sake, not The Golden Hours again! There was a Golden Forty Five minutes already lost because neither of Madeleine's parents bothered to pick up their phones & a call the police in the first place. You always fail to mention that. So come on Brietta, you're the coordinator, it's 12:30am May 4th. What do you?According to him the coordinator went off and tucked himself under the covers and awakened full of resolve that he had all the answers to the case in the appropriate pigeonholes.
According to him the coordinator went off and tucked himself under the covers and awakened full of resolve that he had all the answers to the case in the appropriate pigeonholes.
He didn't mention if he popped into HQ to be made an arguido that day in a torture case involving the mother of another missing child. But it was a pretty full time for him anyway.
All very interesting, but you didn't answer my question.
You're the Coordinator, how would you have handled things?
Don't be silly. I've told you what the actual coordinator actually did. He told you so 🤡
Normal procedure in the circumstances to wind down an active search where no witnesses have come forward. Winding down the actual search on the ground though is a separate matter from the actual investigation which continued.
I wonder if the Greek police failed to meet certain people's expectations too? The search for Ben Needham lasted about as long as the search for Madeleine.
The two cases ar a bit different aren't they?
Ben was wandering about on land which it seems didn't belong to the Needhams and where there was a big tractor type vehicle moving around earth moving..
Madeleine was tucked up in bed asleep in a property which to the casual observer appeared locked and was regularly checked.
~ The front door was single locked. The only entrance that was closed but unlocked was overlooked by The tapas group, who were only 50 metres away They would see anyone coming and going
~ There is evidence that the property was being watched.
~ There is fag end evidence that someone was overseeing the operation from the balcony immediately opposite
~ A man was seen hurrying away from the area carrying a little sleeping girl
The Greek Police should certainly have searched longer, but perhaps rumours were flying about the tractor and the Tractor Owner maybe having buried poor Ben alive ? .... and The police were thinking that this had happened? The tractor owner was a leading member of the community IIRC. Please correct me if I am wrong about him being a leading member of the community, so influential, but I think I am correct
Tragedy.
The parents insist that it was visible from the restaurant and that no one could have walked in without being
noticed.
But that's false, as we were easily able to verify. At night, with the surrounding vegetation and the opaque plastic tarpaulin that protects the dining room of the restaurant, visibility is nil: anybody could have got into theMcCanns' apartment without being noticed, particularly as most of the guests had their back to the apartment.
TOTL page 22
Exactly. A piece of cake in fact. Excepting of course that no one was expecting an abduction. Well, you don't, do you. Although most of us would nowadays, because it happened.
Exactly. A piece of cake in fact. Excepting of course that no one was expecting an abduction. Well, you don't, do you. Although most of us would nowadays, because it happened.
No ones produced a scintilla of evidence pointing to an abduction from 5a .
No ones produced a scintilla of evidence pointing to an abduction from 5a .
So far, No one has produced a scintilla of evidence to prove anything. Consequentially, your comment is Libellous Innuendo.
Have a care, if you please.
Against who ? any one who suggests CB is the alleged abductor ?
Against who ? any one who suggests CB is the alleged abductor ?
Libellous Innuendo against The McCanns.
Brueckner is not my problem, although I have never accused him of anything that has not already been proven.
Yes we know, you're only concerned about libel when it involves the McCanns. This is quite clear to anyone who visits the forum.
Exactly. A piece of cake in fact. Excepting of course that no one was expecting an abduction. Well, you don't, do you. Although most of us would nowadays, because it happened.
Abduction of Madeleine from her bed was assumed by Madeleine's parents. Other theories do exist.
These other theories are Libellous since there is No Proof that The McCanns harmed their daughter.
Well if there was proof, then it wouldn't be theory, would it.
Doesn't that go without saying?
These other theories are Libellous since there is No Proof that The McCanns harmed their daughter.
Exactly. A piece of cake in fact. Excepting of course that no one was expecting an abduction. Well, you don't, do you. Although most of us would nowadays, because it happened.
There is no excuse for complacency when on holiday. Parents must keep their guard up at all times.
Anyone could have sneaked into the McCann's holiday apartment that night completely unseen. In fact somebody did if one chooses to believe the abduction from the bedroom theory. Personally I still believe Madeleine was taken from the street outside after she escaped from the unsecured apartment via the patio door.
We know that Gerry McCann stood conversing with Jeremy Wilkins on the street below the patio steps a short time after checking on the children. Madeleine could well have been disturbed as he left the apartment and heard them chatting outside and decided to pursue for all we know.
The sad thing though is that we may never know what actually occurred or if Bruckner was involved at all to any extent.
I think the one thing we can be certain sure of is that even if Brueckner knows chapter and verse what happened to Madeleine he will never give up the power the knowledge would give him.
The only thing which will prevail against Brueckner is if the evidence there is against him is strong enough to charge him and get a conviction.
I think we would know about it by now if there was such evidence.
We know there is evidence against Brueckner or the Portuguese penal code would not have allowed him to be constituted Arguido.
What it is we have no idea, but having waited fifteen years for it I don't think it unreasonable to wait just a little longer.
We know there is evidence against Brueckner or the Portuguese penal code would not have allowed him to be constituted Arguido.
What it is we have no idea, but having waited fifteen years for it I don't think it unreasonable to wait just a little longer.
Is there any evidence showing this change in the Portuguese penal code?
Besides, it's incorrect to say we have no idea what the 'evidence' against Brueckner is.
We know it isn't dna, or forensics. So, it can only really be any number of the possibilities I've previously listed on this thread.
Is there any evidence showing this change in the Portuguese penal code?Please allow me to post a press report from the time which will enable you to ignore what actually happened in Portugal in 2007 yet again and ask exactly the same question next time the subject arises.
You mean you don't know about it? Why does this not surprise me?
The majority of members do know about this because it has been mentioned often enough on the forum - usually in response to Gunit's enquiry as the answer just is not taken on board. Tiresome behaviour to put it mildly!
The point is - this amendment to the law had nothing to do with the McCanns who are only an example of precisely the abuse which was inflicted on Portuguese citizens by the police as a matter of course requiring a change in the law to occur.
Brueckner and all others falling foul of the law have benefitted and the way in which the arguido status was used against the McCanns and others confirms the necessity of the reform - which means the Portuguese have firm knowledge of evidence against Brueckner as the law now requires.
Please allow me to post a press report from the time which will enable you to ignore what actually happened in Portugal in 2007 yet again and ask exactly the same question next time the subject arises.
Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'
By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz
05 December 2007
Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.
Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.
The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.
Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.
Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.
"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.
"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".
They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
No evidence or insufficient evidence to lay charges? According to Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General it was insufficient evidence. Judging by the lack of charges against Brueckner, history may be repeating itself.There was no evidence of sedation, there was no evidence of Madeleine’s accidental death in the apartment, there was no evidence that the parents hid the child’s body. I’d call that a complete lack of evidence of their involvement.
Please allow me to post a press report from the time which will enable you to ignore what actually happened in Portugal in 2007 yet again and ask exactly the same question next time the subject arises.
Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'
By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz
05 December 2007
Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.
Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.
The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.
Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.
Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.
"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.
"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".
They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
No evidence or insufficient evidence to lay charges? According to Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General it was insufficient evidence. Judging by the lack of charges against Brueckner, history may be repeating itself.
No evidence or insufficient evidence to lay charges? According to Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General it was insufficient evidence. Judging by the lack of charges against Brueckner, history may be repeating itself.
They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns
Yes, I'm not sure the McCanns would have agreed to that, for some unknown reason.
Anyway, if only they had, then perhaps the investigation could have been focused away from the McCanns & on to the abductor.
As the parents were the last known people to see MM alive they were, quite rightly, held under suspicion AND in Portugal they could have been held and charged with child neglect but they felt sorry for them high flying Doctors.
I read back on the case and I am still amazed at the Mccanns behavior.
Oh, wouldn't it be something if the evidence was that Bruk found MM wandering outside crying for her mummie and snatched her.... would be interesting to hear the 'parents' explanation.
Your ignorance is really something!
Don't you remember the rogatory interviews that Rebelo was forced to leave abruptly to get back to sort out undisciplined police conduct in Portugal.
When the cat's away - the mice will play. And that is precisely what they did.
According to the Olive Press half a fingerprint belonging to Brueckner has been in the possession of German police since 2017. It connects him to the rape of an Irish woman in 2004. It was uploaded 'to a computer', apparently.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/24/exclusive-explosive-fingerprint-clue-as-madeleine-mccann-suspect-faces-three-new-charges/
I wonder if the PJ treated this half a fingerprint as they treated the ones found in 5A? In that case they were passed to all Interpol Offices which found no matches in their databases. Interestingly, Wiesbaden was mentioned. They said there was no match at the time (2007). The BKA is involved in these checks. It's also involved in EWA's. I wonder if it held and used fingerprints to identify those it wanted arresting? If so, it didn't match Brueckner's fingerprints to that sample in 2004.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
https://www.bka.de/EN/OurTasks/Remit/InternationalFunctions/internationalfunctions_node.html
Wait and See isn't in the nature of the average McCann sceptic. Where is the fun in that? The agenda is to keep up the daily "only asking questions" mantra, to try and keep suspicion focused where the police aren't remotely interested in looking. Sadly the sceptics engaging in this activity are on a hiding to nothing but as least it gives them a reason to get out of bed and log on in the mornings....
Wait and See isn't in the nature of the average McCann sceptic. Where is the fun in that? The agenda is to keep up the daily "only asking questions" mantra, to try and keep suspicion focused where the police aren't remotely interested in looking. Sadly the sceptics engaging in this activity are on a hiding to nothing but as least it gives them a reason to get out of bed and log on in the mornings....
Wait and See isn't in the nature of the average McCann sceptic. Where is the fun in that? The agenda is to keep up the daily "only asking questions" mantra, to try and keep suspicion focused where the police aren't remotely interested in looking. Sadly the sceptics engaging in this activity are on a hiding to nothing but as least it gives them a reason to get out of bed and log on in the mornings....
When newspaper reports are posted, then why not analyse them? One says the BKA knew about a fingerprint in 2017, the other suggests that they didn't know in 2020. When will people who are 'waiting and seeing' going to realise that random newspaper reports are full of inconsistencies and don't add anything worthwhile?
Broadly speaking, media reports are all we have to go on.Some are more reliable than others.
When newspaper reports are posted, then why not analyse them? One says the BKA knew about a fingerprint in 2017, the other suggests that they didn't know in 2020. When will people who are 'waiting and seeing' going to realise that random newspaper reports are full of inconsistencies and don't add anything worthwhile?Then why the hell bother “analyse” them? Just wait and see what eventuates. No amount of your analysis is going to affect the outcome is it?
Then why the hell bother “analyse” them? Just wait and see what eventuates. No amount of your analysis is going to affect the outcome is it?
Difficult to ignore the Olive Press pontificating. Especially when it's stories are reproduced here.I thought you and you ilk didn’t think the Olive Press was worth the paper it’s printed on, thati its editor is incapable of writing one single solitary true word? For that reason alone I recommend you don’t read it at all, nothing good can come of it.
Why should anyone engage with a wum..you can't have it both ways..
I'm resurrecting this thread as numerous members have indicated they still believe Brueckner is going to be charged. Some believe there is already enough evidence against him.
So I'd like to hear from members...
What evidence do you believe the police have against Christian Brueckner?
Why should anyone engage with a wum..you can't have it both ways..
What do posters think of the points below, as raised by Christian B in one of his letters, and how would the presence of an "injured/ damaged child" fit with the dog alerts in 5A? CB makes a definite distinction between a living and a dead child imo.
“Are there DNA traces of the injured party in my vehicle? Are there any other traces of the damaged party in my possession? Photos? And, not to forget, is there a dead body?"
What do posters think of the points below, as raised by Christian B in one of his letters, and how would the presence of an "injured/ damaged child" fit with the dog alerts in 5A? CB makes a definite distinction between a living and a dead child imo.I don't know but it's a very odd, distancing way of describing a missing 3 year old child, as an "injured / damaged party"
“Are there DNA traces of the injured party in my vehicle? Are there any other traces of the damaged party in my possession? Photos? And, not to forget, is there a dead body?"
IMO he makes clear there are no links to him , I guess then the argument is, is it because he his totally innocent in all of this or the lack of evidence linking him despite Wolters confidence..
When did BKA, or anyone else for that matter, indicate CB had an injured/damaged Madeleine in his vehicle?
I don't know but it's a very odd, distancing way of describing a missing 3 year old child, as an "injured / damaged party"Agreed.
Wolters had to correct SF when she tried to say they'd found forensics in one of his vehicles .
Agreed.
"I know what happened to Madeleine McCann" is also CB distancing himself from aspects of her disappearance imo.
Then there are his comments below from another letter - how can he possibly know what the police have or haven't found in relation to Madeleine post-disappearance?
SF made reference to fibres and that is what HCW was forced to correct.
Indeed and or until Wolters/BKA decide to let the world know and more importantly CB's legal team its all guess work.
Is that his hand writing ?
Deduction...not guesswork afaiac
When Wolters declared he had concrete evidence in 2020 no doubt some deduced charges would soon follow, how wide of the mark was that.As I recall it was about 18 months ago that it was claimed CB would not face charges in the Behan vase
As I recall it was about 18 months ago that it was claimed CB would not face charges in the Behan vase
Yes.
Thanks, wonder why in English, although wasn't it to a fan of his.
What does your deduction tell you on that, this year , next year ?y deduction tells me that CB will be prosecuted successfully in the Behan case and a part of the evidence will help HCW in the Maddie case
y deduction tells me that CB will be prosecuted successfully in the Behan case and a part of the evidence will help HCW in the Maddie case
Clearly Brueckner is of the opinion that Madeleine had been injured in some way.
The question would be how did he come by this knowledge? Is it first hand or has he heard it from somewhere else. Allegedly he has said that he knew what happened to her - or something to that effect - but that doesn't necessarily mean personal involvement.
Just another of these little puzzles that might be clarified if he is taken to trial
Clearly Brueckner is of the opinion that Madeleine had been injured in some way.He's separated injury from death. How does that gel with the cadaver dog alerts inside 5A and parental involvement?
The question would be how did he come by this knowledge? Is it first hand or has he heard it from somewhere else. Allegedly he has said that he knew what happened to her - or something to that effect - but that doesn't necessarily mean personal involvement.
Just another of these little puzzles that might be clarified if he is taken to trial
He's separated injury from death. How does that gel with the cadaver dog alerts inside 5A and parental involvement?
If Brueckner wasn't personally involved but knew what happened, you have to wonder why this same man, who wanted to make a million asap, didn't tell the police and claim the substantial reward.
Clearly Brueckner is of the opinion that Madeleine had been injured in some way.
The question would be how did he come by this knowledge? Is it first hand or has he heard it from somewhere else. Allegedly he has said that he knew what happened to her - or something to that effect - but that doesn't necessarily mean personal involvement.
Just another of these little puzzles that might be clarified if he is taken to trial
I hate repeating myself but yet again I think it is relevant to discussion of the timing of any legal action in any case involving Brueckner from where the delay emanates.
The accused's lawyers have closed down any notion of trial dates until procedural issues have been settled. Nothing at all to do with the prosecution and I'm glad you haven't intimated that it is. The delay is due to consideration of Brueckner's legal rights as put forward by his representatives. As a justice forum we must respect the rights of the accused, the prosecution and the victims.
As yet he isn't facing any charges in regards to Madeleine, so delay is irrelevant
As yet he isn't facing any charges in regards to Madeleine, so delay is irrelevant
It seems that no decision has been reached yet as to when and where any charges will be tried. The possibilities are The public prosecutor's office and court in Magdeburg and Frankfurt am Main would also be conceivable.
It seems that no decision has been reached yet as to when and where any charges will be tried. The possibilities are The public prosecutor's office and court in Magdeburg and Frankfurt am Main would also be conceivable.
I'm sure the olive press will let us know when its happening.
The olive press, like our newspapers, seem to have had their sources dry up. Of course Wolters, the main source, has been silent for quite a while now.The papers were silent for the years preceding HCW’s announcement in 2020 when much of the investigative work was being carried out so I wouldn’t take media silence to mean a lack of progress, don’t worry ?{)(**
The papers were silent for the years preceding HCW’s announcement in 2020 when much of the investigative work was being carried out so I wouldn’t take media silence to mean a lack of progress, don’t worry ?{)(**
The papers were silent for the years preceding HCW’s announcement in 2020 when much of the investigative work was being carried out so I wouldn’t take media silence to mean a lack of progress, don’t worry ?{)(**
I take the silence as a necessary step to stop their spokesperson from asserting CB's guilt ahead of a trial. If he's tried in Braunschweig I've no doubt that the prosecution's bias will be mentioned by his lawyer, however.You may not realise this but the prosecutor is always biased against the person they are seeking to prosecute, if they weren't then they wouldn't be prosecuting.
You may not realise this but the prosecutor is always biased against the person they are seeking to prosecute, if they weren't then they wouldn't be prosecuting.
There are human rights laws preventing a prosecutor from announcing their suspect's guilt to the world ahead of a trial.I don't think HCW did that, he merely expressed an opinion which is apparently a human right right afforded to all - just ask Amaral .
I don't think HCW did that, he merely expressed an opinion which is apparently a human right right afforded to all - just ask Amaral .Hmmm, when the MET went public and accused Cannan of killing S Lamplugh the CPS said when they were presented another attempt to them that he would not get a fair trial because of the publicity.
Hmmm, when the MET went public and accused Cannan of killing S Lamplugh the CPS said when they were presented another attempt to them that he would not get a fair trial because of the publicity.That isn't the reason it didn't go to trial though is it? And it's a different judicial system, with a jury in this country, but not in most cases in Germany where CB's fate would be decided by a judge or judges.
There are human rights laws preventing a prosecutor from announcing their suspect's guilt to the world ahead of a trial.There are human rights law re beating a confession out of a subject..amaral was convicted for trying to cover it up...but you don't seem bothered about that
That isn't the reason it didn't go to trial though is it? And it's a different judicial system, with a jury in this country, but not in most cases in Germany where CB's fate would be decided by a judge or judges.
One of them .cite?
cite?
There are human rights laws preventing a prosecutor from announcing their suspect's guilt to the world ahead of a trial.
John [Name removed] lead investigator confirms it on the Wilson and Fox thingy, ch4, footsteps of killers, one of the others being, evidence from the first investigation was either lost, misplaced or not used.Come again? That's not a cite, that's a jumble of words.
cite?
22 minutes in, JD says that a file was presented to the CPS a judge told them that in order to proceed there had been abuse of process on two counts, trial by media so no fair trial and the evidence ignored, mislaid or did not use they had in 1986.22 minutes in what? Who is JD? How come Stephen Lawrence's murderers were found guilty despite "trial by media"?
Another reason to think Wolters must be very sure of his guilt
Wolters may not be so sure about what human rights laws say.
22 minutes in what? Who is JD? How come Stephen Lawrence's murderers were found guilty despite "trial by media"?
His name was edited out, because its classed as rude by some bot, John D i c k i e, ch4 In the footsteps of killers.Who’s he?
Series 1 episode 2.
You'll have to ask some one in charge why the killers of S lawrence were brought to book.
Who’s he?
Wolters may not be so sure about what human rights laws say.
His name was edited out, because its classed as rude by some bot, John D i c k i e, ch4 In the footsteps of killers.I'm asking you. It seems it is not cut and dried. Lawrence's killers were branded murderers on the front page of a national newspaper, no ifs or buts. Their case went to trial and they were convicted. If there had been incontrovertible DNA evidence in the Lamplugh case that pointed to Canaan I'm pretty sure the CPS would have taken it to trial too but we will never know. On a spearate note, why the hell isn't he dead yet?! He was supposed to be on his death bed about a year ago...
Series 1 episode 2.
You'll have to ask some one in charge why the killers of S lawrence were brought to book.
I'm asking you. It seems it is not cut and dried. Lawrence's killers were branded murderers on the front page of a national newspaper, no ifs or buts. Their case went to trial and they were convicted. If there had been incontrovertible DNA evidence in the Lamplugh case that pointed to Canaan I'm pretty sure the CPS would have taken it to trial too but we will never know. On a spearate note, why the hell isn't he dead yet?! He was supposed to be on his death bed about a year ago...
yes, and? Are you saying it's untrue?
On the separate note, a newspaper came out with that.
yes, and? Are you saying it's untrue?
Well if he's still living ?he could have been faking it in the hopes of getting released…?
This is just not possible. No Nation knows more about Human Rights than The Germans.
I wonder if you can support that statement with facts or a cite? I very much doubt it.
I don't have to.
I wonder if you can support that statement with facts or a cite? I very much doubt it.Out of 500 cases filed against Germany at the ECHR last year only one case was found to have violated the act 99% were thrown out before being heard. Seems pretty conclusive to me. Good luck Christian Bruckner if he ever decides to chance his arm against Germany.
he could have been faking it in the hopes of getting released…?
I don't have to.
Cites no longer required . Official
Cites no longer required . Officialdo you have a cite for that?
He was due for a parole hearing in the Autumn of last year.
Where does that leaves Wolters regarding any future charges in connection with Madeleine ?
Would the Regional Court of Braunschweig again declare itself incompetent to hear those charges ?
The BKA isn't trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, they're trying to find enough evidence to charge Brueckner.I think it's clear the BKA know what happened to.madeleine
I think it's clear the BKA know what happened to.madeleine
I think it's clear the BKA know what happened to.madeleine
I think it's clear the BKA know what happened to.madeleine
Think they know.
The BKA will certainly know more than you do.
And ? you say it best when you say nothing at all.
Of course I do. You should take the same advice. You more so than I.&%%6
&%%6
What has come through is just how confident HCW is... confident to that anothe prosecutor in another state would prosecute with the evidence he has
Must be disappointing for sceptics
And ? you say it best when you say nothing at all.
What has come through is just how confident HCW is... confident to that anothe prosecutor in another state would prosecute with the evidence he has
Must be disappointing for sceptics
All this trivia and speculation that other regions might be averse to picking up the prosecution or that their prosecutors might have a different viewpoint those based in Braunschweig has been exposed as risible when the overview of the BKA is taken into account. And the fact they have all the evidence.
Just remember to get back to us sceptics when Brueckner is finally charged, won't you dear. It shouldn't be much longer now.
What a negative disrespectful post.
Brueckner has five charges pending.
Neither he nor his legal team are at all anxious to see them tried in court any time soon.
Yes, Five charges that have sod all to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
Next.
They have precisely b....r all that can prove Brueckner guilty though. That much has been obvious for three years now. But maybe next year, aye.
Madeleine's disappearance.
Then why are Brueckner and his team so anxious to keep his alleged offences from being heard in court. They know exactly what evidence the prosecution holds and they are not at all keen to see it tested in court.
You are really going to work on another slogan, that one is tattered with overuse.
Keep believing dear. Wolters will lead you to the promised land.
Martin Luther King got to see it, sadly it never done him no good.
Martin Luther King got to see it, sadly it never done him no good.
Because that's their job?
What a stupid question.
You stated "They have precisely b....r all that can prove Brueckner guilty though". But as a self proclaimed WUM it is neither your job nor your intention to post coherently about anything ~ particularly the blindingly obvious.
I wasn't talking about the five totally unrelated cases. I was talking about Madeleine's murder. You seem keen to conflate the two matters. But that's as to be expected, because there ain't any evidence Brueckner murdered Maddie. Joke confessions aside.
Madeleine has NOT been murdered and you are one of the ones who knows that.
Stop spreading malicious disinformation to protect your friend.
You know and he knows that if people believe Madeleine dead the search will stop and the perps will be safe and not have to do the dreaded act of murder.
All IMO, of course, but in depth investigated over the years
Because that's their job?
Wolters has made the opinion of the Germans very clear.100,% sure that CB murdered Maddie and that he was on the phone for 30 mins near the OC
Significantly no one has come forward to contradict either statement...neither the person he was on the phone with that night not anymore who was with him that night
AND he keeps telling people he didn't do it. The didn't do it guy maybe didn't do it?
Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But that is for a court to decide. I just hate internet Kangaroo courts being set up by ignoramuses, don't you?
As things stand, he didn't do it. He stands accused of nothing. He hasn't even been charged with anything you see. So no, it isn't for a court to decide. The didn't do it guy is as innocent as the McCanns are.
This doesn't amount to He Didn't Do It. It only amounts to We Don't Know.
You might think that you are very clever, but in fact you aren't. You can't even play a half decent word game.
So you'd agree we can't be certain the McCanns didn't do it?
The McCanns Didn't Do It. Have you not even worked that one out yet? Mind you, it does require a brain of some sort, so try not to worry about it.
Brueckner didn't do it. Wolters can't prove he's done anything, & you went from "I will stick with Innocent Until Proven Guilty in a Court of Law." to, "Maybe he did it" in the space of two posts, plus insults, as per usual.
It seems that you can't read and understand written English either. Oh Dear. Never mind.
Is there anybody there?Most people looking for sensible discussion no longer post here - I blame the troll. He’s virtually the last manchild standing which is kind of ironic really.
Nope. Okay. Back Later.
Is there anybody there?
Nope. Okay. Back Later.
Most people looking for sensible discussion no longer post here - I blame the troll. He’s virtually the last manchild standing which is kind of ironic really.
Most people looking for sensible discussion no longer post here - I blame the troll. He’s virtually the last manchild standing which is kind of ironic really.
Wonderfulspam isn't the reason why I no longer post here very much. It's not him who has consistently made posting difficult for me. I will post on topic, however. It seems that Wolters' 'concrete evidence' was something that may have convinced him of his suspect's guilt, but it's not going to convince a court of law that CB murdered MM.I very much doubt HCW is the only person on the planet convinced by the evidence the BKA have gathered so far. We don’t know whether or not it would convince a court beyond reasonable doubt, but it might be 95% convincing. Pointless speculating isn’t it?
I very much doubt HCW is the only person on the planet convinced by the evidence the BKA have gathered so far. We don’t know whether or not it would convince a court beyond reasonable doubt, but it might be 95% convincing. Pointless speculating isn’t it?
PS if someone is making it difficult for you to post on here I can thoroughly recommend putting them on ignore. The troll doesn’t make it difficult for me to post, he just brings the forum into disrepute and means it’s hard to take the forum seriously.
There's speculating and there's observing. I've seen big claims but no actions and it's actions which count.GA IS a proven liar, CB IS a paedophile rapist, Spam IS a troll, why do you believe any of them should be indulged and given the time of day? What do any of them have to say which is worthwhile and gains us a better perspective on this case? Isn’t “dodgy criminal” a label too? You’ve made it quite clear that you think everything I have to say is pointless and worthy of ignoring so what does that make you?
Labelling people seems to provide the justification for some treating them badly, imo. GA is a 'proven liar', CB is a 'paedophile rapist', and Wonderfulspam is a 'troll' and a 'wum'. Result! Everything they say can be ignored! Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps the Germans know better; they will listen to dodgy criminals if it furthers their knowledge (or if they think it does).
GA IS a proven liar, CB IS a paedophile rapist, Spam IS a troll, why do you believe any of them should be indulged and given the time of day? What do any of them have to say which is worthwhile and gains us a better perspective on this case? Isn’t “dodgy criminal” a label too? You’ve made it quite clear that you think everything I have to say is pointless and worthy of ignoring so what does that make you?
Ignoring everything someone says or does because a label's been applied to them is very short sighted in my opinion. Anyone who uses labelling as a way to sum someone else up is missing out on a lot of information. Dismissing GA as a 'liar' for example, led to his book being dismissed as 'lies' and ignored the fact that it was a mostly truthful account of the investigation into MM's disappearance and how it developed. It wasn't a libellous attack on the McCanns as was finally decided by all the courts which examined it.
The Germans and the Met chose to listen to a people trafficker and found that what he had to say was useful to them. It remains to be seen whether they will get the result they hope for, but they are prepared to listen.
GA IS a proven liar, CB IS a paedophile rapist, Spam IS a troll, why do you believe any of them should be indulged and given the time of day? What do any of them have to say which is worthwhile and gains us a better perspective on this case? Isn’t “dodgy criminal” a label too? You’ve made it quite clear that you think everything I have to say is pointless and worthy of ignoring so what does that make you?
Total garbage from start to finish
Show me someone who claims to have never lied and you will have shown me a liar. Gonçalo was the closest policeman to the original investigation and he was sacked because he chose to speak out about the investigation and of political interference. Says much for me.
I am not having this Site turned into a Lawless Cess Pit. It is as simple as that for me.
Enforcing the rules without bias is all you need to do, it's as simple as that.
Yours are too.more garbage
Your vocabulary is very limited in posts when they do not fit with your agenda.
Seems to always hit a nerve.
Total garbage from start to finish
more garbage
Show me someone who claims to have never lied and you will have shown me a liar. Gonçalo was the closest policeman to the original investigation and he was sacked because he chose to speak out about the investigation and of political interference. Says much for me.
Show me someone who claims to have never lied and you will have shown me a liar. Gonçalo was the closest policeman to the original investigation and he was sacked because he chose to speak out about the investigation and of political interference. Says much for me.Of course people lie, we all do it to a greater or lesser extent. But when we tell serious lies we get punished for them, GA has a conviction for perjury in case you'd forgotten? He has also lied on television about the appearance of CB and his vehicle at the time of Madeleine's disappearance. He also wrote a one sided book full of half-truths and propaganda pushing the "parents dunnit" angle (a conclusion he came to by his own admittance on day one of the investigation) without giving any serious consideration to any other theory. Now tell me why anyone should take a word of what he has to say seriously?
Show me someone who claims to have never lied and you will have shown me a liar. Gonçalo was the closest policeman to the original investigation and he was sacked because he chose to speak out about the investigation and of political interference. Says much for me.Saying you were late due to a traffic jam is not the same as lying undewr oath in court on a matter that resulted in a woman spending 20 yeras in jail. i know you dont accept a confession was beaten out Leonora but its clear it was.
Ignoring everything someone says or does because a label's been applied to them is very short sighted in my opinion. Anyone who uses labelling as a way to sum someone else up is missing out on a lot of information. Dismissing GA as a 'liar' for example, led to his book being dismissed as 'lies' and ignored the fact that it was a mostly truthful account of the investigation into MM's disappearance and how it developed. It wasn't a libellous attack on the McCanns as was finally decided by all the courts which examined it.I'm still waiting for your cite that all courts concluded GA's book wasn't libellous. I expect I shall still be waiting for it by this time next year. As for trolls of course they should be ignored and not fed. You as a moderator should know this.
The Germans and the Met chose to listen to a people trafficker and found that what he had to say was useful to them. It remains to be seen whether they will get the result they hope for, but they are prepared to listen.
Show me someone who claims to have never lied and you will have shown me a liar. Gonçalo was the closest policeman to the original investigation and he was sacked because he chose to speak out about the investigation and of political interference. Says much for me.
Well, you should know what garbage is .imo HCW is full of it.
You then have to wonder why there was interference if it did occur.
I'm still waiting for your cite that all courts concluded GA's book wasn't libellous. I expect I shall still be waiting for it by this time next year. As for trolls of course they should be ignored and not fed. You as a moderator should know this.
I could meticulously answer every point G made ...same goes for you and John..but its pointless....totally pointless. they are wrong but will never accept it. Weve seen that with many sceptics refusal to accept CBs guilt in the DM case...even though he was found guilty on overwhelming evidence. Amaral has spread lies about the verdict claiming she was not raped.
I have seen no evidence that HCW spouts garbage...perhaps you could provide some
The findings of the courts are documented for all to see. I try not to feed those I class as trolls, but obviously I don't agree with you as to who they are.
What is trolling?
A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.
Imo there's a lot of that here, and it doesn't all originate with Wonderfulspam. Refering to other people's posts as 'garbage' is likely to provoke a negative response in my opinion, for example.
The findings of the courts are documented for all to see. I try not to feed those I class as trolls, but obviously I don't agree with you as to who they are.you cannot provide a cite because you know that the courts did not judge whether the contents of the book were true or not. Hence you are incorrect to say the courts decided the book was not libellous.
What is trolling?
A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.
Imo there's a lot of that here, and it doesn't all originate with Wonderfulspam. Refering to other people's posts as 'garbage' is likely to provoke a negative response in my opinion, for example.
you cannot provide a cite because you know that the courts did not judge whether the contents of the book were true or not. Hence you are incorrect to say the courts decided the book was not libellous.
If you want to continue a discussion about what constitutes a troll I suggest you start a new thread about it in a different part of the forum.
I have seen no evidence that HCW spouts garbage
You have seen no evidence exactly.....HCW hasn't got any.
Apart from the low-life tips from CB friends/acquaintances.
Maybe it seems HCW should be looking at them......seeing they know so much.
The findings of the courts are documented for all to see. I try not to feed those I class as trolls, but obviously I don't agree with you as to who they are.
What is trolling?
A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.
Imo there's a lot of that here, and it doesn't all originate with Wonderfulspam. Refering to other people's posts as 'garbage' is likely to provoke a negative response in my opinion, for example.
Seems to me ......HCW going all out to collect evidence against CB.
None of it will be related to Maddie.
IMO The only reason Maddie is mentioned is for publicity ...........and our media fall for it.
This is to me although no mcc supporters have mentioned/thought about it.
Is so so cruel for the twins to have their sister blasted on the news etc. from HCW leaks,
Obviously being brought into the limelight by their friends and peers.
so you dont think the exercise at the dam was related to maddie
Do you think Wolters just organised a publicity stunt costing several hundred thousand pounds and the BKA just went along with it
Not a publicity stunt exactly..........he is looking for evidence against CB not necessarily to do with Maddie.Simple question - do you hope that the investigation into CB and what happened to Madeleine fails?
A channel4 news report stressed it was not indicating any of the articles were related to Maddie.
"Whether individual items actually have a connection to the Madeleine McCann case cannot yet be said. Thank you to all the police officers involved in the search.
so you dont think the exercise at the dam was related to maddie
Do you think Wolters just organised a publicity stunt costing several hundred thousand pounds and the BKA just went along with it
Police are desperate to find the video camera as they believe it may contain images of Madeleine, but also of other sex attacks Brueckner is said to have carried out on at least two unidentified women.
I just don't accept your opinion that the Germans are not really investigating Maddie's disappearance..they've already charged CB with the other cases. As I understand the video camera was discovered.,.then lost before may 07
It's not my opinion though....it was said by someone else.Are you ignoring my question or did you not see it?
seems to me though he wants these unidentified woman to come forward ...for whatever reason known to him.
It's not my opinion though....it was said by someone else.
seems to me though he wants these unidentified woman to come forward ...for whatever reason known to him.
Simple question - do you hope that the investigation into CB and what happened to Madeleine fails?
Simple answer .....I couldn't care less about the investigation into CB.Just as othere are not interested in going over everything countless times trying to find reason to incriminate the parents
Simpler still ....because I do not believe he abducted Maddie.
Simple answer .....I couldn't care less about the investigation into CB.That’s avoiding the question. You obviously do care about the outcome of the investigation or you wouldn’t be following it so closely IMO. Would you rather it concluded successfully with a charge and conviction of their main suspect or would you prefer an ignominious admission of defeat by the German and British police? Everything you’ve posted in the last few years suggests to me that you’d be delighted with the latter outcome, but feel free to tell me I’m wrong.
Simpler still ....because I do not believe he abducted Maddie.
Simple answer .....I couldn't care less about the investigation into CB.If you aren't interested in Wolters then you probably don't listen to everything he's said. I have and I find him very believable.
Simpler still ....because I do not believe he abducted Maddie.
If you aren't interested in Wolters then you probably don't listen to everything he's said. I have and I find him very believabrle.
Yes. We gathered that you believe Wolters over 3 years ago. You'll probably still believe him in another 3 years, even though Brueckner still won't have been charged by then.
Show me someone who claims to have never lied and you will have shown me a liar. Gonçalo was the closest policeman to the original investigation and he was sacked because he chose to speak out about the investigation and of political interference. Says much for me.Could you tell us in what way amaral helped the investigation
Could you tell us in what way amaral helped the investigation
He worked out Maddie died in the apartment by virtue of the alerts and DNA evidence
Neither of which supported his thesis.
Giving the game away?...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12155301/Strange-didnt-scream-Prime-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Brueckners-sinister-claim-friend.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12155301/Strange-didnt-scream-Prime-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Brueckners-sinister-claim-friend.html)
Blimey, Sue Cook ex-Crimewatch. Long time, No see... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC8Fr7yvuJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC8Fr7yvuJA)
Sorry. I don't know what to say about that video. It is just conflicting opinions.From people who don’t seem terribly bright, any of them, plus it’s on GB News which is the televisual equivalent of the lowest brow right wing tabloid there is.
Sorry. I don't know what to say about that video. It is just conflicting opinions.
We've heard it all before, sigh.
But those who I worry about are all the people out there who have been going around for the past sixteen years in a rage. Why is nothing being done for them? They are obviously suffering from a life changing trauma and surely there must be something that can be done for them to alleviate their condition which must be horrible for them and anyone they come into contact with.
How on earth did these people manage before Madeleine disappeared? Did they have something else to rage about or someone else to tear to pieces?
I have no understanding of people who object to helping a child merely because they disapprove of that child's parents.
I have no understanding of people who object to helping a child merely because they disapprove of that child's parents.
Some of us are perfectly capable of dealing with this dispassionately. Madeleine is not our child and so we cannot know what it would feel like or get frightfully upset. This fact seems to have escaped the sceptics.
I have always afforded everyone the right to innocence unless and until found guilty. Sceptics don't do this. They make a choice depending on who they hate the most and then put their illogical boot in. Which is why they are so intent on defending a rapist and a paedophile. This alone says much about them and their apparently disappointing lives.
By the way, Pat Brown seems to be backing off if that very boring video is anything to go by.
Some of us are perfectly capable of dealing with this dispassionately. Madeleine is not our child and so we cannot know what it would feel like or get frightfully upset. This fact seems to have escaped the sceptics.
I have always afforded everyone the right to innocence unless and until found guilty. Sceptics don't do this. They make a choice depending on who they hate the most and then put their illogical boot in. Which is why they are so intent on defending a rapist and a paedophile. This alone says much about them and their apparently disappointing lives.
By the way, Pat Brown seems to be backing off if that very boring video is anything to go by.
Oh she is backtracking all right unfortunately she's still talking merde.
Yes, I've noticed how dispassionate McCann supporters are. They have spent years going on about how their empathy has enabled them to understand exactly how MM's parents felt.Sarky bollocks, pardon my français
I think people should just wait and see if and when the latest suspect is tried, although the evidence needed seems to be a long time coming.
Sarky bollocks, pardon my français
There's a lot to be said for a bit of sympathy now and again. Nothing wrong with that. But sympathy for a Paedophile Rapist is a trifle beyond my comprehension.
Yes, I've noticed how dispassionate McCann supporters are. They have spent years going on about how their empathy has enabled them to understand exactly how MM's parents felt.
I think people should just wait and see if and when the latest suspect is tried, although the evidence needed seems to be a long time coming.
There's a lot to be said for a bit of sympathy now and again. Nothing wrong with that. But sympathy for a Paedophile Rapist is a trifle beyond my comprehension.as far as I am aware no one here has ever claimed to know exactly how the McCanns felt but those of us with normal human emotions can imagine how they might have felt and reacted in the circumstances. Not only that but the McCanns have told us themselves how they felt and everything they have said on the subject rings true to those able to empathise and who do not suffer from extreme prejudicial bias
Believing the paedophile rapist innocent of any crime against Maddie, isn't sympathising with him. Nobody supports him or condones all the raping & noncing he has done. It's just that some of us see no good reason to believe he abducted Maddie, murdered her, or that she was ever abducted in the first place.
Why on earth would BKA be spending thousands of Euros investigating the case of an English child holidaying in Portugal who wasn't abducted and murdered?
Why on earth would BKA be spending thousands of Euros investigating the case of an English child holidaying in Portugal who wasn't abducted and murdered?
Two reasons. Firstly they think she was murdered and secondly they are very keen to prove that CB did it. His 'mates' said he did, after all.and we all know the BKA are a gullible bunch of fools who will believe any old rubbish without any evidence and then spend millions on a wild goose chase especially when it involves the disappearance of a non-national in a different country (&^&
Question: do you think if the BKA sat down with a nice cup of tea and the Files from the Portuguese investigation they’d soon abandon their “wild goose chase”? Some of you surely must believe that, the evidence in them against the parents is so plain to see is it not?
Why on earth would BKA be spending thousands of Euros investigating the case of an English child holidaying in Portugal who wasn't abducted and murdered?
and we all know the BKA are a gullible bunch of fools who will believe any old rubbish without any evidence and then spend millions on a wild goose chase especially when it involves the disappearance of a non-national in a different country (&^&
Two reasons. Firstly they think she was murdered and secondly they are very keen to prove that CB did it. His 'mates' said he did, after all.
More non-news. Why do some people wave their hands about all over the place while speaking, it's so off-putting and detracts from whatever they're trying to say...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG6DSS1bCfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG6DSS1bCfA)
And another book plug to raise the hackles and send the blood pressure through the roof of some on here. Watch at your own risk of a heart attack...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr9-PHuD32s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr9-PHuD32s)
The BKA who you seem to hold in ver low regard successfully seen CB jailed for rape...and five other cases pending....all which the PJ failed on ..... Yet you hold the PJ in high regard.....really illogical
I don't hold any police force in high or low regard, they all have successes and failures. The way this case has been conducted by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office has not impressed me at all, however. A trial by public opinion has been actively encouraged for three years, and that can't be justified imo.I think they should be judged by results
I don't hold any police force in high or low regard, they all have successes and failures. The way this case has been conducted by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office has not impressed me at all, however. A trial by public opinion has been actively encouraged for three years, and that can't be justified imo.
Two reasons. Firstly they think she was murdered and secondly they are very keen to prove that CB did it. His 'mates' said he did, after all.
Your reasoning is muddled or is it your opinion that all rapists and child abusers should not be investigated for crimes and evidence against them be disregarded because they claim they are innocent?
By the way - I doubt we have seen the resources in manpower, expertise and money used in an international police operation on the word of his 'mates'.
You people post such arrant nonsense it is unbelievable.
I think they should be judged by results
They've solved the DM case and are prosecuting five more...all of which the PJ.got absolute nowhere with...
That gives the Germans a lot of credibility..,fact.
Did they have a choice not to go public after Amarals gossip
No one could in reality not be impressed with their record re CB
I don't hold any police force in high or low regard, they all have successes and failures. The way this case has been conducted by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office has not impressed me at all, however. A trial by public opinion has been actively encouraged for three years, and that can't be justified imo.
Because they have some very credible evidence against CB. They've had this credible information for over three years now. Maybe in another three it might lead to charges. But I really wouldn't bet on it.
I don't hold any police force in high or low regard, they all have successes and failures. The way this case has been conducted by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office has not impressed me at all, however. A trial by public opinion has been actively encouraged for three years, and that can't be justified imo.
Could I have an answer to my request about the Court of Public Opinion about The McCanns? Or do you only do this when it suits you?
How do you justify the trial by public opinion of The McCanns? A trial by public opinion that you are actively involved in.
The McCanns aren't the subject of this thread, but if I must comment their notoriety in the media was largely their own doing.
What? Good God. This is more awful than even I thought.
Try facing facts for a change. They became public figures due to their cooperation with the media, as did Wolters.are you suggesting that the McCanns actively encouraged their own trial in the court of public opinion while Bruckner deserves sympathy because he did not? (let’s overlook his numerous self pitying letters to various journalists etc for the moment)
are you suggesting that the McCanns actively encouraged their own trial in the court of public opinion while Bruckner deserves sympathy because he did not? (let’s overlook his numerous self pitying letters to various journalists etc for the moment)
It depends what 'the court of public opinion' is. It's nothing to do with what anonymous people on forums say imo. Central to it is the media, which was used extensively by the McCanns and by Wolters to get their messages across to the public.
Neither the McCanns not Wolters had any choice but to use the media...think about it
The McCanns aren't the subject of this thread, but if I must comment their notoriety in the media was largely their own doing.
I agree. Both wanted to get their version of events in the public eye.
and we all know the BKA are a gullible bunch of fools who will believe any old rubbish without any evidence and then spend millions on a wild goose chase especially when it involves the disappearance of a non-national in a different country (&^&
Why on earth would BKA be spending thousands of Euros investigating the case of an English child holidaying in Portugal who wasn't abducted and murdered?
We've heard it all before, sigh.
But those who I worry about are all the people out there who have been going around for the past sixteen years in a rage. Why is nothing being done for them? They are obviously suffering from a life changing trauma and surely there must be something that can be done for them to alleviate their condition which must be horrible for them and anyone they come into contact with.
You don't agree with me.,you see it through your biased glasses.,..both want to find the truth of what happened to Maddie...
Yes got in another plug for her book.
Is she a detective? No she isn't. She doesn't have a clue about forensics. I've watched a lot of programmes where they compare soil, they were looking for a specific soil by the look of it.
As for CB's comment 'she didn't scream' it depends on how he said it. Did he say it as if he was amazed she didn't scream when someone entered the bedroom or did he say it knowing she didn't scream.
I think she should step away from the McCann case. She is one bitter woman.
I am so tired of this hypocrisy. No quarter for The McCanns but every quarter for a paedophile and a rapist. Who are you people? What are you trying to do? And probably more to the point, why are you trying to do this? Were your own lives so awful?
My own childhood was pretty abysmal, but never have I allowed that to colour my life and what I think of anyone.
And so I simply don't understand why you should think these things without any evidence at all.
What? Good God. This is more awful than even I thought.
I've watched a lot of programmes where they compare soil, they were looking for a specific soil by the look of it.
So what do you think that will solve....... surely not to prove he went regularly because it was his favorite place.
Try facing facts for a change. They became public figures due to their cooperation with the media, as did Wolters.
It depends what 'the court of public opinion' is. It's nothing to do with what anonymous people on forums say imo. Central to it is the media, which was used extensively by the McCanns and by Wolters to get their messages across to the public.
That's an opinion. The McCanns may already know the truth, hence the reason they insist Maddie was abducted.
What a mix max that post is.
Have you really forgotten that the German prosecutor's "message to the public" was a plea for information to help solve the obscenity of the heinous crime of child murder.
That's the problem. The choice is clear; whether to believe what the McCanns say or to wonder. There are those who wholeheartedly believe the McCanns and there are others who, for various reasons, wonder. Neither group can prove what actually happened on 3rd May 2007.
We have a similar situation now with CB. We have a prosecutor who has done his utmost to convince the world that he has found the murderer of MM, but so far no attempt to prove his allegations in a court of law.
I've watched a lot of programmes where they compare soil, they were looking for a specific soil by the look of it.
So what do you think that will solve....... surely not to prove he went regularly because it was his favorite place.
That's the problem. The choice is clear; whether to believe what the McCanns say or to wonder. There are those who wholeheartedly believe the McCanns and there are others who, for various reasons, wonder. Neither group can prove what actually happened on 3rd May 2007.Don't forget Amaral and his followers claiming he's not only innocent in thecCann case but also in the DM rape too
We have a similar situation now with CB. We have a prosecutor who has done his utmost to convince the world that he has found the murderer of MM, but so far no attempt to prove his allegations in a court of law.
Don't forget Amaral and his followers claiming he's not only innocent in thecCann case but also in the DM rape too
I've watched a lot of programmes where they compare soil, they were looking for a specific soil by the look of it.
So what do you think that will solve....... surely not to prove he went regularly because it was his favorite place.
That's the problem. The choice is clear; whether to believe what the McCanns say or to wonder. There are those who wholeheartedly believe the McCanns and there are others who, for various reasons, wonder. Neither group can prove what actually happened on 3rd May 2007.”Wondering”. Is that what they’re calling it these days? Lol
We have a similar situation now with CB. We have a prosecutor who has done his utmost to convince the world that he has found the murderer of MM, but so far no attempt to prove his allegations in a court of law.
”Wondering”. Is that what they’re calling it these days? Lol
Call it what you like, but there are people who do it.They call her the Wonderer, they call her the Wonderer, she goes around, around, around, around
Call it what you like, but there are people who do it.So you accept that CB may be guilty and the Mccanns innocent
So you accept that CB may be guilty and the Mccanns innocent
I have always said I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007, and that hasn't changed.you’ve also said that in your view abduction from Apartment 5a would have been virtually impossible, which helps to narrow down the possibilities you believe may have occurred does it not?
I have always said I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007, and that hasn't changed.Just as we don't know what happened to Joanna Cipriano...
you’ve also said that in your view abduction from Apartment 5a would have been virtually impossible, which helps to narrow down the possibilities you believe may have occurred does it not?
Just as we don't know what happened to Joanna Cipriano...
I haven't examined that case, so I don't have an opinion.
Really? It was very interesting. Joanna's. mother and uncle went to prison for sixteen years for a murder they almost certainly didn't commit. And there was no evidence that said they did.
I haven't examined that case, so I don't have an opinion.So you accept it's a possibility that Leonora is innocent
Really? It was very interesting. Joanna's. mother and uncle went to prison for sixteen years for a murder they almost certainly didn't commit. And there was no evidence that said they did.
Obviously the Courts thought differently.
The Court wasn't very happy about Amaral committing Perjury.
Just as we don't know what happened to Joanna Cipriano...
Is that relevant to their decision ?
Really? It was very interesting. Joanna's. mother and uncle went to prison for sixteen years for a murder they almost certainly didn't commit. And there was no evidence that said they did.
I am, of course aware that there are those whose opinions match yours, but I don't, and never have, seen the relevance of the case to that of MM's disappearance.
I am, of course aware that there are those whose opinions match yours, but I don't, and never have, seen the relevance of the case to that of MM's disappearance.
The relevance is CB could be responsible for both
Why did Leonor grass up her brother then? If Brueckner did It? She must really hate her brother.
The relevance is CB could be responsible for both
More Bottox. She didn't.
Has your guru Wolters said that, or did you think it up all by yourself?
From 27m20s
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ep06-madeleine-mccann-the-chief-suspect/id1611955578?i=1000558331638
Jon Clarke @)(++(*
Has your guru Wolters said that, or did you think it up all by yourself?
Information came from Joao Grade, Amaral's "mate". Was it ever properly checked out?
Don't shoot the messenger.
It's BS, it doesn't need to be. Leonor signed a statement to the effect that her brother killed Joana in a botched attempt to sell her. Why on earth would she do that if Joana had been abducted by a total stranger?
The relevance is CB could be responsible for both
I am, of course aware that there are those whose opinions match yours, but I don't, and never have, seen the relevance of the case to that of MM's disappearance.
Just nobody bothered to check it out. Two missing children from neighbouring villages and the level of investigation was that the parents dunnit ~ now where's the address of that publisher, I've got the manuscript right here and I've remembered to cut out the bit about police brutality and torture. Remember that paedophile who wasn't in when you called guys ~ not bothering about that one either.
Obviously the Courts thought differently.in all miscarriages of justice the courts initially thought differently.
Examination of the timeline leaves very little time for an abduction to take place imo.Fortunately your opinion is of no consequence.
I am, of course aware that there are those whose opinions match yours, but I don't, and never have, seen the relevance of the case to that of MM's disappearance.That’s because despite your protestations to the contrary you have completely discounted the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
Why would she have been convicted for something her brother did of his own accord?
Fortunately your opinion is of no consequence.
That’s because despite your protestations to the contrary you have completely discounted the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
From 27m20s
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ep06-madeleine-mccann-the-chief-suspect/id1611955578?i=1000558331638
I've listened to it all, misty. How is it possible for anyone to disregard that information which is all on record?
Has your guru Wolters said that, or did you think it up all by yourself?
Anyway, can we get back to the thread topic.
The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner.
"Mr Wolters said: “The investigation into the Maddie case will take as long as is necessary. If necessary, beyond a possible release of the accused.”
And confirming his team is yet to speak to Kate and Gerry, he added: “There is no contact with the McCann family.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/fresh-blow-madeleine-mccann-case-30202021
Wolters & the BKA have never even spoken to the McCanns. Least of all about Joana Cipriano for that matter. So could those who wish to discuss Joana, kindly sod off to the relevant board. This thread is for discussion about the concrete evidence, which Wolters is reluctant to share with the McCanns, The MET, Brueckner's Lawyers, or a Court Of Law.
Wolters & the BKA have never even spoken to the McCanns. Least of all about Joana Cipriano for that matter. So could those who wish to discuss Joana, kindly sod off to the relevant board. This thread is for discussion about the concrete evidence, which Wolters is reluctant to share with the McCanns, The MET, Brueckner's Lawyers, or a Court Of Law.
Somehow HCW/BKA managed to find enough evidence to warrant a MLA application to Portugal requesting permission to search Barragem do Arade. The application was granted by the Portuguese AG so the evidence must have been pretty compelling, given that elements in Portugal still believe McCannsdunit.
Somehow HCW/BKA managed to find enough evidence to warrant a MLA application to Portugal requesting permission to search Barragem do Arade. The application was granted by the Portuguese AG so the evidence must have been pretty compelling, given that elements in Portugal still believe McCannsdunit.
Cue Amaral's comments on the subject.
I am noticing a bit of movement in Portuguese opinion with a bit more openness to questioning. Amaral continues digging a huge hole for himself and his pronouncements are even more wired to the moon than ever.
Amaral again?
Amaral again?
Well, he is trying to interfere with the Evidence Against Brueckner. Which I find to be very odd indeed.
He is at the forefront of meddling in a way that very few civilised countries in the world could or would tolerate.
Well, he is trying to interfere with the Evidence Against Brueckner. Which I find to be very odd indeed.
Well, he is trying to interfere with the Evidence Against Brueckner. Which I find to be very odd indeed.
He is enjoying the freedom of speech which we are all entitled to.
He is enjoying the freedom of speech which we are all entitled to.
Along with Libel and Interfering With The Course of Justice. At least, in Portugal. Not to forget Perjury, of course.
He is enjoying the freedom of speech which we are all entitled to.Do you think he is observing the following duties and responsibilities?
Do you think he is observing the following duties and responsibilities?
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Do you think he is observing the following duties and responsibilities?
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That's not a question I can answer really. I think he probably knows the law very well, as demonstrated by the fact that the McCanns and their multitude of lawyers failed miserably despite relentlessly pursuing him though the courts.I’m not surprised you claim not to be able to answer when it’s so blatantly obvious Amaral does not respect the duties and responsibilities that come with free speech.
That's not a question I can answer really. I think he probably knows the law very well, as demonstrated by the fact that the McCanns and their multitude of lawyers failed miserably despite relentlessly pursuing him though the courts.
I’m not surprised you claim not to be able to answer when it’s so blatantly obvious Amaral does not respect the duties and responsibilities that come with free speech.
I’m not surprised you claim not to be able to answer when it’s so blatantly obvious Amaral does not respect the duties and responsibilities that come with free speech.
So many things are blatantly obvious to those who rely on their own opinions, aren't they?that’s a meaningless question but it deflects from you having to give a meaningful answer, as usual.
That's not a question I can answer really. I think he probably knows the law very well, as demonstrated by the fact that the McCanns and their multitude of lawyers failed miserably despite relentlessly pursuing him though the courts.Brueckner appears to have a multitude of lawyers at the beck and and call of whoever is paying for them. Difference being he is an habitual criminal with convictions for drug dealing and trafficking, child abuse, rape and is suspected of child murder. Kate, Gerry and Madeleine are victims of crime.
Brueckner appears to have a multitude of lawyers at the beck and and call of whoever is paying for them. Difference being he is an habitual criminal with convictions for drug dealing and trafficking, child abuse, rape and is suspected of child murder. Kate, Gerry and Madeleine are victims of crime.
Your posts are a joy to behold really; I for one find them a hoot.
Brueckner appears to have a multitude of lawyers at the beck and and call of whoever is paying for them. Difference being he is an habitual criminal with convictions for drug dealing and trafficking, child abuse, rape and is suspected of child murder. Kate, Gerry and Madeleine are victims of crime.
Your posts are a joy to behold really; I for one find them a hoot.
Kate & Gerry are alleged victims of crime. As things stand, no crime has been proven.
There, I fixed it for you.
Brueckner appears to have a multitude of lawyers at the beck and and call of whoever is paying for them. Difference being he is an habitual criminal with convictions for drug dealing and trafficking, child abuse, rape and is suspected of child murder. Kate, Gerry and Madeleine are victims of crime.
Your posts are a joy to behold really; I for one find them a hoot.
It seems to rankle that CB has lawyers. Do you think that those with prior convictions shouldn't have them?It certainly seems to rankle some that the McCanns have lawyers, you can tell which ones are rankled, the ones that use terms like “multitudes of lawyers”.
It certainly seems to rankle some that the McCanns have lawyers, you can tell which ones are rankled, the ones that use terms like “multitudes of lawyers”.
Well they certainly had a lot, didn't they?
Well they certainly had a lot, didn't they?So what?
Brueckner appears to have a multitude of lawyers at the beck and and call of whoever is paying for them. Difference being he is an habitual criminal with convictions for drug dealing and trafficking, child abuse, rape and is suspected of child murder. Kate, Gerry and Madeleine are victims of crime.
Your posts are a joy to behold really; I for one find them a hoot.
I heard that Amaral is paying for Brueckner's legal defence.
The evidence from the Portuguese press is that he is sparing no libel in support of his investment, so for once you could be partly right.
But why is Amaral doing this when what he has said is all so obviously untrue. And why is Portugal tolerating this?
It certainly isn't Free Speech. It is just more lies.
But why is Amaral doing this when what he has said is all so obviously untrue. And why is Portugal tolerating this?Maybe the ordinary Joe Bloggs is frightened of using free speech or maybe it has been going on so long that he has become accustomed and accepting of it?
It certainly isn't Free Speech. It is just more lies.
Hi Sadie, Could you not stay away for so long next time? I worry.
That's nice. Thank you
I have been seriously ill, Elli. Unable to climb the stairs where the computer is. Shaking so badly that I couldn't get the spoon to my mouth etc. Both hubby and daughter thought that I was dying cos I was the colour of death and had lost 7 lbs in 8 days (not eating) Hubby at almost 88 has been terrific and daughter was so shocked when she saw the change in me from the week before that without telling us she went and geed the doctors up and a very senior nurse came in immediately who called an emergency ambulance in.
Anyway, I can just get upstairs again, but was unable to come back in the other thread. Soz the info I was going to use has vanished. Experts have told me that I have been hacked 4 times and loads gets "vanished" especially overnight.
Probably 8 or 9 years ago Walsall Police told me I had been hacked, but hubby refused to believe it. I knoa that everything is read that I write and that is why I no longer email my old friends ... and I miss you all.
Telephone calls are listened to, even Alexa interfered with; two death threats sent on that. I have had several death threats and we were shot at on the M5. Bullet mark in the reinforced bumper. Was going abroad the following day so I took that to the police when we returned. Police Report in. I wonder if that will vanish like other things do so readily?
I will leave it there, but lots more threats. Do take care Elli, everyone
sadiexxx
Re: The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner.Some people think the police have evidence some people think the police have nothing. Neither set of people knows which is right though they keep on pretending they do. How about not repeating the same old thing over and over again and just wait for further real developments? Or do you just like arguing for the sake of it?
Well seems as first stated at the beginning of the thread ...there is no evidence.
MADDIE COPS' GAMBLE Madeleine McCann suspect Christian B to be FREED – but cops to keep him under ’24/7 surveillance’ in bid to snare him.
MADELEINE McCann cops are planning to place suspect Christian B under a ruthless 24/7 surveillance regime in a desperate bid to finally snare him.
German police sources revealed the latest throw of the dice by prosecutors as they are determined to prove that the convicted sex offender was the one who snatched and possibly killed Maddie.
Some people think the police have evidence some people think the police have nothing. Neither set of people knows which is right though they keep on pretending they do. How about not repeating the same old thing over and over again and just wait for further real developments? Or do you just like arguing for the sake of it?
Re: The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner.
Well seems as first stated at the beginning of the thread ...there is no evidence.
MADDIE COPS' GAMBLE Madeleine McCann suspect Christian B to be FREED – but cops to keep him under ’24/7 surveillance’ in bid to snare him.
MADELEINE McCann cops are planning to place suspect Christian B under a ruthless 24/7 surveillance regime in a desperate bid to finally snare him.
German police sources revealed the latest throw of the dice by prosecutors as they are determined to prove that the convicted sex offender was the one who snatched and possibly killed Maddie.
Some people think the police have evidence some people think the police have nothing. Neither set of people knows which is right though they keep on pretending they do. How about not repeating the same old thing over and over again and just wait for further real developments? Or do you just like arguing for the sake of it?
O come of it ........its a post on a forum.OK, you're right Wolt has no evidence. There you go. The end.
Where does the argument for the sake of it come in.... Who am I arguing with?
As for wait and see....... it's another 3-year+ wait then..
That's if wolt can get anything on CB while he is under 24/7 surveillance.
It is so obvious wolt has no evidence for CB being the abductor of Maddie.
O come of it ........its a post on a forum.
Where does the argument for the sake of it come in.... Who am I arguing with?
As for wait and see....... it's another 3-year+ wait then..
That's if wolt can get anything on CB while he is under 24/7 surveillance.
It is so obvious wolt has no evidence for CB being the abductor of Maddie.
If it could be proved that CB abducted MM there's absolutely no excuse for failing to charge him with that crime immediately. No suggestion has ever been made that such evidence exists. Much as the Germans want to charge CB with murdering MM, my opinion is that they can't prove that either.Of course they can't prove it, beyond reasonable doubt anyway but does that mean they have no evidence at all against him which is Kizzy's belief? Will you acknowledge this post and give a straight answer or ignore it?
OK, you're right Wolt has no evidence. There you go. The end.
If it could be proved that CB abducted MM there's absolutely no excuse for failing to charge him with that crime immediately. No suggestion has ever been made that such evidence exists. Much as the Germans want to charge CB with murdering MM, my opinion is that they can't prove that either.
How many more years are we thinking Wolters needs? Another 6 Maybe? 7? Let's be fair & give him 12. If Brueckner still hasn't been charged in 12 years time, then maybe you'll all have to start accepting that which is already plainly obvious to the rest of us.
So the troll is going to give it 12 years. Does that mean hes’s going to put a cork in it until then? &%54%
I'm not sure I've got another 12. That would make me nearly 90 8(8-))
This is why information offered to the police after an individual has been arrested should never be used to build a case against another individual.I believe the person you’re referring to had already completed their sentence before coming forward. Are you suggesting that no cases have ever been successfully solved thanks to information given by criminal accomplices?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/26/appeal-court-overturns-manchester-rape-conviction-of-man-who-spent-17-years-in-jail-andrew-malkinson
This is why information offered to the police after an individual has been arrested should never be used to build a case against another individual.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/26/appeal-court-overturns-manchester-rape-conviction-of-man-who-spent-17-years-in-jail-andrew-malkinson
No I'm not. I was just about to say how I'm absolutely disgusted that Mr Gray referred to Madeleine as "The Body". I'm pretty sure the McCanns wouldn't approve of their precious daughter being described in such a manner. Appalling.