German Prosecutor has no plans to charge Christian Bruckner.

[Admin]

The man suspected of kidnapping Madeleine McCann will not face any charges in the foreseeable future, with the German man set to be freed from an unrelated jail sentence in just months.

Christian Brueckner, 47, was publicly identified by German authorities in June 2020 as the prime suspect in Maddie's case, though no formal charges have been brought against him.

He had been accused of three rapes and two cases of child sexual abuse between 2000 and 2017, all of which occurred in Portugal, near the Praia da Luz resort where Madeleine went missing on a family vacation.

Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told Sky News: “There is currently no prospect of an indictment in the Maddie case.

“As things stand, the accused Christian B's imprisonment will end in early September.”

His lawyer, Friedrich Fuelscher, suggested in his closing remarks that he should be cleared due to a lack of evidence and the convicted rapist was only on trial because of his connection with McCann's internationally recognised case.

The court agreed with Fuelscher's argument and found his client not guilty on all charges.

He showed no emotion as the verdict was delivered.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-charges-jail-sentence-end-latest

[The General]

I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.

[Admin]

I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.

Clearly there is no evidence to justify charging Bruckner in the Maddie case. All this hullabaloo about nothing really.

It looks like he's set for release this September.

[The General]

Clearly there is no evidence to justify charging Bruckner in the Maddie case. All this hullabaloo about nothing really.

It looks like he's set for release this September.

Genuinely, it's disappointing. When a prosecutor proclaims to the world that he's solved the biggest missing person case in decades, then quite rightly we should hear him out. 5 years later and we have this pathetic volte face, preparing the way for an admission that they've vastly overestimated their evidence, and that's being generous.
Wholesale egregious incompetence is more accurate. Heads should roll.

And what now? How do you resolve this legally? Just wait for him to be released and brace yourself for the multitude of libel suits?
And what about Hazel B, used as a pawn in an ill-conceived gambit, robbed of justice until they find another grubby sex case to pin it on? If ever a case deserved the phrase travesty of justice, it's this.

[jassi]

I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.

Now don't say that.
OG thought it had got rid of the millstone that was MM and was just waiting for things to be wrapped up.
Not sure they could face doing some proper police work after all this time.

[Lace]

I really don't know how Wolters can obtain forensic evidence after all these years.  I hope a very detailed forensic search was done on his cars.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wonder how the McCanns feel about this news.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't understand the anger being presented about this. It should be heralded by supporters as progress.
The authorities can now focus their attention back to solving the case and consign this round of Hobo Roulette to the ever burgeoning 'wrong hobo paedo' bin.

Who’s angry?  I’d be a bit miffed if I were CB and knew I was innocent not to have been given my day in court to clear my name tbh. 

[sadie]

Genuinely, it's disappointing. When a prosecutor proclaims to the world that he's solved the biggest missing person case in decades, then quite rightly we should hear him out. 5 years later and we have this pathetic volte face, preparing the way for an admission that they've vastly overestimated their evidence, and that's being generous.
Wholesale egregious incompetence is more accurate. Heads should roll.

And what now? How do you resolve this legally? Just wait for him to be released and brace yourself for the multitude of libel suits?
And what about Hazel B, used as a pawn in an ill-conceived gambit, robbed of justice until they find another grubby sex case to pin it on? If ever a case deserved the phrase travesty of justice, it's this.

ORLY?

What was the XprosecutorsX  Judges  name ?  At the very least, Hazel B was shabbily treated

Editted: Soz for such a basic mistake

[faithlilly]

Who’s angry?  I’d be a bit miffed if I were CB and knew I was innocent not to have been given my day in court to clear my name tbh.

Perhaps the parents would have benefited from that too.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps the parents would have benefited from that too.

Yes I agree.

[faithlilly]

Yes I agree.

Fabulous, we agree.

Perhaps if they had had their day in court the suspicion that follows them still may have evaporated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Fabulous, we agree.

Perhaps if they had had their day in court the suspicion that follows them still may have evaporated.

I’ve always said that.  But that said, had I been them I wouldn’t have felt I would have got a fair trial in Portugal.  And - if they that been “found innocent” (as you like to describe a not guilty verdict) I very much doubt that your opinion about what happened to Madeleine that night would have changed much.

[faithlilly]

I’ve always said that.  But that said, had I been them I wouldn’t have felt I would have got a fair trial in Portugal.  And - if they that been “found innocent” (as you like to describe a not guilty verdict) I very much doubt that your opinion about what happened to Madeleine that night would have changed much.

We’ll never know.

TBH I think that both the parents and Brueckner would have both been severally harmed by the bad publicity surrounding them if either had faced trial over Madeleine’s disappearance.

As to ‘not innocent’…semantics. To be ‘not guilty’ is to be innocent.

[Vertigo Swirl]

We’ll never know.

TBH I think that both the parents and Brueckner would have both been severally harmed by the bad publicity surrounding them if either had faced trial over Madeleine’s disappearance.

As to ‘not innocent’…semantics. To be ‘not guilty’ is to be innocent.

Firstly, I don’t think the reputations of either set of suspects could be any more harmed unless found guilty in which case obviously yes.
Secondly,
“ What's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.

It’s not semantics Faithlilly.   

Thirdly, if the McCanns were pronounced not guilty by any court you and your mates would be howling about an establishment cover up and a travesty of justice I can 99.99% guarantee it.  And at that point you’d be very careful to refer to them as “found not guilty” instead of “proven innocent” I’m sure.