UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Brietta on March 05, 2022, 08:07:36 AM
-
Brueckner was a local expat German resident in the Algarve.
He was peripatetic but in the main seems to have been very familiar with Praia da Luz and seems to have been primarily based there..
He allegedly worked there in various capacities and apparently had a variety of contacts there. He allegedly robbed and burgled the holiday apartments although the Portuguese police don’t seem to have caught him at it; nor did they catch him at his drug dealing.
It is known that he lived in a farmhouse on the edge of the village; an address he was at pains to keep secret from the authorities when he was caught stealing diesel and from which he allegedly made arrangements with fellow criminals to “clean” evidence of crime while he was in jail.
The McCann holiday group in contrast were on their first trip to Luz where they were strangers.
-
This thread was suggested to me by the following post which contrasts Brueckner's situation and that of the McCanns ~
Quote from: Para2030 on March 04, 2022, 10:27:48 PM
Indeed. Here's some other differences in case anyone is forgetting:
- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.
- CB has confessed to being involved in her disappearance, the McCanns haven't.
- CB has a track record of abusing little girls, the McCanns don't.
- CB is an expert at breaking into holiday apartments and leaving no trace, the McCanns aren't.
- CB is a convicted rapist, thief and child abuser. The McCanns have no criminal records.
- CB has yet to explicitly deny that he killed Madeleine. The McCanns have.
- CB has yet to provide an alibi for the time of the crime, the McCanns have.
- CB's closest friends and associates believe he is guilty, not one of the McCann's friends or associates believe they are guilty.
- CB has been publicly accused of murder by the BKA following an intensive 4 year investigation in which the PJ and SY are also assisting to gather evidence against him. The McCanns are not currently suspected of involvement by any police force.
I'm sure there's plenty more, but its pointless pointing it out to those who refuse to see.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11381.msg678298#msg678298
-
- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.
Horrible as the thought of it is Brueckner could have many motivations and there is proof of that in the evidence presented in court which led to one of his convictions for offences against a child.
There is further evidence against him relating specifically to Madeleine's case - which is enough to make him the prime suspect.
Despite the best efforts of sceptics using vicious innuendo and downright open lies - not one of the McCann party has any such profile despite police investigation and the unwarranted internet scrutiny they have been under for fifteen years.
The crime against Madeleine has all the hallmarks of "stranger" written over it. Late in the day the Amaral investigation fell flat on their faces by accusing Madeleine's parents - an accusation which had to be withdrawn because there was not a shred of evidence to support a case against them or Murat.
There is evidence against Brueckner.
-
- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.
Horrible as the thought of it is Brueckner could have many motivations and there is proof of that in the evidence presented in court which led to one of his convictions for offences against a child.
There is further evidence against him relating specifically to Madeleine's case - which is enough to make him the prime suspect.
Despite the best efforts of sceptics using vicious innuendo and downright open lies - not one of the McCann party has any such profile despite police investigation and the unwarranted internet scrutiny they have been under for fifteen years.
The crime against Madeleine has all the hallmarks of "stranger" written over it. Late in the day the Amaral investigation fell flat on their faces by accusing Madeleine's parents - an accusation which had to be withdrawn because there was not a shred of evidence to support a case against them or Murat.
There is evidence against Brueckner.
I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?
Not everyone who commits a crime has a history of criminal behaviour. In those cases profiling doesn't help.
-
I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?
Not everyone who commits a crime has a history of criminal behaviour. In those cases profiling doesn't help.
In this case it would be necessary for multiple people who have never committed a crime before to suddenly decide to do so and then to all remain silent about it for the ensuing 15 years. I wonder how often that happens? On the other hand if you look at cases of child deaths at the hands of parents or because of parental neglect there is nearly always a history of abuse and neglect prior to the death.
-
I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?
Not everyone who commits a crime has a history of criminal behaviour. In those cases profiling doesn't help.
I'm not going to rehearse the many and varied motives attribute by Amaral and sceptics following suit while being equally inventive - you know them all, I am sure.
Brueckner seems to have been untouchable during his time in the Algarve and the fact that he was apparently a burglar par excellence (no jemmied doors or windows and no fingerprints or other forensic traces left behind) suggests yet another possible motive for the crime.
But by his own admission Amaral was looking in rather than looking out from first notification of the crime and if you don't seek - you won't find.
-
In this case it would be necessary for multiple people who have never committed a crime before to suddenly decide to do so and then to all remain silent about it for the ensuing 15 years. I wonder how often that happens? On the other hand if you look at cases of child deaths at the hands of parents or because of parental neglect there is nearly always a history of abuse and neglect prior to the death.
Absolutely - the McCanns most certainly did not fit the profile of abusers. Brueckner fits the profile for the crime against Madeleine as suggested by experienced investigators at the time of her disappearance and over the years since.
As Amaral says ~ the perfect suspect; while still trying to promote that he was right and everyone else was wrong.
-
I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?
You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.
In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.
The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?
CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.
So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.
-
You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.
In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.
The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?
CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.
So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.
Correct. It’s also why you will never, ever hear a plausible logical theory of parental involvement from any sceptic on here, ever. There simply isn’t one and they know it, which is why they refuse to be pushed on it, or engage in any discussion about it, excusing their reticence on a faux fear of being accused of legal action by the McCanns. They must be mighty relieved they have such a perfect excuse.
-
You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.
In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.
The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?
CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.
So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.
Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.
For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.
-
You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.
In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.
The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?
CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.
So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.
A recent German documentary reported that Brueckner will produce alibi evidence to prove he was elsewhere when Madeleine disappeared. My opinion is that if he had credible evidence to support that he was elsewhere at the time he quite simply would not still be the prime suspect, which he is.
The phone evidence is a bit of a problem for him too, particularly as it would seem from the lack of follow up requests that previous appeals for the person at the other end of the line have been successful.
No doubt his former girlfriend who strangely felt the need to unburden herself to reporters will have given her evidence about the tenth anniversary discussion to the police in the first instance .
‘I asked him about it and he said, “I know about Maddie, I was near the hotel at the time. I was living in the area at the time. I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’
Dailyhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10172917/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-told-girlfriend-near-holiday-villa.html Mail Online
-
Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.
For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.
Calpol is an analgesic not a sedative. Why on earth are you dragging up that old Amaral canard.
Neither is there any evidence that Brueckner incorporated sedation as part of his MO.
-
Calpol is an analgesic not a sedative. Why on earth are you dragging up that old Amaral canard.
Neither is there any evidence that Brueckner incorporated sedation as part of his MO.
I wasn't aware that Brueckner's MO included kidnap or murder either.
-
Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.
For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.
Let me get this right ~
"Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house." Is it your suggestion that this is a motive.
-
Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.
For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.
So you saw discussions in the media about people routinely sedating their children? What with? Illegal substances? If they were admitting to sedating their children and it was illegal why were they not tracked down and arrested and their kids taken into care? Doctors can get away with all sorts of malpractice without necessarily losing their jobs or their houses so I don’t think they would have been sacked or become homeless for adminstering too much Calpol (which isn’t a sedative) to their children. So what substance were you thinking of, and what evidence supports its use in this case?
Furthermore, children who are heavily sedated sleep soundly. They don’t wake up a few minutes later and wander about jumping off furniture to their instant deaths. So in short I don’t think this is a plausible or logical explanation.
-
I wasn't aware that Brueckner's MO included kidnap or murder either.
If I'm not very much mistaken he had an online discussion with a paedophile mate along the lines outlining his future plans
-
If I'm not very much mistaken he had an online discussion with a paedophile mate along the lines outlining his future plans
Talk is cheap.
-
I wasn't aware that Brueckner's MO included kidnap or murder either.
Everybody has to be caught for the first time. Until a couple of years ago, you could have claimed Brueckner’s MO didn't include rape. Yet now he's been convicted for that offence, and it happened 17 years ago. The videos that his acquaintances found show this wasn't a one-off either. Plus there's now another rape case he's quite possibly about to face charges for, which happened 18 years ago. So little was it known that Brueckner’s MO involved rape all that time, and it would have likely remained unknown today if it wasn't for BKA starting the Madeleine investigation against him.
The point is, despite not YET having a murder or kidnap conviction, all the markers are there. Add to that his webchat fantasies where he says how much he wants to kidnap, torture and kill a child, can you really be sure his MO does not include these crimes?
Also worth pointing out that he dragged a young girl into the bushes to sexually assault her before letting her go when she began screaming. And he's being touted to be charged with Portugal beach assault, where again, the perp dragged the girl away to a secluded area to abuse her before her family found her and he ran away. Are the MO's of these crimes dissimilar to an abduction? What would have happened if they hadn't managed to get away?
If he is convicted for the beach assault one, I think that could be quite significant as it happened only a few weeks before Madeleine disappeared. It would show his mindset at the time. How frustrated would he have been that his attempts to satisfy his perversions were thwarted? Any defence that relies on him claiming he was in a happy normal sexual relationship at the time, and not interested in abusing children, would be undermined by this event. Just as his rather ridiculous claim he would not do things like this as he was too concerned about attracting attention to his drug dealing business.
-
Wasn't there reports of charges early in the new year, well the first quarter day is fast approaching ,it'll no longer be early. Still he's bang to rights on here, thats all that matters.
-
Everybody has to be caught for the first time. Until a couple of years ago, you could have claimed Brueckner’s MO didn't include rape. Yet now he's been convicted for that offence, and it happened 17 years ago. The videos that his acquaintances found show this wasn't a one-off either. Plus there's now another rape case he's quite possibly about to face charges for, which happened 18 years ago. So little was it known that Brueckner’s MO involved rape all that time, and it would have likely remained unknown today if it wasn't for BKA starting the Madeleine investigation against him.
The point is, despite not YET having a murder or kidnap conviction, all the markers are there. Add to that his webchat fantasies where he says how much he wants to kidnap, torture and kill a child, can you really be sure his MO does not include these crimes?
Also worth pointing out that he dragged a young girl into the bushes to sexually assault her before letting her go when she began screaming. And he's being touted to be charged with Portugal beach assault, where again, the perp dragged the girl away to a secluded area to abuse her before her family found her and he ran away. Are the MO's of these crimes dissimilar to an abduction? What would have happened if they hadn't managed to get away?
If he is convicted for the beach assault one, I think that could be quite significant as it happened only a few weeks before Madeleine disappeared. It would show his mindset at the time. How frustrated would he have been that his attempts to satisfy his perversions were thwarted? Any defence that relies on him claiming he was in a happy normal sexual relationship at the time, and not interested in abusing children, would be undermined by this event. Just as his rather ridiculous claim he would not do things like this as he was too concerned about attracting attention to his drug dealing business.
I'm not familiar with that. Have you got a cite ?
-
Calpol is an analgesic not a sedative. Why on earth are you dragging up that old Amaral canard.
Neither is there any evidence that Brueckner incorporated sedation as part of his MO.
I never mentioned Calpol, and sedation was Kate McCann's canard, which she claims to have raised immediately, but there's no evidence that she did so.
-
Wasn't there reports of charges early in the new year, well the first quarter day is fast approaching ,it'll no longer be early. Still he's bang to rights on here, thats all that matters.
End of February was mentioned.I believe, though a I couldn't provide a cite for that.
Never mind, after 14 years what's another month or two.
-
I'm not familiar with that. Have you got a cite ?
Brueckner was 17 when he molested a six-year-old girl in a public playground in his home town of Wuerzburg, Bavaria.
He only stopped groping the terrified schoolgirl when she began to scream and cry and he then ran away, a youth court was told.
Later, the then-teenage Brueckner 'dropped his trousers' at a nine-year-old before fleeing the scene, according to German newspaper Bild.
Brueckner, who had quit secondary school to train as a car mechanic, was arrested later for the vile acts in 1994.
At his trial at Wuerzburg District Court, he was asked by the juvenile judge what he thought about his actions and he replied: 'I didn't think anything'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393473/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-tried-sex-attacks-young-children-age-17.html
A German woman has told police she recognised Christian B from TV reports as the man who attacked her in April 2007 when she was ten.
She was on a family holiday in Salema, six miles from Praia da Luz in Portugal where Madeleine vanished aged three.
The woman, now 23, said a man grabbed her on the beach. He performed a sex act on himself and then ran off.
Her brother and father failed to catch him.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12592674/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-sex-attack-girl-one-month/
There are further details on both assaults but they are paid access. On the first, it is said that CB took the girl into a bush and held her by the arm while exposing himself and putting his hand up her skirt. In the Salema assault, the girl was playing in a rock pool with other children when a man approached and spoke to her in English and then in native German when he realised she was also German. He then grabbed her by the arm and dragged her onto an area of sand away from the other kids and began pleasuring himself. The girl's brother heard her screams and ran to get his father.
-
Thank you 8((()*/
-
Wasn't there reports of charges early in the new year, well the first quarter day is fast approaching ,it'll no longer be early. Still he's bang to rights on here, thats all that matters.
And how many people here have the McCanns 'bang to rights'? I wouldn't say I've come across one person here so far who has claimed CB is "definitely" guilty. Just a number of people who are free enough of prejudice to admit he's the most plausible suspect in the case to date, and therefore very possibly guilty. Particularly when considering how adamant the BKA are about it, a respected police agency, who have no ulterior motives in this case.
As for the impending charges, there could be any number of things holding that up (although technically we are still 'early' in the year anyway). It's a complex situation, particularly when it comes to legal red tape and moreso if they intend to combine all 3 charges into one trial, which is what Wolters has intimated.
One other thing to remember is that the 3 offences touted all took place in Portugal. Therefore, in order to charge, BKA will likely be requesting permission from the Portuguese authorites to add those charges to the original extradition warrant. That's how CB tried to get out of the rape conviction, by saying the trial was unlawful since he was extradited from Portugal on a different charge. The Germans got around it by adding the rape charge to the Milan extradition warrant. From Wolters previous comments, the Portuguese haven't been as helpful as he'd hoped thus far, I believe he made a comment along the lines of 'what takes a week in Germany, takes 6 months in Portugal'.
I certainly don't think it's a sign that there WON'T be any charges. The playground assault in Messines for example would appear to be a slam dunk. He was quite literally caught with his pants down, by several independent witnesses.
-
Talk is cheap.
Mibbe so - but it certainly is an indicator of how his mind works.
-
I never mentioned Calpol, and sedation was Kate McCann's canard, which she claims to have raised immediately, but there's no evidence that she did so.
You claimed multiple people talked online about routinely sedating their kids as if it was a common acceptable occurrence. What sedatives were they administering please? Second time of asking.
-
And how many people here have the McCanns 'bang to rights'? I wouldn't say I've come across one person here so far who has claimed CB is "definitely" guilty. Just a number of people who are free enough of prejudice to admit he's the most plausible suspect in the case to date, and therefore very possibly guilty. Particularly when considering how adamant the BKA are about it, a respected police agency, who have no ulterior motives in this case.
As for the impending charges, there could be any number of things holding that up (although technically we are still 'early' in the year anyway). It's a complex situation, particularly when it comes to legal red tape and moreso if they intend to combine all 3 charges into one trial, which is what Wolters has intimated.
One other thing to remember is that the 3 offences touted all took place in Portugal. Therefore, in order to charge, BKA will likely be requesting permission from the Portuguese authorites to add those charges to the original extradition warrant. That's how CB tried to get out of the rape conviction, by saying the trial was unlawful since he was extradited from Portugal on a different charge. The Germans got around it by adding the rape charge to the Milan extradition warrant. From Wolters previous comments, the Portuguese haven't been as helpful as he'd hoped thus far, I believe he made a comment along the lines of 'what takes a week in Germany, takes 6 months in Portugal'.
I certainly don't think it's a sign that there WON'T be any charges. The playground assault in Messines for example would appear to be a slam dunk. He was quite literally caught with his pants down, by several independent witnesses.
It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself imo. It's not possibilities that convict people, it's evidence.
-
It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself imo. It's not possibilities that convict people, it's evidence.
Convince myself of what?
As a moderator, you shouldn't be making derogotary comments like that IMO. What about the content of my post there, warranted that? Please explain.
-
It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself imo. It's not possibilities that convict people, it's evidence.
It aounded like you were trying to convince yourself the McCanns and friends sedated their children when you said you read on the internet of numerous cases of parents sedating their children, yet you have refused to explain who these people were, what sedation they were using, and why they weren’t arrested and their kids taken into care if their actions were illegal. Evidence convicts people and there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their kids yet you have put this forward as a motive, one that doesn’t actually make any sense anyway IMO. I fully expect this post will be ignored by you yet again, so rude!
-
A recent German documentary reported that Brueckner will produce alibi evidence to prove he was elsewhere when Madeleine disappeared. My opinion is that if he had credible evidence to support that he was elsewhere at the time he quite simply would not still be the prime suspect, which he is.
The phone evidence is a bit of a problem for him too, particularly as it would seem from the lack of follow up requests that previous appeals for the person at the other end of the line have been successful.
No doubt his former girlfriend who strangely felt the need to unburden herself to reporters will have given her evidence about the tenth anniversary discussion to the police in the first instance .
‘I asked him about it and he said, “I know about Maddie, I was near the hotel at the time. I was living in the area at the time. I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’
Dailyhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10172917/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-told-girlfriend-near-holiday-villa.html Mail Online
I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’ [/b]
To me, that sounds as though he, Breuckner, was being paid to abduct Madeleine. It was a business deal
-
I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’
To me, that sounds as though he, Breuckner, was being paid to abduct Madeleine. It was a business deal
One of Brueckner's friends said he was obsessed by money and at one time or another he definitely had access to funds.
He bought property - he bought a kiosk - he bought the second hand American style 'Winnebego' Motorhome and seemed to have access to a variety of vehicles.
I don't think much if any of his 'businesses' were legit, the mainstay being his involvement in the drug trade. But his contacts made as a result of his 'business' activities certainly tick another couple of boxes not available to the McCanns namely the means available to him combined with his invisibility to the PJ despite Amaral's assurances to the contrary.
-
It aounded like you were trying to convince yourself the McCanns and friends sedated their children when you said you read on the internet of numerous cases of parents sedating their children, yet you have refused to explain who these people were, what sedation they were using, and why they weren’t arrested and their kids taken into care if their actions were illegal. Evidence convicts people and there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their kids yet you have put this forward as a motive, one that doesn’t actually make any sense anyway IMO. I fully expect this post will be ignored by you yet again, so rude!
I get accused of kidding myself (over what I'm still waiting to find out) when I wasn't even addressing her in my post
G-unit, if you take issue with a comment I make, please call me up on it and say exactly what it is you don't agree with.
-
I get accused of kidding myself (over what I'm still waiting to find out) when I wasn't even addressing her in my post
G-unit, if you take issue with a comment I make, please call me up on it and say exactly what it is you don't agree with.
All queries about moderation should be posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741
-
All queries about moderation should be posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741
Thank you Brietta. An interesting thread. These are some of my favourite comments from there -
- Moderators shouldn't penalise others for doing things they also do. Respect has to be earned and a moderator who displays the "do as I say not as I do" attitude won't be respected, and will lose authority imo. Leading by example is what the best leaders do imo.
- Moderators have volunteered to ensure that all members keep to the rules of the Forum. If you poke your head above the parapet you should expect to be shot at in my opinion. As long as you are confident that your moderating is fair, unbiased and in accordance with forum rules there's no need to feel like anyone is attacking you personally.
-Although I'm not here to win any popularity contest I know full well that I would be universally unpopular if I was a moderator. I believe rules should be adhered to and I would enforce them much more strictly than they are currently enforced.
I wouldn't allow any;
Personal comments
Lack of respect
Speculation
Lack of cites
Protracted arguments
-
Ha, without the last ones, the forum would be very inactive as it's rife with speculation and protracted and pointless argument.
-
If CB was never charged..if the investigating police force said he was no longer a suspect and there's no evidence against him... what would sceptics think if 14 years later posters were still here posting and were still convinced of his guilt. Would they think such posters were daft
-
If CB was never charged..if the investigating police force said he was no longer a suspect and there's no evidence against him... what would sceptics think if 14 years later posters were still here posting and were still convinced of his guilt. Would they think such posters were daft
I don't know what people would think in such circumstances, other than that Brueckner had been thoroughly investigated before that conclusion was reached.
-
If CB was never charged..if the investigating police force said he was no longer a suspect and there's no evidence against him... what would sceptics think if 14 years later posters were still here posting and were still convinced of his guilt. Would they think such posters were daft
Certainly a proposition worth thinking about but I doubt it would ever happen were such an announcement made. It would be seen as vindication and an excuse to vent even more spleen at their subjects of choice.
However it seems the sleuths have woken up on WS and have raised the interesting point that the next anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance will mark Portugal's statute of limitations kicking in.
Am I right in thinking this was a similar situation regarding the rape trial?
I have seen it said before that the German investigation suffers no such restriction and may explain why their Portuguese colleagues are content to step back and allow them to get on with it.
Makes sense I think for anyone interested in Justice.
-
Convince myself of what?
As a moderator, you shouldn't be making derogotary comments like that IMO. What about the content of my post there, warranted that? Please explain.
To convince yourself that the Germans have found the person responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance. You see Brueckner as a 'plausible' suspect. Colin Stagg was a plausible suspect in the Rachel Nickell case, but he didn't do it, so plausible doesn't equate to guilty.
The BKA, you say, are adamant. What have the BKA (not Hans Wolters) been adamant about please?
Which three charges has Wolters intimidated Brueckner will be charged with?
In summary your post was not imo evidence based, it was extremely speculative.
-
Certainly a proposition worth thinking about but I doubt it would ever happen were such an announcement made. It would be seen as vindication and an excuse to vent even more spleen at their subjects of choice.
However it seems the sleuths have woken up on WS and have raised the interesting point that the next anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance will mark Portugal's statute of limitations kicking in.
Am I right in thinking this was a similar situation regarding the rape trial?
I have seen it said before that the German investigation suffers no such restriction and may explain why their Portuguese colleagues are content to step back and allow them to get on with it.
Makes sense I think for anyone interested in Justice.
Perhaps the Portuguese don't have any evidence with which to charge Brueckner with murdering Madeleine McCann?If that's the case then their statute of limitations is irrelevant.
-
It aounded like you were trying to convince yourself the McCanns and friends sedated their children when you said you read on the internet of numerous cases of parents sedating their children, yet you have refused to explain who these people were, what sedation they were using, and why they weren’t arrested and their kids taken into care if their actions were illegal. Evidence convicts people and there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their kids yet you have put this forward as a motive, one that doesn’t actually make any sense anyway IMO. I fully expect this post will be ignored by you yet again, so rude!
Bump
-
To convince yourself that the Germans have found the person responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance. You see Brueckner as a 'plausible' suspect. Colin Stagg was a plausible suspect in the Rachel Nickell case, but he didn't do it, so plausible doesn't equate to guilty.
The BKA, you say, are adamant. What have the BKA (not Hans Wolters) been adamant about please?
Which three charges has Wolters intimidated Brueckner will be charged with?
In summary your post was not imo evidence based, it was extremely speculative.
You seem to be in such total denial it's laughable.
The case will be decided on evidence.
There was no evidence against Stagg so its a ridiculous comparison. There is evidence against CB... Almost certainly more than what we already know
-
Bump
My thoughts on sedation were shared because I think that it could be seen as a motive to hide a body if the dead person had been sedated. There's no evidence that any of the McCann children were sedated, but there is evidence that her mother very quickly decided that it was a possibility that 'the abductor' had done so, although there's a lack of evidence that she shared this thought with the police initially as she claimed.
Parents do sedate their children, sometimes with help from doctors;
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/some-parents-sedate-their-babies/
Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’
Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.
‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html
-
My thoughts on sedation were shared because I think that it could be seen as a motive to hide a body if the dead person had been sedated. There's no evidence that any of the McCann children were sedated, but there is evidence that her mother very quickly decided that it was a possibility that 'the abductor' had done so, although there's a lack of evidence that she shared this thought with the police initially as she claimed.
Parents do sedate their children, sometimes with help from doctors;
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/some-parents-sedate-their-babies/
Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’
Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.
‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html
You didn’t answer any of my questions. You say many people habitually sedate their children, suggesting that this is quite a normal practice in some circles but volunteered no evidence to support your assertion nor any detail on what substance is used to sedate children, and if it is actually illegal to sedate children with such substance(s). It’s really rather important to establish the answers to these questions if you’re going to suggest a cover up over sedation as the motive IMO. People who are given too much sedation don’t as far as I know become more wakeful and more likely to get up and fall off sofas to their deaths, so do you really think this is a likely scenario? Isn’t it more likely that an oversedated child would fallinto a coma and die in their bed, their death not being discovered until the following morning? But this is not what you think happened is it? Can you not see how illogical the sedation theory is?
-
To convince yourself that the Germans have found the person responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance. You see Brueckner as a 'plausible' suspect. Colin Stagg was a plausible suspect in the Rachel Nickell case, but he didn't do it, so plausible doesn't equate to guilty.
The BKA, you say, are adamant. What have the BKA (not Hans Wolters) been adamant about please?
Which three charges has Wolters intimidated Brueckner will be charged with?
In summary your post was not imo evidence based, it was extremely speculative.
I never said plausible equals guilty. You are repeatedly trying to make out that I'm saying things that I'm not. Please stop it. Challenge the content of what I actually say if you don't agree with something.
What do you mean by "not Wolters"? Wolters is a BKA Prosecutor and their media spokesperson on this case. He speaks to the media on behalf of the BKA. Are you claiming he is just giving his own personal opinion when he says the following. If you are, then I think you are the one trying to kid themselves:
"We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
“It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.
“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
The other 3 cases are mentioned here:
THE prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is to be charged with the rape of a young woman early next year.
As reported by the Olive Press two months ago, Brueckner is also set to be charged with up to six separate sex crimes next year.
The Olive Press understands the sexual assault of a child on a beach near Praia da Luz in 2007 and the flashing to four young kids in 2017, also on the Algarve, are the most likely to be leveled at him in February and March.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/18/maddie-mccann-prime-suspect-christian-bruekner-to-be-charged-with-rape-of-young-woman/
The public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig is currently hoping to be able to complete the investigation into an alleged rape of a woman from Ireland in 2004 by the beginning of 2022. In this case, too, the focus was on the German. In Braunschweig, the German is being investigated in two other cases. It is about sexual abuse of children in two cases, as prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters confirmed to the German Press Agency.
https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/sat1-vermisste-maddie-mccann-loesung-portugal-deutscher-journalistin-justiz-tn-91269
The Braunschweig public prosecutor's office is conducting three other cases against the 44-year-old German Christian B. He could initially be charged in these cases. It is about sexual offenses that the 44-year-old is said to have committed in Portugal . In 2004, B. is said to have raped the Irish woman Hazel B. in her holiday apartment, and in 2007 he molested a ten-year-old girl from Germany on the beach. In addition, the public prosecutor is investigating the sexual abuse of four children on the sidelines of a festival in São Bartolomeu de Messines in 2017.
Since he was caught red-handed at the festival, the evidence is considered relatively solid. The investigation is expected to continue for a few more months. "Should there be sufficient suspicion in the affirmative in several cases, it must be examined whether joint indictment would be appropriate," says Christian Wolters, spokesman for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office.
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/weitere-verfahren-gegen-christian-b-a-ea4f2f4a-0002-0001-0000-000177514605
-
Trouble it's all talk and no action. Has been for some considerable time.
When he actually gets charged with something, particularly anything to do with Madeleine, is the time to pay attention.
IMO
-
I never said plausible equals guilty. You are repeatedly trying to make out that I'm saying things that I'm not. Please stop it. Challenge the content of what I actually say if you don't agree with something.
What do you mean by "not Wolters"? Wolters is a BKA Prosecutor and their media spokesperson on this case. He speaks to the media on behalf of the BKA. Are you claiming he is just giving his own personal opinion when he says the following. If you are, then I think you are the one trying to kid themselves:
"We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
“It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.
“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
The other 3 cases are mentioned here:
THE prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is to be charged with the rape of a young woman early next year.
As reported by the Olive Press two months ago, Brueckner is also set to be charged with up to six separate sex crimes next year.
The Olive Press understands the sexual assault of a child on a beach near Praia da Luz in 2007 and the flashing to four young kids in 2017, also on the Algarve, are the most likely to be leveled at him in February and March.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/18/maddie-mccann-prime-suspect-christian-bruekner-to-be-charged-with-rape-of-young-woman/
The public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig is currently hoping to be able to complete the investigation into an alleged rape of a woman from Ireland in 2004 by the beginning of 2022. In this case, too, the focus was on the German. In Braunschweig, the German is being investigated in two other cases. It is about sexual abuse of children in two cases, as prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters confirmed to the German Press Agency.
https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/sat1-vermisste-maddie-mccann-loesung-portugal-deutscher-journalistin-justiz-tn-91269
The Braunschweig public prosecutor's office is conducting three other cases against the 44-year-old German Christian B. He could initially be charged in these cases. It is about sexual offenses that the 44-year-old is said to have committed in Portugal . In 2004, B. is said to have raped the Irish woman Hazel B. in her holiday apartment, and in 2007 he molested a ten-year-old girl from Germany on the beach. In addition, the public prosecutor is investigating the sexual abuse of four children on the sidelines of a festival in São Bartolomeu de Messines in 2017.
Since he was caught red-handed at the festival, the evidence is considered relatively solid. The investigation is expected to continue for a few more months. "Should there be sufficient suspicion in the affirmative in several cases, it must be examined whether joint indictment would be appropriate," says Christian Wolters, spokesman for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office.
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/weitere-verfahren-gegen-christian-b-a-ea4f2f4a-0002-0001-0000-000177514605
Wolters as spokesperson for the BKA has indicated some of the boxes ticked for them by Brueckner - all of which are evidence based.
Taking their time to make sure that the evidence will stand in court is a good move I think - particularly as they are no great rush since Brueckner isn't going anywhere.
The only downside is in relation to Madeleine's family and amongst most people there is genuine appreciation and concern for what they are being put through.
-
My thoughts on sedation were shared because I think that it could be seen as a motive to hide a body if the dead person had been sedated. There's no evidence that any of the McCann children were sedated, but there is evidence that her mother very quickly decided that it was a possibility that 'the abductor' had done so, although there's a lack of evidence that she shared this thought with the police initially as she claimed.
Parents do sedate their children, sometimes with help from doctors;
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/some-parents-sedate-their-babies/
Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’
Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.
‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html
Speculation.. Speculation.. Speculation... And nonsense.r
-
Trouble it's all talk and no action. Has been for some considerable time.
When he actually gets charged with something, particularly anything to do with Madeleine, is the time to pay attention.
IMO
I believe it's all waffle with Wolters. The Met and the Portuguese seemingly believe so.
-
I believe it's all waffle with Wolters. The Met and the Portuguese seemingly believe so.
You've got it all wrong..... Particularly if you think the MET don't see CB as the prime suspect
-
Trouble it's all talk and no action. Has been for some considerable time.
When he actually gets charged with something, particularly anything to do with Madeleine, is the time to pay attention.
IMO
Its a shame you and others don't apply the same reasoning towards the mccanns
-
I've decided I no longer care about McCann, one way or the other.
They'll never face legal charges, but neither will they ever escape from their actions.
Kama
-
I've decided I no longer care about McCann, one way or the other.
They'll never face legal charges, but neither will they ever escape from their actions.
Kama
Of course they will never escape from their actions. ..if they hadn't left the children none of us would be here now...butI'm interested in finding out the truth Re what happened.
-
I never said plausible equals guilty. You are repeatedly trying to make out that I'm saying things that I'm not. Please stop it. Challenge the content of what I actually say if you don't agree with something.
No, what you said was "he's the most plausible suspect in the case to date, and therefore very possibly guilty." Therefore means 'for that reason', so to be completely accurate you are saying that because he's a plausible suspect that strengthens the possibility of his guilt. I don't think plausibility is connected to guilt at all.
What do you mean by "not Wolters"? Wolters is a BKA Prosecutor and their media spokesperson on this case. He speaks to the media on behalf of the BKA. Are you claiming he is just giving his own personal opinion when he says the following. If you are, then I think you are the one trying to kid themselves:
Wolters is not a BKA Prosecutor or their media spokesperson, unless you have evidence of that. He is the spokesperson of the department of prosecution of Braunschweig.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-tip-brueckner-madeleine-mccann-22147702
"We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
“It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.
“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.
“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
The other 3 cases are mentioned here:
THE prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is to be charged with the rape of a young woman early next year.
As reported by the Olive Press two months ago, Brueckner is also set to be charged with up to six separate sex crimes next year.
The Olive Press understands the sexual assault of a child on a beach near Praia da Luz in 2007 and the flashing to four young kids in 2017, also on the Algarve, are the most likely to be leveled at him in February and March.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/18/maddie-mccann-prime-suspect-christian-bruekner-to-be-charged-with-rape-of-young-woman/
The public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig is currently hoping to be able to complete the investigation into an alleged rape of a woman from Ireland in 2004 by the beginning of 2022. In this case, too, the focus was on the German. In Braunschweig, the German is being investigated in two other cases. It is about sexual abuse of children in two cases, as prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters confirmed to the German Press Agency.
https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/sat1-vermisste-maddie-mccann-loesung-portugal-deutscher-journalistin-justiz-tn-91269
The Braunschweig public prosecutor's office is conducting three other cases against the 44-year-old German Christian B. He could initially be charged in these cases. It is about sexual offenses that the 44-year-old is said to have committed in Portugal . In 2004, B. is said to have raped the Irish woman Hazel B. in her holiday apartment, and in 2007 he molested a ten-year-old girl from Germany on the beach. In addition, the public prosecutor is investigating the sexual abuse of four children on the sidelines of a festival in São Bartolomeu de Messines in 2017.
Since he was caught red-handed at the festival, the evidence is considered relatively solid. The investigation is expected to continue for a few more months. "Should there be sufficient suspicion in the affirmative in several cases, it must be examined whether joint indictment would be appropriate," says Christian Wolters, spokesman for the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office.
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/weitere-verfahren-gegen-christian-b-a-ea4f2f4a-0002-0001-0000-000177514605
Some answers above. It seems the 3 crimes don't include the McCann case.
-
I've decided I no longer care about McCann, one way or the other.
They'll never face legal charges, but neither will they ever escape from their actions.
Kama
Very true.
-
I've decided I no longer care about McCann, one way or the other.
They'll never face legal charges, but neither will they ever escape from their actions.
Kama
Goodbye then.
-
Very true.
Goodbye to you too.
-
My thoughts on sedation were shared because I think that it could be seen as a motive to hide a body if the dead person had been sedated. There's no evidence that any of the McCann children were sedated, but there is evidence that her mother very quickly decided that it was a possibility that 'the abductor' had done so, although there's a lack of evidence that she shared this thought with the police initially as she claimed.
Parents do sedate their children, sometimes with help from doctors;
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/some-parents-sedate-their-babies/
Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’
Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.
‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html
”No problem resorting to Phenergan on flights”. “No harm in adminsitering it occasionally”.
So is the the substance you reckon was used to sedate the McCann children? Something a doctor considers not harmful if occasionally administered? Do you have any evidence that the McCanns used this not very harmful sedative? How many incidents of children dying from lethal doses of Phenargen have there ever been? How many incidents of children left sedated and asleep in bed who shortly thereafter got up, had a fall and died almost instantaneously? How many such incidents were then covered up by the parents and numerous friends and acquaintances because the children were given a legal, not very harmful sedative? Has anything like this ever happened before? More or less frequently than children being abducted from their beds by strangers? Show me the evidence which begins to support your theory that this was the motive. Go on, let’s have it.
-
I've decided I no longer care about McCann, one way or the other.
They'll never face legal charges, but neither will they ever escape from their actions.
Kama
What is Kama, please?
-
Some answers above. It seems the 3 crimes don't include the McCann case.
Semantics. The boxes he ticks and the circumstantial evidence we know about so far is what makes him a plausible suspect. And those same things are what makes some of us think the BKA may well have the correct culprit. That's all I was trying to say. I have not said at any point I think CB is definitely guilty though, as much as you (and others) like to make out that's what I'm saying. I cannot make that assessment based solely on the evidence we know so far. But I do think it is a very possible prospect. And the Prosecutor's confidence in his guilt only reinforces my opinion that he could well be responsible, since I have no reason to suspect that they are bluffing about the evidence they claim to have. If it turns out they don't have anything substantial, I'll be the first to condemn them for the statements they've made, but I see no reason at this stage to believe they are just "all talk" and write their claims off, like some people have. Time is on their side, why wouldn't they use it to build the best case possible?
Ok, I see what you are getting at now. Yes, the BKA and the Prosecutor's office are separate organisations. But he is a public prosecutor and his office are coordinating the BKA investigation. The investigation for which he is the spokesperson. When he speaks, you will often hear him saying "we" when he is referring to his colleagues in the BKA and the investigations they are undertaking. So as far as I'm concerned, he is speaking on their behalf too. Ultimately, it's his office who decides if and when charges are made based on the evidence collated, so it's their opinion what matters.
-
Semantics. The boxes he ticks and the circumstantial evidence we know about so far is what makes him a plausible suspect. And those same things are what makes some of us think the BKA may well have the correct culprit. That's all I was trying to say. I have not said at any point I think CB is definitely guilty though, as much as you (and others) like to make out that's what I'm saying. I cannot make that assessment based solely on the evidence we know so far. But I do think it is a very possible prospect. And the Prosecutor's confidence in his guilt only reinforces my opinion that he could well be responsible, since I have no reason to suspect that they are bluffing about the evidence they claim to have. If it turns out they don't have anything substantial, I'll be the first to condemn them for the statements they've made, but I see no reason at this stage to believe they are just "all talk" and write their claims off, like some people have. Time is on their side, why wouldn't they use it to build the best case possible?
Ok, I see what you are getting at now. Yes, the BKA and the Prosecutor's office are separate organisations. But he is a public prosecutor and his office are coordinating the BKA investigation. The investigation for which he is the spokesperson. When he speaks, you will often hear him saying "we" when he is referring to his colleagues in the BKA and the investigations they are undertaking. So as far as I'm concerned, he is speaking on their behalf too. Ultimately, it's his office who decides if and when charges are made based on the evidence collated, so it's their opinion what matters.
I don't think it's semantics to point out misleading or incorrect statements in posts.
-
I don't think it's semantics to point out misleading or incorrect statements in posts.
I'd expect nothing less from you. When you're all out of logic to address the fundamental arguments being made, and don't want to respond to difficult questions that challenge the arguments that you make, what else can you do but nitpick technicalities eh?
-
I don't think it's semantics to point out misleading or incorrect statements in posts.
When I point out yours you ignore my posts completely!
-
I'd expect nothing less from you. When you're all out of logic to address the fundamental arguments being made, and don't want to respond to difficult questions that challenge the arguments that you make, what else can you do but nitpick technicalities eh?
If a poster can't get the facts right the speculations and opinions being expressed are likely to be unconvincing imo.
-
If a poster can't get the facts right the speculations and opinions being expressed are likely to be unconvincing imo.
I’m wholly unconvinced by your opinion that death as a result of sedation was the motive for 9 people to cover up a death, especially as you have presented no evidence for it being a factor in this case.
-
If a poster can't get the facts right the speculations and opinions being expressed are likely to be unconvincing imo.
If a poster can't come up with anything logical to challenge an opinion they don't like, they resort to nitpicking any minor detail they can scrape together IMO.
If the best challenge you can come up with to everything I said is that Wolters isn't technically a BKA spokesman but a spokesman for the Prosecutor's office who are speaking on behalf of the BKA investigation that they are coordinating, well... that says it all IMO.
Anyway, tell us more about this wholly convncing sedation theory you were speculating about? It sounds fascinating.
-
Certainly a proposition worth thinking about but I doubt it would ever happen were such an announcement made. It would be seen as vindication and an excuse to vent even more spleen at their subjects of choice.
However it seems the sleuths have woken up on WS and have raised the interesting point that the next anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance will mark Portugal's statute of limitations kicking in.
Am I right in thinking this was a similar situation regarding the rape trial?
I have seen it said before that the German investigation suffers no such restriction and may explain why their Portuguese colleagues are content to step back and allow them to get on with it.
Makes sense I think for anyone interested in Justice.
Hi Brie
Sorry, but I have forgotten who, or what, WS is. Please can you enlighten me? Thanks in anticipation
-
Hi Brie
Sorry, but I have forgotten who, or what, WS is. Please can you enlighten me? Thanks in anticipation
My fault, Sadie, I was just being lazy. I should have initially typed in Websleuths. Their members have been having a wee bit of a break from posting because there is nothing much to say at the moment. They started back wondering if the Portuguese statute of limitations is a consideration.
-
If a poster can't come up with anything logical to challenge an opinion they don't like, they resort to nitpicking any minor detail they can scrape together IMO.
If the best challenge you can come up with to everything I said is that Wolters isn't technically a BKA spokesman but a spokesman for the Prosecutor's office who are speaking on behalf of the BKA investigation that they are coordinating, well... that says it all IMO.
Anyway, tell us more about this wholly convncing sedation theory you were speculating about? It sounds fascinating.
The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?
-
The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?
I'd say it's clear that Wolters is spokesman for the German investigation.. That involves the BKA. To me you are in constant denial
-
The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?
Are you seriously suggesting that HCW’s public statements may have been made without the agreement and approval of the BKA?
-
In Germany, the police have an obligation to investigate every single crime reported and subsequently send all investigations to the Staatsanwaltschaft. The public prosecutor, the Staatsanwalt (state attorney), reviews the findings of the police and decides whether to indict the accused or halt the proceedings
-
I’m wholly unconvinced by your opinion that death as a result of sedation was the motive for 9 people to cover up a death, especially as you have presented no evidence for it being a factor in this case.
I never said that. I said that it could have been a motive for deciding not to surrender a body to the authorities. Just like the stranger abduction, sedation was brought into the case by Madeleine's mother as early as 5th May, although the PJ weren't told it seems.
-
The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?
Well be prepared to be surprised then, because that's how the legal hierarchy works in Germany, it's very different to the UK or US legal system. The police are always technicallly under the control and direction of the Prosecution service in Germany. In practice, yes, most cases are investigated by the police entirely independent of the Prosecutors instructions, and they simply hand their findings over at the end. But in serious cases like murder, or where there are complex legal issues (like in this case), the Prosecutors are involved early on and coordinate the investigation hands-on. Since the Prosecutors are the ones who have to present a case at trial, it means they can direct the investigators to the areas they feel require more evidence to strengthen their case.
"In the German legal system it is their job to lead preliminary criminal investigations. That involves reading files, instructing the police to conduct witness interviews or house searches"
https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/how-public-prosecutors-work-in-germany
Of course, if you know different, please provide a cite?
-
I never said that. I said that it could have been a motive for deciding not to surrender a body to the authorities. Just like the stranger abduction, sedation was brought into the case by Madeleine's mother as early as 5th May, although the PJ weren't told it seems.
If sedation was the motive which the McCanns wished to conceal, why did Kate McCann bring it up in the first place? How does that make any sense? Do you agree with the statement “there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children?” yes or no?
-
I never said that. I said that it could have been a motive for deciding not to surrender a body to the authorities. Just like the stranger abduction, sedation was brought into the case by Madeleine's mother as early as 5th May, although the PJ weren't told it seems.
More unsubstantiated speculation.... What about signs of sexual abuse..some sceptics seem to think that could be a reason too
-
BKA Read all about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Criminal_Police_Office_(Germany)
-
BKA Read all about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Criminal_Police_Office_(Germany)
Very informative. Not. @)(++(*
-
If sedation was the motive which the McCanns wished to conceal, why did Kate McCann bring it up in the first place? How does that make any sense? Do you agree with the statement “there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children?” yes or no?
More difficult questions that simply cannot be answered it would appear…
-
If sedation was the motive which the McCanns wished to conceal, why did Kate McCann bring it up in the first place? How does that make any sense? Do you agree with the statement “there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children?” yes or no?
According to the PJ files Kate McCann brought the subject up with Ricardo Paiva three months after the disappearance.
According to Kate McCann she raised the subject with the responding officers on the night of the disappearance, but there's no evidence of that. She said nothing in her interview on 4th May.
According to the LP liaison officers the parents asked them if the PJ had found any evidence suggesting sedation had been used.
So there's no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children, but there is evidence that they were interested in the possibility very early on, but none that they raised the possibility with the PJ. Why not? Why wait for three months?
-
Amaral was NEVER able to come up with any sort of feasible means for the McCanns to be able to make Madeleine vanish without trace. And my goodness some of the many means he suggested they might have employed are irrational and simply beyond belief.
They didn't even have access to any sort of transportation nor did they know the area or anyone living in it - so all the Amaral suspicions fall at the first hurdle for people on foot in and without support in an unknown and unfamiliar environment.
All the boxes that logic dictates cannot be applicable to the McCanns are ones which can be ticked with ease as far as the prime suspect Brueckner is concerned.
Brueckner had the means, the transportation, the contacts, the skills and the incentive. He obviously knew the resort like the back of his hand as it was a cash cow for him in many ways both legal and illegal.
-
Amaral was NEVER able to come up with any sort of feasible means for the McCanns to be able to make Madeleine vanish without trace. And my goodness some of the many means he suggested they might have employed are irrational and simply beyond belief.
They didn't even have access to any sort of transportation nor did they know the area or anyone living in it - so all the Amaral suspicions fall at the first hurdle for people on foot in and without support in an unknown and unfamiliar environment.
All the boxes that logic dictates cannot be applicable to the McCanns are ones which can be ticked with ease as far as the prime suspect Brueckner is concerned.
Brueckner had the means, the transportation, the contacts, the skills and the incentive. He obviously knew the resort like the back of his hand as it was a cash cow for him in many ways both legal and illegal.
Potential libel.
-
According to the PJ files Kate McCann brought the subject up with Ricardo Paiva three months after the disappearance.
According to Kate McCann she raised the subject with the responding officers on the night of the disappearance, but there's no evidence of that. She said nothing in her interview on 4th May.
According to the LP liaison officers the parents asked them if the PJ had found any evidence suggesting sedation had been used.
So there's no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children, but there is evidence that they were interested in the possibility very early on, but none that they raised the possibility with the PJ. Why not? Why wait for three months?
You don't know they didn't raise the point in the interviews... You are making an assumption... Speculating
-
According to the PJ files Kate McCann brought the subject up with Ricardo Paiva three months after the disappearance.
According to Kate McCann she raised the subject with the responding officers on the night of the disappearance, but there's no evidence of that. She said nothing in her interview on 4th May.
According to the LP liaison officers the parents asked them if the PJ had found any evidence suggesting sedation had been used.
So there's no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children, but there is evidence that they were interested in the possibility very early on, but none that they raised the possibility with the PJ. Why not? Why wait for three months?
How do you know it was never raised? Were all their discussions with the PJ minuted?
-
You don't know they didn't raise the point in the interviews... You are making an assumption... Speculating
I said there's no evidence. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. I'll leave it to others to speculate.
-
I said there's no evidence. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. I'll leave it to others to speculate.
You have speculated that sedation was the reason why the McCanns and their friends had to cover up Madeleine’s death have you not?
-
I said there's no evidence. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. I'll leave it to others to speculate.
The fact there is no evidence does not mean they didn't raise the point.. You are speculating.. And the fact you don't realise that speaks volumes
-
Potential libel. In my opinion.
Nah! no libel there. Everything that Brie is saying is true and recorded fact ..... soz!
-
The fact there is no evidence does not mean they didn't raise the point.. You are speculating.. And the fact you don't realise that speaks volumes
Are you suggesting that Kate McCann told the police off the record that she thought her children had been sedated by a predator and they did nothing about it?
-
Are you suggesting that Kate McCann told the police off the record that she thought her children had been sedated by a predator and they did nothing about it?
That’s what she said happened did she not?
-
That’s what she said happened did she not?
So not only did the police ignore her fears, so did two other mothers; Silvia Batista and Fiona Payne and two fathers; Gerry McCann and David Payne. None of them reacted to the possibility that the twins had been sedated with goodness knows what by goodness knows who. Really? Maybe Kate whispered to the police and the others didn't hear her?
-
So not only did the police ignore her fears, so did two other mothers; Silvia Batista and Fiona Payne and two fathers; Gerry McCann and David Payne. None of them reacted to the possibility that the twins had been sedated with goodness knows what by goodness knows who. Really? Maybe Kate whispered to the police and the others didn't hear her?
It seems you are in full on speculation mode now! Perhaps you should try and come to terms with the fact that you weren’t there and therefore haven’t a clue what was said, by whom nor how they reacted, eh?
-
So not only did the police ignore her fears, so did two other mothers; Silvia Batista and Fiona Payne and two fathers; Gerry McCann and David Payne. None of them reacted to the possibility that the twins had been sedated with goodness knows what by goodness knows who. Really? Maybe Kate whispered to the police and the others didn't hear her?
As you enjoy speculating so much now, let’s assume Kate never raised any concerns whatsoever about her deeply sleeping children that night and is lying - why did she pretend that she had, years later in her book? Over to you.
-
It seems you are in full on speculation mode now! Perhaps you should try and come to terms with the fact that you weren’t there and therefore haven’t a clue what was said, by whom nor how they reacted, eh?
You commented on what Kate McCann said. I merely pointed out that it wasn't said in a vacuum. It was said to officers who weren't English speakers, but the translator never mentioned it and neither did anyone else who was present. It's another of those incorroborated claims, isn't it?
-
As you enjoy speculating so much now, let’s assume Kate never raised any concerns whatsoever about her deeply sleeping children that night and is lying - why did she pretend that she had, years later in her book? Over to you.
More to the point, why wait three months after the event to suggest that the PJ should test the twins?
-
You commented on what Kate McCann said. I merely pointed out that it wasn't said in a vacuum. It was said to officers who weren't English speakers, but the translator never mentioned it and neither did anyone else who was present. It's another of those incorroborated claims, isn't it?
What does it matter to anything at this remove except to highlight further the flawed investigation which took place fifteen years ago.
Amaral has called Brueckner 'the perfect suspect' and says he was on the police radar in 2007. Deflecting back to slurring Kate McCann just doesn't work anymore given the up to date information in the public domain about the prime suspect. Which is all the more chilling given that we don't know the half of it given the fact that we have never seen the evidence which justifies the accusations being levelled against him.
Time to move with the times and accept the fact that not one of the individuals you slur from 2007 is suspected of this heinous crime; but the invisible man who may have played the pivotal role very much is and there is evidence to back that.
-
More to the point, why wait three months after the event to suggest that the PJ should test the twins?
No, the point you have slyly made is Kate McCann’s alleged dishonesty on whch you are now refusing to proffer any explanation for why she would lie about such a detail years later. The reason you are deflecting is because you can’t think of any plausible, logical reason for her to do so, unless you would now actually like to address my question directly?
-
More to the point, why wait three months after the event to suggest that the PJ should test the twins?
More to the point - it all happened a very long time ago and revisiting it incessantly smacks of an obsession rather strange
- you really don't have the slightest intention of desisting from deflection after deflection after deflection on each and every thread on which you insist on ignoring the topic
All very tiresome and predictable and very transparent I think.
So go on ~ surprise me. Let's see you make a few on topic posts in a row and mibbe even ones which don't go out of the way to slur innocent people. Bet you can do it if you try 😁
-
No, the point you have slyly made is Kate McCann’s alleged dishonesty on whch you are now refusing to proffer any explanation for why she would lie about such a detail years later. The reason you are deflecting is because you can’t think of any plausible, logical reason for her to do so, unless you would now actually like to address my question directly?
I was told that there was absolutely no motive for the McCanns to simulate an abduction. I offered a motive based on evidence. End of.
-
I was told that there was absolutely no motive for the McCanns to simulate an abduction. I offered a motive based on evidence. End of.
you agreed there was no evidence the McCanns sedated their kids so you are talking rubbish IMO. Also you haven’t explained why giving children a legal sedative that a doctor has said wouldn’t hurt if administered occasionally would constitute a motive. You’re simply keen to fling out poorly thought through vague notions to justify your years long campaign of “only asking questions “and it’s really sad and pathetic IMO.
-
you agreed there was no evidence the McCanns sedated their kids so you are talking rubbish IMO. Also you haven’t explained why giving children a legal sedative that a doctor has said wouldn’t hurt if administered occasionally would constitute a motive. You’re simply keen to fling out poorly thought through vague notions to justify your years long campaign of “only asking questions “and it’s really sad and pathetic IMO.
I've seen no evidence that Brueckner entered 5A, took Madeleine McCann away and murdered her either, but he's been accused of doing so. His alleged motive is an assumption, because I can think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child if he wanted one.
-
I was told that there was absolutely no motive for the McCanns to simulate an abduction. I offered a motive based on evidence. End of.
Load of rubbish. You said it yourself - "there's no evidence the McCanns sedated their children". You can't say that theory/motive is "based on evidence" based on the fact that Kate suggested an abductor might have sedated Madeleine.
Amaral suggested the parents staged an abduction. So if someone were to come along now and now propose a theory that it was actually Amaral who staged the abduction himself, and they made the claim that this theory was "based on evidence"... you would make no objection to that argument, would you?
As I said, it takes a lot of imagination and barrel scraping to come up with a motive for the McCanns to have covered up her death. There is no evidence that supports a plausible motive IMO. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence to support a plausible motive in the case of CB. End of.
-
I've seen no evidence that Brueckner entered 5A, took Madeleine McCann away and murdered her either, but he's been accused of doing so. His alleged motive is an assumption, because I can think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child if he wanted one.
Can you? Let’s hear about them then.
-
I've seen no evidence that Brueckner entered 5A, took Madeleine McCann away and murdered her either, but he's been accused of doing so. His alleged motive is an assumption, because I can think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child if he wanted one.
He's been accused by those who have that evidence.
-
He's been accused by those who have that evidence.
By those who say they have the evidence, but seem to lack the certainty to take the next step.
-
By those who say they have the evidence, but seem to lack the certainty to take the next step.
You still don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.. Until you do it's fairly pointless commenting on your logic..
Of course it could be that the whole of the German investigation are a bunch of liars... But I sincerely doubt it
-
I've seen no evidence that Brueckner entered 5A, took Madeleine McCann away and murdered her either, but he's been accused of doing so. His alleged motive is an assumption, because I can think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child if he wanted one.
I want to hear about these easier targets and easier ways of abducting a child, easier than entering an unlocked apartment while the parents are elsewhere and lifting out a sleeping child. Can you please answer my question.
-
I've seen no evidence that Brueckner entered 5A, took Madeleine McCann away and murdered her either, but he's been accused of doing so. His alleged motive is an assumption, because I can think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child if he wanted one.
You don't require to see any evidence in an active police investigation. You are a civilian with nothing to do with anything and I think it is sheer arrogance to make the observation you have. I'm almost certain that the parents of the missing child haven't seen the evidence and I haven't heard them bleating about it.
Those investigating officers tasked with looking at Madeleine's case six years after the Policia Judiciaria bailed out of the equation in their haste to archive it in 2008, have looked with interest at the many individuals inadequately explored by the PJ at the time.
Having made inquiries and worked their way through that lot and eliminated them from involvement, Scotland Yard eventually came across Brueckner.
In one way or another he has been a person of interest from 2017 till the present day.
The Scotland Yard investigation undoubtedly investigated many others they thought fitted a particular profile only to rule them out after investigation.
What makes Brueckner different and a so called patsy. Why did they pick on him out of all the potential patsies they looked at if pinning the blame on someone, anyone was the game they were playing?
I suggest Brueckner is unique in evidence relating to him having having been found during investigation which could not rule him out of the frame and thus he became a suspect.
No-one needs to make any assumptions about anything pertaining to Brueckner - all that is needed is evidence of what he did and be able to prove it.
-
You still don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.. Until you do it's fairly pointless commenting on your logic..
Of course it could be that the whole of the German investigation are a bunch of liars... But I sincerely doubt it
Police and or prosecutors charge offenders when they think they have the evidence to prove them guilty in court.
-
Police and or prosecutors charge offenders when they think they have the evidence to prove them guilty in court.
Thats quite a simplistic opinion... I could explain why CB has nt been interviewed r charged.. It makes perfect sense... Bbut I can't be bothered .
-
Thats quite a simplistic opinion... I could explain why CB has nt been interviewed r charged.. It makes perfect sense... Bbut I can't be bothered .
I'm surprised you bothered posting to be honest, as what you posted explains nothing and achieves nothing imo.
-
I'm surprised you bothered posting to be honest, as what you posted explains nothing and achieves nothing imo.
What do you think your posts achieve
-
I want to hear about these easier targets and easier ways of abducting a child, easier than entering an unlocked apartment while the parents are elsewhere and lifting out a sleeping child. Can you please answer my question.
Well?
-
I'm surprised you bothered posting to be honest, as what you posted explains nothing and achieves nothing imo.
verbal diarrhea I believe
-
verbal diarrhea I believe
That’s a bit harsh, I thought you enjoyed G-Unit’s posts! @)(++(*
-
What do you think your posts achieve
I can't be bothered explaining.
-
I can't be bothered explaining.
You can’t be bothered answering my questions either - why not? You claimed you could think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child than walking into an unlocked apartment where the parents were absent and lifting a sleeping child from their bed. So if you can think of them you should be able to share them with us, third or fourth time of asking.
-
You can’t be bothered answering my questions either - why not? You claimed you could think of easier targets and easier ways of taking a child than walking into an unlocked apartment where the parents were absent and lifting a sleeping child from their bed. So if you can think of them you should be able to share them with us, third or fourth time of asking.
I think you have enough imagination to answer the question yourself.
-
I think you have enough imagination to answer the question yourself.
You’re the one claiming you can think of far easier targets and ways for someone like Brückner to steal a small child to abuse, I’m afraid my imagination really does not stretch that far, so how about you share with us your own imaginings? Fourth or fifth time of asking.
-
You’re the one claiming you can think of far easier targets and ways for someone like Brückner to steal a small child to abuse, I’m afraid my imagination really does not stretch that far, so how about you share with us your own imaginings? Fourth or fifth time of asking.
I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.
-
I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.
Oh how lovely - a compliment. I think it's very obvious why you see no reason to explain your thoughts in detail - it's because on reflection you cannot think of an easier target for a predatory paedophile nor an easier way to abduct a child than entering an unlocked ground floor apartment at night from which the parents are absent and in which the child is fast asleep. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
-
I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.
... but plenty of reasons not too.
Shame, your last attempt at speculation was such a roaring success too. Let's be honest, if a supporter used the kind of nonsensical logic you just employed to justify a "motive" or "theory" that suited their position, you'd have ripped them to pieces. And rightly so.
-
I can't be bothered explaining.
We all know our post achieve nothing so nothing to explain
-
.
-
.
The most sensible post I’ve seen all day.
-
The most sensible post I’ve seen all day.
It’s admirable and unusual in its brevity and to the point, though what the point is, who knows.
-
The most sensible post I’ve seen all day.
The others were obviously a bit too intellectual for you.
-
.
...
-
...
Good counter-argument. In fact, I'd say that's 300% more sensible than the original point.
-
I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.
Weak Gunit.
Surely with your expertise at dodging, you can do better than that?
-
Brueckner claimed in a letter to German investigative Journalist Jutta Rabe that he had never been caught because he kept a low profile when moving around to avoid the attention of the police. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-sends-open-letter-over-abduction-claims/FW6CTZZJZ2UBV43NHIP6TIXGBM/
- he only drove during the day whenever possible
- choosing his route with care when driving around
- being careful not to draw police attention to himself
- therefore not committing any crimes particularly that of abduction
His claims don't hold water as far as I am concerned unless he only committed his crimes in areas which were within walking distance; and I imagine drug trafficking over Europe would be difficult without breaking his rules.
He certainly didn't bother about not drawing attention when he exposed himself to the children in the playground and had to be rescued from the wrath of a couple of dads by an off-duty police officer. https://www.eseracingoe.com/the-policeman-who-was-guarding-madeleine-mccanns-apartment-caught-the-prime-suspect-10-years-later/
-
Brueckner claimed in a letter to German investigative Journalist Jutta Rabe that he had never been caught because he kept a low profile when moving around to avoid the attention of the police. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-sends-open-letter-over-abduction-claims/FW6CTZZJZ2UBV43NHIP6TIXGBM/ - he only drove during the day whenever possible
- choosing his route with care when driving around
- being careful not to draw police attention to himself
- therefore not committing any crimes particularly that of abduction
His claims don't hold water as far as I am concerned unless he only committed his crimes in areas which were within walking distance; and I imagine drug trafficking over Europe would be difficult without breaking his rules.
He certainly didn't bother about not drawing attention when he exposed himself to the children in the playground and had to be rescued from the wrath of a couple of dads by an off-duty police officer. https://www.eseracingoe.com/the-policeman-who-was-guarding-madeleine-mccanns-apartment-caught-the-prime-suspect-10-years-later/
It's a nonsensical argument he's trying to make. If CB's motives for taking Madeleine were driven by perverted desires, then consideration over drawing attention to his drug dealing wouldn't even come into it. The drug dealing is driven by the desire to earn money, same as the burglaries. His abuse of children is driven by a sexual compulsion.
Besides, abducting/murdering a child is a far more serious crime than selling weed, whatever the motive. Nobody is going to be logically thinking - "I better not commit this crime that could land me in jail for life, just in case they find out about my weed business which might land me 2 years tops!"
The logic he is trying to use can only really be applied to avoiding "petty" crimes, for fear of drawing attention to the "worse" crimes you were committing.
So, in order to avoid drawing attention to your vehicles and criminal activities, "petty" crimes someone might reasonably be expected to steer clear of would include things like - driving without insurance, driving without a valid licence, driving with illegal registration plates, driving while under the influence... Incidentally, these are all things that CB has also been convicted for... Which just goes to show how full of crap he is.
-
It's a nonsensical argument he's trying to make. If CB's motives for taking Madeleine were driven by perverted desires, then consideration over drawing attention to his drug dealing wouldn't even come into it. The drug dealing is driven by the desire to earn money, same as the burglaries. His abuse of children is driven by a sexual compulsion.
Besides, abducting/murdering a child is a far more serious crime than selling weed, whatever the motive. Nobody is going to be logically thinking - "I better not commit this crime that could land me in jail for life, just in case they find out about my weed business which might land me 2 years tops!"
The logic he is trying to use can only really be applied to avoiding "petty" crimes, for fear of drawing attention to the "worse" crimes you were committing.
So, in order to avoid drawing attention to your vehicles and criminal activities, "petty" crimes someone might reasonably be expected to steer clear of would include things like - driving without insurance, driving without a valid licence, driving with illegal registration plates, driving while under the influence... Incidentally, these are all things that CB has also been convicted for... Which just goes to show how full of crap he is.
All of the abovementioned he would do habitually, given that he's a petty criminal and legitimacy eludes him. His driving license would be jarg, probably, and he had ready access to plates. He's already stated that he tried to evade the five O via the few measures he had at his disposal - i.e. almost none; driving at night, only driving his 300ft Winnebago on back roads and at night, not kidnapping children, that sort of thing.
Two years in soon. Could be some sort of record.
He didn't do it.
-
I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have already charged him.
IMO
-
I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have already charged him.
IMO
One is reminded of the phrase No Manure Moriarty, or some such....
-
I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have already charged him.
IMO
That's probably where we are at. Given that this coup de grâce continues to elude them, despite their best efforts, it's looking increasingly likely that they'll never reach their own meticulous threshold of evidence that preserves their precious conviction rate.
It's over.
SHAZZAM!
-
All of the abovementioned he would do habitually, given that he's a petty criminal and legitimacy eludes him. His driving license would be jarg, probably, and he had ready access to plates. He's already stated that he tried to evade the five O via the few measures he had at his disposal - i.e. almost none; driving at night, only driving his 300ft Winnebago on back roads and at night, not kidnapping children, that sort of thing.
Two years in soon. Could be some sort of record.
He didn't do it.
Well exactly. He was continually committing all sorts of crimes all the time, as his criminal record and the accounts from his associates prove. So his assertion that one of his key principles was - "not committing any crimes" - is a load of crap. Is it not?
His record shows he was engaging in crimes as lowly and pathetic as nicking diesel. And it also shows he was carrying out crimes as extreme as raping and torturing a pensioner. All while he was supposedly concerned about keeping his drug dealing on the down-low.
So once we remove the very obvious lie from his statement about not committing any crimes, what are we are left with in terms of what reasons he offers for not being guilty of taking Madeleine... A denial that he would ever do something so heinous? An alibi that proves he was elsewhere? No, just a rather meaningless claim that he was cautious about where and when he drove his hippy bus. Wow.
-
Well exactly. He was continually committing all sorts of crimes all the time, as his criminal record and the accounts from his associates prove. So his assertion that one of his key principles was - "not committing any crimes" - is a load of crap. Is it not?
His record shows he was engaging in crimes as lowly and pathetic as nicking diesel. And it also shows he was carrying out crimes as extreme as raping and torturing a pensioner. All while he was supposedly concerned about keeping his drug dealing on the down-low.
So once we remove the very obvious lie from his statement about not committing any crimes, what are we are left with in terms of what reasons he offers for not being guilty of taking Madeleine... A denial that he would ever do something so heinous? An alibi that proves he was elsewhere? No, just a rather meaningless claim that he was cautious about where and when he drove his hippy bus. Wow.
Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.
-
Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.
But there is
-
That's probably where we are at. Given that this coup de grâce continues to elude them, despite their best efforts, it's looking increasingly likely that they'll never reach their own meticulous threshold of evidence that preserves their precious conviction rate.
It's over.
SHAZZAM!
Who is we... You and your cat
-
Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.
You’re seeing things. Para’s post did no such thing and just because you refuse to accept that there is evidence against him it doesn’t mean there is none.
-
Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.
And I see you are another one who has to resort to making things up about people when you don't like them pointing out uncomfortable truths.
Given the opportunity to explain why he could not have been the one to have taken Madeleine, CB gives a bizarre excuse about not wanting to risk drawing attention to his drug business. Part of that excuse he gives is also a very provable lie.
If the McCanns claimed a specific excuse to say why they couldn't be guilty, and that claim was demonstrably false, do you think people here would let that slide? Would you call them out for perpetuating a myth? I doubt it.
-
Amaral was NEVER able to come up with any sort of feasible means for the McCanns to be able to make Madeleine vanish without trace. And my goodness some of the many means he suggested they might have employed are irrational and simply beyond belief.
They didn't even have access to any sort of transportation nor did they know the area or anyone living in it - so all the Amaral suspicions fall at the first hurdle for people on foot in and without support in an unknown and unfamiliar environment.
All the boxes that logic dictates cannot be applicable to the McCanns are ones which can be ticked with ease as far as the prime suspect Brueckner is concerned.
Brueckner had the means, the transportation, the contacts, the skills and the incentive. He obviously knew the resort like the back of his hand as it was a cash cow for him in many ways both legal and illegal.
Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice. Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories.
-
I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have already charged him.
IMO
I agree. If they had anything concrete the parents would have been told. The fact that they haven't been told anything says it all really.
-
Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice. Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories.
Insane logic imo.
-
I agree. If they had anything concrete the parents would have been told. The fact that they haven't been told anything says it all really.
You are totally wrong... There is at last some real evidence
-
You are totally wrong... There is at last some real evidence
You're right, circumstantial and not remotely enough. Which could potentially apply to about 200 other people in the area at the time - phone ping and whereabouts unknown.
It's gone now. All gone.
It's amusing to witness the squirm. CB ain't your man, meine verblendeten Freunde. (I use the term loosely, you know, internet acquaintances).
-
You're right, circumstantial and not remotely enough. Which could potentially apply to about 200 other people in the area at the time - phone ping and whereabouts unknown.
It's gone now. All gone.
It's amusing to witness the squirm. CB ain't your man, meine verblendeten Freunde. (I use the term loosely, you know, internet acquaintances).
Theres no sqirm from me I'm following the evidence and the logic..... The real squirming is yet to come.. From sceptics such as yourself
-
What's really amusing is that 15 years on McCann sceptics still believe they are right and that two police forces investigating stranger abduction are wrong, stuck as they are in a perpetual 2007 Groundhog Day they are reluctant to leave. Even if CB isn't ever charged, I would fully expect the investigation either to close with no resolution but with a firm statement from the police that stranger abduction remains the only likely theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance, or that stranger abduction will continue to be investigated as the only likely theory for Madeleine's disappearance. One thing is pretty sure - the McCanns have been off the hook for this for years and will continue to be so, much to the everlasting disappointment of some. The only consolation for them is that without a resolution these sad, deluded yet smug individuals can continue to inhabit their Groundhog Day existence without having to question their own beliefs too hard, and can claim some sort of victory, because obviously it's vitally important to them that they "win the internet" (hence prematurely gloating posts like today's contribution from his Generalness).
-
Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice. Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories.
He's not being accused of child trafficking. He's being accused of murder.
Everbody who gets caught for anything for the first time has no "prior" for it. As I pointed out a few posts ago, he'd never been caught for rape up until a couple of years ago, but we now know his rape crimes go back at least 17 years!
Not sure how you can you assert it is "completely out of character". Some of the people who knew his character best don't seem to think so. They believe he IS guilty, without even seeing the evidence against him. They have described him as being "more than capable" of taking a child and that he'd talked about doing such things.
Of all the people put on trial for murder, what percentage of those do you suppose already have a previous conviction for murder (or child trafficking for that matter)? Probably very few, as those guys would already be serving long sentences.
What you will find in most of those people's records though is a history of other crimes. In fact, the most common "previous convictions" seen in people found guilty of murder are for theft & handling stolen goods, burglary and violence. Boxes ticked.
-
Personally I am shocked and somewhat concerned that an ex-policeman could conclude that someone with previous convictions for rape, theft and child abuse could not be capable of taking a small child from an unlocked ground floor apartment to abuse and then dispose of when he had had what he wanted. Where is the logic in such a conclusion?
-
John also states that CB would have had to have done something completely out of character and to have only done it once. As Para has pointed out, taking a child to abuse is something not considered "completely out of character" by some who actually knew CB, furthermore who is to say that if CB took Madeleine to abuse and murder he only ever committed such a crime once? Is he not being investigated for similar crimes?
-
But there is
Allegedly.
-
And I see you are another one who has to resort to making things up about people when you don't like them pointing out uncomfortable truths.
Given the opportunity to explain why he could not have been the one to have taken Madeleine, CB gives a bizarre excuse about not wanting to risk drawing attention to his drug business. Part of that excuse he gives is also a very provable lie.
If the McCanns claimed a specific excuse to say why they couldn't be guilty, and that claim was demonstrably false, do you think people here would let that slide? Would you call them out for perpetuating a myth? I doubt it.
There is no uncomfortable truth, my stance has always been person/s removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts, seen nothing even from the mighty BKA to change that stance, I said back in June 20 CB had nowt to do with it, still not seen anything to change my mind on that either, cannot prove that Madeleine is dead its circumstantial, no forensics, adds up to diddly squat.
-
There is no uncomfortable truth, my stance has always been person/s removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts, seen nothing even from the mighty BKA to change that stance, I said back in June 20 CB had nowt to do with it, still not seen anything to change my mind on that either, cannot prove that Madeleine is dead its circumstantial, no forensics, adds up to diddly squat.
How can you be so certain of this? Who did, if not CB? You seem very sure of yourself, so do share.
-
Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice. Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories.
It was a cowardly crime which definitely ticked a box for someone in the Policia Judiciaria at the time. The problem seems to lie with the failure of the investigation to follow the elimination process through and deciding a course of action which followed an entirely different narrative from the 'stranger danger' typified by those such as Brueckner.
-
I agree. If they had anything concrete the parents would have been told. The fact that they haven't been told anything says it all really.
The parents are saying absolutely nothing which I don't think means they know nothing.
I find the total silence from the investigation and the total silence from the media at present actually speaks volumes.
-
There is no uncomfortable truth, my stance has always been person/s removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts, seen nothing even from the mighty BKA to change that stance, I said back in June 20 CB had nowt to do with it, still not seen anything to change my mind on that either, cannot prove that Madeleine is dead its circumstantial, no forensics, adds up to diddly squat.
Your post is what adds up to diddly squat. It is hot mess of contradictions. You say it's always been your stance that "person/s removed Madeleine from 5A without leaving a trace to her whereabouts". You then say you've "seen nothing from the BKA to change that stance"..... well, no, you probably wouldn't, since that appears to be their stance too!
Lets assume you are 100% correct in your theory, and that there is indeed NO trace to her whereabouts. Why are you then writing off the BKA investigation on the basis they've found no trace to her whereabouts? Can you not see the massive flaw in your argument there?
They have admitted they don't know where the body is, but what it appears they do have is a web of other circumstantial evidence that point to CB being the guilty party. We have no way to know just what that evidence entails, how damning it is, how much is admissible in court. That is the hurdle the Prosecutors need to overcome. Knowing someone is guilty and guaranteeing a conviction are very different things.
But please enlighten us as to how you deduced that CB had nothing to do with it all that time ago. Walk us through the logic you used to arrive to what I'm sure is a well though-out conclusion. I do hope its not simply along the lines of "if he dun it, they'd have charged him by now!".
-
The parents are saying absolutely nothing which I don't think means they know nothing.
I find the total silence from the investigation and the total silence from the media at present actually speaks volumes.
I agree. I think the fact the parents have said nothing is actually quite telling. I think they've been told a lot more than what we're led to believe IMO.
-
You're right, circumstantial and not remotely enough. Which could potentially apply to about 200 other people in the area at the time - phone ping and whereabouts unknown.
It's gone now. All gone.
It's amusing to witness the squirm. CB ain't your man, meine verblendeten Freunde. (I use the term loosely, you know, internet acquaintances).
Interesting choice of language there. "Squirm" indeed! I must agree that there are those who certainly merited having a good squirm as more and more ineptitude from the initial investigation fell into the public domain.
Madeleine McCann Probers Focus on Child Sex Attacker
By Jean-Nicholas Fievet April 23, 2014
These latest cases were brought to police attention after a public appeal for information last month.
Senior investigating officer Andy Redwood calls the new leads "extremely positive" and a "priority" for his investigation. Scotland Yard have requested case files for the six attacks from Portuguese police.
The British investigation is now examining 18 cases where a male intruder entered the apartments and villas of British vacationers in the Western Algarve region of Portugal. They include nine sexual assaults and three "near-misses," officials said. The victims were all British girls aged between 6 and 12 years old. Fourteen of the attacks were reported to the police at the time.
Detective Chief Inspector Redwood says he is confident that some if not all of the cases are linked because of their "significant similarities."
In order to protect the identities of the victims, police are not disclosing why some of the attacks were not reported earlier. While some of the attacks were known to police in Portugal, they were not considered relevant by them to the McCann case because they didn't involve abduction.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt says he is "cautiously optimistic" that police in Portugal will soon move forward with Scotland Yard's requests for help.
Senior British detectives have expressed frustration with the slow pace of the judicial process, and the cooperation they have received from their Portuguese counterparts.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/madeleine-mccann-probers-focus-on-child-sex-attacker
I am NOT saying this was Brueckner - but here were crimes being perpetrated against female children under their own roofs and the police didn't think them relevant to a crime perpetrated against a little girl which started off under her own roof.
Very squirmable piece of sleuthing there methinks.
-
He's not being accused of child trafficking. He's being accused of murder.
Everbody who gets caught for anything for the first time has no "prior" for it. As I pointed out a few posts ago, he'd never been caught for rape up until a couple of years ago, but we now know his rape crimes go back at least 17 years!
Not sure how you can you assert it is "completely out of character". Some of the people who knew his character best don't seem to think so. They believe he IS guilty, without even seeing the evidence against him. They have described him as being "more than capable" of taking a child and that he'd talked about doing such things.
Of all the people put on trial for murder, what percentage of those do you suppose already have a previous conviction for murder (or child trafficking for that matter)? Probably very few, as those guys would already be serving long sentences.
What you will find in most of those people's records though is a history of other crimes. In fact, the most common "previous convictions" seen in people found guilty of murder are for theft & handling stolen goods, burglary and violence. Boxes ticked.
He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.
-
He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.
Not according to Wolters... Who speaks on behalf of the German investigation
Wolters says he's convinced he's 100% guilty... He must have some very convincing evidence to claim that
-
He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.
Why do you think he’s a person of interest? Was he just picked at random do you think? After all I seem to recall you claiming there was no evidence at all that he was involved?
-
He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.
There is no doubt that German police have identified Bruckner as a murder suspect. It remains to be seen if the evidence against him is strong enough to give him his day in court.
Christian Wolters, head of the inquiry into Brueckner, 43, told The Sun that when exactly he is questioned depends on further investigation, 'but he will be questioned'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9072319/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-43-questioned-prosecutors-say.html
-
Getting back to the thread topic of "boxes ticked by CB", and also in light of comments made about which prior convictions are most relevant in indicating the "probability" of someone being capable of murder, I thought 'some' people might be interested in this study.
https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/3423/1/prs144.pdf
The purpose of the study was to investigate the links between previous criminal convictions of those who go on to commit murder or serious sexual assault. Although it covers both topics, the results are separated out between murder and sexual assault so I'll only reference the data relating to the people who were convicted of murder here (although the previous conviction correlations are surprisingly similar anyway).
This is a summary of what they discovered in terms of previous offending history in the sample of 569 murderers.
- Of the murderers with prior convictions, the most common previous conviction was for 'theft and/or handling stolen goods' with 72% of the sample subjects having this conviction.
- The second most common conviction in murderers was 'burglary' at 61%
- The third most common conviction was 'violence against the person' at 57%
- In terms of the other rankings - 4th was Criminal damage (33%), 5th Fraud/forgery (22%), 6th Robbery (20%), 7th Drug offences (18%), 8th Sexual offences (5%)
So... in terms of those 8 offences in relation to CB and the boxes he ticks as far as I'm aware of...
1. Theft & handling stolen goods - Convicted
2. Burglary - Convicted
3. Violence against a person - Convicted
4. Criminal Damage - Anecdotal evidence only AFAIK
5. Forgery - Convicted
6. Robbery - Convicted
7. Drug offences - Convicted
8. Sexual offences - Convicted
-
^^^ well that shut them all up! @)(++(*
Not even a rallying “just because he’s a rapist/paedo/burglar doesn’t mean he dunnit” response? I guess there’s still time….
-
^^^ well that shut them all up! @)(++(*
Not even a rallying “just because he’s a rapist/paedo/burglar doesn’t mean he dunnit” response? I guess there’s still time….
Really interesting study. However it's not applicable for our specific purposes, as CB isn't a murderer, or certainly hasn't been convicted of such a crime.
Sample size was a bit small too, but I suppose that's to be expected given the demographic. Love all that though.
-
Really interesting study. However it's not applicable for our specific purposes, as CB isn't a murderer, or certainly hasn't been convicted of such a crime.
Sample size was a bit small too, but I suppose that's to be expected given the demographic. Love all that though.
You post want you want to be true.. Not what is.
You don't know CB is not a murderer
-
^^^ well that shut them all up! @)(++(*
Not even a rallying “just because he’s a rapist/paedo/burglar doesn’t mean he dunnit” response? I guess there’s still time….
I cannot quite believe the staunch support given to the presumption of innocence granted to the man who meets all and every prerequisite of the "perfect patsy" and then some and who is considered the prime suspect for the murder of Madeleine McCann.
Given the vilification meted out to and endured for fifteen years specifically denying that right to Madeleine's parents without there being a shred of evidence in support by the very same individuals.
The Judicial Police in Portugal reopened Madeleine's case in 2013 using the justification that Madeleine had been abducted by a stranger who they suspected was Euclides Monteiro.
That particular so called "patsy" seems to have been eliminated.
The interesting thing about him is that like Brueckner he ticked many a box and investigative avenue and like Brueckner he was not investigated and eliminated from the inquiry in 2007; and when he was finally investigated it seemed to be a short and sharp process.
That is where the comparison with Brueckner appears to end. Brueckner seems to be the result of an elimination process too, his being when others had been checked out as Monteiro was however belatedly leaving Brueckner as the last man standing.
As far as we know police have been ticking off Brueckner's boxes seriously since 2017. The fact that has resulted in evidence being found which continues to lead on to another part of the jigsaw is I think significant.
It would tend to show that far from being "the patsy" some would like him to be - Brueckner is a bona fide suspect in a most heinous crime.
The evidence is there for that, proving the evidence they have at a remove of fifteen years is the difficult part and I don't think the BKA and the German prosecutors are in any great rush to jeopardise the case they are building or have built, with undue haste.
Particularly when time is on their side.
-
You post want you want to be true.. Not what is.
You don't know CB is not a murderer
I find it quite sad that there are those who cannot bear the thought of Madeleine's case being solved :(
-
You post want you want to be true.. Not what is.
You don't know CB is not a murderer
"CB isn't a murderer because he hasn't got a prior conviction for murder" in a thread examining which boxes CB ticks (pretty much all of them) is exactly what someone in denial would say, that and the trusty old get out for anyone presented with compelling statistical evidence that contradicts their beliefs - "the sample size is too small". Yeah right. We don't know if CB is a murderer. He might be. He might have murdered before Madeleine's disappearance. He might have murdered again after killing her. He might never have murdered at all, but based on the boxes he ticks CB does fit the profile of a would-be murderer in very many ways, i think that's pretty much irrefutable.
-
You post want you want to be true.. Not what is.
You don't know CB is not a murderer
I think I got the jist of that word salad.
I didn't say that, the second decipherable sentence I mean. I said he hadn't been convicted, so it's moot. Plus the sample size is inevitably quite small, as is the case with most of these studies, particularly colloquially. Plus not all murderers are the same and have the same motivations.
I could go on, but, in isolation, the study has some limited points of merit and perhaps additional research.
-
I find it quite sad that there are those who cannot bear the thought of Madeleine's case being solved :(
Whatever you do, never look at the comments section of any website, Youtube video or online news article pertaining to the case. I'd wager 90% who know anything about the case (and 23.3% of those who don't) believe the parents 'did it'.
That's a lot of sadness for you to bear. You can thank me later.
-
Whatever you do, never look at the comments section of any website, Youtube video or online news article pertaining to the case. I'd wager 90% who know anything about the case (and 23.3% of those who don't) believe the parents 'did it'.
That's a lot of sadness for you to bear. You can thank me later.
probably 100% of those who believe the parents did it also belive the dog aklerts are highly significant....most of them have been taken in to think the dogs have never been wrong in 200 cases...that they have 100% record...that the dna 15/19 would be proof in most other countries...their beliefs are total junk
-
I think I got the jist of that word salad.
I didn't say that, the second decipherable sentence I mean. I said he hadn't been convicted, so it's moot. Plus the sample size is inevitably quite small, as is the case with most of these studies, particularly colloquially. Plus not all murderers are the same and have the same motivations.
I could go on, but, in isolation, the study has some limited points of merit and perhaps additional research.
you said...
as CB isn't a murderer, or certainly hasn't been convicted of such a crime.
-
CB is a criminal with a proven track record in rape, child abuse and theft but some people seem to think that all these criminal actions are completely irrelevant and mean nothing with regard to CB's motivations and propensities. Why is that I wonder...? Let's flip it. What in CB's character and past history makes him not a suitable potential suspect for the crime of child abduction and murder?
-
Whatever you do, never look at the comments section of any website, Youtube video or online news article pertaining to the case. I'd wager 90% who know anything about the case (and 23.3% of those who don't) believe the parents 'did it'.
That's a lot of sadness for you to bear. You can thank me later.
The problem you and others seem to be evidencing is accepting that there is an incredibly realistic candidate in the shape of Brueckner who has brought himself to the attention of investigators involved in Madeleine's case.
Brueckner ticks so many boxes that we know about that he doesn't lend himself readily to the normal sceptic ridicule and put downs that any apparent progress in the search for Madeleine is usually subjected to.
And that is without even taking into consideration the undoubted evidence the Germans hold but which is not in the public domain.
I recognise that it is a tough time for sceptics which is why I can readily excuse your rude response and lack of interest in exploring the topic of of threads featuring the prime suspect - Brueckner.
-
I reckon if you look at any video of 9/11 on youtube 90% of the comments underneath will be from Truthers who "know" it was an inside job. As if youtube comments meant anything, it's really quite laughable!
-
probably 100% of those who believe the parents did it also belive the dog aklerts are highly significant....most of them have been taken in to think the dogs have never been wrong in 200 cases...that they have 100% record...that the dna 15/19 would be proof in most other countries...their beliefs are total junk
They don't care, these arbiters of truth. These unilateral fact finders. The utter sausage monkeys.
I don't either. I didn't even read your post. Something about 100% of 200 something.
When Jeremy Beadle died I got the news in a hotel in Geneva whilst drinking Bison Grass Vodka with an Polish ex-tank commander. He said, and I quote '....the ice machine is broken. This is a dark day.' And it was.
Good to see you're still in decent fettle, Davel.
-
^^^ well that shut them all up! @)(++(*
Not even a rallying “just because he’s a rapist/paedo/burglar doesn’t mean he dunnit” response? I guess there’s still time….
Remind the reader how long CB is serving for the abduction and murder of Madeleine .
-
Remind the reader how long CB is serving for the abduction and murder of Madeleine .
remind the reader where I claimed he’d been convicted of said crime.
-
Remind the reader how long CB is serving for the abduction and murder of Madeleine .
It doesn't take much to convince some people that he will be, does it?
1. He is a criminal
2. He used to live nearby
3. He may have been in the area at the time
4. Wolters says it was him
-
It doesn't take much to convince some people that he will be, does it?
1. He is a criminal
2. He used to live nearby
3. He may have been in the area at the time
4. Wolters says it was him
Pathetic post displaying complete denial of the true facts
-
It doesn't take much to convince some people that he will be, does it?
1. He is a criminal
2. He used to live nearby
3. He may have been in the area at the time
4. Wolters says it was him
Why do you think Wolters says it is him? Just for a laugh?
-
It doesn't take much to convince some people that he will be, does it?
1. He is a criminal
2. He used to live nearby
3. He may have been in the area at the time
4. Wolters says it was him
- He is a criminal
- that ticks a box. The proof of the pudding being that he is presently incarcerated having been found guilty of - among other things - of the completely disgusting rape of an elderly woman. - He used to live nearby
That ticks another box.
Dogs don't usually defecate in their own back gardens preferring to do their business some distance away. It seems Brueckner placed no such restrictions on carrying out his business close to home as the rape he committed was very close to his home. - He may have been in the area at the time
Yet another box ticked - if one places any reliance at all on phone pings and witnesses -
Snip
A Portuguese investigative source told the Sun: "It would appear Christian B's name and background were known to police all along.
"They showed his picture to at least one witness who positively identified him near the scene yet nothing appears to have been followed up.
"It beggars belief that the McCanns have been allowed to endure so much pain for so long."
Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial probe, said last April that a German paedophile had been identified in 2007 as a potential suspect.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/key-madeleine-mccann-witness-told-22147229 - Wolters says it was him
As official spokesperson for the BKA such a statement would carry some weight. Any chance of recalling exactly where you saw it and telling us all where exactly.
Good to get things in context.
-
Well since the last study I quoted went down like a cup of cold sick among the sceptics.... how about another!? Huzza!
This is taken from oft-cited Hanfland et al 1997 study - "Case Management for Missing Children Homicide Investigation". It looked at over 600 cases where a child was specifically abducted and then subsequently murdered, so it's relevance is even more significant to the particular scenario we are discussing here.
The following is a summary of findings relating to characteristics of the perpetrators of said crimes. It's a bit long but the original report is over 100 pages so I'm summarising as best I can. Let's see how many boxes CB ticks here:
Killers of abducted children are somewhat unique among murderers in general, above and beyond their choice of victims. They can be characterized as social marginals: They are not active, successful participants in mainstream, conventional social life, but, rather, they occupy a position in society that is, indeed, on the "edge, brink, border, precipice, or margin." They are not integrated, personally or socially, into the kinds of relationships or activities that produce and sustain effective self or social controls. Their personal and social attributes establish and define their social marginality.
In terms of their sociodemographic attributes, these killers can be typified as white males who, on average, are about 27 years old. Only 15 percent of these killers are married at the time of the murder. This is very different than for young adult males in the general population, as well as for murderers in general, where the pattern is almost the opposite, with the great majority of them being married.
50 percent of the child abduction killers were unemployed at the time they committed the murder. This rate of unemployment is at least five times greater than the national unemployment rate for the general population. When they are working, they are primarily employed in "unskilled" and "semiskilled" labor occupations. They tend to work in what economists refer to as "secondary sector" occupations, which require little formal education, produce low wages, are characteristically unstable, indicate lower status, do not lend themselves to career commitments, and so on.
They may not truly be loners, but they are more likely to be "social isolates," particularly from their peers, both male and female. They are also quite mobile--they change their residences quite often, more than most people. Seventy-nine percent of these killers moved at least once within the past five years. This may not be that unusual, but 43 percent of them changed residences three or more times, and 21 percent moved five or more times during the five years preceding the murder. They do not seem to stay anywhere very long, where they could (or would) connect themselves to others or to a place. Or, vice versa, because they are less attached to significant others, they are more free and, therefore, more likely to move often. It is also likely that for many of them, their criminal activity makes it more necessary to move around, either seeking out more fertile grounds for victims and/or avoiding apprehension.
Their prior criminal acts, against adults and juveniles, also indicate a predisposition to violence, including murder and sexual assaults. Based on a search of their criminal records, it was discovered that the majority of child abduction killers have histories of violence. Sixty percent of them had prior arrests for violent crimes. And, alarmingly, their crimes of violence are being perpetrated at a high rate against child victims. The majority (53%) of the killers had committed prior crimes against children, and the most frequent of those crimes were assaults and/or sexual assaults. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the killers who are strangers to their victims have committed prior crimes against children, which is twice as likely as a killer who is a family member or intimate (32%).
Surprisingly, two-thirds (67%) of the prior crimes committed had an M.O. that was similar to that in the abduction murder that was committed by the same offender. They were most alike, by a large margin, in the "commission of the offense," or the way the crimes were committed. In 70 percent of the cases that had similar M.O.s, the priors were committed in similar ways. These findings regarding the similarity of M.O.s across the great majority of crimes committed by child abduction killers show that there is more consistency in the M.O.s of these types of killers than expected and as compared to other types of murderers. The data also suggest that there may be a greater predisposition to serial offending among child abduction killers.
In the case of child abduction murders, the overwhelming majority--69 percent--of the cases involve a sexual motive, compared to only 5 percent of all murders, and 14 percent of child murders.
A theoretical perspective in criminology--"lifestyle" or "routine activities" theory--proposes that there are three basic elements in a crime: a motivated offender, the opportunity to commit the crime, and ineffective guardians. In keeping with the prior observation that most of these child abduction killers seem to be predisposed or "ready" to kill, if they are given the opportunity, and the risk of identification or apprehension is minimized because the potential victim is not being monitored, the probability of an abduction and murder increases. Absent any one of the elements, the chances of murder decline. However, given this kind of group of motivated offenders, it should not be surprising that 57 percent of the murder victims are simply "victims of opportunity". They were killed because of the opportunity to act on a general predisposition to commit violence against children (only 13% had a "specific motivation" to kill a particular victim).
-
I really don't understand why some people are so desperate for Brueckner to be guilty.
-
I really don't understand why some people are so desperate for Brueckner to be guilty.
They're not. It's just that you (among others) are so desperate for him to NOT be guilty, that you cannot accept how very credible a suspect he is. And when anyone points things out to illustrate this fact, you resort to deliberately misrepresenting what those people are saying, instead of challenging the content of their argument. Model behaviour from a Moderator I'm sure.
-
They're not. It's just that you (among others) are so desperate for him to NOT be guilty, that you cannot accept how very credible a suspect he is. And when anyone points things out to illustrate this fact, you resort to deliberately misrepresenting what those people are saying, instead of challenging the content of their argument. Model behaviour from a Moderator I'm sure.
Abolutely bang on the nail.
-
I really don't understand why some people are so desperate for Brueckner to be guilty.
It seems you just don't understand.. You are one who seems to be desperate.. I certainly don't want CB to be guilty..you seem not to want to believe he could be guilty
-
I really don't understand why some people are so desperate for Brueckner to be guilty.
I think that post shows a basic misunderstanding of what the Rule of Law and Order actually entails.
-
They're not. It's just that you (among others) are so desperate for him to NOT be guilty, that you cannot accept how very credible a suspect he is. And when anyone points things out to illustrate this fact, you resort to deliberately misrepresenting what those people are saying, instead of challenging the content of their argument. Model behaviour from a Moderator I'm sure.
I have no idea whether he's guilty or not as I think I've said a few times. I'm not interested in credibility either, I'm interested in evidence. When I see evidence that suggests he was actually rather than possibly involved I may be more interested. At the moment no such evidence has been released. It's all speculation.
-
I have no idea whether he's guilty or not as I think I've said a few times. I'm not interested in credibility either, I'm interested in evidence. When I see evidence that suggests he was actually rather than possibly involved I may be more interested. At the moment no such evidence has been released. It's all speculation.
That evidence exists but you have summarily dismissed it. You doubt he is guilty because you think you know better who is guilty, that’s the truth of the matter isn’t it?
-
I really don't understand why some people are so desperate for Brueckner to be guilty.
It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.
-
Well since the last study I quoted went down like a cup of cold sick among the sceptics.... how about another!? Huzza!
This is taken from oft-cited Hanfland et al 1997 study - "Case Management for Missing Children Homicide Investigation". It looked at over 600 cases where a child was specifically abducted and then subsequently murdered, so it's relevance is even more significant to the particular scenario we are discussing here.
The following is a summary of findings relating to characteristics of the perpetrators of said crimes. It's a bit long but the original report is over 100 pages so I'm summarising as best I can. Let's see how many boxes CB ticks here:
Killers of abducted children are somewhat unique among murderers in general, above and beyond their choice of victims. They can be characterized as social marginals: They are not active, successful participants in mainstream, conventional social life, but, rather, they occupy a position in society that is, indeed, on the "edge, brink, border, precipice, or margin." They are not integrated, personally or socially, into the kinds of relationships or activities that produce and sustain effective self or social controls. Their personal and social attributes establish and define their social marginality.
In terms of their sociodemographic attributes, these killers can be typified as white males who, on average, are about 27 years old. Only 15 percent of these killers are married at the time of the murder. This is very different than for young adult males in the general population, as well as for murderers in general, where the pattern is almost the opposite, with the great majority of them being married.
50 percent of the child abduction killers were unemployed at the time they committed the murder. This rate of unemployment is at least five times greater than the national unemployment rate for the general population. When they are working, they are primarily employed in "unskilled" and "semiskilled" labor occupations. They tend to work in what economists refer to as "secondary sector" occupations, which require little formal education, produce low wages, are characteristically unstable, indicate lower status, do not lend themselves to career commitments, and so on.
They may not truly be loners, but they are more likely to be "social isolates," particularly from their peers, both male and female. They are also quite mobile--they change their residences quite often, more than most people. Seventy-nine percent of these killers moved at least once within the past five years. This may not be that unusual, but 43 percent of them changed residences three or more times, and 21 percent moved five or more times during the five years preceding the murder. They do not seem to stay anywhere very long, where they could (or would) connect themselves to others or to a place. Or, vice versa, because they are less attached to significant others, they are more free and, therefore, more likely to move often. It is also likely that for many of them, their criminal activity makes it more necessary to move around, either seeking out more fertile grounds for victims and/or avoiding apprehension.
Their prior criminal acts, against adults and juveniles, also indicate a predisposition to violence, including murder and sexual assaults. Based on a search of their criminal records, it was discovered that the majority of child abduction killers have histories of violence. Sixty percent of them had prior arrests for violent crimes. And, alarmingly, their crimes of violence are being perpetrated at a high rate against child victims. The majority (53%) of the killers had committed prior crimes against children, and the most frequent of those crimes were assaults and/or sexual assaults. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the killers who are strangers to their victims have committed prior crimes against children, which is twice as likely as a killer who is a family member or intimate (32%).
Surprisingly, two-thirds (67%) of the prior crimes committed had an M.O. that was similar to that in the abduction murder that was committed by the same offender. They were most alike, by a large margin, in the "commission of the offense," or the way the crimes were committed. In 70 percent of the cases that had similar M.O.s, the priors were committed in similar ways. These findings regarding the similarity of M.O.s across the great majority of crimes committed by child abduction killers show that there is more consistency in the M.O.s of these types of killers than expected and as compared to other types of murderers. The data also suggest that there may be a greater predisposition to serial offending among child abduction killers.
In the case of child abduction murders, the overwhelming majority--69 percent--of the cases involve a sexual motive, compared to only 5 percent of all murders, and 14 percent of child murders.
A theoretical perspective in criminology--"lifestyle" or "routine activities" theory--proposes that there are three basic elements in a crime: a motivated offender, the opportunity to commit the crime, and ineffective guardians. In keeping with the prior observation that most of these child abduction killers seem to be predisposed or "ready" to kill, if they are given the opportunity, and the risk of identification or apprehension is minimized because the potential victim is not being monitored, the probability of an abduction and murder increases. Absent any one of the elements, the chances of murder decline. However, given this kind of group of motivated offenders, it should not be surprising that 57 percent of the murder victims are simply "victims of opportunity". They were killed because of the opportunity to act on a general predisposition to commit violence against children (only 13% had a "specific motivation" to kill a particular victim).
Good one that. Keep them coming.
-
It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.
They’ve been off the hook for 14 years - wake up!!
-
It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.
You have summed up why you... gunit and others refuse to accept CB as the prime suspect. Nothing to do with logic... Just plain bias. It was obvious too us all but you have inadvertently confirmed it... Well done
-
I have no idea whether he's guilty or not as I think I've said a few times. I'm not interested in credibility either, I'm interested in evidence. When I see evidence that suggests he was actually rather than possibly involved I may be more interested. At the moment no such evidence has been released. It's all speculation.
You give away your blatant lack of logic.
Two scenarios
CB named as prime suspect with little info given
CB named as prime suspect with a claim of concrete evidence.
The claim of evidence supports the claim of guilt and is therefore evidence..it depends how much credibility the BKA have to determine the strength of that evidence... But it's still evidence. As Angelo has pointed out it seems you won't accept that purely because it puts the mccanns in the clear.... And of course proves Amaral.. Grime.. The PJ and a host of others wrong
-
Good one that. Keep them coming.
I have to agree with you 100% on that one.
Para2030 does make the effort to keep posts informative and to the point which contributes to the standing of the forum.
I wish more members would follow the lead in that.
The added benefit of the post is that it is bang on the topic of the thread. I found it ticked very many of the boxes for what we know are known facts about Brueckner.
-
That evidence exists but you have summarily dismissed it. You doubt he is guilty because you think you know better who is guilty, that’s the truth of the matter isn’t it?
I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.
-
I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.
The BKA say they have evidence which convinces them of his guilt
-
It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.
I can understand supporters hoping that CB is guilty for that reason, but it seems to have become a belief, not just a hope.
-
You give away your blatant lack of logic.
Two scenarios
CB named as prime suspect with little info given
CB named as prime suspect with a claim of concrete evidence.
The claim of evidence supports the claim of guilt and is therefore evidence..it depends how much credibility the BKA have to determine the strength of that evidence... But it's still evidence. As Angelo has pointed out it seems you won't accept that purely because it puts the mccanns in the clear.... And of course proves Amaral.. Grime.. The PJ and a host of others wrong
If there was no evidence linking Brueckner to the crime perpetrated against Madeleine - quite simply - he would not have been classed as suspect.
If there had been evidence which eliminated him from the inquiry - like the very many who fitted a similar profile to Brueckner and who the process eliminated - he would not be classed as suspect.
Operation Grange did express an interest in him in 2013.
At that time it is possible that Brueckner did check out because there was no known evidence at the time which linked him to Madeleine's case.
That situation altered when evidence became available in 2017 and continued to be presented into the present which resulted in Brueckner becoming the prime suspect in the crime against Madeleine McCann.
Does that sound like the patsy of prejudice? Not to me it doesn't. It sounds like dogged evidence based police work which followed procedure to build a case.
-
The BKA say they have evidence which convinces them of his guilt
You do know that the BKA isn't represented by the spokesman for the Braunschweig prosecutor's office?
-
If there was no evidence linking Brueckner to the crime perpetrated against Madeleine - quite simply - he would not have been classed as suspect.
If there had been evidence which eliminated him from the inquiry - like the very many who fitted a similar profile to Brueckner and who the process eliminated - he would not be classed as suspect.
Operation Grange did express an interest in him in 2013.
At that time it is possible that Brueckner did check out because there was no known evidence at the time which linked him to Madeleine's case.
That situation altered when evidence became available in 2017 and continued to be presented into the present which resulted in Brueckner becoming the prime suspect in the crime against Madeleine McCann.
Does that sound like the patsy of prejudice? Not to me it doesn't. It sounds like dogged evidence based police work which followed procedure to build a case.
You believe the evidence exists because Wolters say it does. Operation Grange are less trusting and are still treating Madeleine's disappearance as a missing person.
-
I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolter said investigators have enough evidence to bring a charge against the suspect but want to “strengthen their position” first.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-search-christian-brueckner-murder-b1935250.html
The German investigation is nothing to do with speculation it is fact and evidence based,
Since the prime suspect is already in custody for other crimes, they can afford the time to festina lente just to make sure.
-
I can understand supporters hoping that CB is guilty for that reason, but it seems to have become a belief, not just a hope.
That is an insulting and disgusting post.
I know of no-one hoping for any such thing. I for one still hold out a little glimmer of hope for Madeleine - but I am realistic enough to know that the German investigation hold evidence - and a prime suspect - to the contrary.
-
I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.
There is evidence for both but as I have said before, you have summarily dismissed it as "speculation". Do you class Martin Smith's statement as speculation btw? Is he simply speculating that it was Gerry he saw? When your favourite Tapas chef says the table had emptied by 9.20pm is that evidence or him speculating that that was the time it happened? Is "speculate" the mot du jour?
-
I can understand supporters hoping that CB is guilty for that reason, but it seems to have become a belief, not just a hope.
It's neither a hope nor a belief with me, so think again. My hope is that the case is solved, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed, the rest remains to be seen.
-
You believe the evidence exists because Wolters say it does. Operation Grange are less trusting and are still treating Madeleine's disappearance as a missing person.
Right, so now you're respecting Operation Grange's opinion? L.O.L.
-
G-Unit, on what basis do you think CB can be dismissed as a suspect? Perhaps this could be a new thread topic.
-
You believe the evidence exists because Wolters say it does. Operation Grange are less trusting and are still treating Madeleine's disappearance as a missing person.
Why do you opine with such authority about matters it is impossible for you to know anything about 😁
When exactly were you enlisted into the confidence of Operation Grange to presume to know who or what they trust!
-
It's neither a hope nor a belief with me, so think again. My hope is that the case is solved, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed, the rest remains to be seen.
The evidence is that the Portuguese police - the German police and SY are all in agreement with you (and me) that Madeleine was abducted.
Investigators believe they have evidence which indicates the identity of the stranger is who might be responsible.
-
Right, so now you're respecting Operation Grange's opinion? L.O.L.
Wolters' opinion is constantly quoted; some even suggest it amounts to evidence of CB's guilt. Operation Grange were some people's oracle previously, but are now being ignored. So fickle.
-
Why do you opine with such authority about matters it is impossible for you to know anything about 😁
When exactly were you enlisted into the confidence of Operation Grange to presume to know who or what they trust!
You know the sceptics are on a sticky wicket when they have to resort to citing Operation Grange to defend their position.
-
The evidence is that the Portuguese police - the German police and SY are all in agreement with you (and me) that Madeleine was abducted.
Investigators believe they have evidence which indicates the identity of the stranger is who might be responsible.
I'm not sure what the Portuguese police think.
-
I'm not sure what the Portuguese police think.
They probably think "oh just go away, leave us alone and stop embarrassing us, we don't know what happened and we don't really care".
Now THAT'S speculation. @)(++(*
-
I'm not sure what the Portuguese police think.
Their prime suspect was Euclides Montiero evidence of whose alleged death and burial appears to have been such a closely guarded secret that in 2013 they reopened Madeleine's case on the strength of his involvement.
So that was their thinking back then.
What they have done over the intervening years short of keeping Madeleine's case officially open, I have absolutely no idea. But "the best laid plans etc" if it was to bury an inept initial investigation, didn't quite work out like that, did it.
-
Why do you opine with such authority about matters it is impossible for you to know anything about 😁
When exactly were you enlisted into the confidence of Operation Grange to presume to know who or what they trust!
Why do people opine with such authority about CB's guilt? OG are not investigating a murder, they've said so.
-
Why do people opine with such authority about CB's guilt? OG are not investigating a murder, they've said so.
Your lack of joined up thinking is astounding imo. What are OG investigating? That's right: "abduction by a stranger". What is CB? A Stranger, potential abductor. Which bit of this does not make sense to you? Also, did you know that members of SY Homicide Squad were assigned to the Operation? How do you square this strange anomaly? Because once upon a time the sceptic community used to push this particular detail with glee to taunt McCann supporters who hoped Madeleine was still alive. Oh, how times have changed!
-
Their prime suspect was Euclides Montiero evidence of whose alleged death and burial appears to have been such a closely guarded secret that in 2013 they reopened Madeleine's case on the strength of his involvement.
So that was their thinking back then.
What they have done over the intervening years short of keeping Madeleine's case officially open, I have absolutely no idea. But "the best laid plans etc" if it was to bury an inept initial investigation, didn't quite work out like that, did it.
So when you say the Portuguese polce believe Madeleine was abducted your evidence is that they allegedly reopened their investigation to investigate Motiero, amongst other leads. It was Correio da Manha who reported that, but it was never officially confirmed.
"A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria said: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case, and our professional secrecy, prevents us from making any comment on Correio da Manha's reports.""
By Gerard Couzens | 30 Oct 2013 11:25 Daily Mirror
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm
Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?
-
Your lack of joined up thinking is astounding imo. What are OG investigating? That's right: "abduction by a stranger". What is CB? A Stranger, potential abductor. Which bit of this does not make sense to you? Also, did you know that members of SY Homicide Squad were assigned to the Operation? How do you square this strange anomaly? Because once upon a time the sceptic community used to push this particular detail with glee to taunt McCann supporters who hoped Madeleine was still alive. Oh, how times have changed!
A MIT was involved, but their remit isn't restricted to investigating murder;
Major Crime Investigative Support
We provide front-line policing with specialist skills and expertise to support major crime investigations such as abduction, serial sexual crimes and no body murder.
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/how-we-work/providing-specialist-capabilities-for-law-enforcement/major-crime-investigative-support
-
Why do people opine with such authority about CB's guilt? OG are not investigating a murder, they've said so.
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that misinformation🙄
I've not seen anyone claiming Brueckner's guilt ~ what I have seen are claims of evidence which have qualified Brueckner to be proclaimed the prime suspect in a heinous crime.
The courts will determine his guilt or not.
It is however gratifying to witness your conversion to supporting the Scotland Yard initiative - which was for so long the object of sceptic rancour (lol ~ all four of them) and alleged inability to get anything right.
The road to Damascus must be littered with scales which have fallen from sceptic eyes!
-
You believe the evidence exists because Wolters say it does. Operation Grange are less trusting and are still treating Madeleine's disappearance as a missing person.
what absolute rubbish....you show a massive ignorance as to whats happening
-
I have no idea whether he's guilty or not as I think I've said a few times. I'm not interested in credibility either, I'm interested in evidence. When I see evidence that suggests he was actually rather than possibly involved I may be more interested. At the moment no such evidence has been released. It's all speculation.
Just because you have not personally seen the evidence the German authorities claim to have, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not strong. There are plenty of things in this world that you accept as 'true', even though you have not personally seen the evidence that proves it. But you accept it, based on professional opinion of those who have seen the evidence and their reputational standing.
That's human nature. In most part, people accept the opinion of experts, especially when they have no motive to lie about their conclusions. Where people actively refuse to accept such an opinion, it is almost always because the conclusion of that opinion directly conflicts with something they already believe/want to be true. The theory of evolution among people who are devoutly religious is probably one of the most common examples of this.
Let me be clear. I am NOT saying anyone should blindly accept that CB is guilty based on say-so from the Prosecutor. It is fair to have doubts until the evidence is revealed and independently evaluated. But there is a big difference in reserving judgement and actively trying to discredit the case against CB without anything of substance to back it up.
That's what all this is about. Despite what position you might claim to have, it is actually that you don't want to believe CB is guilty, simply because you already have an opinion that the McCanns are. It's nothing to do with not seeing the evidence, or thinking that Wolters may be some loose cannon whose views don't align with the BKA investigators, or that OG are still saying "missing persons investigation", or any other weak point you've sought to sling mud at and take the thread off-topic. If Wolters/BKA were making these kind of accusations against the McCanns, you would not be making the same objections, you would be embracing them. That's the truth of it.
You are hiding behind the PJ files and your mistaken conclusion that the evidence points to the parents. It doesn't. There is NO evidence that directly implicates them. There is a lot of speculation required to devise a theory that involves the McCanns and those theories are all still lacking in credibility for one reason or another. Most commonly, they lack a plausible motive. The truth is, the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory the sceptics care to offer up.
You were right about one thing though, when you said you weren't interested in "credibility". You really should be though. Not all 'evidence' and 'opinion' is equal in veracity.
-
So when you say the Portuguese polce believe Madeleine was abducted your evidence is that they allegedly reopened their investigation to investigate Motiero, amongst other leads. It was Correio da Manha who reported that, but it was never officially confirmed.
"A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria said: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case, and our professional secrecy, prevents us from making any comment on Correio da Manha's reports.""
By Gerard Couzens | 30 Oct 2013 11:25 Daily Mirror
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm
Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?
Not if it doesn't fit well with your beliefs and hopes obviously.
-
A MIT was involved, but their remit isn't restricted to investigating murder;
Major Crime Investigative Support
We provide front-line policing with specialist skills and expertise to support major crime investigations such as abduction, serial sexual crimes and no body murder.
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/how-we-work/providing-specialist-capabilities-for-law-enforcement/major-crime-investigative-support
Well we know from the horse's mouth that the Met have accepted the possibility that Madeleine might be dead, but do you think having accepted the possibility that, should evidence present itself that she was murdered, they would discount it because the case is officially a "missing persons" case? Please use some common sense.
-
So when you say the Portuguese polce believe Madeleine was abducted your evidence is that they allegedly reopened their investigation to investigate Motiero, amongst other leads. It was Correio da Manha who reported that, but it was never officially confirmed.
"A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria said: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case, and our professional secrecy, prevents us from making any comment on Correio da Manha's reports.""
By Gerard Couzens | 30 Oct 2013 11:25 Daily Mirror
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm
Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?
"Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?"
Strange question coming from you.
The answer to which depends very much on the quality of the journalist and the veracity of information being imparted. I remember the days when Sandra Felgueiras was a bit of a sceptic icon when she relied on information emanating directly from her main source in Madeleine's investigation which she subsequently promoted.
When Sandra discovered that her main source who was Goncalo Amaral had lied to her and publicised that - she rather fell from grace in certain quarters.
Anyway - well done you 😁
With your usual consistency you have once again employed the deflection tactic to take the thread way off course.
Might I remind you that the thread topic is "The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner"
-
Just because you have not personally seen the evidence the German authorities claim to have, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not strong. There are plenty of things in this world that you accept as 'true', even though you have not personally seen the evidence that proves it. But you accept it, based on professional opinion of those who have seen the evidence and their reputational standing.
That's human nature. In most part, people accept the opinion of experts, especially when they have no motive to lie about their conclusions. Where people actively refuse to accept such an opinion, it is almost always because the conclusion of that opinion directly conflicts with something they already believe/want to be true. The theory of evolution among people who are devoutly religious is probably one of the most common examples of this.
Let me be clear. I am NOT saying anyone should blindly accept that CB is guilty based on say-so from the Prosecutor. It is fair to have doubts until the evidence is revealed and independently evaluated. But there is a big difference in reserving judgement and actively trying to discredit the case against CB without anything of substance to back it up.
That's what all this is about. Despite what position you might claim to have, it is actually that you don't want to believe CB is guilty, simply because you already have an opinion that the McCanns are. It's nothing to do with not seeing the evidence, or thinking that Wolters may be some loose cannon whose views don't align with the BKA investigators, or that OG are still saying "missing persons investigation", or any other weak point you've sought to sling mud at and take the thread off-topic. If Wolters/BKA were making these kind of accusations against the McCanns, you would not be making the same objections, you would be embracing them. That's the truth of it.
You are hiding behind the PJ files and your mistaken conclusion that the evidence points to the parents. It doesn't. There is NO evidence that directly implicates them. There is a lot of speculation required to devise a theory that involves the McCanns and those theories are all still lacking in credibility for one reason or another. Most commonly, they lack a plausible motive. The truth is, the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory the sceptics care to offer up.
You were right about one thing though, when you said you weren't interested in "credibility". You really should be though. Not all 'evidence' and 'opinion' is equal in veracity.
I'm afraid you're dealing with someone who does not believe smoking is harmful to health, so good luck with that one!
-
I'm afraid you're dealing with someone who does not believe smoking is harmful to health, so good luck with that one!
@)(++(*
So much for being interested in the "evidence".
-
Just because you have not personally seen the evidence the German authorities claim to have, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not strong. There are plenty of things in this world that you accept as 'true', even though you have not personally seen the evidence that proves it. But you accept it, based on professional opinion of those who have seen the evidence and their reputational standing.
That's human nature. In most part, people accept the opinion of experts, especially when they have no motive to lie about their conclusions. Where people actively refuse to accept such an opinion, it is almost always because the conclusion of that opinion directly conflicts with something they already believe/want to be true. The theory of evolution among people who are devoutly religious is probably one of the most common examples of this.
Let me be clear. I am NOT saying anyone should blindly accept that CB is guilty based on say-so from the Prosecutor. It is fair to have doubts until the evidence is revealed and independently evaluated. But there is a big difference in reserving judgement and actively trying to discredit the case against CB without anything of substance to back it up.
That's what all this is about. Despite what position you might claim to have, it is actually that you don't want to believe CB is guilty, simply because you already have an opinion that the McCanns are. It's nothing to do with not seeing the evidence, or thinking that Wolters may be some loose cannon whose views don't align with the BKA investigators, or that OG are still saying "missing persons investigation", or any other weak point you've sought to sling mud at and take the thread off-topic. If Wolters/BKA were making these kind of accusations against the McCanns, you would not be making the same objections, you would be embracing them. That's the truth of it.
You are hiding behind the PJ files and your mistaken conclusion that the evidence points to the parents. It doesn't. There is NO evidence that directly implicates them. There is a lot of speculation required to devise a theory that involves the McCanns and those theories are all still lacking in credibility for one reason or another. Most commonly, they lack a plausible motive. The truth is, the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory the sceptics care to offer up.
You were right about one thing though, when you said you weren't interested in "credibility". You really should be though. Not all 'evidence' and 'opinion' is equal in veracity.
Thank you for your analysis of what I REALLY think and what REALLY motivates me. It's amazing how some people can convince themselves that they understand me better than I do. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Other people's speculations about me are immaterial, including yours.
I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but I agree with the prosecutor's report;
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The prosecutor didn't agree with you that "the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory"
-
"Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?"
Strange question coming from you.
The answer to which depends very much on the quality of the journalist and the veracity of information being imparted. I remember the days when Sandra Felgueiras was a bit of a sceptic icon when she relied on information emanating directly from her main source in Madeleine's investigation which she subsequently promoted.
When Sandra discovered that her main source who was Goncalo Amaral had lied to her and publicised that - she rather fell from grace in certain quarters.
Anyway - well done you 😁
With your usual consistency you have once again employed the deflection tactic to take the thread way off course.
Might I remind you that the thread topic is "The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner"
When people use a quote from a Portuguese newspaper as if it was a fact then that question is perfectly valid imo.
-
Thank you for your analysis of what I REALLY think and what REALLY motivates me. It's amazing how some people can convince themselves that they understand me better than I do. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Other people's speculations about me are immaterial, including yours.
I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but I agree with the prosecutor's report;
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The prosecutor didn't agree with you that "the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory"
Weren't you the one who started making accusations about what people REALLY think? That we were all desperate for CB to be guilty and such?
I'm only going off the evidence of what I've heard you say. And despite what you might claim, I don't think anyone here is in any doubt about who you believe to be guilty. You really aren't that good at hiding it.
I don't know what that prosecutor statement you quoted is meant to signify. From my reading of it, he is saying that the manner and circumstances of Madeleine’s disappearance are not "unavoidable facts", only the fact that she disappeared from the OC is. He does not say that the evidence is MORE supportive of an alternative scenario than the stranger-abduction explanation. Only that it is not fully conclusive that's what happened.
Interesting though that you so readily agree with the "opinions" of this Prosecutor, but are going out of your way to discount the opinions of the German Proseuctor. Even though the German Prosecutor has the benefit of knowing all the evidence in the original case as well what has been discovered more recently.
-
Thank you for your analysis of what I REALLY think and what REALLY motivates me. It's amazing how some people can convince themselves that they understand me better than I do. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Other people's speculations about me are immaterial, including yours.
I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but I agree with the prosecutor's report;
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The prosecutor didn't agree with you that "the overall evidence in the files supports a stranger-abduction scenario MORE than it supports any other particular theory"
But we also know (as you have said as much on this forum) that you think abduction from the apartment was virtually impossible. You have also repeatedly come back to the issue of sedation of the McCann children as a possible factor in this case. You have also shown your approval for a post by another member claiming (as fact) that the PJ solved the case in 2007. Taking these three pieces of information in conjunction, one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out your closely guarded opinion on what happened. Why be so coy about it?
-
When people use a quote from a Portuguese newspaper as if it was a fact then that question is perfectly valid imo.
When people use quotes - I evaluate them and come to my own conclusions regarding them.
The facts reflect that times have moved on from 2007 and numerous investigative opportunities have been investigated and either progressed to the next stage or discarded.
It is also a fact that all of these initiatives have been instigated by Madeleine's parents or by those acting on their behalf.
This is particularly true of the present investigation focusing on the present suspect Brueckner - as a direct result of publicity and media appeals made by them on Madeleine's behalf on the tenth anniversary of her disappearance.
Whatever it is that drives your anathema towards people whose lives have been shaped by the crime perpetrated against their missing daughter will forever be a complete mystery to me.
But I think it is time for you to join the rest of the world in 2022 and give a thought to where it is the real evidence will take you.
For most (particularly those professionals actively involved in the investigation) it has led to Brueckner's door just as it did for the PJ in 2007.
The only difference being that this time round instead of knocking politely and leaving when the knock wasn't answered they went in and dug whopping great holes in his properties. And I don't think they will be leaving any time soon or before we find out what evidence they recovered from such searches and witness testimony.
None of this activity features Kate and Gerry McCann - except as victims.
-
Weren't you the one who started making accusations about what people REALLY think? That we were all desperate for CB to be guilty and such?
I'm only going off the evidence of what I've heard you say. And despite what you might claim, I don't think anyone here is in any doubt about who you believe to be guilty. You really aren't that good at hiding it.
I don't know what that prosecutor statement you quoted is meant to signify. From my reading of it, he is saying that the manner and circumstances of Madeleine’s disappearance are not "unavoidable facts", only the fact that she disappeared from the OC is. He does not say that the evidence is MORE supportive of an alternative scenario than the stranger-abduction explanation. Only that it is not fully conclusive that's what happened.
Interesting though that you so readily agree with the "opinions" of this Prosecutor, but are going out of your way to discount the opinions of the German Proseuctor. Even though the German Prosecutor has the benefit of knowing all the evidence in the original case as well what has been discovered more recently.
Have the PJ files been translated into German then?
-
When people use quotes - I evaluate them and come to my own conclusions regarding them.
The facts reflect that times have moved on from 2007 and numerous investigative opportunities have been investigated and either progressed to the next stage or discarded.
It is also a fact that all of these initiatives have been instigated by Madeleine's parents or by those acting on their behalf.
This is particularly true of the present investigation focusing on the present suspect Brueckner - as a direct result of publicity and media appeals made by them on Madeleine's behalf on the tenth anniversary of her disappearance.
Whatever it is that drives your anathema towards people whose lives have been shaped by the crime perpetrated against their missing daughter will forever be a complete mystery to me.
But I think it is time for you to join the rest of the world in 2022 and give a thought to where it is the real evidence will take you.
For most (particularly those professionals actively involved in the investigation) it has led to Brueckner's door just as it did for the PJ in 2007.
The only difference being that this time round instead of knocking politely and leaving when the knock wasn't answered they went in and dug whopping great holes in his properties. And I don't think they will be leaving any time soon or before we find out what evidence they recovered from such searches and witness testimony.
None of this activity features Kate and Gerry McCann - except as victims.
So a newspaper report was being quoted by you as a factual account of why the Portuguese investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was reopened? Why not just admit that was your source?
-
Have the PJ files been translated into German then?
(&^&
Are you suggesting that the BKA are unable to read English?
Are you really suggesting that the German investigators are completely oblivious to the findings and evidence of the original investigation? Is that honestly what you are trying to say?
-
Have the PJ files been translated into German then?
Grasping. At. Straws. First you claim the Met were instructed only to investigate abduction to the exclusion of any other possibility, now you're suggesting that the BKA have not familiarized themselves with the Madeleine case files. I guess this is what happens when you run out of any cogent argument (not that you had much of that to start with IMO).
-
So a newspaper report was being quoted by you as a factual account of why the Portuguese investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was reopened? Why not just admit that was your source?
Why don't you give us the facts surrounding the re-opening of the Madeleine case by the Portuguese? Remember it could only be re-opened with the discovery of new evidence. What do you suppose that was? The discovery of a discarded hypodermic syringe covered in Kate McCann's fingerprints? An audio recording of Gerry telling Dave which bin he put the body in? What exactly?
-
You do know that the BKA isn't represented by the spokesman for the Braunschweig prosecutor's office?
There are not two german investigations...theres one.....it involves the BKA. Wolters os spokesman for that investigation
-
So a newspaper report was being quoted by you as a factual account of why the Portuguese investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was reopened? Why not just admit that was your source?
You are mistaken. You supplied the link - not me. But given the fact that the Policia Judiciaria famously do not make press releases as a matter of course, haven't we discovered that information given unattributed and unofficially to the media is the norm.
Not quite what our expectations are.
"But both sides of the investigation are at relatively early stages, with much work remaining to be done," said Mark Rowley, assistant commissioner for Specialist Crime and Operations at London's Metropolitan Police.
"This new momentum is encouraging, but we still have a way to go, and as with all major investigations, not all lines of enquiry that look promising will yield results," said Rowley.
British police said this month they had received hundreds of calls following a new television appeal that suggested Madeleine was snatched in a planned abduction and that they wanted to trace a number of men, including some thought to be either Scandinavian or German.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/1102/Madeleine-McCann-A-new-kidnapping-suspect-emerges-in-2007-case
As we know the Portuguese and British police followed different lines of inquiry. The Portuguese followed Euclides Monteiro while the Brits took a more eclectic approach.
Which incidentally included Scandinavian or German men within their reckoning.
-
Grasping. At. Straws. First you claim the Met were instructed only to investigate abduction to the exclusion of any other possibility, now you're suggesting that the BKA have not familiarized themselves with the Madeleine case files. I guess this is what happens when you run out of any cogent argument (not that you had much of that to start with IMO).
I'm not sure at all what sort of reliance the BKA might have placed in the original files. Did they really have to - apart from double checking areas of interest to them.
Remember they really were coming with fresh eyes to what was a new investigation to them in 2017. Which in effect was the same for SY and the PJ. Although both these forces had access to the groundwork undertaken when the Brits took up the investigation and the Portuguese reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.
The BKA were very much the new kids on the block; I don't know if they would have found it necessary to go back to the original files particularly as much of the work had already been carried out.
Madeleine McCann: Police using phone data to track EVERYONE who was in Praia da Luz on night girl disappeared
In tracing thousands of mobile numbers, 41 potential suspects have already been identified - 15 believed to be Britons
ByTom PettiforCrime Editor
4 Oct 2013 UPDATED00:27, 4 Oct 2013
Scotland Yard detectives hope to solve Madeleine McCann’s disappearance by using phone data in the biggest hunt for witnesses so far.
They are painstakingly tracing thousands of mobile numbers belonging to people from 31 countries in Praia da Luz, on the night the three-year-old vanished.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-police-using-phone-2337080
-
I'm not sure at all what sort of reliance the BKA might have placed in the original files. Did they really have to - apart from double checking areas of interest to them.
Remember they really were coming with fresh eyes to what was a new investigation to them in 2017. Which in effect was the same for SY and the PJ. Although both these forces had access to the groundwork undertaken when the Brits took up the investigation and the Portuguese reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.
The BKA were very much the new kids on the block; I don't know if they would have found it necessary to go back to the original files particularly as much of the work had already been carried out.
Madeleine McCann: Police using phone data to track EVERYONE who was in Praia da Luz on night girl disappeared
In tracing thousands of mobile numbers, 41 potential suspects have already been identified - 15 believed to be Britons
ByTom PettiforCrime Editor
4 Oct 2013 UPDATED00:27, 4 Oct 2013
Scotland Yard detectives hope to solve Madeleine McCann’s disappearance by using phone data in the biggest hunt for witnesses so far.
They are painstakingly tracing thousands of mobile numbers belonging to people from 31 countries in Praia da Luz, on the night the three-year-old vanished.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-police-using-phone-2337080
Ah but if only they’d read Martin Grime’s report and the Gaspar Statement things could have been oh so different! @)(++(*
-
One more study. This one is entitled "Patterns of prior offending by child abductors" and the study sample involves 750 child abductors. What is interesting in this one is it details every single offence that each perpetrator was previously arrested for (even if that specific offence was only committed by one person in the study) so it gives a full picture. It also splits the offenders history out depending on the outcome of the abduction; whether the child was later found alive or whether they were killed/never found.
Focussing only on the cases where the victims were never found (or were murdered), these were the top 5 offences seen in the offenders' criminal histories:
Assault 43%
Burglary 39%
Theft 38%
Sex offences (forcible) 30%
Drug offences 24%
CB has convictions for all of these.
Interestingly, only 7% of these offenders had a prior arrest for murder (14th on the list) and 13% had a prior arrest for kidnapping (9th on the list). None of them appear to have ever been arrested for a people-trafficking offence (just in case anyone is interested).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Demographic-characteristics-of-child-abduction-offenders-by-outcome-N-750_tbl1_26776417
-
Ah but if only they’d read Martin Grime’s report and the Gaspar Statement things could have been oh so different! @)(++(*
Don't forget Arlindo, the time-travelling chef!
-
Don't forget Arlindo, the time-travelling chef!
He had no reason to lie therefore his statement must be accurate. (&^&
-
I find gunits posts at a similar level to those she made claiming smoking does not cause cancer.
-
(&^&
Are you suggesting that the BKA are unable to read English?
Are you really suggesting that the German investigators are completely oblivious to the findings and evidence of the original investigation? Is that honestly what you are trying to say?
I've got no idea whether the Germans have bothered with the PJ files or not. I asked the question because you insinuated that they may have. I have no reason to believe that the people involved can read and understand evidence written in either Portuguese or English. You seem to see the prosecutor and the BKA as interchangeable, but I don't.
According to Jon Clarke, Wolters had neither ownership or sight of the videos and images found at CB's warehouse. They were found and dealt with by Saxony police and Wolters told Clarke to speak to them if he had questions. (page 318 of Clarke's book) I don't think the investigations in Germany are as streamlined as some think they are.
-
I've got no idea whether the Germans have bothered with the PJ files or not. I asked the question because you insinuated that they may have. I have no reason to believe that the people involved can read and understand evidence written in either Portuguese or English. You seem to see the prosecutor and the BKA as interchangeable, but I don't.
According to Jon Clarke, Wolters had neither ownership or sight of the videos and images found at CB's warehouse. They were found and dealt with by Saxony police and Wolters told Clarke to speak to them if he had questions. (page 318 of Clarke's book) I don't think the investigations in Germany are as streamlined as some think they are.
Wolters doesn't need ownership or sight of thee videos to know what's on them
Where do you think Wolters is getting his information on the progress and the evidence in the investigation.. Where else but from the BKA
-
Disappearance of Madeleine
McCANN in Praia da Luz, Portugal,
on 03/05/2007 – call for witnesses
BKA and Braunschweig Public Prosecutor's Office are conducting investigative
proceedings for suspected murder against a German suspect
Does gunit still want to deny the BKA and Wolters are working together
-
I've got no idea whether the Germans have bothered with the PJ files or not. I asked the question because you insinuated that they may have. I have no reason to believe that the people involved can read and understand evidence written in either Portuguese or English. You seem to see the prosecutor and the BKA as interchangeable, but I don't.
According to Jon Clarke, Wolters had neither ownership or sight of the videos and images found at CB's warehouse. They were found and dealt with by Saxony police and Wolters told Clarke to speak to them if he had questions. (page 318 of Clarke's book) I don't think the investigations in Germany are as streamlined as some think they are.
You have "no idea" if the Germans have bothered to look at the files. That just tells me how naive (or in denial) you are. That you think it's possible they haven't, says it all. The most obvious defence case that the Prosecutor is likely to come up against is the "parents did it" theory. If you believe for a moment that they have not investigated the evidence contributing to this theory, you do not understand what a Prosecutor does.
You say you have "no reason to believe the people involved can read and understand evidence written evidence in Portugese or English".... honestly, I could write an essay on how ignorant and ridiculous that comment is. It almost doesn't deserve a response but I'll humour you and point out that 56% of germans are English speakers. I have to say again though, I'm astounded in your defiance to believe that these investigators must know less than you do.
I don't see the Prosecutor and BKA as interchangeable, because unlike you, I understand what their roles are. However, for the purpose of who the "investigators" in this particular case are, they are in effect interchangeable in this discussion. You keep talking about the BKA as if they are the presiding authority, as if their opinion is of a higher importance than the Prosecutor's office. It's not. The Prosecutor has overriding authority in the case they are investigating. The problem is that you simply do not seem to understand the role of a Prosecutor in Germany. They are the ones who lead the investigation. They are the ones directing the BKA's activitities in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. No, they don't run the entire BKA and Wolters team doesn't have overriding authority over the BKA or investigations taking place in other cases or geographical areas in Germany. But they ARE in charge of the MM case. And the activitities the BKA are undertaking are coordinated by the Braunschweig Prosecutor's office in this case. And all the evidence the BKA have, is passed directly to them. In addition to this evidence, it's worth noting the Prosecutor's office are possibly privy to information from other external agencies that the BKA are not. As well as information uncovered from their own investigations.
And yes, I've read Jon Clarke’s book. I notice you omitted the part about Jon thinking Wolters was not being genuine about what he claimed not to know. That he thought Wolters was giving him the brush off, on this and other aspects he asked questions about.
-
Don't forget Arlindo, the time-travelling chef!
Is this off-topic? Yes, and probably deflection too.
-
Is this off-topic? Yes, and probably deflection too.
(&^&
I'm really getting under your skin aren't I? Good.
-
Is this off-topic? Yes, and probably deflection too.
A bit like when you brought up the issue of parents sedating their children on the very first page of a thread about the boxes ticked by Brückner you mean?
-
(&^&
I'm really getting under your skin aren't I? Good.
Not at all. Baiting others usually happens when the baiter has run out of meaningful answers imo.
-
A bit like when you brought up the issue of parents sedating their children on the very first page of a thread about the boxes ticked by Brückner you mean?
Only because others claimed the McCanns had no motive on the very first page of a thread about the boxes ticked by Brückner. Why did they bring the McCanns into the discussion?
-
Not at all. Baiting others usually happens when the baiter has run out of meaningful answers imo.
Oh dear. You really have lost the plot haven't you. What questions do you have dear? I've got plenty of answers.
-
Only because others claimed the McCanns had no motive on the very first page of a thread about the boxes ticked by Brückner. Why did they bring the McCanns into the discussion?
They brought it up because sadly, people like you cannot let it go. It was pointed out, that despite your best efforts, unlike Brueckner the McCanns had no motive. You tried to offer one up but unfortunately fell at the first hurdle of evidence. And since you are all about the evidence, the fact you had to resort to such extreme speculation to come up with a motive is illustrative of how far the sceptics will go to keep their hope alive. Their hope that Brueckner is not the guilty party. So sad.
-
Not at all. Baiting others usually happens when the baiter has run out of meaningful answers imo.
I’m afraid Para is running rings around you and doing a great job exposing every flaw in your argument. Perhaps you should ignore him like you largely ignore me? That way you can stick your head back in the sand, confident that you are always right about everything.
-
Oh dear. You really have lost the plot haven't you. What questions do you have dear? I've got plenty of answers.
Please attempt to be polite. I don't like moderating members but I can and will.
-
Please attempt to be polite. I don't like moderating members but I can and will.
Have you been polite to me? Especially considering I'm a new member. Several times now you have interjected yourself into conversations in which you were not involved purely to make derogatory comments towards me while adding nothing to the topic of discussion. If you want me to go back and point out examples, I will. Do not threaten me.
-
They brought it up because sadly, people like you cannot let it go. It was pointed out, that despite your best efforts, unlike Brueckner the McCanns had no motive. You tried to offer one up but unfortunately fell at the first hurdle of evidence. And since you are all about the evidence, the fact you had to resort to such extreme speculation to come up with a motive is illustrative of how far the sceptics will go to keep their hope alive. Their hope that Brueckner is not the guilty party. So sad.
The fact remains that it wasn't me who brought the McCanns into this thread.
-
How do I report a Moderator for improper behaviour? Asking for a friend.
-
email John. He's the Big Cheese on here.
-
Have you been polite to me? Especially considering I'm a new member. Several times now you have interjected yourself into conversations in which you were not involved purely to make derogatory comments towards me while adding nothing to the topic of discussion. If you want me to go back and point out examples, I will. Do not threaten me.
I think I have. Anyone can comment on anything posted here, there are no private conversations. If I've made derogatory comments of a personal nature I apologise. If I've made derogatory comments about the contents of your posts I don't.
I don't threaten people, but I may warn them.
-
The fact remains that it wasn't me who brought the McCanns into this thread.
You seized on the opportunity to take the thread off topic by raising (for the umpteenth time) the issue of parents sedating their kids, which, according to you is a very common issue. You're a moderator, you should have known better than to attempt to derail the thread with such an inflammatory post. IMO.
Does Bruckner tick all the boxes of a child abductor / murderer? What do you think?
-
I think I have. Anyone can comment on anything posted here, there are no private conversations. If I've made derogatory comments of a personal nature I apologise. If I've made derogatory comments about the contents of your posts I don't.
I don't threaten people, but I may warn them.
Hmm, a Putinesque response @)(++(*
-
I think I have. Anyone can comment on anything posted here, there are no private conversations. If I've made derogatory comments of a personal nature I apologise. If I've made derogatory comments about the contents of your posts I don't.
I don't threaten people, but I may warn them.
I dont think John will be very happy with your attitude towards a well behaved poster with a massive input
-
So when you say the Portuguese polce believe Madeleine was abducted your evidence is that they allegedly reopened their investigation to investigate Motiero, amongst other leads. It was Correio da Manha who reported that, but it was never officially confirmed.
"A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria said: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case, and our professional secrecy, prevents us from making any comment on Correio da Manha's reports.""
By Gerard Couzens | 30 Oct 2013 11:25 Daily Mirror
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id467.htm
Should we accept what Portuguese journalists say as facts?
Why not, the brit rags are the go to for info .
-
(&^&
I'm really getting under your skin aren't I? Good.
So the aim is disruption then ?
-
In the real world untold misery is being heaped upon the Ukraine's and here, a few words upset some one, get a life.
-
You seized on the opportunity to take the thread off topic by raising (for the umpteenth time) the issue of parents sedating their kids, which, according to you is a very common issue. You're a moderator, you should have known better than to attempt to derail the thread with such an inflammatory post. IMO.
Does Bruckner tick all the boxes of a child abductor / murderer? What do you think?
No, I answered these assertions;
"CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't."
"we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping."
Those assertions were not made in answer to anyone's posts and were nothing to do with CB ticking boxes. I wonder if he was the only person in or around Luz with the kind of background that ticked those boxes.
-
No, I answered these assertions;
"CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't."
"we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping."
Those assertions were not made in answer to anyone's posts and were nothing to do with CB ticking boxes. I wonder if he was the only person in or around Luz with the kind of background that ticked those boxes.
OG went after the locals, they obviously fitted some kind of profile, what was it Rowley said, burglary gone wrong, how was that ? CB is supposed to have walked off with a child, gone wrong more like the jackpot, well gone wrong was/is an official narrative.
-
No, I answered these assertions;
"CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't."
"we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping."
Those assertions were not made in answer to anyone's posts and were nothing to do with CB ticking boxes. I wonder if he was the only person in or around Luz with the kind of background that ticked those boxes.
I think you must be mistaken. The sentences you quoted indicate that the author believes CB ticks the "motive" box, unlike the McCanns - that is on topic. What is not on topic is what boxes you think the McCanns tick. Maybe start a new thread for that?
-
I dont think John will be very happy with your attitude towards a well behaved poster with a massive input
On what basis do you think you can predict John's opinions and reactions?
-
In the real world untold misery is being heaped upon the Ukraine's and here, a few words upset some one, get a life.
And yet here you are, stirring the pot.
-
So the aim is disruption then ?
Absolutely not. I (unlike others) am attempting to keep the thread on topic. If I get under the skin of certain sceptics in that process, that is merely an added bonus
-
On what basis do you think you can predict John's opinions and reactions?
Pure logic
-
In the real world untold misery is being heaped upon the Ukraine's and here, a few words upset some one, get a life.
I assume that was aimed at me. I'll just point out that it was G-Unit who claimed to be offended by a comment I made. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of that assertion, citing examples where she has been offensive towards me.
-
And yet here you are, stirring the pot.
Can't help yourself can you.
-
No, I answered these assertions;
"CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't."
"we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping."
Those assertions were not made in answer to anyone's posts and were nothing to do with CB ticking boxes. I wonder if he was the only person in or around Luz with the kind of background that ticked those boxes.
"I wonder if he (CB) was the only person in or around Luz with the kind of background that ticked those boxes."
No - Brueckner was not the only person of that type who prowled the streets of the holiday resort. There were many of them; some of whom were interviewed in 2007 and I presume were recorded in the PJ files.
These known paedophiles probably featured high on Scotland Yard's "to do" list - which is probably why the German police were asked to visit Brueckner.
We know that persons who ticked some of the boxes - one of which was pinging phones - were constituted arguidos and interviewed by the PJ on Scotland Yard's behalf and in their presence.
The problem you may be having is that after the due process of investigating these individuals the last man standing who was not eliminated from the inquiry by investigation was and remains Brueckner.
Therefore, no evidence found against these many other men = they are not suspects.
Evidence found against Brueckner = Brueckner is a suspect. The most chilling aspect to which is that we are told Brueckner is suspected of child murder
-
I think you must be mistaken. The sentences you quoted indicate that the author believes CB ticks the "motive" box, unlike the McCanns - that is on topic. What is not on topic is what boxes you think the McCanns tick. Maybe start a new thread for that?
Of course the McCanns had no motive for abducting their own child. That's a rather silly idea I think.
-
Of course the McCanns had no motive for abducting their own child. That's a rather silly idea I think.
Pathetic misrepresentation yet again. We covered this on page 1 of the thread.
-
Of course the McCanns had no motive for abducting their own child. That's a rather silly idea I think.
No one mooted that idea.
-
No one mooted that idea.
She is likely referring to the original comment I made that CB had a motive to take Madeleine and the McCanns didn't. She knew how that comment was meant and I already clarified it on page 1 after she decided to nitpick it the first time. And yet again she is deliberately misrepresenting a point that she knows nobody is trying to claim. It's disgusting behaviour from someone who is meant to be moderating the thread.
-
She is likely referring to the original comment I made that CB had a motive to take Madeleine and the McCanns didn't. She knew how that comment was meant and I already clarified it on page 1 after she decided to nitpick it the first time. And yet again she is deliberately misrepresenting a point that she knows nobody is trying to claim. It's disgusting behaviour from someone who is meant to be moderating the thread.
What is very clear is that G-Unit and her ilk will never admit that CB ticks ALL the boxes for the crime of child abduction/murder. Of course we don't know for certain that that is the crime that has been committed in this case but as "parental involvement" and "woke and wandered" have certainly been eliminated by the two police forces investigating it (and by anyone who is able to assess the evidence logically and objectively) then it doesn't leave many other options. So if Madeleine WAS abducted and murdered then someone who ticks all the boxes should certainly be investigated exhaustively and thoroughly until he or she can be definitively eliminated or charged. And that is what is happening now, but some people aren't very happy about it, it would seem.
-
What is very clear is that G-Unit and her ilk will never admit that CB ticks ALL the boxes for the crime of child abduction/murder. Of course we don't know for certain that that is the crime that has been committed in this case but as "parental involvement" and "woke and wandered" have certainly been eliminated by the two police forces investigating it (and by anyone who is able to assess the evidence logically and objectively) then it doesn't leave many other options. So if Madeleine WAS abducted and murdered then someone who ticks all the boxes should certainly be investigated exhaustively and thoroughly until he or she can be definitively eliminated or charged. And that is what is happening now, but some people aren't very happy about it, it would seem.
Box-ticking can help to identify suspects but there's also those who don't tick the boxes. Jim Gamble knew there were such people, which is why he advised Gerry McCann to say this;
In his daily online blog, Gerry wrote: “Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand.
“An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1291349/gerry-mccann-appeal-madeleine-mccann-abductor-german-suspect-murder-portugal-spt
Gamble was acknowledging that sometimes people act out of character, and box-ticking can't help to identify those people. It's a tool, that's all.
-
Box-ticking can help to identify suspects but there's also those who don't tick the boxes. Jim Gamble knew there were such people, which is why he advised Gerry McCann to say this;
In his daily online blog, Gerry wrote: “Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand.
“An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1291349/gerry-mccann-appeal-madeleine-mccann-abductor-german-suspect-murder-portugal-spt
Gamble was acknowledging that sometimes people act out of character, and box-ticking can't help to identify those people. It's a tool, that's all.
Can't you see you are flogging a dead horse?
-
Am I allowed to talk?
-
Box-ticking can help to identify suspects but there's also those who don't tick the boxes. Jim Gamble knew there were such people, which is why he advised Gerry McCann to say this;
In his daily online blog, Gerry wrote: “Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand.
“An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1291349/gerry-mccann-appeal-madeleine-mccann-abductor-german-suspect-murder-portugal-spt
Gamble was acknowledging that sometimes people act out of character, and box-ticking can't help to identify those people. It's a tool, that's all.
Jim Gamble believes Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Do you agree with him now, all of a sudden?
-
Jim Gamble believes Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Do you agree with him now, all of a sudden?
He does, but he wasn't always so sure.
-
He does, but he wasn't always so sure.
But he is firmly convinced now, so given that you are quoting him as some sort of authority now does that mean you have finally come to terms with the idea that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger? A straight answer to this question would be lovely, but not expected.
-
Jim Gamble clearly believes Christian Brückner ticks the boxes, thanks for bringing him into the discussion G-Unit:
Last night, Mr Gamble – the former head of the National Crime Agency’s child unit –said Brueckner is a “driven sexual predator”.
He said: “When you’re tracking someone of this nature, what’s critical to remember is there’s never only one offence.
“The nature of these people and the way they are driven towards offending, you don’t get a one-off offender.
“You can see is he has offended against girls and against older women. So he has no particular preference, he is a driven and motivated sexual predator.
“There is a huge likelihood they would have offended there multiple times.”
He added: “You have someone who has that propensity to live by virtue of theft, in petty crimes.
“He also has a deviant sexual history. And if you put that person in that place at that time and those series of events, you have the potential for the tragedy that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is.”
“Because if you look at this from an objective point of view, you have someone with a history of abusing children.
“You have someone with a history of crime, including burglary, someone who was suspected of rape in that area and you have someone who's known the area quite well, lived in several locations.
“With all of that, and someone who can be placed near the scene at the time of the crime, and then whose conduct posts events after the crime is extremely suspicious.”
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
-
But he is firmly convinced now, so given that you are quoting him as some sort of authority now does that mean you have finally come to terms with the idea that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger? A straight answer to this question would be lovely, but not expected.
I was simply pointing out that the police are as aware as I am that box ticking may be of use, but there are those who don't tick the boxes.
-
Jim Gamble clearly believes Christian Brückner ticks the boxes, thanks for bringing him into the discussion G-Unit:
Last night, Mr Gamble – the former head of the National Crime Agency’s child unit –said Brueckner is a “driven sexual predator”.
He said: “When you’re tracking someone of this nature, what’s critical to remember is there’s never only one offence.
“The nature of these people and the way they are driven towards offending, you don’t get a one-off offender.
“You can see is he has offended against girls and against older women. So he has no particular preference, he is a driven and motivated sexual predator.
“There is a huge likelihood they would have offended there multiple times.”
He added: “You have someone who has that propensity to live by virtue of theft, in petty crimes.
“He also has a deviant sexual history. And if you put that person in that place at that time and those series of events, you have the potential for the tragedy that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is.”
“Because if you look at this from an objective point of view, you have someone with a history of abusing children.
“You have someone with a history of crime, including burglary, someone who was suspected of rape in that area and you have someone who's known the area quite well, lived in several locations.
“With all of that, and someone who can be placed near the scene at the time of the crime, and then whose conduct posts events after the crime is extremely suspicious.”
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
That's an awful lot of ticked boxes.
-
I was simply pointing out that the police are as aware as I am that box ticking may be of use, but there are those who don't tick the boxes.
Does Brückner tick the boxes in your view?
-
Does Brückner tick the boxes in your view?
And answer, as expected, came there none.
-
That's an awful lot of ticked boxes.
Six attempts ? Aw, that is awful.
Similar things used to happen to me all the time. Then I wasn't able to enter the forum , sometimes for months on end.
Also long posts that I had spent a long time researching and typing up just vanished and I was continually logged out.
Additionally, I was prevented from logging in again by various devious means. And funny things happened to what I had typed, like changing the posts meaning entirely.
I suggest that you ensure that you are able to reach at least one other UK Forum supporter so that your voice can be heard on forum, or at the very least they can inform John.
Is it you, Gunit, who is refusing Para2030s posts ?
-
Six attempts ? Aw, that is awful.
Similar things used to happen to me all the time. Then I wasn't able to enter the forum , sometimes for months on end.
Also long posts that I had spent a long time researching and typing up just vanished and I was continually logged out.
Additionally, I was prevented from logging in again by various devious means. And funny things happened to what I had typed, like changing the posts meaning entirely.
I suggest that you ensure that you are able to reach at least one other UK Forum supporter so that your voice can be heard on forum, or at the very least they can inform John.
Is it you, Gunit, who is refusing Para2030s posts ?
Please post on topic;
Re: The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner
-
Please post on topic;
Re: The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner
Does Brückner tick the boxes in your view?
-
Does Brückner tick the boxes in your view?
He ticks the boxes quoted, but what does that signify? That he meets some criteria which some people think are met by those likely to abduct and murder small children. That's enlightening only if the right criteria have been identified.
Does Brueckner, commonly referred to as a paedophile, fit the description of such a person? In my opinion he does not.
-
He ticks the boxes quoted, but what does that signify? That he meets some criteria which some people think are met by those likely to abduct and murder small children. That's enlightening only if the right criteria have been identified.
Does Brueckner, commonly referred to as a paedophile, fit the description of such a person? In my opinion he does not.
Sorry, you’ve lost me. He ticks the boxes in your opinion, but also in your opinion he does not tick the boxes. Come again?
-
He ticks the boxes quoted, but what does that signify? That he meets some criteria which some people think are met by those likely to abduct and murder small children. That's enlightening only if the right criteria have been identified.
Does Brueckner, commonly referred to as a paedophile, fit the description of such a person? In my opinion he does not.
What does ticking the boxes signify? It signifies that he is a suitable candidate for thorough investigation. Agree or disagree?
-
What does ticking the boxes signify? It signifies that he is a suitable candidate for thorough investigation. Agree or disagree?
To be honest I can't remember what the boxes were. I assume they are a list of things that some people think suggest point to a suspicious person. Imo it is similar to profiling, but I've no idea how useful or successful these things are. Are these boxes used by the police? Do they use the same boxes as people have used here?
-
To be honest I can't remember what the boxes were. I assume they are a list of things that some people think suggest point to a suspicious person. Imo it is similar to profiling, but I've no idea how useful or successful these things are. Are these boxes used by the police? Do they use the same boxes as people have used here?
If the latest from the brit rags are to believed CB doesn't tick the right box's.
-
If the latest from the brit rags are to believed CB doesn't tick the right box's.
Or at least not the really important ones like evidence of actual physical involvement with Madeleine.
-
To be honest I can't remember what the boxes were. I assume they are a list of things that some people think suggest point to a suspicious person. Imo it is similar to profiling, but I've no idea how useful or successful these things are. Are these boxes used by the police? Do they use the same boxes as people have used here?
Have you not been reading this thread, in particular the contributions from Para? Or are you suffering short term memory loss / selective amnesia? I suggest you re-read the entire thread, and then let us know if you think (based on the boxes you yourself just now agreed CB ticked) that he should be thoroughly investigated for the abduction / murder of Madeleine McCann. If not, then why not? Which boxes does he not tick that means he should never have been investigated? For example, his surname isn’t McCann, etc.
-
If the latest from the brit rags are to believed CB doesn't tick the right box's.
Can I have a cite for that please.
-
Can I have a cite for that please.
END OF THE ROAD Madeleine McCann inquiry to END after 11 years as fears grow prime suspect WON’T be charged
Brit rags have a look.
-
END OF THE ROAD Madeleine McCann inquiry to END after 11 years as fears grow prime suspect WON’T be charged
Brit rags have a look.
A cite which states the police don’t think CB ticks all the boxes is what I was after. You do understand (or perhaps you don’t) that a suspect can tick all the boxes and still not be charged? Think John Canaan.
-
A cite which states the police don’t think CB ticks all the boxes is what I was after. You do understand (or perhaps you don’t) that a suspect can tick all the boxes and still not be charged? Think John Canaan.
Canaan is as innocent of lamplugh's murder the same as you and I, so your point is ?
-
Canaan is as innocent of lamplugh's murder the same as you and I, so your point is ?
I would explain but clearly it would go right over your head.
-
I would explain but clearly it would go right over your head.
You couldn't get past the first capital letter.
-
You couldn't get past the first capital letter.
nonsensical reply, as expected.
-
Or at least not the really important ones like evidence of actual physical involvement with Madeleine.
Exactly. A suspect can tick every box people can come up with, but without evidence it means nothing.
-
Exactly. A suspect can tick every box people can come up with, but without evidence it means nothing.
Couldnt agree more.. Wolters says he has that evidence
-
Exactly. A suspect can tick every box people can come up with, but without evidence it means nothing.
No one is disputing that fact. This thread is about the boxes ticked by Brückner. You agreed he ticked them but then in the next breath claimed he did not. Perhaps you can explain? Based on the fact that Bruckner ticks many boxes, do you not think he should be exhaustively investigated?
-
No one is disputing that fact. This thread is about the boxes ticked by Brückner. You agreed he ticked them but then in the next breath claimed he did not. Perhaps you can explain? Based on the fact that Bruckner ticks many boxes, do you not think he should be exhaustively investigated?
My position is to question how useful box ticking is.
-
My position is to question how useful box ticking is.
Why do you question its usefulness? For example: do you think that every single person in Praia Da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance is equally as likely to be involved in her disappearance, or is there anyone at all you would discount as they don’t tick any of the boxes? Is Mrs Fenn as likely to have abducted and murdered Madeleine as Christian Bruckner? We know you don’t think Madeleine was abducted but the police do. Unfortunately they have little or no forensic evidence to go on, so what criteria do you think they should be using when trying to ascertain likely suspects in the area at the time? If, for example, several people come forward independently and name an individual should that person be further investigated to see whether or not they tick any boxes?
-
My position is to question how useful box ticking is.
I think that's a pretty ridiculous opinion..
-
Why do you question its usefulness? For example: do you think that every single person in Praia Da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance is equally as likely to be involved in her disappearance, or is there anyone at all you would discount as they don’t tick any of the boxes? Is Mrs Fenn as likely to have abducted and murdered Madeleine as Christian Bruckner? We know you don’t think Madeleine was abducted but the police do. Unfortunately they have little or no forensic evidence to go on, so what criteria do you think they should be using when trying to ascertain likely suspects in the area at the time? If, for example, several people come forward independently and name an individual should that person be further investigated to see whether or not they tick any boxes?
I think that there can be many reasons to investigate people. Some of those people may not tick any of the boxes mentioned here but there may be other indications.
-
I think that there can be many reasons to investigate people. Some of those people may not tick any of the boxes mentioned here but there may be other indications.
Can you just for once answer this question: based on the boxes ticked by Bruckner and the fact that he has been named as someone involved in Madeleine’s disappearance is it correct that he should have been exhaustively investigated to the point where he is either eliminated or charged? If not, why not?
-
Couldnt agree more.. Wolters says he has that evidence
Saying and having are two entirely different things.
Whats he said since Oct last year to firm up on that ?
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder. Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter
-
Saying and having are two entirely different things.
Whats he said since Oct last year to firm up on that ?
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder. Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter
Relying on a newspaper report... When it suits you.
I could explain my interpretation but I can't be bothered.
Look at what's in quotation marks
-
Can you just for once answer this question: based on the boxes ticked by Bruckner and the fact that he has been named as someone involved in Madeleine’s disappearance is it correct that he should have been exhaustively investigated to the point where he is either eliminated or charged? If not, why not?
Murat was named and I think he ticked some analyst's boxes. The PJ investigated him exhaustively. They did not, however, proclaim him guilty during that process. So yes, Brueckner should have been investigated.
-
Murat was named and I think he ticked some analyst's boxes. The PJ investigated him exhaustively. They did not, however, proclaim him guilty during that process. So yes, Brueckner should have been investigated.
Progress of sorts. You agree Brückner should have been investigated. Obviously the PJ didn’t think he was worth pursuing despite all the boxes he ticks (many more than Murat) and so he wasn’t investigated. That’s a big failure on their part IMO. The Germans are doing everything they can to put that right. It remains to be seen whether or not they have the right man, but investigating him is absolutely the right thing to be doing, as you yourself have now agreed. Good.
-
Murat was named and I think he ticked some analyst's boxes. The PJ investigated him exhaustively. They did not, however, proclaim him guilty during that process. So yes, Brueckner should have been investigated.
Noo evidence real evidence against Murst
-
Looks like you'll be able to get that lavender file back after all, Sadie, when they horse all the crap in the skip.
Meanwhile HCW has bought a pair of white boots, a cap and a whistle for his traffic duty shift on Monday. PEEP PEEEEP.
-
Looks like you'll be able to get that lavender file back after all, Sadie, when they horse all the crap in the skip.
Meanwhile HCW has bought a pair of white boots, a cap and a whistle for his traffic duty shift on Monday. PEEP PEEEEP.
Maybe if their remit had been a little wider OG may have had a little more success.
-
Oh SUCH glee at the prospect of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance coming to an end without resolution - who'da thunk it. @)(++(*
-
Looks like you'll be able to get that lavender file back after all, Sadie, when they horse all the crap in the skip.
Meanwhile HCW has bought a pair of white boots, a cap and a whistle for his traffic duty shift on Monday. PEEP PEEEEP.
Not very amusing. Is that the best you can do?
-
Oh SUCH glee at the prospect of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance coming to an end without resolution - who'da thunk it. @)(++(*
It doesn't matter. Fifteen years? Roll on. There are some very sick people out and about.
-
It doesn't matter. Fifteen years? Roll on. There are some very sick people out and about.
I'm glad you recognise that. Nice to see you back by the way.
-
Looks like you'll be able to get that lavender file back after all, Sadie, when they horse all the crap in the skip.
Meanwhile HCW has bought a pair of white boots, a cap and a whistle for his traffic duty shift on Monday. PEEP PEEEEP.
I would say the German investigation is still bang on track.. Grange have nothing more to do
-
Progress of sorts. You agree Brückner should have been investigated. Obviously the PJ didn’t think he was worth pursuing despite all the boxes he ticks (many more than Murat) and so he wasn’t investigated. That’s a big failure on their part IMO. The Germans are doing everything they can to put that right. It remains to be seen whether or not they have the right man, but investigating him is absolutely the right thing to be doing, as you yourself have now agreed. Good.
Unlike some, I'm not convinced the PJ were aware of CB. He didn't live in Luz, he wasn't seen in the vicinity and no-one suggested his name to the police at the time. His criminal record in Portugal was for theft.
-
Unlike some, I'm not convinced the PJ were aware of CB. He didn't live in Luz, he wasn't seen in the vicinity and no-one suggested his name to the police at the time. His criminal record in Portugal was for theft.
Why do you think Amaral lied about it then?
-
Why do you think Amaral lied about it then?
I have no idea.
-
I have no idea.
It seems a very strange thing to do, especially as it reflects so badly on him and the PJ don’t you think? Or do you think he’s so stupid he didn’t realise it would and lied about it because he thought it would make the
police look really on the ball?
Do you think there’s any likelihood he’s actually telling the truth about this?
-
It seems a very strange thing to do, especially as it reflects so badly on him and the PJ don’t you think? Or do you think he’s so stupid he didn’t realise it would and lied about it because he thought it would make the
police look really on the ball?
Do you think there’s any likelihood he’s actually telling the truth about this?
He could have told the truth, lied, been misinformed, I have no idea.All I know is that CB's name doesn't appear in the released files.
-
He could have told the truth, lied, been misinformed, I have no idea.All I know is that CB's name doesn't appear in the released files.
The names of the majority of the paedophiles on the police radar at the time were never in the CD containing the files given to journalists.
-
He could have told the truth, lied, been misinformed, I have no idea.All I know is that CB's name doesn't appear in the released files.
You do know that the released files aren’t complete don’t you?
-
You do know that the released files aren’t complete don’t you?
Nevertheless there are details in there of people reporting child sex offenders and paedophiles.
-
Nevertheless there are details in there of people reporting child sex offenders and paedophiles.
There’s no way of knowing exactly what is missing though. Of course the PJ will know if Amaral is lying or not, I wonder what they make of their erstwhile colleague and his campaign of deliberate misinformation about this case.
-
Not very amusing. Is that the best you can do?
Funny thing happened on the way here.....take my mother in law.....
Watch those hand gestures on traffic duty HCW, might be misconstrued by some of the older generation.
-
I would say the German investigation is still bang on track.. Grange have nothing more to do
Such a quaint world view, harking back to a simpler time. Regards, contented, Wolverhampton.
-
Twenty four pages of box ticking but it seems as if evidence is going to be the deciding factor.
-
Twenty four pages of box ticking but it seems as if evidence is going to be the deciding factor.
From an original cast of thousands in Luz at the time, the list has been whittled right down to one, if we use the stoic, simple supporter criteria.
It would appear that the checklist needs some work, guys.
Perhaps start by having a wee box for all possibilities and working from there, given that the 'evidence' precludes very little.
PEEEP. peep.
-
Twenty four pages of box ticking but it seems as if evidence is going to be the deciding factor.
It always was... Didn't you realise that.
-
Such a quaint world view, harking back to a simpler time. Regards, contented, Wolverhampton.
You think the German investigation is over... We will soon see who is right
-
I don’t remember reading that the German investigation was being wrapped up, wishful thinking on the part of some perhaps?
-
You think the German investigation is over... We will soon see who is right
It's not over. It will never be over. It's gone too far now, they've got to follow through, so to speak (although some may suggest they already have).
It's damage limitation now. The hand wringing behind the scenes happened a few months ago, now they'll be looking to see how the extricate themselves and throw HCW under the wagon without it being too obvious.
The distancing themselves will be in full swing - 'he's not a real policeman', 'he misrepresented the notes we gave him', 'he went off reservation', 'we think he's Stasi', 'he's a valued member of staff, but he's being moved to the Crayon Division', 'we've removed all sharp objects, corks on forks, all that'.
That said, they can simply sit on it forever. I mean literally stick it in a lavender box file, stick it on a shelf, then the shelf catches fire - but they can maintain he did it ad infinitum. Bingo, as they say in Manheim.
All in my MHBEO, of course.
-
It's not over. It will never be over. It's gone too far now, they've got to follow through, so to speak (although some may suggest they already have).
It's damage limitation now. The hand wringing behind the scenes happened a few months ago, now they'll be looking to see how the extricate themselves and throw HCW under the wagon without it being too obvious.
The distancing themselves will be in full swing - 'he's not a real policeman', 'he misrepresented the notes we gave him', 'he went off reservation', 'we think he's Stasi', 'he's a valued member of staff, but he's being moved to the Crayon Division', 'we've removed all sharp objects, corks on forks, all that'.
That said, they can simply sit on it forever. I mean literally stick it in a lavender box file, stick it on a shelf, then the shelf catches fire - but they can maintain he did it ad infinitum. Bingo, as they say in Manheim.
All in my MHBEO, of course.
It will be interesting to see how long sceptics such as yourself can continue to deny reality
-
I don’t remember reading that the German investigation was being wrapped up, wishful thinking on the part of some perhaps?
I know you're reading this.
If you don't not not reply, that's confirmation.
This 'story' that was picked up by the media, where do we think it originated? The ether? A bored junior hack at lunchtime over a few pints? No, it's a bad news leak. A mood barometer. Check the 'Outragemeter' results and see how we couch the next announcement. There's no money for OG to continue, but the new Commissioner wants to let everyone down gently - turns out he needn't have worried, everyone's delighted that they'll be putting the money to decent use for a change - about 99.7% of everyone - like giving old folk (including most of the people here) their tenners back for fuel payments.
But there's a dual purpose. The Met don't want HCW's stink and never have. Two birds in the bush makes Hansie a dull stone rolling moss.
-
It always was... Didn't you realise that.
Of course I did; I said it often enough.
-
I know you're reading this.
If you don't not not reply, that's confirmation.
This 'story' that was picked up by the media, where do we think it originated? The ether? A bored junior hack at lunchtime over a few pints? No, it's a bad news leak. A mood barometer. Check the 'Outragemeter' results and see how we couch the next announcement. There's no money for OG to continue, but the new Commissioner wants to let everyone down gently - turns out he needn't have worried, everyone's delighted that they'll be putting the money to decent use for a change - about 99.7% of everyone - like giving old folk (including most of the people here) their tenners back for fuel payments.
But there's a dual purpose. The Met don't want HCW's stink and never have. Two birds in the bush makes Hansie a dull stone rolling moss.
There is one piece of truth in the story.. Grange is closing.
-
It will be interesting to see how long sceptics such as yourself can continue to deny reality
I'm sceptical of CB being gone and done it. I've said it from the outset and here we are, nearly two years later - TWO YEARS. 'Gathering evidence'? How much evidence can possibly be gleaned from a manky flannel wrung dry?
This is not a massive, global, multifarious, ever pivoting crime scene; it's a tiny, sparsely furnished, 2 star apartment in a sleepy Portuguese erstwhile fishing village. There's nothing left to learn. No, I take that back, there is literally one thing left to learn - the identity of the person who rang CB that night. And I've also said this before, the Germans invented investigation and surveillance, if they can't find this guy on the phone, nobody can, apart from the FBI perhaps.
-
There is one piece of truth in the story.. Grange is closing.
Apparently so, but I think the sceptics should wait and see what the outcome is before crowing too loudly about it, they’re liable to look even more foolish in due course.
-
There is one piece of truth in the story.. Grange is closing.
So despite this story originating from 'a source close to a police officer's nana', you agree that this is a leaked mood barometer?
-
Apparently so, but I think the sceptics should wait and see what the outcome is before crowing too loudly about it, they’re liable to look even more foolish in due course.
I am the fool. I don't care if CB admits to it tomorrow. Kudos and ego are meaningless.
But I'll crow about the frivolity and emanant miasma of overt, collective incompetence at taxpayer expense though.
£15 million. Decades from now people will marvel at how this fiasco was born and how it endured, propped up by a succession of sycophants and rank incompetents.
-
There is one piece of truth in the story.. Grange is closing.
Judging by the comments here;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10631921/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-Met-Police-set-wind-probe-later-year.html#comments
no-one disagrees with the idea of closing it. Well, there's one lone voice crying "Would you say that if it was your child?" Surely even the McCann's will have to acknowledge that they have been incredibly priviledged compared to the parents of other missing children?
-
Judging by the comments here;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10631921/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-Met-Police-set-wind-probe-later-year.html#comments
no-one disagrees with the idea of closing it. Well, there's one lone voice crying "Would you say that if it was your child?" Surely even the McCann's will have to acknowledge that they have been incredibly priviledged compared to the parents of other missing children?
I agree that it's dragged on long enough. It seems the ball is in the Germans' court now anyway so let them see this through, hopefully to a successful conclusion. And yes, the McCanns have been on the receiving end of a huge amount of goodwill and resources which I don't begrudge them one bit - Madeleine's case is pretty unique but millions of taxpayers' money has been spent trying to solve other high profile murder/crime cases so it's not completely unprecedented. If the police believed that there were significant leads to follow that required money and resources to investigate, why would they not do so?
-
Anyhow, it seems we have nicely been sidetracked once again from the many, many boxes CB ticks, a subject which is obviously uncomfortable for some to deal with.
-
Unlike some, I'm not convinced the PJ were aware of CB. He didn't live in Luz, he wasn't seen in the vicinity and no-one suggested his name to the police at the time. His criminal record in Portugal was for theft.
Of course he lived in Luz, but not in the centre.
Please, you are misinforming again ... can you correct your post please
-
Of course he lived in Luz, but not in the centre.
Please, you are misinforming again ... can you correct your post please
He certainly ticked the opportunity box, though some try very hard to dispute that. He was local, his phone was used in PdL that night. Boxes ticked. Tick, tick.
-
Judging by the comments here;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10631921/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-Met-Police-set-wind-probe-later-year.html#comments
no-one disagrees with the idea of closing it. Well, there's one lone voice crying "Would you say that if it was your child?" Surely even the McCann's will have to acknowledge that they have been incredibly priviledged compared to the parents of other missing children?
We may have been able to potentially save a few grand if HCW would have arrested CB and questioned him - who knows?
So, rather puzzlingly, because HCW has been instructed not to show his hand, or he simply couldn't due to, bizarrely, a lack of evidence, here we are, the stupid Tommys, the ros beef, sat burning £20 notes on a bonfire of vanities, while he 'investigates' when there's nothing left to investigate. I wonder what their resources look like now, post the excavation of Lower Saxony.
That's something I suppose, the Germans have frittered several million of their own euro chasing the shadow of CB, when they could simply have asked him, then charged him.
Boo! Gerroff!
-
Funding for Grange is renewed on an annual basis for each financial year (April to March). So as last year's grant is about to expire, it would appear that now is when they need to apply for the next funding. According the (as yet unverified) source, the team have applied for a 6 month extension only, to continue their activities up to September.
Hypothetically, if the Met are under the impression from their German counterparts that CB is going to be charged within the next few months, such a move would be consistent with that IMO. Why would you apply for a full year's funding if you are expecting a charge in the case way before then? Conversely, if you think you have no more decent leads and that the German investigation is all but dead for you to assist them with, why apply for additional funding at all?
I just think the sceptics might want to curb any premature celebrations, this move might not signify what you hope it does.
-
Funding for Grange is renewed on an annual basis for each financial year (April to March). So as last year's grant is about to expire, it would appear that now is when they need to apply for the next funding. According the (as yet unverified) source, the team have applied for a 6 month extension only, to continue their activities up to September.
Hypothetically, if the Met are under the impression from their German counterparts that CB is going to be charged within the next few months, such a move would be consistent with that IMO. Why would you apply for a full year's funding if you are expecting a charge in the case way before then? Conversely, if you think you have no more decent leads and that the German investigation is all but dead for you to assist them with, why apply for additional funding at all?
I just think the sceptics might want to curb any premature celebrations, this move might not signify what you hope it does.
Hardly celebrations. Tempered relief from perception of proxy-indignation? Is that a thing?
Does it really mean anything to me? No, apart from infrequent posting inanely on an obscure forum. I'm not going to nip out and purchase a 3l bottle of White Lightning and a Gregg's sausage roll by way of celebration.
If this thread didn't exist I'd probably move on to another and post more garbage about the subject de jour.
I'm not ambivalent, I have a mild interest in my perception of the incongruity of OG.
-
Of course he lived in Luz, but not in the centre.
Please, you are misinforming again ... can you correct your post please
At the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance CB was of no fixed abode. Where do you think he lived Sadie?
-
At the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance CB was of no fixed abode. Where do you think he lived Sadie?
He may have been of "no fixed abode" but that does not mean he was not living in or close to his regular haunt of PdL does it? Where do you think he was living?
-
He may have been of "no fixed abode" but that does not mean he was not living in or close to his regular haunt of PdL does it? Where do you think he was living?
I don't know where he was, I just know that he didn't have an address in Luz. He lost that when he was imprisoned for theft.
-
Winnebago.
-
I don't know where he was, I just know that he didn't have an address in Luz. He lost that when he was imprisoned for theft.
Was this the one that didn't have a Death Dungeon, I've lost track?
-
Twenty four pages of box ticking but it seems as if evidence is going to be the deciding factor.
The case against Brueckner has been built on evidence. That which was ignored in 2007. That which came to the attention of SY investigators in 2013 and which has been followed and built upon since then until 2022.
Didn't you notice?
-
I don't know where he was, I just know that he didn't have an address in Luz. He lost that when he was imprisoned for theft.
So, given that he had been living in the PdL environs and given that you have no idea where he was living at the time and given his phone was used in PdL on the 3rd May then there is a good chance he was still living in the local area, right?
-
From an original cast of thousands in Luz at the time, the list has been whittled right down to one, if we use the stoic, simple supporter criteria.
It would appear that the checklist needs some work, guys.
Perhaps start by having a wee box for all possibilities and working from there, given that the 'evidence' precludes very little.
PEEEP. peep.
You make the point precisely.
What started in Luz in 2007 is nearing completion in Germany in 2022.
Those against whom there is no evidence have been eliminated from the inquiry.
The remainder (whether patsy or last man standing) subject to evidence based appraisal which in the opinion of those carrying out the investigation make him the prime suspect in the murder of a child.
-
The case against Brueckner has been built on evidence. That which was ignored in 2007. That which came to the attention of SY investigators in 2013 and which has been followed and built upon since then until 2022.
Didn't you notice?
What's this evidence?
-
What's this evidence?
Wolters says its all circumstantial , adds up to the sum of nowt .
-
You make the point precisely.
What started in Luz in 2007 is nearing completion in Germany in 2022.
Those against whom there is no evidence have been eliminated from the inquiry.
The remainder (whether patsy or last man standing) subject to evidence based appraisal which in the opinion of those carrying out the investigation make him the prime suspect in the murder of a child.
You missed the point in the 3rd sentence. The selection criteria was flawed from the get go. Blindly following one line of enquiry, it's no wonder we're where we are now - a suspect who sort of fits the bill, but not entirely.
Moreover, if the narrative is abduction / nonce / resident, and he's the best fit, then I'm afraid this folly will peter out and be consigned to the annals of German judicial folklore, wheeled out only when the next true crime series is being developed by some avaricious TV executive. HCW will be the next mouth on a stick in the coming years, similarly wheeled out to provide the inevitable 'well, we know he's our man' guff. And what's wrong with that, I suppose, all aboard the Ching Ching Train.
-
Hardly celebrations. Tempered relief from perception of proxy-indignation? Is that a thing?
Does it really mean anything to me? No, apart from infrequent posting inanely on an obscure forum. I'm not going to nip out and purchase a 3l bottle of White Lightning and a Gregg's sausage roll by way of celebration.
If this thread didn't exist I'd probably move on to another and post more garbage about the subject de jour.
I'm not ambivalent, I have a mild interest in my perception of the incongruity of OG.
Celebrating, Gloating, jumping to conclusions... whatever. Joking that Wolters is about to be demoted to traffic duty off the back of this seems a level above tempered relief though. I'd also point out that the joke doesn't actually make sense, since Wolters does not work for the police. But hey ho.
I understand why people object to the amount of money spent on Grange but the point is people (including the tabs) are also making the jump that this event somehow indicates that the German investigation is about to fail, when there is no evidence of that. Like I said, if Grange are of the opinion that the Germans have found the correct suspect, there is no need to continue a missing person inquiry, except maybe to assist the Germans while they finish compiling their case ahead of a charge.
-
Was this the one that didn't have a Death Dungeon, I've lost track?
There were two properties mentioned. One was near the golf course in Luz, and the other was further away. I don't think either were ever searched. There was talk of a cellar on a German allotment I think.
-
So, given that he had been living in the PdL environs and given that you have no idea where he was living at the time and given his phone was used in PdL on the 3rd May then there is a good chance he was still living in the local area, right?
Given that it was never established beyond doubt that he was holding that phone that night, that box hasn't been ticked. Ergo his whereabouts is another unticked box.
-
Wolters says its all circumstantial , adds up to the sum of nowt .
Looks like that's what SY have concluded. If they thought CB was the man, given that Dick was briefed on at least some of the evidence, then it'd be a pretty poor show if they didn't get in behind them.
The fact that this story with no source is essentially saying 'we don't know, we give up' means that by default they're dismissing CB as a suspect, given what they know.
Time to bring the curtain down on this macarbre episode of the Muppet Show.
-
Wolters says its all circumstantial , adds up to the sum of nowt .
That doesn't mean it's not compelling. You still don't seem (or want) to understand what circumstantial means in a legal sense. CB confessing to another person that he killed her is "circumstantial". A photo, found in his hard drives of Madeleine dead would still only be "circumstantial" evidence. If they found the other caller and definitely put the phone in CB's hand thst night, this would still only be "circumstantial". Most cases rely entirely on circumstantial evidence.
-
Given that it was never established beyond doubt that he was holding that phone that night, that box hasn't been ticked. Ergo his whereabouts is another unticked box.
Feel free to stretch credulity to fit your beliefs. The evidence suggests he still lived in the PdL environs at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Feel free to stretch credulity to fit your beliefs. The evidence suggests he still lived in the PdL environs at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
What evidence?
-
Celebrating, Gloating, jumping to conclusions... whatever. Joking that Wolters is about to be demoted to traffic duty off the back of this seems a level above tempered relief though. I'd also point out that the joke doesn't actually make sense, since Wolters does not work for the police. But hey ho.
I understand why people object to the amount of money spent on Grange but the point is people (including the tabs) are also making the jump that this event somehow indicates that the German investigation is about to fail, when there is no evidence of that. Like I said, if Grange are of the opinion that the Germans have found the correct suspect, there is no need to continue a missing person inquiry, except maybe to assist the Germans while they finish compiling their case ahead of a charge.
Creative license, queen, to paint the mental picture. Funny? No. Effective? Clearly.
The second bit? I beg to differ. There's no money. It's all gone now. There's no strategy, no collaboration, no assistance being offered; the well has run dry. Irrespective of public opinion, as, £15 million later, SY haven't really been arsed about that, they're not like a pacemaker dropping out of a 1500m race to give Steve Cram the best chance of beating Coe, they simply can't justify the inverse cost benefit analysis any longer.
Dick came back and essentially said 'they've got some dude fingered, but we're still looking for a missing person'. That's semantics to explain the ongoing nature of OG. Read between the lines and I'll bet she struggled to contain herself when presented with the shit show rolled out by HCW et al.
-
What evidence?
Jesus H. When you have finally learned the meaning of "evidence" I will run through it again for you, until then...
-
It's not over. It will never be over. It's gone too far now, they've got to follow through, so to speak (although some may suggest they already have).
It's damage limitation now. The hand wringing behind the scenes happened a few months ago, now they'll be looking to see how the extricate themselves and throw HCW under the wagon without it being too obvious.
The distancing themselves will be in full swing - 'he's not a real policeman', 'he misrepresented the notes we gave him', 'he went off reservation', 'we think he's Stasi', 'he's a valued member of staff, but he's being moved to the Crayon Division', 'we've removed all sharp objects, corks on forks, all that'.
That said, they can simply sit on it forever. I mean literally stick it in a lavender box file, stick it on a shelf, then the shelf catches fire - but they can maintain he did it ad infinitum. Bingo, as they say in Manheim.
All in my MHBEO, of course.
I can't believe you actually thought it worthwhile to make that post. Although I think it says so much more about your attitude which as well as being off topic shows the importance you place on getting the boot in to other members with ridicule (which by the way, breaches forum protocols) than giving consideration to the fact that there is a prisoner behind bars suspected of murdering a child.
-
I can't believe you actually thought it worthwhile to make that post. Although I think it says so much more about your attitude which as well as being off topic shows the importance you place on getting the boot in to other members with ridicule (which by the way, breaches forum protocols) than giving consideration to the fact that there is a prisoner behind bars suspected of murdering a child.
I know you can't put him on ignore because you're a moderator but I just wish you didn't have to quote his posts so that I can see his puerile witterings. There is only one reason why he is here and it's to troll. My advice is - don't feed it!
-
What evidence?
So this phone. I assume it didn't pop in to existence on 3rd May 2007. So there's a call log stretching back from the minute he registered it (under his own name, bizarrely).
Fritz (is that racist?) would have picked through that like a crow picking sweetcorn out of pig sh1t. Meticulous. No kernels left unpicked. We can guarantee that.
In addition, this phone log would have been forensically sifted with the most advanced technology available - think CSI Paderborn. Every contact would have been traced, interviewed, corroborated, cross-referenced. Like Tommy Lee Jones looking for Richard Kimble that time. Relentless. Exhausting just watching.
They gleaned two pieces of data - the phone pinged locally at the time and he received a call from someone around the time. That's it, as far as we know, given that HCW actually played that card 20 months ago.
What has that given them? Nowt. The person who called him has not been traced, clearly. I actually think that was a burner phone and they tried to trace it but hit a dead end. I also think that person is probably dead. The fact that none of CB's confederates who took the money and grassed knew of this person or admitted to being him / her, also means that, in all probability, is in the wind or dead or a hide and seek champion.
Why? Well they also have his / her phone number, so would have investigated it as thoroughly. The fact that this has also drawn a blank is very telling and must be a source of some confusion.
-
I can't believe you actually thought it worthwhile to make that post. Although I think it says so much more about your attitude which as well as being off topic shows the importance you place on getting the boot in to other members with ridicule (which by the way, breaches forum protocols) than giving consideration to the fact that there is a prisoner behind bars suspected of murdering a child.
I can sense that you're desperately looking for a reason to warn me, which is novel.
So just do it.
Ironically, by telling me I'm 'putting the boot in to other forum users' (which I didn't), you're putting the boot in to other forum users; me.
-
I know you can't put him on ignore because you're a moderator but I just wish you didn't have to quote his posts so that I can see his puerile witterings. There is only one reason why he is here and it's to troll. My advice is - don't feed it!
Do not not not read this.
Come on now, you run the risk of being accused of putting the boot in to other forum users......actually, maybe not.
-
There is one piece of truth in the story.. Grange is closing.
If Grange is closing we will be informed of the significance of that in relation to Madeleine's investigation in the fullness of time.
I view it as a potentially positive indicator.
Quite extraordinary that there are those who have adopted the joyful stance that it means failure to find out what happened to a missing child.
One wonders if the objection encompasses all missing children or does the negativity emanate in regard to this particular one because she carries the hated surname McCann.
There must be an explanation for the rising hope displayed in posts here and no doubt elsewhere. How strange it all is that a box is being ticked which not even Brueckner in his wildest dreams could ever have envisaged.
-
Jesus H. When you have finally learned the meaning of "evidence" I will run through it again for you, until then...
That'll be none then.
-
That'll be none then.
There's no evidence that Bruckner was living in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine's disappearance. There is however evidence that he was living in or close to PdL at the time. That you steadfastly refuse to accept the evidence does not mean there is none. Your problem, I can't help you any further.
-
There's no evidence that Bruckner was living in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine's disappearance. There is however evidence that he was living in or close to PdL at the time. That you steadfastly refuse to accept the evidence does not mean there is none. Your problem, I can't help you any further.
He could have been anywhere; mobile homes move.
-
If Grange is closing we will be informed of the significance of that in relation to Madeleine's investigation in the fullness of time.
I view it as a potentially positive indicator.
Quite extraordinary that there are those who have adopted the joyful stance that it means failure to find out what happened to a missing child.
One wonders if the objection encompasses all missing children or does the negativity emanate in regard to this particular one because she carries the hated surname McCann.
There must be an explanation for the rising hope displayed in posts here and no doubt elsewhere. How strange it all is that a box is being ticked which not even Brueckner in his wildest dreams could ever have envisaged.
I'm delighted. Put a stop to the burning of money nobody can afford.
But using your logic, do we spend >£15 million on each missing child, or does the funding only extend to children whose parents have links to people in positions of influence?
Incidentally, you and all supporters needn't fret. When the OG rug does get pulled, and you read it here first, I will guarantee some high-profile benefactor will pop up and proclaim that they will bankroll the ongoing search, out of pure christian kindness and philanthropy. And not part-time philanthropy like one or two, but a big-hitter keen to help in anyway they can.
-
He could have been anywhere; mobile homes move.
So do phones, that's why they're called mobile. Partly why this 'evidence' is circumstantial; it's uncorroborated and is probably, in all likelihood, uncorroborateable (new word there guys, feel free to use it from now on).
In addition, as we all know, the area covered by the pings is approximately the size of Wales Bolton.
-
He could have been anywhere; mobile homes move.
Is there any evidence that he was anywhere else at the time? Did his phone ping in Paris? Did an eyewitness see him in Eritrea? Was he known to hang out in Haiti? The fact is - he was a long-term resident of the PdL area, he committed crimes in that area, he had jobs in that area, he had friends and acquaintances in that area, the cop "co-ordinating" the investigation claimed he was living in that area, his phone pinged in that area. Not in Amsterdam, not in Zagreb, but in PdL. That is evidence. Feel free to provide evidence that he was anywhere else at the time. Even the suspect has hitherto failed to claim he was elsewhere but carry on believing what you must to keep your dreams alive.
-
I'm sceptical of CB being gone and done it. I've said it from the outset and here we are, nearly two years later - TWO YEARS. 'Gathering evidence'? How much evidence can possibly be gleaned from a manky flannel wrung dry?
This is not a massive, global, multifarious, ever pivoting crime scene; it's a tiny, sparsely furnished, 2 star apartment in a sleepy Portuguese erstwhile fishing village. There's nothing left to learn. No, I take that back, there is literally one thing left to learn - the identity of the person who rang CB that night. And I've also said this before, the Germans invented investigation and surveillance, if they can't find this guy on the phone, nobody can, apart from the FBI perhaps.
Unless you are privy to the investigation into Madeleine's case, I think you are blissfully unaware of the ignorance displayed in your post.
-
So this phone. I assume it didn't pop in to existence on 3rd May 2007. So there's a call log stretching back from the minute he registered it (under his own name, bizarrely).
Fritz (is that racist?) would have picked through that like a crow picking sweetcorn out of pig sh1t. Meticulous. No kernels left unpicked. We can guarantee that.
In addition, this phone log would have been forensically sifted with the most advanced technology available - think CSI Paderborn. Every contact would have been traced, interviewed, corroborated, cross-referenced. Like Tommy Lee Jones looking for Richard Kimble that time. Relentless. Exhausting just watching.
They gleaned two pieces of data - the phone pinged locally at the time and he received a call from someone around the time. That's it, as far as we know, given that HCW actually played that card 20 months ago.
What has that given them? Nowt. The person who called him has not been traced, clearly. I actually think that was a burner phone and they tried to trace it but hit a dead end. I also think that person is probably dead. The fact that none of CB's confederates who took the money and grassed knew of this person or admitted to being him / her, also means that, in all probability, is in the wind or dead or a hide and seek champion.
Why? Well they also have his / her phone number, so would have investigated it as thoroughly. The fact that this has also drawn a blank is very telling and must be a source of some confusion.
The mobile number which called Brueckner's mobile at 7.32pm on 3/5/07 belonged to Nicole F. That information was provided by a friend of hers who was interviewed by Jutta Rabe on the recent SAT1 German documentary. I have included 2 screenshots below which show both the confirmation of the mobile number owner and the vehicle in which the interviewee was sitting. (The subtitles should read Nicole F not Nikolai). The SAT1 documentary no longer seems to be available for viewing online.
It would appear from another press report (below) that Brueckner had told his then-girlfriend Nicole F that he was 200 miles away in the northern parish of Tomar. IMO he was constructing himself an alibi, for potential future use, as he waited around somewhere in Luz to carry out crime(s) against Madeleine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10455723/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-obsessed-pre-pubescent-girls-says-ex-girlfriend.html
-
Judging by the comments here;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10631921/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-Met-Police-set-wind-probe-later-year.html#comments
no-one disagrees with the idea of closing it. Well, there's one lone voice crying "Would you say that if it was your child?" Surely even the McCann's will have to acknowledge that they have been incredibly priviledged compared to the parents of other missing children?
So it really does seem that Madeleine's surname does single her out for special attention - or do you advocate that despite the fact there is existing evidence to be followed in an investigation we just shouldn't bother.
One or the other - which is it for you!
-
Is there any evidence that he was anywhere else at the time? Did his phone ping in Paris? Did an eyewitness see him in Eritrea? Was he known to hang out in Haiti? The fact is - he was a long-term resident of the PdL area, he committed crimes in that area, he had jobs in that area, he had friends and acquaintances in that area, the cop "co-ordinating" the investigation claimed he was living in that area, his phone pinged in that area. Not in Amsterdam, not in Zagreb, but in PdL. That is evidence. Feel free to provide evidence that he was anywhere else at the time. Even the suspect has hitherto failed to claim he was elsewhere but carry on believing what you must to keep your dreams alive.
The only crime he has been convicted of committing in PdL is a rape.
I know of no jobs he had in PdL.
I don't care what Amaral said. Knocking on CB's door wasn't an option unless it was a van door.
His alleged phone pinged in a location covered by a mast in PdL.
I don't need to provide evidence that he was elsewhere, because there's no reliable evidence that he was in PdL.
-
The mobile number which called Brueckner's mobile at 7.32pm on 3/5/07 belonged to Nicole F. That information was provided by a friend of hers who was interviewed by Jutta Rabe on the recent SAT1 German documentary. I have included 2 screenshots below which show both the confirmation of the mobile number owner and the vehicle in which the interviewee was sitting. (The subtitles should read Nicole F not Nikolai). The SAT1 documentary no longer seems to be available for viewing online.
It would appear from another press report (below) that Brueckner had told his then-girlfriend Nicole F that he was 200 miles away in the northern parish of Tomar. IMO he was constructing himself an alibi, for potential future use, as he waited around somewhere in Luz to carry out crime(s) against Madeleine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10455723/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-obsessed-pre-pubescent-girls-says-ex-girlfriend.html
Very interesting, Misty. I believe it was Elke Piro who provided the information (?) The reference to ‘Nikolov’ - is that the Russian, Ivan Nikolov police were trying to trace? The Sat1 documentary is no longer available but I believe it will shortly be on UK television.
-
So it really does seem that Madeleine's surname does single her out for special attention - or do you advocate that despite the fact there is existing evidence to be followed in an investigation we just shouldn't bother.
One or the other - which is it for you!
What's the significance of her surname?
-
Very interesting, Misty. I believe it was Elke Piro who provided the information (?) The reference to ‘Nikolov’ - is that the Russian, Ivan Nikolov police were trying to trace? The Sat1 documentary is no longer available but I believe it will shortly be on UK television.
We didn't get to see the woman Jutta interviewed and her name wasn't disclosed so I don't now if she was Elke. From what I remember, she confirmed that the number belonged to Nicole F - i.e. it was HER phone - not a man's. I screenshot the name shown on the subtitles because I was initially confused regarding "Nikolov".
You have me at a disadvantage regarding an Ivan Nikolov - do you have any more details please?
-
The only crime he has been convicted of committing in PdL is a rape.
I know of no jobs he had in PdL.
I don't care what Amaral said. Knocking on CB's door wasn't an option unless it was a van door.
His alleged phone pinged in a location covered by a mast in PdL.
I don't need to provide evidence that he was elsewhere, because there's no reliable evidence that he was in PdL.
Oh right so now there’s no “reliable” evidence he was in PdL. LOL. Progress of sorts, I suppose. Define “reliable” in this context. Does it mean only evidence that supports your beliefs perhaps?
-
The only crime he has been convicted of committing in PdL is a rape.
I know of no jobs he had in PdL.
I don't care what Amaral said. Knocking on CB's door wasn't an option unless it was a van door.
His alleged phone pinged in a location covered by a mast in PdL.
I don't need to provide evidence that he was elsewhere, because there's no reliable evidence that he was in PdL.
Bruckner was convicted of stealing 3000 litres of diesel from vehicles in Portimao. That is a 26 minute drive away from Praia Da Luz. It’s in the near vicinity. He operated in the near vicinity of PdL. The address he refused to give the authorities when he was incarcerated for the crime was the villa on the outskirts of PdL. To make out that he didn’t live in the area for many years is disingenuous to say the least. We recently read that he worked in the Ocean Club itself. Vans have doors. How else do you alert the occupant that you wish to speak with them other than knocking on it? His phone pinged in PdL, on the same night Madeleine disappeared, not the nigt before and not the night after. Quelle coincidence.
-
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner WORKED at resort where she vanished and his phone was no more than five minutes away when she disappeared, documentary claims
- Brueckner was named as the prime suspect in McCann disappearance in 2020
- Convicted German rapist 'regularly carried out repair work' at Praia da Luz
- Documentary showed the 44-year-old to be familiar with the Portuguese resort
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10459431/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-WORKED-resort-vanished.html
-
Given that it was never established beyond doubt that he was holding that phone that night, that box hasn't been ticked. Ergo his whereabouts is another unticked box.
Your information about the opinion piece you have posted comes from where exactly?
-
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner WORKED at resort where she vanished and his phone was no more than five minutes away when she disappeared, documentary claims
- Brueckner was named as the prime suspect in McCann disappearance in 2020
- Convicted German rapist 'regularly carried out repair work' at Praia da Luz
- Documentary showed the 44-year-old to be familiar with the Portuguese resort
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10459431/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-WORKED-resort-vanished.html
Documentary claims , which is not police claims, fortunately Wolters is keeping his mouth shut.
-
I'm delighted. Put a stop to the burning of money nobody can afford.
But using your logic, do we spend >£15 million on each missing child, or does the funding only extend to children whose parents have links to people in positions of influence?
Incidentally, you and all supporters needn't fret. When the OG rug does get pulled, and you read it here first, I will guarantee some high-profile benefactor will pop up and proclaim that they will bankroll the ongoing search, out of pure christian kindness and philanthropy. And not part-time philanthropy like one or two, but a big-hitter keen to help in anyway they can.
Back in 2019 Amaral told Mark Saunokonoko that OG would be winding up with CB as the patsy , not far wrong again it seems.
-
Documentary claims , which is not police claims, fortunately Wolters is keeping his mouth shut.
For once.
-
I'm delighted. Put a stop to the burning of money nobody can afford.
But using your logic, do we spend >£15 million on each missing child, or does the funding only extend to children whose parents have links to people in positions of influence?
Incidentally, you and all supporters needn't fret. When the OG rug does get pulled, and you read it here first, I will guarantee some high-profile benefactor will pop up and proclaim that they will bankroll the ongoing search, out of pure christian kindness and philanthropy. And not part-time philanthropy like one or two, but a big-hitter keen to help in anyway they can.
Your post is as usual.
Starting and finishing with OFF TOPIC and proceeding through the usual vitriolic litany which mentions everything under the sun but Brueckner - the paedophile and rapist presently under investigation for the murder of a child.
-
Your post is as usual.
Starting and finishing with OFF TOPIC and proceeding through the usual vitriolic litany which mentions everything under the sun but Brueckner - the paedophile and rapist presently under investigation for the murder of a child.
Stop berating me or I'll get in touch with the mods. Oh....
-
Is there any evidence that he was anywhere else at the time? Did his phone ping in Paris? Did an eyewitness see him in Eritrea? Was he known to hang out in Haiti? The fact is - he was a long-term resident of the PdL area, he committed crimes in that area, he had jobs in that area, he had friends and acquaintances in that area, the cop "co-ordinating" the investigation claimed he was living in that area, his phone pinged in that area. Not in Amsterdam, not in Zagreb, but in PdL. That is evidence. Feel free to provide evidence that he was anywhere else at the time. Even the suspect has hitherto failed to claim he was elsewhere but carry on believing what you must to keep your dreams alive.
You managed to tick a few boxes there VS. Some time ago I posted a newspaper link to the effect that the German investigation had tabs on the caller at the other end of Brueckner's line.
There has been no other appeal for that information ~ so I reckon the report was kosher and they have the required information detailing Brueckner's corresponding whereabouts.
Additional information here regarding the antenna activation from Brueckener's phone in Luz on 3rd May 2007 >
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12326.msg679113#msg679113
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12326.msg679117#msg679117
-
Back in 2019 Amaral told Mark Saunokonoko that OG would be winding up with CB as the patsy , not far wrong again it seems.
Is this the same Amaral who deliberately spread misinformation about this so-called “patsy”? The patsy whose home he says his men visited in 2007 but never bothered to actually interview or even catch a glimpse of when they knocked on his door? And you think he’s got special access to the BKA investigation do you? Or perhaps you think he’s clairvoyant? You appear quite credulous which is a strange position for a sceptic .
-
We didn't get to see the woman Jutta interviewed and her name wasn't disclosed so I don't now if she was Elke. From what I remember, she confirmed that the number belonged to Nicole F - i.e. it was HER phone - not a man's. I screenshot the name shown on the subtitles because I was initially confused regarding "Nikolov".
You have me at a disadvantage regarding an Ivan Nikolov - do you have any more details please?
“You have me at a disadvantage regarding an Ivan Nikolov - do you have any more details please?”
I thought she was talking about another person called ‘Nikolov’ or is it a subtitle error? Like you say, Nicole F. I have no additional information for ‘Ivan’ and just know the name came up in connection with CB and NF.
-
“You have me at a disadvantage regarding an Ivan Nikolov - do you have any more details please?”
I thought she was talking about another person called ‘Nikolov’ or is it a subtitle error? Like you say, Nicole F. I have no additional information for ‘Ivan’ and just know the name came up in connection with CB and NF.
I'm 99.9% sure it's a subtitle error. If I remember correctly, the name Nikolov appeared in the subtitles more than once in the sequence as Jutta was speaking to the unidentified friend of Nicole about the ******683 mobile number but the friend said she recognised the number as Nicole's.
-
Creative license, queen, to paint the mental picture. Funny? No. Effective? Clearly.
The second bit? I beg to differ. There's no money. It's all gone now. There's no strategy, no collaboration, no assistance being offered; the well has run dry. Irrespective of public opinion, as, £15 million later, SY haven't really been arsed about that, they're not like a pacemaker dropping out of a 1500m race to give Steve Cram the best chance of beating Coe, they simply can't justify the inverse cost benefit analysis any longer.
Dick came back and essentially said 'they've got some dude fingered, but we're still looking for a missing person'. That's semantics to explain the ongoing nature of OG. Read between the lines and I'll bet she struggled to contain herself when presented with the shit show rolled out by HCW et al.
All complete speculations or outright false representations. The only accurate statement in there was that your joke wasn't funny.
-
So this phone. I assume it didn't pop in to existence on 3rd May 2007. So there's a call log stretching back from the minute he registered it (under his own name, bizarrely).
The phone wasn't registered under his name, that's not how they found out the number belonged to him. The call records for the phone are unlikely to exist now, the mobile companies are required to delete private data after a certain amount of time due to data protection laws so the current investigation would have been limited in establishing his call history. If they'd picked up this number at the time, it would have been a different matter. Same with the other number as they'd likely be able to trace it via the other people/numbers they'd called
-
Creative license, queen, to paint the mental picture. Funny? No. Effective? Clearly.
The second bit? I beg to differ. There's no money. It's all gone now. There's no strategy, no collaboration, no assistance being offered; the well has run dry. Irrespective of public opinion, as, £15 million later, SY haven't really been arsed about that, they're not like a pacemaker dropping out of a 1500m race to give Steve Cram the best chance of beating Coe, they simply can't justify the inverse cost benefit analysis any longer.
Dick came back and essentially said 'they've got some dude fingered, but we're still looking for a missing person'. That's semantics to explain the ongoing nature of OG. Read between the lines and I'll bet she struggled to contain herself when presented with the shit show rolled out by HCW et al.
Tell me youre just having a laugh without telling me youre having a laugh.
-
The phone wasn't registered under his name, that's not how they found out the number belonged to him. The call records for the phone are unlikely to exist now, the mobile companies are required to delete private data after a certain amount of time due to data protection laws so the current investigation would have been limited in establishing his call history. If they'd picked up this number at the time, it would have been a different matter. Same with the other number as they'd likely be able to trace it via the other people/numbers they'd called
OK, so how are they so sure that it was his phone that was being called ?
-
OK, so how are they so sure that it was his phone that was being called ?
Because they have other evidence he was using that prepaid number.
Whether he was using it that night is what they are trying to prove beyond doubt. Hence the appeal.
-
Creative license, queen, to paint the mental picture. Funny? No. Effective? Clearly.
The second bit? I beg to differ. There's no money. It's all gone now. There's no strategy, no collaboration, no assistance being offered; the well has run dry. Irrespective of public opinion, as, £15 million later, SY haven't really been arsed about that, they're not like a pacemaker dropping out of a 1500m race to give Steve Cram the best chance of beating Coe, they simply can't justify the inverse cost benefit analysis any longer.
Dick came back and essentially said 'they've got some dude fingered, but we're still looking for a missing person'. That's semantics to explain the ongoing nature of OG. Read between the lines and I'll bet she struggled to contain herself when presented with the shit show rolled out by HCW et al.
Why do you keep saying £15 million, when it is 13 million?
You are not Gunit in disguise are you?
Put it right, there's a dear. More than one post is affected; people will think it's the truth if you repeat it often enough ... and you wouldn't want that, would you?
-
Why do you keep saying £15 million, when it is 13 million?
You are not Gunit in disguise are you?
Put it right, there's a dear. More than one post is affected; people will think it's the truth if you repeat it often enough ... and you wouldn't want that, would you?
Pots and kettles Sadie. Brueckner didn't live in Luz in May 2007 unless you've got an address?
-
Pots and kettles Sadie. Brueckner didn't live in Luz in May 2007 unless you've got an address?
Where did he live in May 2007 and what does it matter where he lived then anyway?
My post above has been edited by G-Unit and now makes me look stupid. Thanks G-Unit.
-
Where did he live in June 2007 and what does it matter where he lived then anyway?
I think it matters little exactly where Brueckner lived when Madeleine disappeared. The fact that he had been a local for a number of years who was very familiar with the area - had contacts there - had transportation in and out of the village etc is the important issue.
The German documentary - which is no longer available - has interviewed people who claim that he had worked as a handyman in the Ocean Club.
Anyway - I think it is significant that an unattributed rumour in the British media outweighs the number of boxes ticked by Brueckner and has been leapt upon with such eagerness as evidence of failure. Patently it is not but is worthy of future reference when claims are made about the purity of those who treat such sources with disdain. Quite obviously that is not actually the case and never has been.
-
I think it matters little exactly where Brueckner lived when Madeleine disappeared. The fact that he had been a local for a number of years who was very familiar with the area - had contacts there - had transportation in and out of the village etc is the important issue.
The German documentary - which is no longer available - has interviewed people who claim that he had worked as a handyman in the Ocean Club.
Anyway - I think it is significant that an unattributed rumour in the British media outweighs the number of boxes ticked by Brueckner and has been leapt upon with such eagerness as evidence of failure. Patently it is not but is worthy of future reference when claims are made about the purity of those who treat such sources with disdain. Quite obviously that is not actually the case and never has been.
My point was G-Unit stated as fact that he didn’t live in Luz in 2007, which must mean she knows for a fact where he WAS living, and she also referred to June 2007 which is a month after the disappearance and so barely relevant to events on 3rd May.
-
My point was G-Unit stated as fact that he didn’t live in Luz in 2007, which must mean she knows for a fact where he WAS living, and she also referred to June 2007 which is a month after the disappearance and so barely relevant to events on 3rd May.
Oh please! On what basis do people claim he was living in Luz? Evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?
-
Oh please! On what basis do people claim he was living in Luz? Evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?
Oh please yourself! On what basis do you claim he was not living iin Luz? You stated it as fact so you need to supply a cite to back up your claim. Furthermore what is the significance of June 2007 to his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance in May?
-
Oh please! On what basis do people claim he was living in Luz? Evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?
Sneaky editing of posts going on above btw. You have now made a mockery of my post which asked why it mattered where he was living in June and changed it to May to quietly rectify your glaring error. Disingenuous to say the least!
-
Oh please! On what basis do people claim he was living in Luz? Evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?
I would imagine there will be evidence as to where Brueckner was living. But why do you think it important enough to argue the point.
Surely his actual whereabouts and proximity on the night the crime was committed takes precedence.
-
Oh please! On what basis do people claim he was living in Luz? Evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?
If someone who knew CB at the time later claimed he was living in the environs of Luz when Madeleine disappeared would you class that as evidence, rumour or wishful thinking? What do you understand by the term “evidence”?
-
I would imagine there will be evidence as to where Brueckner was living. But why do you think it important enough to argue the point.
Surely his actual whereabouts and proximity on the night the crime was committed takes precedence.
I object when people claim something is a fact when there's nothing to suggest it is. CB did not, afaik, tick the box for living in Luz in May 2007. Neither is there any definitive evidence as to where he was on 3rd.
-
I object when people claim something is a fact when there's nothing to suggest it is. CB did not, afaik, tick the box for living in Luz in May 2007. Neither is there any definitive evidence as to where he was on 3rd.
You just claimed as fact that he did not live in Luz in June (sic) 2007. That is a definitive statement that requires a cite. Do you have one? There IS evidence to suggest he lived in the area at the time but you refuse to accept it is evidence.
-
I object when people claim something is a fact when there's nothing to suggest it is. CB did not, afaik, tick the box for living in Luz in May 2007. Neither is there any definitive evidence as to where he was on 3rd.
It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.
-
It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.
- His phone was there.
- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.
- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.
- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.
Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.
A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.
He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.
Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.
-
Pots and kettles Sadie. Brueckner didn't live in Luz in May 2007 unless you've got an address?
Well the PJ knocked on the door once, only once.
-
It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.
He could have been parking his van in Luz. He could have been watching the McCanns all week. He could have gone into 5A and taken a child. He could have murdered her and disposed of her body. Or he could have done none of that.
-
Sneaky editing of posts going on above btw. You have now made a mockery of my post which asked why it mattered where he was living in June and changed it to May to quietly rectify your glaring error. Disingenuous to say the least!
Sounds like you are getting *The Treatment*, VS, that I suffered for so many years.
Next stage is to make it that your password no longer works, then you can't even get into forum.
Good Luck.
BTW, did you get my request to be a * friend *?
-
It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.
What I'm interested in is understanding how G-Unit can claim as a fact that CB was not living in Luz at the time, yet no cite to back that up. Surely such a stickler for the truth as yourself (cough) would like to know how she can be so certain?
-
Sounds like you are getting *The Treatment*, VS, that I suffered for so many years.
Next stage is to make it that your password no longer works, then you can't even get into forum.
Good Luck.
BTW, did you get my request to be a * friend *?
I don't think so? Where would one look for that?
-
- His phone was there.
- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.
- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.
- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.
Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.
A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.
He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.
Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.
Or indeed, none of them.
Best to wait until charges are laid, I think.
-
He could have been parking his van in Luz. He could have been watching the McCanns all week. He could have gone into 5A and taken a child. He could have murdered her and disposed of her body. Or he could have done none of that.
Now we're getting somewhere - you are at last acknowledging that he was well placed to do all of the things you list - he had the means, the motive and the opportunity. Tick, tick, tick.
-
I don't think so? Where would one look for that?
Haven't a clue. Have never done it before, but it must have been well over a month ago.
-
- His phone was there.
- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.
- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.
- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.
Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.
A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.
He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.
Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.
Another one who thinks a suspect should defend himself against gossip and rumours in newspapers. If the German police decide to question him that is when he needs to speak and not before.
-
Well the PJ knocked on the door once, only once.
Alledgedly.
-
Alledgedly.
Alleged by the co-ordinator of the original police investigation. If such a person makes a claim are we to treat it as evidence, rumour or wishful thinking? Which one?
-
It's clear that Amaral's word is no longer trusted by sceptics. What does that mean wrt to some of the claims he has made that sceptics have always taken as gospel? Can these all be dispensed with now? Perhaps the subject for a new thread?
-
Why do you keep saying £15 million, when it is 13 million?
You are not Gunit in disguise are you?
Put it right, there's a dear. More than one post is affected; people will think it's the truth if you repeat it often enough ... and you wouldn't want that, would you?
£16 million.
-
Another one who thinks a suspect should defend himself against gossip and rumours in newspapers. If the German police decide to question him that is when he needs to speak and not before.
Brueckner has done precisely that. He wrote to a UK Investigative journalist (MWT) & gave him a detailed description of his whereabouts at the time Madeleine disappeared.
From the synopsis of yet-to-be-aired Episode 3 "Investigating the Prime Suspect"
(https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect)
.
*Christian writes to Mark with a detailed account of his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s
disappearance and Mark checks this against the known facts.*
Of course, that's not quite the same as providing an alibi for the time Madeleine may have been murdered, the crime Brueckner is actually suspected of.
-
Another one who thinks a suspect should defend himself against gossip and rumours in newspapers. If the German police decide to question him that is when he needs to speak and not before.
Where did I say he "should"? You are putting words in my mouth again and you need to stop!
CB has every right to remain silent if he chooses. But he has the option to speak to police whenever he wants. If he is 100% innocent and can prove it, it would make sense to do so IMO rather than have his name smeared and potentially a target put on his back in prison. Something he and his legal team have claimed to be incensed about.
Instead he has chosen to send letters to journalists and (allegedly) provided details of an alibi to them. So as far I'm concerned, he's undemined any position that he should say nothing until charged.
-
It's clear that Amaral's word is no longer trusted by sceptics. What does that mean wrt to some of the claims he has made that sceptics have always taken as gospel? Can these all be dispensed with now? Perhaps the subject for a new thread?
Are you making your sweeping statements about all sceptics, some sceptics or just me? I can only speak for myself.
-
Brueckner is a long term criminal.
The police are his enemy.
Why would he want to cooperate with them?
-
Brueckner has done precisely that. He wrote to a UK Investigative journalist (MWT) & gave him a detailed description of his whereabouts at the time Madeleine disappeared.
From the synopsis of yet-to-be-aired Episode 3 "Investigating the Prime Suspect"
(https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect)
.
*Christian writes to Mark with a detailed account of his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s
disappearance and Mark checks this against the known facts.*
Of course, that's not quite the same as providing an alibi for the time Madeleine may have been murdered, the crime Brueckner is actually suspected of.
He has been in constant contact with journalists.
Earlier in the thread it was noted that all the other paedophiles in Luz at the time Madeleine disappeared had been eliminated from the inquiry as if that fact in some way should have exonerated Bruckner.
The point being that other paedophiles were checked out and scored off the list for the simple reason no evidence was found against them at the time they were investigated.
They didn't have to "prove their innocence" for the simple reason the police did it for them.
That makes it all the more significant that Brueckner remains a suspect after the police investigation did not clear him as it had the others.
The evidence led to him being made a suspect - nothing else.
-
Brueckner is a long term criminal.
The police are his enemy.
Why would he want to cooperate with them?
He was said to have cooperated with the police fully back in 2013 when he was first questioned about the Madeleine case. This was after his name was put forward as a suspect following a TV appeal but before they had any real evidence to implicate him.
-
Where did I say he "should"? You are putting words in my mouth again and you need to stop!
CB has every right to remain silent if he chooses. But he has the option to speak to police whenever he wants. If he is 100% innocent and can prove it, it would make sense to do so IMO rather than have his name smeared and potentially a target put on his back in prison. Something he and his legal team have claimed to be incensed about.
Instead he has chosen to send letters to journalists and (allegedly) provided details of an alibi to them. So as far I'm concerned, he's undemined any position that he should say nothing until charged.
You said;
"He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that."
Saying that the onus is on him is saying he has a duty or responsibility to do something; he should do it.
-
He was said to have cooperated with the police fully back in 2013 when he was first questioned about the Madeleine case. This was after his name was put forward as a suspect following a TV appeal but before they had any real evidence to implicate him.
The difference being that police went and asked him questions on that occasion.
Perhaps he will respond accordingly if they ever get around to asking him anything
In the meantime why would he want to make things easy for them ?
-
The difference being that police went and asked him questions on that occasion.
Perhaps he will respond accordingly if they ever get around to asking him anything
In the meantime why would he want to make things easy for them ?
I disagree with that. He would not be making anything easier for the police. He would be taking the heat off himself - which both he and his legal team have complained of.
He did time because he preferred to be classed as being "of no fixed abode" by his refusal to give up his address to them - perhaps now as then there was a lack of communication for ulterior motives.
-
Are you making your sweeping statements about all sceptics, some sceptics or just me? I can only speak for myself.
Well, you have mooted that there is no evidence that CB lived in the PdL environs at the time of Madeleine's disappearance despite what Amaral has said, and the other sceptics who have commented on here seem to be supportive of your comments, so I think it's safe to surmise that they too think Amaral must have been telling lies about this. Of course, they are free to put me straight any time.
-
The difference being that police went and asked him questions on that occasion.
Perhaps he will respond accordingly if they ever get around to asking him anything
In the meantime why would he want to make things easy for them ?
It would not be making things easier for the police would it? If he supplied them with a cast-iron alibi it would put a serious spanner in their works and wipe the smug look off HCW's face wouldn't it? I'm sure CB would be delighted to do that if he could, but it appears he can't.
-
You said;
"He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that."
Saying that the onus is on him is saying he has a duty or responsibility to do something; he should do it.
You are deliberately misrepresentating me... again.
I was saying the onus is on him in a legal sense in terms of explaining the phone. People are trying to make out that the duty is on the police to prove he was using that phone and are here making out he has to be given the benefit of the doubt if they can't 100% prove he had it that night. What I went on to say (which you have cut) is that a judge won't see it that way. He will (at some point) be expected to explain why his phone was in Luz and being used if he wants to claim that he wasn't the one using it.
I did NOT say that he "should" defend himself against newspaper gossip and rumours. Which is just the latest of unfounded and unwarranted accusations you've levelled at me. The phone evidence isn't newspaper gossip! In fact it's one of the only pieces of evidence the authorities have officially released. This is an accusation directly from the police, not tabloid rumour.
Yes, it's up to him when he wants to address that question over the phone and his whereabouts, but he shouldn't expect people to have much sympathy for his complaints or an expectation to be given the benefit of the doubt when he is choosing not to do so.
-
You are deliberately misrepresentating me... again.
I was saying the onus is on him in a legal sense in terms of explaining the phone. People are trying to make out that the duty is on the police to prove he was using that phone and are here making out he has to be given the benefit of the doubt if they can't 100% prove he had it that night. What I went on to say (which you have cut) is that a judge won't see it that way. He will (at some point) be expected to explain why his phone was in Luz and being used if he wants to claim that he wasn't the one using it.
I did NOT say that he "should" defend himself against newspaper gossip and rumours. Which is just the latest of unfounded and unwarranted accusations you've levelled at me. The phone evidence isn't newspaper gossip! In fact it's one of the only pieces of evidence the authorities have officially released. This is an accusation directly from the police, not tabloid rumour.
Yes, it's up to him when he wants to address that question over the phone and his whereabouts, but he shouldn't expect people to have much sympathy for his complaints or an expectation to be given the benefit of the doubt when he is choosing not to do so.
Cart before the horse here, kid. Why haven't they arrested him?
-
Cart before the horse here, kid. Why haven't they arrested him?
Insufficient evidence?
-
Insufficient evidence?
He's in prison, they have the luxury of time to build a solid case as their suspect isn't going anywhere.
-
Do I need to explain to you again why Wolters says he hasn't arrested him. It makes perfect sense. I would wager FF and CB would both like an arrest to go ahead.
-
He's in prison, they have the luxury of time to build a solid case as their suspect isn't going anywhere.
And there's more... But it's pointless pointing it out if posters can't remember or understand
-
He's in prison, they have the luxury of time to build a solid case as their suspect isn't going anywhere.
Add disclosure and double jeopardy for a start
-
Insufficient evidence?
We have a winner! He can't, he hasn't met the threshold to permit him / them to even start.
Despite the insistence that there's no rush as he's in the jug, even the most impaired of cognition could deduce that if they had enough on him there would be an almighty clamour to get him in an interview room. HCW holds a press conference when he's going for a piss, so he wouldn't be able to contain himself if he had a breakthrough.
No, it wasn't a rhetorical question, and at least one member answered vicariously, but pretended not to.
This 'evidence'? Not nearly enough. That's pretty damning, and would be embarrassing, but the guy seems oblivious to the ridicule his ineptitude attracts. He's toast. Career killer. Another one for the MM cenotaph; collateral damage. The arse end of the pantomime horse.
-
£16 million.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10631921/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-Met-Police-set-wind-probe-later-year.html
£13 Million according to the above article ... and article dated 20th March 2022[/b]
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10631921/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-Met-Police-set-wind-probe-later-year.html
£13 Million according to the above article ... and article dated 20th March 2022[/b]
What's £3 million between mortal enemies?
-
We have a winner! He can't, he hasn't met the threshold to permit him / them to even start.
Despite the insistence that there's no rush as he's in the jug, even the most impaired of cognition could deduce that if they had enough on him there would be an almighty clamour to get him in an interview room. HCW holds a press conference when he's going for a piss, so he wouldn't be able to contain himself if he had a breakthrough.
No, it wasn't a rhetorical question, and at least one member answered vicariously, but pretended not to.
This 'evidence'? Not nearly enough. That's pretty damning, and would be embarrassing, but the guy seems oblivious to the ridicule his ineptitude attracts. He's toast. Career killer. Another one for the MM cenotaph; collateral damage. The arse end of the pantomime horse.
I see you signed your post... As arse end of the pantomime horse... I admire your honesty
-
What's £3 million between mortal enemies?
As an elite, peanuts to you, but to us ordinary mortals it's a big deal
As a mathematician, I would be surprised if it didn't mean a good deal to you too.
PS. I am not your enemy. I feel sorry for you
-
I see you signed your post... As arse end of the pantomime horse... I admire your honesty
@)(++(*
-
Does Brückner tick the boxes in your view?
All except the murderer box. He had/has no previous in this area. He also had no motive.
The Germans have nothing to connect him with Maddie anyway, it's all just bull.
-
I see you signed your post... As arse end of the pantomime horse... I admire your honesty
Not a problem. I have been and continue to be in much more precarious situations.
Incidentally, from experience (Broadway, Catford 1996 - Jack and the Beanstalk / Ipswich Regent 1998 / 99 - Aladdin), the arse end of a pantomime horse requires very little skill or, indeed, any semblance of common human competence, apart from bending over. So well inside your wheelhouse.
Open wide!
-
All except the murderer box. He had/has no previous in this area. He also had no motive.
The Germans have nothing to connect him with Maddie anyway, it's all just bull.
*slaps forehead*
-
All except the murderer box. He had/has no previous in this area. He also had no motive.
The Germans have nothing to connect him with Maddie anyway, it's all just bull.
He isn’t a murderer because he hasn’t got a previous conviction for murder? He has no motive? Just what are you on?? I despair, I really do…
-
Insufficient evidence?
Some one ought give a link to here , CB would soon be doing time for Madeleines demise then.
-
Cart before the horse here, kid. Why haven't they arrested him?
I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.
No, he's not been arrested but he has been publicly accused.
If you were publicly accused of killing a toddler, and you could prove you hadn't, wouldn't you attempt to clear your name and put the record straight? Wouldn't you be absolutley horrified at people thinking you had raped and murdered a little girl, despite having proof that clears you? Or would you just tell people you were happy to "sit back and relax and wait for their findings"? Which is exactly what CB has stated.
I'm sure you have several witty and inappropriate responses lined up to those questions but you know as well as I, it is common sense that a rational person would find such a false accusation deplorable, and would seek to redress it as soon as possible if they could easily prove it was untrue. An innocent person would not normally "relax" and resort to goading the police instead.
Does that mean he must be definitely guilty? No, of course it doesn't. Maybe he is just a sociopath who enjoys the attention for all we know. But it certainly doesn't look good. It doesn't make any assertion of innocence more believable, it only makes it less so IMO and therefore, it's a fair point to call it out.
People are trying to say there's NO real evidence he was in Luz when we don't even know for certain that he claims not to be.
The phone alone IS evidence of him being in Luz though.
If someone is taking a half hour call on a phone, logic and statistical probability will tell you that the person on that phone is extremely likely to be the person who owns the phone.
If the police can prove he was using that number, it's down to CB to explain why it was there. And realistically, he needs some other corroboration that he wasn't the person using the phone in Luz if he wants be believed by the Judge that he didn't have it on him.
-
I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.
No, he's not been arrested but he has been publicly accused.
If you were publicly accused of killing a toddler, and you could prove you hadn't, wouldn't you attempt to clear your name and put the record straight? Wouldn't you be absolutley horrified at people thinking you had raped and murdered a little girl, despite having proof that clears you? Or would you just tell people you were happy to "sit back and relax and wait for their findings"? Which is exactly what CB has stated.
I'm sure you have several witty and inappropriate responses lined up to those questions but you know as well as I, it is common sense that a rational person would find such a false accusation deplorable, and would seek to redress it as soon as possible if they could easily prove it was untrue. An innocent person would not normally "relax" and resort to goading the police instead.
Does that mean he must be definitely guilty? No, of course it doesn't. Maybe he is just a sociopath who enjoys the attention for all we know. But it certainly doesn't look good. It doesn't make any assertion of innocence more believable, it only makes it less so IMO and therefore, it's a fair point to call it out.
People are trying to say there's NO real evidence he was in Luz when we don't even know for certain that he claims not to be.
The phone alone IS evidence of him being in Luz though.
If someone is taking a half hour call on a phone, logic and statistical probability will tell you that the person on that phone is extremely likely to be the person who owns the phone.
If the police can prove he was using that number, it's down to CB to explain why it was there. And realistically, he needs some other corroboration that he wasn't the person using the phone in Luz if he wants be believed by the Judge that he didn't have it on him.
We're told CB has been under investigation for 5 yrs, whats CB got to defend himself from ? clearly there is not enough to even arrest him.
-
Must be a bit disheartening to spend 5 years and still not reach a point where charges can be laid.
Grange took twice as long , but then they were never expected to reach a conclusion.
IMO.
-
Must be a bit disheartening to spend 5 years and still not reach a point where charges can be laid.
Grange took twice as long , but then they were never expected to reach a conclusion.
IMO.
A ridiculous assertion.
IMO.
-
Some one ought give a link to here , CB would soon be doing time for Madeleines demise then.
If you are referring to the level of intelligent points arguing his defence ... you're right. He'd be screwed.
-
- His phone was there.
- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.
- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.
- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.
Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.
A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.
He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.
Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.
How do you know about the witnesses above recollections? Is it through the tabloids? I believe when it comes to selling your story the juicier the ‘recollections’ the better the pay day.
As to the rest of your post it’s simply fluff without an ounce of substance.
And to Brueckner…do I really have to point out that he has to tell the police nothing. It’s up to them to prove where he was and what he was doing.
Just a thought but perhaps that’s what’s holding those charges up?
-
How do you know about the witnesses above recollections? Is it through the tabloids? I believe when it comes to selling your story the juicier the ‘recollections’ the better the pay day.
As to the rest of your post it’s simply fluff without an ounce of substance.
And to Brueckner…do I really have to point out that he has to tell the police nothing. It’s up to them to prove where he was and what he was doing.
Just a thought but perhaps that’s what’s holding those charges up?
Talking of fluff without an ounce of substance, do you have any evidence at all of any of these people being paid by the tabloids for invented stories about CB?
-
I disagree with that. He would not be making anything easier for the police. He would be taking the heat off himself - which both he and his legal team have complained of.
He did time because he preferred to be classed as being "of no fixed abode" by his refusal to give up his address to them - perhaps now as then there was a lack of communication for ulterior motives.
Didn’t Kate fail to answer questions under caution? I wonder what her ‘ulterior motives’ were?
-
I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.
Then why didn’t Kate answer those 48 pesky questions?
-
You know you are winning the argument when people start blatantly ignoring what you've already explained, fail to directly challenge any specific points you've made and resort to rolling all the same old drivel and insults that add nothing to the topic.
-
Didn’t Kate fail to answer questions under caution? I wonder what her ‘ulterior motives’ were?
I'll answer that if you first answer me this. Do you think it is suspicious, or even a sign of guilt, that Kate did not answer those questions?
-
You know you are winning the argument when people start blatantly ignoring what you've already explained, fail to directly challenge any specific points you've made and resort to rolling all the same old drivel and insults that add nothing to the topic.
Such an obvious and well worn out deflection tactic it no longer has any effect.
I notice that apart from the wonderment of what door the cops politely knocked at in Luz when he was on their radar in 2007 - there has been no valid argument proposed against any of the boxes so obviously ticked by Brueckner to make him as Amaral says - the perfect patsy.
-
No, he'll be the perfect patsy when no charges are laid, but police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
Grange is almost there now.
There is simply no way to refute that. Guilty but not charged.
Don't believe me ? Wait and see.
-
No, he'll be the perfect patsy when no charges are laid, but police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
Grange is almost there now.
There is simply no way to refute that. Guilty but not charged.
Don't believe me ? Wait and see.
Didn’t you used to refer to me disparagingly as Mystic Meg? Seems you believe you’ve developed the gift. @)(++(*
-
No, he'll be the perfect patsy when no charges are laid, but police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
Grange is almost there now.
There is simply no way to refute that. Guilty but not charged.
Don't believe me ? Wait and see.
Shall we wait just a wee bit for the official announcement before getting your hopes up and stick with Brueckner and the boxes he ticks.
-
Shall we wait just a wee bit for the official announcement before getting your hopes up and stick with Brueckner and the boxes he ticks.
That's what I said - wait and see.
I don't do hope, just expectation.
-
I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.
No, he's not been arrested but he has been publicly accused.
If you were publicly accused of killing a toddler, and you could prove you hadn't, wouldn't you attempt to clear your name and put the record straight? Wouldn't you be absolutley horrified at people thinking you had raped and murdered a little girl, despite having proof that clears you? Or would you just tell people you were happy to "sit back and relax and wait for their findings"? Which is exactly what CB has stated.
I'm sure you have several witty and inappropriate responses lined up to those questions but you know as well as I, it is common sense that a rational person would find such a false accusation deplorable, and would seek to redress it as soon as possible if they could easily prove it was untrue. An innocent person would not normally "relax" and resort to goading the police instead.
Does that mean he must be definitely guilty? No, of course it doesn't. Maybe he is just a sociopath who enjoys the attention for all we know. But it certainly doesn't look good. It doesn't make any assertion of innocence more believable, it only makes it less so IMO and therefore, it's a fair point to call it out.
People are trying to say there's NO real evidence he was in Luz when we don't even know for certain that he claims not to be.
The phone alone IS evidence of him being in Luz though.
If someone is taking a half hour call on a phone, logic and statistical probability will tell you that the person on that phone is extremely likely to be the person who owns the phone.
If the police can prove he was using that number, it's down to CB to explain why it was there. And realistically, he needs some other corroboration that he wasn't the person using the phone in Luz if he wants be believed by the Judge that he didn't have it on him.
It’s fairly simple, I think. Both OG and the BKA know they have the right person i.e Christian Brückner.
-
Has Grange actually said that, or is it just your interpretation ?
-
Has Grange actually said that, or is it just your interpretation ?
When was the last time Operation Grange is on record as saying anything; you appear to have made up your own mind about the interpretation of recent newspaper speculative articles.
Officially - Brueckner is suspected of being a child murderer.
-
I'll answer that if you first answer me this. Do you think it is suspicious, or even a sign of guilt, that Kate did not answer those questions?
Isn’t that your line? That the refusal or lack of willingness to provide information suggests guilt.
-
No, he'll be the perfect patsy when no charges are laid, but police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
Grange is almost there now.
There is simply no way to refute that. Guilty but not charged.
Don't believe me ? Wait and see.
Oh I thought you were talking about the parents there.
Of course you can’t find what you’re not looking for.
-
Isn’t that your line? That the refusal or lack of willingness to provide information suggests guilt.
I've already explained my "line" and given detailed reasoning behind my argument. I'm asking for your "line" since you brought up Kate's questions. Do you think Kate's refusal to answer those questions is suspicious and/or is a sign of her guilt? If so, why?
-
I've already explained my "line" and given detailed reasoning behind my argument. I'm asking for your "line" since you brought up Kate's questions. Do you think Kate's refusal to answer those questions is suspicious and/or is a sign of her guilt? If so, why?
Your ‘line’ appears to be ‘any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD’ yet Kate seems to have preferred not to take that route. Why do you think that was? Can we conclude then, according to your logic, that suspicion must surround her too?
If you really want to know what I think of the parent’s actions at the time of their daughter’s disappearance can I suggest that you read my previous posts which are readily available on this forum and stop using counterquestions as a way to deflect?
-
Your ‘line’ appears to be ‘any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD’ yet Kate seems to have preferred not to take that route. Why do you think that was? Can we conclude then, according to your logic, that suspicion must surround her too?
If you really want to know what I think of the parent’s actions at the time of their daughter’s disappearance can I suggest that you read my previous posts which are readily available on this forum and stop using counterquestions as a way to deflect?
I've said I'll address your question once you answer mine. I think that's fair. You're the one deflecting.
It's a very straightforward question, but one you do not want to give a straightforward response to. I think we both know why.
-
Didn’t Kate fail to answer questions under caution? I wonder what her ‘ulterior motives’ were?
You win. Post of the Day.
-
You win. Post of the Day.
Stop it.. She thinks you're serious
-
You win. Post of the Day.
Reeeeealy 🙄
Groundhog day and tiresome (as is yours) ~ but more importantly ~ entirely OFF TOPIC (as is yours)
Let's make the resolution for today ~ we all aim for on topic posts or ones which are as close as possible.
-
Your ‘line’ appears to be ‘any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD’ yet Kate seems to have preferred not to take that route. Why do you think that was? Can we conclude then, according to your logic, that suspicion must surround her too?
If you really want to know what I think of the parent’s actions at the time of their daughter’s disappearance can I suggest that you read my previous posts which are readily available on this forum and stop using counterquestions as a way to deflect?
Haven’t you regularly accused Kate and Gerry of focusing more of their time and money on trying to establish their innocence than trying to find their daughter? Isn’t Kate’s best-selling book a complete rebuttal of accusations of involvement in their child’s disappearance? Haven’t her actions been entirely consistent with any rational person who could try to prove their innocence would? Kate was entirely co-operative with the police until the arguido interview and had no need to provide an alibi as to her whereabouts at the time of the disappearance anyway, unlike CB who could simply make this all go away by doing so. He does not need to wait to be asked by the police for an alibi, if he had one he could make the German police look like a laughing stock, could probably successfully sue them and be on his way out of prison in the next couple of years.
-
When was the last time Operation Grange is on record as saying anything; you appear to have made up your own mind about the interpretation of recent newspaper speculative articles.
Officially - Brueckner is suspected of being a child murderer.
Nothing to do with recent announcement.
Back on
January 25, 2022, 10:54:25 AM I wrote -
Oh if Brueckner is ruled out, the way forward is quite clear.
The Germans will say they know he did it but not enough evidence to convict, move the goalposts & attempt to get him for something else.
OG will say they are happy with the Germans' conclusion, state they are not looking for anyone else and quietly pack up - honour satisfied & all that.
McCann will continue the pretense that Madeleine is alive and well and unharmed and just waiting to be found.
-
Nothing to do with recent announcement.
Back on
January 25, 2022, 10:54:25 AM I wrote -
Oh if Brueckner is ruled out, the way forward is quite clear.
The Germans will say they know he did it but not enough evidence to convict, move the goalposts & attempt to get him for something else.
OG will say they are happy with the Germans' conclusion, state they are not looking for anyone else and quietly pack up - honour satisfied & all that.
McCann will continue the pretense that Madeleine is alive and well and unharmed and just waiting to be found.
Wow, you mean you haven’t changed your (rather tedious) opinion in two whole months? Astonishing!
-
Nothing to do with recent announcement.
Back on
January 25, 2022, 10:54:25 AM I wrote -
Oh if Brueckner is ruled out, the way forward is quite clear.
The Germans will say they know he did it but not enough evidence to convict, move the goalposts & attempt to get him for something else.
OG will say they are happy with the Germans' conclusion, state they are not looking for anyone else and quietly pack up - honour satisfied & all that.
McCann will continue the pretense that Madeleine is alive and well and unharmed and just waiting to be found.
Leaving this question about Operation Grange
;
"And the question still remains – were the authorities and the Government justified in spending years and many millions looking for one little lost girl?"
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1584735/Madeleine-McCann-kidnap-portugal-praia-de-luz
Will someone finally have to explain exactly how it was decided that an abduction had occured?
-
Nothing to do with recent announcement.
Back on
January 25, 2022, 10:54:25 AM I wrote -
Oh if Brueckner is ruled out, the way forward is quite clear.
The Germans will say they know he did it but not enough evidence to convict, move the goalposts & attempt to get him for something else.
OG will say they are happy with the Germans' conclusion, state they are not looking for anyone else and quietly pack up - honour satisfied & all that.
McCann will continue the pretense that Madeleine is alive and well and unharmed and just waiting to be found.
If Operation Grange investigators do not make a request for further funding, it means they don't need it as they have come to the end of the investigative trail.
I think the German investigation has reached that stage also and I believe that will have a different outcome to that envisaged by you.
You seem to have been caught up in what passes for 'honour' in Portugal; I don't think the objective was ever saving face; I think the objective has always been finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann and perhaps recovering her.
I think the Germans hold that information and I think Scotland Yard is privy to it. Just a waiting game now as we await in hope of very different outcomes.
-
Reeeeealy 🙄
Groundhog day and tiresome (as is yours) ~ but more importantly ~ entirely OFF TOPIC (as is yours)
Let's make the resolution for today ~ we all aim for on topic posts or ones which are as close as possible.
You're just jealous because you've never won post of the day.
-
Leaving this question about Operation Grange
;
"And the question still remains – were the authorities and the Government justified in spending years and many millions looking for one little lost girl?"
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1584735/Madeleine-McCann-kidnap-portugal-praia-de-luz
Will someone finally have to explain exactly how it was decided that an abduction had occured?
In 2020, German authorities announced they had a suspect, the convicted paedophile, Christian Brueckner – currently in jail for raping an elderly woman – who had been tracked to the crime scene in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters says German police have strong evidence that he killed Madeleine but German Law prevents him from releasing it.
Maybe this is why it’s finally been decided to halt the investigation.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1584735/Madeleine-McCann-kidnap-portugal-praia-de-luz
Nobody appears to be criticising the police for following the stranger abduction lead - only the high cost of working on active leads being followed in the effort to achieve justice for a missing child.
Your philosophy would appear to be that there is no justification in actively pursuing a case which is turning up evidence and a suspect for the crime.
Do you propose we suspend all criminal investigations using that yardstick - or do you confine the suggestion of the forces of law and order abrogating their duty in the face of evidence being actively recovered and a suspect uncovered as a result - solely in the case of Madeleine McCann.
-
In 2020, German authorities announced they had a suspect, the convicted paedophile, Christian Brueckner – currently in jail for raping an elderly woman – who had been tracked to the crime scene in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters says German police have strong evidence that he killed Madeleine but German Law prevents him from releasing it.
Maybe this is why it’s finally been decided to halt the investigation.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1584735/Madeleine-McCann-kidnap-portugal-praia-de-luz
Nobody appears to be criticising the police for following the stranger abduction lead - only the high cost of working on active leads being followed in the effort to achieve justice for a missing child.
Your philosophy would appear to be that there is no justification in actively pursuing a case which is turning up evidence and a suspect for the crime.
Do you propose we suspend all criminal investigations using that yardstick - or do you confine the suggestion of the forces of law and order abrogating their duty in the face of evidence being actively recovered and a suspect uncovered as a result - solely in the case of Madeleine McCann.
Why do you think he hasn't been arrested?
-
Why do you think he hasn't been arrested?
Theres no thinking about it.. Wolters has said
Disclosure .. Double jeopardy
-
Theres no thinking about it.. Wolters has said
Disclosure .. Double jeopardy
Possibly. I don't think so, but it's a possibility. But having no faith in your own evidence, to the point that you can't disclose it to the defence, is akin to having no evidence, or legally as good as.
He stated that he doesn't want the defence to know where the focus of their attention is / was, thereby negating the possibility of them investigating themselves and constructing an alibi. That may have been the case once, but I will guarantee that the defence know exactly what they have and don't have, nearly 2 years on.
That tactic, in my opinion, is time bound. And I believe he really thought he would have it all wrapped up within weeks of proclaiming CB as prime suspect.
Now it's clearly over, but all is not lost. This evidence he is searching for is, IMMHO, unobtainable or not physical, but by not charging him he can keep the pot simmering on the back burner. Plus, he can always proclaim that he did it - forever. He probably doesn't even need to back that assertion up, he can just refer to the 'evidence' that hasn't been tested.
He's still toast. He'll be found penning press releases for a local paper in Paderborn about cabbages, or sausages or cabbage and sausages.
-
Why do you think he hasn't been arrested?
Davel has given the official explanation of why not.
Added to that is the fact they don't have to do anything - they are in no rush. Brueckner who is the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance is safely under lock and key for the next few years, as the result of other crime convictions.
They are sensibly taking their time to get all the evidence in place and to imagine that Scotland Yard are unaware of what most of that consists of is I think the result of wishful thinking.
Considering they have been working hand in glove since Brueckner's cover broke in 2017.
-
Possibly. I don't think so, but it's a possibility. But having no faith in your own evidence, to the point that you can't disclose it to the defence, is akin to having no evidence, or legally as good as.
He stated that he doesn't want the defence to know where the focus of their attention is / was, thereby negating the possibility of them investigating themselves and constructing an alibi. That may have been the case once, but I will guarantee that the defence know exactly what they have and don't have, nearly 2 years on.
That tactic, in my opinion, is time bound. And I believe he really thought he would have it all wrapped up within weeks of proclaiming CB as prime suspect.
Now it's clearly over, but all is not lost. This evidence he is searching for is, IMMHO, unobtainable or not physical, but by not charging him he can keep the pot simmering on the back burner. Plus, he can always proclaim that he did it - forever. He probably doesn't even need to back that assertion up, he can just refer to the 'evidence' that hasn't been tested.
He's still toast. He'll be found penning press releases for a local paper in Paderborn about cabbages, or sausages or cabbage and sausages.
I'm surprised there's been nothing said by Wolters about the suggestion that CB may never be charged. He was allegedly so accessible previously; journalists have frequently quoted him.
-
In 2020, German authorities announced they had a suspect, the convicted paedophile, Christian Brueckner – currently in jail for raping an elderly woman – who had been tracked to the crime scene in Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters says German police have strong evidence that he killed Madeleine but German Law prevents him from releasing it.
Maybe this is why it’s finally been decided to halt the investigation.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1584735/Madeleine-McCann-kidnap-portugal-praia-de-luz
Nobody appears to be criticising the police for following the stranger abduction lead - only the high cost of working on active leads being followed in the effort to achieve justice for a missing child.
Your philosophy would appear to be that there is no justification in actively pursuing a case which is turning up evidence and a suspect for the crime.
Do you propose we suspend all criminal investigations using that yardstick - or do you confine the suggestion of the forces of law and order abrogating their duty in the face of evidence being actively recovered and a suspect uncovered as a result - solely in the case of Madeleine McCann.
Unequivocal evidence of stranger abduction might justify spending £13M over 11 years to follow leads. Without that evidence it could be said that resources were wasted.
-
I'm surprised there's been nothing said by Wolters about the suggestion that CB may never be charged. He was allegedly so accessible previously; journalists have frequently quoted him.
Who has suggested CB may never be charged?
-
Unequivocal evidence of stranger abduction might justify spending £13M over 11 years to follow leads. Without that evidence it could be said that resources were wasted.
If there were leads to investigate which suggested Madeleine was abducted would you have had them remain uninvestigated in case they didn't lead to proof that she had been abducted? Would you have preferred the £13m to have been spent staking out Rothley instead?
-
I'm surprised there's been nothing said by Wolters about the suggestion that CB may never be charged. He was allegedly so accessible previously; journalists have frequently quoted him.
Jutta Rabbe's faux pas put paid to weekly press briefings. It smacks of a curly finger moment for HCW.
Talking of accessible; how accessible does your prime suspect need to be? HCW seemingly has CB in primo positioni, in custody, with 30% of the population who care convinced he went a done it.
Imagine if he was at large, on the lam, at liberty, AWOL - HCW would need a change of kecks every hour. Having said that, if CB wasn't in custody he'd be in custody - he'd have to arrest him - then Hans would be well and truly snookered.
It's over. It will be consigned to infinite legal limbo. Those poor parents; they'll never get closure thanks to HCW, because the world stopped looking for Maddie, which, ironically, was an accusation they levelled at Dr. Amaral.
-
If there were leads to investigate which suggested Madeleine was abducted would you have had them remain uninvestigated in case they didn't lead to proof that she had been abducted? Would you have preferred the £13m to have been spent staking out Rothley instead?
There'd be no point staking out Rothley, they'd get on to that pretty quick.
Electronic surveillance, such as resonant microphones, phone tapping and drone cameras would probably cost a fraction of £13 million, and at least we would have answers.
-
Sounds like Brueckner’s plan to "sit back and relax" is backfiring. Prisoners with pointy objects don't appear to have taken kindly to his cocky, goading letters broadcast in the last German documentary. Nor do they require the same burden of proof as the authorities to enact their own brand of justice, or so Brueckner apparently fears.
Maybe it wasn't such a great idea to sit on that cast iron alibi after all.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspects-14-page-26534992
-
Sounds like Brueckner’s plan to "sit back and relax" is backfiring. Prisoners with pointy objects don't appear to have taken kindly to his cocky, goading letters broadcast in the last German documentary. Nor do they require the same burden of proof as the authorities to enact their own brand of justice, or so Brueckner apparently fears.
Maybe it wasn't such a great idea to sit on that cast iron alibi after all.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspects-14-page-26534992
Putting the dubious provenance aside, or at least I will, you could read between the lines. Notwithstanding the ever present hazard of, quite rightly in my opinion, being shivved as a nonce, there's a more subtle subtext at work. The seemingly frivolous legal action about his alleged maltreatment of dogs was a mere device. So is this.
-
Sounds like Brueckner’s plan to "sit back and relax" is backfiring. Prisoners with pointy objects don't appear to have taken kindly to his cocky, goading letters broadcast in the last German documentary. Nor do they require the same burden of proof as the authorities to enact their own brand of justice, or so Brueckner apparently fears.
Maybe it wasn't such a great idea to sit on that cast iron alibi after all.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspects-14-page-26534992
Perhaps his defenders on here could have a whip round and buy him some creamer for his coffee?
-
Perhaps his defenders on here could have a whip round and buy him some creamer for his coffee?
Don't not not don't read this.....go on then.
There'll be no shortage of that, I'm sure.
But what's to defend? I'm not defending him, because he didn't do it. I'm commenting on that alone. There's nothing to defend.
One must be able to emotionally separate oneself from the heinous nature of his previous crimes / alleged crimes, for one to dispassionately analyse this latest accusation.
-
If there were leads to investigate which suggested Madeleine was abducted would you have had them remain uninvestigated in case they didn't lead to proof that she had been abducted? Would you have preferred the £13m to have been spent staking out Rothley instead?
So what the police do is decide what crime has been committed before they examine the evidence?
The public remit for Operation Grange sought only to explore an abduction theory, with no other possibilities to be investigated.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-investigation-will-be-closed-reports/2a5da18a-92cc-4bf5-ac22-14760d696431
-
I'm surprised there's been nothing said by Wolters about the suggestion that CB may never be charged. He was allegedly so accessible previously; journalists have frequently quoted him.
I think you've got that wrong.
I know that Wolters has outlined the very strict evidential conditions which will allow the case against a suspect - in this case Brueckner - to proceed to trial.
Since I am not on Wolter's 'friends and family' list - I could only have got it from the media. Surprised you didn't clock or ping it too.
-
So what the police do is decide what crime has been committed before they examine the evidence?
The public remit for Operation Grange sought only to explore an abduction theory, with no other possibilities to be investigated.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-investigation-will-be-closed-reports/2a5da18a-92cc-4bf5-ac22-14760d696431
where is the evidence to support that claim
-
So what the police do is decide what crime has been committed before they examine the evidence?
The public remit for Operation Grange sought only to explore an abduction theory, with no other possibilities to be investigated.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-investigation-will-be-closed-reports/2a5da18a-92cc-4bf5-ac22-14760d696431
With no charges brought after millions spent the lack of breadth in the OG remit will hurt rather than heal the parents reputations forever.
-
So what the police do is decide what crime has been committed before they examine the evidence?
The public remit for Operation Grange sought only to explore an abduction theory, with no other possibilities to be investigated.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-investigation-will-be-closed-reports/2a5da18a-92cc-4bf5-ac22-14760d696431
Where did Operation Grange state that no other possibilities would be investigated? You think if the police uncovered CCTV clearly showing Gerry McCann carrying his daughter’s corpse they would have ignored it and continued investigating stranger abduction? Is that seriously what you believe?
-
So what the police do is decide what crime has been committed before they examine the evidence?
The public remit for Operation Grange sought only to explore an abduction theory, with no other possibilities to be investigated.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-investigation-will-be-closed-reports/2a5da18a-92cc-4bf5-ac22-14760d696431
HCW / BKA have gone one step further, they started at a suspect. The fact that they clearly can't cobble together enough evidence to support their assertion demonstrates as adeptly as is possible why this approach is flawed.
-
With no charges brought after millions spent the lack of breadth in the OG remit will hurt rather than heal the parents reputations forever.
Don’t be silly, that’s just your wishful thinking. For example when the subject of Madeleine came up at home the other day, my daughter (who always used to think the parents dunnit) said “I thought they’d caught the paedo who took her?” I’m fairly certain she’s typical of the vast majority of people who haven’t really been stuck deep in the minutiae of this case like us saddoes. None cares about the McCanns or their reputation, they are getting on with their lives, only people like you hold an eternal grudge towards them. Time to get over it!!
-
Theres no thinking about it.. Wolters has said
Disclosure .. Double jeopardy
Yep, not the right kind of evidence to put to CB or even a judge, Mr Wolters said: “It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”
-
With no charges brought after millions spent the lack of breadth in the OG remit will hurt rather than heal the parents reputations forever.
It's more absurd than that; Operation Grange will cease to exist (and I'm convinced that it actually currently represents a couple of civilian police administrators sat in a cupboard waiting to answer a phone that doesn't ring, exhausting every mini-series ever created, eating Doritos, kipping intermittently and taking it in turns to nick off early) and HCW will pop up with a statement reasserting his / their stance. Jesus, they had a chance to at least save some semblance of dignity when Dick came back from 'discussions' with HCW. But no, she nibbled round the edges and trotted out some hastily cobbled together rhetorical, meaningless soundbite about how they're 'still looking for a missing person'. The ineptitude of the Met transcends all known standards.
-
Unequivocal evidence of stranger abduction might justify spending £13M over 11 years to follow leads. Without that evidence it could be said that resources were wasted.
What utter arrogance that you set yourself up against experienced professional investigators who have determined that Brueckner is the chief suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The fact that Brueckner is the unequivocal suspect based on unequivocal evidence should really have penetrated your unequivocal prejudices ere now.
-
What utter arrogance that you set yourself up against experienced professional investigators who have determined that Brueckner is the chief suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The fact that Brueckner is the unequivocal suspect based on unequivocal evidence should really have penetrated your unequivocal prejudices ere now.
Unequivocal? Leaving no doubt? Are you still referring to the evidence against CB, you know, the circumstantial evidence?
Face it, the game is no longer afoot. This is not the nonce you are looking for.
-
Yep, not the right kind of evidence to put to CB or even a judge, Mr Wolters said: “It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”
it could be a photograph...and perhaps more
-
Unequivocal? Leaving no doubt? Are you still referring to the evidence against CB, you know, the circumstantial evidence?
Face it, the game is no longer afoot. This is not the nonce you are looking for.
You are ignorant of the evidence held by investigators ~ perhaps it would be a good idea for you to have patience to wait and see how the case against Brueckner progresses. But no fun in that - is there.
-
What utter arrogance that you set yourself up against experienced professional investigators who have determined that Brueckner is the chief suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The fact that Brueckner is the unequivocal suspect based on unequivocal evidence should really have penetrated your unequivocal prejudices ere now.
Like most people these experienced professional investigators are liable to being instructed what they should or should not investigate.
-
Unequivocal? Leaving no doubt? Are you still referring to the evidence against CB, you know, the circumstantial evidence?
Face it, the game is no longer afoot. This is not the nonce you are looking for.
The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.
-
Like most people these experienced professional investigators are liable to being instructed what they should or should not investigate.
I simply cannot countenance the mindset which thinks evidence making Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's case was magicked up to suit sceptic prejudices.
These erudite folk are still showing their ignorance under media articles declaring "dogs don't lie". I'm afraid there is no cure for that.
-
The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.
They're so reticent, they never even bothered trying to question him as a witness. That would the savvy thing to do, instead of blurting it out to the globe that the guy in the jug is also in the frame. And they call the PJ inpet. The frontage!
-
The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.
You really don't know that nor do you know what evidence the German investigation holds against Brueckner; just your mere speculation not backed up with fact - unless you are being supplied with inside info from the horse's mouth and I don't think you are.
-
They're so reticent, they never even bothered trying to question him as a witness. That would the savvy thing to do, instead of blurting it out to the globe that the guy in the jug is also in the frame. And they call the PJ inpet. The frontage!
Please allow me to remind you that the source of the information is Amaral who has evidenced more than a couple of other spoilers he parachuted into the German investigation for his own reasons.
-
Please allow me to remind you that the source of the information is Amaral who has evidenced more than a couple of other spoilers he parachuted into the German investigation for his own reasons.
No, he rather presciently foresaw the coming of Patsy Man. He was right again, the good doctor. Get over it, if you can puncture your unequivocal prejudices.
-
Like most people these experienced professional investigators are liable to being instructed what they should or should not investigate.
second time of asking:
You think if the police uncovered CCTV clearly showing Gerry McCann carrying his daughter’s corpse they would have ignored it and continued investigating stranger abduction? Is that seriously what you believe?
-
No, he rather presciently foresaw the coming of Patsy Man. He was right again, the good doctor. Get over it, if you can puncture your unequivocal prejudices.
he did not forsee the coming of the patsy.....again I find it hard to believe you are serious or so easily taken in
-
The Germans hoped for unequivocal evidence, but so far didn't get enough to even lay charges.
in your opinion..in mine they do...the latest article suggested Grange may well have closed as SY feel the Germans have soved the case....
-
he did not forsee the coming of the patsy.....again I find it hard to believe you are serious or so easily taken in
You started it, you apparently think Martin Grime is a charlatan, but won't tell him.
Anyway, back on topic.....CB box ticking, totally not libelous, boxes, parameters created arbitrarily by supporters. Change the boxes.
-
in your opinion..in mine they do...the latest article suggested Grange may well have closed as SY feel the Germans have soved the case....
Finally. So can we have last year's money back then, seeing as Dick was briefed by HCW?
And you accuse me of being gullible.
-
They're so reticent, they never even bothered trying to question him as a witness. That would the savvy thing to do, instead of blurting it out to the globe that the guy in the jug is also in the frame. And they call the PJ inpet. The frontage!
I agree, it would make sense to try speaking to him prior to putting out that appeal to see what information he might be willing to give/slip up voluntarily.... So, how do you know they didn't bother to do that?
-
No, he rather presciently foresaw the coming of Patsy Man. He was right again, the good doctor. Get over it, if you can puncture your unequivocal prejudices.
Goncalo Amaral was responsible for Brueckner's name being released into the public domain and if you haven't twigged that one you really know nothing about what goes on in this case.
-
Goncalo Amaral was responsible for Brueckner's name being released into the public domain and if you haven't twigged that one you really know nothing about what goes on in this case.
Show me, big licks.
-
I agree, it would make sense to try speaking to him prior to putting out that appeal to see what information he might be willing to give/slip up voluntarily.... So, how do you know they didn't bother to do that?
Good question. HCW admitted himself, as Davel alluded somewhere above, that he essentially didn't want to show his hand and give CB's defence a chance to pre-arm themselves.
In addition, Herr Fulscher, CB's lawyer stated that 'it would be super cold day in hell before he talks', or something like that, but they hadn't tried.
Personally I think, if I'm right, and I'm usually not, that an opportunity was missed.
-
I agree, it would make sense to try speaking to him prior to putting out that appeal to see what information he might be willing to give/slip up voluntarily.... So, how do you know they didn't bother to do that?
Is it possible that Brueckner was ignorant of the police investigation into Madeleine's case being carried out with him at the centre until Amaral wrong footed the Germans by making sure his name was publicised.
He let it go in the Australian podcast of 2019. Stupid media thought his referral was to Ney! So he had to intervene again in 2020 making sure that a guy no-one had ever heard of became his patsy of choice.
He could have been blissfully unaware - why would the Germans be investigating Madeleine's case, after all?
-
Is it possible that Brueckner was ignorant of the police investigation into Madeleine's case being carried out with him at the centre until Amaral wrong footed the Germans by making sure his name was publicised.
He let it go in the Australian podcast of 2019. Stupid media thought his referral was to Ney! So he had to intervene again in 2020 making sure that a guy no-one had ever heard of became his patsy of choice.
He could have been blissfully unaware - why would the Germans be investigating Madeleine's case, after all?
I'm man / woman / non-binary enough to admit that they stumbled upon something incriminating during a different investigation.
-
And The General thinks Actually care. What an idiot. Presuming anyone reads his rubbish.
Jesus, Eleanor, wind it in, girl. It's crawling with Word Police in 'ere.
-
Good question. HCW admitted himself, as Davel alluded somewhere above, that he essentially didn't want to show his hand and give CB's defence a chance to pre-arm themselves.
In addition, Herr Fulscher, CB's lawyer stated that 'it would be super cold day in hell before he talks', or something like that, but they hadn't tried.
Personally I think, if I'm right, and I'm usually not, that an opportunity was missed.
HCW doesn't want to question him as a suspect, because then he has to show his evidence. Fulscher is talking about the fact that CB won't talk until he is forced to. I was asking, how do you know, that prior to the appeal (and before Fulscher was his lawyer), the police did not approach him in prison to put certain questions to him to see if he was willing to talk on a voluntary basis?
You don't know. You are assuming. I know you are.
-
HCW doesn't want to question him as a suspect, because then he has to show his evidence. Fulscher is talking about the fact that CB won't talk until he is forced to. I was asking, how do you know, that prior to the appeal (and before Fulscher was his lawyer), the police did not approach him in prison to put certain questions to him to see if he was willing to talk on a voluntary basis?
You don't know. You are assuming. I know you are.
Well of course I'm assuming. I'm not some soothsaying, mindbender like Clinton Baptiste. I'm a simple bellend with a keyboard. I'm literally making it up as I go along. I'm a tit; a dickhead, as Eleanor so eloquently put it.
But I'm applying some semblance of abstraction. I'm thinking behind what we think we know.
But you were intrigued by the notion, as you responded as if you hadn't considered the concept and broadly concurred. Because there's a kernel of sense in there, amongst the word salad.
-
You started it, you apparently think Martin Grime is a charlatan, but won't tell him.
Anyway, back on topic.....CB box ticking, totally not libelous, boxes, parameters created arbitrarily by supporters. Change the boxes.
And you think Eddie alerted to cadaver odour..... Lol
-
And you think Eddie alerted to cadaver odour..... Lol
I like the rule of thumb. The 80/20 rule. Lex Parsimoniae.
-
Well of course I'm assuming. I'm not some soothsaying, mindbender like Clinton Baptiste. I'm a simple bellend with a keyboard. I'm literally making it up as I go along. I'm a tit; a dickhead, as Eleanor so eloquently put it.
But I'm applying some semblance of abstraction. I'm thinking behind what we think we know.
But you were intrigued by the notion, as you responded as if you hadn't considered the concept and broadly concurred. Because there's a kernel of sense in there, amongst the word salad.
Well that's about the most accurate post I've seen from you. Congrats.
All except for the bit about me not having previously considered the concept that the police have already tried speaking to him in a "voluntary" manner. I'll leave it at that.
-
Well that's about the most accurate post I've seen from you. Congrats.
All except for the bit about me not having previously considered the concept that the police have already tried speaking to him in a "voluntary" manner. I'll leave it at that.
Yeh, no probs, kid.
But I do hope you earned that badge, I'll leave it at that.
-
I like the rule of thumb. The 80/20 rule. Lex Parsimoniae.
Its quality not quantity... There never was a cadaver in 5 a
-
Yeh, no probs, kid.
But I do hope you earned that badge, I'll leave it at that.
A serving or ex soldier has one detail engraved on his or her memory. I still remember my husband's. Any guesses?
-
HCW doesn't want to question him as a suspect, because then he has to show his evidence. Fulscher is talking about the fact that CB won't talk until he is forced to. I was asking, how do you know, that prior to the appeal (and before Fulscher was his lawyer), the police did not approach him in prison to put certain questions to him to see if he was willing to talk on a voluntary basis?
You don't know. You are assuming. I know you are.
If the evidence being touted against Brueckner’ has any merit what could he do it undermine it? For me this is a particularly foolish excuse not to question him.
-
A serving or ex soldier has one detail engraved on his or her memory. I still remember my husband's. Any guesses?
Her Majesty's Royal Navy always was The Senior Service.
-
When did VS's name become Swertigo Virl ?
-
When did VS's name become Swertigo Virl ?
When in a bored moment I inadvertently discovered you could change your name in your profile settings. I might change it to something else later. Perhaps I might even resurrect Alfred R Jones just for a laugh like.
-
When in a bored moment I inadvertently discovered you could change your name in your profile settings. I might change it to something else later. Perhaps I might even resurrect Alfred R Jones just for a laugh like.
Idle hands are the devils workshop.
-
It is becoming more obvious to me as time passes that certain articles have no idea of what they are talking about.
There has never been any evidence against The McCanns.
Brueckner? Things are now looking very dodgy. Who will gainsay me on that?
-
Idle hands are the devils workshop.
Hmm, I don’t think swapping the first few letters of my online profile exactly puts me in league with the devil, but ok if you say so. At least I wasn’t using my idle hands to wring kittens’ necks, eh?
-
It is becoming more obvious to me as time passes that certain articles have no idea of what they are talking about.
There has never been any evidence against The McCanns.
Brueckner? Things are now looking very dodgy. Who will gainsay me on that?
Looking dodgy for CB , how do you reckon that out, 5 yrs on from OG telling the BKA of him and its where exactly ?
A suspect , so were others at times including three locals who it was said at the time OG asked if they killed Madeleine, so its not a stretch to suggest they were prime suspects once.
-
Looking dodgy for CB , how do you reckon that out, 5 yrs on from OG telling the BKA of him and its where exactly ?
A suspect , so were others at times including three locals who it was said at the time OG asked if they killed Madeleine, so its not a stretch to suggest they were prime suspects once.
I don't care if Brueckner is a prime suspect. And I don't care if he has nothing to say. I am thoroughly tired of the whole ghastly business. That little girl is either alive or dead. If she is dead then she is long dead. Who might have killed her isn't my problem.
-
I don't care if Brueckner is a prime suspect. And I don't care if he has nothing to say. I am thoroughly tired of the whole ghastly business. That little girl is either alive or dead. If she is dead then she is long dead. Who might have killed her isn't my problem.
Walk away then.
-
Walk away then.
Mind your own business. I will do as I please. There are far too many of you saying one thing and doing another.
Bunch of hypocrites.
-
Mind your own business. I will do as I please. There are far too many of you saying one thing and doing another.
Bunch of hypocrites.
Oooo get you.
-
The point is that sceptics are totally mistaken.. Who would have guessed... In saying 15 million has been spent looking for MM.
It hasn't... 15 mill has been spent looking for the abductor and murderer of MM.. And it looks like its paid off.
Or should we just let child murderers get away with it. Thank god SY and the Germans have stuck with it when the pathetic PJ failed
-
Oooo get you.
Is that seriously the best you can do?
-
The point is that sceptics are totally mistaken.. Who would have guessed... In saying 15 million has been spent looking for MM.
It hasn't... 15 mill has been spent looking for the abductor and murderer of MM.. And it looks like its paid off.
Or should we just let child murderers get away with it. Thank god SY and the Germans have stuck with it when the pathetic PJ failed
This is basically what it is all about.
Madeleine McCann was a British Citizen lost abroad and The PJ tried to pin it on her parents for an easy answer.
It was the duty of the English Police to try to find out what actually happened. That is what your Passport says.
Whether or not it was Brueckner is still debatable. But why would The Germans pursue this for the sake of a British child who is actually nothing to do with them?
-
This is basically what it is all about.
Madeleine McCann was a British Citizen lost abroad and The PJ tried to pin it on her parents for an easy answer.
It was the duty of the English Police to try to find out what actually happened. That is what your Passport says.
Whether or not it was Brueckner is still debatable. But why would The Germans pursue this for the sake of a British child who is actually nothing to do with them?
Because it isn't for the sake of a British child.. Its for the sake of catching criminals...
-
Because it isn't for the sake of a British child.. Its for the sake of catching criminals...
Oh. Okay. So the rest of it is irrelevant.
For how long was a possible German Criminal wandering around committing crimes in Portugal before The Germans cottoned on?
I don't have a problem with Germany and their approach. But this only really kicked off with Madeleine.
-
Oh. Okay. So the rest of it is irrelevant.
For how long was a possible German Criminal wandering around committing crimes in Portugal before The Germans cottoned on?
I don't have a problem with Germany and their approach. But this only really kicked off with Madeleine.
How long... For as long as the Portuguese allowed him.to
-
How long... For as long as the Portuguese allowed him.to
Exactly. But who would have cared if Madeleine wasn't British? Joanna Cipriano?
Portugal is an utter disgrace and has been for many a long year. Why is this do you think?
-
I have decided to do a full moderator review given recent events and as it is badly overdue.
Anyone wishing to provide an input to this process please message me.
-
This is basically what it is all about.
Madeleine McCann was a British Citizen lost abroad and The PJ tried to pin it on her parents for an easy answer.
It was the duty of the English Police to try to find out what actually happened. That is what your Passport says.
Whether or not it was Brueckner is still debatable. But why would The Germans pursue this for the sake of a British child who is actually nothing to do with them?
It is well known that family members are the first to be suspected when a child disappears. Consequently, the Portuguese police were wholly correct to investigate the parents. The McCanns did themselves no favour by working against the local police, they only had themselves to blame for what later transpired. Kate McCanns refusal to answer simple questions during her arguida interview was quite pathetic for someone who claimed to be innocent of any involvement in her daughters disappearance, what the hell was she thinking?
-
It is well known that family members are the first to be suspected when a child disappears. Consequently, the Portuguese police were wholly correct to investigate the parents. The McCanns did themselves no favour by working against the local police, they only had themselves to blame for what later transpired. Kate McCanns refusal to answer simple questions during her arguida interview was quite pathetic for someone who claimed to be innocent of any involvement in her daughters disappearance, what the hell was she thinking?
From you who was apparently the victim of the worst miscarriage of justice ever. And I think you probably were.
I actually read everything about your case.
-
It is well known that family members are the first to be suspected when a child disappears. Consequently, the Portuguese police were wholly correct to investigate the parents. The McCanns did themselves no favour by working against the local police, they only had themselves to blame for what later transpired. Kate McCanns refusal to answer simple questions during her arguida interview was quite pathetic for someone who claimed to be innocent of any involvement in her daughters disappearance, what the hell was she thinking?
Sorry John but no doubt the McCanns should have been suspects initial but what took the investigation in the direction it went was the PJs belief in the infallibility of the dogs... The false claim that in 200 cases they had never given a false alert for instance. Kate was absolutely right to stop answering stupid questions... Imo
-
From you who was apparently the victim of the worst miscarriage of justice ever. And I think you probably were.
I actually read everything about your case.
You must remember that I was a serving police officer Eleanor and speak with that background.
-
Sorry John but no doubt the McCanns should have been suspects initial but what took the investigation in the direction it went was the PJs belief in the infallibility of the dogs... The false claim that in 200 cases they had never given a false alert for instance
I think the CSI dogs reacted as they were trained to do but the interpretation of those reactions left much to be desired.
Certainly too much evidential weight was afforded them without corroboration.
-
Are we allowed to know which Mods have survived the cull?
It will all become apparent in an hour or ten. But I am back because I am no longer restrained.
Whether or not this will be of any use remains to be seen. Probably not. I might have lost the will to go on repeating everything we already know. Nine years of Moderating has been hard.
Brueckner will probably refuse to say anything, which will be his ultimate demise.
-
You must remember that I was a serving police officer Eleanor and speak with that background.
Did I ever question that? But assuming that you were, what went wrong with The PJ?
-
Interesting. Nothing from Sceptics about my demise. That is really funny.
As it is, I think that Davel is almost certainly right. Much as it grieves me. But it was all such a long time ago. And I can't get really upset about this anymore.
Gunit seems to have survived the cull, but then that is what it was all about. I haven't just come up The Clyde on a water biscuit. My days have been numbered for quite some time. And I knew that.
Sadly, I can only reiterate, so not a lot of use.
But I do believe that Brueckner tried to set up an alibi on that night.
-
It will all become apparent in an hour or ten. But I am back because I am no longer restrained.
Whether or not this will be of any use remains to be seen. Probably not. I might have lost the will to go on repeating everything we already know. Nine years of Moderating has been hard.
Brueckner will probably refuse to say anything, which will be his ultimate demise.
I’d rather have you here and not a mod, than an awol mod, so - welcome back Chimp.
-
I’d rather have you here and not a mod, than an awol mod, so - welcome back Chimp.
Gosh. That is so kind. And right to the heart of it. Chimps for ever. And what fun we had. They didn't even know that we were there or what we were doing.
Tis feeling a bit good to be back.
-
Interesting. Nothing from Sceptics about my demise. That is really funny.
As it is, I think that Davel is almost certainly right. Much as it grieves me. But it was all such a long time ago. And I can't get really upset about this anymore.
Gunit seems to have survived the cull, but then that is what it was all about. I haven't just come up The Clyde on a water biscuit. My days have been numbered for quite some time. And I knew that.
Sadly, I can only reiterate, so not a lot of use.
But I do believe that Brueckner tried to set up an alibi on that night.
With regard to the bolded text above, I would just like to record that I've no idea what you're talking about. I have no knowledge of how or why you ended up where you are, and wasn't involved in any way shape or form.
-
With regard to the bolded text above, I would just like to record that I've no idea what you're talking about. I have no knowledge of how or why you ended up where you are, and wasn't involved in any way shape or form.
I salute Eleanor who is one of the most even handed and fair moderators one could ever have wished for even during the most difficult times (and some of those a rational person would find difficult to believe, it took us a long time to work it out, and unfortunately confidentiality dictates my discretion so I can't share) - but as she has always said - the forum is not a democracy and at the end of the day John takes the final decisions, backed up by his mod team. Of whom Eleanor and I were his staunchest support for the ethos behind what he tried and did achieve with this forum at a time when it was a very difficult thing to do.
That is water under the bridge now because the times have most certainly changed now and there is only a rump which doesn't recognise that. But Eleanor has stuck with it through thick and thin and I wish her many happy years of posting.
@ Eleanor
Your middle name is integrity and you have given great service to this forum as a moderator: RESPECT and thanks for that.
-
Yes, Eleanor has never been afraid to “scold” her own side for their naughtiness and that is definitely a measure of her even-handed approach. Being a mod is a thankless task, I know because I was one for a while and it literally nearly gave me a nervous breakdown.
-
I salute Eleanor who is one of the most even handed and fair moderators one could ever have wished for even during the most difficult times (and some of those a rational person would find difficult to believe, it took us a long time to work it out, and unfortunately confidentiality dictates my discretion so I can't share) - but as she has always said - the forum is not a democracy and at the end of the day John takes the final decisions, backed up by his mod team. Of whom Eleanor and I were his staunchest support for the ethos behind what he tried and did achieve with this forum at a time when it was a very difficult thing to do.
That is water under the bridge now because the times have most certainly changed now and there is only a rump which doesn't recognise that. But Eleanor has stuck with it through thick and thin and I wish her many happy years of posting.
@ Eleanor
Your middle name is integrity and you have given great service to this forum as a moderator: RESPECT and thanks for that.
I just wanted to make my position clear as my name was mentioned for some reason.
-
I have decided to do a full moderator review given recent events and as it is badly overdue.
Anyone wishing to provide an input to this process please message me.
I'd sooner put it in the open, davel for all his faults would make a half decent mod imo.
-
I think the CSI dogs reacted as they were trained to do but the interpretation of those reactions left much to be desired.
Certainly too much evidential weight was afforded them without corroboration.
Wonder what the stance of some would be if Wolters came back and said the dogs alerted to cadaver.
-
It will all become apparent in an hour or ten. But I am back because I am no longer restrained.
Whether or not this will be of any use remains to be seen. Probably not. I might have lost the will to go on repeating everything we already know. Nine years of Moderating has been hard.
Brueckner will probably refuse to say anything, which will be his ultimate demise.
Why ? whats in the German criminal system that punishes for silence.
-
Wonder what the stance of some would be if Wolters came back and said the dogs alerted to cadaver.
Apoplexy ?
-
Just to be clear, who is still an active mod on this forum ?
-
I just wanted to make my position clear as my name was mentioned for some reason.
With respect - my post was about Eleanor, not you per se.
I used your post as a convenient vehicle for comment to keep the discussion together with a subliminal nod to topic of keeping boxes stacked together with Eleanor's comment in the lead. No ulterior motive from me and I know nothing of why Eleanor chose to mention your name in her post.
-
Why ? whats in the German criminal system that punishes for silence.
Do a bit of research
-
Wonder what the stance of some would be if Wolters came back and said the dogs alerted to cadaver.
My reaction would be that he must be barking (HCW that is, not the dogs).
-
Just to be clear, who is still an active mod on this forum ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12335.msg679367#msg679367
-
Wonder what the stance of some would be if Wolters came back and said the dogs alerted to cadaver.
Its so significant that sceptics think that's a possibility... An absolute joke imo
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12335.msg679367#msg679367
Thanks, missed that earlier.
-
With respect - my post was about Eleanor, not you per se.
I used your post as a convenient vehicle for comment to keep the discussion together with a subliminal nod to topic of keeping boxes stacked together with Eleanor's comment in the lead. No ulterior motive from me and I know nothing of why Eleanor chose to mention your name in her post.
Thank you for the clarification. 8((()*/ I was struggling to see a connection.
-
Its so significant that sceptics think that's a possibility... An absolute joke imo
Stop goading.
It is significant, otherwise law enforcement, investigators and emergency services wouldn't use them.
-
I salute Eleanor who is one of the most even handed and fair moderators one could ever have wished for even during the most difficult times (and some of those a rational person would find difficult to believe, it took us a long time to work it out, and unfortunately confidentiality dictates my discretion so I can't share) - but as she has always said - the forum is not a democracy and at the end of the day John takes the final decisions, backed up by his mod team. Of whom Eleanor and I were his staunchest support for the ethos behind what he tried and did achieve with this forum at a time when it was a very difficult thing to do.
That is water under the bridge now because the times have most certainly changed now and there is only a rump which doesn't recognise that. But Eleanor has stuck with it through thick and thin and I wish her many happy years of posting.
@ Eleanor
Your middle name is integrity and you have given great service to this forum as a moderator: RESPECT and thanks for that.
Off topic. Let's get back on track please.
-
Stop goading.
It is significant, otherwise law enforcement, investigators and emergency services wouldn't use them.
see my previous posts...the alerts were in no way significant..no more than an experiment
-
see my previous posts...the alerts were in no way significant..no more than an experiment
If they contemporaneously alerted in CB's Winnebago they'd be significant, yes or no.
-
If they contemporaneously alerted in CB's Winnebago they'd be significant, yes or no.
not unless physical evidence was found
-
If they contemporaneously alerted in CB's Winnebago they'd be significant, yes or no.
Or to Murat's surroundings or belongings.
-
If they contemporaneously alerted in CB's Winnebago they'd be significant, yes or no.
Also his compound, well old factory wasn't it, the secret lair in a building.
-
Or to Murat's surroundings or belongings.
So, if the dogs alerted to CB's personal effects would you take that as evidence of his involvement in Madeleine's murder? Of course you wouldn't.
-
not unless physical evidence was found
So they do have merit, certainly more than an experiment (your term, not mine).
-
Also his compound, well old factory wasn't it, the secret lair in a building.
The subterranean death dungeon.
I'll bet they had the 'experimental' doggies crawling all over that gaff*
*yes, Mr / Mrs Paraglider, I'm assuming again. Mad, isn't it?
-
So they do have merit, certainly more than an experiment (your term, not mine).
No.. Its the physical evidence found that has merit. It was Harrison and Grime who were in the early stages of using the alerts as intelligence.. Harrison seemed to do an about turn after the searches.. An experiment I think is a fair description
-
The subterranean death dungeon.
I'll bet they had the 'experimental' doggies crawling all over that gaff*
*yes, Mr / Mrs Paraglider, I'm assuming again. Mad, isn't it?
They were looking for evidence.. That isnt experimental.. Its what the dogs are trained for
-
They were looking for evidence.. That isnt experimental.. Its what the dogs are trained for
So the dogs can find evidence where humans can't?
-
So the dogs can find evidence where humans can't?
The dogs show where to look for evidence. The difference berween a cadaver dog and any other scent dog is that other scent dogs are trained on... And only on... Their target scent
Cadaver dogs in the UK are not. In fact no one knows exactly what they react to.
Grime has clarified his position now... The only.reliable cadaver dog is one trained solely on human remains.
-
So, if the dogs alerted to CB's personal effects would you take that as evidence of his involvement in Madeleine's murder? Of course you wouldn't.
How would it be determined the alert belonged to Madeleine ?
-
How would it be determined the alert belonged to Madeleine ?
Blimey, has the penny dropped then?
-
How would it be determined the alert belonged to Madeleine ?
That's never previously been the issue, though. It was that the dogs were incredibly unreliable, not that they had detected death odour of someone other than Madeleine in PDL
-
That's never previously been the issue, though. It was that the dogs were incredibly unreliable, not that they had detected death odour of someone other than Madeleine in PDL
You just don’t get it, no matter how many hundreds of times it’s been discussed. The dog alerts cannot be relied on as evidence that a corpse once lay in situ, never mind tell you whose corpse it was, unless there is some corroborating evidence . Will you and your mates ever be able to grasp this simple fact?
-
That's never previously been the issue, though. It was that the dogs were incredibly unreliable, not that they had detected death odour of someone other than Madeleine in PDL
I dont think the dogs are unreliable at all.. They are trained to find human remains and I would think they are very good at it. Problem for Eddie was I don't think there were any to find. In fact if Maddie was abducted there absolutely wasn't... So do you think SY and the Germans are ignoring them.
-
You just don’t get it, no matter how many hundreds of times it’s been discussed. The dog alerts cannot be relied on as evidence that a corpse once lay in situ, never mind tell you whose corpse it was, unless there is some corroborating evidence . Will you and your mates ever be able to grasp this simple fact?
Some people think an open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction and are unable to grasp the fact that they aren't.
-
Some people think an open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction and are unable to grasp the fact that they aren't.
Which people are those?
If they are members here and have posted what you allege - should be easy enough to provide a cite.
As we know it was alleged by Brueckner's criminal associates that he was known as a climber who entered properties via windows to burgle them.
Do you suggest the open window in 5A represents another of the boxes Brueckner ticks.
-
Some people think an open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction and are unable to grasp the fact that they aren't.
Yes they are.. Kate statement is evidence.. You are 100% wrong
-
Yes they are.. Kate statement is evidence.. You are 100% wrong
Her statement is evidence of an open window and shutters, not evidence of who opened them and why.
-
Her statement is evidence of an open window and shutters, not evidence of who opened them and why.
And an open window is evidence of abduction.. You are still 100% wrong
-
Some people think an open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction and are unable to grasp the fact that they aren't.
Explain why not then.
-
Some people think an open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction and are unable to grasp the fact that they aren't.
You cannot seem to grasp that this is not fact but your opinion
-
Her statement is evidence of an open window and shutters, not evidence of who opened them and why.
Was the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent evidence the someone entered the tent and took her? If not please explain why it was not and why the police clearly thought it was.
-
D
-
“ Evidence is relevant if it logically goes to proving or disproving some fact at issue in the prosecution. It is admissible if it relates to the facts in issue, or to circumstances that make those facts probable or improbable, and has been properly obtained.27 Aug 2021”
Now explain why various statements concerning the open window and shutter are not evidence?
-
“ Evidence is relevant if it logically goes to proving or disproving some fact at issue in the prosecution. It is admissible if it relates to the facts in issue, or to circumstances that make those facts probable or improbable, and has been properly obtained.27 Aug 2021”
Now explain why various statements concerning the open window and shutter are not evidence?
I never said they weren't evidence, I said they weren't evidence of stranger abduction.
-
I never said they weren't evidence, I said they weren't evidence of stranger abduction.
Potentially they are, in the same way that the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was potentially (and actually) evidence of stranger abduction. If Brückner is charged do you not think the open window statements would be used as evidence?
Explain why categorically in your opinion they are not evidence of stranger abduction.
-
I never said they weren't evidence, I said they weren't evidence of stranger abduction.
An open window is simply evidence that someone opened the window. By itself it is not and never can be evidence of a stranger opening it. Of course any competent prosecutor will present it as evidence of an abduction by a stranger but that doesn’t mean that it is.
-
Yeh, no probs, kid.
But I do hope you earned that badge, I'll leave it at that.
Me personally, no. I have the utmost respect for any man or woman who volunteers for her Majesty's Service, even you. But since displaying the badge offends you, or makes you think you can use it against me, I'll remove it. It was meant in honour and if I had any respect for you on a personal level, I'd tell you my story. Maybe another time.
-
Members are reminded that the topic of this thread is - "The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner" - please make an effort to stay on topic: thank you
-
An open window is simply evidence that someone opened the window. By itself it is not and never can be evidence of a stranger opening it. Of course any competent prosecutor will present it as evidence of an abduction by a stranger but that doesn’t mean that it is.
Pretty much all evidence presented in court is to open to interpretation and cross examination which will seek to undermine and discredit it, even forensic evidence, blood spatter, fingerprints on a knife, whatever. Your second sentence confirms what I have been saying - the open window is evidence of abduction, in exactly the same way as the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was evidence that someone had open the tent and removed her. Thank you.
-
Pretty much all evidence presented in court is to open to interpretation and cross examination which will seek to undermine and discredit it, even forensic evidence, blood spatter, fingerprints on a knife, whatever. Your second sentence confirms what I have been saying - the open window is evidence of abduction, in exactly the same way as the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was evidence that someone had open the tent and removed her. Thank you.
The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.
-
Pretty much all evidence presented in court is to open to interpretation and cross examination which will seek to undermine and discredit it, even forensic evidence, blood spatter, fingerprints on a knife, whatever. Your second sentence confirms what I have been saying - the open window is evidence of abduction, in exactly the same way as the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was evidence that someone had open the tent and removed her. Thank you.
The open window claim isn't evidence as it is uncorroborated. In fact when Matt did his outside check the window wasn't open so take from that what you may.
-
The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.
So evidence is only evidence if there is corroboration, is that what you’re saying? Using your rules what evidence is there that the McCanns disposed of their daughter’s body?
-
The open window claim isn't evidence as it is uncorroborated. In fact when Matt did his outside check the window wasn't open so take from that what you may.
You believe firmly that Madeleine woke and wandered. What corroborated evidence supports your claim?
-
The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.
Also please provide a cite that it took police five days to start treating Cleo Smith’s disappearance as an abduction.
-
Also please provide a cite that it took police five days to start treating Cleo Smith’s disappearance as an abduction.
Cleo Smith, a four-year-old Australian girl, disappeared on 16 October 2021
On 20 October, Acting Deputy Commissioner Daryl Gaunt of the Western Australia Police Force said that claims that the case was being treated as an abduction were not correct, explaining that the case was being treated primarily as a search and rescue case.
It was announced on 21 October that the police believed that Cleo had been abducted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_of_Cleo_Smith
-
The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.
I would suggest that why the police went with the abduction theory in Cleo's case was because they had investigated ALL other possibilities - eliminated them - and followed the evidence which remained.
The striking result of the police tactic regarding pursuing the theory that Cleo had been the victim of STRANGER ABDUCTION is that by concentrating on that THEY FOUND CLEO alive and well.
I suggest that had they thrown all their resources at pursuing the proven false trail of parental involvement convinced that is what happened to Cleo to the exclusion of all else as in Madeleine's case - they would not have found her - and she would have been yet another child referred to in future as "another Madeleine McCann".
Cleo was found BECAUSE THE POLICE LOOKED FOR HER and never allowed the investigative trail to go cold as they checked EVERY possibility out - including waste bins.
I think they used the tried and tested search technique of starting at the centre and working out finding the missing child not in the proximity of the holiday area, but in the proximity of Cleo's home where her abductor had taken her.
In Portugal Madeleine was never given the benefit of the doubt that she was alive and should be looked for as a live and missing child.
The lead dectective is on record as declaring her dead immediately she disappeared and immediately blamed her parents with no further ado.
Thank God the Australian police actually looked for a live child 'cos guess what - that enabled them to find one.
-
Cleo Smith, a four-year-old Australian girl, disappeared on 16 October 2021
On 20 October, Acting Deputy Commissioner Daryl Gaunt of the Western Australia Police Force said that claims that the case was being treated as an abduction were not correct, explaining that the case was being treated primarily as a search and rescue case.
It was announced on 21 October that the police believed that Cleo had been abducted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_of_Cleo_Smith
The police say lots of things to the media which aren't necessarily completely factual as I'm sure you will recall from the McCann case in which one of the senior officers stated categorically that the parents were not suspects until suddenly a few days later they were made arguidos. The fact remains that the parents' report of an open zip on the tent was treated as evidence that someone had taken their daughter, even if it really did take four whole days for the police to come to that conclusion. A car speeding away from the campsite that night was the only corroborating evidence at the time as far as I recall, and I'm sure you could point to other fairly tenuous examples in the McCann case of potential corroborating evidence, such as the sighting of the couple and young child in the nearby marina in the early hours of 4th May. Was it exhaustively followed up in the way the Australians followed up the only lead they had? I don't really think so, in fact it was marked "not relevant" to the investigation pretty swiftly though nobody really knows why.
Now perhaps you can answer my first question. What corroborated evidence points to the McCanns' alleged involvement in disposing of their daughter's body?
-
The police say lots of things to the media which aren't necessarily completely factual as I'm sure you will recall from the McCann case in which one of the senior officers stated categorically that the parents were not suspects until suddenly a few days later they were made arguidos. The fact remains that the parents' report of an open zip on the tent was treated as evidence that someone had taken their daughter, even if it really did take four whole days for the police to come to that conclusion. A car speeding away from the campsite that night was the only corroborating evidence at the time as far as I recall, and I'm sure you could point to other fairly tenuous examples in the McCann case of potential corroborating evidence, such as the sighting of the couple and young child in the nearby marina in the early hours of 4th May. Was it exhaustively followed up in the way the Australians followed up the only lead they had? I don't really think so, in fact it was marked "not relevant" to the investigation pretty swiftly though nobody really knows why.
Now perhaps you can answer my first question. What corroborated evidence points to the McCanns' alleged involvement in disposing of their daughter's body?
Bolded bit, then you can except Wolters maybe talking complete bull.
-
Bolded bit, then you can except Wolters maybe talking complete bull.
I have no doubt he hasn't told us everything. You can interpret that as "complete bull" if you want - your prerogative.
-
The open window claim isn't evidence as it is uncorroborated. In fact when Matt did his outside check the window wasn't open so take from that what you may.
Uncorroborated evidence is accepted in court as evidence... A rape case is a good example
Martin Smith id of Gerry is uncorroborated by any other in the group.. So are you saying his statement is not evidence..
Kates witness statement is evidence that could be presented to a jury
-
The point is that sceptics are totally mistaken.. Who would have guessed... In saying 15 million has been spent looking for MM.
It hasn't... 15 mill has been spent looking for the abductor and murderer of MM.. And it looks like its paid off.
Or should we just let child murderers get away with it. Thank god SY and the Germans have stuck with it when the pathetic PJ failed
13 million, Davel.
See how "The Generals" misinforation has caught on. He said £15 million and it was wrong.
£13 million. NOT £15 million
-
So evidence is only evidence if there is corroboration, is that what you’re saying? Using your rules what evidence is there that the McCanns disposed of their daughter’s body?
Seeing as how you have chosen not to reply to this question I can only deduce that there is none. Odd that you therefore lean towards this theory over all others, no?
-
Seeing as how you have chosen not to reply to this question I can only deduce that there is none. Odd that you therefore lean towards this theory over all others, no?
We were dicusssing uncorroborated evidence. Where's the uncorroboborated evidence of this; I've not seen any in the files.
-
Me personally, no. I have the utmost respect for any man or woman who volunteers for her Majesty's Service, even you. But since displaying the badge offends you, or makes you think you can use it against me, I'll remove it. It was meant in honour and if I had any respect for you on a personal level, I'd tell you my story. Maybe another time.
Hey, Ms Para, you don't honestly think The General is a real General, do you?
-
We were dicusssing uncorroborated evidence. Where's the uncorroboborated evidence of this; I've not seen any in the files.
I don’t know what you mean. This is the question I have asked and which you have left unanswered.
“So evidence is only evidence if there is corroboration, is that what you’re saying? Using your rules what evidence is there that the McCanns disposed of their daughter’s body?”
-
Uncorroborated evidence is accepted in court as evidence... A rape case is a good example
Martin Smith id of Gerry is uncorroborated by any other in the group.. So are you saying his statement is not evidence..
Kates witness statement is evidence that could be presented to a jury
Martin Smith's evidence of seeing an as yet unidentified man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared was corroborated by the entire family. That is the important fact.
Uncorroborated evidence has little evidential value in court because it could well be made up or pure fiction intended to mislead.
-
Martin Smith's evidence of seeing an as yet unidentified man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared was corroborated by the entire family. That is the important fact.
Uncorroborated evidence has little evidential value in court because it could well be made up or pure fiction intended to mislead.
As could “corroborated “ evidence.
-
Martin Smith's evidence of seeing an as yet unidentified man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared was corroborated by the entire family. That is the important fact.
Uncorroborated evidence has little evidential value in court because it could well be made up or pure fiction intended to mislead.
Martin Smith saw a man.. That's corroborated
He said 60 to 80% Gerry mccann... Not corroborated
I do agree with you his claim has little value
I disagree re uncorroborated evidence in general. Its admissible in court and the jury decides its value
-
I don’t know what you mean. This is the question I have asked and which you have left unanswered.
“So evidence is only evidence if there is corroboration, is that what you’re saying? Using your rules what evidence is there that the McCanns disposed of their daughter’s body?”
There is no such evidence.
-
There is no such evidence.
If there is no evidence that the McCanns disposed of their child’s body then why on earth do you believe that they did? And please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that you don’t. You have made it clear that you think Amaral solved the case in 2007. How did he do that if there is no evidence that the McCanns committed any crime?
-
If there is no evidence that the McCanns disposed of their child’s body then why on earth do you believe that they did? And please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that you don’t. You have made it clear that you think Amaral solved the case in 2007. How did he do that if there is no evidence that the McCanns committed any crime?
I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann. How you interpret my posts is not how I do so, which makes it impossible to answer your questions.
-
I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann. How you interpret my posts is not how I do so, which makes it impossible to answer your questions.
How very convenient for you. Do you think Amaral solved the case in 2007 - yes or no?
-
How very convenient for you. Do you think Amaral solved the case in 2007 - yes or no?
Theories have been advanced by many people over the years, but the case still isn't solved.
-
Theories have been advanced by many people over the years, but the case still isn't solved.
You really should get a job writing Boris’s speeches, you’d be perfect for it
-
You really should get a job writing Boris’s speeches, you’d be perfect for it
Because I don't tick the boxes you think I do? Maybe that's why box ticking isn't always a reliable tool.
-
Because I don't tick the boxes you think I do? Maybe that's why box ticking isn't always a reliable tool.
box ticking is intelligence..it gives investigators pointers where to look....ive seen no one claim its always reliable
-
box ticking is intelligence..it gives investigators pointers where to look....ive seen no one claim its always reliable
Quite.
-
Because I don't tick the boxes you think I do? Maybe that's why box ticking isn't always a reliable tool.
No - because you can't give a straight answer to any question you are asked, just like a Tory politician on Question Time.
-
And I have seen no one on this Board declaring Brueckner Guilty.
Just The McCanns, again and again. This is so boring that I nearly lost the will to live, let alone Comment or Moderate.
Incidentally, accusing The McCanns is Libellous, but no one seems to care about that.
-
And I have seen no one on this Board declaring Brueckner Guilty.
Just The McCanns, again and again. This is so boring that I nearly lost the will to live, let alone Comment or Moderate.
Incidentally, accusing The McCanns is Libellous, but no one seems to care about that.
Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?
In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.
I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.
-
And I have seen no one on this Board declaring Brueckner Guilty.
Just The McCanns, again and again. This is so boring that I nearly lost the will to live, let alone Comment or Moderate.
Incidentally, accusing The McCanns is Libellous, but no one seems to care about that.
I agree but that is why we have moderators which included yourself previously so no excuses on that front.
-
Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?
In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.
I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.
Oh dear.. Why would they do that... I think thats a ridiculous idea
-
I agree but that is why we have moderators which included yourself previously so no excuses on that front.
Twas very strange how often my decisions were reversed. Why was that do you think?
-
Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?
In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.
I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.
This is the funniest Comment I have read in ages.. Thanks for the laugh.
-
Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?
In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.
I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.
I wonder if the 'Brueckner did it' narrative would have worked in the rape case without the forensic evidence? It seems they're reluctant to test it in court in the Madeleine case as they have no forensics to help them.
-
No - because you can't give a straight answer to any question you are asked, just like a Tory politician on Question Time.
Your method is to tell me what I think or believe, then to ask a question based on that. If you're wrong about what I think or believe then you're asking the wrong question, aren't you?
-
I wonder if the 'Brueckner did it' narrative would have worked in the rape case without the forensic evidence? It seems they're reluctant to test it in court in the Madeleine case as they have no forensics to help them.
What? The Forensic Evidence that The PJ ignored in The Rape Case, do you mean? That evidence that got Brueckner convicted by The Germans many years later?
Who knows if The PJ have got any evidence in The McCann Case? They could be ignoring it for all I know.
-
Your method is to tell me what I think or believe, then to ask a question based on that. If you're wrong about what I think or believe then you're asking the wrong question, aren't you?
I asked you if you think Amaral solved the case in 2007. You either think he did or you think he didn't. We know you liked the unsupported claim that he did, which is an odd thing to do if you thought it was incorrect. If I had liked a post which said HCW solved the case in 2020 would you not draw some inference from that?
I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about what you believe wrt to this case, but why so coy? Is it because you think refusing to acknowledge what is IMO blatantly obvious makes you look objective and even-handed? I'm afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.
-
Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?
In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.
I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.
Not this again John. Is it necessary to have a history of pedocide or murder before you can be suspected of pedocide or murder? In my opinion this is the most facile defence of CB one could put forward and yet you keep on doing it - why?
-
What? The Forensic Evidence that The PJ ignored in The Rape Case, do you mean? That evidence that got Brueckner convicted by The Germans many years later?
Who knows if The PJ have got any evidence in The McCann Case? They could be ignoring it for all I know.
The PJ had forensic evidence but no suspect. Thanks to Brueckner's 'friends' (after many years of silence) the Germans had one.
-
The PJ had forensic evidence but no suspect. Thanks to Brueckner's 'friends' (after many years of silence) the Germans had one.
Brueckner wasn't a suspect in The McCann Case either. Or was he? You would have to ask Amaral about that.
-
Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?
In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.
I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.
No, I think it's mostly because we aren't privy to the BKA evidence to be able to make that determination yet.
Those are not estranged crimes though, as we've already covered in this thread. Studies show that crimes like burglary, violence and rape are the most common indicators found in child abductor-murderers. Having a previous history for murder is actually very uncommon. Only about 1 in 14 people who are convicted of murdering a child following an abduction have had any sort of prior arrest for murder.
Most of the time when children are abducted and murdered by stranger, the event is unplanned. They are victims of opportunity when a sexual predator is presented with a situation they cannot resist. They don't set out with the intention to commit murder, the killing happens afterwards in order to avoid detection.
Even if the Germans are wrong about CB, and I accept they might be, I find the notion they would "invent" such a narrative extremely strange. Why on earth would they do that? What do they stand to gain from such a reckless move? IMO they must firmly believe they have the correct suspect based on what they've found.
-
I wonder if the 'Brueckner did it' narrative would have worked in the rape case without the forensic evidence? It seems they're reluctant to test it in court in the Madeleine case as they have no forensics to help them.
You are speculating... The FACT is Wolters has said he doesn't need forensic evidence.
What is ironic is posters have decided Amaral is a reliably good policeman... Without any evidence to support it... And Wolters isn't.
No forensic evidence in the Cipriano case
-
The PJ had forensic evidence but no suspect. Thanks to Brueckner's 'friends' (after many years of silence) the Germans had one.
What forensic evidence do you think the PJ had.. You do realise Portugal does not admit lcn dna... Even if its conclusive
-
I asked you if you think Amaral solved the case in 2007. You either think he did or you think he didn't. We know you liked the unsupported claim that he did, which is an odd thing to do if you thought it was incorrect. If I had liked a post which said HCW solved the case in 2020 would you not draw some inference from that?
I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about what you believe wrt to this case, but why so coy? Is it because you think refusing to acknowledge what is IMO blatantly obvious makes you look objective and even-handed? I'm afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.
Why does it matter what I think? I'm not here to argue for my favourite theory or suspect because I don't have either. The truth could be something that no-one has thought of, in fact imo.
-
Why does it matter what I think? I'm not here to argue for my favourite theory or suspect because I don't have either. The truth could be something that no-one has thought of, in fact imo.
in every case its possible...based on the evidence...to decide what is most likely. it seems you are incapable of doing that
-
in every case its possible...based on the evidence...to decide what is most likely. it seems you are incapable of doing that
In this case many people have suggested what, in their opinions, most likely happened. As yet none of their theories have been shown to be correct. I don't think there is enough evidence in this case to settle on any one theory as the most likely one.
-
Why does it matter what I think? I'm not here to argue for my favourite theory or suspect because I don't have either. The truth could be something that no-one has thought of, in fact imo.
Rubbish, and more pathetic deflection IMO.
-
In this case many people have suggested what, in their opinions, most likely happened. As yet none of their theories have been shown to be correct. I don't think there is enough evidence in this case to settle on any one theory as the most likely one.
Thats your opinion... I think there is plenty of evidence tto show what's likely... SY seem to have agreed... As do the Germans
My view is the Portuguese and sceptics placed too much faith in grime and his dogs... And still do
-
In this case many people have suggested what, in their opinions, most likely happened. As yet none of their theories have been shown to be correct. I don't think there is enough evidence in this case to settle on any one theory as the most likely one.
You're right - why should we care what you think, yet you keep on sharing your opinions, making your sly inferences, as if it's somehow important or necessary to do so.
-
We can't have The McCanns getting off the hook, no matter how silly that one has become. What with all those other boxes being ticked.
-
You're right - why should we care what you think, yet you keep on sharing your opinions, making your sly inferences, as if it's somehow important or necessary to do so.
If you don't like my posts don't read them.
-
If you don't like my posts don't read them.
It's not a question of liking or not liking your posts - this is a debating forum, for challenging opinion and theories IMO. What I do like is challenging some of the rubbish I read on here, and all the while you provide it, I will challenge it. Sorry not sorry.
-
I wonder if the 'Brueckner did it' narrative would have worked in the rape case without the forensic evidence? It seems they're reluctant to test it in court in the Madeleine case as they have no forensics to help them.
Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove.
Even with Brueckner's pubic hair being recovered from the scene of the crime he appears to be sticking with the cat excuse.
If Ms Behan's rape is brought to trial which I think it will be ~ I would be surprised if the argument on her behalf might not be bolstered by the boxes ticked in the crime against her when compared with the boxes ticked in the crime against Mrs Menkes who - told police: “I felt that he enjoyed torturing me.’’ and put her through what she believed was a “methodical procedure” which was “long and planned”. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-enjoyed-22140786
The outrages were remarkably similar and I'm sure those similarities will give the judges evidence worth pondering about.
-
The PJ had forensic evidence but no suspect. Thanks to Brueckner's 'friends' (after many years of silence) the Germans had one.
According to Mrs Behan - the PJ did not look for a suspect.
“I had little hope over the last 16 years that they would find the man who did this. I was told at the time that I should just be quiet, that if I talked about what had happened I would bring bad publicity to the resort and put off the tourists." https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/irish-rape-victim-asks-mccann-detectives-to-review-her-case-after-hearing-about-new-suspect-1.4274446
-
Brueckner wasn't a suspect in The McCann Case either. Or was he? You would have to ask Amaral about that.
Criminals certainly seemed to lead a charmed existence mainly due to the ineptitude of the Portuguese police. As Mrs Behan noted when she heard about the rape of the American woman which mirrored the one suffered by her >
“I think if the police had done their job investigating what happened to me, if this is indeed the same man that attacked the American and abducted Madeleine McCann, they might have prevented the attack on her, and Madeleine would now be at home with her parents.” https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/irish-rape-victim-asks-mccann-detectives-to-review-her-case-after-hearing-about-new-suspect-1.4274446
-
It's not a question of liking or not liking your posts - this is a debating forum, for challenging opinion and theories IMO. What I do like is challenging some of the rubbish I read on here, and all the while you provide it, I will challenge it. Sorry not sorry.
Please yourself, just trying to help.
-
Criminals certainly seemed to lead a charmed existence mainly due to the ineptitude of the Portuguese police. As Mrs Behan noted when she heard about the rape of the American woman which mirrored the one suffered by her >
“I think if the police had done their job investigating what happened to me, if this is indeed the same man that attacked the American and abducted Madeleine McCann, they might have prevented the attack on her, and Madeleine would now be at home with her parents.” https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/irish-rape-victim-asks-mccann-detectives-to-review-her-case-after-hearing-about-new-suspect-1.4274446
If. Such a little word but so important.
-
Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove.
Even with Brueckner's pubic hair being recovered from the scene of the crime he appears to be sticking with the cat excuse.
If Ms Behan's rape is brought to trial which I think it will be ~ I would be surprised if the argument on her behalf might not be bolstered by the boxes ticked in the crime against her when compared with the boxes ticked in the crime against Mrs Menkes who - told police: “I felt that he enjoyed torturing me.’’ and put her through what she believed was a “methodical procedure” which was “long and planned”. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-enjoyed-22140786
The outrages were remarkably similar and I'm sure those similarities will give the judges evidence worth pondering about.
Pubic hair?
-
Pubic hair?
Are you saying that you didn't know about the pubic hair?
-
If. Such a little word but so important.
Isn't it just!
" ... if the police had done their job ..."
-
A single hair, pubic or otherwise sounds a bit dodgy to me, but the court accepted it, so that's that.
-
Isn't it just!
" ... if the police had done their job ..."
Indeed. If only McCann had taken greater care of their children.
-
Are you saying that you didn't know about the pubic hair?
Hair yes, pubic no.
-
Hair yes, pubic no.
No doubt it was short and curly 8(0(*
-
Hair yes, pubic no.
What is the difference? It's all hair. And it was one of Brueckners.
-
Please yourself, just trying to help.
Just try answering the questions honestly, that would be a help.
-
No doubt it was short and curly 8(0(*
Very Good. Post of the day I thought.
-
Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove.
Even with Brueckner's pubic hair being recovered from the scene of the crime he appears to be sticking with the cat excuse.
If Ms Behan's rape is brought to trial which I think it will be ~ I would be surprised if the argument on her behalf might not be bolstered by the boxes ticked in the crime against her when compared with the boxes ticked in the crime against Mrs Menkes who - told police: “I felt that he enjoyed torturing me.’’ and put her through what she believed was a “methodical procedure” which was “long and planned”. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-enjoyed-22140786
The outrages were remarkably similar and I'm sure those similarities will give the judges evidence worth pondering about.
This article is almost two years old and still no charges have been brought against Brueckner. Doesn’t seem that the police are in a hurry to get justice for Behan either.
-
Hair yes, pubic no.
Yep, a big curly ginger pube. Along with his cat stroking excuse, it was actually part of CB's defence case that the hair found couldn't be his because it was reddish and his hair is blonde. Unfortunately for him, a DNA match trumps any assertion that you can't have ginger body hair when your head hair is blonde.
It's all in the case evidence files (and published in the German press). You love evidence. Maybe you should expand your interest beyond the PJ files.
-
This article is almost two years old and still no charges have been brought against Brueckner. Doesn’t seem that the police are in a hurry to get justice for Behan either.
The German Judiciary have got at least another four years to make any cases they might have in the pipeline. And of course they are dealing with Judges, so no problem with Trial by Social Media.
I am not entirely sure that this is a good idea, but it is their Justice System. And I am a trifle hidebound as I only really understand Trial by Jury.
-
Yep, a big curly ginger pube. Along with his cat stroking excuse, it was actually part of CB's defence case that the hair found couldn't be his because it was reddish and his hair is blonde. Unfortunately for him, a DNA match trumps any assertion that you can't have ginger body hair when your head hair is blonde.
It's all in the case evidence files (and published in the German press). You love evidence. Maybe you should expand your interest beyond the PJ files.
Another excellent Comment.
-
Yep, a big curly ginger pube. Along with his cat stroking excuse, it was actually part of CB's defence case that the hair found couldn't be his because it was reddish and his hair is blonde. Unfortunately for him, a DNA match trumps any assertion that you can't have ginger body hair when your head hair is blonde.
It's all in the case evidence files (and published in the German press). You love evidence. Maybe you should expand your interest beyond the PJ files.
Maybe you could provide a link to this information?
-
Maybe you could provide a link to this information?
I could.
-
This article is almost two years old and still no charges have been brought against Brueckner. Doesn’t seem that the police are in a hurry to get justice for Behan either.
From the prosecution point of view, it makes sense to leave it a while before presenting the Behan case, imo.
If the case runs whilst his present prison sentence still has yonks to go, any new sentence would probably run at the same time as his present one, and that would not only be unsatisfactory for some, but also would reduce the time that the German investigators have to deep investigate, both her case and the Madeleine possible connection.
All IMO
-
This article is almost two years old and still no charges have been brought against Brueckner. Doesn’t seem that the police are in a hurry to get justice for Behan either.
Bit of a flippant remark there. Again, what's the rush? The guy is already in Prison. What's more important, taking the time to construct a case that is going to stick, or getting it done quickly? It makes no difference to the total time he serves whether he gets convicted now or in a few years time. Also, if the fingerprint evidence is true, that is a much more recent discovery from when this article came out.
Also, don't forget there are a lot of legal obstacles in place. The victim is Irish, the crime was in Portugal and the Germans want to prosecute. Add to that CB is only in Germany due to an extradition agreement which also need amending to include any further charges. There is a lot of cross-jurisdictional wrangling to be overcome. And going back to what I said earlier in the thread, the Germans seem to be exploring the possibility of a joint indictment in several cases. This means the overall process is inevitably going to take longer.
-
From the prosecution point of view, it makes sense to leave it a while before presenting the Behan case, imo.
If the case runs whilst his present prison sentence still has yonks to go, any new sentence would probably run at the same time as his present one, and that would not only be unsatisfactory for some, but also would reduce the time that the German investigators have to deep investigate, both her case and the Madeleine possible connection.
All IMO
This is a possibility. I don't know enough about The German System to be sure. But we certainly don't want that to happen.
-
I could.
Snort. Whoops. Sorry.
-
From the prosecution point of view, it makes sense to leave it a while before presenting this case, imo.
If the case runs whilst his present prison sentence still has yonks to go, any new sentence would probably run at the same time as his present one, and that would not only be unsatisfactory for some, but also would reduce the time that the German investigators have to deep investigate.
All IMO
Off the top of my head >>
Re-opening Hazel's case is most certainly not an easy thing to do for a variety of reasons.- without doubt it is a Portuguese case which has run up against the Statute of Limitation in Portugal
- all the physical DNA evidence was destroyed
- co-operation between Germany and Portugal and all the legal intricacies would take time to be worked out
I don't think the amount of time which has passed since Hazel was physically sick when she recognised and compared the similarity of her rape with the rape Brueckner was convicted of is remarkable - I just think it nothing short of miraculous that she is on the brink of having her day in court and the chance of justice.
-
Bit of a flippant remark there. Again, what's the rush? The guy is already in Prison. What's more important, taking the time to construct a case that is going to stick, or getting it done quickly? It makes no difference to the total time he serves whether he gets convicted now or in a few years time. Also, if the fingerprint evidence is true, that is a much more recent discovery from when this article came out.
Also, don't forget there are a lot of legal obstacles in place. The victim is Irish, the crime was in Portugal and the Germans want to prosecute. Add to that CB is only in Germany due to an extradition agreement which also need amending to include any further charges. There is a lot of cross-jurisdictional wrangling to be overcome. And going back to what I said earlier in the thread, the Germans seem to be exploring the possibility of a joint indictment in several cases. This means the overall process is inevitably going to take longer.
If the evidence is true about the fingerprint then it would undeniably put Brueckner at the scene of the crime so there would be no reason why charges could not be brought no matter what other elements were being considered. Therefore I think it’s safe to assume that the fingerprint story is simply more newspaper twaddle….the kind that certain individuals seem to lap up.
As to legal obstacles, these seem to have been deftly navigated in the case of the rape case Brueckner has been convicted of. Have we any real reason to believe that the same cooperation and mutually satisfactory outcome could not be achieved speedily again in the Behan case?
-
If the evidence is true about the fingerprint then it would undeniably put Brueckner at the scene of the crime so there would be no reason why charges could not be brought no matter what other elements were being considered. Therefore I think it’s safe to assume that the fingerprint story is simply more newspaper twaddle….the kind that certain individuals seem to lap up.
As to legal obstacles, these seem to have been deftly navigated in the case of the rape case Brueckner has been convicted of. Have we any real reason to believe that the same cooperation and mutually satisfactory outcome could not be achieved speedily again in the Behan case?
Wow. You just completely ignored all the legal complications I pointed out and resorted to the argument of "if they got fingerprints, they charge!". Genius.
And since you are such a legal expert on all this, tell me how you think all these legal obstacles were deftly navigated in the other rape case then? There was nothing deft about it!
It was an all round struggle, not least due to fact the Portuguese authorities have been so deliberately unhelpful and laboured. Do some research. In case you've forgotten, it was taken to the European court of appeal and his conviction was very nearly overturned on the techincality that the Germans didn't obtain the correct extradtion paperwork. Thankfully they were helped out by the Italians in all this mess and the conviction stood.
You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about either do you?
Maybe don't assert such strong opinions on aspects you have absolutely no clue about.
-
Wow. You just completely ignored all the legal complications I pointed out and resorted to the moronic argument of "if they got fingerprints, they charge!". Genius.
And since you are such a legal expert on all this, tell me how you think all these legal obstacles were deftly navigated in the other rape case then? There was nothing deft about it!
It was an all round struggle, not least due to fact the Portuguese authorities have been so deliberately unhelpful and laboured. Do some research. In case you've forgotten, it was taken to the European court of appeal and his conviction was very nearly overturned on the techincality that the Germans didn't obtain the correct extradtion paperwork. Thankfully they were helped out by the Italians in all this mess and the conviction stood.
You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about either do you?
Maybe don't assert such strong opinions on aspects you have absolutely no clue about.
Faithlilly isn't a moron. She just doesn't see things in quite the same way that we do.
Sorry. I am not a moderator anymore. But I no longer feel restrained.
So take your pick, any of you. But I don't like it when anyone is being insulted for personal beliefs, even if I don't understand those beliefs.
-
Faithlilly isn't a moron. She just doesn't see things in quite the same way that we do.
Sorry. I am not a moderator anymore. But I no longer feel restrained.
So take your pick, any of you. But I don't like it when anyone is being insulted for personal beliefs, even if I don't understand those beliefs.
Fair enough. I amended my comment. I would just say it was the logic I was criticising, not her personally. I have no real knowledge of her personal beliefs so I'm not sure what you mean. But she has not shown me any respect, quite the opposite, so I have difficulty in showing any back until it is warranted IMO.
-
Faithlilly isn't a moron. She just doesn't see things in quite the same way that we do.
Sorry. I am not a moderator anymore. But I no longer feel restrained.
So take your pick, any of you. But I don't like it when anyone is being insulted for personal beliefs, even if I don't understand those beliefs.
^^^To anyone who is willing to listen, this is what a moderator should be doing IMO. Firm and most importantly, FAIR.
-
^^^To anyone who is willing to listen, this is what a moderator should be doing IMO. Firm and most importantly, FAIR.
Thank you.
Being a moderator wasn't a lot of fun. In fact I became a complete wimp in the end because there were too many restrictions.
I was even half afraid to 'Like' your comments in case it was seen as bias, when in fact your Comments are among the best I have ever seen.
-
Thank you.
Being a moderator wasn't a lot of fun. In fact I became a complete wimp in the end because there were too many restrictions.
I was even half afraid to 'Like' your comments in case it was seen as bias, when in fact your Comments are among the best I have ever seen.
It's a thankless job. You cannot 'win' whatever you do.
What I think is truly desparing though is that your genuine and warranted frustration at what has been going on here lately has been ignored.
I know I'm new here but if I can see at an instant your value and the points you're making, I don't understand why others who have benefitted from your work for many years choose to see it a different way.
-
Wow. You just completely ignored all the legal complications I pointed out and resorted to the argument of "if they got fingerprints, they charge!". Genius.
And since you are such a legal expert on all this, tell me how you think all these legal obstacles were deftly navigated in the other rape case then? There was nothing deft about it!
It was an all round struggle, not least due to fact the Portuguese authorities have been so deliberately unhelpful and laboured. Do some research. In case you've forgotten, it was taken to the European court of appeal and his conviction was very nearly overturned on the techincality that the Germans didn't obtain the correct extradtion paperwork. Thankfully they were helped out by the Italians in all this mess and the conviction stood.
You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about either do you?
Maybe don't assert such strong opinions on aspects you have absolutely no clue about.
Before I answer you more fully I’d be interested in the evidence for your claim that the Portuguese authorities response to the German authorities was ‘ laboured and unhelpful’ in Brueckner’s case.
-
Fair enough. I amended my comment. I would just say it was the logic I was criticising, not her personally. I have no real knowledge of her personal beliefs so I'm not sure what you mean. But she has not shown me any respect, quite the opposite, so I have difficulty in showing any back until it is warranted IMO.
I really wouldn’t worry about it Para. This forum is really nothing much more than a bun fight now with one side constantly trying to monster the other. You don’t know me personally so I take nothing you say personally and I’d advise you to do the same. We are more than our view on this case so it is nonsense to suppose that it should be used to define us.
-
Faithlilly isn't a moron. She just doesn't see things in quite the same way that we do.
Sorry. I am not a moderator anymore. But I no longer feel restrained.
So take your pick, any of you. But I don't like it when anyone is being insulted for personal beliefs, even if I don't understand those beliefs.
That is fair Eleanor, thank you.
-
Before I answer you more fully I’d be interested in the evidence for your claim that the Portuguese authorities response to the German authorities was ‘ laboured and unhelpful’ in Brueckner’s case.
Mr Wolters criticised the slow approach of Portuguese authorities in the investigation, accusing them of lacking interest in the case because the victim and prime suspect are both foreigners.
He said: “What takes one week in Germany can take six months in Portugal. I think the interest in the case in Portugal is just not that big, because no Portuguese person is involved. Also it does not shine a particularly good light on the Portuguese police, as they had totally different suspects.
“I think they would prefer to be left in peace.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-100-convinced-25173564
Additionally, after being extradited from Portugal to serve time for the child abuse charge, CB was then meant to serve his drug dealing sentence but because the Portuguese took too long to agree to it being part of his extradition warrant, the Germans were forced to let him go and he then fled to Italy before it was eventually sorted out and they then extradited him again. The same sort of issue then happened with the rape case and so the Germans decided to ask the Italian authorities to add the permission to charge him to their extradition warrant instead of adding it to the Portuguese one even though the crime took place in Portugal.
-
I could.
As you haven't I shall assume that you can't, and are just spreading rumours.
-
This is a possibility. I don't know enough about The German System to be sure. But we certainly don't want that to happen.
Off topic but relevant to systems, Wayne Couzins a recently convicted killer is to be charged with indecent exposure, which pre dated the murder of his victim, what is the point you could ask, why not just leave them on a charge sheet, or maybe its to bring comfort to victims that he was charged, liken this to CB why should any victims wait until pre existing sentence is soon to be finished before they have their cases heard, that's cruel imo.
-
I really wouldn’t worry about it Para. This forum is really nothing much more than a bun fight now with one side constantly trying to monster the other. You don’t know me personally so I take nothing you say personally and I’d advise you to do the same. We are more than our view on this case so it is nonsense to suppose that it should be used to define us.
Its their daily fix to some.
-
Off topic but relevant to systems, Wayne Couzins a recently convicted killer is to be charged with indecent exposure, which pre dated the murder of his victim, what is the point you could ask, why not just leave them on a charge sheet, or maybe its to bring comfort to victims that he was charged, liken this to CB why should any victims wait until pre existing sentence is soon to be finished before they have their cases heard, that's cruel imo.
I totally agree barrier.
-
Its their daily fix to some.
yourself included obviously.
-
I totally agree barrier.
How is it that Wayne Couzens was convicted of abduction, rape and murder when he had no previous convictions for these crimes? Do you think he didn’t tick any of the relevant boxes so should have been discounted as a suspect?
-
How is it that Wayne Couzens was convicted of abduction, rape and murder when he had no previous convictions for these crimes? Do you think he didn’t tick any of the relevant boxes so should have been discounted as a suspect?
He ticked the copper box. Don't you know they protect their own?
-
He ticked the copper box. Don't you know they protect their own?
What has this got to do with who is predisposed to anything?
-
How is it that Wayne Couzens was convicted of abduction, rape and murder when he had no previous convictions for these crimes? Do you think he didn’t tick any of the relevant boxes so should have been discounted as a suspect?
CCTV the policeman's helper.
-
CCTV the policeman's helper.
yes, without the various cameras he probably wouldn't have been investigated and caught. IMO
-
CCTV the policeman's helper.
That’s as maybe. CCTV doesn’t turn individuals who weren’t rapists and murderers into them, so my point stands.
-
He ticked the copper box. Don't you know they protect their own?
Right so if you’re a copper you tick the box marked likely to be a rapist and murderer is that what you’re saying?
-
What has this got to do with who is predisposed to anything?
Nothing - it’s just more astounding lack of logic on display.
-
That’s as maybe. CCTV doesn’t turn individuals who weren’t rapists and murderers into them, so my point stands.
That's why he was investigated though. Evidence revealed his connection to the victim. Using box ticking would probably have led the police to investigate (and maybe arrest) others who were innocent, despite "fitting the profile". Box ticking is a tool, but it has no evidential reliability imo.
-
That's why he was investigated though. Evidence revealed his connection to the victim. Using box ticking would probably have led the police to investigate (and maybe arrest) others who were innocent, despite "fitting the profile". Box ticking is a tool, but it has no evidential reliability imo.
In the absence of CCTV cameras in Luz the PJ would have had to use different methods of detection such as phone traffic and vehicular information.
This they did as far as Kate and Gerry McCann were concerned and even when no incriminating evidence was found - they just would not let go..
It doesn't seem to have happened as far as Brueckner is concerned until 2013 when Scotland Yard activated Madeleine's case.
So the boxes can be there but if no-one ticks them or ticks the wrong ones no evidence or intelligence will result.
-
That's why he was investigated though. Evidence revealed his connection to the victim. Using box ticking would probably have led the police to investigate (and maybe arrest) others who were innocent, despite "fitting the profile". Box ticking is a tool, but it has no evidential reliability imo.
Police use box ticking to help investigate.. That's why parents are suspects
-
Okay, let's address Box Ticking.
Has he ever committed a Murder? How could they possibly know if no one ever caught him?
Was he in the location, seems to be the most important to me. If he wasn't there then he can't have done it.
But his phone was there. Only he can say if he was using it. A refusal to do so does not look good.
And of course, every murderer who ever lived committed a murder for the first time.
-
That's why he was investigated though. Evidence revealed his connection to the victim. Using box ticking would probably have led the police to investigate (and maybe arrest) others who were innocent, despite "fitting the profile". Box ticking is a tool, but it has no evidential reliability imo.
The problem in this case is that Couzens DID tick many of the boxes, it’s just that no one had officially ticked them sooner and booted him out of the police as he should have been. Claiming that CB can be disregarded as a suspect on the basis that he never murdered before is just plain nonsense but it keeps being repeated here by two senior moderators. It’s blimmin’ bonkers logic, you must surely agree with that?
-
The problem in this case is that Couzens DID tick many of the boxes, it’s just that no one had officially ticked them sooner and booted him out of the police as he should have been. Claiming that CB can be disregarded as a suspect on the basis that he never murdered before is just plain nonsense but it keeps being repeated here by two senior moderators. It’s blimmin’ bonkers logic, you must surely agree with that?
And I believe her to have been alive in early 2012, where I am almost 100% certain that I have captured her dancing in a gala in the mediteranean area and she didn't appear abused..
If she was kept alive until then, I think she will still be alive.
-
There are still many boxes which haven't been ticked in the joint police investigation into the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance - Brueckner.
I think it is bizarre that he registered his vehicle in someone else's name the day after her disappearance; what on earth might his reason for that have been?
Has one ever been given?
"The second vehicle is a 1993 British Jaguar, model XJR 6, with a German number plate and registered in Germany," the statement added. "This car is believed to have been in the Praia da Luz and surrounding areas in 2006 and 2007. The car was originally registered in the suspect's name. On 4 May 2007, the day after Madeleine's disappearance, the car was re-registered to someone else in Germany."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/03/uk/met-police-madeline-mccann-new-suspect-intl/index.html
-
If he had no involvement with Madeleine, then it would be just another day for him.
Why would he need to give an explanation for what might just be a coincidence ?
-
There are still many boxes which haven't been ticked in the joint police investigation into the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance - Brueckner.
I think it is bizarre that he registered his vehicle in someone else's name the day after her disappearance; what on earth might his reason for that have been?
Has one ever been given?
"The second vehicle is a 1993 British Jaguar, model XJR 6, with a German number plate and registered in Germany," the statement added. "This car is believed to have been in the Praia da Luz and surrounding areas in 2006 and 2007. The car was originally registered in the suspect's name. On 4 May 2007, the day after Madeleine's disappearance, the car was re-registered to someone else in Germany."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/03/uk/met-police-madeline-mccann-new-suspect-intl/index.html
I will give you one reason. Maybe he didn’t.
The press, the Met Police and people on the internet may have taken the words used on the BKA website asking for information on Bruekner and misinterpreted them.
The BKA website says “Die letzte bekannte Zulassung nach dem Tattag war bei der Stadt Augsburg.
which translates to “The last known registration after the day of the crime was with the city of Augsburg”
This doesn’t indicate that the car was re registered the day after the crime, just that the last known registration of the car after the 4th May 2007 was in Augsburg.
All IMO.
-
If he had no involvement with Madeleine, then it would be just another day for him.
Why would he need to give an explanation for what might just be a coincidence ?
Because he is the prime suspect in a murder investigation and if his explanation is satisfactory and accepted by investigators, could help in clearing him.
On the other hand if he doesn't remember anything about a perfectly ordinary day of the third - it stands to reason he must remember the 4th and his reasons for altering the registration on his vehicle to someone else on that day.
Aren't you the teeniest bit curious - cos I know I am and I think the joint police investigators will be with me and my curiosity.
-
I will give you one reason. Maybe he didn’t.
The press, the Met Police and people on the internet may have taken the words used on the BKA website asking for information on Bruekner and misinterpreted them.
The BKA website says “Die letzte bekannte Zulassung nach dem Tattag war bei der Stadt Augsburg.
which translates to “The last known registration after the day of the crime was with the city of Augsburg”
This doesn’t indicate that the car was re registered the day after the crime, just that the last known registration of the car after the 4th May 2007 was in Augsburg.
All IMO.
You are clutching at straws.
Do your research and you will discover that Brueckner did indeed change the car documentation to another name.
I believe the registered owner is recorded in a tv interview saying so while trying to put as much clear water between him and Brueckner as he could.
It is also on record that Brueckner continued to use the vehicle and never passed it over to the registered owner despite living in his house for a bit.
-
You are clutching at straws.
Do your research and you will discover that Brueckner did indeed change the car documentation to another name.
I believe the registered owner is recorded in a tv interview saying so while trying to put as much clear water between him and Brueckner as he could.
It is also on record that Brueckner continued to use the vehicle and never passed it over to the registered owner despite living in his house for a bit.
There is no straw clutching going on. You asked for any reasons why he re registered his car the very next day and I complied with your request and supplied a possible reason. Its your prerogative to dismiss it out of hand but even you find it bizarre that he would do such a thing,
“I think it is bizarre that he registered his vehicle in someone else's name the day after her disappearance; what on earth might his reason for that have been?”
He would be the dumbest child abductor on the planet if he abducted a young girl at about 9-10PM the previous day and then thought his best course of action would be to re-register the car to another person in another country the very next day.
And I have done my research, if you read what I posted that was on the BKA site it says
“The last known registration after the day of the crime was with the city of Augsburg”
From that I can deduce that he did transfer ownership on a date that was after 4th May 2007 just not definitely the following day. Any day from the 5th of May onwards.
-
There is no straw clutching going on. You asked for any reasons why he re registered his car the very next day and I complied with your request and supplied a possible reason. Its your prerogative to dismiss it out of hand but even you find it bizarre that he would do such a thing,
“I think it is bizarre that he registered his vehicle in someone else's name the day after her disappearance; what on earth might his reason for that have been?”
He would be the dumbest child abductor on the planet if he abducted a young girl at about 9-10PM the previous day and then thought his best course of action would be to re-register the car to another person in another country the very next day.
And I have done my research, if you read what I posted that was on the BKA site it says
“The last known registration after the day of the crime was with the city of Augsburg”
From that I can deduce that he did transfer ownership on a date that was after 4th May 2007 just not definitely the following day. Any day from the 5th of May onwards.
Why mention 4th May at all then? Why not say he transferred ownership some time after that date, or even give the actual date he did this?
-
Why mention 4th May at all then? Why not say he transferred ownership some time after that date, or even give the actual date he did this?
Brueckner could well have been worried that his car could have been seen in Luz on the 3rd of May. So if The PJ checked the number plate it would not have come up in his name.
-
Brueckner could well have been worried that his car could have been seen in Luz on the 3rd of May. So if The PJ checked the number plate it would not have come up in his name.
That may well be one reason and I would not dismiss it out of hand.
It is indeed one scenario, but if the Portuguese police requested the info from the German police I would expect the German police as efficient as they are to notify the Portuguese police that a transfer of ownership took place on the 4th of May. But I agree that it is possible.
Its just that the statement on the BKA site doesn't say it was the very next day.
It's all a bit of Chinese whispers IMO.
-
Brueckner could well have been worried that his car could have been seen in Luz on the 3rd of May. So if The PJ checked the number plate it would not have come up in his name.
There was a black saloon car that was heading in a northerly direction up Rua Dr FGM at the time that Kate and Gerry would have been appearing and walking down the same road to the Tapas restaurant. A witness by the name of Joyce (surname, I think) with her husband saw it do a very hurried about turn and head off in the way that it had come. It was near Baptista supermarket. They thought that it was suspicious enough to report.
There is a PJ Report if anyone cares to look it up. I dont think that a number was recorded.
If you remember, I speculated on an earlier thread that this maybe was the abductor arriving with his getaway vehicle, when he suddenly saw Kate anf Gerry coming down the steps/walking the street en route to the resturant. He panicked and did a quick turn round in one of the little side streets?
If I am correct in my thoughts here, then he ceratinly would want to get rid of it pronto.
-
That may well be one reason and I would not dismiss it out of hand.
It is indeed one scenario, but if the Portuguese police requested the info from the German police I would expect the German police as efficient as they are to notify the Portuguese police that a transfer of ownership took place on the 4th of May. But I agree that it is possible.
Its just that the statement on the BKA site doesn't say it was the very next day.
It's all a bit of Chinese whispers IMO.
Why bother to change the name at all?
-
Why bother to change the name at all?
Well if I was to speculate, he transferred ownership to the guy who was giving him accommodation as the guy had expressed a passion for Jaguar cars. A friendly gesture maybe, who knows.
I am not disputing that he transferred registration at some point for some reason, only that it is not definite that he transferred on the very next day.
-
There was a black saloon car that was heading in a northerly direction up Rua Dr FGM at the time that Kate and Gerry would have been appearing and walking down the same road to the Tapas restaurant. A witness by the name of Joyce (surname, I think) with her husband saw it do a very hurried about turn and head off in the way that it had come. It was near Baptista supermarket. They thought that it was suspicious enough to report.
There is a PJ Report if anyone cares to look it up. I dont think that a number was recorded.
If you remember, I speculated on an earlier thread that this maybe was the abductor arriving with his getaway vehicle, when he suddenly saw Kate anf Gerry coming down the steps/walking the street en route to the resturant. He panicked and did a quick turn round in one of the little side streets?
If I am correct in my thoughts here, then he ceratinly would want to get rid of it pronto.
But Brueckner didn't get rid of the car, Sadie. He only changed the name of the registered owner. Why do that if he had nothing to hide?
-
Because he is the prime suspect in a murder investigation and if his explanation is satisfactory and accepted by investigators, could help in clearing him.
On the other hand if he doesn't remember anything about a perfectly ordinary day of the third - it stands to reason he must remember the 4th and his reasons for altering the registration on his vehicle to someone else on that day.
Aren't you the teeniest bit curious - cos I know I am and I think the joint police investigators will be with me and my curiosity.
In that case they should get around to asking him about it.
-
Well if I was to speculate, he transferred ownership to the guy who was giving him accommodation as the guy had expressed a passion for Jaguar cars. A friendly gesture maybe, who knows.
I am not disputing that he transferred registration at some point for some reason, only that it is not definite that he transferred on the very next day.
But he didn't give the Jaguar to the man he transferred it to. Fat lot of friendly gesture that was.
The 4th of May isn't all that important. He did it very soon after.
-
But he didn't give the Jaguar to the man he transferred it to. Fat lot of friendly gesture that was.
The 4th of May isn't all that important. He did it very soon after.
But it doesn’t really cover any tracks really does it? The records will show Brueckner was the registered keeper on the 3rd of May 2007. It's hardly a fool proof plan.
You do know what Wolters has said about the Jag.
Mr Wolters played down the significance of the Jaguar despite Scotland Yard appealing for information about it.
He said the car was in Germany when Madeleine went missing and information about it was released only to jog memories. 'The vehicles are not of direct interest for the Madeleine case,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8424065/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-told-letter-written-German-prosecutors-dead.html
-
But Brueckner didn't get rid of the car, Sadie. He only changed the name of the registered owner. Why do that if he had nothing to hide?
Why change if he's something to hide especially to another German where it seems its easily traceable, more likely imo to either torch it or take it further a field , some one else's car got torched didn't it.
-
But it doesn’t really cover any tracks really does it? The records will show Brueckner was the registered keeper on the 3rd of May 2007. It's hardly a fool proof plan.
You do know what Wolters has said about the Jag.
Mr Wolters played down the significance of the Jaguar despite Scotland Yard appealing for information about it.
He said the car was in Germany when Madeleine went missing and information about it was released only to jog memories. 'The vehicles are not of direct interest for the Madeleine case,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8424065/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-told-letter-written-German-prosecutors-dead.html
A brief check would only have shown the current registered owner, who was of no interest at all. And since The PJ weren't exactly quick off the mark, if they even bothered to check anything, then it probably no longer matters.
Apparently, Brueckner then trailered the Jaguar back to Germany very shortly afterwards. But didn't give the car to the new registered owner.
I personally don't much care about the Jaguar. But Brueckner was up to something. And Brueckner's phone was in Luz that night. Was he there with it?
-
Why change if he's something to hide especially to another German where it seems its easily traceable, more likely imo to either torch it or take it further a field , some one else's car got torched didn't it.
Time should have been of the essence, which it wasn't to The PJ.
I am more interested in Amaral's attempts to blatantly misrepresent Brueckner.
-
A brief check would only have shown the current registered owner, who was of no interest at all. And since The PJ weren't exactly quick off the mark, if they even bothered to check anything, then it probably no longer matters.
Apparently, Brueckner then trailered the Jaguar back to Germany very shortly afterwards. But didn't give the car to the new registered owner.
I personally don't much care about the Jaguar. But Brueckner was up to something. And Brueckner's phone was in Luz that night. Was he there with it?
OK, I have pointed out the wording on the BKA site about the registration of the jag, how illogical it would be to do such a thing the day after and that Wolters has said the jag was in Germany when Madeleine went missing so lets leave the jag.
Regarding the phone call the wording on the BKA website is also slightly less than definite it says:
"In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time"
The use of the word almost indicates a lack of certainty in their belief that it was CB on the phone.
How would it hold up in court if they said “We are almost certain it was him on the phone”?
-
OK, I have pointed out the wording on the BKA site about the registration of the jag, how illogical it would be to do such a thing the day after and that Wolters has said the jag was in Germany when Madeleine went missing so lets leave the jag.
Regarding the phone call the wording on the BKA website is also slightly less than definite it says:
"In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time"
The use of the word almost indicates a lack of certainty in their belief that it was CB’s phone.
How would it hold up in court if they said “We are almost certain it was his phone”?
Indeed many a time its been brought up about Redwood being "almost" certain the man JT saw wasn't an abductor turning to mean it could have been an abductor JT saw.
-
OK, I have pointed out the wording on the BKA site about the registration of the jag, how illogical it would be to do such a thing the day after and that Wolters has said the jag was in Germany when Madeleine went missing so lets leave the jag.
Regarding the phone call the wording on the BKA website is also slightly less than definite it says:
"In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time"
The use of the word almost indicates a lack of certainty in their belief that it was CB on the phone.
How would it hold up in court if they said “We are almost certain it was him on the phone”?
Brueckner will be given an opportunity to answer this.
The question will be, "Was it you who answered your phone?"
If you think that The BKA are stupid then more fool you.
-
Brueckner will be given an opportunity to answer this.
The question will be, "Was it you who answered your phone?"
If you think that The BKA are stupid then more fool you.
He might not.
And also what if he says no it wasn't me. What happens then.
I have never thought the BKA are stupid.
-
Brueckner will be given an opportunity to answer this.
The question will be, "Was it you who answered your phone?"
If you think that The BKA are stupid then more fool you.
If I recall you kept that complement or similar for Redwood .
-
He might not.
And also what if he says no it wasn't me. What happens then.
I have never thought the BKA are stupid.
All Bruckner needs to do is say nothing just like Kate McCann did at the Arguido interview. If the Germans have no evidence that he killed Madeleine then I'm afraid questioning Bruckner will achieve nothing.
-
All Bruckner needs to do is say nothing just like Kate McCann did at the Arguido interview. If the Germans have no evidence that he killed Madeleine then I'm afraid questioning Bruckner will achieve nothing.
Which imo is why its where its at just 3 months shy of 2 yrs of being the prime suspect.
-
But it doesn’t really cover any tracks really does it? The records will show Brueckner was the registered keeper on the 3rd of May 2007. It's hardly a fool proof plan.
You do know what Wolters has said about the Jag.
Mr Wolters played down the significance of the Jaguar despite Scotland Yard appealing for information about it.
He said the car was in Germany when Madeleine went missing and information about it was released only to jog memories. 'The vehicles are not of direct interest for the Madeleine case,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8424065/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-told-letter-written-German-prosecutors-dead.html
It probably would have taken a week to actually process, so it may still have shown up as him being the owner / keeper.
-
If I recall you kept that complement or similar for Redwood .
I have never insulted Redwood. I just think he didn't understand what he was talking about.
-
All Bruckner needs to do is say nothing just like Kate McCann did at the Arguido interview. If the Germans have no evidence that he killed Madeleine then I'm afraid questioning Bruckner will achieve nothing.
The German Court of Judges might think differently.
-
Which imo is why its where its at just 3 months shy of 2 yrs of being the prime suspect.
Much longer than that surely, that's when he was 'outed'
-
The German Court of Judges might think differently.
Think it'll get there.
-
Much longer than that surely, that's when he was 'outed'
Well 2013 when the BKA first had a natter with him, they've not said anything to him about Madeleine since so it would seem
-
OK, I have pointed out the wording on the BKA site about the registration of the jag, how illogical it would be to do such a thing the day after and that Wolters has said the jag was in Germany when Madeleine went missing so lets leave the jag.
Regarding the phone call the wording on the BKA website is also slightly less than definite it says:
"In addition, he was almost certainly using the Portuguese mobile number +351 912 730 680 at the time"
The use of the word almost indicates a lack of certainty in their belief that it was CB on the phone.
How would it hold up in court if they said “We are almost certain it was him on the phone”?
This is one reason why they haven’t yet gone to court and were hoping to get more evidence to make it a certainty rather than an almost certainty.
-
Think it'll get there.
I don't know.
-
This is one reason why they haven’t yet gone to court and were hoping to get more evidence to make it a certainty rather than an almost certainty.
All Brueckner has to do is to refuse to cooperate. And then he will be found guilty.
-
I think there's just the little matter of proof required in there somewhere
-
All Brueckner has to do is to refuse to cooperate. And then he will be found guilty.
That's a strange justice system.
-
I think there's just the little matter of proof required in there somewhere
Yep. Proof of where he was that night.
-
Yep. Proof of where he was that night.
Yup, but that's for the prosecutors to prove, not him
-
That's a strange justice system.
Brueckner will likely eventually have to answer questions. He does have a right to defend himself, even in Germany.
If he refuses to do so then there is only one conclusion. And not only In My Opinion.
-
Yup, but that's for the prosecutors to prove, not him
His phone was in Luz. They can prove that.
-
Brueckner will likely eventually have to answer questions. He does have a right to defend himself, even in Germany.
If he refuses to do so then there is only one conclusion. And not only In My Opinion.
The right to not self incriminate is established in German law.
No inference can be reached by a suspects refusal to testify and they have the absolute right to remain silent.
Self Incrimination
When authorities question a suspect, they must make it clear that any statement may be used against him or her. A suspect can’t be compelled to testify against himself or herself, and has the absolute right, without undue influence, to remain silent.
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html
-
His phone was in Luz. They can prove that.
Can they ? Saying it doesn't make it so.
-
His phone was in Luz. They can prove that.
This is from the BKA's own English translation regarding the phone
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in
the time period in question"
They use the words he almost certainly used the mobile number....
Almost certainly is not definitive. It doesn't sound like proof to me.
-
This is from the BKA's own English translation regarding the phone
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in
the time period in question"
They use the words he almost certainly used the mobile number....
Almost certainly is not definitive. It doesn't sound like proof to me.
His phone was in Luz as Eleanor said. End of.
-
The right to not self incriminate is established in German law.
No inference can be reached by a suspects refusal to testify and they have the absolute right to remain silent.
Self Incrimination
When authorities question a suspect, they must make it clear that any statement may be used against him or her. A suspect can’t be compelled to testify against himself or herself, and has the absolute right, without undue influence, to remain silent.
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html
What a good idea. But Judges and Juries do have the right to form their own conclusions from other evidence. And rest assured that there is other evidence.
-
This is from the BKA's own English translation regarding the phone
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in
the time period in question"
They use the words he almost certainly used the mobile number....
Almost certainly is not definitive. It doesn't sound like proof to me.
They'll need to persuade the judges of that for it to be accepted as proof.
-
This is from the BKA's own English translation regarding the phone
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in
the time period in question"
They use the words he almost certainly used the mobile number....
Almost certainly is not definitive. It doesn't sound like proof to me.
A call was made to that phone, which was answered and for half an hour. Not quite the same thing.
-
What a good idea. But Judges and Juries do have the right to form their own conclusions from other evidence. And rest assured that there is other evidence.
There probably is, but will it stand up to scrutiny ?
That of course all remains to be seen.
-
You all have just sussed the way for every criminal to avoid Justice. Don't say anything.
How is that working for the criminal fraternity?
-
Time should have been of the essence, which it wasn't to The PJ.
I am more interested in Amaral's attempts to blatantly misrepresent Brueckner.
I find Amaral's blatant interference in the German case absolutely riveting. It is among the most bizarre disruptions I have ever heard of.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when the video which categorically revealed him as an unmitigated liar was released!
-
I find Amaral's blatant interference in the German case absolutely riveting. It is among the most bizarre disruptions I have ever heard of.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when the video which categorically revealed him as an unmitigated liar was released!
Amaral interfered with the course of justice and should be charged with such.
-
Amaral interfered with the course of justice and should be charged with such.
Something else that would need to be proved. Opinion is not enough.
-
A call was made to that phone, which was answered and for half an hour. Not quite the same thing.
Perhaps a call was made to that phone number, but as the BKA’s own website points out they are not 100% certain that phone number belonged to Brueckner. This what they say about it
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in the time period in question"
-
Perhaps a call was made to that phone number, but as the BKA’s own website points out they are not 100% certain that phone number belonged to Brueckner. This what they say about it
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in the time period in question"
Simple answer. Ask him.
-
I have this strong feeling of Deja Vu.
-
Perhaps a call was made to that phone number, but as the BKA’s own website points out they are not 100% certain that phone number belonged to Brueckner. This what they say about it
"In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in the time period in question"
What percentage certain is “almost” - more than 60-80%?
-
What percentage certain is “almost” - more than 60-80%?
90%? Any advance on 90? Do I hear it for 95?
-
90%? Any advance on 90? Do I hear it for 95?
Ask the Germans. They have the evidence - allegedly
-
Which imo is why its where its at just 3 months shy of 2 yrs of being the prime suspect.
Three years and two months is an irrelevance in the time scale of Madeleine's case which has been on the go for fifteen years.
There are other charges pending against Brueckner. Among which >
Brueckner was a suspect in a sex crime in an Algarve playground as recently as 2017.
He was held on suspicion of exposing himself to children. Police discovered Brueckner was wanted in Germany so did not prosecute him for the alleged crime, but they reopened the case last year.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-suspects-pal-thinks-24238324
I think that is probably a slam dunk one as he was arrested by an off duty officer who I think had to stand between him and some irate parents.
-
90%? Any advance on 90? Do I hear it for 95?
All I know, its not 100%.
-
All I know, its not 100%.
Not yet, perhaps.
-
Simple answer. Ask him.
But this is the paradox of the phone call evidence. If the call was from a person also involved in the abduction that person is not going to the police to incriminate himself is he and if it was from just a casual friend he can say he was sitting at the seafront chatting innocently to his friend for half an hour.
If the call did happen, CB knows who made it, and could deny its existence if it was a person involved calling as he knows that person would not be likely to come forward so he could just say it was an old friend he had at the time, can’t remember his name.
Without someone coming forward saying they made the call the phone evidence is not much use IMO.
-
Something else that would need to be proved. Opinion is not enough.
Nothing at all to do with "opinion".
The internet is awash with proof all fronted by Amaral in person and in glorious technicolour spouting off to whichever TV programme he was being interviewed on at the time.
All while proudly holding up his photoshopped altered image of Brueckner and the painted van.
He lied - he has been caught out lying and has provided the proof of it.
-
But this is the paradox of the phone call evidence. If the call was from a person also involved in the abduction that person is not going to the police to incriminate himself is he and if it was from just a casual friend he can say he was sitting at the seafront chatting innocently to his friend for half an hour.
If the call did happen, CB knows who made it, and could deny its existence if it was a person involved calling as he knows that person would not be likely to come forward so he could just say it was an old friend he had at the time, can’t remember his name.
Without someone coming forward saying they made the call the phone evidence is not much use IMO.
Haven't they already found this person on another Thread?
-
All I know, its not 100%.
And yet 60-80% is good enough for some people.
-
Simple answer. Ask him.
With him in prison its not like they can't find him, but they seem very reticent in engaging with him don't they.
-
Haven't they already found this person on another Thread?
Yes, it was his girlfriend Nicole F I believe.
-
Haven't they already found this person on another Thread?
I think we have to call that speculation at this point.
-
Nothing at all to do with "opinion".
The internet is awash with proof all fronted by Amaral in person and in glorious technicolour spouting off to whichever TV programme he was being interviewed on at the time.
All while proudly holding up his photoshopped altered image of Brueckner and the painted van.
He lied - he has been caught out lying and has provided the proof of it.
As far as I'm aware he didn't make these statements to investigating police or under oath in a court of law. but in some TV documentary or other. He was giving his opinion as have many others.
-
As far as I'm aware he didn't make these statements to investigating police or under oath in a court of law. but in some TV documentary or other. He was giving his opinion as have many others.
No what he was doing was lying.
-
Yes, it was his girlfriend Nicole F I believe.
Ah, yes. She phoned him so can't supply him with an alibi for the rest of the evening.
-
As far as I'm aware he didn't make these statements to investigating police or under oath in a court of law. but in some TV documentary or other. He was giving his opinion as have many others.
With curly dread locks and all. That was some opinion.
-
With curly dread locks and all. That was some opinion.
Sure, but it's not something he could be prosecuted for.
-
Sure, but it's not something he could be prosecuted for.
The disappointment is palpable.
-
The disappointment is palpable.
I did find the cartoons on Brueckner's van quite amusing.
-
As far as I'm aware he didn't make these statements to investigating police or under oath in a court of law. but in some TV documentary or other. He was giving his opinion as have many others.
His opinion presented as it was from December 2021 onwards could be construed as perverting the course of justice whether or not Brueckner ever sees the inside of a court. At the very least Amaral interfered with an active police investigation only on this occasion his his lies soon became apparent.
-
Sure, but it's not something he could be prosecuted for.
Don't know about that.
-
His opinion presented as it was from December 2021 onwards could be construed as perverting the course of justice whether or not Brueckner ever sees the inside of a court. At the very least Amaral interfered with an active police investigation only on this occasion his his lies soon became apparent.
You do make me laugh Brietta dear.
-
Don't know about that.
Think about it. What crime? What jurisdiction
-
Think about it. What crime? What jurisdiction
The BKA - SY - the PJ are not only thinking, they are actively processing just that.
-
The BKA - SY - the PJ are not only thinking, they are actively processing just that.
Away with you. Total fantasy
-
This is what the update in June 20 said, nothing different since then.
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Cranwell, who leads Operation Grange, said:
“It’s more than 13 years since Madeleine went missing and none of us can
imagine what it must be like for her family, not knowing what happened or
where she is.
“Following the ten- year anniversary, the Met received information about a
German man who was known to have been in and around Praia da Luz. We
have been working with colleagues in Germany and Portugal and this man
is a suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance.
“The Met conducted a number of enquiries and in November 2017 engaged
with the BKA who agreed to work with the Met.
“Since then a huge amount of work has taken place by both the Met, the
BKA and the Polícia Judiciária.
“While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement
and this remains a missing person inquiry.
“Our job as detectives is to follow the evidence, maintain an open mind and
establish what happened on that day in May 2007
-
But this is the paradox of the phone call evidence. If the call was from a person also involved in the abduction that person is not going to the police to incriminate himself is he and if it was from just a casual friend he can say he was sitting at the seafront chatting innocently to his friend for half an hour.
If the call did happen, CB knows who made it, and could deny its existence if it was a person involved calling as he knows that person would not be likely to come forward so he could just say it was an old friend he had at the time, can’t remember his name.
Without someone coming forward saying they made the call the phone evidence is not much use IMO.
Without someone coming forward saying they made the call the phone evidence is not much use IMO.
That number belonged to Nicole F?
-
Without someone coming forward saying they made the call the phone evidence is not much use IMO.
That number belonged to Nicole F?
Are you telling me that the call was from Nicole F, or asking me if it was?
If you are asking, I have no idea.
If you are telling me it was, how are you so sure?
-
Are you telling me that the call was from Nicole F, or asking me if it was?
If you are asking, I have no idea.
If you are telling me it was, how are you so sure?
Look up the recent information regarding documentaries and alibis and I think all may be revealed to you.
-
Are you telling me that the call was from Nicole F, or asking me if it was?
If you are asking, I have no idea.
If you are telling me it was, how are you so sure?
I can’t be sure but Jutta Rabe’s documentary points to that.
-
Look up the recent information regarding documentaries and alibis and I think all may be revealed to you.
No I have heard it mentioned on the Sat 1 documentary but is that the absolute truth to you?
That's all the evidence you need? Someone said it on a documentary. Good for you, but I am a bit more sceptical of any made for entertainment documentary.
-
I can’t be sure but Jutta Rabe’s documentary points to that.
It may well be the case that the call was from Nicole F, but the BKA website is still soliciting for information regarding the caller even now after nearly two years. If it was Nicole F, how did an investigative journalist find out so easy when the BKA have reportedly 100 men on the case. Now maybe the BKA have known this info all along but as Nicole F was known to them from the beginning surely they asked her if it was her number.
-
It may well be the case that the call was from Nicole F, but the BKA website is still soliciting for information regarding the caller even now after nearly two years. If it was Nicole F, how did an investigative journalist find out so easy when the BKA have reportedly 100 men on the case. Now maybe the BKA have known this info all along but as Nicole F was known to them from the beginning surely they asked her if it was her number.
The BKA put the caller’s number in the public domain. I believe they had success in identifying the person.
-
The BKA put the caller’s number in the public domain. I believe they had success in identifying the person.
I know the BKA put the number in the public domain its on their website right now. I missed the bit where the BKA announced they had success in identifying the person but I am happy to read it if you post it.
-
I know the BKA put the number in the public domain its on their website right now. I missed the bit where the BKA announced they had success in identifying the person but I am happy to read it if you post it.
I didn’t say/meant the BKA as such, announced it. The person who identified the number, seems credible given the friendship.
-
I didn’t say/meant the BKA as such, announced it. The person who identified the number, seems credible given the friendship.
So you are talking about the Sat 1 documentary.
Weren't you questioning whether it was Nikolov rather than Nicole F earlier? What convinced you it was indeed Nicole F?
-
So you are talking about the Sat 1 documentary.
Weren't you questioning whether it was Nikolov rather than Nicole F earlier? What convinced you it was indeed Nicole F?
Who is Nikolov?
-
Who is Nikolov?
You posted to misty on March 21st, look on page 28 its there.
Very interesting, Misty. I believe it was Elke Piro who provided the information (?) The reference to ‘Nikolov’ - is that the Russian, Ivan Nikolov police were trying to trace? The Sat1 documentary is no longer available but I believe it will shortly be on UK television.
-
You posted to misty on March 21st, look on page 28 its there.
Very interesting, Misty. I believe it was Elke Piro who provided the information (?) The reference to ‘Nikolov’ - is that the Russian, Ivan Nikolov police were trying to trace? The Sat1 documentary is no longer available but I believe it will shortly be on UK television.
That seemed to be a subtitle error. Nikolov instead of Nicole F.
-
That seemed to be a subtitle error. Nikolov instead of Nicole F.
But when you watched it you thought it referred to Ivan Nikolov as you further posted on the same day
"I thought she was talking about another person called ‘Nikolov’ or is it a subtitle error? Like you say, Nicole F. I have no additional information for ‘Ivan’ and just know the name came up in connection with CB and NF."
-
But Brueckner didn't get rid of the car, Sadie. He only changed the name of the registered owner. Why do that if he had nothing to hide?
Scratches her head thinking .
Err! Umm! ...........
Yep, what on earth did he do that for if he wasn't giving/ selling the car to his friend, Good thinking Elli
-
Scratches her head thinking .
Err! Umm! ...........
Yep, what on earth did he do that for if he wasn't giving/ selling the car to his friend, Good thinking Elli
I think that is the pertinent point. Why change the registration on a vehicle you had no intention of handing over and which remained in your possession.
Just very strange.
-
I think that is the pertinent point. Why change the registration on a vehicle you had no intention of handing over and which remained in your possession.
Just very strange.
Too easy that one. I reckon you can connect the dots.
Here's a hint: ching ching.
-
Too easy that one. I reckon you can connect the dots.
Here's a hint: ching ching.
How enigmatically you pursue any pretence of discussion. Tell me ... are you trying to be the forum comedienne; it isn't working if you are.
-
How enigmatically you pursue any pretence of discussion. Tell me ... are you trying to be the forum comedienne; it isn't working if you are.
Whilst highly intelligent, The General seems to be trying to give the impression of being a bit doolally.
I wonder why that could be?
Maybe it will work
-
Too easy that one. I reckon you can connect the dots.
Here's a hint: ching ching.
A fairly simple explanation is that he had no address in either country, which was probably necessary to register the car.
-
A fairly simple explanation is that he had no address in either country, which was probably necessary to register the car.
Are you suggesting that the Jaguar wasn't already registered in Brueckner's name?
In which case how could he reregister it and why would he want to?
-
Are you suggesting that the Jaguar wasn't already registered in Brueckner's name?
In which case how could he reregister it and why would he want to?
One can only guess, but it might have been previously registered at an address in Germany that he no longer had, particularly if the vehicle was already there.
Rather in the way you need to renew a driving licence if you change address.
-
Are you suggesting that the Jaguar wasn't already registered in Brueckner's name?
In which case how could he reregister it and why would he want to?
I don't know whose name it was registered in. All I know is that it was registered in Germany. Whether it had insurance and an MOT I don't know, but those are two things that might need sorting out using a fixed address.
-
One can only guess, but it might have been previously registered at an address in Germany that he no longer had, particularly if the vehicle was already there.
Rather in the way you need to renew a driving licence if you change address.
I don't think that is going to work. Brueckner hadn't lived in Germany for a very long time.
And presuming that what you suggest is true, why draw attention to yourself very shortly after Madeleine disappeared by reregistering a car to a third party that you hardly knew and had no intention of giving the car to them, unless you thought someone might be looking for the car?
Personally, I don't care, for other than forensic reasons. But it is much too late for that now.
-
I don't know whose name it was registered in. All I know is that it was registered in Germany. Whether it had insurance and an MOT I don't know, but those are two things that might need sorting out using a fixed address.
You don't seem to know very much at all.
No Insurance and No MOT? Why would Brueckner care all of a sudden?
-
I don't think that is going to work. Brueckner hadn't lived in Germany for a very long time.
And presuming that what you suggest is true, why draw attention to yourself very shortly after Madeleine disappeared by reregistering a car to a third party that you hardly knew and had no intention of giving the car to them, unless you thought someone might be looking for the car?
Personally, I don't care, for other than forensic reasons. But it is much too late for that now.
With the Schengen borders policy does an EU citizen have to have a residing address for a vehicle if so where ? if living a transient lifestyle ?
-
With the Schengen borders policy does an EU citizen have to have a residing address for a vehicle if so where ? if living a transient lifestyle ?
Yes, you do have to have a residing address. Number Plates are changed according to where you keep the car.
-
Are you suggesting that the Jaguar wasn't already registered in Brueckner's name?
In which case how could he reregister it and why would he want to?
Quite simple really, I recently sold on a second hand car for the eldest, she didn't need to be there, no signature needed all electronic. As to the why only CB would know, anyone asked him, no thought not .
-
I don't think that is going to work. Brueckner hadn't lived in Germany for a very long time.
And presuming that what you suggest is true, why draw attention to yourself very shortly after Madeleine disappeared by reregistering a car to a third party that you hardly knew and had no intention of giving the car to them, unless you thought someone might be looking for the car?
Personally, I don't care, for other than forensic reasons. But it is much too late for that now.
If the Portuguese were looking for the car it remained in the area afaik, so it was findable and, once found, connectable to Brueckner. Who else might have been looking for it?
-
Yes, you do have to have a residing address. Number Plates are changed according to where you keep the car.
Thank you, just for arguments sake, say CB went over the border to Spain and thought he'd stay how soon is he supposed to register an address ?
-
If the Portuguese were looking for the car it remained in the area afaik, so it was findable and, once found, connectable to Brueckner. Who else might have been looking for it?
That was my point. Sadly, The PJ didn't look for anything to do with Brueckner.
-
How enigmatically you pursue any pretence of discussion. Tell me ... are you trying to be the forum comedienne; it isn't working if you are.
Are you goading me lad?
-
Thank you, just for arguments sake, say CB went over the border to Spain and thought he'd stay how soon is he supposed to register an address ?
So long as you have an address registered in some country then you don't need to change anything.
I drove a French Registered car in England on several occasions over a number of years.
-
With the Schengen borders policy does an EU citizen have to have a residing address for a vehicle if so where ? if living a transient lifestyle ?
If the vehicle is bought outside of Germany it needs to receive an Inspection Cert from TUV, as a used car almost certainly won't have one.
This process takes weeks by way, well it did for me back before 2007 - about 6 weeks from application to finish.
It's probably quicker now, but our man CB would have known this. So just swapping the legal owner means very little for at least a couple of weeks. This aspect of this case is irrelevant.
-
So long as you have an address registered in some country then you don't need to change anything.
I drove a French Registered car in England on several occasions over a number of years.
It didn't work that way in Germany pre-2015, Eleanor. If you moved States then you needed to re-register your vehicle in the new state. You were then allocated new number plates pertaining to that particular state.
https://www.customeuropeanplates.com/german-license-plate-codes
I understand this rule no longer applies.
Brueckner was driving the Jag in Portugal in 2004 on a German licence plate - he was stopped by police & charged with some sort of offence. I will find the screenshot of the reg from my old computer & add it later as proof.
-
It didn't work that way in Germany pre-2015, Eleanor. If you moved States then you needed to re-register your vehicle in the new state. You were then allocated new number plates pertaining to that particular state.
https://www.customeuropeanplates.com/german-license-plate-codes
I understand this rule no longer applies.
Brueckner was driving the Jag in Portugal in 2004 on a German licence plate - he was stopped by police & charged with some sort of offence. I will find the screenshot of the reg from my old computer & add it later as proof.
I have this number plate for the Jaguar, Misty. A NM 816. A = Augsburg, Bavaria, Hanover would be H, Jaguar had M = München plates in 2004.
-
I have this number plate for the Jaguar, Misty. A NM 816. A = Augsburg, Bavaria, Hanover would be H, Jaguar had M = München plates in 2004.
Here's the SS confirming the Burgundy Jag was on Munich plates in Portugal in 2004.
-
The significance of this what ?
-
The significance of this what ?
Zero. It's one of the many dead legs down the CB rabbit hole.
It's meaningless. ICHTT put it best, if anyone thinks CB thought it would put the police off his trail is deluded (sic).
-
The significance of this what ?
Just imagine that instead of Brueckner doing this if either Gerry or any of the the McCann friends did this or something similar the hundreds or thousands of significances which would be found.
Imagine the documentaries ~ the books ~ the hours of pundit discussions generated; as has already been done on trivia which had nothing to do with nothing.
Brueckner had a reason for doing everything he did and I will be very surprised if we don't find out in the fullness of time that this was one box which intrigued the investigators into his crimes.
-
Just imagine that instead of Brueckner doing this if either Gerry or any of the the McCann friends did this or something similar the hundreds or thousands of significances which would be found.
Imagine the documentaries ~ the books ~ the hours of pundit discussions generated; as has already been done on trivia which had nothing to do with nothing.
Brueckner had a reason for doing everything he did and I will be very surprised if we don't find out in the fullness of time that this was one box which intrigued the investigators into his crimes.
It wass the identification of the number plate I was querying the significance of.
-
It wass the identification of the number plate I was querying the significance of.
You queried the significance. Just as I do. But unlike you I'm working along the lines of applying Brueckner's role in a box ticking exercise and making comparisons.
Makes for a livelier conversation with other 'know nothing' posters but those who are interested in the nuances of the case made against Brueckner.
Great! You obviously know nothing as neither do I. But who knows ~ another member might have a clearer idea ~ might be nice to allow them the space to get back at us with it. Constant negativity must be so boring for you.
-
The significance of this what ?
It’s significant because it adds to Brückner’s way of operating.
-
It’s significant because it adds to Brückner’s way of operating.
On whose say so?
-
It’s significant because it adds to Brückner’s way of operating.
Legally? He was operating legally by going through the administration element of selling a vehicle in Germany. And this on the back of apparently abducting, raping and killing a small child.
It all makes sense now.
-
Legally? He was operating legally by going through the administration element of selling a vehicle in Germany. And this on the back of apparently abducting, raping and killing a small child.
It all makes sense now.
But he didn't sell the vehicle or even give it away. So why bother with the Administration Element. Unless he had something to hide.
-
It’s significant because it adds to Brückner’s way of operating.
What, knowing what the number plate was. How does that help ?
-
What, knowing what the number plate was. How does that help ?
The Jaguar was already registered in Germany, so why change it after some years?
-
The Jaguar was already registered in Germany, so why change it after some years?
No idea, but are you any the wiser for knowing the registration number ?
-
No idea, but are you any the wiser for knowing the registration number ?
I am only interested in why he changed the name of the registered owner from one German National to another, but since it was picked eventually and is now in the hands of The German Authorities, I don't suppose that any significance will have been missed.
-
Legally? He was operating legally by going through the administration element of selling a vehicle in Germany. And this on the back of apparently abducting, raping and killing a small child.
It all makes sense now.
I don't know what the diagnostics are regarding Brueckner but his proven record contains examples of psychotic behaviour including the abuse of children.
Were I you I would not glibly dismiss the fact that there are individuals who are perfectly capable of performing the basest of crimes described by you, against children or even geriatric women while presenting a normal persona to everyone else around them.
Rapists and murderers don't have it stamped on their foreheads, they look and behave pretty much like everyone else, that's how they get away with it.
The best that investigators can do is to look for a profile and from my reading of like individuals Brueckner ticks every box and then some on that recognised sheet. Much as police investigators seem to acknowledge by making him prime suspect in the crimes against Madeleine.
-
I am only interested in why he changed the name of the registered owner from one German National to another, but since it was picked eventually and is now in the hands of The German Authorities, I don't suppose that any significance will have been missed.
Whatever his reason for changing the name on the documentation I think it was done for short term expediency.
For example, were he to be stopped for any reason the record would show that Brueckner had never been there but the patsy who had allowed his name to be used, had.
He had a reason for coming to that arrangement. He knows it and probably the police know too. As for the rest of us we can only wonder except for those among us who appear to have no difficulty creating fantasies where a perfectly legit vehicle is concerned but find Brueckner's actions all present and correct in apparently covering his trail.
-
Whatever his reason for changing the name on the documentation I think it was done for short term expediency.
For example, were he to be stopped for any reason the record would show that Brueckner had never been there but the patsy who had allowed his name to be used, had.
He had a reason for coming to that arrangement. He knows it and probably the police know too. As for the rest of us we can only wonder except for those among us who appear to have no difficulty creating fantasies where a perfectly legit vehicle is concerned but find Brueckner's actions all present and correct in apparently covering his trail.
Something caused Brueckner to do this. I don't know what it was, but it sounds like panic to me as an almost immediate afterthought.
The new registered owner would have very quickly been out of any frame as he actually was in Germany.
This was the beginning of the whole thing falling apart as far as I can see. One small and probably unnecessary mistake. Unfortunately, The PJ didn't spot any of this, including his Jaguar. It is only now that it has become relevant by what Brueckner did do.
However, Brueckner did do this and he must have had a reason. It is logged and on record so cannot be argued otherwise.
-
Something caused Brueckner to do this. I don't know what it was, but it sounds like panic to me as an almost immediate afterthought.
The new registered owner would have very quickly been out of any frame as he actually was in Germany.
This was the beginning of the whole thing falling apart as far as I can see. One small and probably unnecessary mistake. Unfortunately, The PJ didn't spot any of this, including his Jaguar. It is only now that it has become relevant by what Brueckner did do.
However, Brueckner did do this and he must have had a reason. It is logged and on record so cannot be argued otherwise.
I think we need to wait and see if it has any relevance - i.e. if he is charged with anything related to Madeleine.
-
I think we need to wait and see if it has any relevance - i.e. if he is charged with anything related to Madeleine.
Indeed we do. I still haven't thrown my hat into the ring against Brueckner.
Thank you for always remaining relatively pleasant.
-
Indeed we do. I still haven't thrown my hat into the ring against Brueckner.
Thank you for always remaining relatively pleasant.
I try. 8)-))) I see no point in getting uptight over things on here or indeed over things in general.
-
Indeed we do. I still haven't thrown my hat into the ring against Brueckner.
Thank you for always remaining relatively pleasant.
Nor me. I stil haven't thrown my hat into the ring either
But I can see a good many pointers and will keep on looking for more.
-
Nor me. I stil haven't thrown my hat into the ring either
But I can see a good many pointers and will keep on looking for more.
One has to admit that there are a few pointers. But Brueckner might just have Abducted Madeleine and nothing more.
It is all academic to me now.
-
Something caused Brueckner to do this. I don't know what it was, but it sounds like panic to me as an almost immediate afterthought.
The new registered owner would have very quickly been out of any frame as he actually was in Germany.
This was the beginning of the whole thing falling apart as far as I can see. One small and probably unnecessary mistake. Unfortunately, The PJ didn't spot any of this, including his Jaguar. It is only now that it has become relevant by what Brueckner did do.
However, Brueckner did do this and he must have had a reason. It is logged and on record so cannot be argued otherwise.
Hindsight is an exact science but there was a time when a little foresight on behalf of the investigators might have resolved the situation at the time.
I think the failure to check the phone pings at the time is extraordinary bearing in mind the amount of attention concentrated on those of the McCann party. Maybe they did; because it remains a bit of a mystery why the PJ attempted to speak to Brueckner.
So it had to be that or they were acting on intelligence which we know nothing about.
He definitely had a reason to change the car registration and I would not rely on the timing being coincidental.
-
Hindsight is an exact science but there was a time when a little foresight on behalf of the investigators might have resolved the situation at the time.
I think the failure to check the phone pings at the time is extraordinary bearing in mind the amount of attention concentrated on those of the McCann party. Maybe they did; because it remains a bit of a mystery why the PJ attempted to speak to Brueckner.
So it had to be that or they were acting on intelligence which we know nothing about.
He definitely had a reason to change the car registration and I would not rely on the timing being coincidental.
Yep. Why did The PJ knock on whatever door they thought belonged to Brueckner? And then never go back or attempt to pursue it?
Amaral has opened a can of his own worms.
-
Yep. Why did The PJ knock on whatever door they thought belonged to Brueckner? And then never go back or attempt to pursue it?
Amaral has opened a can of his own worms.
Of course in order to preserve the integrity of the PJ it is now incumbent on any sceptic worth his or her salt to doubt that Amaral was actually telling the truth about this particular alleged piece of half-hearted policing.
-
Of course in order to preserve the integrity of the PJ it is now incumbent on any sceptic worth his or her salt to doubt that Amaral was actually telling the truth about this particular alleged piece of half-hearted policing.
A bit of this and that will now follow. If anything follows at all.
Dread Locks. Cartoons. And Brueckner was never there. Which was it?
-
Apart from this 8pm phone call, is it known if is there any other record of this phone being used on and around that date ?
-
Apart from this 8pm phone call, is it known if is there any other record of this phone being used on and around that date ?
The dates requested were 2nd, 3rd and 4th May. Only one record featuring Brueckner's alleged number has been mentioned.
-
I am only interested in why he changed the name of the registered owner from one German National to another, but since it was picked eventually and is now in the hands of The German Authorities, I don't suppose that any significance will have been missed.
Or added to it.
-
Or added to it.
There is no need to add anything.
-
It’s significant because it adds to Brückner’s way of operating.
I agree Anthro, not long after he re registered his car he fled to Germany.
He has a history of committing a crime and running away.
-
I agree Anthro, not long after he re registered his car he fled to Germany.
He has a history of committing a crime and running away.
Very sensible if you ask me. And it did seem to work, at least for a while.
-
I agree Anthro, not long after he re registered his car he fled to Germany.
He has a history of committing a crime and running away.
Yet he raped an elderly woman and went back again, hardly running away.
-
Yet he raped an elderly woman and went back again, hardly running away.
Gee, what a hero.
-
Gee, what a hero.
Oh Dear. That really shouldn't be funny.
-
Gee, what a hero.
I didn't realise you were a fan of his from your ramblings.
-
I didn't realise you were a fan of his from your ramblings.
Whereas I already knew you had comprehension issues.
-
Whereas I already knew you had comprehension issues.
Don't give up your day job, trying to be catty is above your station.
-
Don't give up your day job, trying to be catty is above your station.
Are you suggesting I'm not catty enough, or sufficiently good at being catty? Well in a way that's possibly the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
BTW , did you know that in my day job I am actually a cat handler? It's a job I have no intention of giving up - thank you and miaow.
-
A fairly simple explanation is that he had no address in either country, which was probably necessary to register the car.
If he had no address in Portugal, what door did the Police knock on? Amaral said the Police knocked on his door so they must have known where he lived. Unless it's not true.
-
No one had asked any questions about the Jaguar for a number of years. So why bother then?
-
If he had no address in Portugal, what door did the Police knock on? Amaral said the Police knocked on his door so they must have known where he lived. Unless it's not true.
His last known address?
-
His last known address?
Don't you think it strange that CB left his home and registered his car to his friend, just after Madeleine disappeared? He then left the area.
-
Don't you think it strange that CB left his home and registered his car to his friend, just after Madeleine disappeared? He then left the area.
I thought he never returned to his former home after his release from prison in late 2006 for stealing of diesel?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8439677/Portuguese-police-unwittingly-destroyed-Christian-Brueckners-van-searched.html
-
I thought he never returned to his former home after his release from prison in late 2006 for stealing of diesel?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8439677/Portuguese-police-unwittingly-destroyed-Christian-Brueckners-van-searched.html
So what was Amaral talking about when he said they knocked on Brueckner's door?
-
I don't know what the diagnostics are regarding Brueckner but his proven record contains examples of psychotic behaviour including the abuse of children.
Were I you I would not glibly dismiss the fact that there are individuals who are perfectly capable of performing the basest of crimes described by you, against children or even geriatric women while presenting a normal persona to everyone else around them.
Rapists and murderers don't have it stamped on their foreheads, they look and behave pretty much like everyone else, that's how they get away with it.
The best that investigators can do is to look for a profile and from my reading of like individuals Brueckner ticks every box and then some on that recognised sheet. Much as police investigators seem to acknowledge by making him prime suspect in the crimes against Madeleine.
Rapists and abusers don't normally commit murder. This is the basic difficulty with Bruckner, he might fit some boxes but he certainly doesn't have the profile of a killer.
-
I thought he never returned to his former home after his release from prison in late 2006 for stealing of diesel?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8439677/Portuguese-police-unwittingly-destroyed-Christian-Brueckners-van-searched.html
It says he left the property in November 2007. IMO he didn't want the car to be connected to the house, he was going to do a runner.
Strange he didn't pay his fine, yet he suddenly possessed a huge camper van.
-
Rapists and abusers don't normally commit murder. This is the basic difficulty with Bruckner, he might fit some boxes but he certainly doesn't have the profile of a killer.
Some end up committing murder John. I hope Madeleine wasn't murdered I hope she was sold hopefully for adoption.
-
Some end up committing murder John. I hope Madeleine wasn't murdered I hope she was sold hopefully for adoption.
So do I.
-
Rapists and abusers don't normally commit murder. This is the basic difficulty with Bruckner, he might fit some boxes but he certainly doesn't have the profile of a killer.
Why are you being so obtuse? What are the defining characteristics of a killer, pray tell?
-
It says he left the property in November 2007. IMO he didn't want the car to be connected to the house, he was going to do a runner.
Strange he didn't pay his fine, yet he suddenly possessed a huge camper van.
It says he was released from prison in December 2006. He had given an address in Barrocal, but wasn't there when police went there in November 2007;
"Brueckner and Tatschl were caught red handed in April 2006 after they had already stolen 300 litres of fuel and were jailed for seven months.
They were released in December 2006 but were ordered to pay compensation for the stolen fuel in the form of a fine.
But Brueckner never paid the fine and when police tried to enforce payment in November 2007 he had disappeared from the address in Barrocal that he had given the court."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8439677/Portuguese-police-unwittingly-destroyed-Christian-Brueckners-van-searched.html
-
It says he was released from prison in December 2006. He had given an address in Barrocal, but wasn't there when police went there in November 2007;
"Brueckner and Tatschl were caught red handed in April 2006 after they had already stolen 300 litres of fuel and were jailed for seven months.
They were released in December 2006 but were ordered to pay compensation for the stolen fuel in the form of a fine.
But Brueckner never paid the fine and when police tried to enforce payment in November 2007 he had disappeared from the address in Barrocal that he had given the court."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8439677/Portuguese-police-unwittingly-destroyed-Christian-Brueckners-van-searched.html
Barrocal was where Bernhard Piro had his breaker's yard.
-
Interesting post on WS. Wolters has had information from an Australian and Paraguayan investigation. It may well be that this evidence is not admissible in German courts but there has been a recent court ruling in Germany to clarify the situation
It's speculation but its an explanation for Wolters being 100% certain of CBs guilt..... But not wishing to prosecute at the moment. If he goes to court without it and CB gets off.. He will not be able to use it at any future trial
-
Rapists and abusers don't normally commit murder. This is the basic difficulty with Bruckner, he might fit some boxes but he certainly doesn't have the profile of a killer.
I disagree, John. I think he fits the profile to a T. So obviously does Amaral as he struggles to convince this is why he was "chosen" to be the patsy.
Nobody is a murderer until caught and successfully prosecuted. Just as Brueckner wasn't a rapist and torturer until he was caught and eventually successfully prosecuted.
-
I dunno. I don't know any Rapists and Torturers. But it doesn't sound frightfully sane to me.
And besides, it would be so much easier to dispose of the body of a four year old child should the desire to kill overcome you.
Brueckner is undoubtedly a Psychopath and Psychopaths do often kill, although probably not on the first occasion.
They are also not entirely stupid. Saying he doesn't fit The Profile is naive to say the least.
-
On whose decision is a profile made, look what happened to Colin Stagg, evidence which a court decides leads to proof is what will convict, the legend is writ.
-
On whose decision is a profile made, look what happened to Colin Stagg, evidence which a court decides leads to proof is what will convict, the legend is writ.
Well yes, how accurate is a profile. I think Herri had something to say on profiling a short while back.
The danger is believing a profile is anything more than an opinion.
-
On whose decision is a profile made, look what happened to Colin Stagg, evidence which a court decides leads to proof is what will convict, the legend is writ.
There you go. My point precisely.
-
Well yes, how accurate is a profile. I think Herri had something to say on profiling a short while back.
The danger is believing a profile is anything more than an opinion.
So you think that John is wrong. But then so do I.
-
Well yes, how accurate is a profile. I think Herri had something to say on profiling a short while back.
The danger is believing a profile is anything more than an opinion.
Two issues from the very start,1: was CB in Luz at the time.2: Is Madeleine definitely dead and on whose say so .
-
Two issues from the very start,1: was CB in Luz at the time.2: Is Madeleine definitely dead and on whose say so .
According to Wolters she is.. As much as it can be shown Rui Pedro is.
I remember Wolters clarifying early doors..
We don't have definitive proof she is dead but she is unlikely to have survived what our evidence shows.
-
Two issues from the very start,1: was CB in Luz at the time.2: Is Madeleine definitely dead and on whose say so .
Number 3 was Madeleine the victim of a paedophile ?
-
Well yes, how accurate is a profile. I think Herri had something to say on profiling a short while back.
The danger is believing a profile is anything more than an opinion.
I think it's sceptics who in the main don't understand profiling... Look at the support Pat Brown gets.. Then statement analysis... Opinion.. Body language experts.. Opinion....cadaver dogs... Opinion
But most sceptics seem to swallow it all
-
According to Wolters she is.. As much as it can be shown Rui Pedro is.
I remember Wolters clarifying early doors..
We don't have definitive proof she is dead but she is unlikely to have survived what our evidence shows.
Lets run with that, he says she's dead, what's the connection to CB, remember no photo with CB and Madeleine together, its circumstantial, circumstantial possibly doesn't cut it in a German court , forensics nailed CB for the rape, no scientific evidence in this case .
You're one of Amarals biggest critics, whats different about what Wolters say's, he's said if you knew what I knew you'd reach the same conclusion , is that it , his word ?
-
Two issues from the very start,1: was CB in Luz at the time.2: Is Madeleine definitely dead and on whose say so .
Brueckner's phone was in Luz at the time. I don't know if Madeleine is dead.
Your comments don't offer much to reply to which leads me to suspect that you are reluctant to engage.
-
I think it's sceptics who in the main don't understand profiling... Look at the support Pat Brown gets.. Then statement analysis... Opinion.. Body language experts.. Opinion....cadaver dogs... Opinion
But most sceptics seem to swallow it all
You on the other hand swallow what a German prosecutor tells you with out being remotely interested in that he can't produce any facts.
-
Lets run with that, he says she's dead, what's the connection to CB, remember no photo with CB and Madeleine together, its circumstantial, circumstantial possibly doesn't cut it in a German court , forensics nailed CB for the rape, no scientific evidence in this case .
You're one of Amarals biggest critics, whats different about what Wolters say's, he's said if you knew what I knew you'd reach the same conclusion , is that it , his word ?
Not yet. Something might yet miraculously appear - say a recycled pubic hair. 8(0(*
-
Number 3 was Madeleine the victim of a paedophile ?
Or was she just abducted?
-
No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.
-
Not yet. Something might yet miraculously appear - say a recycled pubic hair. 8(0(*
Unlikely but I get your drift, any scientific evidence will have been gone over to the nth degree and then some.
-
No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.
Or was she just abducted?
It is of note that Wolters hasn't mentioned 5a.
-
No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.
If Wolters has the evidence he has suggested he doesnt need to
-
If Wolters has the evidence he has suggested he doesnt need to
When you actually read of what he's suggested it adds up to nothing but his circumstantial.
-
No one has yet conclusively demonstrated how she disappeared.
Goodness me. There's clever.
-
Amaral says he knew about CB back in 2007 -
Amaral said his detectives found nothing to suggest the German was involved in Madeleine’s abduction.
So he didn't notice his phone being used near to the Tapas Bar. Isn't it such a shame he didn't look into him more closely. He could have checked his van and house for DNA. 8(8-))
Mind, if he thought he had dreadlocks and cartoon characters on his van, did he look at the wrong person?
-
Amaral says he knew about CB back in 2007 -
Amaral said his detectives found nothing to suggest the German was involved in Madeleine’s abduction.
So he didn't notice his phone being used near to the Tapas Bar. Isn't it such a shame he didn't look into him more closely. He could have checked his van and house for DNA. 8(8-))
Mind, if he thought he had dreadlocks and cartoon characters on his van, did he look at the wrong person?
Amaral didn't think Brueckner had dreadlocks or cartoon characters on his van. Amaral lied. We don't know why he lied. We only know that he did lie.
-
I think it's sceptics who in the main don't understand profiling... Look at the support Pat Brown gets.. Then statement analysis... Opinion.. Body language experts.. Opinion....cadaver dogs... Opinion
But most sceptics seem to swallow it all
I don't know if profilers, statement analysts or body language experts have given evidence in the courts as expert witnesses, but cadaver dog handlers have.
-
I don't know if profilers, statement analysts or body language experts have given evidence in the courts as expert witnesses, but cadaver dog handlers have.
Its still opinion with no real evidence to support it
-
Its still opinion with no real evidence to support it
As is other expert witness testimony.
-
As is other expert witness testimony.
Absolutely.. And there have been experts who have spoken rubbish
-
Its still opinion with no real evidence to support it
Do you advocate getting rid of expert witnesses?
-
Do you advocate getting rid of expert witnesses?
Well they all give opinions;
An Expert Witness can be anyone with knowledge or experience of a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman. The Expert Witness’s duty is to give to the Court or tribunal an impartial opinion on particular aspects of matters within his expertise which are in dispute.
https://academyofexperts.org/users-of-experts/what-is-an-expert-witness/#:~:text=An%20Expert%20Witness%20can%20be,expertise%20which%20are%20in%20dispute.
It would be interesting to hear an expert's opinion on how accurately the location of a mobile phone could be known in the PdL area on 3rd May 2007. I think this statement would be shown to be misleading, depending on what was meant by 'near';
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters recently told 60 Minutes a phone linked to the prime suspect had been used near the holiday apartment on the night the three-year-old vanished.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8480137/Christian-Brueckner-call-club-Madeleine-parents-staying.html
-
I don't know if profilers, statement analysts or body language experts have given evidence in the courts as expert witnesses, but cadaver dog handlers have.
Wasn't the profilers aspect heavily criticised in the Stagg case , having it fall through.
-
Well they all give opinions;
An Expert Witness can be anyone with knowledge or experience of a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman. The Expert Witness’s duty is to give to the Court or tribunal an impartial opinion on particular aspects of matters within his expertise which are in dispute.
https://academyofexperts.org/users-of-experts/what-is-an-expert-witness/#:~:text=An%20Expert%20Witness%20can%20be,expertise%20which%20are%20in%20dispute.
It would be interesting to hear an expert's opinion on how accurately the location of a mobile phone could be known in the PdL area on 3rd May 2007. I think this statement would be shown to be misleading, depending on what was meant by 'near';
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters recently told 60 Minutes a phone linked to the prime suspect had been used near the holiday apartment on the night the three-year-old vanished.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8480137/Christian-Brueckner-call-club-Madeleine-parents-staying.html
Are you not interested in another experts opinion on the dog alerts. Imo you and many others have been taken in by some of the things said about the alerts in this case and have questioned them objectively
-
Wasn't the profilers aspect heavily criticised in the Stagg case , having it fall through.
In that case Paul Britton, the profiler, had his evidence thrown out by the judge and the prosecution withdrew it's case against Stagg.
Paul Britton was charged with professional misconduct by the British Psychological Society but in 2002, further action was dismissed due to the time delay in bringing proceedings
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9869269/Police-officer-tried-seduce-Rachel-Nickell-murder-suspect-confession-new-life.html
-
Amaral didn't think Brueckner had dreadlocks or cartoon characters on his van. Amaral lied. We don't know why he lied. We only know that he did lie.
I know Eleanor sorry I was being sarcastic. He was quick to show those photo's, we can only wonder why. I think he should be questioned about them.
-
I know Eleanor sorry I was being sarcastic. He was quick to show those photo's, we can only wonder why. I think he should be questioned about them.
No need to apologise. I can be a bit sarcastic myself.
I think Amaral should be questioned about those fake photos. But apparently this doesn't come under Portuguese Law, despite interfering with the course of justice.
Hey Ho. We all know what Portuguese Law amounts to.
-
In that case Paul Britton, the profiler, had his evidence thrown out by the judge and the prosecution withdrew it's case against Stagg.
Paul Britton was charged with professional misconduct by the British Psychological Society but in 2002, further action was dismissed due to the time delay in bringing proceedings
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9869269/Police-officer-tried-seduce-Rachel-Nickell-murder-suspect-confession-new-life.html
All this proves is that some so-called experts aren't all that.
-
No need to apologise. I can be a bit sarcastic myself.
I think Amaral should be questioned about those fake photos. But apparently this doesn't come under Portuguese Law, despite interfering with the course of justice.
Hey Ho. We all know what Portuguese Law amounts to.
He's not interfering with Portuguese justice.
-
Is the BKA interfering with Portuguese justice.
-
He's not interfering with Portuguese justice.
Goodness me. Are you saying that Portuguese Justice is corrupt?
Who'd a thought it?
-
Is the BKA interfering with Portuguese justice.
No. Just trying to catch a criminal that The Portuguese ignored. And not for the first time.
-
Well they all give opinions;
An Expert Witness can be anyone with knowledge or experience of a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman. The Expert Witness’s duty is to give to the Court or tribunal an impartial opinion on particular aspects of matters within his expertise which are in dispute.
https://academyofexperts.org/users-of-experts/what-is-an-expert-witness/#:~:text=An%20Expert%20Witness%20can%20be,expertise%20which%20are%20in%20dispute.
It would be interesting to hear an expert's opinion on how accurately the location of a mobile phone could be known in the PdL area on 3rd May 2007. I think this statement would be shown to be misleading, depending on what was meant by 'near';
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters recently told 60 Minutes a phone linked to the prime suspect had been used near the holiday apartment on the night the three-year-old vanished.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8480137/Christian-Brueckner-call-club-Madeleine-parents-staying.html
I don't think the example you have quoted is an accurate one. Anyone capable of interpreting the phone data would not be expressing an opinion - s/he would be explaining a measurable and provable fact.
The presence of Brueckner's phone is not in question either - it is perhaps one of the first indicators which brought him to the attention of Scotland Yard.
You have not cited a direct quote from Mr Wolters - you have cited someone else saying what he said. Which may be accurate then on the other hand it may not be, given that it is lifted from a once much despised tabloid.
-
Goodness me. Are you saying that Portuguese Justice is corrupt?
Who'd a thought it?
No, I'm saying that Amaral isn't interfering with it.
-
I don't think the example you have quoted is an accurate one. Anyone capable of interpreting the phone data would not be expressing an opinion - s/he would be explaining a measurable and provable fact.
The presence of Brueckner's phone is not in question either - it is perhaps one of the first indicators which brought him to the attention of Scotland Yard.
You have not cited a direct quote from Mr Wolters - you have cited someone else saying what he said. Which may be accurate then on the other hand it may not be, given that it is lifted from a once much despised tabloid.
-
No, I'm saying that Amaral isn't interfering with it.
Really?
-
Yet another "friend" who is convinced of Brueckner’s guilt without even seeing the evidence against him. With friends like his, who needs enemies eh? Does he even have one person who knows him who has gone on record to state they think he is innocent?...Another box ticked IMO.
The only vocal support for his innocence appears to come from those who have never met him. Go figure.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/friend-100-certain-madeleine-mccann-26615559
-
It's more news-worthy to have someone denouncing him than defending him.
Maybe more money in it too.
-
It's more news-worthy to have someone denouncing him than defending him.
Maybe more money in it too.
Trial by media is more newsworthy, wonder what any defence counsel would make of it.
-
That's the spirit. Thank goodness he can rely on you guys to protest his innocence.
Sounds like everyone who actually knew him though reckons he was more than capable of what he's being accused of. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his profile IMO.
-
Trial by media is more newsworthy, wonder what any defence counsel would make of it.
I have to say that I agree, Barrier.
I wonder if a good defense team could use it to swing the result of the case in Court.
It is said that Brueckner has a susprisingly expensive quality team behind him. Where did he get the money for that? Who would try to bail him out and why? *%6^
-
Trial by media is more newsworthy, wonder what any defence counsel would make of it.
He has engaged quite a high profile criminal lawyer who I don't think will come cheap.
Who either must be getting paid or who must be acting pro bono. If the former - in the premise of 'following the money' one wonders who is lifting Brueckner's bill.
-
I have to say that I agree, Barrier.
I wonder if a good defense team could use it to swing the result of the case in Court.
It is said that Brueckner has a susprisingly expensive quality team behind him. Where did he get the money for that? Who would try to bail him out and why? *%6^
Hadn't read your post before posting mine. But my thoughts exactly, Sadie.
-
So many conspiracy theories.
-
As is other expert witness testimony.
That is not true. Other expert testimony is usually backed by robust scientific evidence.
-
That is not true. Other expert testimony is usually backed by robust scientific evidence.
With out scientific evidence in this case there are not going to be many expert witness's called, it'll all be down to who is the more believable, his ex mates blabbing to the press won't count.
-
With out scientific evidence in this case there are not going to be many expert witness's called, it'll all be down to who is the more believable, his ex mates blabbing to the press won't count.
A photo could prove death was not in the apartment...but at the hands of paedophiles
-
So many conspiracy theories.
Yes there are; almost all emanating from the source who put it on record that he started with them before breakfast on the morning after Madeleine's disappearance. Which incidentally dictated the direction of travel for the rest of the investigation with the short diversion afforded to Murat.
It is interesting that two likely suspects did not receive the attention they perhaps merited until many years after the event.
They were not eliminated from the inquiry or even looked for apparently.
Montiero - a man with a record whose name did not appear on the list of former employees and which wasn't picked up upon until the Portuguese reopened the case in 2013.
Brueckner - a known paedophile and a man who fitted descriptions of persons seen around 5A prior to the abduction, who seems to have been ignored until Operation Grange picked up on him initially at around the same time.
It is interesting that Amaral is assiduously pursuing more lies and conspiracy theories while attempting to slot Brueckner into the 'patsy' box formerly reserved for Monteiro.
-
The meeting at the McCanns' house in Rothley, Leicestershire, is understood to have taken place several days before Met Police revealed details about the suspect who is in jail for raping an American pensioner.
The UK officers told them there was no concrete proof that Maddie was dead, despite the fears of the German police.
A family friend said: "It was the conversation they always needed to have but have always feared.
"They were told everything from the points of view of all three forces - British, German and Portuguese. It was a very emotional meeting and lots of tears later shed."
The suspect refuses to co-operate with police and, as yet, they do not have enough evidence to charge him.
A source close to the German police investigation said: "The suspect is saying nothing to officers so Kate and Gerry could be left in limbo for months, which is agonising for them."
It is understood German police were shown photos or video of Maddie's body or given a graphic account of how7
The McCann friend said: "Kate and Gerry wanted to know every single detail no matter how painful and harrowing.
"They have been told everything but sworn to secrecy and were told not to share any news, even with close family."
Madeleine McCann: How police broke news to parents they think Maddie is dead
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292470/Madeleine-mccann-gerry-kate-mccann-british-police
-
It is understood German police were shown photos or video of Maddie's body or given a graphic account of how she died.
Covered all bases, also at that meeting OG told them there was no evidence Madeleine was dead. That , 21 months on is still the case.
-
It is understood German police were shown photos or video of Maddie's body or given a graphic account of how she died.
Covered all bases, also at that meeting OG told them there was no evidence Madeleine was dead. That , 21 months on is still the case.
The McCanns have apparently seen the evidence & aren't convinced.
Why anyone else should be?
-
Yes there are; almost all emanating from the source who put it on record that he started with them before breakfast on the morning after Madeleine's disappearance. Which incidentally dictated the direction of travel for the rest of the investigation with the short diversion afforded to Murat.
It is interesting that two likely suspects did not receive the attention they perhaps merited until many years after the event.
They were not eliminated from the inquiry or even looked for apparently.
Montiero - a man with a record whose name did not appear on the list of former employees and which wasn't picked up upon until the Portuguese reopened the case in 2013.
Brueckner - a known paedophile and a man who fitted descriptions of persons seen around 5A prior to the abduction, who seems to have been ignored until Operation Grange picked up on him initially at around the same time.
It is interesting that Amaral is assiduously pursuing more lies and conspiracy theories while attempting to slot Brueckner into the 'patsy' box formerly reserved for Monteiro.
I wasn't thinking of him, actually, but of those who think members of the PJ were involved in some kind of conspiracy or even that some posters here should have their phone calls at the time scrutinised. Not to mention the idiots (imo) who think other forums are instructing people what to post on here.
People who make such suggestions tick boxes imo, but not those related to criminal behaviour.
-
It is understood German police were shown photos or video of Maddie's body or given a graphic account of how she died.
Covered all bases, also at that meeting OG told them there was no evidence Madeleine was dead. That , 21 months on is still the case.
You need to think about context. The fact Maddies hasn't been seen for 15 yrs is evidence of death
-
You need to think about context. The fact Maddies hasn't been seen for 15 yrs is evidence of death
Sadie in convinced she has been.
-
You need to think about context. The fact Maddies hasn't been seen for 15 yrs is evidence of death
What are you talking about?
Thousands of people have seen her, many certain it was her & have made official reports to the police (given evidence) stating as much.
There's plenty of evidence Maddie is alive.
-
I wasn't thinking of him, actually, but of those who think members of the PJ were involved in some kind of conspiracy or even that some posters here should have their phone calls at the time scrutinised. Not to mention the idiots (imo) who think other forums are instructing people what to post on here.
People who make such suggestions tick boxes imo, but not those related to criminal behaviour.
I can only judge from what is posted on this forum and although a prolific 'borrower' of information posted elsewhere I always acknowledge my source when I do that.
One of those whose phone calls it was suggested might have benefitted from scrutiny was an ex inspector who is now a convicted serial criminal presently serving what passes for a sentence in Portugal if you are ex job.
Fair comment about checking him out as he has of course written books on Madeleine and other missing children and has taken a proactive interest in her case then and since.
If you put yourself in the firing line - expect to be shot at.
There is a concerted effort afoot - instigated and encouraged by Amaral who instigated the original conspiracies - to keep the conspiracy theories extant in all concerning Madeleine.
All that is required is a little help from his friends.
But when he comes out with all guns blazing in support of a paedophile and rapist utilising no evidence but falsehoods, that sure ticks a box for me.
You may disagree that a look at his phone record back then might have proven interesting - me? I tend to think it could have been interesting - but his recent behaviour certainly does warrant exciting even more puzzlement.
-
My mind still goes blank when I try to consider Brueckner. I don't know why. He is a truly awful individual.
But speculation simply won't do for me.