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: Eleanor on July 14, 2023, 09:09:06 PM
-
What if Wolters and or The BKA decided to arrest and charge Brueckner just with Abduction? They do appear to have some evidence for this possibility at least. It could also raise questions In Court about things they might not previously have thought of.
And if found Guilty it would certainly settle Brueckner's hash for a good long while.
Sadly, it wouldn't necessarily help to find out what happened to Madeleine. But it just might.
-
What if Wolters and or The BKA decided to arrest and charge Brueckner just with Abduction? They do appear to have some evidence for this possibility at least. It could also raise questions In Court about things they might not previously have thought of.
And if found Guilty it would certainly settle Brueckner's hash for a good long while.
Sadly, it wouldn't necessarily help to find out what happened to Madeleine. But it just might.
I think Brueckner is pivotal to the case but I don't know his exact role in the abduction. Whereas I know the Germans have evidence he is a murderer. I would go with charging him for that ~ then wait in the queue for the jurisdiction to be decided.
-
Apart from Madeleine I am not that bothered by what they do with him so long as they keep him locked up.
Is there central court in Germany that can deal with anything?
Abduction alone for now is just an option which can be added to later.
-
What if Wolters and or The BKA decided to arrest and charge Brueckner just with Abduction? They do appear to have some evidence for this possibility at least. It could also raise questions In Court about things they might not previously have thought of.
And if found Guilty it would certainly settle Brueckner's hash for a good long while.
Sadly, it wouldn't necessarily help to find out what happened to Madeleine. But it just might.
Didn't we discuss something similar a few years ago? Am I remembering it corectly, or not, that if he was chatged and say it failed, then no one else could charge him with the same crime again ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
I am of the belief that OG know where they are going and even possibly know who is looking after Madeleine. She still lives and is well looked after in most ways, but it is a cloistered life generally.
I would prefer Scotland Yard to do any prosecuting required, rather than Portugal or Germany
Two of their main problems, imo, are
1. The fact that some of the people involved are what might be called "untouchable" - and there are a lot of them.
2. Also there is still a huge amount of disinformation being widely spread around.
We really do not want a botched prosecution that enables Brueckner to escape future prosecution, maybe on a wider remit than suggested,do we ?
I want to make it clear that I am not at all sure that Brueckner abducted Madeleine altho there are a good few pointers and he was around and available. If he did, then I feal the pointers (bragging that he would be very rich after the job he had to do) lead me to believe that he was commisioned to abduct, or lead, the abduction of Madeleine Mccann.
-
I think Brueckner is pivotal to the case but I don't know his exact role in the abduction. Whereas I know the Germans have evidence he is a murderer. I would go with charging him for that ~ then wait in the queue for the jurisdiction to be decided.
I would go along with that Brie.
Charge him for murder cos' I am pretty sure Madeleine is still alive.
Do not charge him with abduction, which he might be involved with, but hopefully in the murder trial he might squeal and let out details of others involved in the abduction and the peadophile trafficking network that likely exists
Good thinking Brie. 8@??)(
-
I would go along with that Brie.
Charge him for murder cos' I am pretty sure Madeleine is still alive.
Do not charge him with abduction, which he might be involved with, but hopefully in the murder trial he might squeal and let out details of others involved in the abduction and the peadophile trafficking network that likely exists
Good thinking Brie. 8@??)(
Hi Sadie xx
Whoever it was who abducted Madeleine would have to confess to it for us to be sure and even then how could any sane and rational being take anything said by Brueckner as fact?
On the other hand German prosecutors are convinced they have very strong evidence of murder.
What if more had been done about Diane Menke's aggravated rape in close proximity to apartment 5a which happened only two years before Madeleine's disappearance.
What would have happened if the investigators had recognised the fact that sexual crimes and burglaries went hand in hand in their back yard and investigated that accordingly instead of turning Kate McCann into their patsy?
-
I'm still hoping that Madeleine isn't dead which is why I'm suggesting Abduction first. Murder can always be added later if it seems likely. Anything to keep him locked up will do. Fulscher can do what he likes with Jurisdiction, that will just delay Brueckner's release.
There is a Central Court of Justice for both Civil and Criminal Cases but the spelling is a bit complicated.
-
Not if you're German... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Justice#/media/File:Logo_Bundesgerichtshof.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Justice#/media/File:Logo_Bundesgerichtshof.png)
-
Not if you're German... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Justice#/media/File:Logo_Bundesgerichtshof.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Justice#/media/File:Logo_Bundesgerichtshof.png)
Thank You. That might come in handy later.
-
I think Brueckner is pivotal to the case but I don't know his exact role in the abduction. Whereas I know the Germans have evidence he is a murderer. I would go with charging him for that ~ then wait in the queue for the jurisdiction to be decided.
Good idea. lets hang him then ask questions!
One wonders where this abduction took place.
From the bedroom or the street... THAT would be interesting.
-
What if Wolters and or The BKA decided to arrest and charge Brueckner just with Abduction? They do appear to have some evidence for this possibility at least. It could also raise questions In Court about things they might not previously have thought of.
And if found Guilty it would certainly settle Brueckner's hash for a good long while.
Sadly, it wouldn't necessarily help to find out what happened to Madeleine. But it just might.
What evidence of an abduction do they appear to have?
-
I think Brueckner is pivotal to the case but I don't know his exact role in the abduction. Whereas I know the Germans have evidence he is a murderer. I would go with charging him for that ~ then wait in the queue for the jurisdiction to be decided.
Aged like brie down the back of Brueckner's couch in his death van winnebago (the bigger of the three).
-
There's still time. Who knows what extra evidence Wolters might find in the next four weeks. Don't forget, The MET also have proof Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. When you add that to the evidence Brueckner murdered Maddie it's hard to believe they wouldn't really have enough to charge him. No, I think there's still time & Wolters hasn't played his full hand yet.
-
Did anyone watch the Murder Trial about the cyclist who was knocked down by a drunk driver in Scotland and his death covered up by the driver and his passenger brother? The victim was missing for over three years and what was interesting was that despite being told where the body was by the driver’s girlfriend (he had confessed to her), and subsequently locating and digging it up exactly where she said he’d told her it was buried, the police still did not feel they had enough evidence to charge. It is quite amazing how high the bar is set for the burden of proof. I don’t for one moment suppose that the Germans have located Madeleine’s body but it is still quite possible and even likely that they tangible and strong evidence but not enough to secure a conviction. So, keep on sneering if you must but CB being released does not mean he didn’t abduct and murder Madeleine, it only means the police can’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Did anyone watch the Murder Trial about the cyclist who was knocked down by a drunk driver in Scotland and his death covered up by the driver and his passenger brother? The victim was missing for over three years and what was interesting was that despite being told where the body was by the driver’s girlfriend (he had confessed to her), and subsequently locating and digging it up exactly where she said he’d told her it was buried, the police still did not feel they had enough evidence to charge. It is quite amazing how high the bar is set for the burden of proof. I don’t for one moment suppose that the Germans have located Madeleine’s body but it is still quite possible and even likely that they tangible and strong evidence but not enough to secure a conviction. So, keep on sneering if you must but CB being released does not mean he didn’t abduct and murder Madeleine, it only means the police can’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
What do you 'imagine' this strong evidence might be ?
-
How about a sighting of Brueckner abducting Maddie? Oh, wait no, that was Gerry.
-
What do you 'imagine' this strong evidence might be ?
I’ve no idea, there’s little point speculating about it imo, especially as when I have answered this question before it’s either been ignored or ridiculed,so not about to repeat myself.
-
How about a sighting of Brueckner abducting Maddie? Oh, wait no, that was Gerry.
Prove it.
-
Prove it.
I don't need to. But Wolters can't disprove it either.
-
I’ve no idea, there’s little point speculating about it imo, especially as when I have answered this question before it’s either been ignored or ridiculed,so not about to repeat myself.
It's nothing. Wolters has nothing. I told you that 5 years ago.
-
Wolters previously claimed there was enough evidence to charge. Then he investigated some more & found that there isn’t.
-
I don't need to. But Wolters can't disprove it either.
Yes you do need to because you keep claiming it as a fact, as if you were there yourself and saw it happening with your very own eyes rather than relying on a third party report of someone who wasn’t even absolutely certain it was Gerry so quit with the bullshit or come up with the proof.
-
It's nothing. Wolters has nothing. I told you that 5 years ago.
Prove it.
Incidentally Wolters isn’t a one man detective agency.
-
Prove it.
Incidentally Wolters isn’t a one man detective agency.
I know. The MET can't prove there was an abduction either, nor the BKA, or the PJ. None of them can prove there was an abduction, because there wasn't.
-
Yes you do need to because you keep claiming it as a fact, as if you were there yourself and saw it happening with your very own eyes rather than relying on a third party report of someone who wasn’t even absolutely certain it was Gerry so quit with the bullshit or come up with the proof.
I don't need to prove anything. It is self evident Brueckner is innocent because the McCanns did it.
-
What do you 'imagine' this strong evidence might be ?
Well it's not forensic, that is a cast iron fact according to Two Buckets Wolters.
He / they have alluded to 'circa 2007 magic phone pings', the first draft of his erotic fiction novel and his collection of swimsuit samples from his days as a travelling salesman for Bukta.
Then, of course, there's the hobo testimony that was laughed out of court last October.
That's it. That's the sum total that MACA continue to pin their hopes on. There will be no last minute gambit, no hail Mary. He's being measured for his tag any day - he's getting oot, Gerry, STICK IT UP YEE.
They're actually impinging on his human rights during this last few weeks of his incarceration, as, if it wasn't for the false allegations that were released to the entire planet, he would have been out on licence or day release by now. So there's another couple of hundred grand he can claim.
.....'apple bottom jeanzzzzz, boots with the furrrrr.......'
-
I don't need to prove anything. It is self evident Brueckner is innocent because the McCanns did it.
Prove they did it then. Go on, the floor is yours.
-
Prove they did it then. Go on, the floor is yours.
You seem to be missing the point. Two Buckets told everyone he's guilty - so you prove it!
-
You seem to be missing the point. Two Buckets told everyone he's guilty - so you prove it!
I’m not missing anything. Wonderfulspam’s logic is that Bruckner can’t be guilty because the McCanns dunnit, so we need him to put his money where his mouth is and show us the proof that they did.
-
I’m not missing anything. Wonderfulspam’s logic is that Bruckner can’t be guilty because the McCanns dunnit, so we need him to put his money where his mouth is and show us the proof that they did.
I predicted 5 years ago that Brueckner wouldn't be charged. How did I know he would'nt be charged?Because the McCanns did it. I don't need to prove anything. The three expert investigative forces, in possession of all the evidence, they can't prove Madeleine was abducted. And that's because she just wasn't.
-
I predicted 5 years ago that Brueckner wouldn't be charged. How did I know he would'nt be charged?Because the McCanns did it. I don't need to prove anything. The three expert investigative forces, in possession of all the evidence, they can't prove Madeleine was abducted. And that's because she just wasn't.
I predicted in May 2007 that the McCanns would never be charged with child neglect nor with having anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance. How did I know they wouldn’t be charged? Because I have a brain inside my head and it was obvious she was taken and also because the PJ found no evidence to prove they dunnit. So, I was right all along it seems. Nice one me.
-
I predicted in May 2007 that the McCanns would never be charged with child neglect nor with having anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance. How did I know they wouldn’t be charged? Because I have a brain inside my head and it was obvious she was taken and also because the PJ found no evidence to prove they dunnit. So, I was right all along it seems. Nice one me.
The dogs, Judith, the dogs.
-
The dogs, Judith, the dogs.
Jezus, how do you know my real name? Have you been stalking me?
-
And if the dogs prove the McCanns did it, someone please explain why they are not currently in prison, thanks,
love Judith.
-
I predicted in May 2007 that the McCanns would never be charged with child neglect nor with having anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance. How did I know they wouldn’t be charged? Because I have a brain inside my head and it was obvious she was taken and also because the PJ found no evidence to prove they dunnit. So, I was right all along it seems. Nice one me.
You have a woman's brain inside your head. And you're wrong about the no evidence bit.
-
You have a woman's brain inside your head. And you're wrong about the no evidence bit. The Smith sighting is evidence the McCanns did it.
And you have a WUM’s brain inside your head. And you’re wrong about there being no evidence against Bruckner. If anecdotal, unverified and vague evidence is acceptable to you when it’s against the McCanns then it should also be acceptable to you when it’s against Bruckner but your little troll brain can’t compute that can it? Bless.
-
And you have a WUM’s brain inside your head. And you’re wrong about there being no evidence against Bruckner. If anecdotal, unverified and vague evidence is acceptable to you when it’s against the McCanns then it should also be acceptable to you when it’s against Bruckner but your little troll brain can’t compute that can it? Bless.
So what's the evidence against Brueckner then? Is there anything at all that places him & Maddie together at any point in time, like the Smiths sighting does Gerry?
-
So what's the evidence against Brueckner then? Is there anything at all that places him & Maddie together at any point in time, like the Smiths sighting does Gerry?
God you’re boring. Do you accept that the Smiths sighting is unverified and vague and that there are countless examples where witness statements are simply false or inaccurate for one reason or another? Or are you certain that Smith definitely saw Gerry with Madeleine, even though thr witness himself was not certain? Let’s start from this point before we proceed to the evidence against Bruckner.
-
God you’re boring. Do you accept that the Smiths sighting is unverified and vague and that there are countless examples where witness statements are simply false or inaccurate for one reason or another? Or are you certain that Smith definitely saw Gerry with Madeleine, even though thr witness himself was not certain? Let’s start from this point before we proceed to the evidence against Bruckner.
I'm certain it was Gerry because it was.
-
I'm certain it was Gerry because it was.
Is that a mature and well argued response? Well, a troll might think so I guess.
-
I find this bandying about of the terms wum and troll very Trumpian and not at all conducive to the adult debate we spectics are trying to have.
-
I find this bandying about of the terms wum and troll very Trumpian and not at all conducive to the adult debate we spectics are trying to have.
LOL. If you think The General and Spam are conducting adult debate then that doesn’t say much about your judgement. Spam is a self-confessed WUM. The General himself admits he only comes on here to troll when he’s bored. The terms I use about these two are wholly accurate. Trumpian? Spam is the biggest Trump supporter on this forum, yet you seem to think he’s great.
Now. How about you contribute something adult to the debate for a change instead of your usual snarky comments aimed in my direction? I shan’t hold my breath.