UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/dad-bragged-online-sexually-abusing-110003000.html
This typifies what BKA is up against based on CB's propensity to pen and share csa stories. How can police prove Madeleine was a victim of his?

They can't without a body, CB in is mind fantasized about what he would do, doesn't equate to actually acting it out , your link shows that.

At the end of the day

- no prosecution to date of CB + the McCanns appearing not to accept Madeleine is dead

does not rule out the possibility or likelihood that the German police have further persuasive evidence which supports the case that Madeleine was killed by Bruckner but which they cannot share for operational reasons. 

That evidence according to Stampa at the trial would appear to be contained within an email account belonging to Bruckner and according to Gildas the German police confirmed this was photographic evidence (still not convinced about that confirmation but Gildas is adamant, so?). If Fulscher?s close source is to be believed then that would seem possible if not likely. 
But if it wasn?t photographic what else could it have been?  We already know the contents of some of Bruckner?s emails including fantasies of torturing, raping and murdering a mother and child, what could be written in an email that would be more evidentially probative but too sensitve to share with the general public?  A full written account of exactly what happened that night?  Could that be dismissed as just another work of fantasy by the defence lawyer?  I?m sure that is exactly how McCann sceptics would explain such an account if it exists, and again that might explain why no charges have yet been brought.  It?s simply not cast iron enough proof. 

There are very good reasons why such photos may not be sufficient for bringing charges and we?ve already been over those.   Do you seriously believe that rhe Germans have divulged every scrap of evidence they have on Bruckner to the general public?  What makes you believe that?  I like how you?re so convinced there can only be two options here - either Stellander lied or the source lied and have absolutely closed your mind to the possibility no one lied.

 As for the video tape evidence in the rape trial - it would never have even got to trial had there not been the supporting DNA evidence linking Bruckner to the victim?s bed.  Without that hair we?d all be none the wiser.  The absence of hair, or something like it, is why the case against CB in the Madeleine McCann case hasn?t happened and why we have no official word about the existence of photographic supporting evidence.  The German authorities need more. The English authorities maybe think there?s enough anyway hence why they?re pushing for extradition.

Why wouldn?t Stellander read here? He?s no one special, just another McCann basher with a slightly higher profile than the majority of bashers who has seemingly devoted his entire life to solving the case without having access to all the case files.  This forum is quite well known amongst the online community discussing the case and Stellander has close links to another online forum, members of whom have also posted here.

You are really desperate to believe that the photos of a dead Madeleine exist without even a scintilla of evidence.

No words.

Gosh you are a prickly pear aren?t you?

You said:
The point I was making was that the source was not giving any inside knowledge, but telling him what was soon to be public knowledge.

I said (reasonably enough I thought):
Except the German police have never confirmed they have photos of Madeleine dead

You said:
Yes they have

I said (note how politely I asked):
Please provide a cite.

??????????

And this makes me controlling and paranoid apparently!  Hilarious!!

o
The source informed Friedrich that the police had photos of Madeleine dead. That was unofficial.Then the police released the information to the public. That is official and confirms the unofficial information. So that is official confirmation. You seem to be claiming that there is some official status called Official Confirmation. Is that true? I don't know, but that's not what I was talking about.
Now it is strange that you know so much about me from just a few sentences. I know enough psychology to know that people hide their own faults from themselves and project them on to other people. This is what you seem to be doing with me. You studied me for a few minutes, I have studied you for years

Thank you for analysing me. Send me the bill and I will pay you next pay day.
I came on the forum just to provide information. I was discussing things with faithfullyI  I was puzzled why this old information was important . It had been debated before but then realised it was someone wanted to debate it again. I was talking about public knowledge. You butted in changing it to official confirmation and demanding  a cite. So it  seems you are paranoid.  A little man with a big inferiority complex.

Gosh you are a prickly pear aren?t you?

You said:
The point I was making was that the source was not giving any inside knowledge, but telling him what was soon to be public knowledge.

I said (reasonably enough I thought):
Except the German police have never confirmed they have photos of Madeleine dead

You said:
Yes they have

I said (note how politely I asked):
Please provide a cite.

??????????

And this makes me controlling and paranoid apparently!  Hilarious!!