Oh come now tannerman is still the bogeyman its the only timeline that fits for 90 secs,GM check through to JT seeing him (tannerman)scuttle across the road,fits like a glove.
Jane Tanner saw a man crossing the road ahead of her and carrying a child. He was not "scuttling". I believe he was described as walking briskly as one would due to the incline of the road and if one had just kidnapped the child.
Brueckner's lawyer has at one fell swoop just broadcast to the world that he has been given absolutely nothing with which to defend his client.
Short of having 'proof' it doesn't appear that he even has any evidence.
In my opinion it matters not at all where Rachel Oldfield or Dianne Webster were in the lawyer's time frame for abduction.
The only witness statement of any relevance is one which tells precisely where Brueckner was during the window when Madeleine disappeared that evening.
Brueckner's lawyer Friedrich Fulscher needs to find evidence of where Brueckner was over that period. To satisfy a court I imagine that would have to be independently corroborated by evidence or by witnesses.
Herr Fulscher quite obviously does not have that information.
He is obviously incapable of being able to say, "My client has a witness/witnesses that he was in such and such a location all evening with me" or he would already have said it.
He is being forced to use diversionary tactics which are good enough to provoke discussion on internet fora. But that simply isn't good enough for serious presentation in court.
In my opinion Brueckner is going to have to produce something substantial to help his lawyer to defend him - or to dislodge me from my chair - and I don't think he has it.
