New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No it doesn’t and that is not what I am saying.

The Portuguese police had the evidence, the crime took place in Portugal. Why didn’t the trial take place in Portugal?

Don't ask me.  If you're not saying the police planted the evidence then how do you suppose CB's hair got into the victim's bed?  Was it a million to one coincidence that a cat brought his hair into her bed, and therefore corroborated the dastardly villains' story?

[faithlilly]

Don't ask me.  If you're not saying the police planted the evidence then how do you suppose CB's hair got into the victim's bed?  Was it a million to one coincidence that a cat brought his her into her bed, and corroborated the dastardly villains' story?

I’m sorry haven’t I already said that the chain of custody regarding the hair is problematic. How was the hair stored in Portugal ? When was the DNA extracted? Was the hair sent to Germany or simply the DNA profile? If the hair was sent how was it stored? Was it placed with other items taken from Brueckner?

Cross-contamination is not always a deliberate act but as a result of time and ineptitude.

[Brietta]

Don't ask me.  If you're not saying the police planted the evidence then how do you suppose CB's hair got into the victim's bed?  Was it a million to one coincidence that a cat brought his hair into her bed, and corroborated the dastardly villains' story?

Following due process Brueckner was found guilty of perpetrating an horrendous crime on an innocent woman for which I am sure he would have made himself subject to the normal appeals process.

The fact he is still in jail paying for his crime would indicate that having been found guilty of rape, any appeal which he was entitled to subsequently lodge fell on the deaf ears of the courts.
And no-one batted an eyelid because no-one was aware that later on ~ Brueckner would become known as being the prime suspect in England; the prime suspect in Germany; and the only suspect in Portugal for the crime against Madeleine McCann.

Could the amazing phenomenon of Amaral and fellow sceptics leaving no stone unturned in their defence of the so called "petty criminal" (since when was rape and child abuse "petty"?) be somehow related to their doctrine of denial.

Brueckner is now charged among other offences with the rape of three other women.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I’m sorry haven’t I already said that the chain of custody regarding the hair is problematic. How was the hair stored in Portugal ? When was the DNA extracted? Was the hair sent to Germany or simply the DNA profile? If the hair was sent how was it stored? Was it placed with other items taken from Brueckner?

Cross-contamination is not always a deliberate act but as a result of time and ineptitude.

You have commented on the supposed extraordinary lengths some authorities will go to secure a conviction which suggests you believe their deception may have played a part in this case.  Then you claimed you were not suggesting that at all but instead that somehow or other a hair found in the victim’s bedding was not actually CB’s at all.  You are aware aren’t you that he has been tried and found guilty and that the time for establishing the answers to the questions you raise was prior to his trial by his defence team?  Did they fail to challenge the DNA evidence in court, or did they do so and their argument successfully refuted by the prosecution team?   You are also aware are you not that CB proffered the excuse that he used to stop and pet the victim’s cat which tends to suggest that he accepted that the hair was his?  Why are you so reluctant to accept the verdict of the court or that CB raped this woman?  What counter evidence do you have to suggest he is actually innocent in this case?

[Eleanor]

I would say the chain of evidence was problematic.

So who stitched that one up?  Was it The BKA?  And why would they want to do that?

The Fact remains that Brueckner is a serial abuser and has somehow finished up in Germany because Portugal didn't want to know.

But Germany has a right to pursue one of it's own citizens when no one else wants to do this.  Least of all Portugal.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So who stitched that one up?  Was it The BKA?  And why would they want to do that?

The Fact remains that Brueckner is a serial abuser and has somehow finished up in Germany because Portugal didn't want to know.

But Germany has a right to pursue one of it's own citizens when no one else wants to do this.  Least of all Portugal.

How would Faithlilly know that “the chain of evidence was problematic “?  Was she part of the investigation?  Was she involved in the defence team inquiries?  Of is she staing something as fact which actually is simply her opinion voiced from a position of almost complete ignorance?

[Eleanor]

How would Faithlilly know that “the chain of evidence was problematic “?  Was she part of the investigation?  Was she involved in the defence team inquiries?  Of is she staing something as fact which actually is simply her opinion voiced from a position of almost complete ignorance?

I don't know and I don't actually care.  That was for The Court to do.  Otherwise we all might just as well pass legal judgement and expect to win.

Faithlilly's judgements have no value, but then she knows that.

[faithlilly]

You have commented on the supposed extraordinary lengths some authorities will go to secure a conviction which suggests you believe their deception may have played a part in this case.  Then you claimed you were not suggesting that at all but instead that somehow or other a hair found in the victim’s bedding was not actually CB’s at all.  You are aware aren’t you that he has been tried and found guilty and that the time for establishing the answers to the questions you raise was prior to his trial by his defence team?  Did they fail to challenge the DNA evidence in court, or did they do so and their argument successfully refuted by the prosecution team?   You are also aware are you not that CB proffered the excuse that he used to stop and pet the victim’s cat which tends to suggest that he accepted that the hair was his?  Why are you so reluctant to accept the verdict of the court or that CB raped this woman?  What counter evidence do you have to suggest he is actually innocent in this case?

Where do I start with your post?

I did not say that the hair found was not Brueckner’s but simply that if the chain of custody was particularly complex, as this one was, there are multiple reasons why the evidence might be questioned.

Another problem with the case, as with the Cipriano one, is the reportage from the trial in English, or even good translations, are very thin on the ground so it’s not at all easy to discern what evidence was actually presented. Was there more than the hair and the missing tape?

Yes I do realise that Brueckner came up a reason why his hair may have been at the crime scene. If the hair was his and he knew that he hadn’t raped the woman then it’s hardly surprising that he tried to concoct a solution that took into account his hair being in the woman’s bedroom while he hadn’t been.

I’m not reluctant to believe Brueckner guilty, I’m simply questioning a guilty verdict if the only evidence presented was the testimony of two old lags about a missing video on which the victim didn’t appear and one hair whose chain of custody may be problematic. Of course there may have been stronger evidence presented which secured the conviction but it’s odd that to this day that it hasn’t been reported. Do you know of any stronger evidence? A violent rape but only one hair to show for it? Do you really believe that?

[faithlilly]

I don't know and I don't actually care.  That was for The Court to do.  Otherwise we all might just as well pass legal judgement and expect to win.

Faithlilly's judgements have no value, but then she knows that.

That’s the thing…I’m not making judgements but simply looking at the evidence, however scarce.

[faithlilly]

How would Faithlilly know that “the chain of evidence was problematic “?  Was she part of the investigation?  Was she involved in the defence team inquiries?  Of is she staing something as fact which actually is simply her opinion voiced from a position of almost complete ignorance?

The hair had been stored for 14 years in Portugal and, if the DNA was not extracted there, transported to Germany. By its very nature that makes the chain of evidence problematic.

[faithlilly]

So who stitched that one up?  Was it The BKA?  And why would they want to do that?

The Fact remains that Brueckner is a serial abuser and has somehow finished up in Germany because Portugal didn't want to know.

But Germany has a right to pursue one of it's own citizens when no one else wants to do this.  Least of all Portugal.

Brueckner is a danger to children and women, no doubt about that and the longer he’s off the streets the better.

While we’ve got what has been called a child abuse epidemic in the U.K. I think we need to temper our language when it comes to other countries and similar policing problems.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/five-year-uk-child-abuse-inquiry-deliver-conclusions-2022-10-19/

[Eleanor]

That’s the thing…I’m not making judgements but simply looking at the evidence, however scarce.

You know that this is all a game of words these day and that some of us are better at it than others, although not necessarily me.  I am still learning.  The rest of you must do as you think you are able.  I just want a reasonable discussion.

I find the nastiness very difficult to deal with because it accomplishes nothing, although I do not think that you are inherently nasty most of the time.  But some people are.

However, The German Court found Brueckner Guilty and I doubt that this was just on a Pubic Hair.  We are dealing with a system that we don't really understand, just being Judges rather than a Jury.

Did anyone ever see a transcript of The Trial, let alone a translation?

The worst part of this for me is that Portugal didn't even try.  And Yes, I do know that I keep on about this, but it does happen to be a fact.

And now there are three other apparently similar Rapes and two more similar Child Abuse Cases.  Although but for Madeleine we would probably be completely unaware of any of this.

But to all of you, if we could keep the nastiness out of this then I will be eternally grateful.  And I would much rather talk to you all than piss about deleting stuff that you didn't have to say in the first place..

[Vertigo Swirl]

Where do I start with your post?

I did not say that the hair found was not Brueckner’s but simply that if the chain of custody was particularly complex, as this one was, there are multiple reasons why the evidence might be questioned.

Another problem with the case, as with the Cipriano one, is the reportage from the trial in English, or even good translations, are very thin on the ground so it’s not at all easy to discern what evidence was actually presented. Was there more than the hair and the missing tape?

Yes I do realise that Brueckner came up a reason why his hair may have been at the crime scene. If the hair was his and he knew that he hadn’t raped the woman then it’s hardly surprising that he tried to concoct a solution that took into account his hair being in the woman’s bedroom while he hadn’t been.

I’m not reluctant to believe Brueckner guilty, I’m simply questioning a guilty verdict if the only evidence presented was the testimony of two old lags about a missing video on which the victim didn’t appear and one hair whose chain of custody may be problematic. Of course there may have been stronger evidence presented which secured the conviction but it’s odd that to this day that it hasn’t been reported. Do you know of any stronger evidence? A violent rape but only one hair to show for it? Do you really believe that?

Like I say and as you admit above, you are arguing from a position of almost complete ignorance.  As I know as much about what was presented in court as you do it would be pointless having two ignorami debating the evidence wouldn’t it?.  If there are grounds for an appeal then that’s up to CB’s lawyer - what’s he waiting for?  If it’s a matter of funding I suggest you have a word with Spam or Isabelle McFadden and try and kickstart the fundraiser asap, there’s enough CB supporters out there in Scepticland to raise a few grand like you did for Amaral.  Meanwhile unlike you I am not agonizing over whether or not CB was wrongly convicted but look forward to seeing how it pans out for him in the HB case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The hair had been stored for 14 years in Portugal and, if the DNA was not extracted there, transported to Germany. By its very nature that makes the chain of evidence problematic.

But you don’t know do you?  You do however seem to be suggesting that the Portuguese police sat on vital evidence for 14 years and never thought to have it DNA tested which is a bit shocking if true.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Brueckner is a danger to children and women, no doubt about that and the longer he’s off the streets the better.

While we’ve got what has been called a child abuse epidemic in the U.K. I think we need to temper our language when it comes to other countries and similar policing problems.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/five-year-uk-child-abuse-inquiry-deliver-conclusions-2022-10-19/

Erm, on what basis have you concluded that CB is without doubt a danger to women?