New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[Gildas]

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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

I?m truly flattered by your interest. It?s ironic that you?re talking about projection because most of the insults are coming from your direction. Perhaps it is you doing the projecting? 

Right, enough about our mutual character flaws - let?s talk about the sentence highlighted above.  When did this happen?  What was the name of the policeman who released the information about the photos to the public? It would have made worldwide news so should be easy to find a source - except it never happened.  If you have been watching this forum for years you will know it is customary to ask for a cite to back up an allegation.  You have made an allegation but have refused to provide a cite.  As far as I?m concerned you are continuing to mislead the forum. 

[faithlilly]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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

No words.

That?s a childish and petulant response.  I expected at least some attempt at a discussion of my posts, usually you have lots and lots of words and so much to say for yourself. 

Of course I?m not desperate to believe anything, I merely brought the subject up because I had been unaware until recently that Fulscher had informed Stellander a close source claimed that the police had these photos.  I posited that if they exist (and there are good reasons for believing that such damning material does exist - see Titus Stampa?s testimony in court for one thing, HCW?s repeated statements on evidence they?ve not been able to share for another) that it might explain some aspects of the German investigation ie why they believe Madeleine is dead and that Christian Bruckner is the man who killed her. 

Think dispassionately and with an open mind and you will be able to see that what I have argued makes logical sense. Obviously you don?t want to entertain the idea for a second and prefer to cling onto the scenario that Gerry threw Madeleine in a bin after she was overdosed with sedatives and fell off the balcony despite the fact that there is not a scintilla of evidence that any of that happened. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

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. 

[misty]

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.

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?

[barrier]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

Ugh, that is such a depressing article.  What is wrong with these men? But yes, a point well made.  Despite all the other circumstantial evidence, even a detailed account written by CB about abuse perpetrated on Madeleine would probably not stand up in court. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

In theory they don't need a body, forensic evidence would do which linked Bruckner to Madeleine, but it's too late for that now.  Written accounts or even photographs of Madeleine would not be sufficient to guarantee a conviction IMO.  Both could be explained away - the former as a fantasy, the latter as something that was acquired on the dark web.

[Gildas]

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

No words.

hi faithlilly
Why are you criticising a book that you have not read. Why don't you buy it and read it.
I agree with Vertigo Swirl that if his claim about meeting with Friedrich Fulscher was not true then Fulscher could destroy his credibility.
I posted three cites to you so that you could see the bigger picture.

[barrier]

hi faithlilly
Why are you criticising a book that you have not read. Why don't you buy it and read it.
I agree with Vertigo Swirl that if his claim about meeting with Friedrich Fulscher was not true then Fulscher could destroy his credibility.
I posted three cites to you so that you could see the bigger picture.

Do they possess images drawn? because of his writings they wrongly assumed it must be MM, despite of claims by the BKA lack of charges clearly demonstrate there is no concrete evidence ,only suspicion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do they possess images drawn? because of his writings they wrongly assumed it must be MM, despite of claims by the BKA lack of charges clearly demonstrate there is no concrete evidence ,only suspicion.

No there's definitely more than just suspicion.  For one thing you can't be made an arguido just based on suspicion anymore, there has to be evidence to support the suspicion. Bruckner is still an arguido 6 years after first being made one. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why do people think the Portuguese authorities have not revoked Bruckner's arguido status?  They did so within a year the McCanns and Murat and as far as I know the other arguidos in this case no longer hold that status either.   There must be a reason, unless people think that the Germans and the English have coerced Portugal to keep the arguido status in place.  If so, why do you think they would do that, and why would Portugal bend to their will?

[barrier]

No there's definitely more than just suspicion.  For one thing you can't be made an arguido just based on suspicion anymore, there has to be evidence to support the suspicion. Bruckner is still an arguido 6 years after first being made one.

They'd best crack on then, they have only 3 more yrs before the statute of limitations run out.It was 2022 when he was made Arguido so my maths say 4 yrs.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They'd best crack on then, they have only 3 more yrs before the statute of limitations run out.It was 2022 when he was made Arguido so my maths say 4 yrs.

Yes, 4 years sorry, for some reason I thought he was made an arguido in 2020. Still, much longer than the other arguidos.  Re: the statute of limitations- does not apply in Germany or England.