If Brueckner is Never Charged.

[Mr Gray]

Your highlighted words are meaningless, since you regard me as someone who ‘wants’ Brückner to be involved with Madeleine’s disappearance. It is way more complex than what you are trying to portray. To me, they are appealing for information because they have some pivotal information related to Madeleine. They are buying themselves some time, trusting that more evidence will be forthcoming.

As I remember there is a piece of information they do not want to disclose to Breukner until the last minute...and as has been confirmed there is no urgency

[misty]

It’s not complex at all. If they had concrete evidence of his guilt they would have charged him. It’s actually very simple and I’ll predict he’ll never be charged.

The situation is probably more complex than it seems.
 
For argument’s sake, suppose the German police unearthed a memory stick containing images of a man who appeared to CB shooting a child who looked uncannily like Madeleine. The images, uploaded onto said memory stick, originated from a phone police are almost sure was used by the suspect at the time but proof is needed.

AFAIK a person cannot be prosecuted using images alone where identification & crime cannot be 100% proven. The police have a suspect in a probable crime but no known crime scene, body or murder weapon to assist the investigation. Furthermore, they have no forensic evidence linking the suspect to the apartment from which the child was taken. The child may even have been delivered to the suspect by another party, a gun held to his head & an order issued to shoot the child whilst being filmed by A N Other. We just don't know until the Germans complete their investigation then question the suspect.

All my opinion.

[Mr Gray]

The situation is probably more complex than it seems.
 
For argument’s sake, suppose the German police unearthed a memory stick containing images of a man who appeared to CB shooting a child who looked uncannily like Madeleine. The images, uploaded onto said memory stick, originated from a phone police are almost sure was used by the suspect at the time but proof is needed.

AFAIK a person cannot be prosecuted using images alone where identification & crime cannot be 100% proven. The police have a suspect in a probable crime but no known crime scene, body or murder weapon to assist the investigation. Furthermore, they have no forensic evidence linking the suspect to the apartment from which the child was taken. The child may even have been delivered to the suspect by another party, a gun held to his head & an order issued to shoot the child whilst being filmed by A N Other. We just don't know until the Germans complete their investigation then question the suspect.

All my opinion.

That's just what I have been thinking to

[John]

You come across desperate that CHristian Bruerbeck won’t be charged: why is that?

Don’t you think given his previous, plus the evidence they have so far makes him a prime suspect? Or do you think he should get away with it, even though you’ve no idea at all where he was that night? His phone placed him outside: he has no alibi...yet you roar that he’s not guilty until proven so. How do you think police find suspects before charging them? They’re not guilty until they’ve been to court.

Every single person I’ve spoken to have all said he’s a despicable, vile paedophile (and that’s been proven — he even pleaded guilty) so why do you take this stance?

He is without doubt a sick depraved individual but he also might have never set eyes on Madeleine McCann.  Certainly the absence of any DNA or the smallest piece of evidence would appear to support this possibility. Had this guy been involved I would have expected something to have been found by now.

[Mr Gray]

He is without doubt a sick depraved individual but he also might have never set eyes on Madeleine McCann.  Certainly the absence of any DNA or the smallest piece of evidence would appear to support this possibility. Had this guy been involved I would have expected something to have been found by now.

They have something...we just dont know what it is.

[John]

They have something...we just dont know what it is.

I have no doubt that if the German prosecutors had some tangible evidence against him in respect of Madeleine's disappearance that we would have heard about it long ago. Their desperation to solve this case is clouding their judgement imo.

[Holly Goodhead]

He’ll need to be a rich man already to start a lawsuit against British tabs.  Perhaps it’s time for his defence team on here to start that Crowdfunder.

If it's a slam dunk the lawyers will probably agree a no win no fee agreement.  I believe the Mc libel lawyers worked on this basis? 

[Mr Gray]

If it's a slam dunk the lawyers will probably agree a no win no fee agreement.  I believe the Mc libel lawyers worked on this basis?

I dont see he has any case whasoever. Who will he sue and on what grounds...please quote relevant german libel law

[Eleanor]

If it's a slam dunk the lawyers will probably agree a no win no fee agreement.  I believe the Mc libel lawyers worked on this basis?

The Lawyers won't get much, if anything at all.

[Holly Goodhead]

From today’s Times wrt to Johnny Depp’s libel case against the Sun:

“A defamation action is a civil law claim and can be brought if someone publishes to other people a statement about you which has either caused your reputation serious harm or is likely to cause it serious harm.
There are four possible defences to defamation. Firstly, that the statement about you is true. Secondly, that it was not a statement of fact but an honest opinion. Thirdly, that publication was justified because it was on a matter of public interest, and finally that it was protected by "privilege".
However, defamation actions work differently from many civil actions such as breach of contract, where the burden of proving the "wrong" lies with the person bringing the claim. In defamation, that person has to show that the statement about them has a defamatory meaning - ie that it lowers them in the minds of right-thinking members of society.
"Meaning" is now decided by a judge at an early, pre-trial stage. Many cases settle after the judge has ruled on meaning, but if a claim does go to trial, the burden then lies with the publisher to prove, for example, that the statement was substantially true. This is when the gloves come off and personal reputations and behaviour come under intense scrutiny”

Do we think that the news coverage of the child abuser and rapist has damaged his reputation?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/09/18/charles-bronson-sues-richard-madeley-libel-presenters-claims/amp/

[Holly Goodhead]

Mr Wolters is appealing to the public for more information on Brückner. Like so many here have argued; the reason him not been charged is that the moment they do so, his lawyer is entitled to see the evidence against him and German authorities want to prevent that since they know he will be denied parole and that will give them another, at least, six months to gather information.

The prosecutor's office/HCW hasn't mentioned CB by name so how can the be appealing for more info about him? 

[Mr Gray]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/09/18/charles-bronson-sues-richard-madeley-libel-presenters-claims/amp/

what has been said about Breukner that is untrue

[Holly Goodhead]

Anthro is absolutely correct...HCW said exactly this three or four weeks ago. I've posted this several times since.
Of course the amateur lawyers and amateur detectives here think they know more than HCW

On what basis is Anthro correct when the prosecutor's office/HCW hasn't mentioned CB by name? 

[Mr Gray]

On what basis is Anthro correct when the prosecutor's office/HCW hasn't mentioned CB by name?

HCW has identified breukner....but not by his name

[Holly Goodhead]

They have something...we just dont know what it is.

I'm inclined to think it might well be an empty fishing net!