Are The Tabloids Running Scared?

[G-Unit]

Perhaps he just knows more than you do about the evidence he has

He has publicly admitted that it isn't enough. What more do I need to know?

[faithlilly]

Please provide a cite for your claim, thankyou

I refer you to my previous post.

[faithlilly]

Perhaps he just knows more than you do about the evidence he has

Then at least arrest and question Brueckner.

This thing about keeping his powder dry is absolute nonsense.

I have never seen a criminal case conducted in this way and I hope I never will again.

[Erngath]

He has publicly admitted that it isn't enough. What more do I need to know?

Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.

I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.

[Erngath]

Then at least arrest and question Brueckner.

This thing about keeping his powder dry is absolute nonsense.

I have never seen a criminal case conducted in this way and I hope I never will again.

I have no knowledge of how Germany conducts criminal investigations.
I assume HCW does know and is acting within .the.correct procedure.
We are not privy to all the details of the investigations.
Perhaps other cases of missing children are.also being investigated'

[faithlilly]

Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.

I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.

Sceptics aren’t definite that Brueckner isn’t involved they have simply seen no evidence of his involvement. Isn’t that how things should be ?

How do you explain that Brueckner hasn’t been questioned yet ?

[faithlilly]

I have no knowledge of how Germany conducts criminal investigations.
I assume HCW does know and is acting within .the.correct procedure.
We are not privy to all the details of the investigations.
Perhaps other cases of missing children are.also being investigated'

And that’s it in a nutshell...you have no knowledge and agreed we aren’t privy to all the details of the case but one thing we do know for absolute certain, no matter what country’s judicial system the crime was committed under, if you have the concrete evidence that Wolter claims he has then Brueckner, legally, would have to be arrested and questioned, if only to defend himself against false accusations.

[Erngath]

Sceptics aren’t definite that Brueckner isn’t involved they have simply seen no evidence of his involvement. Isn’t that how things should be ?

How do you explain that Brueckner hasn’t been questioned yet ?

I don't.
Why should I?

[Erngath]

Sceptics aren’t definite that Brueckner isn’t involved they have simply seen no evidence of his involvement. Isn’t that how things should be ?

How do you explain that Brueckner hasn’t been questioned yet ?

And therein lies your problem.
Just because you have not seen any evidence does not mean there is none.

[Erngath]

And that’s it in a nutshell...you have no knowledge and agreed we aren’t privy to all the details of the case but one thing we do know for absolute certain, no matter what country’s judicial system the crime was committed under, if you have the concrete evidence that Wolter claims he has then Brueckner, legally, would have to be arrested and questioned, if only to defend himself against false accusations.

However HCW has certainly more knowledge of German judicial procedure than I do , and perhaps more knowledge than you.
Therefore he may be acting within guideline and procedure?
If not, he will no doubt face some consequences.

[Erngath]

His close friends will say anything as long as the tabloids are paying.

How do you know they received payment?
Have I missed the details of this?

[Brietta]

Brueckner is a nasty piece of work and unfit to be released into society I agree but his connection with Madeleine's disappearance is extremely tenuous and in my view hangs by a very thin thread. It will indeed be interesting to see what develops in the weeks and months ahead.

I agree with every word of that post, John.
I have posted a cite on one of the threads to the effect that Scotland Yard have been on Brueckner's case since the tenth anniversary.
They developed that line of inquiry from information passed to them routinely by the German police.  Who were already interested in him regarding the case of five year old Inga, who vanished in 2015.

The Portuguese police have also been on his case since the tenth anniversary.  "... after the suspect had made a "disturbing comment" in a bar in Germany, as they were watching TV news coverage of the 10th anniversary of Madeleine going missing.

Since that time, the official said Portuguese police have been making house-to-house enquiries speaking to those that knew him between 1996 and 2007.

Christian B was later extradited from Portugal to Germany on drugs charges."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52935728

Making him a person of interest and worthy of investigation by three national police forces.  That he is still of interest to all three and indeed the prime suspect three years down the line speaks volumes for me.

If he is guilty of abducting Madeleine he has had thirteen years to erase evidence which given his wandering lifestyle would have been difficult for the police to make sense of even at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007.
Bearing in mind that Amaral told us Brueckner was eliminated from the inquiry at that time (2007)
although he omitted to say why.  But the present police will have access to that information.

I too think it will take months before we hear much more from official sources.  For example it will be necessary to sort through and collate the added information arising from the recent appeals for information.

[kizzy]

Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.

I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.

Just not enough to take the.case to court.

Seems that  goes both ways..who knows we may end up with 2 shelved cases.

[jassi]

I agree with every word of that post, John.
I have posted a cite on one of the threads to the effect that Scotland Yard have been on Brueckner's case since the tenth anniversary.
They developed that line of inquiry from information passed to them routinely by the German police.  Who were already interested in him regarding the case of five year old Inga, who vanished in 2015.

The Portuguese police have also been on his case since the tenth anniversary.  "... after the suspect had made a "disturbing comment" in a bar in Germany, as they were watching TV news coverage of the 10th anniversary of Madeleine going missing.

Since that time, the official said Portuguese police have been making house-to-house enquiries speaking to those that knew him between 1996 and 2007.

Christian B was later extradited from Portugal to Germany on drugs charges."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52935728

Making him a person of interest and worthy of investigation by three national police forces.  That he is still of interest to all three and indeed the prime suspect three years down the line speaks volumes for me.

If he is guilty of abducting Madeleine he has had thirteen years to erase evidence which given his wandering lifestyle would have been difficult for the police to make sense of even at the time of Madeleine's disappearance in 2007.
Bearing in mind that Amaral told us Brueckner was eliminated from the inquiry at that time (2007)
although he omitted to say why.  But the present police will have access to that information.

I too think it will take months before we hear much more from official sources.  For example it will be necessary to sort through and collate the added information arising from the recent appeals for information.

Probably.  It's not as if there is any urgency, as OG have demonstrated for several years now.

[G-Unit]

Doesn't mean that he hasn't enough evidence to enable him to make the statements.he has made.
Just not enough to take the.case to court.

I find it strange that sceptics can be so definite that CB is not involved.

If by that you mean me (I'm a sceptical person, but I certainly don't see myself as a sceptic as defined by many supporters), I don't know if CB is involved or not.

As to evidence he should have enough to prove that his statements are true before he makes them. By his own admission he hasn't got that evidence.