The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be  confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have  already charged him.

IMO

One is reminded of the phrase No Manure Moriarty, or some such....

[The General]

I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be  confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have  already charged him.

IMO

That's probably where we are at. Given that this coup de grâce continues to elude them, despite their best efforts, it's looking increasingly likely that they'll never reach their own meticulous threshold of evidence that preserves their precious conviction rate.
It's over.

SHAZZAM!

[Ms Para glider]

All of the abovementioned he would do habitually, given that he's a petty criminal and legitimacy eludes him. His driving license would be jarg, probably, and he had ready access to plates. He's already stated that he tried to evade the five O via the few measures he had at his disposal - i.e. almost none; driving at night, only driving his 300ft Winnebago on back roads and at night, not kidnapping children, that sort of thing.

Two years in soon. Could be some sort of record.
He didn't do it.

Well exactly. He was continually committing all sorts of crimes all the time, as his criminal record and the accounts from his associates prove. So his assertion that one of his key principles was - "not committing any crimes" - is a load of crap. Is it not?

His record shows he was engaging in crimes as lowly and pathetic as nicking diesel. And it also shows he was carrying out crimes as extreme as raping and torturing a pensioner. All while he was supposedly concerned about keeping his drug dealing on the down-low.

So once we remove the very obvious lie from his statement about not committing any crimes, what are we are left with in terms of what reasons he offers for not being guilty of taking Madeleine... A denial that he would ever do something so heinous? An alibi that proves he was elsewhere? No, just a rather meaningless claim that he was cautious about where and when he drove his hippy bus. Wow.

[barrier]

Well exactly. He was continually committing all sorts of crimes all the time, as his criminal record and the accounts from his associates prove. So his assertion that one of his key principles was - "not committing any crimes" - is a load of crap. Is it not?

His record shows he was engaging in crimes as lowly and pathetic as nicking diesel. And it also shows he was carrying out crimes as extreme as raping and torturing a pensioner. All while he was supposedly concerned about keeping his drug dealing on the down-low.

So once we remove the very obvious lie from his statement about not committing any crimes, what are we are left with in terms of what reasons he offers for not being guilty of taking Madeleine... A denial that he would ever do something so heinous? An alibi that proves he was elsewhere? No, just a rather meaningless claim that he was cautious about where and when he drove his hippy bus. Wow.

Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.

[Mr Gray]

Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.

But there is

[Mr Gray]

That's probably where we are at. Given that this coup de grâce continues to elude them, despite their best efforts, it's looking increasingly likely that they'll never reach their own meticulous threshold of evidence that preserves their precious conviction rate.
It's over.

SHAZZAM!

Who is we... You and your cat

[Vertigo Swirl]

Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.

You’re seeing things.  Para’s post did no such thing and just because you refuse to accept that there is evidence against him it doesn’t mean there is none.

[Ms Para glider]

Another who is prepared to perpetuate the legend that CB did it with out one single iota of evidence to suggest he did.

And I see you are another one who has to resort to making things up about people when you don't like them pointing out uncomfortable truths.

Given the opportunity to explain why he could not have been the one to have taken Madeleine, CB gives a bizarre excuse about not wanting to risk drawing attention to his drug business. Part of that excuse he gives is also a very provable lie.

If the McCanns claimed a specific excuse to say why they couldn't be guilty, and that claim was demonstrably false, do you think people here would let that slide? Would you call them out for perpetuating a myth? I doubt it.

[John]

Amaral was NEVER able to come up with any sort of feasible means for the McCanns to be able to make Madeleine vanish without trace.  And my goodness some of the many means he suggested they might have employed are irrational and simply beyond belief.

They didn't even have access to any sort of transportation nor did they know the area or anyone living in it - so all the Amaral suspicions fall at the first hurdle for people on foot in and without support in an unknown and unfamiliar environment.

All the boxes that logic dictates cannot be applicable to the McCanns are ones which can be ticked with ease as far as the prime suspect Brueckner is concerned.

Brueckner had the means, the transportation, the contacts, the skills and the incentive.  He obviously knew the resort like the back of his hand as it was a cash cow for him in many ways both legal and illegal.

Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice.  Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories.

[John]

I don't know whether Brueckner is guilty or not but if the Germans had enough evidence to be  confident of a conviction in connection with Madeleine then they would have  already charged him.

IMO

I agree. If they had anything concrete the parents would have been told. The fact that they haven't been told anything says it all really.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Boxes ticked except for the main one that Bruckner had no known prior for child trafficking. In other words, for him to be guilty he would have had to have done something completely out of character and never done it twice.  Just doesn't add up imo, a bit like Amaral's theories.

Insane logic imo.

[Mr Gray]

I agree. If they had anything concrete the parents would have been told. The fact that they haven't been told anything says it all really.

You are totally wrong... There is at last some real evidence

[The General]

You are totally wrong... There is at last some real evidence

You're right, circumstantial and not remotely enough. Which could potentially apply to about 200 other people in the area at the time - phone ping and whereabouts unknown.

It's gone now. All gone.
It's amusing to witness the squirm. CB ain't your man, meine verblendeten Freunde. (I use the term loosely, you know, internet acquaintances).

[Mr Gray]

You're right, circumstantial and not remotely enough. Which could potentially apply to about 200 other people in the area at the time - phone ping and whereabouts unknown.

It's gone now. All gone.
It's amusing to witness the squirm. CB ain't your man, meine verblendeten Freunde. (I use the term loosely, you know, internet acquaintances).

Theres no sqirm from me I'm following the evidence and the logic..... The real squirming is yet to come.. From sceptics such as yourself

[Vertigo Swirl]

What's really amusing is that 15 years on McCann sceptics still believe they are right and that two police forces investigating stranger abduction are wrong, stuck as they are in a perpetual 2007 Groundhog Day they are reluctant to leave.  Even if CB isn't ever charged, I would fully expect the investigation either to close with no resolution but with a firm statement from the police that stranger abduction remains the only likely theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance, or that stranger abduction will continue to be investigated as the only likely theory for Madeleine's disappearance.  One thing is pretty sure - the McCanns have been off the hook for this for years and will continue to be so, much to the everlasting disappointment of some.  The only consolation for them is that without a resolution these sad, deluded yet smug individuals can continue to inhabit their Groundhog Day existence without having to question their own beliefs too hard, and can claim some sort of victory, because obviously it's vitally important to them that they "win the internet" (hence prematurely gloating posts like today's contribution from his Generalness).