The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Brietta]

Brueckner was a local expat German resident in the Algarve. 

He was peripatetic but in the main seems to have been very familiar with Praia da Luz and seems to have been primarily based there.. 

He allegedly worked there in various capacities and apparently had a variety of contacts there.  He allegedly robbed and burgled the holiday apartments although the Portuguese police don’t seem to have caught him at it; nor did they catch him at his drug dealing. 

It is known that he lived in a farmhouse on the edge of the village; an address he was at pains to keep secret from the authorities when he was caught stealing diesel and from which he allegedly made arrangements with fellow criminals to “clean” evidence of crime while he was in jail.

The McCann holiday group in contrast were on their first trip to Luz where they were strangers.

[Brietta]

This thread was suggested to me by the following post which contrasts Brueckner's situation and that of the McCanns ~


Quote from: Para2030 on March 04, 2022, 10:27:48 PM

Indeed. Here's some other differences in case anyone is forgetting:

- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.

- CB has confessed to being involved in her disappearance, the McCanns haven't.

- CB has a track record of abusing little girls, the McCanns don't.

- CB is an expert at breaking into holiday apartments and leaving no trace, the McCanns aren't.

- CB is a convicted rapist, thief and child abuser. The McCanns have no criminal records.

- CB has yet to explicitly deny that he killed Madeleine. The McCanns have.

- CB has yet to provide an alibi for the time of the crime, the McCanns have.

- CB's closest friends and associates believe he is guilty, not one of the McCann's friends or associates believe they are guilty.

- CB has been publicly accused of murder by the BKA following an intensive 4 year investigation in which the PJ and SY are also assisting to gather evidence against him. The McCanns are not currently suspected of involvement by any police force.

I'm sure there's plenty more, but its pointless pointing it out to those who refuse to see.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11381.msg678298#msg678298

[Brietta]

- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.

Horrible as the thought of it is Brueckner could have many motivations and there is proof of that in the evidence presented in court which led to one of his convictions for offences against a child.

There is further evidence against him relating specifically to Madeleine's case - which is enough to make him the prime suspect.

Despite the best efforts of sceptics using vicious innuendo and downright open lies - not one of the McCann party has any such profile despite police investigation and the unwarranted internet scrutiny they have been under for fifteen years.

The crime against Madeleine has all the hallmarks of "stranger" written over it.  Late in the day the Amaral investigation fell flat on their faces by accusing Madeleine's parents - an accusation which had to be withdrawn because there was not a shred of evidence to support a case against them or Murat.

There is evidence against Brueckner.

[G-Unit]

- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.

Horrible as the thought of it is Brueckner could have many motivations and there is proof of that in the evidence presented in court which led to one of his convictions for offences against a child.

There is further evidence against him relating specifically to Madeleine's case - which is enough to make him the prime suspect.

Despite the best efforts of sceptics using vicious innuendo and downright open lies - not one of the McCann party has any such profile despite police investigation and the unwarranted internet scrutiny they have been under for fifteen years.

The crime against Madeleine has all the hallmarks of "stranger" written over it.  Late in the day the Amaral investigation fell flat on their faces by accusing Madeleine's parents - an accusation which had to be withdrawn because there was not a shred of evidence to support a case against them or Murat.

There is evidence against Brueckner.

I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?

Not everyone who commits a crime has a history of criminal behaviour. In those cases profiling doesn't help.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?

Not everyone who commits a crime has a history of criminal behaviour. In those cases profiling doesn't help.

In this case it would be necessary for multiple people who have never committed a crime before to suddenly decide to do so and then to all remain silent about it for the ensuing 15 years.  I wonder how often that happens?  On the other hand if you look at cases of child deaths at the hands of parents or because of parental neglect there is nearly always a history of abuse and neglect prior to the death.   

[Brietta]

I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?

Not everyone who commits a crime has a history of criminal behaviour. In those cases profiling doesn't help.

I'm not going to rehearse the many and varied motives attribute by Amaral and sceptics following suit while being equally inventive - you know them all, I am sure.

Brueckner seems to have been untouchable during his time in the Algarve and the fact that he was apparently a burglar par excellence (no jemmied doors or windows and no fingerprints or other forensic traces left behind) suggests yet another possible motive for the crime.
But by his own admission Amaral was looking in rather than looking out from first notification of the crime and if you don't seek - you won't find.

[Brietta]

In this case it would be necessary for multiple people who have never committed a crime before to suddenly decide to do so and then to all remain silent about it for the ensuing 15 years.  I wonder how often that happens?  On the other hand if you look at cases of child deaths at the hands of parents or because of parental neglect there is nearly always a history of abuse and neglect prior to the death.

Absolutely - the McCanns most certainly did not fit the profile of abusers.  Brueckner fits the profile for the crime against Madeleine as suggested by experienced investigators at the time of her disappearance and over the years since.

As Amaral says ~ the perfect suspect;  while still trying to promote that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

[Ms Para glider]

I don't think anyone ever thought the McCanns might have had a motive to take Madeleine. Why would they take her, they already had her?

You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.

In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.

The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?

CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.

So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.

In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.

The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?

CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.

So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.

Correct.  It’s also why you will never, ever hear a plausible logical theory of parental involvement from any sceptic on here, ever. There simply  isn’t one and they know it, which is why they refuse to be pushed on it, or engage in any discussion about it, excusing their reticence on a faux fear of being accused of legal action by the McCanns.  They must be mighty relieved they have such a perfect excuse. 

[G-Unit]

You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.

In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.

The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?

CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.

So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.

Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.

For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.

[Brietta]

You know the counter argument is weak when we're back to nitpicking semantics. "Take" her, "disappear" her, whatever. You know how it was meant. The point is, all of the various theories offered by sceptics rely on the McCanns (and usually the rest of the group) taking extreme measures to pretend Madeleine was abducted when they were supposedly responsible for her disappearance.

In nearly all of these theories, the motive (if one is even proffered) just doesn't stack up. They all lack credibility. Amaral for example suggests the motive to conceal the death was that the group were all worried about losing custody of their kids for the neglect shown. That's just nonsensical, has there ever been a case in history where that has happened before? And whether she was taken or died accidentally does not change that level of neglect anyway.

The only theories that make some semblance of sense from a motive viewpoint are if the McCanns were involved in some kind of abuse of their own daughter. But there is no real evidence to support that theory at all. Nor does it explain the motives of the rest of the group. This is what it all comes back to, after all these years of scrutiny on the McCanns, there is no consensus among the sceptics on that key question - what was their motive?

CB on the other hand, has very obvious motives. It could have a been planned sexual assault (has a track record of this) or he could have come across Madeleine while attempting a burglary and did something impulsive (track record of this too). His webchat in 2013 gives an idea of what perversions lie inside this man's fantasies. He's shown therefore he is capable of something like this.

So, while we can see at an instant what motive CB would have had, finding one for the McCanns involves superhuman levels of imagination and barrel scraping.

A recent German documentary reported that Brueckner will produce alibi evidence to prove he was elsewhere when Madeleine disappeared.  My opinion is that if he had credible evidence to support that he was elsewhere at the time he quite simply would not still be the prime suspect, which he is.

The phone evidence is a bit of a problem for him too, particularly as it would seem from the lack of follow up requests that previous appeals for the person at the other end of the line have been successful.
No doubt his former girlfriend who strangely felt the need to unburden herself to reporters will have given her evidence about the tenth anniversary discussion to the police in the first instance .
‘I asked him about it and he said, “I know about Maddie, I was near the hotel at the time. I was living in the area at the time. I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’
 Dailyhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10172917/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-told-girlfriend-near-holiday-villa.html Mail Online

[Brietta]

Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.

For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.

Calpol is an analgesic not a sedative.  Why on earth are you dragging up that old Amaral canard.

Neither is there any evidence that Brueckner incorporated sedation as part of his MO.

[jassi]

Calpol is an analgesic not a sedative.  Why on earth are you dragging up that old Amaral canard.

Neither is there any evidence that Brueckner incorporated sedation as part of his MO.

I wasn't aware that Brueckner's MO included kidnap or murder either.

[Brietta]

Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.

For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.

Let me get this right ~
"Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house."  Is it your suggestion that this is a motive.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Superhuman levels of imagination? I don't think so. I saw discussions in the media after Madeleine disappeared about children being sedated. I was amazed to find it wasn't unheard of and, in some circles, was seen as perfectly OK to sedate your children for your own and other's convenience.

For some reason sedation became an issue in the case when the parents raised the possibility. Had an autopsy revealed sedation in Madeleine her doctor parents could have lost their jobs and their house.

So you saw discussions in the media about people routinely sedating their children?  What with?  Illegal substances?  If they were admitting to sedating their children and it was illegal why were they not tracked down and arrested and their kids taken into care?  Doctors can get away with all sorts of malpractice without necessarily  losing their jobs or their houses so I don’t think they would have been sacked or become homeless for adminstering too much Calpol (which isn’t a sedative) to their children.  So what substance were you thinking of, and what evidence supports its use in this case?
Furthermore, children who are heavily sedated sleep soundly.  They don’t wake up a few minutes later and wander about  jumping off furniture to their instant deaths.  So in short I don’t think this is a plausible or logical explanation.