The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[sadie]

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

I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’ [/b]

To me, that sounds as though he, Breuckner, was being paid to abduct Madeleine.   It was a business deal

[Brietta]

I am not going to say anything more. I am not a stupid guy, I am a businessman.” ’

To me, that sounds as though he, Breuckner, was being paid to abduct Madeleine.   It was a business deal

One of Brueckner's friends said he was obsessed by money and at one time or another he definitely had access to funds.
He bought property - he bought a kiosk - he bought the second hand American style 'Winnebego' Motorhome and seemed to have access to a variety of vehicles.

I don't think much if any of his 'businesses' were legit, the mainstay being his involvement in the drug trade.  But his contacts made as a result of his 'business' activities certainly tick another couple of boxes not available to the McCanns namely the means available to him combined with his invisibility to the PJ despite Amaral's assurances to the contrary.

[Ms Para glider]

It aounded  like you were trying to convince yourself the McCanns and friends sedated their children when you said you read on the internet of numerous cases of parents sedating their children, yet you have refused to explain who these people were, what sedation they were using, and why they weren’t arrested and their kids taken into care if their actions were illegal.  Evidence convicts people and there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their kids yet you have put this forward as a motive, one that doesn’t actually make any sense anyway IMO.  I fully expect this post will be ignored by you yet again, so rude!

I get accused of kidding myself (over what I'm still waiting to find out) when I wasn't even addressing her in my post
G-unit, if you take issue with a comment I make, please call me up on it and say exactly what it is you don't agree with.

[Brietta]

I get accused of kidding myself (over what I'm still waiting to find out) when I wasn't even addressing her in my post
G-unit, if you take issue with a comment I make, please call me up on it and say exactly what it is you don't agree with.

All queries about moderation should be posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741

[Ms Para glider]

All queries about moderation should be posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741

Thank you Brietta. An interesting thread. These are some of my favourite comments from there -


- Moderators shouldn't penalise others for doing things they also do. Respect has to be earned and a moderator who displays the "do as I say not as I do" attitude won't be respected, and will lose authority imo. Leading by example is what the best leaders do imo.


- Moderators have volunteered to ensure that all members keep to the rules of the Forum. If you poke your head above the parapet you should expect to be shot at in my opinion. As long as you are confident that your moderating is fair, unbiased and in accordance with forum rules there's no need to feel like anyone is attacking you personally.


-Although I'm not here to win any popularity contest I know full well that I would be universally unpopular if I was a moderator. I believe rules should be adhered to and I would enforce them much more strictly than they are currently enforced.

I wouldn't allow any;

Personal comments
Lack of respect
Speculation
Lack of cites
Protracted arguments

[jassi]

Ha, without the last ones, the forum would be very inactive as it's rife with speculation and protracted and pointless argument.

[Mr Gray]

If CB was never charged..if the investigating police force said he was no longer a suspect and there's no evidence against him... what would sceptics think if 14 years later posters were still here posting and were still convinced of his guilt. Would they think such posters were daft

[jassi]

If CB was never charged..if the investigating police force said he was no longer a suspect and there's no evidence against him... what would sceptics think if 14 years later posters were still here posting and were still convinced of his guilt. Would they think such posters were daft

I don't know what people would think in such circumstances, other than that Brueckner had been thoroughly investigated before that conclusion was reached.

[Brietta]

If CB was never charged..if the investigating police force said he was no longer a suspect and there's no evidence against him... what would sceptics think if 14 years later posters were still here posting and were still convinced of his guilt. Would they think such posters were daft

Certainly a proposition worth thinking about but I doubt it would ever happen were such an announcement made.  It would be seen as vindication and an excuse to vent even more spleen at their subjects of choice.

However it seems the sleuths have woken up on WS and have raised the interesting point that the next anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance will mark Portugal's statute of limitations kicking in.
Am I right in thinking this was a similar situation regarding the rape trial?

I have seen it said before that the German investigation suffers no such restriction and may explain why their Portuguese colleagues are content to step back and allow them to get on with it. 
Makes sense I think for anyone interested in Justice.

[G-Unit]

Convince myself of what?

As a moderator, you shouldn't be making derogotary comments like that IMO. What about the content of my post there, warranted that? Please explain.

To convince yourself that the Germans have found the person responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance. You see Brueckner as a 'plausible' suspect. Colin Stagg was a plausible suspect in the Rachel Nickell case, but he didn't do it, so plausible doesn't equate to guilty.

The BKA, you say, are adamant. What have the BKA (not Hans Wolters) been adamant about please?

Which three charges has Wolters intimidated Brueckner will be charged with?

In summary your post was not imo evidence based, it was extremely speculative.

[G-Unit]

Certainly a proposition worth thinking about but I doubt it would ever happen were such an announcement made.  It would be seen as vindication and an excuse to vent even more spleen at their subjects of choice.

However it seems the sleuths have woken up on WS and have raised the interesting point that the next anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance will mark Portugal's statute of limitations kicking in.
Am I right in thinking this was a similar situation regarding the rape trial?

I have seen it said before that the German investigation suffers no such restriction and may explain why their Portuguese colleagues are content to step back and allow them to get on with it. 
Makes sense I think for anyone interested in Justice.

Perhaps the Portuguese don't have any evidence with which to charge Brueckner with murdering Madeleine McCann?If that's the case then their statute of limitations is irrelevant.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It aounded  like you were trying to convince yourself the McCanns and friends sedated their children when you said you read on the internet of numerous cases of parents sedating their children, yet you have refused to explain who these people were, what sedation they were using, and why they weren’t arrested and their kids taken into care if their actions were illegal.  Evidence convicts people and there is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their kids yet you have put this forward as a motive, one that doesn’t actually make any sense anyway IMO.  I fully expect this post will be ignored by you yet again, so rude!

Bump

[Mr Gray]

To convince yourself that the Germans have found the person responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance. You see Brueckner as a 'plausible' suspect. Colin Stagg was a plausible suspect in the Rachel Nickell case, but he didn't do it, so plausible doesn't equate to guilty.

The BKA, you say, are adamant. What have the BKA (not Hans Wolters) been adamant about please?

Which three charges has Wolters intimidated Brueckner will be charged with?

In summary your post was not imo evidence based, it was extremely speculative.

You seem to be in such total denial it's laughable.
The case will be decided on evidence.
There was no evidence against Stagg so its a ridiculous comparison. There is evidence against CB... Almost certainly more than what we already know

[G-Unit]

Bump

My thoughts on sedation were shared because I think that it could be seen as a motive to hide a body if the dead person had been sedated. There's no evidence that any of the McCann children were sedated, but there is evidence that her mother very quickly decided that it was a possibility that 'the abductor' had done so, although there's a lack of evidence that she shared this thought with the police initially as she claimed.

Parents do sedate their children, sometimes with help from doctors;

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/some-parents-sedate-their-babies/

Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’

Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.

‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

My thoughts on sedation were shared because I think that it could be seen as a motive to hide a body if the dead person had been sedated. There's no evidence that any of the McCann children were sedated, but there is evidence that her mother very quickly decided that it was a possibility that 'the abductor' had done so, although there's a lack of evidence that she shared this thought with the police initially as she claimed.

Parents do sedate their children, sometimes with help from doctors;

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/some-parents-sedate-their-babies/

Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’

Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.

‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html

You didn’t answer any of my questions.  You say many people habitually sedate their children, suggesting that this is quite a normal practice in some circles but volunteered no evidence to support your assertion nor any detail on what substance is used to sedate children, and if it is actually illegal to sedate children with such substance(s).   It’s really rather important to establish the answers to these questions if you’re going to suggest a cover up over sedation as the motive IMO.  People who are given too much sedation don’t as far as I know become more wakeful and more likely to get up and fall off sofas to their deaths, so do you really think this is a likely scenario?  Isn’t it more likely that an oversedated child would fallinto a coma and die in their bed, their death not being discovered until the following morning?  But this is not what you think happened is it?  Can you not see how illogical the sedation theory is?