The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Ms Para glider]

Some answers above. It seems the 3 crimes don't include the McCann case.

Semantics. The boxes he ticks and the circumstantial evidence we know about so far is what makes him a plausible suspect. And those same things are what makes some of us think the BKA may well have the correct culprit. That's all I was trying to say. I have not said at any point I think CB is definitely guilty though, as much as you (and others) like to make out that's what I'm saying. I cannot make that assessment based solely on the evidence we know so far. But I do think it is a very possible prospect. And the Prosecutor's confidence in his guilt only reinforces my opinion that he could well be responsible, since I have no reason to suspect that they are bluffing about the evidence they claim to have. If it turns out they don't have anything substantial, I'll be the first to condemn them for the statements they've made, but I see no reason at this stage to believe they are just "all talk" and write their claims off, like some people have. Time is on their side, why wouldn't they use it to build the best case possible?

Ok, I see what you are getting at now. Yes, the BKA and the Prosecutor's office are separate organisations. But he is a public prosecutor and his office are coordinating the BKA investigation. The investigation for which he is the spokesperson. When he speaks, you will often hear him saying "we" when he is referring to his colleagues in the BKA and the investigations they are undertaking. So as far as I'm concerned, he is speaking on their behalf too. Ultimately, it's his office who decides if and when charges are made based on the evidence collated, so it's their opinion what matters.

[G-Unit]

Semantics. The boxes he ticks and the circumstantial evidence we know about so far is what makes him a plausible suspect. And those same things are what makes some of us think the BKA may well have the correct culprit. That's all I was trying to say. I have not said at any point I think CB is definitely guilty though, as much as you (and others) like to make out that's what I'm saying. I cannot make that assessment based solely on the evidence we know so far. But I do think it is a very possible prospect. And the Prosecutor's confidence in his guilt only reinforces my opinion that he could well be responsible, since I have no reason to suspect that they are bluffing about the evidence they claim to have. If it turns out they don't have anything substantial, I'll be the first to condemn them for the statements they've made, but I see no reason at this stage to believe they are just "all talk" and write their claims off, like some people have. Time is on their side, why wouldn't they use it to build the best case possible?

Ok, I see what you are getting at now. Yes, the BKA and the Prosecutor's office are separate organisations. But he is a public prosecutor and his office are coordinating the BKA investigation. The investigation for which he is the spokesperson. When he speaks, you will often hear him saying "we" when he is referring to his colleagues in the BKA and the investigations they are undertaking. So as far as I'm concerned, he is speaking on their behalf too. Ultimately, it's his office who decides if and when charges are made based on the evidence collated, so it's their opinion what matters.

I don't think it's semantics to point out misleading or incorrect statements in posts.

[Ms Para glider]

I don't think it's semantics to point out misleading or incorrect statements in posts.

I'd expect nothing less from you. When you're all out of logic to address the fundamental arguments being made, and don't want to respond to difficult questions that challenge the arguments that you make, what else can you do but nitpick technicalities eh?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think it's semantics to point out misleading or incorrect statements in posts.

When I point out yours you ignore my posts completely! 

[G-Unit]

I'd expect nothing less from you. When you're all out of logic to address the fundamental arguments being made, and don't want to respond to difficult questions that challenge the arguments that you make, what else can you do but nitpick technicalities eh?

If a poster can't get the facts right the speculations and opinions being expressed are likely to be unconvincing imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If a poster can't get the facts right the speculations and opinions being expressed are likely to be unconvincing imo.

I’m wholly unconvinced by your opinion that death as a result of sedation was the motive for 9 people to cover up a death, especially as you have presented no evidence for it being a factor in this case.

[Ms Para glider]

If a poster can't get the facts right the speculations and opinions being expressed are likely to be unconvincing imo.

If a poster can't come up with anything logical to challenge an opinion they don't like, they resort to nitpicking any minor detail they can scrape together IMO.

If the best challenge you can come up with to everything I said is that Wolters isn't technically a BKA spokesman but a spokesman for the Prosecutor's office who are speaking on behalf of the BKA investigation that they are coordinating, well... that says it all IMO.

Anyway, tell us more about this wholly convncing sedation theory you were speculating about? It sounds fascinating.

[sadie]

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.

Hi Brie

Sorry, but I have forgotten who, or what, WS is.   Please can you enlighten me?   Thanks in anticipation

[Brietta]

Hi Brie

Sorry, but I have forgotten who, or what, WS is.   Please can you enlighten me?   Thanks in anticipation

My fault, Sadie, I was just being lazy.  I should have initially typed in Websleuths.  Their members have been having a wee bit of a break from posting because there is nothing much to say at the moment.  They started back wondering if the Portuguese statute of limitations is a consideration.

[G-Unit]

If a poster can't come up with anything logical to challenge an opinion they don't like, they resort to nitpicking any minor detail they can scrape together IMO.

If the best challenge you can come up with to everything I said is that Wolters isn't technically a BKA spokesman but a spokesman for the Prosecutor's office who are speaking on behalf of the BKA investigation that they are coordinating, well... that says it all IMO.

Anyway, tell us more about this wholly convncing sedation theory you were speculating about? It sounds fascinating.

The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?

[Mr Gray]

The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?

I'd say it's clear that Wolters is spokesman for the German investigation.. That involves the BKA. To me you are in constant denial

[Vertigo Swirl]

The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?

Are you seriously suggesting that HCW’s public statements may have been made without the agreement and approval of the BKA?

[Mr Gray]

In Germany, the police have an obligation to investigate every single crime reported and subsequently send all investigations to the Staatsanwaltschaft. The public prosecutor, the Staatsanwalt (state attorney), reviews the findings of the police and decides whether to indict the accused or halt the proceedings

[G-Unit]

I’m wholly unconvinced by your opinion that death as a result of sedation was the motive for 9 people to cover up a death, especially as you have presented no evidence for it being a factor in this case.

I never said that. I said that it could have been a motive for deciding not to surrender a body to the authorities. Just like the stranger abduction, sedation was brought into the case by Madeleine's mother as early as 5th May, although the PJ weren't told it seems.

[Ms Para glider]

The BKA are a federal police force like the FBI in the US. I'd be very surprised if a state prosecutor was allowed to speak for them or to coordinate their investigations. They may be assisting the Braunschweig police, but I doubt that they are controlled by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office. Unless, of course you know better?

Well be prepared to be surprised then, because that's how the legal hierarchy works in Germany, it's very different to the UK or US legal system. The police are always technicallly under the control and direction of the Prosecution service in Germany. In practice, yes, most cases are investigated by the police entirely independent of the Prosecutors instructions, and they simply hand their findings over at the end. But in serious cases like murder, or where there are complex legal issues (like in this case), the Prosecutors are involved early on and coordinate the investigation hands-on. Since the Prosecutors are the ones who have to present a case at trial, it means they can direct the investigators to the areas they feel require more evidence to strengthen their case.


"In the German legal system it is their job to lead preliminary criminal investigations. That involves reading files, instructing the police to conduct witness interviews or house searches"

https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/how-public-prosecutors-work-in-germany


Of course, if you know different, please provide a cite?