The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[G-Unit]

You’re the one claiming you can think of far easier targets and ways for someone like Brückner to steal a small child to abuse, I’m afraid my imagination really does not stretch that far, so how about you share with us your own imaginings?  Fourth or fifth time of asking.

I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.

Oh how lovely - a compliment.  I think it's very obvious why you see no reason to explain your thoughts in detail - it's because on reflection you cannot think of an easier target for a predatory paedophile nor an easier way to abduct a child than entering an unlocked ground floor apartment at night from which the parents are absent and in which the child is fast asleep.   Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

[Ms Para glider]

I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.

... but plenty of reasons not too.

Shame, your last attempt at speculation was such a roaring success too. Let's be honest, if a supporter used the kind of nonsensical logic you just employed to justify a "motive" or "theory" that suited their position, you'd have ripped them to pieces. And rightly so.

[Mr Gray]

I can't be bothered explaining.

We all know our post achieve nothing so nothing to explain

[The General]

.

[faithlilly]

.

The most sensible post I’ve seen all day.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The most sensible post I’ve seen all day.

It’s admirable and unusual in its brevity and to the point, though what the point is, who knows.

[Ms Para glider]

The most sensible post I’ve seen all day.

The others were obviously a bit too intellectual for you.

[Mr Gray]

.

...

[Ms Para glider]

...

Good counter-argument. In fact, I'd say that's 300% more sensible than the original point.

[sadie]

I think you're very good at imagining things. Either way, I've said what I think and see no reason to explain my thoughts in detail.

Weak Gunit.
Surely with your expertise at dodging, you can do better than that?

[Brietta]

Brueckner claimed in a letter to German investigative Journalist Jutta Rabe that he had never been caught because he kept a low profile when moving around to avoid the attention of the police. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-sends-open-letter-over-abduction-claims/FW6CTZZJZ2UBV43NHIP6TIXGBM/

• he only drove during the day whenever possible
• choosing his route with care when driving around
• being careful not to draw police attention to himself
• therefore not committing any crimes particularly that of abduction

His claims don't hold water as far as I am concerned unless he only committed his crimes in areas which were within walking distance; and I imagine drug trafficking over Europe would be difficult without breaking his rules.

He certainly didn't bother about not drawing attention when he exposed himself to the children in the playground and had to be rescued from the wrath of a couple of dads by an off-duty police officer. https://www.eseracingoe.com/the-policeman-who-was-guarding-madeleine-mccanns-apartment-caught-the-prime-suspect-10-years-later/

[Ms Para glider]

Brueckner claimed in a letter to German investigative Journalist Jutta Rabe that he had never been caught because he kept a low profile when moving around to avoid the attention of the police. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-sends-open-letter-over-abduction-claims/FW6CTZZJZ2UBV43NHIP6TIXGBM/

• he only drove during the day whenever possible
• choosing his route with care when driving around
• being careful not to draw police attention to himself
• therefore not committing any crimes particularly that of abduction

His claims don't hold water as far as I am concerned unless he only committed his crimes in areas which were within walking distance; and I imagine drug trafficking over Europe would be difficult without breaking his rules.

He certainly didn't bother about not drawing attention when he exposed himself to the children in the playground and had to be rescued from the wrath of a couple of dads by an off-duty police officer. https://www.eseracingoe.com/the-policeman-who-was-guarding-madeleine-mccanns-apartment-caught-the-prime-suspect-10-years-later/

It's a nonsensical argument he's trying to make. If CB's motives for taking Madeleine were driven by perverted desires, then consideration over drawing attention to his drug dealing wouldn't even come into it. The drug dealing is driven by the desire to earn money, same as the burglaries. His abuse of children is driven by a sexual compulsion.

Besides, abducting/murdering a child is a far more serious crime than selling weed, whatever the motive. Nobody is going to be logically thinking - "I better not commit this crime that could land me in jail for life, just in case they find out about my weed business which might land me 2 years tops!"

The logic he is trying to use can only really be applied to avoiding "petty" crimes, for fear of drawing attention to the "worse" crimes you were committing.

So, in order to avoid drawing attention to your vehicles and criminal activities, "petty" crimes someone might reasonably be expected to steer clear of would include things like - driving without insurance, driving without a valid licence, driving with illegal registration plates, driving while under the influence... Incidentally, these are all things that CB has also been convicted for... Which just goes to show how full of crap he is.

[The General]

It's a nonsensical argument he's trying to make. If CB's motives for taking Madeleine were driven by perverted desires, then consideration over drawing attention to his drug dealing wouldn't even come into it. The drug dealing is driven by the desire to earn money, same as the burglaries. His abuse of children is driven by a sexual compulsion.

Besides, abducting/murdering a child is a far more serious crime than selling weed, whatever the motive. Nobody is going to be logically thinking - "I better not commit this crime that could land me in jail for life, just in case they find out about my weed business which might land me 2 years tops!"

The logic he is trying to use can only really be applied to avoiding "petty" crimes, for fear of drawing attention to the "worse" crimes you were committing.

So, in order to avoid drawing attention to your vehicles and criminal activities, "petty" crimes someone might reasonably be expected to steer clear of would include things like - driving without insurance, driving without a valid licence, driving with illegal registration plates, driving while under the influence... Incidentally, these are all things that CB has also been convicted for... Which just goes to show how full of crap he is.

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.

[jassi]

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