The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Ms Para glider]

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.

He's not being accused of child trafficking. He's being accused of murder.

Everbody who gets caught for anything for the first time has no "prior" for it. As I pointed out a few posts ago, he'd never been caught for rape up until a couple of years ago, but we now know his rape crimes go back at least 17 years!

Not sure how you can you assert it is "completely out of character". Some of the people who knew his character best don't seem to think so. They believe he IS guilty, without even seeing the evidence against him. They have described him as being "more than capable" of taking a child and that he'd talked about doing such things.

Of all the people put on trial for murder, what percentage of those do you suppose already have a previous conviction for murder (or child trafficking for that matter)? Probably very few, as those guys would already be serving long sentences.

What you will find in most of those people's records though is a history of other crimes. In fact, the most common "previous convictions" seen in people found guilty of murder are for theft & handling stolen goods, burglary and violence. Boxes ticked.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Personally I am shocked and somewhat concerned that an ex-policeman could conclude that someone with previous convictions for rape, theft and child abuse could not be capable of taking a small child from an unlocked ground floor apartment to abuse and then dispose of when he had had what he wanted.   Where is the logic in such a conclusion?

[Vertigo Swirl]

John also states that CB would have had to have done something completely out of character and to have only done it once.  As Para has pointed out, taking a child to abuse is something not considered "completely out of character" by some who actually knew CB, furthermore who is to say that if CB took Madeleine to abuse and murder he only ever committed such a crime once? Is he not being investigated for similar crimes?

[barrier]

But there is

Allegedly.

[barrier]

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.

There is no uncomfortable truth, my stance has always been person/s removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts, seen nothing even from the mighty BKA to change that stance, I said back in June 20 CB had nowt to do with it, still not seen anything to change my mind on that either, cannot prove that Madeleine is dead its circumstantial, no forensics, adds up to diddly squat.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is no uncomfortable truth, my stance has always been person/s removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts, seen nothing even from the mighty BKA to change that stance, I said back in June 20 CB had nowt to do with it, still not seen anything to change my mind on that either, cannot prove that Madeleine is dead its circumstantial, no forensics, adds up to diddly squat.

How can you be so certain of this?  Who did, if not CB?  You seem very sure of yourself, so do share.

[Brietta]

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.

It was a cowardly crime which definitely ticked a box for someone in the Policia Judiciaria at the time.  The problem seems to lie with the failure of the investigation to follow the elimination process through and deciding a course of action which followed an entirely different narrative from the 'stranger danger' typified by those such as Brueckner.

[Brietta]

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.

The parents are saying absolutely nothing which I don't think means they know nothing.

I find the total silence from the investigation and the total silence from the media at present actually speaks volumes.

[Ms Para glider]

There is no uncomfortable truth, my stance has always been person/s removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts, seen nothing even from the mighty BKA to change that stance, I said back in June 20 CB had nowt to do with it, still not seen anything to change my mind on that either, cannot prove that Madeleine is dead its circumstantial, no forensics, adds up to diddly squat.

Your post is what adds up to diddly squat. It is hot mess of contradictions. You say it's always been your stance that "person/s removed Madeleine from 5A without leaving a trace to her whereabouts". You then say you've "seen nothing from the BKA to change that stance"..... well, no, you probably wouldn't, since that appears to be their stance too!

Lets assume you are 100% correct in your theory, and that there is indeed NO trace to her whereabouts. Why are you then writing off the BKA investigation on the basis they've found no trace to her whereabouts? Can you not see the massive flaw in your argument there?

They have admitted they don't know where the body is, but what it appears they do have is a web of other circumstantial evidence that point to CB being the guilty party. We have no way to know just what that evidence entails, how damning it is, how much is admissible in court. That is the hurdle the Prosecutors need to overcome. Knowing someone is guilty and guaranteeing a conviction are very different things.

But please enlighten us as to how you deduced that CB had nothing to do with it all that time ago. Walk us through the logic you used to arrive to what I'm sure is a well though-out conclusion. I do hope its not simply along the lines of "if he dun it, they'd have charged him by now!".

[Ms Para glider]

The parents are saying absolutely nothing which I don't think means they know nothing.

I find the total silence from the investigation and the total silence from the media at present actually speaks volumes.

I agree. I think the fact the parents have said nothing is actually quite telling. I think they've been told a lot more than what we're led to believe IMO.

[Brietta]

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).

Interesting choice of language there.  "Squirm" indeed!   I must agree that there are those who certainly merited having a good squirm as more and more ineptitude from the initial investigation fell into the public domain.


Madeleine McCann Probers Focus on Child Sex Attacker
By Jean-Nicholas Fievet April 23, 2014

These latest cases were brought to police attention after a public appeal for information last month.

Senior investigating officer Andy Redwood calls the new leads "extremely positive" and a "priority" for his investigation. Scotland Yard have requested case files for the six attacks from Portuguese police.

The British investigation is now examining 18 cases where a male intruder entered the apartments and villas of British vacationers in the Western Algarve region of Portugal. They include nine sexual assaults and three "near-misses," officials said. The victims were all British girls aged between 6 and 12 years old. Fourteen of the attacks were reported to the police at the time.

Detective Chief Inspector Redwood says he is confident that some if not all of the cases are linked because of their "significant similarities."

In order to protect the identities of the victims, police are not disclosing why some of the attacks were not reported earlier. While some of the attacks were known to police in Portugal, they were not considered relevant by them to the McCann case because they didn't involve abduction.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt says he is "cautiously optimistic" that police in Portugal will soon move forward with Scotland Yard's requests for help.

Senior British detectives have expressed frustration with the slow pace of the judicial process, and the cooperation they have received from their Portuguese counterparts.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/madeleine-mccann-probers-focus-on-child-sex-attacker

I am NOT saying this was Brueckner - but here were crimes being perpetrated against female children under their own roofs and the police didn't think them relevant to a crime perpetrated against a little girl which started off under her own roof.
Very squirmable piece of sleuthing there methinks.

[G-Unit]

He's not being accused of child trafficking. He's being accused of murder.

Everbody who gets caught for anything for the first time has no "prior" for it. As I pointed out a few posts ago, he'd never been caught for rape up until a couple of years ago, but we now know his rape crimes go back at least 17 years!

Not sure how you can you assert it is "completely out of character". Some of the people who knew his character best don't seem to think so. They believe he IS guilty, without even seeing the evidence against him. They have described him as being "more than capable" of taking a child and that he'd talked about doing such things.

Of all the people put on trial for murder, what percentage of those do you suppose already have a previous conviction for murder (or child trafficking for that matter)? Probably very few, as those guys would already be serving long sentences.

What you will find in most of those people's records though is a history of other crimes. In fact, the most common "previous convictions" seen in people found guilty of murder are for theft & handling stolen goods, burglary and violence. Boxes ticked.

He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.

[Mr Gray]

He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.

Not according to Wolters... Who speaks on behalf of the German investigation

Wolters says he's convinced he's 100% guilty... He must have some very convincing evidence to claim that

[Vertigo Swirl]

He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.

Why do you think he’s a person of interest?  Was he just picked at random do you think?  After all I seem to recall you claiming there was no evidence at all that he was involved?

[Brietta]

He is undoubtedly a person of interest, but whether he's guilty or not remains to be seen.

There is no doubt that German police have identified Bruckner as a murder suspect.  It remains to be seen if the evidence against him is strong enough to give him his day in court.

Christian Wolters, head of the inquiry into Brueckner, 43, told The Sun that when  exactly he is questioned depends on further investigation, 'but he will be questioned'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9072319/Madeleine-McCann-prime-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-43-questioned-prosecutors-say.html