The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[The General]

Well since the last study I quoted went down like a cup of cold sick among the sceptics.... how about another!? Huzza!

This is taken from oft-cited Hanfland et al 1997 study - "Case Management for Missing Children Homicide Investigation". It looked at over 600 cases where a child was specifically abducted and then subsequently murdered, so it's relevance is even more significant to the particular scenario we are discussing here.

The following is a summary of findings relating to characteristics of the perpetrators of said crimes. It's a bit long but the original report is over 100 pages so I'm summarising as best I can. Let's see how many boxes CB ticks here:


Killers of abducted children are somewhat unique among murderers in general, above and beyond their choice of victims. They can be characterized as social marginals: They are not active, successful participants in mainstream, conventional social life, but, rather, they occupy a position in society that is, indeed, on the "edge, brink, border, precipice, or margin." They are not integrated, personally or socially, into the kinds of relationships or activities that produce and sustain effective self or social controls. Their personal and social attributes establish and define their social marginality.

In terms of their sociodemographic attributes, these killers can be typified as white males who, on average, are about 27 years old. Only 15 percent of these killers are married at the time of the murder. This is very different than for young adult males in the general population, as well as for murderers in general, where the pattern is almost the opposite, with the great majority of them being married.

50 percent of the child abduction killers were unemployed at the time they committed the murder. This rate of unemployment is at least five times greater than the national unemployment rate for the general population. When they are working, they are primarily employed in "unskilled" and "semiskilled" labor occupations. They tend to work in what economists refer to as "secondary sector" occupations, which require little formal education, produce low wages, are characteristically unstable, indicate lower status, do not lend themselves to career commitments, and so on.

They may not truly be loners, but they are more likely to be "social isolates," particularly from their peers, both male and female. They are also quite mobile--they change their residences quite often, more than most people. Seventy-nine percent of these killers moved at least once within the past five years. This may not be that unusual, but 43 percent of them changed residences three or more times, and 21 percent moved five or more times during the five years preceding the murder. They do not seem to stay anywhere very long, where they could (or would) connect themselves to others or to a place. Or, vice versa, because they are less attached to significant others, they are more free and, therefore, more likely to move often. It is also likely that for many of them, their criminal activity makes it more necessary to move around, either seeking out more fertile grounds for victims and/or avoiding apprehension.

Their prior criminal acts, against adults and juveniles, also indicate a predisposition to violence, including murder and sexual assaults. Based on a search of their criminal records, it was discovered that the majority of child abduction killers have histories of violence. Sixty percent of them had prior arrests for violent crimes. And, alarmingly, their crimes of violence are being perpetrated at a high rate against child victims. The majority (53%) of the killers had committed prior crimes against children, and the most frequent of those crimes were assaults and/or sexual assaults. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the killers who are strangers to their victims have committed prior crimes against children, which is twice as likely as a killer who is a family member or intimate (32%).

Surprisingly, two-thirds (67%) of the prior crimes committed had an M.O. that was similar to that in the abduction murder that was committed by the same offender. They were most alike, by a large margin, in the "commission of the offense," or the way the crimes were committed. In 70 percent of the cases that had similar M.O.s, the priors were committed in similar ways. These findings regarding the similarity of M.O.s across the great majority of crimes committed by child abduction killers show that there is more consistency in the M.O.s of these types of killers than expected and as compared to other types of murderers. The data also suggest that there may be a greater predisposition to serial offending among child abduction killers.

In the case of child abduction murders, the overwhelming majority--69 percent--of the cases involve a sexual motive, compared to only 5 percent of all murders, and 14 percent of child murders.

A theoretical perspective in criminology--"lifestyle" or "routine activities" theory--proposes that there are three basic elements in a crime: a motivated offender, the opportunity to commit the crime, and ineffective guardians. In keeping with the prior observation that most of these child abduction killers seem to be predisposed or "ready" to kill, if they are given the opportunity, and the risk of identification or apprehension is minimized because the potential victim is not being monitored, the probability of an abduction and murder increases. Absent any one of the elements, the chances of murder decline. However, given this kind of group of motivated offenders, it should not be surprising that 57 percent of the murder victims are simply "victims of opportunity". They were killed because of the opportunity to act on a general predisposition to commit violence against children (only 13% had a "specific motivation" to kill a particular victim).

Good one that. Keep them coming.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.

They’ve been off the hook for 14 years - wake up!!

[Mr Gray]

It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.

You have summed up why you... gunit and others refuse to accept CB as the prime suspect. Nothing to do with logic... Just plain bias. It was obvious too us all but you have inadvertently confirmed it... Well done

[Mr Gray]

I have no idea whether he's guilty or not as I think I've said a few times. I'm not interested in credibility either, I'm interested in evidence. When I see evidence that suggests he was actually rather than possibly involved I may be more interested. At the moment no such evidence has been released. It's all speculation.

You give away your blatant lack of logic.

Two scenarios
CB named as prime suspect with little info given

CB named as prime suspect with a claim of concrete evidence.

The claim of evidence supports the claim of guilt and is therefore evidence..it depends how much credibility the BKA have to determine the strength of that evidence... But it's still evidence. As Angelo has pointed out it seems you won't accept that purely because it puts the mccanns in the clear.... And of course proves Amaral.. Grime.. The PJ and a host of others wrong

[Brietta]

Good one that. Keep them coming.

I have to agree with you 100% on that one.

Para2030 does make the effort to keep posts informative and to the point which contributes to the standing of the forum.

I wish more members would follow the lead in that.

The added benefit of the post is that it is bang on the topic of the thread.  I found it ticked very many of the boxes for what we know are known facts about Brueckner.

[G-Unit]

That evidence exists but you have summarily dismissed it.  You doubt he is guilty because you think you know better who is guilty, that’s the truth of the matter isn’t it?

I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.

[Mr Gray]

I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.

The BKA say they have evidence which convinces them of his guilt

[G-Unit]

It's really very simple. Gets a certain couple off the hook after nearly 15 years.

I can understand supporters hoping that CB is guilty for that reason, but it seems to have become a belief, not just a hope.

[Brietta]

You give away your blatant lack of logic.

Two scenarios
CB named as prime suspect with little info given

CB named as prime suspect with a claim of concrete evidence.

The claim of evidence supports the claim of guilt and is therefore evidence..it depends how much credibility the BKA have to determine the strength of that evidence... But it's still evidence. As Angelo has pointed out it seems you won't accept that purely because it puts the mccanns in the clear.... And of course proves Amaral.. Grime.. The PJ and a host of others wrong

If there was no evidence linking Brueckner to the crime perpetrated against Madeleine - quite simply - he would not have been classed as suspect.

If there had been evidence which eliminated him from the inquiry - like the very many who fitted a similar profile to Brueckner and who the process eliminated - he would not be classed as suspect.

Operation Grange did express an interest in him in 2013.
At that time it is possible that Brueckner did check out because there was no known evidence at the time which linked him to Madeleine's case.

That situation altered when evidence became available in 2017 and continued to be presented into the present which resulted in Brueckner becoming the prime suspect in the crime against Madeleine McCann.

Does that sound like the patsy of prejudice?  Not to me it doesn't.  It sounds like dogged evidence based police work which followed procedure to build a case.

[G-Unit]

The BKA say they have evidence which convinces them of his guilt

You do know that the BKA isn't represented by the spokesman for the Braunschweig prosecutor's office?

[G-Unit]

If there was no evidence linking Brueckner to the crime perpetrated against Madeleine - quite simply - he would not have been classed as suspect.

If there had been evidence which eliminated him from the inquiry - like the very many who fitted a similar profile to Brueckner and who the process eliminated - he would not be classed as suspect.

Operation Grange did express an interest in him in 2013.
At that time it is possible that Brueckner did check out because there was no known evidence at the time which linked him to Madeleine's case.

That situation altered when evidence became available in 2017 and continued to be presented into the present which resulted in Brueckner becoming the prime suspect in the crime against Madeleine McCann.

Does that sound like the patsy of prejudice?  Not to me it doesn't.  It sounds like dogged evidence based police work which followed procedure to build a case.

You believe the evidence exists because Wolters say it does. Operation Grange are less trusting and are still treating Madeleine's disappearance as a missing person.

[Brietta]

I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolter said investigators have enough evidence to bring a charge against the suspect but want to “strengthen their position” first.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-search-christian-brueckner-murder-b1935250.html

The German investigation is nothing to do with speculation it is fact and evidence based,

Since the prime suspect is already in custody for other crimes, they can afford the time to festina lente just to make sure.

[Brietta]

I can understand supporters hoping that CB is guilty for that reason, but it seems to have become a belief, not just a hope.

That is an insulting and disgusting post.

I know of no-one hoping for any such thing.  I for one still hold out a little glimmer of hope for Madeleine - but I am realistic enough to know that the German investigation hold evidence - and a prime suspect - to the contrary.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I've seen loads of speculation, but no evidence that CB was in Luz on 3rd May and no evidence that he was anywhere near 5A. No matter how credible he is as a suspect he needs to be shown to be in the right place at the right time.

There is evidence for both but as I have said before, you have summarily dismissed it as "speculation".  Do you class Martin Smith's statement as speculation btw?  Is he simply speculating that it was Gerry he saw?   When your favourite Tapas chef says the table had emptied by 9.20pm is that evidence or him speculating that that was the time it happened?  Is "speculate" the mot du jour?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I can understand supporters hoping that CB is guilty for that reason, but it seems to have become a belief, not just a hope.

It's neither a hope nor a belief with me, so think again.  My hope is that the case is solved, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bed, the rest remains to be seen.