The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

You couldn't get past the first capital letter.

nonsensical reply, as expected.

[G-Unit]

Or at least not the really important ones like evidence of actual physical involvement with Madeleine.

Exactly. A suspect can tick every box people can come up with, but without evidence it means nothing.

[Mr Gray]

Exactly. A suspect can tick every box people can come up with, but without evidence it means nothing.

Couldnt agree more.. Wolters says he has that evidence

[Vertigo Swirl]

Exactly. A suspect can tick every box people can come up with, but without evidence it means nothing.

No one is disputing that fact.  This thread is about the boxes ticked by Brückner.  You agreed he ticked them but then in the next breath claimed he did not.  Perhaps you can explain?  Based on the fact that Bruckner ticks many boxes, do you not  think he should be exhaustively investigated?

[G-Unit]

No one is disputing that fact.  This thread is about the boxes ticked by Brückner.  You agreed he ticked them but then in the next breath claimed he did not.  Perhaps you can explain?  Based on the fact that Bruckner ticks many boxes, do you not  think he should be exhaustively investigated?

My position is to question how useful box ticking is.

[Vertigo Swirl]

My position is to question how useful box ticking is.

Why do you question its usefulness?  For example:  do you think that every single person in Praia Da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance is equally as likely to be involved in her disappearance, or is there anyone at all you would discount as they don’t tick any of the boxes?  Is Mrs Fenn as likely to have abducted and murdered Madeleine as Christian Bruckner?  We know you don’t think Madeleine was abducted but the police do.  Unfortunately they have little or no forensic evidence to go on,  so what criteria do you think they should be using when trying to ascertain likely suspects in the area at the time?   If, for example, several people come forward independently and name an individual should that person be further investigated to see whether or not they tick any boxes?

[Mr Gray]

My position is to question how useful box ticking is.

I think that's a pretty ridiculous opinion..

[G-Unit]

Why do you question its usefulness?  For example:  do you think that every single person in Praia Da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance is equally as likely to be involved in her disappearance, or is there anyone at all you would discount as they don’t tick any of the boxes?  Is Mrs Fenn as likely to have abducted and murdered Madeleine as Christian Bruckner?  We know you don’t think Madeleine was abducted but the police do.  Unfortunately they have little or no forensic evidence to go on,  so what criteria do you think they should be using when trying to ascertain likely suspects in the area at the time?   If, for example, several people come forward independently and name an individual should that person be further investigated to see whether or not they tick any boxes?

I think that there can be many reasons to investigate people. Some of those people may not tick any of the boxes mentioned here but there may be other indications.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think that there can be many reasons to investigate people. Some of those people may not tick any of the boxes mentioned here but there may be other indications.

Can you just for once answer this question: based on the boxes ticked by Bruckner and the fact that he has been named as someone involved in Madeleine’s disappearance is it correct that he should have been exhaustively investigated to the point where he is either eliminated or charged?  If not, why not?

[barrier]

Couldnt agree more.. Wolters says he has that evidence

Saying and having are two entirely different things.

Whats he said since Oct last year to firm up on that ?

Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder. Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter

[Mr Gray]

Saying and having are two entirely different things.

Whats he said since Oct last year to firm up on that ?

Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder. Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter

Relying on a newspaper report... When it suits you.
I could explain my interpretation but I can't be bothered.
Look at what's in quotation marks

[G-Unit]

Can you just for once answer this question: based on the boxes ticked by Bruckner and the fact that he has been named as someone involved in Madeleine’s disappearance is it correct that he should have been exhaustively investigated to the point where he is either eliminated or charged?  If not, why not?

Murat was named and I think he ticked some analyst's boxes. The PJ investigated him exhaustively. They did not, however, proclaim him guilty during that process. So yes, Brueckner should have been investigated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Murat was named and I think he ticked some analyst's boxes. The PJ investigated him exhaustively. They did not, however, proclaim him guilty during that process. So yes, Brueckner should have been investigated.

Progress of sorts.  You agree Brückner should have been investigated.  Obviously the PJ didn’t think he was worth pursuing despite all the boxes he ticks (many more than Murat) and so he wasn’t investigated.  That’s a big failure on their part IMO.  The Germans are doing everything they can to put that right.  It remains to be seen whether or not they have the right man, but investigating him is absolutely the right thing to be doing, as you yourself have now agreed.  Good.

[Mr Gray]

Murat was named and I think he ticked some analyst's boxes. The PJ investigated him exhaustively. They did not, however, proclaim him guilty during that process. So yes, Brueckner should have been investigated.

Noo evidence real evidence against Murst

[The General]

Looks like you'll be able to get that lavender file back after all, Sadie, when they horse all the crap in the skip.
Meanwhile HCW has bought a pair of white boots, a cap and a whistle for his traffic duty shift on Monday. PEEP PEEEEP.