The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oh please! On what basis do people claim he was living in Luz? Evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?

If someone who knew CB at the time later claimed he was living in the environs of Luz when Madeleine disappeared would you class that as evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?  What do you understand by the term “evidence”?

[G-Unit]

I would imagine there will be evidence as to where Brueckner was living.  But why do you think it important enough to argue the point.

Surely his actual whereabouts and proximity on the night the crime was committed takes precedence.

I object when people claim something is a fact when there's nothing to suggest it is. CB did not, afaik, tick the box for living in Luz in May 2007. Neither is there any definitive evidence as to where he was on 3rd. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I object when people claim something is a fact when there's nothing to suggest it is. CB did not, afaik, tick the box for living in Luz in May 2007. Neither is there any definitive evidence as to where he was on 3rd.

You just claimed as fact that he did not live in Luz in June (sic) 2007.  That is a definitive statement that requires a cite.  Do you have one?  There IS evidence to suggest he lived in the area at the time but you refuse to accept it is evidence.

[faithlilly]

I object when people claim something is a fact when there's nothing to suggest it is. CB did not, afaik, tick the box for living in Luz in May 2007. Neither is there any definitive evidence as to where he was on 3rd.

It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.

[Ms Para glider]

It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.

- His phone was there.

- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.

- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.

- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.

Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.

A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.

He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.

Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.

[sadie]

Pots and kettles Sadie. Brueckner didn't live in Luz in May 2007 unless you've got an address?

Well the PJ knocked on the door once, only once.

[G-Unit]

It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.

He could have been parking his van in Luz. He could have been watching the McCanns all week. He could have gone into 5A and taken a child. He could have murdered her and disposed of her body. Or he could have done none of that.

[sadie]

Sneaky editing of posts going on above btw.  You have now made a mockery of my post which asked why it mattered where he was living in June and changed it to May to quietly rectify your glaring error.  Disingenuous to say the least!

Sounds like you are getting *The Treatment*, VS, that I suffered for so many years.

Next stage is to make it that your password no longer works, then you can't even get into forum.   

Good Luck.



BTW, did you get my request to be a * friend *?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It appears that ‘well he could have been’ is sufficient evidence to those less interested in truth than scapegoating.

What I'm interested in is understanding how G-Unit can claim as a fact that CB was not living in Luz at the time, yet no cite to back that up.  Surely such a stickler for the truth as yourself (cough) would like to know how she can be so certain? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sounds like you are getting *The Treatment*, VS, that I suffered for so many years.

Next stage is to make it that your password no longer works, then you can't even get into forum.   

Good Luck.



BTW, did you get my request to be a * friend *?

I don't think so?  Where would one look for that?

[jassi]

- His phone was there.

- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.

- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.

- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.

Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.

A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.

He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.

Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.

Or indeed, none of them.

Best to wait until charges are laid, I think.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He could have been parking his van in Luz. He could have been watching the McCanns all week. He could have gone into 5A and taken a child. He could have murdered her and disposed of her body. Or he could have done none of that.

Now we're getting somewhere - you are at last acknowledging that he was well placed to do all of the things you list - he had the means, the motive and the opportunity. Tick, tick, tick. 

[sadie]

I don't think so?  Where would one look for that?

Haven't a clue.  Have never done it before, but it must have been well over a month ago.

[G-Unit]

- His phone was there.

- He told Busching he was involved in the crime.

- He told an ex-girlfriend he was close by to the apartment at the time.

- An original eye-witness has claimed it was CB she saw hanging around the Ocean club.

Of course, we don't have access to the police files to know yet whether are all of these things reported in the Press are 100% accurate. But if they are, they would all be strong indicative evidence that he was indeed in Luz.

A 5 year police investigation has not found any indication to exhonerate him by placing him elsewhere. CB was asked in 2013 about his whereabouts at the time. Either he admitted to being in Luz at the time, or wherever he claimed to have been has not been corroborated.

He has yet to provide the current investigation team with an official alibi, or an explanation for why his phone was in Luz. As much as certain people here are wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would still say the onus is on him to explain that. And I believe a Judge will be of the same opinion. Phone evidence is seen as extremely strong in the court's eyes. He will have to give a compelling reason if he wants to claim he wasn't using it. Simply saying "you can't prove I was using it" will not wash with a Judge.

Theres no scapegoating. It's the sceptics who have no interest in getting to the truth IMO. Repeatedly writing off everything pointing to CB without any proof to justify it. What proof do you have that he wasn't in Luz? None.

Another one who thinks a suspect should defend himself against gossip and rumours in newspapers. If the German police decide to question him that is when he needs to speak and not before.

[G-Unit]

Well the PJ knocked on the door once, only once.

Alledgedly.