The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

Alledgedly.

Alleged by the co-ordinator of the original police investigation. If such a person makes a claim are we to treat it as evidence, rumour or wishful thinking?  Which one? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's clear that Amaral's word is no longer trusted by sceptics.  What does that mean wrt to some of the claims he has made that sceptics have always taken as gospel?  Can these all be dispensed with now?  Perhaps the subject for a new thread? 

[The General]

Why do you keep saying £15 million, when it is 13 million?

You are not Gunit in disguise are you?

Put it right, there's a dear.  More than one post is affected; people will think it's the truth if you repeat it often enough ... and you wouldn't want that, would you?

£16 million.

[misty]

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.

Brueckner has done precisely that. He wrote to a UK Investigative journalist (MWT) & gave him a detailed description of his whereabouts at the time Madeleine disappeared.
From the synopsis of yet-to-be-aired Episode 3 "Investigating the Prime Suspect"
(https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect)
.
 *Christian writes to Mark with a detailed account of his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s
disappearance and Mark checks this against the known facts.*

Of course, that's not quite the same as providing an alibi for the time Madeleine may have been murdered, the crime Brueckner is actually suspected of.

[Ms Para glider]

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.

Where did I say he "should"? You are putting words in my mouth again and you need to stop!

CB has every right to remain silent if he chooses. But he has the option to speak to police whenever he wants. If he is 100% innocent and can prove it, it would make sense to do so IMO rather than have his name smeared and potentially a target put on his back in prison. Something he and his legal team have claimed to be incensed about.

Instead he has chosen to send letters to journalists and (allegedly) provided details of an alibi to them. So as far I'm concerned, he's undemined any position that he should say nothing until charged.

[G-Unit]

It's clear that Amaral's word is no longer trusted by sceptics.  What does that mean wrt to some of the claims he has made that sceptics have always taken as gospel?  Can these all be dispensed with now?  Perhaps the subject for a new thread?

Are you making your sweeping statements about all sceptics, some sceptics or just me? I can only speak for myself.

[jassi]

Brueckner is a long term criminal.
The police are his enemy.
Why would he want to cooperate with them?

[Brietta]

Brueckner has done precisely that. He wrote to a UK Investigative journalist (MWT) & gave him a detailed description of his whereabouts at the time Madeleine disappeared.
From the synopsis of yet-to-be-aired Episode 3 "Investigating the Prime Suspect"
(https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect)
.
 *Christian writes to Mark with a detailed account of his whereabouts at the time of Madeleine’s
disappearance and Mark checks this against the known facts.*

Of course, that's not quite the same as providing an alibi for the time Madeleine may have been murdered, the crime Brueckner is actually suspected of.

He has been in constant contact with journalists.

Earlier in the thread it was noted that all the other paedophiles in Luz at the time Madeleine disappeared had been eliminated from the inquiry as if that fact in some way should have exonerated Bruckner.

The point being that other paedophiles were checked out and scored off the list for the simple reason no evidence was found against them at the time they were investigated.
They didn't have to "prove their innocence" for the simple reason the police did it for them.
That makes it all the more significant that Brueckner remains a suspect after the police investigation did not clear him as it had the others.

The evidence led to him being made a suspect - nothing else.

[Ms Para glider]

Brueckner is a long term criminal.
The police are his enemy.
Why would he want to cooperate with them?

He was said to have cooperated with the police fully back in 2013 when he was first questioned about the Madeleine case. This was after his name was put forward as a suspect following a TV appeal but before they had any real evidence to implicate him.

[G-Unit]

Where did I say he "should"? You are putting words in my mouth again and you need to stop!

CB has every right to remain silent if he chooses. But he has the option to speak to police whenever he wants. If he is 100% innocent and can prove it, it would make sense to do so IMO rather than have his name smeared and potentially a target put on his back in prison. Something he and his legal team have claimed to be incensed about.

Instead he has chosen to send letters to journalists and (allegedly) provided details of an alibi to them. So as far I'm concerned, he's undemined any position that he should say nothing until charged.

You said;

"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."

Saying that the onus is on him is saying he has a duty or responsibility to do something; he should do it.

[jassi]

He was said to have cooperated with the police fully back in 2013 when he was first questioned about the Madeleine case. This was after his name was put forward as a suspect following a TV appeal but before they had any real evidence to implicate him.

The difference being that police went and asked him questions on that occasion.
Perhaps he will respond accordingly if they ever get around to asking him anything

In the meantime why would he want to make things easy for them ?

[Brietta]

The difference being that police went and asked him questions on that occasion.
Perhaps he will respond accordingly if they ever get around to asking him anything

In the meantime why would he want to make things easy for them ?

I disagree with that.  He would not be making anything easier for the police.  He would be taking the heat off himself - which both he and his legal team have complained of.

He did time because he preferred to be classed as being "of no fixed abode" by his refusal to give up his address to them - perhaps now as then there was a lack of communication for ulterior motives.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Are you making your sweeping statements about all sceptics, some sceptics or just me? I can only speak for myself.

Well, you have mooted that there is no evidence that CB lived in the PdL environs at the time of Madeleine's disappearance despite what Amaral has said, and the other sceptics who have commented on here seem to be supportive of your comments, so I think it's safe to surmise that they too think Amaral must have been telling lies about this.  Of course, they are free to put me straight any time. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

The difference being that police went and asked him questions on that occasion.
Perhaps he will respond accordingly if they ever get around to asking him anything

In the meantime why would he want to make things easy for them ?

It would not be making things easier for the police would it?  If he supplied them with a cast-iron alibi it would put a serious spanner in their works and wipe the smug look off HCW's face wouldn't it?  I'm sure CB would be delighted to do that if he could, but it appears he can't.

[Ms Para glider]

You said;

"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."

Saying that the onus is on him is saying he has a duty or responsibility to do something; he should do it.

You are deliberately misrepresentating me... again.

I was saying the onus is on him in a legal sense in terms of explaining the phone. People are trying to make out that the duty is on the police to prove he was using that phone and are here making out he has to be given the benefit of the doubt if they can't 100% prove he had it that night. What I went on to say (which you have cut) is that a judge won't see it that way. He will (at some point) be expected to explain why his phone was in Luz and being used if he wants to claim that he wasn't the one using it.

I did NOT say that he "should" defend himself against newspaper gossip and rumours. Which is just the latest of unfounded and unwarranted accusations you've levelled at me. The phone evidence isn't newspaper gossip! In fact it's one of the only pieces of evidence the authorities have officially released. This is an accusation directly from the police, not tabloid rumour.

Yes, it's up to him when he wants to address that question over the phone and his whereabouts, but he shouldn't expect people to have much sympathy for his complaints or an expectation to be given the benefit of the doubt when he is choosing not to do so.