The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

All except the murderer box. He had/has no previous in this area. He also had no motive.

The Germans have nothing to connect him with Maddie anyway, it's all just bull.

  He isn’t a murderer because he hasn’t got a previous conviction for murder?  He has no motive?  Just what are you on??   I despair, I really do…

[barrier]

Insufficient evidence?

Some one ought give a link to here , CB would soon be doing time for Madeleines demise then.

[Ms Para glider]

Cart before the horse here, kid. Why haven't they arrested him?

I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.

No, he's not been arrested but he has been publicly accused.

If you were publicly accused of killing a toddler, and you could prove you hadn't, wouldn't you attempt to clear your name and put the record straight? Wouldn't you be absolutley horrified at people thinking you had raped and murdered a little girl, despite having proof that clears you? Or would you just tell people you were happy to "sit back and relax and wait for their findings"? Which is exactly what CB has stated.

I'm sure you have several witty and inappropriate responses lined up to those questions but you know as well as I, it is common sense that a rational person would find such a false accusation deplorable, and would seek to redress it as soon as possible if they could easily prove it was untrue. An innocent person would not normally "relax" and resort to goading the police instead.

Does that mean he must be definitely guilty? No, of course it doesn't. Maybe he is just a sociopath who enjoys the attention for all we know. But it certainly doesn't look good. It doesn't make any assertion of innocence more believable, it only makes it less so IMO and therefore, it's a fair point to call it out.

People are trying to say there's NO real evidence he was in Luz when we don't even know for certain that he claims not to be.

The phone alone IS evidence of him being in Luz though.

If someone is taking a half hour call on a phone, logic and statistical probability will tell you that the person on that phone is extremely likely to be the person who owns the phone.

If the police can prove he was using that number, it's down to CB to explain why it was there. And realistically, he needs some other corroboration that he wasn't the person using the phone in Luz if he wants be believed by the Judge that he didn't have it on him.

[barrier]

I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.

No, he's not been arrested but he has been publicly accused.

If you were publicly accused of killing a toddler, and you could prove you hadn't, wouldn't you attempt to clear your name and put the record straight? Wouldn't you be absolutley horrified at people thinking you had raped and murdered a little girl, despite having proof that clears you? Or would you just tell people you were happy to "sit back and relax and wait for their findings"? Which is exactly what CB has stated.

I'm sure you have several witty and inappropriate responses lined up to those questions but you know as well as I, it is common sense that a rational person would find such a false accusation deplorable, and would seek to redress it as soon as possible if they could easily prove it was untrue. An innocent person would not normally "relax" and resort to goading the police instead.

Does that mean he must be definitely guilty? No, of course it doesn't. Maybe he is just a sociopath who enjoys the attention for all we know. But it certainly doesn't look good. It doesn't make any assertion of innocence more believable, it only makes it less so IMO and therefore, it's a fair point to call it out.

People are trying to say there's NO real evidence he was in Luz when we don't even know for certain that he claims not to be.

The phone alone IS evidence of him being in Luz though.

If someone is taking a half hour call on a phone, logic and statistical probability will tell you that the person on that phone is extremely likely to be the person who owns the phone.

If the police can prove he was using that number, it's down to CB to explain why it was there. And realistically, he needs some other corroboration that he wasn't the person using the phone in Luz if he wants be believed by the Judge that he didn't have it on him.

We're told CB has been under investigation for 5 yrs, whats CB got to defend himself from ? clearly there is not enough to even arrest him.

[jassi]

Must be a bit disheartening to spend 5 years and still not reach a point where charges can be laid.
Grange took twice as long , but then they were never expected to reach a conclusion.

IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Must be a bit disheartening to spend 5 years and still not reach a point where charges can be laid.
Grange took twice as long , but then they were never expected to reach a conclusion.

IMO.

A ridiculous assertion.
IMO.

[Ms Para glider]

Some one ought give a link to here , CB would soon be doing time for Madeleines demise then.

If you are referring to the level of intelligent points arguing his defence ... you're right. He'd be screwed.

[faithlilly]

- 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.

How do you know about the witnesses above recollections? Is it through the tabloids? I believe when it comes to selling your story the juicier the ‘recollections’ the better the pay day.

As to the rest of your post it’s simply fluff without an ounce of substance.

And to Brueckner…do I really have to point out that he has to tell the police nothing. It’s up to them to prove where he was and what he was doing.

Just a thought but perhaps that’s what’s holding those charges up?

[Vertigo Swirl]

How do you know about the witnesses above recollections? Is it through the tabloids? I believe when it comes to selling your story the juicier the ‘recollections’ the better the pay day.

As to the rest of your post it’s simply fluff without an ounce of substance.

And to Brueckner…do I really have to point out that he has to tell the police nothing. It’s up to them to prove where he was and what he was doing.

Just a thought but perhaps that’s what’s holding those charges up?

Talking of fluff without an ounce of substance, do you have any evidence at all of any of these people being paid by the tabloids for invented stories about CB?

[faithlilly]

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.

Didn’t Kate fail to answer questions under caution? I wonder what her ‘ulterior motives’ were?

[faithlilly]

I'm not saying he HAS to say anything now. My point is, he COULD. And IMO, any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD.

Then why didn’t Kate answer those 48 pesky questions?

[Ms Para glider]

You know you are winning the argument when people start blatantly ignoring what you've already explained, fail to directly challenge any specific points you've made and resort to rolling all the same old drivel and insults that add nothing to the topic.

[Ms Para glider]

Didn’t Kate fail to answer questions under caution? I wonder what her ‘ulterior motives’ were?

I'll answer that if you first answer me this. Do you think it is suspicious, or even a sign of guilt, that Kate did not answer those questions?

[Brietta]

You know you are winning the argument when people start blatantly ignoring what you've already explained, fail to directly challenge any specific points you've made and resort to rolling all the same old drivel and insults that add nothing to the topic.

Such an obvious and well worn out deflection tactic it no longer has any effect.

I notice that apart from the wonderment of what door the cops politely knocked at in Luz when he was on their radar in 2007 - there has been no valid argument proposed against any of the boxes so obviously ticked by Brueckner to make him as Amaral says - the perfect patsy.

[jassi]

No, he'll be the perfect patsy when no charges are laid, but police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
Grange is almost there now.

There is simply no way to refute that.  Guilty but not charged.

Don't believe me ?  Wait and see.