The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Didn’t you used to refer to me disparagingly as Mystic Meg?  Seems you believe you’ve developed the gift. 

[Brietta]

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.

Shall we wait just a wee bit for the official announcement before getting your hopes up and stick with Brueckner and the boxes he ticks.

[jassi]

Shall we wait just a wee bit for the official announcement before getting your hopes up and stick with Brueckner and the boxes he ticks.

That's what I said - wait and see.

I don't do hope, just expectation.

[Anthro]

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.

It’s fairly simple, I think. Both OG and the BKA know they have the right person i.e Christian Brückner.

[jassi]

Has  Grange actually said that, or is it just your interpretation ?

[Brietta]

Has  Grange actually said that, or is it just your interpretation ?

When was the last time Operation Grange is on record as saying anything; you appear to have made up your own mind about the interpretation of recent newspaper speculative articles.

Officially - Brueckner is suspected of being a child murderer.

[faithlilly]

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?

Isn’t that your line? That the refusal or lack of willingness to provide information suggests guilt.

[faithlilly]

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.

Oh I thought you were talking about the parents there.

Of course you can’t find what you’re not looking for.

[Ms Para glider]

Isn’t that your line? That the refusal or lack of willingness to provide information suggests guilt.

I've already explained my "line" and given detailed reasoning behind my argument. I'm asking for your "line" since you brought up Kate's questions. Do you think Kate's refusal to answer those questions is suspicious and/or is a sign of her guilt? If so, why?

[faithlilly]

I've already explained my "line" and given detailed reasoning behind my argument. I'm asking for your "line" since you brought up Kate's questions. Do you think Kate's refusal to answer those questions is suspicious and/or is a sign of her guilt? If so, why?

Your ‘line’ appears to be ‘any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD’ yet Kate seems to have preferred  not to take that route. Why do you think that was? Can we conclude then, according to your logic, that suspicion must surround her too?

If you really want to know what I think of the parent’s actions at the time of their daughter’s disappearance can I suggest that you read my previous posts which are readily available on this forum and stop using counterquestions as a way to deflect?

[Ms Para glider]

Your ‘line’ appears to be ‘any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD’ yet Kate seems to have preferred  not to take that route. Why do you think that was? Can we conclude then, according to your logic, that suspicion must surround her too?

If you really want to know what I think of the parent’s actions at the time of their daughter’s disappearance can I suggest that you read my previous posts which are readily available on this forum and stop using counterquestions as a way to deflect?

I've said I'll address your question once you answer mine. I think that's fair. You're the one deflecting.

It's a very straightforward question, but one you do not want to give a straightforward response to. I think we both know why.

[The General]

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

You win. Post of the Day.

[Mr Gray]

You win. Post of the Day.

Stop it.. She thinks you're serious

[Brietta]

You win. Post of the Day.

Reeeeealy 🙄

Groundhog day and tiresome (as is yours) ~ but more importantly ~ entirely OFF TOPIC (as is yours)

Let's make the resolution for today ~ we all aim for on topic posts or ones which are as close as possible.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Your ‘line’ appears to be ‘any rational person who could prove their innocence WOULD’ yet Kate seems to have preferred  not to take that route. Why do you think that was? Can we conclude then, according to your logic, that suspicion must surround her too?

If you really want to know what I think of the parent’s actions at the time of their daughter’s disappearance can I suggest that you read my previous posts which are readily available on this forum and stop using counterquestions as a way to deflect?

Haven’t you regularly accused Kate and Gerry of focusing more of their time and money on trying to establish their innocence than trying to find their daughter?  Isn’t Kate’s best-selling book a complete rebuttal of accusations of involvement in their child’s disappearance?  Haven’t her actions been entirely consistent with any rational person who could try to prove their innocence would?  Kate was entirely co-operative with the police until the arguido interview and had no need to provide an alibi as to her whereabouts at the time of the disappearance anyway, unlike CB who could simply make this all go away by doing so.  He does not need to wait to be asked by the police for an alibi, if he had one he could make the German police look like a laughing stock, could probably successfully sue them and be on his way out of prison in the next couple of years.