The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[G-Unit]

“ Evidence is relevant if it logically goes to proving or disproving some fact at issue in the prosecution. It is admissible if it relates to the facts in issue, or to circumstances that make those facts probable or improbable, and has been properly obtained.27 Aug 2021”

Now explain why various statements concerning the open window and shutter are not evidence?

I never said they weren't evidence, I said they weren't evidence of stranger abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I never said they weren't evidence, I said they weren't evidence of stranger abduction.

Potentially they are, in the same way that the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was potentially (and actually) evidence of stranger abduction.  If Brückner is charged do you not think the open window statements would be used as evidence?
Explain why categorically in your opinion they are not evidence of stranger abduction.

[faithlilly]

I never said they weren't evidence, I said they weren't evidence of stranger abduction.

An open window is simply evidence that someone opened the window. By itself it is not and never can be evidence of a stranger opening it. Of course any competent prosecutor will present it as evidence of an abduction by a stranger but that doesn’t mean that it is.

[Ms Para glider]

Yeh, no probs, kid.
But I do hope you earned that badge, I'll leave it at that.

Me personally, no. I have the utmost respect for any man or woman who volunteers for her Majesty's Service, even you. But since displaying the badge offends you, or makes you think you can use it against me, I'll remove it. It was meant in honour and if I had any respect for you on a personal level, I'd tell you my story. Maybe another time.

[Brietta]

Members are reminded that the topic of this thread is - "The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner" - please make an effort to stay on topic:  thank you

[Vertigo Swirl]

An open window is simply evidence that someone opened the window. By itself it is not and never can be evidence of a stranger opening it. Of course any competent prosecutor will present it as evidence of an abduction by a stranger but that doesn’t mean that it is.

Pretty much all evidence presented in court is to open to interpretation  and cross examination which will seek to undermine and discredit it, even forensic evidence, blood spatter, fingerprints on a knife, whatever.  Your second sentence confirms what I have been saying - the open window is evidence of abduction, in exactly the same way as the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was evidence that someone had open the tent and removed her.  Thank you.

[G-Unit]

Pretty much all evidence presented in court is to open to interpretation  and cross examination which will seek to undermine and discredit it, even forensic evidence, blood spatter, fingerprints on a knife, whatever.  Your second sentence confirms what I have been saying - the open window is evidence of abduction, in exactly the same way as the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was evidence that someone had open the tent and removed her.  Thank you.

The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.

[John]

Pretty much all evidence presented in court is to open to interpretation  and cross examination which will seek to undermine and discredit it, even forensic evidence, blood spatter, fingerprints on a knife, whatever.  Your second sentence confirms what I have been saying - the open window is evidence of abduction, in exactly the same way as the open zip on Cleo Smith’s tent was evidence that someone had open the tent and removed her.  Thank you.

The open window claim isn't evidence as it is uncorroborated. In fact when Matt did his outside check the window wasn't open so take from that what you may.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.

So evidence is only evidence if there is corroboration, is that what you’re saying?  Using your rules what evidence is there that the McCanns disposed of their daughter’s body?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The open window claim isn't evidence as it is uncorroborated. In fact when Matt did his outside check the window wasn't open so take from that what you may.

You believe firmly that Madeleine woke and wandered.  What corroborated evidence supports your claim?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.

Also please provide a cite that it took police five days to start treating Cleo Smith’s disappearance as an abduction.

[G-Unit]

Also please provide a cite that it took police five days to start treating Cleo Smith’s disappearance as an abduction.

Cleo Smith, a four-year-old Australian girl, disappeared on 16 October 2021

On 20 October, Acting Deputy Commissioner Daryl Gaunt of the Western Australia Police Force said that claims that the case was being treated as an abduction were not correct, explaining that the case was being treated primarily as a search and rescue case.

It was announced on 21 October that the police believed that Cleo had been abducted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_of_Cleo_Smith

[Brietta]

The police didn't investigate the case as an abduction immediately, it was five days before they decided that's what had happened. That suggests to me that the zip was, like 5A's open window, or alerts by cadaver dogs, just an uncorroborated clue. Something else emerged after five days to corroborate the zip clue imo.

I would suggest that why the police went with the abduction theory in Cleo's case was because they had investigated ALL other possibilities - eliminated them - and followed the evidence which remained.

The striking result of the police tactic regarding pursuing the theory that Cleo had been the victim of STRANGER ABDUCTION is that by concentrating on that THEY FOUND CLEO alive and well.

I suggest that had they thrown all their resources at pursuing the proven false trail of parental involvement convinced that is what happened to Cleo to the exclusion of all else as in Madeleine's case - they would not have found her - and she would have been yet another child referred to in future as "another Madeleine McCann".

Cleo was found BECAUSE THE POLICE LOOKED FOR HER and never allowed the investigative trail to go cold as they checked EVERY possibility out - including waste bins.
I think they used the tried and tested search technique of starting at the centre and working out finding the missing child not in the proximity of the holiday area, but in the proximity of Cleo's home where her abductor had taken her.

In Portugal Madeleine was never given the benefit of the doubt that she was alive and should be looked for as a live and missing child.
The lead dectective is on record as declaring her dead immediately she disappeared and immediately blamed her parents with no further ado.

Thank God the Australian police actually looked for a live child 'cos guess what - that enabled them to find one.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Cleo Smith, a four-year-old Australian girl, disappeared on 16 October 2021

On 20 October, Acting Deputy Commissioner Daryl Gaunt of the Western Australia Police Force said that claims that the case was being treated as an abduction were not correct, explaining that the case was being treated primarily as a search and rescue case.

It was announced on 21 October that the police believed that Cleo had been abducted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_of_Cleo_Smith

The police say lots of things to the media which aren't necessarily completely factual as I'm sure you will recall from the McCann case in which one of the senior officers stated categorically that the parents were not suspects until suddenly a few days later they were made arguidos.  The fact remains that the parents' report of an open zip on the tent was treated as evidence that someone had taken their daughter, even if it really did take four whole days for the police to come to that conclusion.   A car speeding away from the campsite that night was the only corroborating evidence at the time as far as I recall, and I'm sure you could point to other fairly tenuous examples in the McCann case of potential corroborating evidence, such as the sighting of the couple and young child in the nearby marina in the early hours of 4th May.  Was it exhaustively followed up in the way the Australians followed up the only lead they had?  I don't really think so, in fact it was marked "not relevant" to the investigation pretty swiftly though nobody really knows why. 

Now perhaps you can answer my first question.  What corroborated evidence points to the McCanns' alleged involvement in disposing of their daughter's body?

[barrier]

The police say lots of things to the media which aren't necessarily completely factual as I'm sure you will recall from the McCann case in which one of the senior officers stated categorically that the parents were not suspects until suddenly a few days later they were made arguidos. The fact remains that the parents' report of an open zip on the tent was treated as evidence that someone had taken their daughter, even if it really did take four whole days for the police to come to that conclusion.   A car speeding away from the campsite that night was the only corroborating evidence at the time as far as I recall, and I'm sure you could point to other fairly tenuous examples in the McCann case of potential corroborating evidence, such as the sighting of the couple and young child in the nearby marina in the early hours of 4th May.  Was it exhaustively followed up in the way the Australians followed up the only lead they had?  I don't really think so, in fact it was marked "not relevant" to the investigation pretty swiftly though nobody really knows why. 

Now perhaps you can answer my first question.  What corroborated evidence points to the McCanns' alleged involvement in disposing of their daughter's body?

Bolded bit, then you can except Wolters maybe talking complete bull.