The boxes ticked by prime suspect Brueckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

Theories have been advanced by many people over the years, but the case still isn't solved.

You really should get a job writing Boris’s speeches, you’d be perfect for it

[G-Unit]

You really should get a job writing Boris’s speeches, you’d be perfect for it

Because I don't tick the boxes you think I do? Maybe that's why box ticking isn't always a reliable tool.

[Mr Gray]

Because I don't tick the boxes you think I do? Maybe that's why box ticking isn't always a reliable tool.

box ticking is intelligence..it gives investigators pointers where to look....ive seen no one claim its always reliable

[G-Unit]

box ticking is intelligence..it gives investigators pointers where to look....ive seen no one claim its always reliable

Quite.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because I don't tick the boxes you think I do? Maybe that's why box ticking isn't always a reliable tool.

No - because you can't give a straight answer to any question you are asked, just like a Tory politician on Question Time.

[Eleanor]

And I have seen no one on this Board declaring Brueckner Guilty.

Just The McCanns, again and again.  This is so boring that I nearly lost the will to live, let alone Comment or Moderate.

Incidentally, accusing The McCanns is Libellous, but no one seems to care about that.

[John]

And I have seen no one on this Board declaring Brueckner Guilty.

Just The McCanns, again and again.  This is so boring that I nearly lost the will to live, let alone Comment or Moderate.

Incidentally, accusing The McCanns is Libellous, but no one seems to care about that.

Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?

In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.

I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.

[John]

And I have seen no one on this Board declaring Brueckner Guilty.

Just The McCanns, again and again.  This is so boring that I nearly lost the will to live, let alone Comment or Moderate.

Incidentally, accusing The McCanns is Libellous, but no one seems to care about that.

I agree but that is why we have moderators which included yourself previously so no excuses on that front.

[Mr Gray]

Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?

In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.

I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.

Oh dear.. Why would they do that... I think thats a ridiculous idea

[Eleanor]

I agree but that is why we have moderators which included yourself previously so no excuses on that front.

Twas very strange how often my decisions were reversed.  Why was that do you think?

[Eleanor]

Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?

In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.

I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.

This is the funniest Comment I have read in ages..  Thanks for the laugh.

[G-Unit]

Could it be because Christian Bruckner doesn't have any history of pedocide or murder?

In fact, he was an abuser, a sex pest and even a rapist as well as a pill peddler, somewhat estranged from the more major crime of murder.

I think the Germans simply invented the Bruckner did it narrative and now they are stuck with it.

I wonder if the 'Brueckner did it' narrative would have worked in the rape case without the forensic evidence? It seems they're reluctant to test it in court in the Madeleine case as they have no forensics to help them.

[G-Unit]

No - because you can't give a straight answer to any question you are asked, just like a Tory politician on Question Time.

Your method is to tell me what I think or believe, then to ask a question based on that. If you're wrong about what I think or believe then you're asking the wrong question, aren't you?

[Eleanor]

I wonder if the 'Brueckner did it' narrative would have worked in the rape case without the forensic evidence? It seems they're reluctant to test it in court in the Madeleine case as they have no forensics to help them.

What?  The Forensic Evidence that The PJ ignored in The Rape Case, do you mean?  That evidence that got Brueckner convicted by The Germans many years later?

Who knows if The PJ have got any evidence in The McCann Case?  They could be ignoring it for all I know.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Your method is to tell me what I think or believe, then to ask a question based on that. If you're wrong about what I think or believe then you're asking the wrong question, aren't you?

I asked you  if you think Amaral solved the case in 2007. You either think he did or you think he didn't.  We know you liked the unsupported claim that he did, which is an odd thing to do if you thought it was incorrect.  If I had liked a post which said HCW solved the case in 2020 would you not draw some inference from that? 

I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about what you believe wrt to this case, but why so coy?  Is it because you think refusing to acknowledge what is IMO blatantly obvious makes you look objective and even-handed?  I'm afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.