The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner

[jassi]

Are Grange doing anything at the moment? I  assume that the 4 officers and their dog are still being funded by the taxpayer.

[barrier]

Are Grange doing anything at the moment? I  assume that the 4 officers and their dog are still being funded by the taxpayer.

I see you're on the norty step too, but grange had funding cut didn't it, likely down to just a pen pusher, best leave the dogs out of it, totally unreliable.

Detectives leading search for Madeleine McCann told their budget is to be cut by £50,000

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/detectives-leading-search-madeleine-mccann-7624781

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you'll argue in Wolters' favour, but he hasn't managed to fully convince you.

I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this?  Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I bet you can't and won't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What a conundrum, supporters are convinced  that a stranger abducted Madeleine yet when one is presented on a platter doubts arrive to the veracity of the claim.

There's no conundrum to anyone with half a brain cell.  See if you can employ yours and work it out.

[barrier]

Innocent Until Proven Guilty has alway been my stance.

I'll give you that.

[Wonderfulspam]

Interesting, isn't it.  We are now all convinced that Brueckner done it, despite The Fact that we aren't.

And a new Myth is born.

Why did you agree with Anthro that the BKA know what happened to Madeleine, if you believe Brueckner is innocent?

[Wonderfulspam]

I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this?  Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I bet you can't and won't.

You're giving the prosecutor the benefit, but not the defense?
This is backwards. The benefit of doubt belongs to the defendant.

[Wonderfulspam]

I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this?  Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I bet you can't and won't.

Because that's a right that belongs to the defendant?

[G-Unit]

I have already told you my position - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this?  Please explain why you are unable to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I bet you can't and won't.

So you are prepared to accept that he is honest and deserves your trust, even though you have doubts. I prefer to stick with actions speak louder than words.

[Wonderfulspam]

So you are prepared to accept that he is honest and deserves your trust, even though you have doubts. I prefer to stick with actions speak louder than words.

Yes, & and there isn't any action going on in terms of Brueckner being charged. Which tells us all we need to know about the concrete evidence.  I'm hoping supporters catch up one day. But it isn't going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, evidently.

[G-Unit]

Because that's a right that belongs to the defendant?

Beyond reasonable doubt, that's what the prosecution has to aim for. If they were sure they could achieve that they would have charged their suspect. Announcing someone's guilt to the world but not charging them is disgraceful imo.

[Wonderfulspam]

Beyond reasonable doubt, that's what the prosecution has to aim for. If they were sure they could achieve that they would have charged their suspect. Announcing someone's guilt to the world but not charging them is disgraceful imo.

Ahhh, but if you knew the evidence Wolters has, you'd be in no doubt.

No one here who believes in the existence of this evidence is able to give any suggestion of what they think this evidence could possibly be though.  But there definitely is some, & it's concrete, apparently.

[Wonderfulspam]

I mean, I'm the only one who has come up with any suggestion of what evidence could be, yet I don't even believe there is any.

The evidence is that convincing that no one can suggest what it could possibly be.

[Wonderfulspam]

The possible evidence thus far:


Exhibit A: Witness 1: Brueckner's confession to Busching.

Exhibit B: Witness 2: Brueckner's confession/online chat, with the undertaker.

I have another suggestion for possible evidence.

It's possible Brueckner's phone line could have tapped. There could be a covert recording of Brueckner discussing his involvement in Madeleine's abduction & murder.

Can anyone else suggest any other potential types of evidence that there could be against Brueckner?

[barrier]

Beyond reasonable doubt, that's what the prosecution has to aim for. If they were sure they could achieve that they would have charged their suspect. Announcing someone's guilt to the world but not charging them is disgraceful imo.

In the Adrian Prout case,Brian Pixton of the SW complex case unit explains  .

"The code of the crown prosecutors dictates we must have sufficient evidence for a good prospect of conviction before we charge a suspect.