The Evidence Against Christian Brueckner

[Wonderfulspam]

When a troll invites you to speculate you can be sure he only does so in order to mock and deride.  Don’t feed him please.

This post is an admission of defeat on your part. None of the supporters have come up with any sensible suggestions for what the concrete evidence against Brueckner could possibly be. Even those convinced there really is some.
The reason for this is obvious. When tested, the concrete evidence collapses into rubble. It consists of nothing more than hope & hot air coming from Wolters mouth.
No wonder it's never going to make it anywhere near a court room.

[Wonderfulspam]

“Wolters has breached Brueckner's human rights, however. Not by naming him, not by saying he personally thinks he did it, but by saying, as a prosecutor, that Brueckner is guilty”.

Has Wolters used the word ‘guilty’?

No, but he has called Brueckner a murderer. Which means the same thing.
Unless Wolters meant he was an innocent murderer.
Yes, that was probably it.

[G-Unit]

No, but he has called Brueckner a murderer. Which means the same thing.
Unless Wolters meant he was an innocent murderer.
Yes, that was probably it.

He was quite clear;

“We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/04/some-new-evidence-found-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner

[Vertigo Swirl]

He was quite clear;

“We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/04/some-new-evidence-found-against-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-bruckner

It’s an opinion not a statement of fact.

[Wonderfulspam]

It’s an opinion not a statement of fact.

So that would mean there isn't concrete evidence after all then?   Right?

Wolters only has opinions, not facts.

You're catching up slowly, but I already told you this much over two years ago.

[sadie]

Some interesting points there Sadie. Happy New Year 💖

Thankyou

Happy New Year Angelo

Happy New Year to each and everyone of you.

Surely it has to be better than 2022 ?

[Anthro]

No, but he has called Brueckner a murderer. Which means the same thing.
Unless Wolters meant he was an innocent murderer.
Yes, that was probably it.

No, his guilt will be determined in a court of law. Not by Wolters.

[Anthro]

This post is an admission of defeat on your part. None of the supporters have come up with any sensible suggestions for what the concrete evidence against Brueckner could possibly be. Even those convinced there really is some.
The reason for this is obvious. When tested, the concrete evidence collapses into rubble. It consists of nothing more than hope & hot air coming from Wolters mouth.
No wonder it's never going to make it anywhere near a court room.

Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.

[barrier]

Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.

It maybe totally unrelated to the Madeleine case.

[Anthro]

It maybe totally unrelated to the Madeleine case.

Yes, I realise that. But eventually in Madeleine’s case.

[G-Unit]

Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.

Is he? When did that happen?

[barrier]

Yes, I realise that. But eventually in Madeleine’s case.

Or not as the case maybe.

[Wonderfulspam]

Büsching’s testimony. He’s in witness protection for a reason. IMO.

Thanks Anthro, but I already have Busching's testimony on my list of possibilities.

Possible evidence against Brueckner:

Buschings Testimony, a confession?

The Undertaker's Testimony, Skype Chat, a confession?

A wire tapped recording with Brueckner discussing involvement in Madeleine's abduction?

A video or photo of a child?

A diary detailing his crime?

..................

Members are welcome to suggest any other forms of evidence there could be, against CB.

[sadie]

Thanks Anthro, but I already have Busching's testimony on my list of possibilities.

Possible evidence against Brueckner:

Buschings Testimony, a confession?

The Undertaker's Testimony, Skype Chat, a confession?

A wire tapped recording with Brueckner discussing involvement in Madeleine's abduction?

A video or photo of a child?

A diary detailing his crime?

..................

Members are welcome to suggest any other forms of evidence there could be, against CB.

There are others that no-one has noticed but I am being mean and not sharing.

Probably better to keep my powder dry anyway

[Wonderfulspam]

There are others that no-one has noticed but I am being mean and not sharing.

Probably better to keep my powder dry anyway

Yes. The potential evidence against Brueckner is best kept a secret.

Much like the actual evidence. No one gets to see it.
Not the MET, nor Brueckners's lawyers, not even a judge or Madeleine's parents.

Only Wolters gets to see the concrete evidence. Good for him. But keeping it a secret won't be securing a conviction against Brueckner any time. 

I'm sure he must realise that, but supporters are incredibly slow at catching on.