Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

Every fact corroborated by another fact forms another piece of indirect evidence providing another jigsaw piece wich makes up the full picture.

All the police need to follow this line of inquiry is Brueckner's verified phone number possession of which will lead on to another line of inquiry and so on and so on.

I reckon there is little information remaining from these investigative opportunities which present day investigators don't know about.  Back in the day even calls from two phone boxes which at that time in history would perhaps have been a more realistic solution than burner phones.

The receptionist who made Madeleine McCann's abduction possible
He had Brueckner in his phone book and told him that "Maddie's" family dined every day in the same place and at the same time.
PACO RODRÍGUEZ@PacoRlarazon
CREATED09-06-2020
According to the newspaper "Correio da Manha", investigators managed to identify the receptionist who provided the information and the opportunity to Brueckner to enter the apartment and take Madeleine away. In fact, in the Ocean Club employee's phone book was the suspect's phone.

What is not yet known is whether the receptionist's collaboration was accidental or was a collaborator who makes him an accomplice.

The main suspect (Brueckner) worked as a waiter and it is still unknown if he did it at the Ocean Club, but he could know that there was a guestbook and he consulted it or knew the staff for having worked with them on occasion or simply got the information by approaching the restaurant and talking to the employee.
https://www.larazon.es/internacional/20200609/zt3i2u7mpfc2nbn5ji6atuslia.html


I think by now the BKA will know as much as they require to know about Brueckner's phone contacts.  Particularly one lasting half an hour pinging off the closest mast which happened to be in Praia da Luz and shortly prior to Madeleine's abduction.

I was going on what Wolters said rather than relying on press rumours.

[Brietta]

One wonders why so many posts for which there are dedicated topics are discussed instead on "Wandering Off Topic"?

[Brietta]

I was going on what Wolters said rather than relying on press rumours.

Hmmm ~ the answer to that might very well lie in the fact you appear to have dispensed with quotations or cites making clear when the prosecutor is making an official pronouncement as spokesman.

Indeed you appear to be posting a surfeit of opinion pieces with the prosecutor as your theme.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Wolters thought the phone was CB's but he wanted the person who made the phone call to confirm they spoke to him, so he wasn't 100% sure, was he?

I’m going on what HCW has said, that the phone was CB’s, clearly you don’t believe him, your choice,

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was going on what Wolters said rather than relying on press rumours.

No you’re not, you’re saying HCW is lying when he says the phone was CB’s!  You prefer to believe MWT, obviously. 

[Brietta]

Information from Websleuths about the successful prosecution of a murder case without a body which resulted in a conviction.

https://regionalheute.de/manczak-prozess-hat-ein-zeuge-den-toten-gesehen-braunschweig-gifhorn-goslar-harz-helmstedt-peine-salzgitter-wolfenbuettel-wolfsburg-1644597435/

There are several interesting parallels with this case and the CB/MM case.

• The Prosecutors launched a public TV appeal for witnesses after identifying their suspect.
• Similarly, they appealed for details relating to certain vehicles and any sightings of their suspect.
• The suspect has remained silent throughout, refusing to respond to any police questions.
• All of the evidence against the suspect is circumstantial.
• The Prosecutors only released certain details to the public "so as not to jeopardise the investigation"
  
  - that's a direct HCW quote about this investigation and exactly what he also said about the CB case.

   

It is looking very much as if it matters little to these prosecutors that despite little evidence the sum of the evidence stacks up; nor does it matter how forensically astute one may be in disposing of human remains with no trace, other evidence of death substitutes and suffices.
Indeed "No hiding place!" seems to be the slogan in Braunschweig.

[Wonderfulspam]

No you’re not, you’re saying HCW is lying when he says the phone was CB’s!  You prefer to believe MWT, obviously.

Maybe G- Unit follows evidence. Because MWT has shown evidence, in the form of a witness, compared to Wolters, who hasn't actually shown any evidence.

[Brietta]

Maybe G- Unit follows evidence. Because MWT has shown evidence, in the form of a witness, compared to Wolters, who hasn't actually shown any evidence.

A witness unable to provide an alibi is possibly worse than no witness at all.

[Wonderfulspam]

A witness unable to provide an alibi is possibly worse than no witness at all.

I was talking about the witness on the documentary who said the phone wasn't Brueckners.
But since you bring it up again I'll have to remind you, again, that Brueckner doesn't need an alibi for May 3rd, because Wolters hasn't actually accused Brueckner of anything regarding May 3rd.

[Wonderfulspam]

So what evidence is there the phone was Brueckner's?

B...r me if it isn't, because Wolters said so.

Like SY, who said it was a criminal act by a stranger, & the McCanns who said Maddie was abducted.

All we have from any of them is their word, because none have shown any evidence to back their claims up.

MWT, on the other hand, has shown evidence in the form of a witness, that the phone wasn't Brueckners.

So what should we believe, claims without evidence, or evidence Itself?

I'll stick to believing in evidence over claims of evidence, if it's all the same.

Unless MWT paid this woman to lie on camera about the phone number, or she wanted to help Brueckner because she was an accomplice to the pre-planned abduction, or maybe she just likes lying to defend paedophiles for some reason.

[Vertigo Swirl]

A witness unable to provide an alibi is possibly worse than no witness at all.

In fact MWT was unable to provide any evidence for any of his claims, not for the alibi, and not for the owner of the phone, nor frustratingly for his claim that the person making the phone call that evening had child pornography on their phone (a fact which bizarrely he divulged without comment on what a massive coincidence this would be, should it be true). 

[Brietta]

I was talking about the witness on the documentary who said the phone wasn't Brueckners.
But since you bring it up again I'll have to remind you, again, that Brueckner doesn't need an alibi for May 3rd, because Wolters hasn't actually accused Brueckner of anything regarding May 3rd.

With all due respect I prefer my witnesses to be police ones rather than performers in a tv entertainment video.

[Brietta]

So what evidence is there the phone was Brueckner's?

B...r me if it isn't, because Wolters said so.

Like SY, who said it was a criminal act by a stranger, & the McCanns who said Maddie was abducted.

All we have from any of them is their word, because none have shown any evidence to back their claims up.

MWT, on the other hand, has shown evidence in the form of a witness, that the phone wasn't Brueckners.

So what should we believe, claims without evidence, or evidence Itself?

I'll stick to believing in evidence over claims of evidence, if it's all the same.

Unless MWT paid this woman to lie on camera about the phone number, or she wanted to help Brueckner because she was an accomplice to the pre-planned abduction, or maybe she just likes lying to defend paedophiles for some reason.

For some obscure reason there is rather a lot of "lying to defend paedophiles".

Dreadlocks and cartoon covered vehicles immediately spring to mind whenever lying is mentioned.

[Wonderfulspam]

With all due respect I prefer my witnesses to be police ones rather than performers in a tv entertainment video.

I knew it had to be something like that, MWT's witness was just paid for a documentary, rather than being honest.

[Vertigo Swirl]

For some obscure reason there is rather a lot of "lying to defend paedophiles".

Dreadlocks and cartoon covered vehicles immediately spring to mind whenever lying is mentioned.

Interesting which on-screen witnesses some people choose to believe and which ones they immediately assume are lying for cash.