Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

According to an Interview on Sexta às 9 with Herr Fülscher, it seems that the Joana E case is a classic case of ‘repeated recognition’ as he puts it.

The Witness never recognised Brückner, but phoned in after seeing the Photofit supplied by the German program Akte X/Y.

Source:
https://www.rtp.pt/play/p6596/e494145/sexta-as-9

to verdi; that was exactly why i had to do some fiddling to get my hands on that letter. it is still a quite boring, very typical letter of a prisoner, for the ones who do want a very special of their own, just google pen palls in prison.

i'm told the males inside, do prefer females, but the letters are not very divers, but it could of course be, because the gentlemen inside do not often have a change of scenery, and  lack some other comforts. all are always innocent, or almost, they have a lot of time on their hands to write letters. 

i think i have already a bit of history i do not like such strings attached, i'm not a fish. and not a puppet too.
i'm just born overly curious. 

to silenthope; i do hope we get the chance to hear , or see, her ff practicing law. so i do hope the german court reporters are a bit of the quality we are used too over here. going for trained memory is in this case the most basic thing i do expect to play a role. her hansel will be thinking back to the portuguese credo; justice works in silence. 

we had an excellent court reporter in the case of nicky verstappen, saskia belleman, works even for a tabloid, but her work over twitter was excellent. no opinions, just the plain happenings. so if the germans on this forum know some names, that will, or could be court reporters on this case. names are always welcome. if it is this year of course.

Silentscope,

You have been asked before to refrain from uploading videos or posting links in a foreign language without an acceptable translation.

A few seconds of Sandra Felgueiras' pigeon English does not constitute by way of excuse.

The same forum criteria applies today as it did when you were previously asked two years ago, when you first joined the forum.

Thank you.

My apologies Verdi, there are enough Members who are Portuguese and German speakers who can confirm what Herr Fülscher said.

The Portuguese Police report might also prove useful to counter the ‘Rabbits teeth’ narrative. I believe the Original report was ‘Smokers teeth’ but I hope xklamation or another Member can confirm?

that sandra video has a date of 18 september 2020.

so it is already old news. 

and i would leave portuguese to others, i got the text from that video about the description of the figure on the beacht in the case of joana e. and even google translate does not see any smoke, so before we lit our own fires, just ask joana yourself. maybe she already has it translated before. 

seeing it back, it needed a lot of tesa tape to get it together. i'm not that good in memorizing sandra her dresses, but the tie of der hans helps a lot.

I suspect that Clarke and others are just continually ‘Recycling’ previous old Reports, even in other Languages, hoping that when they are presented as ‘New Evidence’ - that nobody in England will notice.

SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) is listed as one of Jon’s skills on his LinkedIn Profile. 

It all points to ‘Cut and Paste’ Journalism if you ask me.

They are all in it together as Rebekah B once stated.

Silentscope wrote:My apologies Verdi, there are enough Members who are Portuguese and German speakers who can confirm what Herr Fülscher said.

The Portuguese Police report might also prove useful to counter the ‘Rabbits teeth’ narrative. I believe the Original report was ‘Smokers teeth’ but I hope xklamation or another Member can confirm?

Toadying to specific prominent forum members does not guarantee forum privileges - au contraire!  You are a member just like any other.  An ordinary member with Brueckner a forethought since joining the forum in June 2020 when the name first hit the headlines.

As previously reminded over and over again - non compliance with a few basic forum rules will result in post deletion.

Pay heed, you are seriously trying my patience

Silentscope wrote:I suspect that Clarke and others are just continually ‘Recycling’ previous old Reports, even in other Languages, hoping that when they are presented as ‘New Evidence’ - that nobody in England will notice.

SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) is listed as one of Jon’s skills on his LinkedIn Profile. 

It all points to ‘Cut and Paste’ Journalism if you ask me.

They are all in it together as Rebekah B once stated.

What on earth are you talking about?

Jon Clarke and others recycling previous old [sic] reports, even in other languages, no one in England will notice?

What does that even mean.

Search engine optimization doesn't amount to 'cut and paste' journalism [sic].

Rebekah B once said .... 'they are all in it together'. Is that a fact does it relate to the case of missing Madeleine McCann?

So finally I managed to watch the Mark Williams-Thomas show from beginning to end - I'm not impressed.

Whatever his intentions were as regard Christian Brueckner, it falls to stony ground when comparing his support for the McCann faction.  That in itself speaks volumes.

Good to see old 'Spudders' is still in circulation and continuing the crusade for truth..



And then to the personification of 'me myself I'..

"McCann haters" 

Well, Madeleine Beth was a McCann for almost four years and I feel safe in the knowledge that not one member of this forum hates her.

How I despise the term 'McCann haters' - when in reality it should be 'Kate & Gerry Sceptics'.

If I, personally, hate anything it's journalists and ex-coppers who don't do their jobs and persist in peddling lies and disinformation about a dead child for money.

You're welcome.

He may have a point.

Many people have formed their opinions from what they have heard or read.  
Exactly as a Jury does, in fact.  They are presented with evidence, listen to it, look at it, argue about it, 
weigh it in the balance, and form their opinion, on which in former times a man's life might depend.

for the avoidance of doubt I am including an aerial view of PdL, taken in May 2007
with helpful annotations showing what we have been told over the years by various investigative journalists who were of course  actually THERE.

This is the same Mark Williams-Thomas who also declared on a YouTube Video that he was the first to disclose the crimes of Jimmy Saville. I don't think so Mark. Hundreds of people beat Mark to it; except the cover up continued.

I wonder if he knows where Shergar is?

Mark Williams Thomas - " Mainly people who have a view from what they want to believe ,  have heard or read and assert it as fact , or simply have an agenda . " 

A description of yourself and other " investigative journalists " perhaps ? 

I don't give my energy to " hate " . 

I much prefer truth and honesty , something sadly lacking in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann .

To use a pathetic expression as 'McCann haters' discredits any credability Mark Williams-Thomas may have had.  Just goes to show the company he keeps.

That aside, his show is nothing but a compilation of previously documented Christian Brueckner showmanship - he puts his own slant on history with drama, sound effects and a lot of images of self.

The only difference between his version of events and his predecessors is the possible validity of Christian Brueckner's alibi and the time worn phone ping.  Apart from that he sets the same scene.

He will no doubt make his mark in the annals of history with his false claims of criminal investigative journalism, heroism, but unfortunately for him there will always be those who think beyond what's presented before them.

Sorry mate - you've hit on a bum note.

But such opinion is not OK is it - certainly not when talking of the disappearance and almost certain death of a three year old child.  Thanks to social media, Mark Williams-Thomas' show will be watched by the thousands, the audience will take notice of his words, they will register the name Christian Brueckner and thus believe him to be 'the prime suspect', ignoring the true facts and evidence surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

If, a very big if, Brueckner is complicit in any way with Madeleine's disappearance, the rest of his press released misdemeanors have no relevance, then bring it on but let's wait until then shall we?  It's very unprofessional for Herr Wolters to continue this charade, as it's unprofessional for such as Mark Williams-Thomas to seize the opportunity for yet another step up the ladder of stardom.  Plagiarizing the endeavours of those before him and taking all the credit, not rightfully his ownership.

It's counter-productive, just like the speculative theorizing around the case that's been circulating since the beginning of May 2007.  It's all very well quoting that time worn 'missing piece of the jigsaw' but without some degree of evidence to support theory, it amounts to less than nothing.

Hence my reluctance to support or encourage baseless theorizing.

Madeleine McCann's little person was not protected nor respected, let's not allow her name or memory to be disrespected by encouraging all this wild speculation.

At least we may be spared any more Stories about ‘New Supects’ according to CM?

New suspects can no longer be investigated for the death of the British girl, with the exception of Bruckner, who was accused on 21 April.


Source: Magali PintoMay 3, 2022 at 1:30 amhttps://www-cmjornal-pt.translate.goog/portugal/detalhe/misterio-de-maddie-termina-sem-culpados?ref=Mais+Sobre_BlocoMaisSobre&_x_tr_sl=pt&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

that is only in portugal.

still we have the strange case of two countries with a claim, both germany and portugal sees an opening and it looks like it, so who will be the first to charge him, as in charges to be heard in court. i'm not used to call police accusations to be called as charges. and accusations you need to made someone into an official suspect under a investigation, charges is what usually will take much later, when the investigation is going by the prosecution to the courts. 

so it can be happening both are going for that, and the first one can win the case, the usual approach and unwritten law is the first who start a minute into an conviction is the one that handles the case. 

but as always in this case there is a but, germany has some case law that makes double yeopardy possible if based on new evidence. it is said the result of a murderer going free after the first process, and a father that could not live with this, when new evidence made it clear, the suspect was indeed the murderer. 

i do know we have no true laws that escape double yeopardy to the full, but it are not easy cases, and all has to be checked in advance against a bunches of rules and regulations before that can be happening. 

also the idea when the highest courts have spoken in a case and declare you guilty, it is not per se untouchable. we have had cases that happened and some other also was tried in that case, and all because the first round of the courts was based on a miscarriage of justice. 
the putten murder case/ de puttense moordzaak is a good example of it. 

so to be very sure the outcome of any trial is a save verdict, you have to wait til history is happend. 
the case i named even has its advocates that say, also the last one is possibly not guilty eiter. 

not a case to be proud of, but the madeleine mccann case will fit easily in the list of cases with miscarriages of justice. 

it are these cases, that make justice into a circus, and today we will feel the untouchables, but who can say what tomorrow will bring. netflixed justice will make everyone can be made into a suspect. 

even if there are no possibilities left in portugal, and that is a big if, that only is true, when portugal in their usual silent justice have no arraignments in place already that this case can not be reaching a sol. 
i did write it before, it is the willing and wanting of portugal that decides what is possible with this case, and there are indeed possibilities in their law to block the sol, and not just by serving the arguido status on cb and name him as a suspect.

I wonder if you could explain your definition of, "Double jeopardy"? Please correct me if I am wrong... But...

My understanding in United Kingdom is, "a process that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following an acquittal. Classic historical cases usually apply to a charge of Murder, where the defendant is found Not Guilty by a Jury. If so that person cannot be tried again for the same Murder, despite it being pretty certain that they were in fact guilty".

But nobody has yet been tried in court for this crime. So nobody has yet been Acquitted or found to be Not Guilty, in a Court of Law.

If 'new' suspects can no longer be investigated, how about the original suspects, aka Kate and Gerry?

CaKeLoveR wrote:If 'new' suspects can no longer be investigated, how about the original suspects, aka Kate and Gerry?

Now now, don't be facetious

The Statute of Limitations phrase has yet to be clarified by a legalese expert.

As I've said previously, I believe it to apply to an individual rather than the crime itself.

In short, the law cannot proceed with investigation of a defendant over and above a limited a time, for various reasons as I've previously posted taken from official legislative documentation.

In addition, it's more often used in civil law rather than criminal law which weakens it's argument considerably.

It stands to reason.

If Jon Doe has been investigated for committing a murder over a period of time, not tried before a court of law but investigated, the investigative force must cease investigating that particular individual if a SOL applies.  The crime itself however remains unsolved and would continue or be shelved/archived if all lines of inquiry have been exhausted.  Just imagine if Jon Doe was off the hook, allowed to walk, then some days/weeks/months/years later anew witness appears on the scene.  A new witness with video footage of Jon Doe committing said murder - forensically examined video footage!?!  

Talking of which, the authorities should forensically examine the authenticity of the obscure Madeleine McCann Prime Suspect documentaries, media coverage and/or filmed tracking of the complete mystery of Christian Brueckner - I'm sure they will find some dirty dealings hidden there.

If some time hence new evidence comes to light, then the archived case will be re-opened or an active investigation continued following new lines of inquiry.

I know this doesn't quite fit-in with the recent reported move taken by the Portuguese authorities - designating Christian Brueckner as arguido, but little or nothing is known about the true reason behind this alleged move - it might even connect in some way to the McCann's audacious move to sue the nation of Portugal through the European Court of Human Rights.  So far all I've seen is press and media coverage which amounts to nothing in terms of fact and/or truth.

In my view I'm right on this matter and will continue to think so until such times as proved wrong.  My argument being, how can a serious crime be completely abandoned because of some archaic law declaring a Statute of Limitation.  In the case of Madeleine McCann, supposing a body is found or a confession?  Does officialdom just shrug it's shoulders, rubber stamp and file under nothing can be done here - case exceeds statute of limitations.

I know the law can be a bit bonkers and a very big bit bendy but come on!