PeterMac's FREE e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Chapter 59: PeterMac's review of The Foreign Detective Bernt Stellander's book: The Sudden Impulse

 


Review of Bernt Stellander's book: 'The Sudden Impulse'
MY FIRST READ THROUGH:

First.
It is a BIG BOOK.   24 x 16 x 4.5.  [Clarke’s is a conventional B format paper back 20 x 13 x 2]
It has 850 pages [Clarke’s - 273]
It is heavy, at 1.55 kg.   [Clarke's - 300g]
It contains ca. 440,000 words.  [Clarke’s est. ca 135,000]
The cover and the paper are of a higher specification than normal
The glue for the binding is very thick.





Confession:
It is so heavy and so thick and so stiff I confess I chopped my copy into three volumes.
The second part of the book is conveniently the final 250 pages, and the first two thirds divide neatly at page 274
It takes some doing.   Sharp Swiss army knife and several passes through the thick glue and the glossy card cover, but it is worth the effort and the sacrifice for you then have a THREE volume Dissertation, [each one longer than Clarke’s] that you can open, hold in comfort and read.





The contents pages lay out his approach.


He adopts the method of ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ a form of questioning so beloved of Socrates and other philosophers since.
Start by accepting unquestioningly what the ‘witnesses’ say and see where the logic takes you.

I used it in my chapter 5 for example
GM said he was in the apartment, saw M and left at 2113
JT said she saw the “abductor’ carrying M at 2115
THEREFORE everything necessary had to happen between those two times.
And since there very clearly is not enough time, the argumentum is absurdum

The response can be two fold.   The protagonist may realise the absurdity and admit error, 
OR, as in this case, may seek to change, or add details, to include for example the even more absurd suggestion of the abductor’s already being in the apartment hiding behind a door.  The fact that the door in question opens flush against the wall being conveniently not mentioned.

Socrates might have asked a supplementary question but here there is no need. The whole thing has been exposed as untrue.

Bernt Stellander relentlessly pursues and dissects each important part in the McCanns’ and Tapas’ statements in the first half kilo of the book (274 pages) exposing the absurdities and contradictions between and among them.

Of course much of this has been done before, but piecemeal. This is a whole ‘volume’ – longer than Clarke’s entire book – dedicated to this one issue.  It is comprehensive and compelling, however familiar many of us are with the examples he chooses.

In the second half kilo (328 pages) Stellander addresses the issue of when the death occurred. 
Most people by now realise that “during the evening of Thursday 3rd” is not possible for the reasons we all know which he sets out again.

Many researchers have come to their own more or less tentative conclusions about the order of events during the week.    Stellander builds on them and weaves in various of the more coherent statements to arrive at Wednesday [edited]  2nd May.   Some may not agree, but his logic seems good. 

He makes the point that there is a lot of evidence pointing to 2 May.    Is it likely for example, that Gerry would have messed up the script so much even if he had just one more day, never mind the three days which others, INCLUDING MYSELF have proposed.  
Gerry would have ensured, again for example, that Jane was not confused between blindly following the script or ‘telling the story”.   But she was, and we saw her burst into tears during the Mock reconstruction, when she realised she had got it all wrong, and compromised the whole thing by placing herself walking past Jez and Gerry, something Gerry would and could have prevented if given more time.

And we remember Kate telling us how crucial it was for her to get on record in her diary/ journal everything FROM 3 May.    Again perhaps speaking the truth, as any focus on 2 May would destroy them.

He then commits to paper his theory of what the sequence was from that point, the sequestration of the body, and the subsequent burial in its final resting place, giving dates.

He goes into details about why he believes the grave is where it is, using for the most part Kate’s statements, diary, and interviews.      He interprets them as ‘leakage’ in line with ‘statement analysis’ and then shows where the widely reported, publicised and photographed runs up the hill in the matching outfits, complete with carefully timings fit into the deception.

Then the final half kilo. Worth its weight in gold, if only for the account of his nocturnal activities, his searches, his lying in wait under bushes and in a small cave for nights on end.

He starts by predicting their return around the anniversary, publicised by Kate in her book and many women’s magazines and the gutter press.  And he was correct.

He sets up “Trail cams”, and tells the story of his struggles to make them work and not ‘alert’ to blades of grass moving with the breeze.
He then details a series of anonymous emails he sends to the McCanns, alerting them to the possibility that the ‘site’ had been discovered.
On cue they walk into the frame and are caught on camera.  NOT in running kit.  

And so on

I shall stop here, so as not to ruin the surprises to come.
The photos are not included in the book, but are promised on two websites, which are under construction.

The chosen locations however, are included.

Throughout the book he expresses sympathy for the parents,  not only for the accidental death of their first born child, but for the impossible and grave situation they all, including the Tapas 7, and many others are trapped due to what he calls ‘a Sudden Impulse’.
Gerry.  “Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand”
“An act of madness and accident or a sudden impulse could lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended”
“faced with such a situation we believe any human soul ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear”

He has great sympathy towards Kate, who he believes, as many of us do, has been suffering torment and feelings of guilt and fear, having lost her child and her profession.  Almost everything she has said after 3/5/7 reveals a desire to tell the truth, to speak out, “to shout it from the roof tops”. 
As Stellander points out, even in the forward of her own book she tells us she cannot tell the whole truth,  Just a “version of it”.

Kate; Book p.2 “On the whole Gerry and I have managed to dig deep and remain focused although the temptation to shout the truth from the rooftops has always been there. There have been many times when I have struggled to keep myself together and to understand how such injustices of been allowed to go unchallenged over and over again. I have had to keep saying to myself: I know the truth, we know the truth, and God knows the truth.  And one day the truth will out.  [but not today nor in this book! PM. ] Publishing the truth is fraught with risks for our family. It leaves us open to more criticism for a start.”

His wish is that the revelations in this book allow them - all - to confess, and to atone for what they have done.

FOOTNOTE:
It is of course purely coincidental that Stellander’s announcement that the Book launch was to be on 2/5/24, his anniversary date, and that the McCanns for the first time in 17 years decided not to attend the Service in Rothley to mark their anniversary date, but instead went on ‘holiday’ to a “secret resort"
Tracy Kandohla :  “Mr Brian Kennedy - Maddie’s great uncle, [“Fund mostly for Legal expenses,”]  -said … “Kate and Gerry have gone away, they didn't tell me where and I didn’t ask, and it is a bit of a clash. But they work very hard and they needed a break very much.”

Pure coincidence, Obviously.
(Except that he had sent a personal email to Kate the day before the 2 May event.)


https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-59-petermacs-review-of-foreign.html

----------------------------------


 Letter from PeterMac to Operation Grange dated 6th May re: Bernt Stellander, The Foreign Detective's, new book 'The Sudden Impulse'

Gentlemen,
May we assume you are aware of the recently published book in Portuguese and English :-
The Sudden Impulse, by Berndt Stellander, available from the publishers
Modocromia,  [email:  modocromia.editora@gmail.com] 
in which he details an operation he conducted over many years, finding the site of Madeleine’s grave and CRUCIALLY, filming the McCanns and their friends visiting it to check on several occasions, when he had anonymously alerted them to the possibility that it had been found.
That film will shortly be released on websites set up for the purpose.

The press in Germany and elsewhere has run the story of the launch of the book, and of the Q&A session afterwards.
The British Press has of course not referred to it even obliquely, in line with the very obvious gagging order which has clearly been in place for a long time, and which may even control your activity.
Whether you are permitted to “investigate” is unclear.

I do not need to point out that this information is in line with the PJ’s investigation and the decisions of the Appeal and the Supreme Courts of Portugal and the ECHR,- who all concluded that there was no abduction, and that the parents concealed the body,  but I do so, in order that when I receive your automatically generated acknowledgement it will be clear that the information was in your hands for any future FIO requests about the way in which the Operation has been directed.

It incidentally makes the “Fund” a very simple case of Fraud, an offence known to English Law, and committed in England.

You may wish to draw this to the attention of your Commanding Officer.

Yours sincerely
Peter MacLeod
retired Police Superintendent - Nottingham 1972-2000
[my name will be in your files as having sent large amounts of documentation over the years]

copied to various other investigators

• From: Operation.grange@met.police.uk
  Date: 6 May 2024 at 20:34:03 CEST
  To: pmacleod****@*****.com
  Subject: Automated Response

  
  Many thanks for taking the time to contact the Operation Grange mailbox.
  
  Your email will be read by one of the officers on the enquiry team. You will appreciate that we receive a large volume of emails as part of this enquiry and as a result you may not necessarily receive any further contact from us. If, however we need to contact you further, an officer will be in touch in due course.
  
  [size=15]NOTICE - This email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this email or in any attachment without the permission of the sender. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law and any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by email and no responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached with other personnel. While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments cannot be guaranteed.[/size]

  Related links:
  
• Letter from PeterMac to Operation Grange dated 6th May re: Bernt Stellander, The Foreign Detective's, new book 'The Sudden Impulse' (forumotion.net)
  
• Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case (forumotion.net)
  
• New Madeleine McCann book will claim missing tot is already dead (forumotion.net)
  
  

CHAPTER 60.     REVISED 5/7/24


Two weeks ago (June 2024) the Tabloid press of the world started reporting that the German Police  BKA were in possession of emails which definitively linked Brückner to Madeleine McCann’s death.

On close inspection of several papers they were all the same story, using exactly the same language, and are very simply Copy and Paste ‘churnalism’.
Simple logic and a few moments thought dictated that this was highly unlikely for a string of different and obvious reasons, but further enquiries were made and  “Sources close to the case” in Braunschweig confirmed very simply  “Bullshit. Nothing. There are no mails”.

Our antennae twitched in the direction they always do on occasions like this and Lo ! And Behold ! 
It was revealed that the source of this was an EXCLUSIVE, no less, by Jon Clarke, published in his own freebie supermarket checkout rag, The Olive Press.

I copy and paste it here in all its technicolour glory, so that none shall mis-understand.
It is dated 6/6/24
The reference for those who want to re-live the full horror is 
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2024/06/06/exclusive-how-email-accounts-used-by-madeleine-mccann-supsect-christian-brueckner-tie-him-to-the-disappearance-of-the-british-toddler/
And to get past the paywall try putting 12ft.io/ before the link, or just go the exit of your local Spanish supermarket and pick one up.

*****
EXCLUSIVE: HOW EMAIL ACCOUNTS USED BY MADELEINE MCCANN SUSPECT CHRISTIAN BRUECKNER ‘TIE HIM TO THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE BRITISH TODDLER’  


BY JON CLARKE (PUBLISHER & EDITOR)

THE Olive Press can reveal the emails Christian Brueckner used at the time Madeleine McCann was abducted in Portugal.
The German paedophile was using at least four accounts in May 2007, when the British toddler was snatched from her holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve.
The expat sex offender used one in his own name and another email moneytime7@hotmail.de to send and receive child pornography, which he bought and sold.
However, it has emerged that he deleted all emails from the inbox of at least one of the accounts from the beginning of 2007.
Detectives, who secured data from Microsoft and Meta from Ireland in 2019, believe they were deleted soon after an investigation into him over Maddie was launched in 2013.

The information on his direct links to the disappearance of toddler Maddie, then three, finally came out in a German court yesterday.
And today, the Olive Press can reveal the emails of two other accounts, as well as his online nickname on Facebook and Skype at the time.
 

Christian Brueckner during his ongoing trial in Germany (COPYRIGHT OLIVE PRESS SPAIN)

We can also reveal how he was working closely with a shady undertaker based in southern Germany, called Frank S, who was helping him buy and sell his child porn.
In one alarming conversation from 2013 Brueckner – who used the nickname ‘Holger Wahnsinn’ meaning ‘Madness of Holger’ – told the man he planned to snatch a child and abuse her for days. 
He added he would make ‘lots of short films’ and ‘document exactly how she is tormented’.

As well as frequent chats on Skype, he also used three other accounts, the Olive Press can reveal.
One of these was in his own name shortened to ‘Chris.Bruckner@hotmail.com’,  another ‘magicame@mail.de’ and a third was ‘5grosser@hotmail.com’, detectives in Germany have discovered.
One of these accounts – which Brueckner’s defence have been trying to get copies of – was described in court by a senior German detective as the ‘murder’ account.
While Titus Stampa insisted he was unable to discuss the emails in more detail – or confirm if they included any photos or videos – he confirmed to Braunschweig Court of their existence.

Speaking on Day 22 of Brueckner’s trial over five separate sex offences, including three rapes and two child abuse cases, Stampa referred to it as the ‘murder’ email account, which directly linked Brueckner to the abduction.

But, as with his boss Rainer Grimm, who took the stand last month, he said he could not divulge further details as it was ‘related to the killing’ of Maddie.
The experienced officer did however add that they had also got another external hard drive ‘also belonging to the killing case’.
The bearded detective, based at the BKA’s headquarters in Wiesbaden, told the court that Brueckner had allegedly deleted all emails from another account in early 2007, when Madeleine vanished from Praia da Luz.
“I can remember that things were ‘massively’ deleted in the inbox. There was nothing in there from January 2007,” he explained to judge Uta Engermann.
However, he added that they were able to secure a series of ‘disgusting’ emails in the sent folder.
He added they contained some of the ‘hardest child pornography’ ever made and he had sent it ‘back and forth’ with numerous online friends.
Stampa explained that Brueckner had even given his real name and phone number to one of these online friends, the undertaker, Frank S, who the Olive Press can reveal has been helping police in their investigation.
 

Madeleine McCann disappeared on May 3, 2007

According to Stampa, Brueckner had used one of his Hotmail accounts to log into Skype to chat to other paedophiles in chat rooms.
It was here that he catalogued various sets of photos and videos and laid out a number of his sick fantasies.
Going under the pen name ‘Holger Wahnsin’ [sic] he started to create a rape fantasy involving a mother and a daughter who he captured and kept imprisoned.
Later, expanding it into a 24-page document, the ‘mother-daughter story’ involved him kidnapping a child and abusing her in front of her mother.
“It was remarkably brutal,” Stampa continued, adding it had been sent as ‘samples’ to various online contacts.
He added that Brueckner had told them ‘this is just the beginning’.
Stampa was one of two detectives, based at the BKA’s headquarters in Wiesbaden, who investigated and convicted him of an earlier crime of the rape of an American grandmother.
The Olive Press can reveal he went over to America to interview victim Diana Menkes before her trial in 2019.
She had been 72 when Brueckner had brutally attacked her in a long midnight ordeal in Praia da Luz, in 2006.
Brueckner is currently serving seven years for the attack.
He denies all five sex offences as well as his involvement in the Maddie disappearance.

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2024/06/06/exclusive-how-email-accounts-used-by-madeleine-mccann-supsect-christian-brueckner-tie-him-to-the-disappearance-of-the-british-toddler/

END
*****
So far so normal for Clarke and the Olive Press.

We note that Clarke is so keen for us all to believe what is being said that he repeats it in three consecutive paragraphs whilst mangling English grammar and syntax in his haste and excitement as he does so. 
Extract:
“One of these accounts – which Brueckner’s defence have been trying to get copies of [sic] – was described in court by a senior German detective as the ‘murder’ account.
While Titus Stampa insisted he was unable to discuss the emails in more detail – or confirm if they included any photos or videos – he confirmed to Braunschweig Court of [sic] their existence.

Speaking on Day 22 of Brueckner’s trial over [sic] five separate sex offences, including [sic] three rapes and two child abuse cases, Stampa referred to it as the ‘murder’ email account, which directly linked Brueckner to the abduction.

But, as with his boss Rainer Grimm, who took the stand last month, he said he could not divulge further details as it was ‘related to the killing’ of Maddie.
The experienced officer did however add that they had also got another external hard drive ‘also belonging to the killing case’.
END

Wow.  Strong stuff on any test.  The ”Murder account”, the “Killing case”.  TWICE each in three paragraphs.
Who could not fail to be impressed ?

Well actually anyone who speaks or understands German, or who knowing they do not has the humility to ask someone who does for a proper translation.    As this story was slithering and being sluiced on its way down the sewer pipes of the Tabloid world in exchange for money which chinked and rustled its way back to Clarke’s bank account – perhaps for the fund for the renovation of the Murat wing of Kidman-Law Towers – the Braunschweiger Zeitung (= Brunswick Newspaper) reported from the scene.

Braunschweig. Prozesstag 24: Waren Ermittler so auf den Maddie-Verdächtigen fokussiert, dass sie keinen Raum für Zweifel aufkommen lassen wollten?   Die Verteidiger legen sich mit der britischen Boulevardpresse an

And for the benefit of Clarke who has no German . . .
Were investigators so focused on the Maddie suspect that they didn't want to leave any room for doubt?   Defence lawyers take on the British tabloid press…

It goes on to say - in translation
“A British reporter exaggerated a subordinate clause in his statement to the headline, which was also circulated in Germany. His article gave the wrong impression that the investigators had news from Christian B.'s mail account and a hard drive from him, which would directly associate him with the murder of „Maddie “.

In fact, the policeman had only stated that emails and hard drives had been evaluated with a view to both investigative complexes - but he would not provide any information on ongoing investigations in the „killing offence “     [my emphasis]

So even the Braunschweiger Zeitung can see who Clarke really is.  He has become a mono-maniac, a single issue protester, blind to any evidence which speaks against his profound and almost quasi-religious belief, and even more resistant to the lack of evidence supporting his own delusion.

To restate :  There MAY BE evidence that Madeleine was abducted from 5A between 2125 and 2129 hrs on 3/5/7, and there may be evidence that Christian Brückner DID IT.

BUT – – – –    no such evidence is known to the GNR, the PJ, the MetPol liaison officers, Grange, any of the fraudulent Private investigators, Clarence Mitchell, the BKA, the investigating Magistrates and public prosecutors in Portugal or Germany, nor to the courts of First Instance, Appeal, and Supreme in Portugal, or the ECHR.

Kate McCann and Jon Clarke (and several others) have each written a book about the case, but each and all fail to include any such evidence.
And so far as I am aware no such evidence is in the public domain.

The implication is therefore clear, at least to those who care to think for a moment.

It is impressive that the statement from Germany let Clarke off the hook so lightly, by talking about an exaggeration or perhaps a misinterpretation of a subordinate clause.  That is an act of charity or mercy.

Those who have followed Clarke’s mendacious antics over the past decade might put another interpretation on it, and add it to the long list of his lies, libels and misdemeanours, whilst acknowledging that the Fat Controller might be forcing him financially to act basely and unprofessionally.

“Thirty Pieces of Silver” was not accepted as a defence in AD 33 Jerusalem
“Acting under orders” was not accepted as a defence in 1945-6 Nürnberg

As the small sample of references show, this mendacious nonsense was syndicated round the world within a couple of days.    What Clarke has received for it I have no way of knowing or estimating, but given his crowing about the lucre he received for the Lie and stolen photo falsely implicating Kidman and Law, and the amount he clearly made from the Murat Libel, it is unlikely to be in single figures.

Once again he has sold a lie to the world.  And smugly but naïvely thinks he has got away with it.

******

But those of us with fully functioning antennae may wish to look more closely at the timing of this nonsense story, and the aggressive way in which it has been promulgated across the globe.

Is this just ANOTHER of Kate’s COINCIDENCES ?

First we must note the recent publication of a book entitled “The Sudden Impulse”    
by Bernt Stellander, the Foreign Detective. 
Available in the original English and in Portuguese translation, Ist Ed.  May 2024
Published by Modocromia Ediçōes LDA,  email:  modocromia.editora@gmail.com
ISBN:   978-989-35581-7-1
It may be purchased on-line at     apoioaocliente@wook.pt
An electronic version is in preparation.
The book has 850 pages, is in large paperback glued binding format, and weighs 1.5 KILOS.
It is an absolute BRICK of a book, perhaps designed to throw through the windows of those who have not yet woken up to the facts in the case. 



The Brick dissects in forensic detail the statements, Rogatory interview transcripts, public utterances and of the Tapas 7 and written documentation in the form of Kate McCann’s book ‘madeleine’, and shows how many ‘admissions’ are contained there, leading to a more clear understanding of the events NOT of Thursday 3rd May, but of Wednesday 2nd May

There are summaries and reviews to be found on-line.

Now let us look at the sequence of events

The Olive Press Article is dated 6/6/24
The pasted copy in the Mirror 5/6/24. The People 7/6/24 and so on

The Brick was released on 2/5 with a long video introduction,  interview and Q&A session about its content
The details of how to order came a few days later

The McCanns abducted themselves from the Memorial Mass on 3/5
The first deliveries of the Brick started around 18/5
The first reviews began to emerge around 21/5
It began to be discussed on “social media”.  X, FB, blog sites, from around 24/5, and the swell of threads and discussion grew rapidly.
And never forget that the focus of the Brick encourages people to look for themselves at the Rogatory interviews and again at Kate’s book and interviews, and to interpret for themselves what they read and hear.
And then suddenly a new story is invented by Jon Clarke, and spread across the world during the first week of June. 
It takes several days for it to be called out as a LIE  [or more accurately a crass misunderstanding due to linguistic incompetence] by the German press.
But the damage has been done.  The new Mendacious story has been put in place in a CLEAR attempt to divert from the content of the Brick, and to hold the remaining ‘believers’ in place.

Can anything be MORE CLEAR ?

And yet again this raises the question – Who is Controlling all this ?

Who is paying Clarke to prostitute himself and to compromise still further what little may remain of his personal and professional integrity and sense of self-worth ? 

According to his Facebook page his children Alfred (Alfie) and Maia (he has incidentally always given their real names, despite pretending to anonymise them in the book as Albert and Maria, and getting angry and threatening people he wrongly accused of ‘revealing’ them) will now be in their early 20s and will perhaps have detected the truth about their father.  His sometime wife Gabriella, (so cleverly (?) anonymised in the book as Francesca, but then blunderingly referred to as “Gabs”) has been whooshed or air-brushed out of his personal history where the entry now reads “No relationship info to show”.   
Nice.
It might be premature to characterise Clarke as bitter and increasingly desperate.   
But when a huge edifice collapses then those who supplied the inadequate building materials, the struts and supports, foundations and beams, and those who continued to give assurances in false reports that all was safe and well all bear a joint and several responsibility and can be prosecuted for their professional negligence or complicity.

Sometimes even a plea of incompetence or stupidity is not enough to save them.

REVISION, CORRECTION AND APOLOGY 
5 JULY 2024


It is important for all those who commit their thoughts to paper or electronic media to recognise that events and further evidence may change things, may put a different interpretation of what has been said, or in extreme cases may negate entirely what had been accepted as evidence.

But first a definition
Exclusive
: an item or story published or broadcast by only one source.

The term “exclusive” refers to a story or feature that is pitched exclusively to one media outlet or publication. To the editor or reporter receiving your pitch, the buzz word implies that your offer is only going to them (or at least to them before anyone else), and that this story is not to be missed.

https://3dprmarketing.com/blog/whats-an-exclusive
What is an exclusive in journalism?
In journalism, a scoop or exclusive is an item of news reported by one journalist or news organisation before others, and of exceptional originality, importance, surprise, excitement, or secrecy.
WIKI. Derived from  https://www.merriam-webster.com/


When I wrote this Chapter I was presented with a number of facts.
Jon Clarke wrote an article in his paper the Olive Press, under his own name, and marked it EXCLUSIVE
In it he said that evidence had been given in court that e-mail accounts had been found linking Brückner to Madeleine.
That story was then syndicated round the world, for which of course significant amounts of money are paid.

Within a short time the Court made a statement in the Local regional press that NO SUCH evidence had been given. Indeed quite the contrary.  The officer had in fact made it clear that he could not even discuss the matter.

The logic seemed clear, and I followed it.
Clarke had misunderstood or invented what had been said, and had written the piece, published it  on 7/6/24, and then syndicated it, with the remaining papers dating the story 8/6/24

But I was wrong.  And I put that on record,

We now know that Clarke was not even in Court that day.   We know that from a professional Journalist from Bild, who WAS. (Kai Feldhaus, since you ask.) 



The offending Journalist seems to have been from the Mail, from their own correspondent in Germany,  one James Reynolds

The Mail article was published on 5/6/24.  24 hours BEFORE Clarke’s EXCLUSIVE claim.

Clarke therefore seems to have lifted the article – with or without permission is not known – and then in his characteristically deceitful and dishonest way claimed it as his own, using the word
EXCLUSIVE 
which is a simple untruth, told deliberately and therefore defined in plain English as a LIE

When comparing the two articles the wording stands out as being almost identical, with far fewer of the syntax errors we normally associate with Clarke’s normal penmanship

SUMMARY:
It seems on this new evidence that It may NOT have been Clarke who originally invented or misunderstood the evidence being given, and for that I apologise.

It is however clear that this was NOT an EXCLUSIVE by Clarke, nor clearly did he take any measure to ensure that what he was copying was accurate, or had been translated or understood correctly, before publishing it as widely as he did, and for that Clarke must apologise . 
But he won’t.   He has been paid for the article and its syndication and has pocketed the lucre


Refs:
1
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13498015/Christian-Brueckners-emails-link-Madeleine-McCann-case-investigators-claim.html

German police discover Christian Brueckner emails linking him to Madeleine McCann - the first ever time investigators have found evidence connecting him to her case

• Prime suspect Brueckner is standing trial in Germany for unrelated sex crimes
  
  

By JAMES REYNOLDS 
PUBLISHED: 15:34 BST, 5 June 2024 | UPDATED: 17:59 BST, 5 June 2024

2
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2024/06/06/exclusive-how-email-accounts-used-by-madeleine-mccann-supsect-christian-brueckner-tie-him-to-the-disappearance-of-the-british-toddler/

6 JUN, 2024 @ 16:54
EXCLUSIVE: HOW EMAIL ACCOUNTS USED BY MADELEINE MCCANN SUSPECT CHRISTIAN BRUECKNER ‘TIE HIM TO THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE BRITISH TODDLER’  
BY   JON CLARKE (PUBLISHER & EDITOR)

*************
REFERENCES:

1 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-cops-found-christian-brueckner-32966461
[url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-cops-found-christian-brueckner-32966461 https://www.gbnews.com/news/madeleine-mccann-emails-murder-suspect-christian-brueckner]https://www.gbnews.com/news/madeleine-mccann-emails-murder-suspect-christian-brueckner[/url]
[UK]

2 https://people.com/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-email-account-possibly-links-case-8660289
https://nypost.com/2024/06/05/world-news/german-cops-find-emails-connecting-suspect-to-madeleine-mccanns-2007-disappearance-report/
[USA]

3 https://www.clarin.com/internacional/madeleine-mccann-explosiva-revelacion-descubren-correos-electronicos-christian-brueckner-conectan-caso_0_EPeoygbFj3.html
https://www.lecturas.com/diario/ultima-hora-maddie-mccann-este-es-contenido-mails-que-destaparian-verdadero-secuestrador_158076
[Spain]

4 https://sg.news.yahoo.com/authorities-email-account-links-suspect-195702581.html
[Singapore]

5 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/german-police-christian-brueckner-emails-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-b1162564.html
[London]

6 https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/654770/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-email-link/
[planet in a Galaxy far away]

7 https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2024/06/06/exclusive-how-email-accounts-used-by-madeleine-mccann-supsect-christian-brueckner-tie-him-to-the-disappearance-of-the-british-toddler/

8 “The Sudden Impulse”    by Bernt Stellander, the Foreign Detective. 
Available in the original English and in Portuguese translation, Ist Ed.  May 2024
Published by Modocromia Ediçōes LDA,  email:  modocromia.editora@gmail.com
ISBN:   978-989-35581-7-1
It may be purchased on-line at     apoioaocliente@wook.pt

9 www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMtL7P6yDRQ&t=194s

10 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13381211/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-Kate-Gerry-fail-attend-prayer-vigil-17th-anniversary-disappearance.html

11 https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17543p150-new-madeleine-mccann-book-will-claim-missing-tot-is-already-dead#482675

12 https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/matthew-oldfield-rogatory-interview-t42.html
etc

13 https://www.facebook.com/jon.clarke.3745/about_family_and_relationships 


https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2024/06/chapter-60-is-there-no-end-to-clarkes.html

Chapter 61. Brückner’s “Arrest Warrant “ cancelled.

A quick summary and explanation of the legal issues behind this.
In most modern democracies the police arrest a person, charge him with a crime and then bail him, or take him before the next available court, normally in England within 24 hours or a little longer with a senior officer’s written authority.
The court then either releases the prisoner on bail, or remands him in Custody pending trial, in which case a written Remand document is signed and handed to the Custody Sergeant, who in turn hands it to the Prison officers who come to collect him.  At every stage of the process documents and Body Receipt books are completed to show that the detention by each officer in the chain is lawful.  Remember that this person has not been found Guilty of anything at this stage.

In Germany much the same system applies.  The document or order is a “Haftbefehl” which most of the free translation applications show as “Arrest Warrant”, but which is more accurately given as “Warrant of Detention”.  “Arrest warrant” means something slightly different in English Law, but it amounts to the same thing.  A Warrant or Order issued by a Court for the further detention of a person before and during his trial.

If it becomes clear that the evidence is insufficient to allow a verdict of Guilty, the trial should be stopped, the suspect released, and the trial formally concluded with a formal verdict of Not Guilty entered in the record

And that is what has happened here.
The Prosecution case was dismissed.  The judge decided there was No case to Answer.
The Prosecution, naturally, ‘appealed’ and accused the judge/s of ‘bias.  The first count was against all three judges, was rejected two weeks ago, the second against the judge herself was rejected on 25th July.   The objection was held to be “Groundless”





Defence counsel H. Fülscher played his hand brilliantly, allowing examination of the so-called  “witnesses” – most of whom actually witnessed nothing - not intervening when they told their wild and lurid stories as second and third hand uncorroborated hearsay, except to observe the contradictions and discrepancies,  and not objecting when matters irrelevant to the five instant charges, but allegedly relating to Madeleine McCann were introduced, and allowing the verbal ‘effluvia’ to drain from them unchecked so it was entered into the record as their sworn testimony.

Clever, since if there ever were another trial on the same facts, a re-trial of current charges, which is now not thought to be legally possible, or a trial involving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they are not now in position to change or ‘enhance’ their evidence to suit the new facts on pain of being prosecuted for Perjury in either or both cases or even conspiracy to Pervert the course of Justice.

And then, when the prosecution case had exhausted those witnesses and there was nothing left for them to say he played the Trump card and submitted that the series of unconnected pieces of evidence presented to the court “don't amount to a hill of beans”.   In the language of the court “dringender Tatverdacht” has been translated by non-German speaking journalists as “Urgent suspicion”, where “Compelling suspicion” would be more descriptive 

H. Fülscher submitted this as a legal procedural point, – that the continued detention of Brückner  could not be legally justified.   That put the Judge, Frau Engemann, in the position where she not only had been critical of many of the witnesses evidence, including of Behan’s, but was fully aware of the lack of credibility of many of the witnesses presented by the prosecution.

We must remember that the German legal system is”Inquisitorial” aimed at establishing all the facts, as opposed to the English Common Law system which is “Accusatorial”, aimed at establishing sufficient ‘facts’ to prove a persons Guilt, but no more.   Judges intervene to put their own questions, to clarify, expand and explain, 

It was the judge herself who asked Brückner to approach the bench so that she could look into his eyes to test Behan’s identification on his eyes alone, and who observed for herself that his eyes, far from being a piercing blue are a dull and lifeless blue-grey.

It was the judge who asked Behan if she had had intimate relations with her then boyfriend that day which might have explained an alleged ‘stain’ in her underwear.    

It was the judge who asked the lawyers to examine Brückners thigh for the alleged Cross shaped scar or birthmark, and who was then told there was nothing except a tiny scar from his childhood operation for an undescended testicle some 40 years ago, the scar being a transverse inguinal incision, deep in the crease between the leg and the abdomen.

And we have to remember that of the FIVE charges Brückner was facing there was only ONE complainant, ONE alleged Victim – Hazel Behan, who testified to the cross shaped scar on the leg, which was not there, and insisted she could see the colour of her assailant’s eyes  - in the dark  - through a ‘gimp’ mask, and whose evidence implied that he had scaled the outside of the building to reach her balcony carrying a heavy video camera, tapes for 4 hours recording,  batteries - ditto, rope, a whip, and a knife.   And then taken it all away again when he “fled’, none of which were observed by another alleged witness who saw the assailant run and remove his mask as he did so, implying at least one free hand.

Of the other four offences two were themselves nothing more than allegations based on what discredited witnesses claimed they viewed on video tapes they admitted they had themselves stolen and then claimed to have destroyed or ‘lost’.    And the last may be a nothing more than a misinterpretation of a girl seeing a man urinating in public, an indecent exposure at worst, at 2am during a “festival”, with no doubt beer and wines being consumed in large quantities.

It is worth our re-reading the charges so this can sink in

1. At an unspecified time between December 28, 2000 and April 8, 2006, he surprised an unknown woman aged around 70-80 in the bedroom of her vacation home in Portugal. The masked accused is said to have then tied up and raped the victim. He then hit the victim several times with a whip. The accused is said to have recorded the entire incident with a video camera.

No report, no Victim, no tapes, no evidence. And a time scale of over five years.
Just the uncorroborated hearsay evidence of a known liar, drug dealer and criminal with a known and open hostility towards the Defendant… who says he viewed the stolen videotape which has now been lost / destroyed / disposed of / is not available for examination by anyone else, on the tiny screen attached to the recording device.

2. On another day that cannot be determined exactly, between December 28, 2000 and April 8, 2006, the accused is said to have tied an unknown, German-speaking girl, aged at least 14, naked to a wooden post in the living room of the house he lived in in Praia da Luz, Portugal. First, he beat the naked girl with a whip. Then, the accused is said to have brutally forced the girl to perform oral sex. The accused also videotaped this act.

No report, No victim, no tapes, no evidence,   And a time scale of over five years.
No photos of the house or of the post  (or ring in other versions).  [Unclear what a wooden post would be doing in the living room of a rental house]
Just the uncorroborated hearsay evidence of a known liar, drug dealer and criminal with a known and open hostility towards the Defendant… who says he viewed the stolen videotape which has now been lost / destroyed / disposed of / is not available for examination by anyone else, on the tiny screen attached to the recording device.


3. On June 16, 2004, at around 3:00 a.m., the accused is said to have gained access to the apartment of a 20-year-old woman from Ireland via the balcony in Praia da Rocha, Portugal. The sleeping woman was then woken up by the masked accused at knifepoint and brutally raped. The accused then tied the woman to a table, gagged her and raped her again. He then whipped the victim on the back with a whip he had brought with him and finally forcibly performed oral sex on the victim. The accused filmed large parts of the incident with a video camera he had brought with him. While the accused later fled via the balcony, the victim managed to free herself and cried, asking for help.

Ms Behan did make a report, and gave evidence of her assailant, complete with the graphic and detailed description of the Scar and the piercing  blue eyes she had seen in the dark through the mask.  The knife, the whip, the rope with which she was tied, the gimp costume, and the video camera were we assume all removed from the scene by the assailant.  None of these have been recovered or were presented to the court.  There are no tapes.

4. On April 7, 2007, at around 3:30 p.m., the accused is said to have ambushed a ten-year-old German girl playing on the rocks on a section of the beach in Salema in the Faro district of Portugal, wearing only shoes and otherwise naked. He grabbed the child by the wrist and began to masturbate on his naked penis. He grinned and asked the girl to look at his naked genitals and the masturbatory movements he was making on them, in order to arouse himself sexually. After the accused had ejaculated, he let go of the girl and fled.

Not clear whether there was a report.  Unnamed victim,


5. On June 11, 2017, in the early morning hours at around 2:00 a.m., during the so-called Snail festival in a playground in Bartolomeu de Messines in Portugal, the accused made eye contact with an 11-year-old Portuguese girl who was sitting on the swing in the local playground. The accused then pulled down his pants and underwear while maintaining constant eye contact with the child and made masturbatory movements with his naked penis in order to sexually arouse himself until the frightened girl ran to her father for help. The accused was arrested on the spot by the Portuguese police.

On arrest it was discovered that he was wanted in Germany and he was extradited.  The case was “mothballed’ in Portugal, and then transferred to Braunschweig .    Unclear if the girl involved was called to give evidence.

END

It should be fairly clear why the Judge was somewhat sceptical right from the start.

So where does this leave us ?

First a re-cap extracted from an article by the egregious Jon Clarke,  from the Olive Press, dated May 10 2022. 
. . .
Wolters himself told me that the new charges – including the exposure to four children in 2017 and the rape of Hazel Behan, 20, in 2004 – are rather more straightforward than the Maddie case.
And once he has been convicted in the latter – in which he sadistically raped the Irish girl over hours, all filmed on his camcorder – it is likely he will then be put onto a special regime which will prevent him from ever leaving prison.
As for the Maddie case, Wolters began compiling it in 2018, two years after detectives started to probe it again, and two years before the public appeal in June 2020.
They now have lots of strong circumstantial evidence – plus, I am told, two recently received proofs – that make Wolters continually insist he is “100 per cent certain” Brueckner is the killer.
Some so-called “traces”, found in one of his vehicles driven at the time, may or may not be a red herring. That came from my colleague, journalist Sandra Felguiras, in Portugal, and she, like me, has been on this case from the beginning and has some impeccable sources.
But I don’t doubt there is some extremely damning material, among up to 20,000 photos, videos and other files, that police located in a Lidl bag, buried under the dead body of Brueckner’s dog at a box factory in former East Germany.
As for a much-discussed alibi in the Maddie case, well, he has not yet given any explanation to the police so far.  

 [My very obvious comment;  He has not been INTERVIEWED “YET . . . SO FAR” [sic !]  , and if he had been, the details of his interview would not have been made available to any passing former Geography student posing as an Investigative journalist, but actually trying to make a huge amount of money by publishing a book including all the evidence BEFORE the trial].

Yes, his lawyer has spoken on a TV documentary for Channel 5 featuring ex-policeman turned journalist Mark Williams Thomas but there actually is no alibi for 3 May 2007, the night Maddie went missing. And German police have double-checked that. I worked on the show, but my beliefs do not coincide with Williams Thomas’ narrative, that Brueckner is innocent.
It happened before in the infamous Oscar Pistorius case, where this TV detective got it wrong by insisting the South African murderer was innocent. I am certain it will happen again and over the next year or two Christian Brueckner will finally be charged with the murder of Madeleine McCann.


END

It is surely remarkable that Clarke would put himself in the position of saying explicitly that Brückner IS GUILTY and WILL BE CONVICTED; that he sadistically raped . . . and so on.
If that is not true and does not come to pass, then it is an egregious Libel, published to the world.   Similar to his putting the photo of Brückner on the front of his book which accuses him directly of the abduction, abuse and murder of Madeleine McCann.

Clarke may believe he is immune, having survived the Kidman/ Law scandal and the Murat outrage without hurt to his own bank account or luxury villas.  He published an article in his paper about how “Libel is no big deal in Spain.”  shortly before libelling me in his paper,  and repeating the libels in his book.

He may find that German law is not so forgiving.   The German Criminal Code - Strafgesetzbuch – StGB – allows for both General and Exemplary damages.  [ StGB § 185, 186 ff.]

The only comment H, Fulscher has made on that subject is. “Das kommt später.“  That comes later

There was of course a token Appeal by the State Prosecution Department though it was more restrained and legalistic than the British gutter press make out  The first was against all three ‘Judges’.  The judge herself and the two lay Schöffen who sit with her.
The second was against the Judge on her own.  Both alleged ‘bias’ and unprofessional action.

And now BOTH have been ruled as Unfounded.  Groundless. Without Foundation. Baseless.
Unless the prosecution Appeal yet again to an even higher authority within 5 days the matter is closed.    Res judicata.
The Trial of Christian Brückner is at an end.   
There is no case to answer on any of the charges before the Court




WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE CHRISTIAN BRÜCKNER ?

He remains in prison for the few months which remain of his sentence for a crime which was not committed in the manner described at the trial and possibly was not committed by him at all.

After that it leaves him legally free and Not Guilty of the five specific allegations made against him, though it is certain that Clarke and other fanatics will never accept that the absence of any concrete or material evidence exonerates him.

It says nothing about any suspicion that Clarke or others might have about any involvement in the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

But the fact that the principal – indeed the ONLY – witnesses against Brückner in the McCann case have had their credibility and veracity comprehensively destroyed makes it extremely unlikely that they would ever be called for the prosecution in any criminal case - ever again.


WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE H. WOLTERS ?

It is tempting to say with “mit  Ei auf seinem Gesicht” = ‘with some egg on his face’, but that is not the whole story.   H. Wolters has not merely personally prosecuted these five cases, but has in a real sense led the investigations and directed the activities of the BKA in the ongoing Investigations into the supposed Abduction and Murder of Madeleine McCann.

He has suffered the loss of the all five cases, all at once, and all for the same reason.  Insufficient evidence on which to base the charges. Not even enough to raise a reasonable suspicion sufficient to hold Brückner in custody.   There was no case to answer, and for any Prosecutor, let alone the Chief State Prosecutor, who had years and all the resources of the BKA to prepare his case, that is mortifying professional humiliation.

He now knows knows that his only witnesses in the Madeleine case are utterly useless.
He now knows knows that he has no physical evidence, despite what Clarke has told the world, of fibres, or anything at all to link Brückner to the reported disappearance.
He now knows knows that the general uncritical public have been lied to by people including 
Clarke about matters like fibres, tapes, videos, blankets, shrines, burial sites near reservoirs, scissors, abandoned cars, box factories, dead dogs, and many other things.
He will surely remember that he has on occasion publicly had to DENY Clarke’s stories.

And finally
He now knows knows that the Brick - (Bernt Stellander’s Book “The Sudden Impulse”) brings together in one volume a wealth of evidence showing that there was NO ABDUCTION and NO MURDER.  Not on Thursday 3rd May 2007, nor on any other date.


And that means that any likelihood of a prosecution fades into the background
He would need a lot more evidence.   Or in fact any evidence AT ALL.

He knows as an experienced lawyer that the parents would be eviscerated under cross examination, under oath, and on their own, and further that Oldfield and Tanner would only make matters infinitely worse.

For those who think or argue forcefully on “social Media’ that the parents and Oldfield would not be called as witnesses, they are the three people who allegedly last saw her alive and then reported her missing, and are thus vital to ‘set the scene’ and establish the exact time, day and date of the ‘offence’.

Wolters could not risk their giving evidence.
Fülscher would insist on it.



WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE H. FÜLSCHER ?

With the satisfaction of knowing that he accepted the brief and handled it professionally for the benefit of his client, and by so doing that JUSTICE was done and the LAW upheld as the Oath of his profession demands.

It also puts him in a strong position to assist Christian Brückner with any proceedings for defamation he might decide to instigate


WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE JON CLARKE ?

Clarke has for the past few years ‘pursued a quest’ to have Christian Brückner prosecuted and imprisoned for the Abduction and Murder of Madeleine McCann.  The most serious of offences – which almost certainly were never committed by anyone.

To achieve that he followed his belief at immense expense in time and money, and we believe at the expense of his family’s cohesion, with a single-mindedness of purpose which is close to an unhealthy even pathological obsession.   His fixation that Brückner Abducted, Abused and Murdered Madeleine McCann blinded him to the most obvious of facts which have been pointed out by the more clear thinking for many years.

Chief amongst which is that there is not a scrap of evidence that any such crimes were committed.

He failed to understand that the Rules of Evidence apply in Germany as much as – or for other reasons even more than – in most modern civilised societies :
That hearsay evidence is normally inadmissible, and even if heard is not probative.
That hearsay evidence needs to be backed up by other physical or first hand evidence, 
That personal vendettas and hatred are relevant to the weight to be given to witness testimony
That a series of dubious underworld characters, drug users, dealers, thieves and burglars,  repeating the mantra “I THINK IT MUST BE HIM” is not probative of anything, no matter how often they repeat it, nor how many of them can be persuaded (or PAID) to say it, and regardless of the personal delusion of the journalist persuading them to talk.

He failed to understand that Law is not the same as Journalism.  Even accepting that he is qualified in neither discipline, common sense and experience of life should surely have taught him that.

And then we turn to the evidence we have, in his own Book, and in his own newspaper, of the egregious LIBELS he has made against so many people.
They are in written form, under his own hand, and he has no place to hide.

His book is published in English.  Clarke is English.  The family concerned and their friends are all English.    The book is aimed at the Anglophone world, in particular the English.
The English High Court would be the obvious place for Brückner to file a suit for defamation.

But Germany has defamation written into its criminal code, and statute can be more easy to deal with than Common Law.


Clarke cannot rely on any of the three defences allowed, 
Truth - because what he says – isn’t
Privilege - because it does not apply to him
Fair comment - because his publication was a cynical commercial venture, designed to make a large amount of money from the book and from many syndicated articles all to be published before and during the trial.


In the Brick, Bernt Stellander’s book “The Sudden Impulse” he tries to stand back from his own theory, and notes:
“The biggest mistake an investigator can do [make] is to fall in love with his / her own theory.  That can truly make you reach for something that’s not there or even stretch information to fit the theory and, by that, give you tunnel vision”. 

It is the basis for the most gross miscarriages of Justice ranging from Timothy Evans through the Birmingham 6, Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford 4, and Andrew Malkinson through to the Post Office scandal which infects the courts and Parliament as we speak.

Clarke very clearly fell into that deep trench of his own making a long time ago.  First with Murat, then with the string of other “suspects and scapegoats” all diligently recorded in his book, perhaps as ‘insurance policies’, and finally over the past several years with Brückner.



WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE ?
 
In law, and in a perfect world, it does not affect it at all.   But we live in an interconnected world, where everything spins off into something else.

The only ‘witnesses’ likely to give any evidence at all in any case involving Madeleine McCann have been totally discredited, and there are no other witnesses and so far as we know no evidence of any sort.

The parents, Oldfield and Tanner or any of the other Tapas group cannot be called as they would all be surgically and forensically filleted under cross examination.

And the PJ investigators are no use to the prosecution as they remain convinced that there was No Abduction and No Murder, and that view has been upheld by the Appeal and the Supreme Court of Portugal and by the ECHR



WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE MCCANNS ?

From Kate McCann’s statements, interviews and book it seems clear that all she has ever wanted is closure and for the whole charade to end in whatever way, either by the finding of Madeleine’s grave, or even by her own death.   Bernt Stellander in the Brick, his recent book, “The Sudden Impulse”, (see Ref for details)  has catalogued many examples of this.


Having Brückner – or indeed any other convenient scapegoat – wrongfully convicted of Abduction and Murder would have done this, and enabled them to issue a short statement of sadness, to announce that the “Fund” has been seriously depleted by the recent activity and that the remaining fourteen pounds, seventeen shillings, and fourpence would be donated to Missing People, the company wound up, and that they now hoped for freedom from further press intrusion, and to be allowed to live in peace in their now mortgage-free house.

Now that seems vanishingly unlikely to happen, and as the Brick (“The Sudden Impulse “) attracts more public attention their situation becomes, shall we say, ‘more difficult’.

The McCanns’ unease is clear from their recent plea to resuscitate the promised second part of the Leveson enquiry, sent very publicly to the British Government and Prime Minister, reported widely in the British Press, and treated in exactly the same way as were their pleas to the Appeal and Supreme Courts of Portugal, and to the European Court of Human Rights.   
Rejected outright.     
With the rejection widely reported in the same British Press



WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE TAPAS 7 ?

At the bottom of a deep trench, from which there is only one route of escape.  
The Path of Truth – if they can find it.


WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE NUGGETS ?

Potentially in a very seriously compromised situation.  Even assuming that as church-going and legally upright and decent professional people who either were lied to, or at best not told the whole truth when asked to do what appeared to be a simple if strange and obscure task by some acquaintances, they must by now realise that they have been ’set up’, and that their involvement is capable of being seen in the eyes of the law as conspiracy, or “accessory after the fact.”

If, with that knowledge, they remain silent, they could also fall into the definition of Assisting Offender  S. 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 refers, as Mr Nugget, a lawyer, will be well aware


They are due to receive their personalised copy of the Brick within the next two weeks





The big problem faced by the McCanns, the Tapas 7, Mitchell, the Nuggets, and all the other people who got intimately involved is this.
It is now increasingly clear to the thinking world (with the exception of Jon Clarke, obviously) that 




Many sages and philosophers have said over the ages “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”

The difficulty now is how to approach that awesome task




REFS:

1 https://www.mirror.co.uk
Prosecutors want 'biased' judges thrown off Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner trial
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner is on trial for his alleged sex crimes which are not linked to the missing child case - prosecutors have called for a change in judges

By Martin Fricker  Senior Reporter

• 11:11, 5 Jul 2024UPDATED11:13, 5 JUL 2024
  

Furious prosecutors have applied to have “biased” judges thrown off the trial of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner.
They were left fuming after Judge Ute Inse Engelmann issued a ruling which criticised the evidence of key witnesses in the case.  Bruekner is suspected of abducting and killing three-year-old Madeleine in Praia da Luz in May 2007.   He is nearing the end of a seven-year prison term for raping an American pensioner in the Portuguese resort.
The 47-year-old is currently standing trial on unconnected sex crimes he allegedly carried out in the Algarve. In a shock move on Wednesday, Judge Engelmann overturned an arrest warrant for Brueckner. She ruled the court had not heard strong enough evidence from witnesses to keep him behind bars.
Judge Engemann’s ruling was a strong indication that Brueckner will be cleared of the charges he is facing. If he is found not guilty, Brueckner could be freed from prison in the early part of next year. Now prosecutors have filed a motion to have Judge Engemann and her two fellow judges dismissed, citing “concerns about bias”.
A ‘chamber of representatives’ in Braunschweig must now make a ruling on the extremely rare application by early August.   If the prosecution application is successful, the trial will collapse and a retrial would have to take place. Brueckner is accused of carrying out five offences in the Algarve between 2000 and 2017.

In another report H Wolters declined to comment, as the professional he is.

1.1 https://www.yahoo.com/news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-unlikely-face-181242971.html
The main suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is unlikely to ever face trial for her disappearance after winning a new legal battle, his lawyers have said.
Christian Brückner won a bid to have an arrest warrant against him dropped in a separate ongoing sex offences trial.
The move is a technicality because Brückner remains behind bars, as he is serving a sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old American tourist in 2005.

However, his lawyers believe that the court decision to drop the warrant could be a sign that he will be acquitted at the sex crimes trial – and cast doubt on the prospect of there ever being a trial in the McCann case.
The warrant was cancelled at the request of the defence because there was no longer an “urgent suspicion” that Brückner committed the five offences, the court in Brunswick said in a statement.
A written statement from the Brunswick court confirmed that the arrest warrant had been formally lifted.
It reads: “The chamber has, at the request of the defence, cancelled the arrest warrant because the chamber denied an urgent suspicion of an offence with regard to all the charges.”
A verdict in the ongoing trial is expected in the autumn.
Brückner’s legal team said at the opening of the trial in February that the defence team had major doubts about the evidence against their client.
The credibility of the witnesses would be a “massive question” for the judges, lawyer Friedrich Fülscher said, alleging they were unreliable because of “drug consumption habits” among other things.


2 





3
https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/presseinformationen/anklageerhebung-wegen-mehrerer-sexualstraftaten-gegen-den-verdachtigen-im-fall-madeleine-maddie-mccann-216151.html

List of charges (In English) as quoted above.


4 The Olive Press, May 10 2022


5 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1891
Section 187
Defamation
Whoever, despite knowing better, asserts or disseminates an untrue fact about another person which is suited to degrading that person or negatively affecting public opinion about that person or endangering said person’s creditworthiness incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)), a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine.


5.1 https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/defamation-libel-lawyer-germany

German defamation law recognises certain defences against defamation claims, such as truth (Wahrheit), privilege (Schutzgesetz), and fair comment (zulässige Meinungsäußerung). These defences aim to strike a balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding individuals from unjustified attacks on their reputations.

6 “The Sudden Impulse,”  Bernt Stellander, 2024, Modocromia Ediçoës. LDA
modocromia.editora@gmail.com.   ISBN:  978-989-35581-7-1


7 https://news.stv.tv/politics/mccanns-call-for-courage-and-integrity-from-pm-on-press-intrusion-inquiry
The prime minister has said no to a Leveson press inquiry part two, despite pleas from the parents of Madeleine McCann.   Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was committed to holding Leveson Part Two.
But when ITV News put Gerry McCann’s statement to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, today he ruled it out.    “We set out in our manifesto our programme for action for this government, we’ve laid that out in the King’s Speech, that clearly sets out our priorities – and the second half of Leveson is not among them,” he said

8 Criminal Law Act 1967
S.4 (1).   Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other relevant offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
…
3) A person committing an offence under subsection (1) above with intent to impede another person’s apprehension or prosecution shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment according to the gravity of the other person’s offence, as follows
(a) …
(b) …
(c)  if it is not one included above but is one for which a person (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years, he shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years;


https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2024/07/chapter-61.html