Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

Angel wrote:I seem to recall MWT always broadcast his belief as being "  Madeleine woke and wandered" so I'm wondering if he still holds that belief but it wasn't CB who came across her .
Interesting is  what's going on making him defend the guy  possibly almost everyone supporting abduction wants to see held responsible because Wolters had made public what a gross individual he is so might as well be done with this case for everyone's sake .

They're all in this together and that confusion is probably part of the build up to the C5 series that they are making on the case. I bet that most of that was recorded well before we heard of CBs alibi and yet it will still be discussed in the programme.

let's say they convicted Bruckner (we know he's just a patsy but let's say they convicted him)wouldn't the McCann's take a stand in the witness box, and that's not what they want. 

so are we going to have a new patsy?

rtl germany asked der hans about an alibi for cb.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

in german of course.

original; Man habe "keine Kenntnis von einem Alibi", erklärte Staatsanwalt Christian Wolters gegenüber "RTL". "Uns gegenüber hat sich weder der Beschuldigte noch sein Verteidiger zur Sache geäußert", so Wolters. Die Medienberichte bestünden offenbar in erster Linie aus Vermutungen, sagte der Staatsanwalt.


You have "no knowledge of an alibi," said public prosecutor Christian Wolters to "RTL". "Neither the accused nor his defense attorney spoke to us on the matter," said Wolters. The media reports are apparently primarily made up of guesswork, said the prosecutor.



you have  has a better translation as one has....

and the mirror had a bit of the same, but in english.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

the first conclusion must be, mark w. has not taken the liberty to assist the german investigation. 
so again we get into a trial by media. 

Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”


wel usually the public expects if the police got perp, they arrest them, and bring them before a judge. but modern times, we have to wait until all is been in the media. justice vernetflixed, not nice to see that happen.

onehand wrote:and the mirror had a bit of the same, but in english.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

the first conclusion must be, mark w. has not taken the liberty to assist the german investigation. 
so again we get into a trial by media. 

Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”


wel usually the public expects if the police got perp, they arrest them, and bring them before a judge. but modern times, we have to wait until all is been in the media. justice vernetflixed, not nice to see that happen.

Maybe it would have helped if Wolters had bothered to question him and give him the opportunity to present his alibi. A lot of time could have saved if Wolters didn't drag his heels.

How many cases against CB have they got wrong so far?

A rape case
Inga Ghericke
Madeleine McCann

Is he some sort of willing patsy or someone willing to play along for a while until he is exonerated so that they get a story for a TV series?

yeah, in the old days, you had a criminal who did a criminal something, then the police solved the case, brought them before the court, that got them in a nice jail, now and then there was written a book about it, than even more rarely it got into a documentary, or even movie.

nowadays we have not a crime, as per portuguese police, so the british police take over, but can't find a perp, so the germans find them a perp, they tell us he is guilty on tv, but would, for the time being, not bring any charges. so some idiot writes a book about that, saying the perp did it, and another one makes a tv series about it, telling the perp had not dunnit, so the police says ; but well he did not tell us that. not the perp, not his lawyer, not the tv series puppets. so the police of germany has to wait until the tv series is to be seen on a lesser tv channel. what will make it into a cliffhanger. 

and all those people do not play nice, first all european writers of pieces for papers, have to offer their sunday afternoon with their family to write something about nothing. and then it was a scoop for the scottish sun, of all papers. that alibi finder must hate those writers of pieces very much. 

also the alibi finder has ruined all the work of the german synchronizers, before they could rehash an old reality series about the perp.

what now, would the movie come out before a charge is brought, or is that deadline just before the case gets to the courts? or would they ask judge julie for deciding this spectacle?

It will be interesting to watch this farce, paying particular attention to the timelines. Its beginning to look more and more like another hoax.

onehand wrote:Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “If I had an alibi and was accused of this, I would say it. But I have heard no such claims from Brueckner or his lawyer.”

Brückner is under no obligation to assist the Prosecutor in any way.
In English law the caution now reads

"“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
(Other modern jurisdictions have similar provisions,  5th Amendment and so on)

Note that it says it MAY harm your defence.
Not that it WILL destroy

You still do not have to reveal an alibi to the person questioning you. 
You are entitled to keep it 'up your sleeve' and produce it at the last minute, in court, under cross examination,
and then hope that the Prosecution QC is not able to destroy it.

there are often differences between the english law system, based on the common law, were most countries on the mainland follow civil law. 

this is a translation of the german criminal code into english; 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

beside this, there is also a code of criminal procedure, in english;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

both go hand in hand. beside these books of formal law, there is also a lot of case law. so a decision of a judge in one case, could have influence on how the law in following cases has to be interpreted. 

leaflets like this one, a bit older, but changes in criminal laws are mostly small. this one is written to give a not german person some understanding of rights and happenings when you got arrested in germany.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

criminal laws are unique to every nation. beside a national law, there is also international law, what in this case will also play a role. 

why germany does the follow up in this case is based on their habit to not extradite a german national to a court of an other nation. they have as solution to bring such a case before the german courts. 

if you look at the first link under section 5 , you can find how that is possible. 
because they go to follow up for murder, the supposed perp does not have to live in germany, but only be a german. 

if they get this case graded down by the german judge, like back to a crime against a personal liberty, it becomes more difficult, because for most, that german have to be also a formal address in germany. see point 6 and 9.

even if there comes a case before a german judge, it also means it will be under the rules and regulations of that german law. 

why in this case there is a big shot law firm in tow, is most likely not in the first processes, but what happened after that. 
this case would certainly made it to the european courts, because we see a very negative outcome in this case for the defendant. under the portuguese law he would not have to stand trial, because the maximum statute of limitations is 15 years. under german law there is not anything like that in play.

it is just not nice that a german could face a long conviction, because of only his nationality, while he choose to live in another, and when the deed was done in that country. 

also it give a lot of difficulty, because the facts and circumstances and all formal investigation is done under the law of a different country. meaning different thresholds, different systems of archiving and research facilities. 

still the principle of innocent until proven guilty stands as a first rule. in this case hardly anyone mind a lot, because there is a impression and record to see cb as a not valuable citizen, that earns a life in freedom. 
think it could be anyone of us, who one day are to stand there, while being innocent. 

until now this case had not only breach conventions, but it looks like the german prosecutors office are walking a very thin line. they have no obligation to present this case to the public, but the choose to go for the glitter and glamour. 

from the perspective of law it will become a case for the books. for me a very interested part of this saga. 
except it could have a very negative, or positive outcome for others, that have to stand in court. 

the germans are now hard at work to consolidate anything useful in portugal and the uk, and made that into usable material under german law. that part is also very interesting. that part has to happen under portuguese and british laws. meaning there will be a lot of gaps.
they would prefer not that portugal make cb into an arguido, because that makes they have to show their hand. 

in germany the judge has an active role in all proceedings. it will be the judge who will decide who will be there as a witness. so do not dream to early about kate and gerry in a courthouse. if the prosecutor chooses to follow for the first mwt theory, as in walking out and taken after that, the mccann's only role could be a form that states that madeleine beth mccann was a minor british citizen, living under their parental rights. 
but more likely, it will be a formal letter of a british court, that tell madeleine beth mccann was a existing living person, with the british nationality on a certain date. 

the lack of evidence in portugal about abduction from 5a lost any meaning, if they choose to follow the walk and wander before taken is followed. 

i think the reason the germans are 100% sure about cb as perp in this case, is into one of those books in progress they have found. a story written in the I form, as if that I tells what had taken place. that is no true form of evidence, but it could hold a lot of information , normally only be known by the perp. his career into breaking in could have given him inside knowledge about the place itself. from his records in criminal activity, he must be able to write up a fantasy about this case. 

so now the germans are running to all sides, to get behind any form of evidence that proof such a story is not fiction, but a reality. 

it looks for me, the only way how they got a 100% sure, and tell the public, if we had seen what they had, we would agree with them. all other possible concrete evidence type of things got at one point a no, we do not have such from der hans.

There are plenty of real Suspects with ‘Täterwissen’ (things that only the real Perpetrator would know).

But they are all of British nationality.

 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Silentscope wrote:There are plenty of real Suspects with ‘Täterwissen’ (things that only the real Perpetrator would know).

But they are all of British nationality.

of course there are, but they are not german, and 'somewhat' under protected status. 

miscarriages of justice are not that uncommon. and this time it will be , if they dare and get there, germany to cb.

cb is the bird in hand at the moment. nothing happening against any others at the moment. 

i'm not very interested in cb as a person, but i do not like the format that the germans use at the moment. 
or you have enough to charge, and do exactly that, or you don't, and have to stop or wait. this circus is no need for. 

the stage they are in, in germany is still that of a police investigation, it is not the role of a prosecutor to declare someone guilty, for that we got judges, their sole role is proof someone is guilty. 

criminal knowledge in this case is very hard to proof. the only things that never have been in the media and dat had direct leads to madeleine, are her medical files. or maybe something like a scar or abnormality, that is not visible on all the pictures, and for that kate and gerry's words would not be enough. 
also it looks like the germans are not on good standing with the mccanns, if we believe them in that. 

the part of this saga is cb versus germany, it is about choices the prosecution could or will make, but there is room enough to forgo the mccanns and the rest of the tapas clan. 

5a has very little secrets, the portuguese had an obligation to get their material out for who want to take a look. what we can't see are materials of others than the pj. all there is, is old and already there. most of the findings they have done, you could not do them again, so all there is is results from those investigations, and for some you could start a fresh interpretation. with most you can not do that. 

the problem with knowledge of a crime is, is you have still have to proof it is exactly that. and this case has a heavy burden of fantasies and lies. every possible theory is already out there. 

also my questions have nothing to do with who is, or are the true perp(s) in this case, but why and how the germans got cb into it.

It depends what you want to believe.

Brückner was always on the Radar since day one.

Either they have saved their best Suspect until last.

Or the U.K. Gov. have used the Maddie story to divert attention from the Covid 19 / BLM Marxist - Socialist / Great re-set Agenda?

Or OG leapt at the chance offered by Helge Büsching to clear the McCanns of any involvement and Set up Brückner as a ‘Patsy’? Gaining more Funding in the process?

There are plenty of theories on how and why CB was brought into this.

Or the simple answer could be that Brückner likes to make up Stories when he gets drunk, and tells them to People who try to make Capital out of them.

Take your pick.

They will no doubt be working on how to fit him up once he's dead?

I don't know if we've had that already, but that makes the case against CB fall apart even further: 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wie die Bild berichtet, soll es eine Frau geben, die rund um den Tatzeitpunkt im Mai 2007 fast jeden Abend mit dem Tatverdächtigen verbracht haben will. Die Polizei habe die Zeugin bereits verhört. Aber, ob die Frau auch die Tatnacht mit dem Mann verbracht habe, daran könne sie sich nicht erinnern. Nach dem Verschwinden der kleinen Maddie soll der Verdächtige keine Verhaltensänderungen gezeigt haben. Unmittelbar nach dem Verschwinden von Maddie McCann sollen beide laut Bild in eine Polizeikontrolle geraten sein. Auch hier solle sich der Tatverdächtige demnach nicht auffällig verhalten haben.

 Translation:

"As Bild [newspaper] reports, there is said to be a woman who claims to have spent almost every evening with the suspect around the time of the crime in May 2007. The police have already interrogated the witness. But whether the woman had also spent the night of the crime [3 May 2007] with the man, she could not remember. After the disappearance of little Maddie, the suspect reportedly showed no behavioral changes. Immediately after Maddie McCann's disappearance, both are said to have gotten into a police check, according to Bild. Here, too, the suspect was said to not have behaved conspicuously."

the knowledge a perp has of his crime is under common law mostly seen a just a confession. 

under the civil law system, there is no true trial in guilty through confession possible.

the perp would know , hopefully all about his role and doings in a case. if your perp will confess to what had happen exactly, you still have to deliver the proof for that. 

most times it is easier, because that type of criminal knowledge tells you where and how to get your hands on the facts and circumstances, the evidence as a result from these, to proof a case. 

the primary function is , it gives you some control of knowing you got the real perp in hand. it is no proof he tells the truth either. some people have just to much fantasy and lucky guesses. 

most countries under common law accept that a trial is ended with a guilty plead, civil law systems don't do that. a choice once made to make the risk of a guilty plead by suppression is less likely. 

in the day to day world of crime it is not unknown that you got lots of confessions. and some are good actors. 
so yes, if it is possible you try to keep some details inside the investigation. 
but how much could still be secret in this case. 
so that type of knowledge is a nice egg, but not the golden egg per se. 

the lawyers office will have their researchers already on every snippet that is written, or been pictured. 
the lawyers usually do have access to the client, and a good client do tell them, what the police could have found on them. 
in this specific case, the perp has only have to had access to internet with twitter, facebook , fora and media comments, to get rid of any unique knowledge. 

it is very questionable that true criminal knowledge, in this specific case, still is a useful possibility to screen a perp.

i do not want to believe, i want to know. believe is not a integral part of law and justice. 

rubbish, cb was not on the radar on day one. if you think that, you discriminate goncalo amaral his words!

usually every one and the dog are in the hat at a starting investigation. we over here have lots of investigations that are pretty boring, most perps do tell themselves they did it. those are the cases you have a perp on day one. 

in this case there was , as pretty usually is lots of cases, no crime established from the start, they had to choose something likely to get a go at it. so it is ridiculous to say cb was always on the radar, from day one. just read again the first chapters of amaral's first book. 

he could certainly have been on a list with perps. if what is out there is true , it is less likely on the list of sexual predators against children in portugal. he could certainly have been on a list of other criminals active in a certain time, in that region of portugal. he did not live in that little house in pdl at that time. 

he was one of the majority, of non portuguese, not registered mass of people from abroad. 

the list of pedo practitioners known to be in that region in portugal is not disclosed to the public. but that list could never be complete. and because of what the portuguese prosecutor said about, cb, a list and germany, he was not on a pedo list in portugal, at that time. 

cb enters the case in 2013 when an old pall called the german police about the stories he told about this case, the police politely send him a notice, if we would be so kind to address the station to answer some questions. 
the opinions are divers of he did was heard at that time. some say yes, others say he did not go. the result stays the same, he was sent off to live his life. 

he was on a german list of criminals when inga gehricke disappeared in 2015, at that time he was for then exonerated after a few weeks from that investigation. 

in 2017 another old pall, the human trafficker hb, got in contact with scotland yard,  and the ball in the mccann case and the germans started rolling on. at the start of june 2020 they did go on tv, and that was when about this topic started about cb. 

there is nothing credible to find, that could fill in, that cb was on the radar from day one. amaral would not have told cb was that patsy, if they had him under any form of serious suspicion on day one.  

this case already has to much of political influence, better to keep that kind of your opinion in other topics, without proof it is not part of this case. 

at best he simply could be fantast when drunk, at least he has some uses for looking for palls, that do not know how to use a phone. 

i'm not a great fan of messages that does not give ownership of an opinion. it has nothing to do with discussion, it is called steering. why would it be hard to just tell what you think, or know, or if you want believe. or do you have no opinion about this case?

Maddie case 'is not about to crumble'

I can't copy/paste this

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Courtesy of 'onehand':  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think because Brückner speaks good English, and has had access to not only local knowledge, Press and Internet reporting, he has plenty of Information which to an outsider could sound like ‘he knew all about what happened to Maddie’ as Helge B described.

Whether he is a Narcissistic Psychopathic personality, who when Drunk, likes to make out that he knows more than others, is a possibility.

Even Manfred S seems to be of the opinion now, that there can be no other Explanation, other that Helge B used this Story as his ‘get out of Jail’ card.

That is my opinion alone of course.

That is a good point.
How many of us here, if interviewed by a detective or a lawyer who know little about the case, 
would not be found to be extremely 'suspicious' because of the amount of 'inside information' we revealed.

I is often said that a decent detective or lawyer, does not ask a question to gain information, 
but only to confirm what he already knows.
Which is fine if the interrogator actually does know something.
Here many of have 14 years of "tireless research" behind us, and know many multiples
of what the 'man in the street' knows, or even believes.

Wolters has previously said he must also be careful not to reveal whatever it is he thinks he does have against Brückner, so he can prevent him from coming up with excuses.

But the Press keep on coming up with excuses for the McCanns, even though no- one seems willing to Question them!?

in reality the prosecutor does not have to hide such information for a perp. if he got the right perp, that perp already knows what there could be to find. 

such tellings are just for the public. 

the perp will know very well what he usually tells to others, what he had written, or from what he had made a picture. 

the perp does not need to investigate, he already knows what he has done, what had happened. and a bit of a wise perp will be generous sharing this intel to his lawyer. a good lawyer will see to it, that you will know how to react on what is found out. 

over here we had the norm, for never tell you press person, anything you do not want into a newspaper. i think the bka learns that lesson now on the hard way.

also based on the case and the person behind the title of persecutor, that one could be the last to tell all. also a prosecutor not always will tell all and everything directly to the investigation judge. 

but the single person, that really does know what has happen, is the perp him/herself. the only thing a perp does not know, is if those investigators already found it, or not. 
when the truth gets out, the only one who could not be surprised is the perp.

Madeleine McCann Prime Suspect Christian B Has Verified Alibi According To Channel 5

Program called "Madeleine McCann - The Prime Suspect".

Problem is he's not the Prime Suspect.

According to the PJ files it is someone else... ahem.

I can't wait for the programme to air on TV, I'm sure that will spark a lot of interest on the forum.