Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

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.

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: 
https://www.merkur.de/welt/maddie-mccann-vermisst-news-zeugin-deutscher-tv-doku-wende-alibi-91226371.html

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

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mirror-northern-ireland/20220111/281913071466914


Courtesy of 'onehand':  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/prosecutors-reject-claims-madeleine-mccann-25905370

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.

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.

BlueBag wrote: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.

CORRECTION:

According to the PJ files it is someTWO else

well it could be a bit of a bummer, when the bka, like all from abroad try to view channel 5;

We're sorry, you must be located in the UK to view this content.

i think a lot of lawyers in the uk are looking, or better the office assistants will, because when mark w. really has that scoop, they could start sending out their reservations to the courts. and the other bunch is watching in the uk to see if they can pull some salary from their clients. 

maybe they even have a pretty well known firm in tow, ready to get the cash in. 
it even could be that it would a so called work related gathering in a garden, with bring your own bottle, to fiesta a bit on the coming earnings. 

i am very curious to see for exactly what dates the germans want to see an alibi. would they go for the official date a person got in the books as being missing, as in 3 may 2007,because that is not exact science in this case. 
the germans has never got into that, neither was it asked from der hans how they think the story happened. 

we know what the first investigation was thinking, for the second one we got the remit from the start up, before it got into operation grange. sofar nothing about the german theory at all, yes, the are lightly in telling murder, but the rest is still missing. cb and his lawyers are also still in the dark. 

that is why it was a stupid to say, if i had an alibi i would say so. but without a charge, how the hell does herr ff has to know, what he is up against. der hans does not tell about dates he want an alibi for, so how could cb knows the date he needs an alibi for. also you can't advise a client properly if you do not now to what, when, etc. 

at the moment cb is nothing in the case around madeleine mccann. there is no legal status, or grounds that could be an excuse for how der hans is acting in public. hardly anyone minds that very much, because cb is not a nice character. 
making someone a official suspects is not only about a case, but also gives a bunch of rights. 

all we got to see now looks like a witch hunt, or the modern equivalent of that trial by media. i have no idea how that works in germany, but over here we had some pretty heavy cases, and the judges in that trail did not like such behaviour very much, resulting in lowering the sentences, because they had already a trial in public. 

how could a german prosecutor think this way is the highway. where did he got lost and forgot, that the only thing that matters is doing justice to that little girl named madeleine beth mccann.

If Brueckner has employed British Lawyers, will Her Wolters have to share the "material and concrete evidence" that Madeleine is dead with them?

so the company that produces the story by mark w. had just send some press packet around;

more to read in here; https://www.drive-tv.co.uk/programme/137/madeleine-mccann-investigating-the-prime-suspect
the pdf tells a bit more, a exclusive with cb, what he did on 3 may, and his alibi for that day.

it looks like he is more of a casanova of the algarve, than the very very ugly man in the eyes of a 12 year old t.
 
wel why not, when the prosecution's office decided to play it by the media, it is not unthinkable the defendant does the same. it's not that the prosecution could not ask that question directly from cb. they have him already. 

this then 18 year old, could not be the one he dined with the day before 3 may. wasn't that the british one, who probably also thought she had a fling with cb. also there must be nicole f. and a older lady with dogs.

And we wait in vain for a comment from Jon Clarke-Kent.
**
Clarke-Kent the intrepid reporter clearly spent a LOT of time on the road in Portugal and Germany, 
including the former East Germany, and possibly elsewhere. 
During all that time over the 14 months of "tireless research" he will have left his wife and children alone. 
He also confesses in his book to having abandoned them for "several months" in 2018 or thereabouts. 
What he was doing in those months is anyone's guess, but his paper is based on the coast, 
which he describes as the "flesh pots of the Costa". 
He is not without funds (hence the extraordinary property portfolio) and is presentable – especially after having trimmed his 1970s Leftie student long hair, tall, fit, healthy, and has a decent car. 
He is also obviously a good 'raconteur'.

Flesh Pots here we come ! ?

OR, we have photos of Clarke with other men. 
In almost every one he has his arm round the waist of the man standing next to him.
Not a "rugger-bugger" matey drinking-friends arm on the shoulder.
Round the WAIST.
Including a lawyer.
.   

there looks to be a lot of mix up in the girlfriend brigade of cb. 

that bunch of others must be all girlfriends. that girl nakscye m. was 17, and that would be his girlfriend the day before 3 may, to whom he told he had to do something awful the next day, and that they could not see him for a while. 

it must be one who did not already have talked to the media. 

looks like he had as much girlfriends as madeleine had pyjamas, and they got also easily mixed up.