Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

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

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

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

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

'100% sure' Madeleine McCann 'killer' found - but Met Police 'have concerns' over claims

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/police-concerned-claims-mccanns-killer-26981967

UK officers are said to have 'have concerns' over German prosecutor Hans Wolters' claims that he is '100% sure prime suspect Christian Brueckner was involved in Madeleine’s 2007 disappearance'

Met Police “have concerns” about a law chief’s boasts he has found Madeleine McCann’s “killer”, it is claimed.

German prosecutor Hans Wolters has said he is “100% sure prime suspect Christian Brueckner was involved in Madeleine’s 2007 disappearance.

He says TV sleuth Mark Williams-Thomas, who last week threw doubt on the jailed rapist’s guilt, “doesn’t know the files”.

But yesterday Brit Mr Williams-Thomas – who unmasked Jimmy Savile as a pervert – hit back. He tweeted: “The British police have concerns about the German prosecutor’s continued media appearances and statements.

“Time for German prosecutor ­after three years of investigation and asserting that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann to charge him or admit they just don’t have the evidence.’’

Mr Williams-Thomas said he had presumed Brueckner was guilty before he investigated.

Last night Mr Wolters told the Daily Star: “I don’t want to comment on the statements of Mr Williams-Thomas. He is not serious.’’

Hans Christian Wolters has consistently defended his claim Christian Brueckner is behind the Brit girl’s 2007

It came after TV investigator Mark Williams-Thomas said he was convinced the convicted child sex offender was innocent.

Mr Wolters, who is heading the case in Germany, said: “Because Mr Williams-Thomas doesn’t know the files we are not surprised by his opinion. It’s a fact that the suspect has no alibi.

“We found nobody who gives Christian B an alibi. And the suspect doesn’t claim an alibi.”

Christian B is German paedophile Christian Brueckner, currently serving jail time in his native Germany for the rape of a pensioner.

Investigator Williams-Thomas does not believe Brueckner is responsible for the Maddie mystery.

He said: "In Portugal after 15 years any serious crime including murder can’t be prosecuted... Christian Brueckner was made an arguido to get around this. I believe he is innocent.

"Somebody’s previous offending does not make them responsible. That is not how the criminal justice system should work."

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

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

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

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

Pay heed, you are seriously trying my patience

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

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

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

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

What on earth are you talking about?

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

What does that even mean.

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

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

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

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

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



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

"McCann haters" 

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

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

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

You're welcome.

He may have a point.

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

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

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

I wonder if he knows where Shergar is?

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

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

I don't give my energy to " hate " . 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence my reluctance to support or encourage baseless theorizing.

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

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

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


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

that is only in portugal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now now, don't be facetious

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

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

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

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

It stands to reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

i know it as you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. 

but i mean by it, can portugal try him, and germany also, both on a murder charge. i never have seen the possibility under portuguese law, but germany has an escape route to try the same suspect twice, as long as their is enough new evidence. it became the result of a case with suspect declared as not guilty, and by know they made some changes, so even if the first round become nil or not guilty, they could try him again in this case based on new incoming evidence.

but there is also the international rule in the eu, where you can only be tried once for the same charges, so by that one it would not make a difference, only one country can try you for that same charge. 

but in the real world, this case has a very high chance to end up first before the echr court, before it reach a national court in portugal or germany. 

the eu can not do very much inside one of the countries, but can dictate some rules when it is over more than one eu member state. 

double yeopardy is the usual translation of the ne bis in idem, it is not bound to murdercases, it works for all cases, acquittal is not an obligatory verdict, but is the reason it was used between different jurisdictions. most do not mind a guilty verdict, so it will most been used to get a freed man behind bars in a second round of court cases.  

but when two countries, what are two very separate jurisdiction start a case against you on the same charges in the same case, double yeopardy is already started. for that there is the rule the first who step a minute step into an conviction is the one who can start the court case. 

those rules are there with good reasons, otherwise it would to easy to just start court shopping, a term deriving from the police verb cop shopping, and stands for looking around which party is the most willing and wanting to bring someone behind bars. and actually that was already almost happening, it was last minute that portugal decided to make cb also their suspect, and in itself that was enough to break the sol.
but also because of that court shopping did just not happened. 

but it will hardly possible escaping the echr. based on a not active used address of residency in germany germany became able to start this case, and this can play ball with the schengen agreement. and there are many more fine lines germany tries to paint black.

at verdi, 

for you, i can give a lot of links, you have to use your own translating app of choice, of course, together they are far to large to copy them over. 

by the society of lawyers in portugal, a nice summing up what is available in the law of portugal, with the article numbers with is, and a quite simple explanation.

https://www.fms-advogados.com/pt/noticias/Crimes-e-Prazos-de-Prescricao-do-Procedimento-Criminal/105/

all you can want to know about sol's in european law systems, including the portuguese, differences and specifics,most recent i can find. this one is in english, not an easy read. and looks into history of sols, and how they are in use in all kinds of european law systems. 

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf

with a portuguese explanation of the arguido status; 

https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms

unofficial translation of the penal code; 

https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/PORTUGAL_Criminal%20Code.pdf

and another translation;

https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/4288/file/Portugal_CC_2006_en.pdf

https://www.legislationline.org/countries/country/9 

all 3 are in english and i often use more then just one to check against each other, these work usually the most easiest.

those give mostly only the law in its pure forms, you will miss out on jurisprudence, but those are usually only usable for a fee. 

there is not often a case that reach its sol without good reasons. and in countries without sols in this matter it does not mean cases are endlessly reviewed, or bring culprits before courts of law. 

in portugal you have a sol on almost all criminal cases because all that ranks per sentence under serious crime  acts had a sol. 

so it means, the most serious crime possible in any case will dictating the sol. that is how a case gets a sol. 
but as soon as an arguido status, and in that piece from the portuguese government itself is a very good piece about that, is served on someone, there will start a separate sol only for that arguido, and this has even more angles because it has also need of reflection on the arguido status against the open investigation. 

you have to read the sol of a case, as the hardest and most serious crime a defendant can be prosecuted will dictate the duration of the sol, and that is a maximum of 15 years. and that is from murder.

the nice thing is, the mccanns are still not safe, they would hardly be in sight for the crime of murder, but they could be found guilty of an criminal act that is still going on, or that exact crime must have a sol on its very own in the penal code. look in the first link, and start dreaming on for these possibles. i would not dare to take a look in that, and i think there must be a lot of jurisprudence about what is legally ongoing

but that part i would love to hear an expert in portuguese criminal law commenting. 

so for a murder conviction , gives us only cb as possibility based on the old starting date of the supposed criminal case of may 3 2007, his arguido status broke the sol. and if an investigation can find out such a person did not murder on 3 may, but any much later date, the sol of the original case can be set on the exact date of that criminal act. if a person had kept the victim alive for 10 years that case with that suspect will also get the sol on that much later date, and it will mean because the original date makes a flight forward, others could be also become arguido. because the result of that forward flight means there is no sol reached. 

i am the last who would say law is easy, but actually it gets a lot easier if you get used to it. and i still loving the working with it. criminal law is often pretty straight forward, the proceedings are far more complicated, but still more strict to follow then a field of family law, i once had my roots. 
and sure from time to time you feel quite warped because no one actually remembers why that is there in the big books. 

and not un important, even if you can get the understanding of the plain written law, even know what the spirit of that part of law is about, every case that is heard in a court of law can give other meaning on exactly those same written words. when i started all jurisprudence was still in books, folders or even on micro film, there already where syllabus, so you could search on crimes, but it were hours of reading work, and even an investigation in itself to find that verdict you needed. today you got databases, mostly online, and that makes it so much easier.

silent scope that is not what i mean, all appeals are just to be seen as one trial.

what i'm looking for is retrial, and that must be in this article of the german law;  § 373a StPO


i already have the german text but it would be nice to have a good english translation, you can not just put a piece of law into a translation app. 



(1) Die Wiederaufnahme eines durch rechtskräftigen Strafbefehl abgeschlossenen Verfahrens zuungunsten des Verurteilten ist auch zulässig, wenn neue Tatsachen oder Beweismittel beigebracht sind, die allein oder in Verbindung mit den früheren Beweisen geeignet sind, die Verurteilung wegen eines Verbrechens zu begründen.
(2) Im übrigen gelten für die Wiederaufnahme eines durch rechtskräftigen Strafbefehl abgeschlossenen Verfahrens die §§ 359 bis 373 entsprechend.

so if you have a good english translation of that book of law, with the full article,  could you send me the link, please? 


in how i understand it, it was a result of a also missing persons case, a young woman/girl, and her father must live through the experience that the culprit could not be retried, and the german law had gotten a change in that part , about 1 a 2 years ago. in german this artikel tells yes, there can be a retrial when there is new evidence and even together with the already used evidence from the earlier trial together be used. 


if i remember it well, retrial was already possible in germany when the culprit made a confession, after the trial was done. 


i think retrial not in favor of a defendant after a confession not a bad form of law, i like it. i never liked boosting defendant that i could not get them, and you could only say, see you next time in. even if 50 people only can see something is black, some judges still are seeing grey. the only solution is just doiing your jib better next time. 


the result from the european courts is one usable against extraditing someone to a non member state, after a definitive and final verdict. but it also looks to have some implication that eu member states has to respect each others court decisions. reading the full article that would be the natural result of such a declaration. 


but in that same database (not in that link) of all eu law, and the one with echr law there are many articles that will have influence on this case, the ruling in the link not, because germany and portugal are already both a eu member. but as soon as someone had a final verdict in a full trial, it is no longer possible to extradite him on the same case to the uk, because the uk is no longer part of the eu. 


it is between eu members already a lot easier to exchange things like evidence, but there is somewhere in that region of laws and decisions also one, that tells the eu member that starts the first step into conviction. is the one that can proceed the case. that is different from the usual rules and principles of law, that regulates jurisdiction. 


all eu databases are horrible to work, and at least half the year i use parts daily. and i still hate it. so most times i end up by just try my luck with google, and hope i find the exact numbers and names, that will give at least some short cuts to find what i did need. 


and i must say, i find the case law parts much more fun, than all those cb this, cb that, stories. the aces are not in the quality of the witnesses. 

So Clarke comes up with some garbage and the rest of the gutter press jump on the band wagon and repeat the nonsense in their own fake news rags. Clarke must have some influence in the fake news world.

Please get in touch if you have a story? Careful Clarky.

so it was dear jon c after all on fiber gate. did he got the message of der hansel it was all blödsinn. such a beautiful word, and when germans use it they never use it in a nice way, so to translate it with utter nonsense is doing it short. far too short. 

it was not nice to tell us first it was just a sandra scoop, lucky for us we already did understand it was you at the helm. a well at least that ship already sailed. 

well let me think, dear jon c. i think we can use a nice story about egg man and how much cb looks on that e fit, after his surgery. or what do you think of a full series of the jensen sisters, they can get you at least 11 hours, they did it before, and you do not need a photographer, the mail, the sun and the mirror would have them already in stock. 
maybe you can get even a full book out of those two.  

and would it not become time again for some orphanage collectors, or just even one of those nice strangers, you know stories have to be a bit inclusive for today's readers. 

o, and maybe you can write cb into bandage man, you know the one from redwood 2013!

and some russians maybe, they could have need of some pocket money know their accounts are frozen, they have for now the reason to be polite to you even. 

and as your next scoop some nice creepy former criminals on a camping in what is it called again t...something? 

and you have to do at least something with dragon festivals. 

we know you will read with us, so no need to send it per olive branches of course, cheers at the dripp dear jon c.

Jon got it all from Sandra F on Sexta às 9 from 18 Sep 20 and Credits her in the Article. All the Information was on her Program.

https://issuu.com/theolivepress/docs/final_dbf8e6346a642e

@ Onehand 

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.pdf

AUB At your service.

Oooh-ha!!!

Such passion and feigned knowledge.

Without expertise in law, all this is nothing but assumed verbiage.

Leave the expertise to the experts.

Anything can be sourced to prove a point but it needs to be taken in context.  Without that context it's nothing but ignorance.

For example, you can take a sentence or paragraph from any official (or unofficial) source but without due consideration of the law in it's entirety, such extracts are stand alone and mean nothing.

In short, the legal profession requires years of study and qualification, it's not something that can be acquired through google.