Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

Silentscope wrote:You mean apart from Wolters trying to convince Herr Fülscher through his own Contacts that he had Evidence (pictures of Madeleine dead) that do not exist?

In the hope that the Defense would just say, ‘Plead Guilty so you get a lesser Sentence’ to their Client?

According to BS, FF has a source that he considers trustful (BS doesn't).

JB2024 wrote:@AnneCGuedes Are you able to expand any on the FF source, just so I am following?

Jill answered ! I don't know more than what BS wrote in his book : FF was convinced he had a reliable source about a picture of dead M whereas BS "knew" that it was impossible unless G had taken it, this being highly improbable (I agree). But FF might have a reliable source and such a picture could exist, taken by someone, unidentified (this doesn't fit at all BS's theory). It seems that FF didn't want to doubt his source and twice BS writes he feared he lost him.  This extract illustrates what Ockham's razor is not.

Oh How sad and distressing . . 
for Jon Clarke, Operation Grange, H. Wolters, Gamble. . . . .

Just think of all those lovely books – in landfill

NOW will someone start asking the question they have all refused to so far ?

NOT
WHO abducted Madeleine McCann ?
BUT
WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE MCCANN ?

FULL TEXT:
Madeleine McCann suspect won't face charges for foreseeable future, prosecutor tells Sky News
Christian B is the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. He is coming to the end of his jail sentence for the rape of an elderly American woman.
 
Martin Brunt
Crime correspondent @skymartinbrunt

Friday 17 January 2025 02:45, UK
 
The man suspected of abducting Madeleine McCann won't face any charges in the foreseeable future, a prosecutor has told Sky News.
German drifter Christian B, who cannot be fully identified under his country's privacy law, is expected to be freed from an unrelated jail sentence this year while police in three countries continue to search for evidence against him.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: "There is currently no prospect of an indictment in the Maddie case.
"As things stand, the accused Christian B's imprisonment will end in early September."
Madeleine, aged three, was asleep with her younger twin siblings in the family's Portuguese rented holiday apartment before mother Kate discovered her missing at around 10pm on 3 May, 2007.
Her parents were dining nearby on the complex with friends and taking turns to check on all their sleeping children every half an hour.
Madeleine's disappearance has become the world's most mysterious missing child case.

Philipp Marquort, one of Christian B's defence lawyers, welcomed the prosecutor's pessimism about bringing charges.
He said: "This confirms the suspicions that we have repeatedly expressed, namely that there is no reliable evidence against our client.
"We regret that we have not yet been granted access to the investigation files. We have not yet been able to effectively counter the public prejudice arising from statements made by the prosecutor's office."
Christian B, 47, is in jail and coming to the end of his sentence for the rape of an elderly American woman in Praia da Luz, the Portuguese resort where Madeleine disappeared.
In October, he was acquitted on a series of rape and indecent assault charges after a non-jury trial in Germany, in which several references were made to his status as the main suspect in the Madeleine case.

The prosecutor said he was awaiting the court's written judgment before launching an appeal against the acquittal. He believes the trial judges were biased against the prosecution.
If successful, he could apply for a new arrest warrant for Christian B to keep him in custody until a retrial with new judges.
He said: "We hope that the Federal Court of Justice will decide before the end of the accused's imprisonment. If the Federal Court follows our legal opinion, we could apply for a new arrest warrant for the accused's offences, so that the accused would then remain in custody beyond September 2025.
Mr Marquort said the defence team would oppose the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal.
Prosecutor Mr Wolters has said in the past that he believes Madeleine is dead and that Christian B was responsible for her death. The suspect denies any involvement.

The case against Christian B is purely circumstantial; he's alleged to have confessed to a friend that he abducted Madeleine, he has convictions for sex crimes against children, he was living in the area at the time, his mobile phone was close by when the young girl vanished and he re-registered one of his vehicles the next day.
The prosecutor won't say what evidence he has to convince him Madeleine is dead, but he admitted he is still trying to find forensic evidence to link Christian B to the girl.

Jim Gamble, former head of the UK Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, said he had expected the prosecutor to charge Christian B soon.
"He's implied the whole way through that he has something more than the public are aware of," he said.
"He's made fairly definitive statements about whether Madeleine is alive or dead so you would expect their strategy to have been to charge him sooner rather than later.
"From what he's said today I wonder if we're witnessing the re-positioning of something to manage the disappointment that'll come."
Mr Wolters, who is based in Braunschweig, Lower Saxony, is investigating the case with the help of Portuguese police and detectives from Scotland Yard.

Brunt still has to stick to the Official Story 
"Madeleine, aged three, was asleep with her younger twin siblings in the family's Portuguese rented holiday apartment before mother Kate discovered her missing at around 10pm on 3 May, 2007.
Her parents were dining nearby on the complex with friends and taking turns to check on all their sleeping children every half an hour."
Why now can't he take one half pace back and see it from another angle.

"he admitted he is still trying to find forensic evidence to link Christian B to the girl."


But Clarke told us he already HAD such evidence.   Scissors, pyjamas, fibres,  . . . didn't he ?

At, last, the farce is over. How it ever gained momentum is beyond me, but there are still people who believe Bruckner is guilty of Madeleine's 'abduction'. They probably think this latest news is the hoax.

Nice to watch Bruntie and Gamble beginning to squirm on Sky News, as they realise that everything they have been so confidently saying for so long, 
was based on. . . . Well NOTHING actually. IT WAS HEARSAY, from an unreliable witness [Wolters and his team] now exposed as such, 
and possibly as someone for whom the concept of the exact verifiable Truth may be a rather ‘fuzzy’ or flexible concept. [I think that is lawyer proof !]

There is, as everyone sane knew, (but Clarke denied)  NO FORENSIC or scientific evidence linking Brückner to the deceased Madeleine
There is, as everyone sane knew, (but Clarke denied)  NO FORENSIC or scientific evidence, nor indeed any independent witness testimony 
even to suggest, let alone show, that Madeline McCann was Abducted

Even after 17 years and 9 months, the combined efforts of the Police of THREE European countries, the Secret Services of at least one, 
three alleged Private Detective agencies, and hundreds of Pro-abduction acolytes, determine it find a way in which it COULD HAVE HAPPENED 
 that situation has not changed,   
There is still nothing.

CaKeLoveR wrote:At, last, the farce is over. How it ever gained momentum is beyond me, but there are still people who believe Bruckner is guilty of Madeleine's 'abduction'. They probably think this latest news is the hoax.

Public interest fell sharply when HCW launched CB on the information market. Most people thought that 1) M had indeed been abducted, 2) the case was solved and 3) M was dead. They turned the page. I'm afraid CB will for ever be considered as the abductor (HCW has no idea about how M vanished, he only has evidence of murder), in the best of cases by default for lack of sufficient evidence.

PeterMac wrote:Brunt still has to stick to the Official Story 
"Madeleine, aged three, was asleep with her younger twin siblings in the family's Portuguese rented holiday apartment before mother Kate discovered her missing at around 10pm on 3 May, 2007.
Her parents were dining nearby on the complex with friends and taking turns to check on all their sleeping children every half an hour."
Why now can't he take one half pace back and see it from another angle.

He repeated this so many times that he ended up believing it, not realizing what is meant there and how it violates reality.
"Our words bind us... Naming an object wrongly adds to the world's distress" (Camus)

Amusing, if that is the right word under the circumstances, to read the recent press articles about Brückner.

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/crime/madeleine-mccann-suspect-to-walk-free-from-jail-facing-no-charges-4947697
"Detectives appear no closer to proving he abducted and killed Madeleine - despite claiming they have proof she is dead. Mr Wolters said he remains hopeful of a successful appeal against Brueckner’s recent not guilty verdicts. If judges rule he should face a retrial, prosecutors would be able to keep him in custody beyond his scheduled release date. . .
 Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, believe their daughter is alive and say they will never give up hope of being reunited with her."

Anyone spot the logical trap there ?  Kate and Gerry CANNOT ever begin even to advert to the possibility that Madeleine is dead, despite British dogs and Portuguese, British and now German Detectives and Common Sense telling us that she is and was and always has been.  
Because if they do the Fund ceases to exist and Clause 4 comes into play and the money has to be handed over to similar causes.  Including we suppose the "reserve" which Mitchell told us had been siphoned off to be invested in property and other things.   [His words, not mine]
And then the question is asked "When did you know or suspect that Madeleine might be dead", the answer to which unstones several Terns, and opens up several cans of worms.

Think Al Capone

It's unlikely that the  McCann's would announce that they think Madeleine  is dead anyway; if they are dishonest enough to set up the so-called fund in the first pace, they won't develop a conscience and put an end to it, despite a patsy being introduced. Allegedly.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. And if they are genuine in their religious beliefs damned there too.
Come on Kate save your soul.

"Did you kill your daughter" was the wrong question to ask.
Did you dispose of or hide your dead daughter would have been a much better question.