Unsolved Madeleine McCann * Current Trial of Main Suspect Christian Brueckner

[Angry Red Bull]

At a more fundamental level, a paper finding dogs were successful 97% of the time doesn't mean it's 97% certain a body was in the unit or car or wherever. The study you keep referencing doesn't factor in the biases and errors specific to Maddie's kidnapping and murder. You can't take one study and apply it to a real event and expect the same results. It might be applicable (due to chance) but it almost certainly isn't (particularly considering all the evidence indicating Maddie's parents aren't involved).

This shows your ignorance. A paper that has those statistics WILL create a 97% probability there was indeed a cadaver there. 99.99% for twice and supported by blood dog indications. The only doubt is the fact the study is of a cohort whereas the single indications are by A dog. If, however, the dog is compatible example from the study then the study can be applied to the dog result. The fact Eddie was trained by identifying positive Indications (to enable the handler assess accuracy) means he knows his dogs accuracy.

This ignorance is part of the problem here. People simply don't understand the implications of the result. If you have a cadaver dog give indications at two locations on separate timelines supported then by blood dog indications at those same places also supported by a mixed DNA sample with Maddie and where both locations point one direction it's a conclusive probable link. Then throw in the fact it was on the toy, on their clothes, in main bed, on car keys, patio door handle.........

You simply can't find a more definitive scenario pointing to what happened.

Pat Brown understands the importance. She tried to find some explanation for how CB may have created those indications. What if he killed her behind sofa left her for 90 minutes to create cadaverine, came back and took her body away and then 3 weeks later tried to frame McCann not having known at that time there would even be cadaver dog tests and having no link to him having escaped without detection. No. Didn't happen.

There is only one probable explanation here with any credibility. That is why I knew from day 1 that CB wasn't responsible. The principle relating to mutually exclusive events

To be blunt, this reads like you're doing a bit. It's so convoluted and wrong that the only way to explain it is you're doing an intentional parody.

No parody. You were confused about the direction the multiplier principle creates and consequent increase or reduction in number. I was trying to explain there are two probabilities here. The probability of error rate (a negative) and probability of success rate. Because we are seeking to establish the probability it might be wrong it is multiplier of the negative values. 33 x 33. Inverse to each other obviously. But importantly when trying to determine either you MUST multiply them in the same line. At days end the two MUST add to 100% also. The chance the dogs were in error is 0.01%. that's because there were two tests and you need both of them to be wrong ie multiplier.

I apologise if I explained it poorly which in no way affects my math or conclusions drawn.

 

[BonzaRam]

Because the uk police have never investigated the parents. They have investigated the abduction route from day 1.

Surely any investigation needs all
Angles covered at a minimum.

UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann answers, former top cop says

Scotland Yard's six-year investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a poisoned chalice laced w...

www.9news.com.au

Are you saying that because UK investigation is flawed then so is the Portuguese and German investigations?

 

[bomberclifford]

The fact you have switched from "probability of 97%" to focusing on the error rate tells me you know damn well that your logic is wrong and you're attempting to obfuscate.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The fact you have switched from "probability of 97%" to focusing on the error rate tells me you know damn well that your logic is wrong and you're attempting to obfuscate.

No.

As I explained the probabilities are inverse to each other and the inverse values MUST add to 100%

The probability the dogs were wrong is 0.01%. the probability there was a cadaver there is 99.99%. the two add to 100% as they must because its either right or wrong. Heads or tails

When a bookmaker makes book on a race he knows the outcome is 100% that A horse must win. What he does then is set odds that in percentage terms exceeds the 100%. Why?....because the excess to 100% IS his potential profit margin in probability terms

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

Are you saying that because UK investigation is flawed then so is the Portuguese and German investigations?

Any investigation that doesn’t investigate all
Possible theories are flawed whether it be Portuguese , German or British.

Investigation 101 start at ground zero, which is what should have happened.

 

[BonzaRam]

Any investigation that doesn’t investigate all
Possible theories are flawed whether it be Portuguese , German or British.

Investigation 101 start at ground zero, which is what should have happened.

So you are saying that neither the Portuguese nor the Geman Police investigated the McCanns right?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So you are saying that neither the Portuguese nor the Geman Police investigated the McCanns right?

The UK police didn't investigate McCann. It was mandatory pursuant to Operation Grange rules that ONLY look for abductors.

The PJ investigated Mccann and were about to charge them , sought support and made requests of UK LE which were ignored and the UK at diplomatic level forced the sacking of GA of PJ so their middle class UK resident doctors could escape scrutiny. Having interfered in another jurisdictions justice system they then had no choice but to continue with OG but to stop their own police going off tangent they made it so that OG would only look at abductors and Not McCann.

The role of German LE is less clear. The cynical part of me says (also at diplomatic level) UK govt appealed to German government to help close case. On that line the whole thing was a deception and would explain why the prosecutor constantly kept prejudicing his own case with remarks about being certain......knowing full well it would be never see the inside of a court . How could it? If it did all the evidence everyone has accumulated since 2007 would be tabled

The non cynical part of me says that the prosecutor is an idiot. What is right? GA the original PJ investigation head made a prophecy several years ago saying that the case would be closed when a German pedophile currently in jail would be implicated in the disappearance. Did he guess that or did someone inside PJ tell him what they had found out?

I favour that he knew because PJ knew and therefore both UK and Germany were complicit in the whole charade because they knew also.

Addendum:

There were a series of phone calls bw McCann and UK government at time of disappearance I suspect the alleged circumstances of her death were explained and the UK government made the horrible decision to help their resident get out of PJ clutches. Thereafter everything has been done to hide the original mistake/ interference

 

[Kurve]

The non cynical part of me says that the prosecutor is an idiot. What is right? GA the original PJ investigation head made a prophecy several years ago saying that the case would be closed when a German pedophile currently in jail would be implicated in the disappearance. Did he guess that or did someone inside PJ tell him what they had found out?

I favour that he knew because PJ knew and therefore both UK and Germany were complicit in the whole charade because they knew also.

Brueckner's incriminating emails were located in 2019. Amoral heard there was a German suspect and leaked the information which could have compromised the investigation. It wasn't a prophecy. He was repeating the whispers for personal gain.

That you've got Portugal, the UK and Germany as complicit in some sort of charade, is the wildest, most unbelievable conspiracy theory I've seen on this board yet.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Brueckner's incriminating emails were located in 2019. Amoral heard there was a German suspect and leaked the information which could have compromised the investigation. It wasn't a prophecy. He was repeating the whispers for personal gain.

That you've got Portugal, the UK and Germany as complicit in some sort of charade, is the wildest, most unbelievable conspiracy theory I've seen on this board yet.

Very well Kurve..

Lets see what pans out.

The original target was a different German pedophile but he died in prison.

I suspect the following will happen

If the cases currently awaiting verdict are innocent he will come up for release early next year. At that time it will be said by CW that he remains certain that CB did it but on a technicality of admissibility of evidence can't lay charges. He will be released and the case will dive into oblivion.

That is my prophecy. I sincerely hope I'm wrong because I want the case to proceed. Only then will all the evidence receive scrutiny. Sadly I don't believe that will happen.

Don't you think it odd that a central part of CW case against CB was the phone pings but in that interview I posted the other day CW:

* Didn't know what range the towers pings were

* Didn't know where the towers were

Mmmmmmm.....sorry sus. Perhaps difference in timing explains it

 

[Kurve]

The original target was a different German pedophile but he died in prison.

The original target always was Brueckner, the other guy was just a guess and never confirmed.

Don't you think it odd that a central part of CW case against CB was the phone pings but in that interview I posted the other day CW:

* Didn't know what range the towers pings were

* Didn't know where the towers were

Tower pings was only information Wolters was allowed to give the public, we've never been told the damning evidence Germany will rely on which I'm almost certain of now and which we've had confirmation exists, is Brueckner's emails, found in 2019.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The original target always was Brueckner, the other guy was just a guess and never confirmed.



Tower pings was only information Wolters was allowed to give the public, we've never been told the damning evidence Germany will rely on which I'm almost certain of now and which we've had confirmation of, is Brueckner's emails, found in 2019.

As I said I sincerely hope so.

What I will say is this.......the threshold of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. In determining reasonable doubt you merely need to construct a viable reasonable alternative. We have one already in that the child allegedly died in the unit. Prima facie that means there is already reasonable doubt on what is known. The evidence to convict then has to be conclusive. We know it's not because he hasn't got a body, forensics or proof he was in the unit. In that interview the other day he let slip he HOPES to have video or pictures come forward. Please listen and see what you think. Implies he hasn't at that point have these things. That is the only way a conviction can happen......photographic proof he had Maddie after she disappeared.

 

[Kurve]

As I said I sincerely hope so.

What I will say is this.......the threshold of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. In determining reasonable doubt you merely need to construct a viable reasonable alternative. We have one already in that the child allegedly died in the unit. Prima facie that means there is already reasonable doubt on what is known. The evidence to convict then has to be conclusive. We know it's not because he hasn't got a body, forensics or proof he was in the unit. In that interview the other day he let slip he HOPES to have video or pictures come forward. Please listen and see what you think. Implies he hasn't at that point have these things. That is the only way a conviction can happen......photographic proof he had Maddie after she disappeared.

I'm guessing the emails are a confession which were among material of the extreme child abuse of 3 and 4 year old's.

If so, one or more confessions which Wolters then has, when Brueckner had the means, the motive and the opportunity, may well be enough for a conviction against Brueckner.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm guessing the emails are a confession which were among material of the extreme child abuse of 3 and 4 year old's.

If so, one or more confessions which Wolters then has, when Brueckner had the means, the motive and the opportunity, may well be enough for a conviction against Brueckner.

Yes. I had thought of that. Let's look at how that stands up when it is put to court.

 

[Kurve]

Yes. I had thought of that. Let's look at how that stands up when it is put to court.

It would stand up in Australia, a written confession is powerful evidence.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It would stand up in Australia

There is a rule 'corpus delecti' which says a confession made other than in court will not be valid in and of itself unless the other evidence dovetails with that confession. He needs more than an email

 

[Kurve]

There is a rule 'corpus delecti' which says a confession made other than in court will not be valid in and of itself unless the other evidence dovetails with that confession. He needs more than an email

Wolters has said it's possible to get a conviction on what they have. I'm thinking he knows his way around the German criminal legal system.

 

[faible]

The probability the dogs were wrong is 0.01%. the probability there was a cadaver there is 99.99%

Note: This is not a factual statement.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Wolters has said it's possible to get a conviction on what they have. I'm thinking he knows his way around the German criminal legal system.

It explains why he was pushing testimony of Bushing who heard CB say he confessed by saying she didn't scream. it reinforces the validity of his 'concession' that may exist in the in the email.

It remains that it must dovetail with other evidence.

I have no doubt he knows the German legal system. It may not include what we understand as common law principles eg the 'corpus delecti' principle..I'll have a look.

The fact remains he hasn't charged him so he is looking for more. That is more compatible with having an email confession but knowing it's not enough. Conjecture of course but interesting nonetheless.

 

[BonzaRam]

The UK police didn't investigate McCann. It was mandatory pursuant to Operation Grange rules that ONLY look for abductors.

The PJ investigated Mccann and were about to charge them , sought support and made requests of UK LE which were ignored and the UK at diplomatic level forced the sacking of GA of PJ so their middle class UK resident doctors could escape scrutiny. Having interfered in another jurisdictions justice system they then had no choice but to continue with OG but to stop their own police going off tangent they made it so that OG would only look at abductors and Not McCann.

The role of German LE is less clear. The cynical part of me says (also at diplomatic level) UK govt appealed to German government to help close case. On that line the whole thing was a deception and would explain why the prosecutor constantly kept prejudicing his own case with remarks about being certain......knowing full well it would be never see the inside of a court . How could it? If it did all the evidence everyone has accumulated since 2007 would be tabled

The non cynical part of me says that the prosecutor is an idiot. What is right? GA the original PJ investigation head made a prophecy several years ago saying that the case would be closed when a German pedophile currently in jail would be implicated in the disappearance. Did he guess that or did someone inside PJ tell him what they had found out?

I favour that he knew because PJ knew and therefore both UK and Germany were complicit in the whole charade because they knew also.

Addendum:

There were a series of phone calls bw McCann and UK government at time of disappearance I suspect the alleged circumstances of her death were explained and the UK government made the horrible decision to help their resident get out of PJ clutches. Thereafter everything has been done to hide the original mistake/ interference

So the McCanns were in fact investigated. Good we have cleared that up....

 

[faible]

So the McCanns were in fact investigated. Good we have cleared that up....

Apparently the Portugese were ABOUT to charge them, but for <reasons> the UK Government stopped it happening for checks notes two random British doctors living in Leicestershire.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So the McCanns were in fact investigated. Good we have cleared that up....

Apologies. I offered too much

 

[jason_recliner]

This shows your ignorance. A paper that has those statistics WILL create a 97% probability there was indeed a cadaver there. 99.99% for twice and supported by blood dog indications. The only doubt is the fact the study is of a cohort whereas the single indications are by A dog. If, however, the dog is compatible example from the study then the study can be applied to the dog result. The fact Eddie was trained by identifying positive Indications (to enable the handler assess accuracy) means he knows his dogs accuracy.

This ignorance is part of the problem here. People simply don't understand the implications of the result. If you have a cadaver dog give indications at two locations on separate timelines supported then by blood dog indications at those same places also supported by a mixed DNA sample with Maddie and where both locations point one direction it's a conclusive probable link. Then throw in the fact it was on the toy, on their clothes, in main bed, on car keys, patio door handle.........

Goddammit, I swore I was done! Not sure if you're trolling or... but if trolling, it's masterful!

I just can't help myself...

That's not how statistics and the scientific method works. You are used to a professional world of human constructs that can be neatly and precisely understood and resolved because they are invented by people for use by people. The natural world doesn't work that way. You're taking a controlled study with a very specific finding made in very specific circumstances and applying that to a very different event in the real world.

To assign a probability with any accuracy and usefulness, it would need to be a study along the lines of murders where there was evidence against a prime suspect with criminal history and a sniffer dog detected cadaverine which led to findings of guilt against two previous PoIs who had been investigated and cleared by multiple LEAs, and exoneration of the prime suspect. Do you think that occurs 97% of the time a dog signals a detection? That's why your endlessly quoted 97% is completely wrong and irrelevant. What is the actual probability the dog detected a corpse? I have no idea and it's not possible to know.

What the study findings and the circumstances around Maddie's kidnapping do very strongly indicate is that the detections were very likely false detections (which we know do occur on occasions), as they are not supported by any known, credible evidence.

 

[31550]

There is a rule 'corpus delecti' which says a confession made other than in court will not be valid in and of itself unless the other evidence dovetails with that confession. He needs more than an email

Once again you are out of your depth.
It's delicti not delecti for starters.
And you have drawn an out of context conclusion.
The principle of corpus delicti does not say anything specifically about confessions. It basically says that before anyone can be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that a crime has occurred. By extension, a confession to a crime on its own is not enough to convict.
But in the case of Maddie, it is clear a crime has been committed. She is missing. Therefore corpus delicti is satisfied. So a confession IS enough to convict on.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Once again you are out of your depth.
It's delicti not delecti for starters.
And you have drawn an out of context conclusion.
The principle of corpus delicti does not say anything specifically about confessions. It basically says that before anyone can be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that a crime has occurred. By extension, a confession to a crime on its own is not enough to convict.
But in the case of Maddie, it is clear a crime has been committed. She is missing. Therefore corpus delicti is satisfied. So a confession IS enough to convict on.

Not only that a crime has occurred but that the person has been LINKED to that crime. That's when satisfied. If there is only a confession which doesn't have any evidence LINKING him, and here we don't, then confession won't be accepted. Full circle...principle of mutually exclusive events means the likelihood CB has any connection to a cadaver which almost certainly existed is very very remote. In fact less than the inverse 1 in 6806 unless you can hatch a better go at LINKING CB than did Pat Brown.

Do I need to explain the definition of "linked" too? I can if you like. Let's hope not though. It's bad enough I have to explain high school math.

Keep trying....one day on probability alone you might strike success

On your thinking if someone has made a confession and there is a crime the confession proves guilt......even though they otherwise have no connection. No

 

[Kurve]

Not only that a crime has occurred but that the person has been LINKED to that crime. That's when satisfied. If there is only a confession which doesn't have any evidence LINKING him, and here we don't, then confession won't be accepted. Full circle...principle of mutually exclusive events means the likelihood CB has any connection to a cadaver which almost certainly existed is very very remote. In fact less than the inverse 1 in 6806 unless you can hatch a better go at LINKING CB than did Pat Brown.

Do I need to explain the definition of "linked" too? I can if you like. Let's hope not though. It's bad enough I have to explain high school math.

Keep trying....one day on probability alone you might strike success

The email directly links him to the crime, one or two other confessions from independent witness link him to the crime. etc.

Forget the 'cadaver', it isn't evidence and it's never going to be evidence.