Unsolved Madeleine McCann * Current Trial of Main Suspect Christian Brueckner

[Angry Red Bull]

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.

No they are all part of the confession. What links is forensics or photographs ,
fingerprints, Maddie's clothes etc etc.

I haven't yet done a dive into the principle as it relates within German law. That would be good starting point I feel

 

[Kurve]

No they are all part of the confession. What links is forensics or photographs , fingerprints, Maddie's clothes etc etc

Of course all those things would help but they are not necessary.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Of course all those things would help but they are not necessary.

Are you saying that because you've looked and know?

 

[PoppedCorn]

fair bit from that shaun attwood on the tube atm

you lot would be all over it
the drugging theory the swinging stuff

 

[Kurve]

Are you saying that because you've looked and know?

You watched the Chris Dawson trial roll out here, his wife vanished forty years ago, no body, no forensics, no confession, he was convicted for murder.

There's already way more on Brueckner here.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

fair bit from that shaun attwood on the tube atm

you lot would be all over it
the drugging theory the swinging stuff

Link?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

fair bit from that shaun attwood on the tube atm

you lot would be all over it
the drugging theory the swinging stuff

Thanks for that.

The number of times that drugs arise by the McCanns themselves creates possibility they played some part.

There was also a number of question arising about the tapas 7 being in the wrong unit to where they were supposedly accommodated. Next door unit I think....can't remember the exact context or who but it was interesting when someone said . ...why are they in that apartment. Even if swinging was happening then not too sure how it sheds light on the disappearance

You watched the Chris Dawson trial roll out here, his wife vanished forty years ago, no body, no forensics, no confession, he was convicted for murder.

There's already way more on Brueckner here.

CD was convicted absent evidence because of lies being consciousness of guilt. I believe him guilty yet I think the decision was flawed. The legal texts say that a lie only become COG when it can only relate to one crime. With CD there were two ( murder and stat rape). The legal aid counsel never even raised that argument. If they had I honestly think it may have succeeded. At days end the right party is in jail. Perhaps there is a reason I'm unaware. Don't know.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Link?

put the name in and itll all come up

https://www.youtube.com/@shaunattwoodOFFICIAL/videos

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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.

I don't want you to disappear down a rabbit hole. For once you've shown a little restrained respect communicated civilly and I'll respond accordingly.

Statistical studies are done exactly to create means and so forth to be able to use. But you are right. You can't apply the stats to a live case of a single dog unless you can connect the dog to that level accuracy in HIS work in isolation. That uncertainty creates doubt. It has too..That said when you know that these dogs are trained on repetitive positive indications you have a situation created where the handler will know his dogs accuracy because he would record his success rate to enable him to decide to put him in the field. If his success rate is comparable to study and we are told Eddie was 100% then you can make some useful data analyses....not infallible but highly persuasive

An individual dog can have specific factors influencing false report. Yes sure. And that will always be a factor. It doesn't render the analysis entirely useless....because that dog had a high even 100% success rate so we are told and the indications were given as positive. When an indication occurs it needs to be supported by DNA. It was but mixed. It can also be supported by a blood dog working in tandem and did and gave the same positive indications. That cross verification of each others work creates a sort of fail safe where you can say they can't both have a bad day

 

[31550]

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

Just stop. Nobody said a confession proves guilt. The fact that a crime has been proven satisfies corpus delicti, paving the way for a legal conviction. Proof of guilt is a whole other issue.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Of course all those things would help but they are not necessary.

Kurve, I think you are onto something with a possible email confession. It lines up with bringing in Busching which I couldn't understand but now do if there was a confession. It also possibly explains why CW is talking up certainty because he knows he has to gather more evidence to support the confession so he trying to do that by more people coming forward in response to his comments.

CB is a braggart. He will tout his criminal achievements. I still don't think his confession ( if one exists) will stand because I think it is fake.

Hypothesis. Email sent to known trafficker to tout his ability and confessing MM abduction to achieve that. He was looking to get into to that area of crime. We know that for certain. This scenario would also explain why he tried to convince the court that Nicole Ferlingher was somehow into trafficking when I don't think she was.

Interesting

 

[Kurve]

Kurve, I think you are onto something with a possible email confession. It lines up with bringing in Busching which I couldn't understand but now do if there was a confession. It also possibly explains why CW is talking up certainty because he knows he has to gather more evidence to support the confession so he trying to do that by more people coming forward in response to his comments.

Wolters can take all the time he likes while Brueckner faces trial for other matters and witnesses are examined in court. Wolters is already seeing the benefits of patience in pulling information through a formal process that is relevant to Maddie's disappearance.

Wolters doesn't actually need any more to make the charge imo but of course he's going to try to find Maddie's body to return to her family and homeland.

Brueckner's locked up, no rush.

CB is a braggart. He will tout his criminal achievements. I still don't think his confession ( if one exists) will stand because I think it is fake.

The only thing that might counter a confession is a rock solid alibi and he doesn't have one. His phone puts him near the McCanns apartment.

Hypothesis. Email sent to known trafficker to tout his ability and confessing MM abduction to achieve that. He was looking to get into to that area of crime. We know that for certain. This scenario would also explain why he tried to convince the court that Nicole Ferlingher was somehow into trafficking when I don't think she was.

This goes against Brueckner, his ambitions of making money through extreme child pr0n and trafficking was known before Maddie disappeared.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Wolters can take all the time he likes while Brueckner faces trial for other matters and witnesses are examined in court. Wolters is already seeing the benefits of patience in pulling information through a formal process that is relevant to Maddie's disappearance.

Wolters doesn't actually need any more to make the charge imo but of course he's going to try to find Maddie's body to return to her family and homeland.

Brueckner's locked up, no rush.



The only thing that might counter a confession is a rock solid alibi and he doesn't have one. His phone puts him near the McCanns apartment.



This goes against Brueckner, his ambitions of making money through extreme child pr0n and trafficking was known before Maddie disappeared.

The teen girl has said she was with him that week but can't recall the nights or times. It isn't an alibi as such.

Having a desire to be in trafficking doesn't mean you are. Having NF testify trying to paint that she was when I don't think it true, indicates to me CW trying to stretch what he does have to implicate CB..that isn't good omen for the case imo.

Mark williams- Thomas has indicated that the phone ping triangulation didn't confirm he was at ocean club. Rather it proved he was within 29 Klm only. This proximity to the crime is therefore now critical. If he can't be proven to be close by, then there can't have been opportunity especially when we are talking about 8.30 to 9.20 wherein 3 people went to the apartment for welfare checks. This tapas 7 evidence now works against this alternative narrative of an abduction

 

[faible]

If he can't be proven to be close by, then there can't have been opportunity

Note: this is not an accurate statement.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/former-portuguese-police-chief-goncalo-amaral-says-madeleine-mccann-suspect-is-in-german-prison/news-story/13992e3c9cc61ef835a2d95a7f5a7025?amp=&nk=0802d67ff0dcaa32ee92f7878b6ff9b4-1720754108

This article is dated Dec 19 in which Amaral makes his prediction

Everything we know about Christian Brückner: German prosecutors' prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

60 Minutes went inside 43-year-old Christian Bruckner's dark and depraved world, and deep into his criminal...

9now.nine.com.au

This article indicates that the police announce Brueckner suspect 4th June 2020

Did GA have prior knowledge via PJ sources? Perhaps. The raid on CB property was 2017. So the period from that raid to the announcement they had information arising from the raid not yet made public. The police gained access to the incriminating emails by Microsoft in 2019. We don't know that date but assume it was prior to Dec 19 annoucement by GA. So it's entirely possible, probable in fact that GA knew CB had been identified as a suspect and had, consistent with his own theory, determined CB was a red herring scapegoat.

Perceived sequence of events.

• Raid in 17 find child pr0n
• Start investigating him
• Charge him with rape of 72 year old
• Gain access to emails to delve deeper into CB 19
• Locate confession email I suggest was to traffickers 19
• Announce as suspect MM case 20
• Try to build further evidence to 24

On this scenario it's possible that the cache found in 17 wasn't incriminating for MM and that incrimination occurred with the emails. That suggests there isn't photographic evidence/ video evidence consistent with the remark in the Mark Saunokonoko interview I recently posted.

If that is true it is likely the only thing they do have is an email confession, phone ping data, Brusching, NF phone calls record, evidence he worked at ocean club. That won't be enough to charge him let alone get a conviction.

 

[Kurve]

Did GA have prior knowledge via PJ sources? Perhaps. The raid on CB property was 2017. So the period from that raid to the announcement they had information arising from the raid not yet made public. The police gained access to the incriminating emails by Microsoft in 2019. We don't know that date but assume it was prior to Dec 19 annoucement by GA. So it's entirely possible, probable in fact that GA knew CB had been identified as a suspect

Now we're getting somewhere.

consistent with his own theory, determined CB was a red herring scapegoat.

Of course Amoral is going to say that to protect his legacy promoting his ridiculous theories as legitimate when they are now at enormous risk and he at risk of exposure after having fleeced hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public buying in to them.

 

[Kurve]

Kurve, I think you are onto something with a possible email confession. It lines up with bringing in Busching which I couldn't understand but now do if there was a confession. It also possibly explains why CW is talking up certainty because he knows he has to gather more evidence to support the confession so he trying to do that by more people coming forward in response to his comments.

Busching made his report with information on Brueckner to UK Police in 2017. Following that, Scotland Yard sent someone to interview Busching in Greece, then Busching was flown to the UK to give a formal statement.

Busching's testimony has since, over and over proved reliable.

 

[Kurve]

DC Mark Draycott told the court in Germany, of the moment he took the call-in from Busching that “solved” the Maddie mystery.

He said "solved"

Scotland Yard considers Brueckner responsible, Germany considers Brueckner responsible, Portugal apologised to the McCanns and elevated Brueckner to suspect.

Busching was right to be suspicious of how the Portuguese police would handle his information. If there's any conspiracy around this, it's been within the ranks of the Portuguese police to protect their shoddy investigation and the tourism industry.

If it was widely known how lax Portugal was in child protection, that child pr0n wasn't even illegal at the time Maddie went missing and that human trafficking was rife, you'd certainly think there are probably better places to go with children on holidays.

 

[31550]

DC Mark Draycott told the court in Germany, of the moment he took the call-in from Busching that “solved” the Maddie mystery.

He said "solved"

Scotland Yard considers Brueckner responsible, Germany considers Brueckner responsible, Portugal apologised to the McCanns and elevated Brueckner to suspect.

Busching was right to be suspicious of how the Portuguese police would handle his information. If there's any conspiracy around this, it's been within the ranks of the Portuguese police to protect their shoddy investigation and the tourism industry.

If it was widely known how lax Portugal was in child protection, that child pr0n wasn't even illegal at the time Maddie went missing and that human trafficking was rife, you'd certainly think there are probably better places to go with children on holidays.

Some people are just shit parents. Unfortunately, that is not a crime.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

DC Mark Draycott told the court in Germany, of the moment he took the call-in from Busching that “solved” the Maddie mystery.

He said "solved"

Scotland Yard considers Brueckner responsible, Germany considers Brueckner responsible, Portugal apologised to the McCanns and elevated Brueckner to suspect.

Busching was right to be suspicious of how the Portuguese police would handle his information. If there's any conspiracy around this, it's been within the ranks of the Portuguese police to protect their shoddy investigation and the tourism industry.

If it was widely known how lax Portugal was in child protection, that child pr0n wasn't even illegal at the time Maddie went missing and that human trafficking was rife, you'd certainly think there are probably better places to go with children on holidays.

I don't give much weight to Busching. In other cases his having watched videos supported victim accounts I understand. In MM case his contribution is corroboration of a supposed confession.

The conversation:
B How do you think the abductor escaped

CB. Because she didn't scream

That isn't a confession but rather an answer to a question.. I don't think it has much evidentiary value. That's certainly Pat Brown's view too.

As regards the detective's view of it 'solving' the case it simply isn't unless there is way more than has been offered. It also isn't evidence but opinion and no different to yours or mine.....worthless to the case itself.

And the guy is a criminal with a known disagreement with CB because CB short supplied his drugs

 

[Kurve]

I don't give much weight to Busching. In other cases his having watched videos supported victim accounts I understand. In MM case his contribution is corroboration of a supposed confession.

We don't have the whole of Busching's statement, we don't know the full extent. My guess is, given Busching went in to protective custody, there's a lot more to it than we know of yet and that it involves more names than Brueckner's.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

We don't have the whole of Busching's statement, we don't know the full extent. My guess is, given Busching went in to protective custody, there's a lot more to it than we know of yet and that it involves more names than Brueckner's.

He has been interviewed. At no time has he intimated there was more. He is the sort of person who likes the limelight so I have little doubt he couldn't keep his mouth shut if there was. As regards protective custody I think there are two elements to that........that he views it as a junket......and because CW is intent talking up the evidence to gather more witnesses to come forward on a weak case. We don't know. I have no faith in CW.

It's customary that a witness be told not to discuss the case or evidence. Why then would he give an interview? Because he views it solely as a snout in trough opportunity. Why wouldn't CW shut down this behaviour?.....because he knows it won't see court and whilst he has obligations as a court officer Brusching doesn't so CW doesn't care.

There are behavioural cues right across this case

 

[Kurve]

He has been interviewed. At no time has he intimated there was more. He is the sort of person who likes the limelight so I have little doubt he couldn't keep his mouth shut if there was. As regards protective custody I think there are two elements to that........that he views it as a junket......and because CW is intent talking up the evidence to gather more witnesses to come forward on a weak case. We don't know. I have no faith in CW.

I've heard Busching say there were things he wasn't allowed to repeat.

 

[faible]

There are behavioural cues right across this case

There are behavioural cues across every case. People do ‘behaviour’. It’s a thing.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Brusching has said he broke into CB house in 2006 and stole videos. He then recited that he saw two instances of rape an elderly woman and a young teen on videos he stole. Videoes then lost

Testimony about contents of a video aren't accepted as evidence where the videos aren't also provided. Lack of foundation objection. Then you have the veracity of evidence being from a criminal who has a grudge against CB. No. Not even if he states he saw CB molesting MM on tape

Brusching apparently is wavering in his desire to give testimony so says a msm article..I think the witness protection is to keep him under control so he doesn't bolt. I think his sole purpose is to try and give weight to the email confession (assumption) when there is no other evidence. My opinion

A comment (yes I vaguely recall that too) that he said there isn't anything more he can divulge is imo consistent with his personality type and need to be centre of attention and likely BS