Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who says CB entered 5a, where's the evidence for such a claim ? What Mo, show where he's been convicted of entering apartments with out leaving a trace ?
Hans Christian Wolters:

[Wolters] replied: “I don’t want to deny it.

“We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann.

“We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann.”

 
Christian Brueckner entered apartment 5a with intent to burgle, and a long pedigree of such crime, and decided, instead, that he would take Madeleine. All wholly consistent with his established modus operandi.
Anything is possible but it’s not consistent with his past crimes. He has no convictions for abduction. He has only one conviction for rape and it occurred in the victim’s own home in what has to be considered a well planned crime.
 
Christian Brueckner entered apartment 5a with intent to burgle, and a long pedigree of such crime, and decided, instead, that he would take Madeleine. All wholly consistent with his established modus operandi.
Hans Christian Wolters:

[Wolters] replied: “I don’t want to deny it.

“We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann.

“We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann.”

You said CB entered 5a, where is the evidence of such, Wolters never makes mention of 5a.In fact (but we must acknowledge its the Mail )Wolters is quoted as saying in the piece I linked to that:

But when asked if he was sure that it was Brueckner who broke into the Ocean Club apartment and took her, he twice repeated that he believed that he was the killer but would not comment on who snatched the British three-year-old.
 
Probably there seem to be clues about a possible accomplice. That would exclude the theory of a chance find and probably sustain the stolen to order theory...

 
Yes I agree, but there is no evidence of an intruder in 5a, a half decent defence would ask for evidence of such if a prosecution were to go down that path , go back to the PJ files there is no crime scene photos of any break in, that path cannot be used surely . The only way Wolters can circumvent that is to say CB used the patio doors .
Obviously if the prosecution has to prove abduction BARD that would be impossible because of the sightings and T7 changing statement, we all know there are lots of issues with it.

This is why HCW has avoided abduction comments. He is comfortable talking about murder. So it’s therefore safe to assume that whatever evidence he has proves murder. According to prior posts, if murder can be proven then abduction can be inferred without having to be proved.
 
Does the German system have manslaughter or does it use the USA system of degrees of murder?
 
I wouldn't have bothered with the word opportunistic and just settled for abuse gone wrong.
I’ve been trying to untangle this comment. Now I think you are implying that the McCanns were abusing MM.

If you have any real evidence to support this <modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You said CB entered 5a, where is the evidence of such, Wolters never makes mention of 5a.In fact (but we must acknowledge its the Mail )Wolters is quoted as saying in the piece I linked to that:

But when asked if he was sure that it was Brueckner who broke into the Ocean Club apartment and took her, he twice repeated that he believed that he was the killer but would not comment on who snatched the British three-year-old.
From the archiving dispatch of the shelved enquiry:

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

Clearly, then, the Portuguese prosecutors were in no doubt Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger.

Wolters is certain Brueckner committed the crime. We can't judge his evidence because we don't know all he has.
 
I’ve been trying to untangle this comment. Now I think you are implying that the McCanns were abusing MM.

If you have any real evidence to support this <modsnip>
No. I'm not saying that, but suggesting that it was not an opportunistic event that resulted in her disappearance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
="enquirer6, post: 17746035, member: 302436"]
From the archiving dispatch of the shelved enquiry:
]The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them,[/B] the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.


Clearly, then, the Portuguese prosecutors were in no doubt Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger.

Wolters is certain Brueckner committed the crime. We can't judge his evidence because we don't know all he has.


<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

We’ve discussed the dogs before but I feel it was as if any of their evidence could implicate or exclude CB.

Obviously taking their evidence as a whole does nothing to strengthen the case against CB. That they both alerted to the McCann’s car weakens it. But they are only trained to detect dead human bodies and human blood. IMO the transfer of cadaver scent to the car has countless possibilities.

We previously discussed how the dogs evidence could point to CB. It’s mostly in the burglary gone wrong context involving CB killing MM in 5A either intentionally or by accident. From memory it’s of course possible that the blood could be a result from CB harming MM in 5A but I feel the evidence from Eddie the cadaver dog is pretty weak in relation to CB being the peep - was he there long enough with a dead MM to leave cadaver scent? Others will argue otherwise.

There is a lot of good info and arguments from smart people on these posts which may be worth looking at if you’re really interested in the case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably there seem to be clues about a possible accomplice. That would exclude the theory of a chance find and probably sustain the stolen to order theory...

If we are to take that article as true then it seems unlikely CB is facing charges in the Behan rape case, there have been some who maintain there is the link with which CB can be nailed with some kind of MO, if its failed in the Behan case then that in itself it clearly blows the McCann case wide open again.
 
If we are to take that article as true then it seems unlikely CB is facing charges in the Behan rape case, there have been some who maintain there is the link with which CB can be nailed with some kind of MO, if its failed in the Behan case then that in itself it clearly blows the McCann case wide open again.
I reckon that if charges relating to rape/child abuse aren't forthcoming by Christmas, then they are unlikely to be laid at all.
 
I knew when I seen some thing in English press, that something was happening in Germany, but was just a matter of time
 

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

If CB is ever officially charged, the evidence against him will be made public. In the event that happens, discussion will inevitably return to the past since a successful conviction of CB will have to make sense of the past and throw plausible light on the very many unexplained to this day 'ambiguities'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Me neither. We probably shouldn’t discuss things that try to absolve the McCanns either.

We’ve discussed the dogs before but I feel it was as if any of their evidence could implicate or exclude CB.

Obviously taking their evidence as a whole does nothing to strengthen the case against CB. That they both alerted to the McCann’s car weakens it. But they are only trained to detect dead human bodies and human blood. IMO the transfer of cadaver scent to the car has countless possibilities.

We previously discussed how the dogs evidence could point to CB. It’s mostly in the burglary gone wrong context involving CB killing MM in 5A either intentionally or by accident. From memory it’s of course possible that the blood could be a result from CB harming MM in 5A but I feel the evidence from Eddie the cadaver dog is pretty weak in relation to CB being the peep - was he there long enough with a dead MM to leave cadaver scent? Others will argue otherwise.

There is a lot of good info and arguments from smart people on these posts which may be worth looking at if you’re really interested in the case.
The only salient point about the Renault Scenic is that the McCanns hired it 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished and it should, therefore, never have formed a part of the enquiry.

If you look at the schedule of searches Mark Harrison, part of whose job was supposed to have been to determine the schedule of searches, first drew up, you will find he made reference, only, to vehicles owned or driven by Robert Murat.

Then Harrison stood to attention and took orders from Encarnacidio to extend the schedule of searches.


"According to police records, the hire company delivered the Renault to Kate and Gerry McCann on May 27, 2007, to the apartment in Praia da Luz where the family was staying."

I have lost the formatting tools again.

ETA: The other salient point, of course, is why anyone was looking for Madeleine's blood on the ignition key of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after she vanished.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
570
Total visitors
795

Forum statistics

Threads
608,369
Messages
18,238,444
Members
234,360
Latest member
willenollie
Back
Top