The link is below.
Not saying this to be a dick but I do think a circumstantial case is based on a narrative. It’s a story based on facts that makes any other way the crime could be committed impossible.
In this instance, it’s possible for the sat nav to indicate he was heading in the direction of PDL but then a gap during the critical time period.
If the link below is to be believed, they have him heading from somewhere to this place 12km from PDL, stationary for six hours, then his onward journey.
It seems likely that he was in or around PDL before this stop and if so bingo! It’s another part of the story.
However, the sat nav will also likely show that he was travelling in and around these areas at all hours every other day - he lived there and committed crime there… even in one of his letters he mentioned travelling at night on back roads or similar… that might be incriminating.
No doubt the BKA’s story puts him in the frame across different pieces of evidence - cell phone data, sat nav trips, emails etc. But, I think there are alternative, equally compelling, narratives that can also explain when, where and why he was at these places.
It might be worthwhile us listing all the evidence we think they have on him and then looking at these more closely to see if we can put some more of the pieces together.
“She was there for 6 hours”: satellite data uncovers an unmarked stop made by Christian Brueckner between 2:41 AM and 8:56 AM — 12 km from where Madeleine McCann vanished - News
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the three-year-old British toddler who vanished from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007,newstvseries.com
Previous thread not sure how to link #24 page 17
I think timing of these journeys will be crucial, as they ought to be able to show where he (or at least the vehicle) was between the hours of ,say, 6 & 12 that evening.
So I would make the guess they were trying to find other evidence to put him there apart from the GPS which could be inadmissible. This is a frustrating case, having incriminating evidence they cannot use... and having to find other ways to corroborate this.
I think that’s critical and the emphasis on the phone call suggests they might not have it.
We don't know that the evidence is incriminating, it could be little more than an indication of his location at certain times, which in itself may not be incriminating and they have been trying to flesh it out by allternative means.
Yeah, it makes sense that they have a strong circumstantial case “if you knew what I knew…” but they can’t use some aspects of it - this would explain the appeal.
Yes, I have wondered about the source. It just seems specific and it makes a lot of sense with HCW and NF’s comments. And, leaks come from different sources - they Sun article was an official leak (oxymoron but you know what I mean) whereas this could have been been a genuine leak from someone working the case.
Maybe he used the jag or didn’t have the gps with him that night.
Is he indicated he was in the area, he might well be asking was my vehicle seen in the area, it's all context and I'd venture none of us are qualified to determine it's meaning.
Sleuthing, Richard.
In which case it would all be pretty much a waste of time and effort.
This is the last appeal updated in June 2024.
It could be because he was using someone else's vehicle,
Is this woman the ‘alibi’ who can’t account for his whereabouts on the night MM was abducted?
Alternatively, some one might have been using his vehicle - he did have several and we don't know which one they have data for. Police themselves may not know.
It's a case of he said, they said he said.
