jungledrums
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 2,674
Seconded - what are you thinking?I think I just figured it out but I'm not going to say because it's absolutely fecking horrific to think about.
Seconded - what are you thinking?I think I just figured it out but I'm not going to say because it's absolutely fecking horrific to think about.
Hopefully it's not too horrific. But wasn't he caught for a previous crime becuase he had filmed himself doing it?Im not sure if it’s what Dwazzer was thinking but I’ll go ahead and speculate - they’ve carried out searches on any properties he owns and discovered a trophy. Maybe a toy, some clothing or a lock of hair. Hopefully nothing any more grisly than that.
Yup.Hopefully it's not too horrific. But wasn't he caught for a previous crime becuase he had filmed himself doing it?
Why would that lead to the conclusion she is dead rather than say trafficked on?Im not sure if it’s what Dwazzer was thinking but I’ll go ahead and speculate - they’ve carried out searches on any properties he owns and discovered a trophy. Maybe a toy, some clothing or a lock of hair. Hopefully nothing any more grisly than that.
Surely if they found something like that they'd be able to charge him though?Hopefully it's not too horrific. But wasn't he caught for a previous crime becuase he had filmed himself doing it?
If the video is of her alone he could claim he got it from someone else.Surely if they found something like that they'd be able to charge him though?
That would make sense.If the video is of her alone he could claim he got it from someone else.
The witness told the court that he stole the camera from his friend's house in Praia da Luz in 2006 and that it showed an older woman being tied up, beaten and raped.
In her statement the woman said she was beaten with a metal pole.
Brueckner was charged in August last year after a 'cold case' team re-examined all the evidence. A hair found at the villa linked the German to the assault.
Strange. Multiple outlets have reported direct quotes from the prosecutor saying he had sent the letter.So now supposedly that was bullshit per the McCanns statement.
What you thinking?
Honestly lads, I don't want to say it directly. Not something anyone would want to think about.Seconded - what are you thinking?
There won't be any trophies.Im not sure if it’s what Dwazzer was thinking but I’ll go ahead and speculate - they’ve carried out searches on any properties he owns and discovered a trophy. Maybe a toy, some clothing or a lock of hair. Hopefully nothing any more grisly than that.
I can think of 5 ways 1) they found something in his possession linked to her, b) he has confessed off the record subject to a plea deal, c) photos or videos he took, 4) evidence from a witness or accomplice, or 5) forensic evidence.I think I just figured it out but I'm not going to say because it's absolutely fecking horrific to think about.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why do they keep going public with these contradictory statements? It must be horrific for the parents getting this dripfeed of nonsense from them.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Interesting mix of information.
They say they are 100% convinced he is the perpetrator and do have enough evidence to charge him but (because he's already in jail) are happy to keep building evidence against him for now and hope to bring charges next year.
However they also say they can't prove McCann is dead, have no DNA evidence and have no photo evidence. He also says "If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence."
But nonetheless, based on the evidence they do have, there's no hope that she's alive. "Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion."
Maybe they're still appealing for information and talking about it publicly for that reason? I'm not sure if these quotes come from that context or of it's just them updating journalists to no purpose.Why do they keep going public with these contradictory statements? It must be horrific for the parents getting this dripfeed of nonsense from them.
Yep, Goncalo Amaral.I'm not sure if this made english news, but for years a former police inspector involved in this case here in Portugal has been going on tv shows (and also wrote a book) saying Maddie was killed by her parents. Even last week he told a german newspaper the parents did it and this german guy had nothing to do with it. I hope when all is said and done, Maddie's parents sue him into oblivion, he's been such a gigantic cnut though all this.
Yes, that guy. Public opinion kinda gave him a pass on that because the woman actually killed her baby daughter, but he's as rotten as they come. Been milking the Maddie cow for years.Yep, Goncalo Amaral.
I think I'm right in saying he was later given an 18-month sentence for perjury in regard to a different case where he (along with four others) were accused of attacking a woman whose daughter had gone missing in an attempt to get her to confess. He was found to have falsified documents.
He has a new book coming out soon about the McCann case too. Not that he's profiteering, of course. *cough*
Not sure and given he's in jail and you'd imagine the likelihood of credible new witnesses coming forward is so low now, I'm not sure what it all achieves. It's still unclear what the German prosecutors told the McCanns after the earlier claims of a letter being sent were denied.Maybe they're still appealing for information and talking about it publicly for that reason? I'm not sure if these quotes come from that context or of it's just them updating journalists to no purpose.
Not sure how easy it would be to actually convict them of negligence.Yeah, but they still should at least be charged with negligence or some shit, right?
I mean that's what loads have people have been calling for for the last 15 years... that the parents of a child disappearance/likely murder, face charges.
Anyone still beating that drum?
Which, in turn, would mean that they (probably) weren't negligent, right?Not sure how easy it would be to actually convict them of negligence.
Well, legally at least. According sullydnl from Redcafe's knowledge of the Portuguese legal system. If I was the McCanns, I'd get a second opinion.Which, in turn, would mean that they (probably) weren't negligent, right?
So they weren't negligent then, OK, cool, we agree.Well, legally at least.
Well, if you feel that leaving your kids alone in an unlocked apartment whilst enjoying tapas and alcohol when babysitting services were available isn't negligent....So they weren't negligent then, OK, cool, we agree.
What good would it serve to punish the parents at this stage for neglect? They are living the worst punishment you can imagine.Yeah, but they still should at least be charged with negligence or some shit, right?
I mean that's what loads of people have been calling for for the last 15 years... that the parents of a child disappearance/likely murder, face charges.
Anyone still beating that drum?
It wouldn't do much good but eye popper is arguing they don't nothing wrong, I think.What good would it serve to punish the parents at this stage for neglect? They are living the worst punishment you can imagine.
No idea, but that hasn't stopped a load of knuckle dragging pond life making it their main concern anytime the case comes up for the best part of 15 years.What good would it serve to punish the parents at this stage for neglect? They are living the worst punishment you can imagine.
and he is right.It wouldn't do much good but eye popper is arguing they don't nothing wrong, I think.
Youre a funny guyYeah, but they still should at least be charged with negligence or some shit, right?
I mean that's what loads of people have been calling for for the last 15 years... that the parents of a child disappearance/likely murder, face charges.
Anyone still beating that drum?
How come?and he is right.
Have they ever been accused or charged, never mind convicted, of doing anything wrong by anyone* other than, "I've done my research", Internet dwellers... anyone actually involved or close to the case?It wouldn't do much good but eye popper is arguing they don't nothing wrong, I think.
Only 50 metres away checking on the kids regularly and yet they get treated as though they sold their daughter to Nazi paedophiles. What they did was perfectly reasonable.How come?
Thats interesting. Do you have children, out of curiosity? Also, how come the investigation period was so odd for them. Their behaviour afterwards wasn't very reasonable.Only 50 metres away checking on the kids regularly and yet they get treated as though they sold their daughter to Nazi paedophiles. What they did was perfectly reasonable.
Yes.Have they ever been accused or charged, never mind convicted, of doing anything wrong by anyone* other than, "I've done my research", Internet dwellers... anyone actually involved or close to the case?
Edit: *who wasn't trying to sell a book.