Madeleine McCann cops ask Home Office for more money to continue search for missing child

Malevolence · 30 Jul 2020 at 18:11

siezar said:
It must be a such a relief for the parents now that people aren't speculating about their involvement.

Involved, will have to wait and see. Whatever happens, it doesn't change the fact that their feckless parenting is responsible for whatever fate became her.

Sankari · 10 Oct 2021 at 08:38

Well, this is interesting.

'Madeleine McCann investigators ‘100% convinced’ suspect killed her and plan to bring charges next year.'

Prosecutors investigating the Madeleine McCann case have said they are certain suspect Christian Brueckner murdered her.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolter said investigators have enough evidence to bring a charge against the suspect but want to “strengthen their position” first.

He told the Mirror the team were “100 per cent convinced” that the British girl was killed by Brueckner, who is a convicted paedophile.

Mr Wolter, who is leading the investigation, said: “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.

“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.”

Mr Wolters said they hope to bring charges next year, adding that there was less pressure on them as Brueckner is already in prison. The 43-year-old, who was extradited from Italy to Germany in 2018 on an arrest warrant for drug trafficking, is currently serving a 21-month sentence in the German city of Kiel.

...Mr Wolters has now said they cannot prove she is dead and have no DNA or photo evidence linking Brueckner to her alleged murder.

But, addressing the McCanns, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter.

“All I can do is ask for your patience. I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”

I can't see how they're going to get a conviction in the absence of a body and DNA unless he decides to become extremely cooperative for no apparent reason, but stranger things have happened.

ANDREW GREEN · 10 Oct 2021 at 10:10

Sankari said:
Well, this is interesting.

'Madeleine McCann investigators ‘100% convinced’ suspect killed her and plan to bring charges next year.'

I can't see how they're going to get a conviction in the absence of a body and DNA unless he decides to become extremely cooperative for no apparent reason, but stranger things have happened.

There's been murder convictions in the past without DNA evidence or a body. The evidence can actually be quite weak looking at some examples. From what I understand the German police have a witness who stated Brueckner admitted doing the deed. I looked up other cases. There was a case that happened in 1999 but wasn't convicted until about 20 years later. The only evidence they had that the wife was looking at a divorce after discovering an affair and that the accussed had gone on a murderous rant to friends 2 weeks prior. So it's very probable he did do it but it could have easily have been a serial killer

V F · 10 Oct 2021 at 11:12

Sankari said:
Well, this is interesting.

'Madeleine McCann investigators ‘100% convinced’ suspect killed her and plan to bring charges next year.'

I can't see how they're going to get a conviction in the absence of a body and DNA unless he decides to become extremely cooperative for no apparent reason, but stranger things have happened.

If this is truly the person that did it, what I still cannot get over after all these years is... How on earth can one be a parent leaving 2 - 3 year olds without adult supervision, yet there was also a service on the premises for parents going out.

I've always thought that was so bad after all these years. Even something as simple as something falling on top of the children with children doing children things.

Jean-F · 10 Oct 2021 at 12:15

ANDREW GREEN said:
There's been murder convictions in the past without DNA evidence or a body. The evidence can actually be quite weak looking at some examples. From what I understand the German police have a witness who stated Hans Christian Wolter admitted doing the deed. I looked up other cases. There was a case that happened in 1999 but wasn't convicted until about 20 years later. The only evidence they had that the wife was looking at a divorce after discovering an affair and that the accussed had gone on a murderous rant to friends 2 weeks prior. So it's very probable he did do it but it could have easily have been a serial killer

You appear to have mixed up the prosecutor, (Wolter),with the alleged killer, (Brueckner).

NVP · 10 Oct 2021 at 12:22

Unless it was the prosecutor and he's trying to frame an innocent paedophile...

ANDREW GREEN · 10 Oct 2021 at 12:35

Jean-F said:
You appear to have mixed up the prosecutor, (Wolter),with the alleged killer, (Brueckner).

oops, fixed

Dis86 · 10 Oct 2021 at 12:50

Le Clandestin Brun said:
Unless it was the prosecutor and he's trying to frame an innocent paedophile...

Innocent paedophile? That's an oxymoron surely!

Lakeland · 10 Oct 2021 at 12:51

Sounds like they might be trying to call his bluff to confess for a shorter sentence, any additional evidence at this stage is going to be extremely difficult or impossible.

watercooledman · 10 Oct 2021 at 12:55

About time this was wrapped up

StriderX · 10 Oct 2021 at 13:33

Dis86 said:
Innocent paedophile? That's an oxymoron surely!

Without going into the bigger discussion (whether people are born that way, mental illness from abuse etc), if they haven't acted upon it in any manner then it wouldn't be a contradiction.

Dis86 · 10 Oct 2021 at 13:34

StriderX said:
Without going into the bigger discussion (whether people are born that way, mental illness from abuse etc), if they haven't acted upon it in any way then it wouldn't be a contradiction.

They'd still be guilty of being a paedophile though. They just wouldn't have a criminal conviction as they've not committed a crime.

StriderX · 10 Oct 2021 at 13:46

Dis86 said:
They'd still be guilty of being a paedophile though. They just wouldn't have a criminal conviction as they've not committed a crime.

I suppose.

On the topic of recent developments, is the current suspect the real one or just a convenient scapegoat to end the investigation?

GIBURROWS · 10 Oct 2021 at 13:54

I'd still like to know how and why the amount of money was spent in this child and not the rest?

Burnsy2023 · 10 Oct 2021 at 13:59

Dis86 said:
They'd still be guilty of being a paedophile though. They just wouldn't have a criminal conviction as they've not committed a crime.

Guilty suggests a crime rather than an illness. If someone is sexually attracted to children, perhaps because of their own previous abuse, knows it's wrong and seeks counselling or other help for it to prevent them ever offending, why should we label them as anything other than responsible person?

FoxEye · 10 Oct 2021 at 14:04

Dis86 said:
They'd still be guilty of being a paedophile though. They just wouldn't have a criminal conviction as they've not committed a crime.

Thought crime isn't a thing, tho. The number of people who have fantasised about killing their wife/kids/mother-in-law is probably quite high, but in the majority of cases it's just a thought and gets dismissed by the person's conscious mind, probably with a small feeling of guilt merely for having thought such a thing.

We can and do (and should) make a distinction between those who suppress such thoughts and remain in control of their actions, and those who act on their darkest desires.

Dis86 · 10 Oct 2021 at 14:15

FoxEye said:
Thought crime isn't a thing, tho. The number of people who have fantasised about killing their wife/kids/mother-in-law is probably quite high, but in the majority of cases it's just a thought and gets dismissed by the person's conscious mind, probably with a small feeling of guilt merely for having thought such a thing.

We can and do (and should) make a distinction between those who suppress such thoughts and remain in control of their actions, and those who act on their darkest desires.

People have been actively pursued by the police for nothing more than thought crime.

Dis86 · 10 Oct 2021 at 14:16

Burnsy2023 said:
Guilty suggests a crime rather than an illness. If someone is sexually attracted to children, perhaps because of their own previous abuse, knows it's wrong and seeks counselling or other help for it to prevent them ever offending, why should we label them as anything other than responsible person?

Suggests but doesn't mean. I can be guilty of eating the last of the ice cream. Its not a crime. I mean the Mrs goes on like it is but still...

Chris Wilson · 10 Oct 2021 at 14:16

Burnsy2023 said:
Guilty suggests a crime rather than an illness. If someone is sexually attracted to children, perhaps because of their own previous abuse, knows it's wrong and seeks counselling or other help for it to prevent them ever offending, why should we label them as anything other than responsible person?

Because, Mr Liberal, others are not so gullible as to accept that many perverts can be reformed, (like terrorists), and these social experiments by liberals have resulted in terrible crimes being committed that long term incarceration would have avoided. I don't give them any benefit of the doubt and the best help they can be given is a cell. I am finding your blase attitude to criminality and perverts very troubling given you say you are a Special Constable.