Prosecutor '100% convinced' suspect abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann
Some interesting comments from HCW, but also some ambiguous reporting going on. I wish they'd just stick to what was said rather than adding their own commentary of interpretations.
Breaking it down:
Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann
Ok, so the quoted part "100% sure" seems to confirm what "most" of us already thought. BKA are convinced they have the right man. This is then reaffirmed in the next quote.
“
We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”
“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."
“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”
Interesting to hear HCW state that the evidence file is now sufficient to raise an arrest warrant. To be honest, I've wondered if this was the case from the start though. It would explain why they have been heppy to go all out in accusing CB publicly. And that everything that has gone on since is just an effort to strengthen the case. It makes sense when CB is going nowhere anytime soon.
However, the prosecutors now admit they have no proof Madeleine is dead – despite authorities in Braunschweig telling the McCanns last year that they had “evidence” she is no longer alive
Mr Wolters said they have no idea how she died and no DNA or photo evidence linking the German sex offender to the alleged murder
This commentary bugs me. If HCW actually said those things, why not just quote him? What is this interpretation actually based on? "No proof Madeleine is dead" and "no idea how she died" are bold statements considering and they deserve a direct quote. It doesn't really make sense considering the other quotes HCW makes in the article. Until there's clarification from HCW, I'm presuming for now it is just the Mirror dressing up the fact HCW says they have no forensic evidence or a "video of the act". We'll see though.
"
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 tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.”
That seems to contradict the Mirror's assertion they have "no proof Madeleine is dead". Confusing. Again, I think it's just in reference to no forensics.
“It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence"
What does he mean by "scientific"? Does he mean "forensic"?
"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."
Hmmm. When I first read this, I thought we were getting clarification that there was no photographic/video evidence but that's not actually what he says. He talks about 2 very specific scenarios - "video of the act" and "Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera". Why single out those two options? Was it in response to direct questions from the reporter? It doesn't for example rule out a photo of MM dead, alone, possibly found on one of CB's devices. Why not just say there is no photographic or video evidence at all if there really is nothing along those lines? I think most people already assumed they didn't have a video of the act or Brueckner on camera with MM, if they did he would be bang to rights and no need for a public appeal. Other options of what might have been captured on camera appear to remain open, for the time being at least.
Mr Wolters dismissed as “rubbish” a recent report that the probe will end by Christmas
Again, this was the Sun using their own "commentary" to interpret what they 'thought' had been said. I wish these rags would stick to the facts of what was said and let us do the interpreting.
Asked if he was happy with the pace of the Madeleine probe, Mr Wolters said: “It could have gone better. Of course we hoped we’d get such good tip-offs that the investigation might have already ended. But the case is progressing.”
To me, it sounds like they are still missing some key things they'd hoped to have recieved by now. We'll see.
He said a “very big number” have been interviewed but the team has yet to find the person Brueckner spoke to on the phone around the time Madeleine went missing.
So the news in the Sun claiming of evidence placing CB in the area would appear to be unrelated to the phone call. Assuming it was true of course.
“We’ve found no evidence to clear Mr Brueckner of suspicion. Everything we’ve found fits in the picture. We’re perhaps halfway through.”
Halfway through? I assume he means in terms of length of time before raising a charge rather than in terms of the level of evidence they need to gather? So we're perhaps looking at a charge towards the end of 2022? Who knows, bit of a confusing statement there.
Defending the decision not to show the McCanns the evidence that leads prosecutors to believe Madeleine is dead, he said: “If I did ...is very possible that they would then no longer have any hope.”
Don't really know what to make of that comment. He'd said previously that it was to do with not jeopardising the investigation. Which I do still think is the main reason. This seems to just be saying that if they knew the evidence, they'd know there was no hope of finding MM alive. Again, these comments appear to be in direct response to specific questions from the reporter about the parents. I don't think this is actually the reason he is not telling the parents.
“
What takes one week in Germany can take six months in Portugal. I think the interest in the case in Portugal is just not that big, because no Portuguese person is involved. Also it does not shine a particularly good light on the Portuguese police, as they had totally different suspects."
"I think they would prefer to be left in peace."
“The co-operation with Britain is certainly notably better.”
Reading between the lines, I don't think BKA are getting the level of cooperation from PJ they wanted. Maybe that's why things are taking longer than they hoped. I've a feeling this has been the case from the start. No surprises there really.
All in all, not as much can be taken from that story as it would appear upon first glance. Other than the claim they do now have enough evidence to raise a charge if they wanted, not much else has been clarified from what we already knew or assumed.
