Unsolved Madeleine McCann * Current Trial of Main Suspect Christian Brueckner

[Angry Red Bull]

one would think the German Prosecutor would run for a public office at some stage down the track. Chancellor?
he has been grandstanding for years and come up with nothing. not even got to trial.

Readers don't fall for the tabloid hype.

regarding the Germans suspect-
I challenge the police to: One, place him in the apartment 5A, ocean club. Two, prove he took maddie.
Three, he killed her!

I think it disrespectful to the integrity of justice to be as prejudicial as he's been

And yes......I don't believe for one second he did it.

There is a 94% chance that there was a dead body in the boot of a car with 3000 klm on the clock when hired. Who do we know who may have died in 2007. Pretty obvious to me.

 

[bomberclifford]

There is a 94% chance that there was a dead body in the boot of a car

My hunch is that you are misinterpreting the 94% figure and making it something that it’s not.

You seem to be hanging a lot of your theory on this stat so I’d like to hear some detail on how that figure has been derived (ie what it actually means) and why it translates to a percentage chance of a dead body in the car boot.

If it is as you say it is, how is this not evidence worthy of further investigation? If it’s not worthy of further investigation, then your interpretation of the stat must be incorrect.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

My hunch is that you are misinterpreting the 94% figure and making it something that it’s not.

You seem to be hanging a lot of your theory on this stat so I’d like to hear some detail on how that figure has been derived (ie what it actually means) and why it translates to a percentage chance of a dead body in the car boot.

If it is as you say it is, how is this not evidence worthy of further investigation? If it’s not worthy of further investigation, then your interpretation of the stat must be incorrect.

Thanks. My post 946 references a scientific paper relating to cadaver dog accuracy where the 94% figure was derived. If you listen to Grimes the handler he says that both dogs had a 100% historical record. I've googled accuracy on numerous occasions and they all seem to agree that's it's between 90% to 100%. A cadavar dog will only indicate on the smell from purifying human flesh. Nothing else. Therefore if there is a 94% chance of a dead body being in the boot it's most likely Maddie.

Why isn't that persuasive? It is. But it can't be used on court because a dog can't be cross examined. The PJ were all set to charge Kate if the DNA came back showing it was Maddie. Unfortunately it was a mixed sample even though it showed a 15/19 match which is usually enough for a positive. But there was DNA of someone else there too. The UK supporting their own citizen made an early choice to assist McCann. They therefore refused requests by PJ for medical records of Maddie and also financial records of McCann both of which could have given futher pointers especially the financial where the body was placed in hot weather during the 25+ days the body was missing then reappearing in the car boot. The PJ never deviated from their case but couldn't further it absent further DNA. A more advanced analysis of DNA can now be done by Dr Perlin who offered to do it free. UK didn't bother to respond.

So

My hunch is that you are misinterpreting the 94% figure and making it something that it’s not.

You seem to be hanging a lot of your theory on this stat so I’d like to hear some detail on how that figure has been derived (ie what it actually means) and why it translates to a percentage chance of a dead body in the car boot.

If it is as you say it is, how is this not evidence worthy of further investigation? If it’s not worthy of further investigation, then your interpretation of the stat must be incorrect.

My uni studies involved quantitative methods including probability analysis and statistics. I didn't get anything wrong

The 94% probability comes from the article referred to in my post 946. The probability of a cadavar dog identifying a cadavar correctly on indication is 94% that occurred in the car boot of McCann. It only had 3000 klms on clock so hugely unlikely to have more than 3-4 renters. Given McCann had a daughter missing and there were also indications on their clothes and in apartment and cuddle toy the probability that the indications on all are linked would be close if not 100%

That then means that the 94% probability of the indication in the boot then sheets home to it likewise being Maddie at same probability. That is what probability tells us without doubt

cadavar evidence is inadmissible in court because a dog can't be cross examined. The indication has to be used for finding DNA that can be used in court. they found DNA and at the location of both blood dog and cadavar dog but was a mixed sample also unable to be used because it was inconclusive being a mixed 15/19 match. We don't know how other DNA got mixed with it but for investigative purposes in resolving conclusions it doesn't matter because it was still 94% chance of being a dead body and the only one was Maddie with 100% likelihood of link

the PJ were ham strung to go further because they wanted financial records of McCann (to test hypothesis that they put her in freezer on a holiday rental after that night). UK refused. They also wanted medical records to explore possible history of child abuse or some other link. They were refused on that too.

PJ had nowhere else to go to investigate but had a 94% chance the links were Maddie but it could never be presented in court as being inadmissible. Case folded

The inadmissibility of the evidence in no way interferes with probability analysis around the use of cadavar a.dogs and links via McCann and dead body.

Thank you for listening to me.

 

[faible]

I didn't get anything wrong

You’d like to think that.

 

[bomberclifford]

My uni studies involved quantitative methods including probability analysis and statistics.

Then you should know that "cadaver dog accuracy score" does not directly translate to the probability of "a dead body being in the boot of a car that they've indicated on".

Here's why:

1. Cadaver dogs indicate on odours from the decomposition process. This does not necessarily indicate a dead body or remains. Faeces, urine, and blood will decompose once outside of the human body. (as a parent of three kids, I know how common place all three are at any given moment)
2. The probability of "a dead body once being in the boot of the car" relies on several logic steps from the initial indication by cadaver dog. Each step of which reduces the probability of the indication being a dead body. Not least of which is that there was no body found in the boot of the car, nor remains, or even a single source of DNA. In fact there has never been a body or remains found. No witnesses to the existence of, or removal of, or disposal of, a body. Any body. Not even any blood that can be said belonged to Madeleine.
3. The lack of a body, or any other supporting evidence of the presence of a body, suggests that this result falls into the 'inaccurate' side of the accuracy percentage. The lack of useful DNA found from the indication also suggests this. This is why the evidence isn't admissible. The lack of supporting evidence shows the the indication was most likely inaccurate, or at best, an indication of something that cannot be connected to the missing child.
4. At best the 95%/97% (whichever one you want to choose) only relates to the likely presence of human remains, or blood, or urine, or faeces, at some point in time, being in the boot of the car, or on/in/near things that were once in the boot of the car. Without the subsequent discovery of DNA evidence or a dead body, this is as good as it gets.

Even with all of this, it still doesn't take into account that the 95%/97% accuracy rate comes from a 2020 study, whereas at the time of the McCann investigation, the accepted rates of accuracy were 60-69%. There are some claims that it was as low as 22-38%. Thirteen years of advances in technology and training in the area is a massive jump to retrospectively apply when doing analysis on old cases. It just doesn't hold up.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Then you should know that "cadaver dog accuracy score" does not directly translate to the probability of "a dead body being in the boot of a car that they've indicated on".

Here's why:

1. Cadaver dogs indicate on odours from the decomposition process. This does not necessarily indicate a dead body or remains. Faeces, urine, and blood will decompose once outside of the human body. (as a parent of three kids, I know how common place all three are at any given moment)
2. The probability of "a dead body once being in the boot of the car" relies on several logic steps from the initial indication by cadaver dog. Each step of which reduces the probability of the indication being a dead body. Not least of which is that there was no body found in the boot of the car, nor remains, or even a single source of DNA. In fact there has never been a body or remains found. No witnesses to the existence of, or removal of, or disposal of, a body. Any body. Not even any blood that can be said belonged to Madeleine.
3. The lack of a body, or any other supporting evidence of the presence of a body, suggests that this result falls into the 'inaccurate' side of the accuracy percentage. The lack of useful DNA found from the indication also suggests this. This is why the evidence isn't admissible. The lack of supporting evidence shows the the indication was most likely inaccurate, or at best, an indication of something that cannot be connected to the missing child.
4. At best the 95%/97% (whichever one you want to choose) only relates to the likely presence of human remains, or blood, or urine, or faeces, at some point in time, being in the boot of the car, or on/in/near things that were once in the boot of the car. Without the subsequent discovery of DNA evidence or a dead body, this is as good as it gets.

Even with all of this, it still doesn't take into account that the 95%/97% accuracy rate comes from a 2020 study, whereas at the time of the McCann investigation, the accepted rates of accuracy were 60-69%. There are some claims that it was as low as 22-38%. Thirteen years of advances in technology and training in the area is a massive jump to retrospectively apply when doing analysis on old cases. It just doesn't hold up.

Utter rubbish

The proof will be in whats happened since 2007. No perp has been found 15 years and $20m and nothing to show. . Just as Brueckner will fall over too. 2 years of intensive investigation and they have a tower ping and not much else. There is a reason and that's because two people can't have done the crime.

But it's a free world where people can choose whatever opinion they follow.

 

[bomberclifford]

Utter rubbish

Interesting response but not unexpected.

The proof will be in whats happened since 2007. No perp has been found 15 years and $20m and nothing to show. . Just as Brueckner will fall over too. 2 years of intensive investigation and they have a tower ping and not much else. There is a reason and that's because two people can't have done the crime.

So in your mind, no perpetrator being found equals McCann's did it? That seems to be what you're implying here.
That's a pretty big stretch for an expert in "quantitative methods including probability analysis and statistics".

But it's a free world where people can choose whatever opinion they follow.

I don't have an opinion on who killed/abducted Madeleine McCann. I don't know, nor claim to know.
I'm addressing your theory and where it falls down.

Your claim that it is "94/97% probable that the car boot contained a dead body" and then that "100% probable that it was Madeleine McCann's body" are both demonstrably false.

No amount of obfuscation on your part will change that.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Interesting response but not unexpected.




So in your mind, no perpetrator being found equals McCann's did it? That seems to be what you're implying here.
That's a pretty big stretch for an expert in "quantitative methods including probability analysis and statistics".




I don't have an opinion on who killed/abducted Madeleine McCann. I don't know, nor claim to know.
I'm addressing your theory and where it falls down.

Your claim that it is "94/97% probable that the car boot contained a dead body" and then that "100% probable that it was Madeleine McCann's body" are both demonstrably false.

No amount of obfuscation on your part will change that.

Absolutely ......no potential perp will come close to having a 94% chance of having Maddies body in their boot. None

So you're suggesting that the training methods have changed to create a higher success rate? Grimes the handler said they had a 100% history back then I'll still go with and accept 94%.thanks. Ample evidence to support that to me

You want to say my assertion is demonstrably false but it is simply probability theory and can't change. The only factors which can are the accuracy of cadavar dogs and every single search I've done places accuracy of crime enforcement cadavar dogs between 90% and 100%. You don't want to accept that? Ok don't. You want to say probability theory is wrong. You are then denying objective truth and scientific analysis

For some reason quite a few people here have got it in their heads that Mcann are wonderful grief stricken parents being hurt by misplaced internet conspiracy to accuse them and persecute them based on emotional not rational thought and analysis. I don't care who they are and only care about proper analysis regarding the facts. I would much prefer Brueckner to be guilty. He's not on the probabilities.

Talk to me a few months from now when they drop Arguido status for Brueckner on another dead end.

 

[bomberclifford]

Absolutely ......no potential perp will come close to having a 94% chance of having Maddies body in their boot. None

No they won't because no one has. Not even the McCanns.

So you're suggesting that the training methods have changed to create a higher success rate? Grimes the handler said they had a 100% history back then I'll still go with and accept 94%.thanks. Ample evidence to support that to me

Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?

The parents of Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who went missing in Portugal in May, were officially named suspects on Sept. 7 by...

slate.com

The dogs couldn’t necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine’s body had been in recent contact with her mother’s clothes. Since they didn’t turn up any actual remains, investigators had to rely on the “smell of death” itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can’t be certain that the animals didn’t make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)

You want to say my assertion is demonstrably false but it is simply probability theory and can't change. The only factors which can are the accuracy of cadavar dogs and every single search I've done places accuracy of crime enforcement cadavar dogs between 90% and 100%. You don't want to accept that? Ok don't. You want to say probability theory is wrong. You are then denying objective truth and scientific analysis

You keep talking about probability theory but then ignore it. Please explain to me, using 'probability theory', the jump between "dogs are 97% accurate" to "there is a 97% probability that there was a dead body in the boot" Extra points for then linking that to Madeleine McCann's decomposing body.

Someone of your expertise would be able to do that quite simply, yes?
(By the way, saying 'it just does' doesn't count.)
Explain it using the language of probability and analytics.

For some reason quite a few people here have got it in their heads that Mcann are wonderful grief stricken parents being hurt by misplaced internet conspiracy to accuse them and persecute them based on emotional not rational thought and analysis. I don't care who they are and only care about proper analysis regarding the facts. I would much prefer Brueckner to be guilty. He's not on the probabilities.

Your tendency to try and muddy the waters with irrelevant stuff says a lot about where your mind is at.

My guess is that you've found a "McCann's Did It" rabbit hole, skim read some links and google searches so now blurt it out ad nauseam to the point that you've convinced yourself of its infallibility.

Talk to me a few months from now when they drop Arguido status for Brueckner on another dead end.

Again, this is irrelevant.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

This is a VERY simple principle based on probability theory. Clearly those in opposition still can't understand despite me breaking it down to its most simple form. I can't do any more. Sorry. I suggest we stop. It's a waste of my time

 

[bomberclifford]

This is a VERY simple principle based on probability theory. Clearly those in opposition still can't understand despite me breaking it down to its most simple form. I can't do any more.

If it's so simple, how is it that you cannot explain it?
You haven't explained anything so far, you've just stated it.

The accuracy percentage of cadaver dogs DOES NOT translate to probability of a body being in the boot of the car.
ESPECIALLY when there is no other evidence of a dead body in the car, or anywhere else for that matter.

That's a clear and unambiguous statement from me.
Disprove it. Using 'probability theory'.

Sorry. I suggest we stop. It's a waste of my time

Yeah, this was inevitable really.

As soon as you're asked for something that doesn't pop up in the first 5 results of a google search, you struggle.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If it's so simple, how is it that you cannot explain it?
You haven't explained anything so far, you've just stated it.

The accuracy percentage of cadaver dogs DOES NOT translate to probability of a body being in the boot of the car.
ESPECIALLY when there is no other evidence of a dead body in the car, or anywhere else for that matter.

That's a clear and unambiguous statement from me.
Disprove it. Using 'probability theory'.




Yeah, this was inevitable really.

As soon as you're asked for something that doesn't pop up in the first 5 results of a google search, you struggle.

I can explain it and did. You work out the rest

 

[bomberclifford]

I can explain it and did. You work out the rest

You didn’t because you can’t.

Apparently, you’re not even capable of comprehending the points being raised because you haven’t even addressed one of them.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You didn’t because you can’t.

Apparently, you’re not even capable of comprehending the points being raised because you haven’t even addressed one of them.

I didn't look at your points because my analysis is IMPOSSIBLE to be wrong unless the accuracy % is wrong which it isn't. So I repeat I'm wasting my time and won't any longer.

 

[bomberclifford]

I didn't look at your points because my analysis is IMPOSSIBLE to be wrong unless the accuracy % is wrong which it isn't. So I repeat I'm wasting my time and won't any longer.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE to be wrong yet is inadmissible in a court of law.

What a special fruit loop you are.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It’s IMPOSSIBLE to be wrong yet is inadmissible in a court of law.

What a special fruit loop you are.

That it was Maddie in the car boot not the admissibility of the case which I've also explained to you.

Like i said third time......this is a waste and it's becoming very obvious to me why

 

[bomberclifford]

That it was Maddie in the car boot not the admissibility of the case which I've also explained to you.

Like i said third time......this is a waste and it's becoming very obvious to me why

You haven’t explained anything, you’ve just said stuff and then got cranky when you were asked to back it up.

Your entire theory is based on a flawed understanding of what probability is.

It doesn’t account for the lack of evidence found after the indication, nor the fact that the indication could be explained by any number of possibilities completely unconnected to Madeleine’s disappearance.

It fails to explain, in even the broadest of terms, how the McCanns were able to hide their child’s body, place it in the boot, dispose of it, clean up every step of the way, without leaving ANY evidence or witnesses, all while grieving the death of their four year old daughter and under intense scrutiny of police and media. All because they were worried about being blamed for an accidental death? Is the ‘probability’ of this also 97%?

You are fixed in your thinking to such an extent that even when presented with reasons why your theory might be flawed, you simply ignore them because it’s “impossible” that you could be wrong. Talk about red flags.

 

[faible]

After 119 posts in less than a month on the topic, I think perhaps Angry Red Bull needs to take his ‘expert in quantitative analytics’ shtick off to the conspiracy board and try to find some believers there.

 

[Kurve]

After 119 posts in less than a month on the topic, I think perhaps Angry Red Bull needs to take his ‘expert in quantitative analytics’ shtick off to the conspiracy board and try to find some believers there.

Nah, hasn't approached Qanon turf yet. I suspect Angry has just been hanging in with the anti-McCann discussion groups for a wee bit too long and needs exposure to broader views.

 

[bomberclifford]

... and a refresher course on how probability is calculated.

 

[Kurve]

Brueckner

Wolters has claimed to have solved the case. With the thread analysis so says media

Harris the detective says it's impossible he's guilty on the evidence he has gathered including 4 witnesses

UK are saying the witness statements check out

This is once again getting comical like the stuff at the time with McCann

Some of the things of interest

• he worked as a occasional handyman at the Ocean Club
• the McCanns sought help for blinds and refrigerator from Ocean club Handyman
• his phone pinged within 200 metres on the night. Harris the detective says there is some error in reading of data relating to that
• his GF phoned him at about 7.30 that night
• he told her he was going to use his Winnebago to go from Foral to Tomar app 5 hr trip
• a witness a girl 17 at the time said he spent the night having sex with her in canpervan at Foro (an hour and quarter away) and the next morning they travelled to airport were stopped at roadblock and photographed and she was then charged for carrying pepper spray through airport security
• he was responsible for multiple burglaries in the area.....a friend once saw between 60- 100 stolen passports
• his GF the one that rang him worked as an unqualified counsellor and half way house for runaway teens
• the possibility exists all three are connected that way that the 17 yo was a runaway who was helped and returned home , so all 3 associated for a time is possible
• the GF is alleged to have been an accomplice on his burglaries and there is strong evidence
• it's assumed that a thread has been found in campervan that matches the labels pyjamas

Still no body. No DNA. I assume no fingerprints. Questionable phone data. Rebuttal witness accounts. Thread match
to label manufacturer NOT Maddie

That's where we currently stand. I think the phone tower needs elaboration. I think more intensive detail including background of the 17 yo is needed.

Do you have a link to where the UK says witness statements check out? My information is that he was seeing three or four women and none of them can alibi him for the night, Wolters is unconcerned.

The plan that we're now seeing playing out is that Brueckner, as a dangerous repeat offender with or without a conviction for the abduction of Madeleine McCann, isn't going to be released, ever. .

What will be offered to him next is a deal. He tells the prosecutor what happened to Madeleine McCann and if it checks out, he'll be moved and gets to spend the rest of his life in a built-for-purpose prison that houses only about twenty others like himself and where in comparison to where he is, will be like moving in to a luxury resort.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Do you have a link to where the UK says witness statements check out? My information is that he was seeing three or four women and none of them can alibi him for the night, Wolters is unconcerned.

The plan that we're now seeing playing out is that Brueckner, as a dangerous repeat offender with or without a conviction for the abduction of Madeleine McCann, isn't going to be released, ever. .

What will be offered to him next is a deal. He tells the prosecutor what happened to Madeleine McCann and if it checks out, he'll be moved and gets to spend the rest of his life in a built-for-purpose prison that houses only about twenty others like himself and where in comparison to where he is, will be like moving in to a luxury resort.

Crap that was a few weeks back I'll look again. lol Saw also that Wolters had discussed videos and photographs saying that he doesn't have such with images Brueckner in them or dead for Maddie. Once again he implied that perhaps he has an image of Maddie alive without Brueckner in it. The guy is a grand stander. Tired of it. He is constantly issuing prejudicial statements about the case and doesn't seem to care. There are no finger prints. No DNA either. The media that jumped on thread analysis was also in error ...he corrected saying no. What he did say was that the current discussion around alibi in his mind strengthens the facts implicating him moves in a different direction whatever that means. Don't know how.

In my mind they need to tie him to the apartment and/ or DNA of Maddie or both. Also read something about the tower triangularisation back in 2007 was flawed somehow. It didn't elaborate but seemed to be implying that you couldn't use the tower pings at Ocean Club to triangulate geolocation effectively like you now can. Perhaps that's what Harris was talking about . If that falls away he has nothing.......apart from a horrible miscreant who has done horrible things.

Imagine for a second if you were that 17yo had sex with him and now 15 years later find out what a miscreant he is. Wouldn't make you feel very well

 

[Angry Red Bull]

By making him an Arguido it stops the clock on statute of limitations. They now have a further 7 1/2 hrs to get a conviction.

 

[faible]

By making him an Arguido it stops the clock on statute of limitations. They now have a further 7 1/2 hrs to get a conviction.

To be clear; it doesn’t make McCann guilty if they don’t.

 

[Kurve]

Crap that was a few weeks back I'll look again. lol Saw also that Wolters had discussed videos and photographs saying that he doesn't have such with images Brueckner in them or dead for Maddie. Once again he implied that perhaps he has an image of Maddie alive without Brueckner in it. The guy is a grand stander. Tired of it. He is constantly issuing prejudicial statements about the case and doesn't seem to care. There are no finger prints. No DNA either. The media that jumped on thread analysis was also in error ...he corrected saying no. What he did say was that the current discussion around alibi in his mind strengthens the facts implicating him moves in a different direction whatever that means. Don't know how.

Wolters is prohibited to divulge specifics of evidence against Brueckner until Brueckner's been advised which seems fair.

In my mind they need to tie him to the apartment and/ or DNA of Maddie or both. Also read something about the tower triangularisation back in 2007 was flawed somehow. It didn't elaborate but seemed to be implying that you couldn't use the tower pings at Ocean Club to triangulate geolocation effectively like you now can. Perhaps that's what Harris was talking about . If that falls away he has nothing.......apart from a horrible miscreant who has done horrible things.

We'll see but imo, he's probably done.