I've travelled Europe investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance – this bombshell new search is most important yet
Millions tuned in to see our revelations on the prime suspect over her disappearance Christian Brueckner.
5
And it quickly became clear - very few people had any idea over the extent of what the convicted paedophile and rapist might be capable of.
Despite denying any involvement in Maddie's disappearance, we need to remind ourselves, he is currently on course to walk free in September - in a matter of some 15 weeks.
And THAT is why the development of this new search in Portugal must be welcomed.
No dig for the remains of a child can not should ever be greeted with happiness. Of course not.
The plight of Maddie is heartbreaking for us all - nevermind how impossible it must be for her dedicated family to consider.
But justice must be done in such appalling circumstances, mustn't it?
For Christian Brueckner to be formally charged - and for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction in Germany - prosecutors still want to find forensic evidence.
That is the Holy Grail they still seek.
After looking into Brueckner for the past year I understand why German police hold him under such strong suspicion - and why they are desperate to stop him slipping from their grip.
We have presented the circumstantial evidence - Brueckner's obsession with snatching children and evidence he was at the location of an all-but-confession when he allegedly let slip 'she didn't scream,' referring to Maddie.
5
The police can also place his mobile phone in the area of Praia da Luz on the night of May 3 when Madeleine vanished - the same village where Brueckner is convicted of raping a woman in 2005.
But it is forensic evidence that still needs to tie him to the case. And that is what these new searches endeavour to unearth.
Following a tip-off German federal agents are hopeful some DNA, a strand from Maddie's pyjamas or any other clue might have fallen into street works - or even been deliberately buried near the village.
Detectives are realistic, they know this is a longshot.
But with Christian Brueckner set to walk free on September 17 it is one they know they need to take.
As one German investigator told me: 'Now, more than ever we must make sure - no stone is left unturned.'
5
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
All the salacious evidence from seven weeks of the Diddy trial that guaranteed Sean Combs would WALK on charges threatening to put him away for life
After weeks of bombshell testimony about drug-fueled 'freak off' sex sessions and heartbreaking details of abuse from alleged victims, a Manhattan jury found Sean ' Diddy ' Combs not guilty of the most serious crimes he faced yet guilty on two counts related to prostitution. In total, Combs was charged with racketeering conspiracy and two counts each of sex trafficking and transportation of individuals across state lines to engage in prostitution. The first two charges carried maximum sentences of life in prison, while the prostitution accusations may now put Combs away for up to 20 years.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies
Care home deaths felt like a 'cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society', the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard as Matt Hancock defended his handling of an 'impossible' situation. There were tense exchanges as the former health secretary returned to give evidence to the wide-ranging probe, this time focused on the adult social care sector. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting to breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, responded to an accusation he had 'blatantly lied about the situation with care homes'. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously called the phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. The inquiry has heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. On Wednesday, remarks were read to the inquiry from an anonymous witness, who accused Mr Hancock of not being heartfelt or having a proper understanding of the situation care homes were in during the pandemic. Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC, who gave no further information on the person's identity or their role, said: 'One person in particular said 'He (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society'.' Mr Hancock said he felt it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats' – a term used to describe a verbal attack. He added: 'I've been through everything that we did as a department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' He said the emphasis was on ''tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted'. He added that he and others were 'trying to do everything that we possibly could' in 'bleak circumstances' at a time when 'I also had (former government adviser) Dominic Cummings and a load of people causing all sorts of problems for me, and I had Covid'. Elsewhere in his evidence, Mr Hancock – who said one of his own relatives died in a care home but did not give further details – acknowledged the policy around discharging patients from hospital into care homes early in the pandemic was an 'incredibly contentious issue'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. The High Court ruled in 2022 that government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about the policy, Mr Hancock said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. He added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' He said while the policy had been a government decision, it had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. Asked about March 17 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE (personal protective equipment) into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. Mr Hancock's statement, referred to during Wednesday's hearing, said while there had been 'widespread concern' that patients being discharged from hospital were the main source of infection in care homes, 'we learned in the summer of 2020 that staff movement between care homes was the main source of transmission'. He told the inquiry he had wanted to bring in a ban on staff movement between care homes but that being unable to secure funding from the Treasury to compensate affected workers was a 'killer blocker' so it did not happen. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson and Lord Stevens. When asked about when visits to care homes were banned, which led to some people unable to be with their loved ones when they died, Mr Hancock said: 'Some of the things people went through are truly ghastly.' He said while visiting restrictions 'are a reasonable measure', there should be more 'nuance' in future. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Hearings for module six of the inquiry, focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK, are expected to run until the end of July.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nikita Hand's lawyer asks court to refer McGregor appeal affidavits to DPP
The Irish Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should examine affidavits making accusations against a woman who sued Conor McGregor, her lawyers have said, after the fighter decided to withdraw them from his appeal. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euros (about £206,000) in damages. Her lawyers have said she was disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims McGregor brought as part of his appeal that she did not have a chance to reply to in court before they were withdrawn. It related to affidavits from two former neighbours of Ms Hand which said she had been assaulted by her then-partner at around the same time of the incident at the hotel. On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal which would have introduced the new evidence into the proceedings – saying it would no longer be relying on the material. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn at a late basis. He said his client, who had denied accusations within the affidavits, had been 'put through the wringer yet again'. On Wednesday, Mr Gordon raised the matters again and asked the Court of Appeal to use its jurisdiction to refer matters to the DPP. He said the application on the affidavits had been made 'some months ago' and the material the proposed witnesses were due to raise had been 'published widely'. He said the court was aware of the 'scale of the accusations' made against his client, which he said were a series of 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' including that she had been lying. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation'. He said Ms Hand had described what was alleged as lies in her responding affidavit and that she should have been entitled for her opportunity to 'call this out in court'. He said his client had been disadvantaged by the application. Mr Gordon also said it amounted to discontinuation of part of the appeal and asked the court to add terms of the payment of costs to Ms Hand's side. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said that withdrawing the application did not amount to a discontinuation of proceedings and if Mr Gordon believed that a criminal investigation was necessary, it should be dealt with in that forum rather than the court. Speaking before Mr Gordon dealt substantively with the issue on Wednesday, Mr Mulholland said it was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. He said costs relating to this specific part of the appeal should be adjudicated within the final determination. He said he had no further comment to make on whether the matters should be referred to the DPP. The judges expressed concern that dealing with the materials relating to the affidavits created a risk of prejudicing any potential criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, the appeal, which has yet to be decided, had proceeded on other grounds largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation.
