Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #19

[mrjitty]

Of course those pics would never be leaked to the press. My opinion is that PJ and SY are interested parties to the case and so if Herr Wolters admits he has such pictures, both LE can request them judicially for their prosecutions. He seems to be facing many dilemmas and this is perhaps one of them.

This is yet another reason why i find it unbelievable they exist. Why would Germany let two other jurisdictions carry on in a wild goose chase without at least telling them what they had? (even if they did not share them)

 

[mrjitty]

IMO. Taking into account what we know so far, that the evidence is not enough but is like a puzzle, I think that HCW could have:
- Photos or video of Maddie alive in the previous hours or days with CB acting as in the abuses that we already know.
- CB confessions to accomplices, ex-girlfriends and /or cellmates (IMO more than one).
- Evidence that he was the one who robbed the other Ocean Club apartments (a phone, a camera, an identifiable watch that he took to the box factory or Ausburg and that it belonged to the victims of those robberies) and perhaps someone who identified CB hanging around the Ocean Club in the previous days.
- His mobile phone in the area that day (BKA may have also found that cell phone in the box factory).
- Confirmation that he lied when summoned in 2013 and evidence that he fabricated an alibi.
- Internet chats very similar to reality.

Agree on all

IMO
If HCW had CB's pictures of Maddie dead or dying it would be enough to press charges.

100%

Photos or video of Maddie alive (on the beach or in the OC taking advantage of a distraction from parents or staff) would make CB the prime suspect and would justify the statements with the long pause from FF to Sandra Felgueiras.
I believe that the murder may be a deduction based on his profile, on his confessions and on the knowledge of what CB did the following hours and days.
IMO

Yep.

 

[MENDEL]

Yes and especially they had that one piece of evidence that placed the girl on his boat.

For me the inference of MM's death has never been the main problem on this case, if you can infer CB is the abductor. Night follows day. IMO the material evidence goes to abduction.

But can you prove that BARD - especially given the decision in the Lisbon trial? That is a gift to any defence team.

One hair is not enough evidence she died in the boat. May not even be enough evidence she was there. If you steal clothes from someone for instance likely there can be their hairs in your home.

 

[MENDEL]

This is yet another reason why i find it unbelievable they exist. Why would Germany let two other jurisdictions carry on in a wild goose chase without at least telling them what they had? (even if they did not share them)

The problem might be Herr Wolter's case is so weak he fears a competing investigation by PJ and SY would sink it forever. He seems to wish having the case in court before they can move. JMO.

 

[mrjitty]

One hair is not enough evidence she died in the boat. May not even be enough evidence she was there. If you steal clothes from someone for instance likely there can be their hairs in your home.

That is why the overall web of circumstantial evidence is what proves murder - by inference.

A water taxi driver confirmed

1. He delivered the teens to their boat late that night, but it was full
2. A man, on his own, offered the teens to sleep on his boat
3, He delivered the 3 of them to an unknown boat (but was confused about whether the boat was a sloop or a ketch)

Then

4. The teens were never seen again
5. All other boats were eliminated as to boats they might have been delivered to
6. The accused set sail early on NYD
7. Victims hair found on his boat
8. An anchor was missing
9. The accused was alone on his boat
10. He was seen out in deep water
11. He then changed the look of his boat (repainting)

etc etc

A photo of the victim, not seen for 13 years is like the hair on the boat. Brutally incriminating IMO.

This is why I think they don't have it, but rather, a witness account of something like that

 

[Dlk79]

Death is typically inferred from circumstantial evidence in no body cases.

So for example is you have evidence reinforcing the abduction / murder confession - you can infer death from there seeing as how MM is missing for 13 years

But proof BARD is a problem where the defence can point to competing theories from 2 other police forces

Anyway - I have outlined my hypothesis. Maybe we will find out more!

Maybe so, and HCW says there is lots of other evidence that points to CB being their man. But HCW also specifically states they have material evidence that is proof of MM's death. Therein lies the difference, material evidence and circumstantial evidence are not the same thing. Granted, it may not be material evidence that proves CB did it (it almost certainly doesn't), but he's talking specifically about proof of her being dead. "No margin for manoeuvre" is pretty absolute and the comments he make don't sound like they're based on second hand witness testimony.

The boat story you mention is interesting but it appears that conviction was clinched by forensic evidence (a hair) which HCW doesn't have. As Superdad mentioned, the key thing for them appears to be establishing proof that CB was on that phonecall on the 3rd. HCW has said that's what they want to issue an arrest warrant.

The other parts of the appeal seem focussed on locating the crime scene and where the body might have been disposed. The appeal for people who knew what the interior of his homes looked like is another indicator that they do have a video showing a location yet to be identified.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe so, and HCW says there is lots of other evidence that points to CB being their man. But HCW also specifically states they have material evidence that is proof of MM's death. Therein lies the difference, material evidence and circumstantial evidence are not the same thing. Granted, it may not be material evidence that proves CB did it (it almost certainly doesn't), but he's talking specifically about proof of her being dead. "No margin for manoeuvre" is pretty absolute and the comments he make don't sound like they're based on second hand witness testimony.

The boat story you mention is interesting but it appears that conviction was clinched by forensic evidence (a hair) which HCW doesn't have. As Superdad mentioned, the key thing for them appears to be establishing proof that CB was on that phonecall on the 3rd. HCW has said that's what they want to issue an arrest warrant.

The other parts of the appeal seem focussed on locating the crime scene and where the body might have been disposed. The appeal for people who knew what the interior of his homes looked like is another indicator that they do have a video showing a location yet to be identified.

Not wishing to go round the houses again on all this - but thanks for the discussion

I would note that there are only two broad types of evidence. Direct (witness) and circumstantial.

All forensic evidence is technically circumstantial evidence.

Whether "material evidence" means witness, or circumstantial or both, we don't know. My guess is both.

I think there is danger in trying to decipher one word. To me material means "relevant" and says nothing about what kind

 

[MENDEL]

"Relevant" is the minimal criteria for anything to be used in court. It can be any type of evidence. I think circumstantial evidence needs further inference, but not direct evidence. Direct evidence can be real (anything that can be seen) or testimonial. Material evidence is something undefined forensically (real evidence?).

 

[SuperdadV8]

"Es gebe mehrere Teile, die für den Verdächtigen Christian B, als Täter sprechen. „Wir wären nicht an die Öffentlichkeit gegangen, wenn wir uns nicht so sicher gewesen wären. Weil wir kein Interesse daran haben, den Eltern die Hoffnung zu nehmen, dass das Kind noch lebt", erklärt Wolters."

"There are several parts that speak for the suspect Christian B. as the perpetrator. We wouldn't go public, if we weren't so sure. Because we are not interested in robbing the parents of the hope that the child is still alive, Wolters relates."

Fall Maddie McCann: Staatsanwalt Wolters will Beweise für ihren Tod haben | Deutschland

So the prosecuters do not talk about the verdict, that the murder took place itself! They talk about their conviction, that they are investigating the person who did it.

 

[Dlk79]

Not wishing to go round the houses again on all this - but thanks for the discussion

I would note that there are only two broad types of evidence. Direct (witness) and circumstantial.

All forensic evidence is technically circumstantial evidence.

Whether "material evidence" means witness, or circumstantial or both, we don't know. My guess is both.

I think there is danger in trying to decipher one word. To me material means "relevant" and says nothing about what kind

I don't think either of us will convince the other of their theory until more becomes known.

While I understand how your version "might" be how a murder case could be established, it seems to contradict what HCW has actually said over the course of the last few months.

“The result of our investigation does not point in any way to the possibility the suspect might have kept Madeleine alive."

 

[Chiatos]

This is in Pj files , just with the talk of the blue van, does anyone know why this is documented ??

Snow could you place the link to this page in the PJfiles?
Haven't been able to find it up to now...
TIA!

 

[C.greek]

This is yet another reason why i find it unbelievable they exist. Why would Germany let two other jurisdictions carry on in a wild goose chase without at least telling them what they had? (even if they did not share them)

Germany has told them and the parents that MM is dead. This does not sound like a speculation nor an inference IMO.

 

[MENDEL]

Snow could you place the link to this page in the PJfiles?
Haven't been able to find it up to now...
TIA!

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2334.jpg
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2335.jpg
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2336.jpg

 

[mrjitty]

Germany has told them and the parents that MM is dead. This does not sound like a speculation nor an inference IMO.

Maybe this is overly technical because I an an ex-lawyer, but without the body, death will have to be by inference, based on circumstantial/direct evidence.

When you have the body, you can do an autopsy, and the evidence can be introduced directly by the witness into Court. i.e the victim is dead and how did s/he die. Nothing need be inferred.

Without a body, death will have to inferred by some other means.

Even if they have images of the victim alive, they will produce a witness who will identify. They will combine this with inference. In other words, no one saw the victim for another 13 years, therefore she was murdered.

Inference is nothing flakey - it is very much the foundation of establishing guilt from the evidence.

 

[Pixie Child]

like I said before, I really doubt they have pictures of MM dead. If they did have that, they would announce it. Alive is scarecely plausible IMO but dead? They would share that with the parents.

I think the photo/film needs to be produced before a Court with photographic & witness evidence from parents, arguments made & a ruling made by a Judge. It’s only then MM can be said to be dead.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't think either of us will convince the other of their theory until more becomes known.

While I understand how your version "might" be how a murder case could be established, it seems to contradict what HCW has actually said over the course of the last few months.

“The result of our investigation does not point in any way to the possibility the suspect might have kept Madeleine alive."

BIB

Agreed, because if abducted, the natural and obvious inference that the prosecution will invite any Court to reach is that she was murdered.

It is beyond obvious that CB has not been keeping MM alive all these years, and if he had, the evidential onus would be on the defence to establish

We certainly don't need photos of a body to prove that

 

[Pixie Child]

They're not supposed to pay him at all if you ask me!

They can recruit & pay snitches but that would have to be admitted in Court were HB to give evidence. More likely, they gave him expenses to stay in the hotel & he spent the money on drink.


He took a calculated risk admitting the 2008 crime of buying marijuana from CB before the expiry of the 10y period.

 

[mrjitty]

I think the photo/film needs to be produced before a Court with photographic & witness evidence from parents, arguments made & a ruling made by a Judge. It’s only then MM can be said to be dead.

Under UK/NZ law which I studied, the images would be exhibited, and a witness would introduce them/discuss them.

Germany may have procedural differences which I am not familiar with.

 

[MENDEL]

As a rule a dead body must be positively identified by some close person. I can't see it will any different with a picture or video footage. In case of a body, alternate ways can be used if there's no close person (fingerprints, teeth and so on). But perhaps with media only a close person can identify positively BARD.

 

[Pixie Child]

So why did he photograph her dead?

1 His own paraphilia had escalated to that point.

2. It had a value - either commercial or gave him access to dark web sites.

3. He needed to provide evidence to someone else.