Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #19

[C.greek]

More details than has been reported

In that case, HCW could just say 'we have evidence'. The more ( what was the german word used?- mehr?) Is what strikes me as interesting

 

[haden]

In that case, HCW could just say 'we have evidence'. The more ( what was the german word used?- mehr?) Is what strikes me as interesting

No, he said several times they had evidence that they cannot disclose. Sandra kept trying to clarify some details but that was beyond what HCW was prepared to disclose.

 

[MENDEL]

What was the reason for GNR to be speaking with her?

Because of the two women (mother and daughter) who had been robbed 100.000€ from home and suspected NF might be an accomplice.

 

[MENDEL]

In that case, HCW could just say 'we have evidence'. The more ( what was the german word used?- mehr?) Is what strikes me as interesting

C.greek can you post at what time in footage HCW said that? It will make it easier to discuss. I recall that but must hear again full context.

 

[haden]

Because of the two women (mother and daughter) who had been robbed 100.000€ from home and suspected NF might be an accomplice.

Thank you.
CB was broke after coming out of prison, sometimes at the beginning of 2007
MM disappeared in May 2007
I assume this big robbery was sometimes in September 2007.
SF claims he got 36 K from this robbery.
This could mean he did not get anything from MMs disappearance and HCW could be right.
Unless Sandra is right, that this was a group work and in this case, if everything was organised by NF then CB was a small figure in all this and he got peanuts.

 

[MENDEL]

I think this would be the next on their agenda thanks to SF. Unless Germans are protecting NF for some reason and don't suspect her at all.

IMHO that's too naïve. Herr Wolters will almost certainly be questioned in court why he chooses some crimes allegedly committed by CB to investigate and ignores other alleged crimes. Deutsches Strafgesetzbuch doesn't grant him such discretionary power.

ETA: from interview it seems Herr Wolters isn't aware of that crime and he looks convinced SF is talking about a crime tried in Portugal.

 

[MENDEL]

Thank you.
CB was broke after coming out of prison, sometimes at the beginning of 2007
MM disappeared in May 2007
I assume this big robbery was sometimes in September 2007.
SF claims he got 36 K from this robbery.
This could mean he did not get anything from MMs disappearance and HCW could be right.
Unless Sandra is right, that this was a group work and in this case, if everything was organised by NF then CB was a small figure in all this and he got peanuts.

The big robbery was on November 1, 2007.

 

[haden]

The crime was on November 1, 2007.

So we have two hypotheses here:
HCWs: CB acted alone, did not financially profit from MMs disappearance
SFs: He acted as a part of a group with NFs being the possible mastermind.

It would be interesting to see who was right.

But it is interesting how SF compared the two crimes with a phone call prior to it and NF being in charge

 

[C.greek]

C.greek can you post at what time in footage HCW said that? It will make it easier to discuss. I recall that but must hear again full context.

Sorry cannot find it now. I'll check in the morning! Thanks!

 

[MENDEL]

Sorry cannot find it now. I'll check in the morning! Thanks!

No problem. I'll try and find I hope.

ETA:

@3.23

ETA2:

SF asked if they have evidence CB was ever inside 5A and media depicting him sexually attacking people and he says he can't tell. Next he says she must trust him that they have more (he said literally "that we have more", which would be better translated IMO as "that we have more than that"). So that's vague and abstract and doesn't mean they're talking about any concrete piece of evidence. Also, his "you must" (well translated) means she has no alternative as he won't disclose what she's asking for.

 

[snowpea666]

Found this when I googled Bernard Alapetite. We know NF was involved in production. Could there be a connection? I wouldn’t rule it out.
Wednesday, 10 May, 2000, 14:16 GMT 15:16 UK
Child *advertiser censored* ring leader jailed

The leader of a child *advertiser censored* ring has been jailed in France's biggest paedophile trial.
Bernard Alapetite, 47, who was charged with organising the paedophile ring, was sentenced to three years in jail by the court in Macon, south western France.

He copied foreign child sex videos, featuring rapes of boys aged under 15, and sold them for 800 francs ($120) each.

The court gave suspended sentences of between two and six months to more than 40 men found guilty of possessing the videos. Nine were found not guilty.

An accomplice of Paris publishing house boss Alapetite was given a four-month suspended sentence, and two filmmakers were fined.



BBC News | EUROPE | Child *advertiser censored* ring leader jailed

OMG!! 3 years !! and suspended sentences! no justice at all

 

[Loobyloo]

And this is something that hasn't been shared publically and that they don't need to ask Madeleine's parents if it was true.
I wonder what that is?

This was from one of the 'confessions', wasn't it? (Either in a bar or at a festival) That he had supposedly mentioned some detail that 'only the perpetrator would know'?
Perhaps this simply means 'only the perpetrator, not the person reporting his confession' would know that detail. So it needn't be something very mysterious, just something the reporting person couldn't have picked up easily from the foreign press. The British public probably know far more detail (from our tabloids' obsession with the case) than one of CB's random acquaintances - who may not even read English - would be familiar with.

 

[Loobyloo]

Agreed. I think someone who is speaking to LE about CB is aware of something which was taken or done in the apartment. Something known to the abductor and LE, but not yet in the public domain.

I'm wondering if these two points could actually be referring to the same thing:
A. Evidence placing CB in the apartment (this has only recently been mentioned by Wolters)
B. The bar/festival confession including a detail only the perpetrator would know (this was first mentioned quite a long time ago)

ETA:
But if A & B are different, then perhaps A involves re-examination of the DNA profile from evidence originally found & dismissed? (I think it was saliva on the bed covering.)

 

[Newthoughts]

Buggie, the parents alleged that nothing else was taken from 5A. Anything broken would be forensic evidence.

Agreed, likewise anything left behind by the abductor.

I think if anything had been taken the public would have been asked to look out for it as it would be a very useful lead.

Likewise any distinguishing features MM had, such as her eye, would surely also be in the public domain given the requests to look for her.

So it's an odd statement indeed

 

[Okapi]

I wonder if he took her swimming costume? Swimming costumes would likely be draped over a chair or balcony to dry.

If anything was taken from the apartment it's quite plausible that this hasn't been made public in order to verify the abductor. Just musing.

I know the last pic of MBM was taken at the pool that afternoon. She's in shorts and a tee shirt. However, the kids may have been in the pool earlier that afternoon or in the previous days and the costumes/bathers were probably hung up to dry.

Interestingly I haven't seen any photos of the children/family in the pool or in their swimming costumes afterwards (holiday pics here in Australia usually feature picnics/ice creams on the beach with the whole family in bathers and towels). And now I'm querying if the absence is significant. But all JMOO. I think I'm starting to dig round in circles while we wait for anything to be confirmed by LE...

Timeline: the day Madeleine McCann disappeared

 

[mrjitty]

Herr Wolters is not a very chatty guy. He answers strictly according to questions. IMO no safe inference can be done that things are anything different from his interview aired yesterday.

Yeah - I am not convinced by any approach trying to micro-analyse small differences in answers.

When he has something genuinely new to say, then he says it. But let's face it - we are not very far on from the day this all started, other than a bunch of tabloid reporting which can't be trusted.

 

[mrjitty]

So we have two hypotheses here:
HCWs: CB acted alone, did not financially profit from MMs disappearance
SFs: He acted as a part of a group with NFs being the possible mastermind.

It would be interesting to see who was right.

But it is interesting how SF compared the two crimes with a phone call prior to it and NF being in charge

I know who my money would be on

 

[Chiatos]

Just for the record, GNR paper shown yesterday on "Sexta às 9" @29.17 states NF was heard on November 14, 2007.

You mean for the theft of 100.000 euros

 

[Chiatos]

The investigators know that the other phone number that called CB's number on May 3rd, was not located anywhere near the OC;
this number is not present between the 7000 numbers that were located near the OC.

 

[MENDEL]

I'm wondering if these two points could actually be referring to the same thing:
A. Evidence placing CB in the apartment (this has only recently been mentioned by Wolters)
B. The bar/festival confession including a detail only the perpetrator would know (this was first mentioned quite a long time ago)

ETA:
But if A & B are different, then perhaps A involves re-examination of the DNA profile from evidence originally found & dismissed? (I think it was saliva on the bed covering.)

Loobyloo, if you don't mind I'd like to make a correction on point A for accurateness:

A. Evidence placing CB in apartment (this has only recently been mentioned by SF).​

It was SF who asked that and Herr Wolters didn't answer. That's when he tell her she must trust they have more.

ETA:

• SF: Till now you don't have any forensic evidence that allows you to put CB inside the flat where's MM was sleeping? (literal transcription)
• HCW: I have an answer but we decided not to disclose those details because we decided not to disclose it. So I can't say yes or no because that would attract thousands of questions. (translation)

[We cannot even make any inference from his answer as we know either a YES (they have evidence putting CB inside) or a NO (they have no such evidence) would bring as many questions]

@2.58