In that case, HCW could just say 'we have evidence'. The more ( what was the german word used?- mehr?) Is what strikes me as interestingMore 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 interestingMore details than has been reported
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.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
What was the reason for GNR to be speaking with her?
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
Thank you.Because of the two women (mother and daughter) who had been robbed 100.000€ from home and suspected NF might be an accomplice.
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.
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.
So we have two hypotheses here:The crime was on November 1, 2007.
Sorry cannot find it now. I'll check in the morning! Thanks!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!
OMG!! 3 years !! and suspended sentences! no justice at allFound 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
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?
I'm wondering if these two points could actually be referring to the same thing: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.
Agreed, likewise anything left behind by the abductor.Buggie, the parents alleged that nothing else was taken from 5A. Anything broken would be forensic evidence.
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.
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
You mean for the theft of 100.000 eurosJust for the record, GNR paper shown yesterday on "Sexta às 9" @29.17 states NF was heard on November 14, 2007.
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.)