Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[tedtink]

How can you trust GA?
How can you trust a policeman who has apparently used physical force to force a statement by parents who have lost their child? Cipriani.
How can you trust a policeman who writes a book within one(?) year about an ongoing investigation? That's far from ethical.
His best friend buddy-colleague has been convicted as a dirty cop. According to this best friend-colleague, MM wandered off by herself and disappeared in the streets of pdl.
I don't trust GA one bit. And FF hinting that the McC's received helped from someone to clear up the traces. For crying out loud.

HCW speaks of murder. No accident, plain murder.

Jeez - you've really taken my post seriously haven't you

 

[redplanet]

"some evidence that he killed MM but I am not able to say on what day exactly"
at 11:50 in podcast
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

 

[Dlk79]

How can you trust GA?
How can you trust a policeman who has apparently used physical force to force a statement by parents who have lost their child? Cipriani.
How can you trust a policeman who writes a book within one(?) year about an ongoing investigation? That's far from ethical.
His best friend buddy-colleague has been convicted as a dirty cop. According to this best friend-colleague, MM wandered off by herself and disappeared in the streets of pdl.
I don't trust GA one bit. And FF hinting that the McC's received helped from someone to clear up the traces. For crying out loud.

HCW speaks of murder. No accident, plain murder.

I don't think Ted was implying any trust in GA. She was just pointing out the point that GA and FF had come to the conclusion of an accidental death in 5a and that possibly that conclusion might not have been entirely wrong (albeit the wrong perpetrator in their view). We dont know exactly why they came to that thinking (other than the dogs), it could be they know something of the crime scene event that we don't.

 

[Dlk79]

DBM

 

[C.greek]

I don't think Ted was implying any trust in GA. She was just pointing out the point that GA and FF had come to the conclusion of an accidental death in 5a and that possibly that conclusion might not have been entirely wrong (albeit the wrong perpetrator in their view). We dont know exactly why they came to that thinking (other than the dogs), it could be they know something of the crime scene event that we don't.

From what I've understood everything about the case has been written by GA in his book ( at least his view) and how he came to that conclusion. I think the idea of an accident was based on the dogs and no other evidence for external people being in the apartment.

 

[C.greek]

"some evidence that he killed MM but I am not able to say on what day exactly"
at in podcast

Meaning the 3rd before midnight or early on the 4th possibly?

 

[redplanet]

Meaning the 3rd before midnight or early on the 4th possibly?

HCW does not qualify what days he means, so I don't know. It can be heard at 11:50 in 'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

 

[tedtink]

From what I've understood everything about the case has been written by GA in his book ( at least his view) and how he came to that conclusion. I think the idea of an accident was based on the dogs and no other evidence for external people being in the apartment.

I haven't read his book C.Greek, but would like to read it - Not that I'm a fan (better make that clear) but would be interesting to evaluate it.

 

[MENDEL]

How can you trust GA?
How can you trust a policeman who has apparently used physical force to force a statement by parents who have lost their child? Cipriani.
How can you trust a policeman who writes a book within one(?) year about an ongoing investigation? That's far from ethical.
His best friend buddy-colleague has been convicted as a dirty cop. According to this best friend-colleague, MM wandered off by herself and disappeared in the streets of pdl.
I don't trust GA one bit. And FF hinting that the McC's received helped from someone to clear up the traces. For crying out loud.

HCW speaks of murder. No accident, plain murder.

Perhaps in the sake of justice that needs some repairs.

As far as I know his book wasn't released before the "processo" files were made public and so any ethical concerns are excluded.

It's never been proved GA used such force against them.

GA isn't responsible for his colleague's acts or opinions.

You're free to trust whoever you like. I trust some people but I don't follow personality cults as I've been disappointed enough when I did it in the past.

 

[MENDEL]

I haven't read his book C.Greek, but would like to read it - Not that I'm a fan (better make that clear) but would be interesting to evaluate it.

It's hard to make a sound investigation of MM's disappearance and ignore his book (even if read on the sly as some people think reading a book reveals any indoctrination).

 

[C.greek]

I haven't read his book C.Greek, but would like to read it - Not that I'm a fan (better make that clear) but would be interesting to evaluate it.

Oh absolutely, one needs to read as much as possible. This wouldn't make you a GA fan, nor an anti-MC. GA presents his view and forms an opinion based on the evidence he collected and/or selected. It's not an art in itself, nor is it academic writing, have only read excerpts myself.

 

[Newthoughts]

I'm sorry to be potentially difficult here but we do not know that for a fact at all. All the objective evidence at the time suggests that neither the blinds not the window had been opened from the outside or tampered with.

And people entering the apartment after the discovery of the missing child and seeing an open window is not proof of an open window.

I'm not pointing this out to be provocative or to point towards a personal theory, just to point out that there's just no evidence to suggest that an abductor came through the window of the room in which MM was sleeping.

Ah thanks. I think I'm getting confused because there have been many long discussions about the window. I can't see why he would necessarily have chosen a window knowing doors were open.

 

[Newthoughts]

Is this actually a fact?

Because to date, I have seen no evidence to support it.

I will alter my statement to clarify what I meant.

It is an incontrovertible fact that MM disappeared that night. LE believe she was taken rather than leaving of her own volition. If they are correct - all evidence points to somebody taking her - because she is no longer there. Regardless of motive.

So I'm pointing out that all discussions about the difficulties of taking her and likelihoods of being stopped are moot because it has happened.

 

[Newthoughts]

The reason we don't allow that kind of evidence at trial is because it is a logical fallacy

So in terms of CB's guilt, we need to wait for something that connects him to the crime.

His known offences, in no way establish that

Agreed but this is not a trial it's a response to somebody postulating possible what if scenarios about the person forwarded as the main suspect by forwarding other potential scenarios. It's an opinion based on what we now know of him, the crime scene, stats about other crimes and opinions on human behavior

In a trial only evidence that can link CB to the act beyond all reasonable doubt is needed.

 

[Quietey]

Regarding the window - a couple of possibilities going though my mind, not sure if these have been raised before or discounted:

• If the perpetrator had been in the apartment on a previous night the window and shutters had could have been tampered with then, ie left easy to open without it being obvious. Not necessarily as part of any thought-out plan, just giving the option for repeat entry. The same could have been done by any accomplice perhaps working for the OC
• On the night that MM disappeared the perpetrator could have deliberately left the window open to confuse everyone and give time - no one would know which direction to start looking in first.
• Or could have opened it on entering the apartment to give an alternative escape route in case needed, or to disguise the fact that they were still in the apartment. Even to air the place of any odours.

I also wonder if there was a sort of network of petty criminals in the area - eg I was in xx today, back window catch is broken if you're interested - literally leaving the door open for someone else, just as an option. (I once walked through town with an ex neighbour who had a serious drug problem - I was amazed at the number of people who came out of the woodwork and made comments to him about which shops there might be opportunities to steal from that day, that was a real eye-opener).

 

[redplanet]

I can't find any research studies at all, at post-mortem intervals (PMI) of less than half an hour. Therefore IMO it is unknown, whether detectability may be possible at such short PMI. HCW presumably has colleagues in the BKA who work extensively with similar dogs, whom he might consult on this subject?

 

[redplanet]

IF very hypothetically detectability were to occur at very short PMI <<30mins then the brit dog results would possibly become interesting directly in the context of the BKA intruder=perpetrator theory IMO.

 

[snowpea666]

"some evidence that he killed MM but I am not able to say on what day exactly"
at 11:50 in podcast
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

So could that be pics or vid footage, they just don't know when it happened! IF this is what he is saying that could rule out murder in the apartment possibly, as if it was in the apartment they would know when she died? They would be able to eliminate it by the surroundings, even the little things.

 

[redplanet]

Regarding the window - a couple of possibilities going though my mind, not sure if these have been raised before or discounted:

• If the perpetrator had been in the apartment on a previous night the window and shutters had could have been tampered with then, ie left easy to open without it being obvious. Not necessarily as part of any thought-out plan, just giving the option for repeat entry. The same could have been done by any accomplice perhaps working for the OC
• On the night that MM disappeared the perpetrator could have deliberately left the window open to confuse everyone and give time - no one would know which direction to start looking in first.
• Or could have opened it on entering the apartment to give an alternative escape route in case needed, or to disguise the fact that they were still in the apartment. Even to air the place of any odours.

I also wonder if there was a sort of network of petty criminals in the area - eg I was in xx today, back window catch is broken if you're interested - literally leaving the door open for someone else, just as an option. (I once walked through town with an ex neighbour who had a serious drug problem - I was amazed at the number of people who came out of the woodwork and made comments to him about which shops there might be opportunities to steal from that day, that was a real eye-opener).

Some guests would assume, that if the shutter was down, it was totally secure. Therefore they would not check whether the window was latched or not. And unlatched=burglarizable. This was true for example in another flat of this group of people where at least one window was not latched.

 

[redplanet]

So could that be pics or vid footage, they just don't know when it happened! IF this is what he is saying that could rule out murder in the apartment possibly, as if it was in the apartment they would know when she died? They would be able to eliminate it by the surroundings, even the little things.

Yes I see what you mean, but IMO that pic/vid might be created either during (at the crime location), or after (at a later location)