Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[C.greek]

Yes, as a witness you have to turn up for the subpoena. As a suspect you do not have to turn up for a simple identity check, subpoenas or other interrogations.

So maybe CB hasn't turned up on 1st, according to a previous letter he got, so police strategically classified him as a witness in the abduction case MM, so he had to follow the subpoena.

So he must have been in focus before and didn't follow the previous subpoena.

I read somewhere -I think in tedtinks' link- that the law changed in 2017 making it mandatory to turn up as a witness? If I understood it correctly then this means he wouldn't have been obliged to turn up before?

So, it makes sense: he was first asked to go for a check on the 1st - which he didn't do and then according to the law they issued him with a summons as a witness where they had to notify him of what exactly that entailed, hence the reference to MM.
The supervisor of the official who sent this letter said that he was not aware that this letter was sent to CB.... and that he thinks this was a mistake. Can find a link.

Eta found the link Madeleine McCann suspect won’t speak to detectives until they show ‘proof’ – Metro

 

[mrjitty]

So apart from this summons in germany was he also interviewed in portugal?

 

[enjy15]

It is possible but then why did he go to such elaborate lengths long-term to solidify his claims? This from 24/10/07



And this from the PJ files -

The MM comment about how she was laying on top of the covers that night, the photograph of the room that night shows the covers pulled back? MM could have been scared and hiding underneath the covers?

 

[C.greek]

So apart from this summons in germany was he also interviewed in portugal?

In 2008 i read somewhere

 

[mrjitty]

I think the chat with JW happened after GM had already checked the apartment.

Yes - it is one of the few firm evidential markers. They met each other by chance and chatted, so we have the conversation reported from both witnesses. Also neither saw JT.

 

[mrjitty]

Ah yes, just reread his statement, I think you are right

Jeremy Wilkins statement 7/5/07, 8/4/08 and 5/11/0

It's interesting to speculate how the prosecution will establish the evidential context in any prosecution of CB

Not sure if Germany differs in any material way from the UK, but one thing that was drummed into us for the bar qualification, is that the prosecution must lay out and prove every element of the Actus Reus and especially any material facts that it intends to rely on.

Especially stuff can't simply be assumed, though it can be inferred.

In practical terms if HCWs case is that as a first step, CB abducted MM between GM's check and KM's check, you'd need witnesses or other evidence of at least the following.

1. MM was put in her bed that night (only KM can give this evidence?)
2. She was still in her bed after 9pm (GM evidence?)
3. MM was gone at 10pm (only KM can give this evidence?)
4. Corroborating witnesses - e.g. JW

Even if HCW can't place CB in 5A - it would be possible to infer it, based on other evidence (e.g he had something only an abductor could have). But you can't infer where MM was and wasn't - that has to bounded by direct evidence.

So at least if this trial was in the UK, i think the parents would need to appear as witnesses.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes, as a witness you have to turn up for the subpoena. As a suspect you do not have to turn up for a simple identity check, subpoenas or other interrogations.

So maybe CB hasn't turned up on 1st, according to a previous letter he got, so police strategically classified him as a witness in the abduction case MM, so he had to follow the subpoena.

So he must have been in focus before and didn't follow the previous subpoena.

Doesn't this kind of explode the first HCW narrative that he came in to focus a couple of years ago after his friend reported a confession?

He seems to have been in focus variously in 2008 (PJ) but then certainly by 2013? Before the so-called confession?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Doesn't this kind of explode the first HCW narrative that he came in to focus a couple of years ago after his friend reported a confession?

He seems to have been in focus variously in 2008 (PJ) but then certainly by 2013? Before the so-called confession?

I assume, that we are talking about different kinds of a focus in here.

Can't tell what PJ led to investigate CB in 2008.

In 2013 there has been a tip off after an e-fit was shown at AKTENZEICHEN XY. That tip off has been handed over to BKA and BKA must have ordered the Braunschweig police office to check, if that in Braunschweig located CB could be the person, that has been related to the tip off. There should be many people with that name in germany. It's a usual name here.

There is no info about what happened to the investigation after november 2013, except the charge of molesting the little girl.

In 2015/2016 CB came into focus of IG, but has been ruled out very soon, because of his mobile phone tracking, that didn't match the time and place in Stendal, where and when IG vanished. But the investigation led to the findings at neuwegersleben around 2015/2016.

In 2017 he came into focus of BKA in the MM case again, after an OG tip off, that should be related to Helge B's testimony maybe.

Since 2018, Braunschweig prosecuters had been ordered to investigate against CB, because his last known adress was there.

So why did they kept him in focus since 2017? There must be clues, that can be related to something, that has to do with MM.

His criminal past, HB's testimony, the mobile data that has been "encrypted" by german prosecuters and places CB to PDL on may 3rd and at last a rape sentence with a modus operandi, that maybe can be linked to special practises found on the material he dug in neuwegersleben or has been found in Braunschweig?!

By connecting all of these dots and correlations, i would assume that from 2017 the prosecuters could build up some kind of stronger verdict, than maybe before that time.

Most interesting to me is, that it's not known what clues or evidences had been brought up, between 2018 and june of 2020. There must be something, that makes them believe, that the child is dead and CB killed it. HCW confirmed it in the 60 Minutes broadcast.

So it isn't the "paedochat-confession" and maybe also no footage, that has been found at Neuwegersleben.

We'll see...

 

[Victoria Chambers]

Is it true then that HB relayed information to LE 'of the crime scene that only the guilty party would know of'?? If that is the case, since all LE do keep something back, always.. is that not enough to never give up on those in question? The pressure needs to be on HB if anybody.. CB would not have confessed to him, told specifics from the scene But not told him of who his accomplice was, if at all he had 1. If all's there is is a phone ping from hours before the actual crime took place AND 1 man, namely HB, knowing info of the crime scene as it were, then I know who I would be working on for sure! X

 

[C.greek]

I assume, that we are talking about different kinds of a focus in here.

Can't tell what PJ led to investigate CB in 2008.

In 2013 there has been a tip off after an e-fit was shown at AKTENZEICHEN XY. That tip off has been handed over to BKA and BKA must have ordered the Braunschweig police office to check, if that in Braunschweig located CB could be the person, that has been related to the tip off. There should be many people with that name in germany. It's a usual name here.

There is no info about what happened to the investigation after november 2013, except the charge of molesting the little girl.

In 2015/2016 CB came into focus of IG, but has been ruled out very soon, because of his mobile phone tracking, that didn't match the time and place in Stendal, where and when IG vanished. But the investigation led to the findings at neuwegersleben around 2015/2016.

In 2017 he came into focus of BKA in the MM case again, after an OG tip off, that should be related to Helge B's testimony maybe.

Since 2018, Braunschweig prosecuters had been ordered to investigate against CB, because his last known adress was there.

So why did they kept him in focus since 2017? There must be clues, that can be related to something, that has to do with MM.

His criminal past, HB's testimony, the mobile data that has been "encrypted" by german prosecuters and places CB to PDL on may 3rd and at last a rape sentence with a modus operandi, that maybe can be linked to special practises found on the material he dug in neuwegersleben or has been found in Braunschweig?!

By connecting all of these dots and correlations, i would assume that from 2017 the prosecuters could build up some kind of stronger verdict, than maybe before that time.

Most interesting to me is, that it's not known what clues or evidences had been brought up, between 2018 and june of 2020. There must be something, that makes them believe, that the child is dead and CB killed it. HCW confirmed it in the 60 Minutes broadcast.

So it isn't the "paedochat-confession" and maybe also no footage, that has been found at Neuwegersleben.

We'll see...

Why not footage? The processing of all this material as many have suggested here would take a very long time.

Could the 2008 questioning be due(if it actually happened of course) to HB tipping off the LE? (As HB said himself or was it MS?) If we want to believe that though...

 

[Victoria Chambers]

Why not footage? The processing of all this material as many have suggested here would take a very long time.

Could the 2008 questioning be due(if it actually happened of course) to HB tipping off the LE? (As HB said himself or was it MS?) If we want to believe that though...

I think any type of footage would require a positive identification from next of kin/family before LE would admit to having it of MM. LE would not risk tying any footage to CB only for the family to turn around and say it isn't her- especially given that CB had footage of more than 1 youngster. In fact, LE will have to get to work on trying to identify as many of the victims as possible X

 

[Anxala]

I appreciate we all have our own opinions here, and I have no wish to argue with anyone, just to express my own opinion.

I have every sympathy with MMS parents, it’s incomprehensible what they have endured....however I have watched GM describe his last sighting of MM and never been convinced. It’s always struck me as aspirational, like if that was my last time looking in on her sleeping, that is what I would want to remember.

I completely appreciate your chain of thought on this, Peanut, but if he didn't actually see her (eg. just listened at the half-open door, heard nothing, had a pee, left 5A) then that potentially opens up a much bigger gap than allegedly was available to an alleged intruder.

It's a crucial component of the investigation, the last known and confirmed sighting. It should be questioned because if found to be false, it changes the landscape significantly.

 

[C.greek]

I completely appreciate your chain of thought on this, Peanut, but if he didn't actually see her (eg. just listened at the half-open door, heard nothing, had a pee, left 5A) then that opens a much bigger gap than allegedly was available to an alleged intruder.

It's a crucial component of the investigation, the last known and confirmed sighting. It should be questioned because if found to be false, it changes the landscape significantly.

Why are we questioning this last sighting? Didn't GM also use the loo once in the apartment? To me this sounds like he spent some time in the apartment, not a rushed checking in.

 

[Anxala]

Why are we questioning this last sighting? Didn't GM also use the loo once in the apartment? To me this sounds like he spent some time in the apartment, not a rushed checking in.

Because he subsequently over-egged the pudding.

All he ever needed to say was that he saw MM sleeping in her bed when he did his check.

 

[axelcruze]

Because he subsequently over-egged the pudding.

All he ever needed to say was that he saw MM sleeping in her bed when he did his check.

Maybe their testimonies will come back to bite them, rather than appear all professional and uptight and nice middle class polite Brits, just tell the effin truth for the record. Expecting Police to pick up pieces of misleading info. And here's a debate about the case 13 years on 12 million quid later... we all just want it solved

 

[C.greek]

Because he subsequently over-egged the pudding.

All he ever needed to say was that he saw MM sleeping in her bed when he did his check.

Did he?

 

[C.greek]

Maybe their testimonies will come back to bite them, rather than appear all professional and uptight and nice middle class polite Brits, just tell the effin truth for the record. Expecting Police to pick up pieces of misleading info. And here's a debate about the case 13 years on 12 million quid later... we all just want it solved

I am sure the parents want this more than anyone of us. IMO he would have said by now whether he saw her or not. In a state of extreme stress and fear and deep sadness and confusion it is the job of the detectives and the police together with psychologists to get to the truth. The onus is not on the victims and in this case it appears the parents are victims as well. They took their daughter! Psychologists should be able to help the parents remember all details.

 

[MENDEL]

Because he subsequently over-egged the pudding.

All he ever needed to say was that he saw MM sleeping in her bed when he did his check.

Everything would be much easier if everybody told the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[Anxala]

Maybe their testimonies will come back to bite them, rather than appear all professional and uptight and nice middle class polite Brits, just tell the effin truth for the record. Expecting Police to pick up pieces of misleading info. And here's a debate about the case 13 years on 12 million quid later... we all just want it solved

^ That's at the absolute crux of my arguments here.

The PJ were absolutely slaughtered (and continue to this day to be slaughtered and ridiculed) by the English media in particular, for the direction in which their investigation went, with no concession whatsoever or allowance for the 'ambiguity' of the information they were presented with at the time and which they were obliged to work with.

It really concerned me back in 2007 and it still really concerns me now.

 

[Ardoch]

Sorry, nothing to add, trying to keep up and marking my place!