Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[Anxala]

This sounds a bit passive aggressive unless I don't get the tone of the message right. There is no need to question this in this thread, is there?

Absolutely not passive aggressive and my apologies if it came across that way.

I just have a problem with the idea that 'ambiguities' from the past should now be discarded/set aside/ignored because they raise inconvenient questions.

 

[C.greek]

Personally I think it matters hugely - but it depends on how HCW intends to tie CB to the abduction

You have to consider what HCW will have to prove in terms of factual matrix. One of the things is that he will have to introduce evidence that MM was in fact in her bed sleeping. The defence case will be SODDI

So anything which opens up the opportunity for "Tannerman" to strike makes conviction harder, unless HCW has something post abduction which ties CB to MM

Can you please remind me what about the Tannerman it is that would/could cause problems? (I better check the files but I cannot easily do it on my phone)

 

[C.greek]

Absolutely not passive aggressive and my apologies if it came across that way.

I just have a problem with the idea that 'ambiguities' from the past should now be discarded/set aside/ignored because they raise inconvenient questions.

No worries, the problem with written speech.
I cannot understand where this doubt about GM checking on the kids and seeing MM comes from? Is it from his statements about what he thought of when he saw them/her?

I often catch myself thinking - when checking on my kids while they sleep -about how beautiful they are (even if they are snoring like my little one does now).

 

[peanutJelly]

It’s very much looking like the timings in this case are crucial. Reading through the files, there are so many conflicting statements on who was at the table and when, who checked and how diligent they were, and even the time that her disappearance was discovered. Wasn’t this why Portuguese LE wanted the tapas group to come back for a reconstruction as it would help to sort out the timeline? It’s all these discrepancies that FF can use to build his defence.
Remember that the tapas group were not worried about abduction, or the children walking off (unlocked doors), the main concern was the children waking up. So as an example if GM goes in for a wee, and it’s all quiet, then of course there’s a possibility he didn’t actually go into the bedroom and risk waking any of them up when his food was on it’s way. If this ends up with a trial then of course FF is going to do all he can to throw doubt on the timings and the statements, that’s his job.

If he can prove there’s a possibility MM was taken at a different time then it might not matter if he was on the phone nr the OC at that time....!

 

[snowpea666]

Definitely, I don't think they will go to court without solid evidence. What I originally thought about this forum was that we were supposed to 'help' the investigation, not doubt it. HCW has already said they have material evidence that CB is the perpetrator. They only need to place him at the exact point that night before possibly charging him. Whether GM saw MM at 9.05 does not appear to be something they are concerned with. And if he didn't see her what difference would it make to the charge? She was definitely put to bed that night.

Yes I agree, however, FF is saying that CB could not possibly have taken her due to the tiny time he would have had which is going to be one of his arguments, if GM spent a few mins less in the apartment than he says he did it would give a wider time frame for the abduction, so he could not use that as an argument, but if the timeline is almost perfect then it is what it is I guess IMO, so either they have evidence he was in 5a or indeed next to OC location will be hard to prove, CB did live in PDL so it would be normal for his phone to ping, I just pray the LE have as they say, concrete evidence

 

[Victoria Chambers]

In the case of LE having found evidence that links CB in person to MM, along with his phone ping Then why the matter of determining what time she was taken?? The Tapas group as a whole, largely tell the same story. The window of opportunity is at the very least, half an hour with an unattended apartment. I know the court system is complex but with evidence, would it not just be a case of ""We may never know at exactly what time MM was taken from her bed but what we do know is that she was taken. We also know from the evidence here presented, that MM was in yours CB possession in the time thereafter?? Honestly to me, if something can be explained as simply as that, then why complicate it all?? And, f indeed CB is innocent then there can be no evidence saying otherwise IMO. X

 

[Newthoughts]

I agree, many mistakes were made, we all make them, I think it is the fact we want the truth which will hopefully end in a conviction and some small justice for MM, the only reason this is in topic is FF saying 90 secs is all CB would have had to do the deed, we know the timeline was not 100% understandably, I would find it hard to tell you minute by minute what I did this afternoon!! never mind being chill, few glasses of vino then something so horrendous happening, FF however is saying no way could his client do this in that time! very frustrating indeed.

I agree.

Am I correct in assuming that we think (tho obviously don't know) that this 90 second window has come from FF claiming to be able to place CB elsewhere at a relevant time by phone pings.

If yes then the timings are crucial. GM was the last person to see MM sometime before 9.15 as per JWs statement - that he spoke to him sometime before that. If correct that would give CB at least 45 minutes - probably more given the 30 minute window of time given by JW for that conversation happening (sometime between 8.45 and 9.15)

Yet FF is claiming he only had 90 seconds. If GM didn't actually see MM but assumed as all was quiet things were fine - that could move the timeline further back. If GMs timing is out and the we go to the earliest point in JWs statement - 8.45 - that 90 second window increases.

There is no way in Earth that they'd have left their kids if they thought there was the remotest chance they'd be abducted. So the checks were never going to be about whether the kids were there and, as the guy before said, you could just look into the room. You wouldn't see MMs bed

If he'd told KM all was well and he'd seen everyone when he got back from that visit - it would be hard in the shock of the moment to change it?

Or, possibly more likely, timing was way off and he saw her earlier. Every minute off that he is adds to the 90 seconds window

 

[Chiatos]

FF mentioned the 90 secs and a distance of 6 km.
Could it be that CB's next ping was at 6 km from the OC?
So between half past 7 and 8 o' clock, the phone was near/at the OC.

Say that at 21.30(?) the phone's next ping was at a spot at 6 km from the OC. That would leave CB 90 secs after 21.15 for the abduction.
If CB would have taken Maddie at 21.16/21.17 -> then his phone could not have pinged at -for instance- at 21.30, 6 km further up.

 

[MENDEL]

FF mentioned the 90 secs and a distance of 6 km.
Could it be that CB's next ping was at 6 km from the OC?
So between half past 7 and 8 o' clock, the phone was near/at the OC.

Say that at 21.30(?) the phone's next ping was at a spot at 6 km from the OC. That would leave CB 90 secs after 21.15 for the abduction.
If CB would have taken Maddie at 21.16/21.17 -> then his phone could not have pinged at -for instance- at 21.30, 6 km further up.

The problem here is that we're aware of one ping only (more correctly a call log from 7.31pm to 8.01pm) within OC coverage. But FF looks to have more pings than that. If so, as data is hardly recoverable after 13 years (a law passed in 2008 transcribing an European directive enforced destruction after 1 year unless by court order), then FF must have in hand an investigation about his mobile locations. From the ping known to us it's impossible to tell where CB might be within relevant time frame, that is from 8.01 until almost 10pm.

 

[mrjitty]

Can you please remind me what about the Tannerman it is that would/could cause problems? (I better check the files but I cannot easily do it on my phone)

Simply that the defence can claim Tannerman is the real abductor, and it certainly helps their case that this was the major theory of the case for so many years.

 

[MENDEL]

I agree.

Am I correct in assuming that we think (tho obviously don't know) that this 90 second window has come from FF claiming to be able to place CB elsewhere at a relevant time by phone pings.

If yes then the timings are crucial. GM was the last person to see MM sometime before 9.15 as per JWs statement - that he spoke to him sometime before that. If correct that would give CB at least 45 minutes - probably more given the 30 minute window of time given by JW for that conversation happening (sometime between 8.45 and 9.15)

Yet FF is claiming he only had 90 seconds. If GM didn't actually see MM but assumed as all was quiet things were fine - that could move the timeline further back. If GMs timing is out and the we go to the earliest point in JWs statement - 8.45 - that 90 second window increases.

There is no way in Earth that they'd have left their kids if they thought there was the remotest chance they'd be abducted. So the checks were never going to be about whether the kids were there and, as the guy before said, you could just look into the room. You wouldn't see MMs bed

If he'd told KM all was well and he'd seen everyone when he got back from that visit - it would be hard in the shock of the moment to change it?

Or, possibly more likely, timing was way off and he saw her earlier. Every minute off that he is adds to the 90 seconds window

If GM is a witness and claims to have seen MM sometime from 9.05pm to 9.15pm how on earth can a prosecutor tell a judge he didn't see her? As that can't be proved whether he saw her or not only if GM concedes he didn't can that be taken into account as such forensically.

 

[MENDEL]

Simply that the defence can claim Tannerman is the real abductor, and it certainly helps their case that this was the major theory of the case for so many years.

British LE discarded that sighting. So that argumentation will probably be explored to the slightest detail.

 

[mrjitty]

In the case of LE having found evidence that links CB in person to MM, along with his phone ping Then why the matter of determining what time she was taken?? The Tapas group as a whole, largely tell the same story. The window of opportunity is at the very least, half an hour with an unattended apartment. I know the court system is complex but with evidence, would it not just be a case of ""We may never know at exactly what time MM was taken from her bed but what we do know is that she was taken. We also know from the evidence here presented, that MM was in yours CB possession in the time thereafter?? Honestly to me, if something can be explained as simply as that, then why complicate it all?? And, f indeed CB is innocent then there can be no evidence saying otherwise IMO. X

In the case of HCW being able to link CB direct to MM, then 5A becomes much less important.

If going to trial in the UK, I would expect the charging documents to say something like, MM was abducted from 5A sometime between 9pm and 10pm on the night of .... Then in the narrative, you could set out the minimum timeline you need to prove ... in other words, she was put to bed at XX, the parents went to dinner. She was checked by GM after 9, and found missing by KM around 10. I don't think you would need the other Tapas witnesses as the only need is to place MM in bed, and then prove she was no longer there

Of course the defence would want to call the Tapas witnesses - but i am not sure, if going to trial in germany, that they can compel them to give evidence?

It would in my view be a positive step if the key witnesses finally gave evidence under oath, and be tested on cross

 

[mrjitty]

British LE discarded that sighting. So that argumentation will probably be explored to the slightest detail.

Yes - the burden being on the prosecution to dispose of Tannerman as a live issue.

It may of course be the case that HCW has some other way to connect CB to MM - in which case the prosecution can simply say none of the 5A timeline really matters, because for different reasons, we can infer it must have been CB and not Tannerman

 

[peanutJelly]

FF mentioned the 90 secs and a distance of 6 km.
Could it be that CB's next ping was at 6 km from the OC?
So between half past 7 and 8 o' clock, the phone was near/at the OC.

Say that at 21.30(?) the phone's next ping was at a spot at 6 km from the OC. That would leave CB 90 secs after 21.15 for the abduction.
If CB would have taken Maddie at 21.16/21.17 -> then his phone could not have pinged at -for instance- at 21.30, 6 km further up.

But if no one actually saw whether MM was there until KM, CB could have taken MM earlier and a later ping away from the OC could have been when she was with him?

 

[Chiatos]

But if no one actually saw whether MM was there until KM, CB could have taken MM earlier and a later ping away from the OC could have been when she was with him?

How can anyone prove that GM had not seen MM round 21.10?

 

[Dlk79]

Could be a case of mis-reporting, but the Mail did report early on that other calls were made on CBs phone during the abduction window.

He knew his way around Praia da Luz and apparently specialised in break-ins. He has also abused children in the past. The authorities also believe they know which mobile phone he used on May 3, 2007, 'with a probability bordering on certainty.'

The girl disappeared between 9:10 p.m. and 10 p.m. Calls were made during that period of time on the mobile phone in Praia da Luz. He cancelled his car registration the day after Madeleine's disappearance
Madeleine McCann suspect gave 'young girls drugs in exchange for sex'

If there are other calls in the data log, FF would probably have been able to access that evidence via Portuguese authorities. It may be that the other calls place him further away from the Ocean club and German LE have made no appeal on them since their focus is on placing CB at the scene, perhaps they even know who those calls were to.

If there are further pings, sounds like FF is working backwards to try to prove this 90 second window. I can't see how he can work out that window based on the call that finished at 8 o clock, even if CB was 6km away at the time of that call there's plenty of time to get to 5A before MM was last seen by GM.

 

[Dlk79]

FF mentioned the 90 secs and a distance of 6 km.
Could it be that CB's next ping was at 6 km from the OC?
So between half past 7 and 8 o' clock, the phone was near/at the OC.

Say that at 21.30(?) the phone's next ping was at a spot at 6 km from the OC. That would leave CB 90 secs after 21.15 for the abduction.
If CB would have taken Maddie at 21.16/21.17 -> then his phone could not have pinged at -for instance- at 21.30, 6 km further up.

Just considering this possibility, what IF Tannerman was actually CB? The 90 second window becomes quite understandable then. CB hiding in the apartment while GM is doing his check, then as he is talking to JW outside, CB exits 5A within 90 seconds carrying MM. Then travels a certain distance before his phone pings again. Not saying this is what I believe necessarily, but don't think it's impossible either.

 

[Ardoch]

How can anyone prove that GM had not seen MM round 21.10?

Perhaps someone who was watching the house around that time...and comes forward and says so? Unlikely though.

 

[Ardoch]

I

Just considering this possibility, what IF Tannerman was actually CB? The 90 second window becomes quite understandable then. CB hiding in the apartment while GM is doing his check, then as he is talking to JW outside, CB exits 5A within 90 seconds carrying MM. Then travels a certain distance before his phone pings again. Not saying this is what I believe necessarily, but don't think it's impossible either.

Looking at that scenario, do you think it's likely that CB would have known what GM looked like? Or, what the set up was for the Tapas group in keeping an eye on the apartments?
CB would have been taking a big chance in walking down the same route visible to the road where they were walking. Did he assume GM would have been further down the road when he left?