Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[Newthoughts]

It was always thought MM was taken in between MO and KM checks. Because when MO was there the window wasn't opened and there was no draft.
MO was there at 9.30 pm and KM came in at 10 pm.
If the intruder was in all the time and hiding throughout all checks then 90 seconds would be enough for him to leave through the front doors.

How does FF know his clients phone pings? Was this possibly discussed at CB's first interview with German police? IMO FF can only see this file and know what was discussed during this interview and what his client said.

MO didn't look into right into the bedroom and didn't see MM. From looking at the floorplans if you glanced into the room from the hallway you'd see the twins but MMs bed would be behind the door. So MM could have been taken between GMs check and KM. If GM had left by 9.15 - the latest point on JWs statement - that adds 15 more minutes. If GM was earlier - the earliest point in JWs statement is 8.45 - then even more time is added

So it very possible she had been abducted before the MO check. He saw light from a external source but you necessarily notice a draught and whether the doors were open or not if it wasn't your flat and you were eager to check your own kids as well and get back to your meal? I don't think you'd notice enough to state.

His comment about the external light source is interesting

 

[mrjitty]

".... he could see that the twins were in their cots and there was no sound, erm so he just assumed everything was alright, he didnt put his head round the door to see if M was in her bed, but he said he did wonder where she slept, erm poked his head, well you know kind of looked into G and Ks room, just ...."
P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S ROGATORY
IMO it's clear to me that MO saw enough of M's bed to form an opinion that there was probably no child in it. That is the only way IMO to logically explain what follows: "did wonder where she slept" and "looked into G and Ks room".

The problem for MO, is that on the timeline, he becomes official last person to see MM

Clearly he was not willing to take that responsibility. IMO because he never saw her, and quite possibly, because he didn't check at all, or only listened at the window, which appears to be the more likely checks he was doing.

In many respects, I think we would get some clarity if MO and the rest finally testify under cross examination.

 

[mrjitty]

But the same as most of the other tapas checks, they were checking if any of the children had awoken. I can understand them not going too much into the children’s bedroom as would defeat the objective of checking they’re not awake if you wake them up by checking!

I think there is a lot of truth to this - hence why they were maybe doing listening checks

 

[C.greek]

Just one thing.

What's in discussion is evidence about CB. If you think a ping, two confessions and a promise is enough, perhaps others don't.

Is there anyone blaming GM or are they questioning what he saw? We're not talking about a saint (as far as I know) so as a human he can be questioned like everybody else.

GM to be questioned about what? Just edited to add here that the parents are considered victims in this thread and I've never heard before that it is okay to question the victims the way we are doing here by doubting his statements. It seems to me like doubting the statement of a rape victim.

So what are we questioning wrt GM? When exactly he was in the apartment or if he indeed saw MM? He did mention he saw MM at around 9.05 when he did his check. This gives the perpetrator a window from 9.05 to 10.

Where did the 9.15 come from? Also MO's statement could indeed mean MM was already gone by 9.30, when he did his audio check -since the door to the kids' bedroom was ajar and GM had closed it a bit.
In any case we don't know what FF means- and why would we trust him about the 90 sec window of opportunity? His client has not yet been charged so I think FF makes all this noise to muddle the waters and/or force a charge and thus access to the files and the evidence the German prosecutors hold.

 

[mrjitty]

GM to be questioned about what? Just edited to add here that the parents are considered victims in this thread and I've never heard before that it is okay to question the victims the way we are doing here by doubting his statements. It seems to me like doubting the statement of a rape victim. So what are we questioning wrt GM? When exactly he was in the apartment or if he indeed saw MM? He did mention he saw MM at around 9.05 when he did his check. This gives the perpetrator a window from 9.05 to 10.

Where did the 9.15 come from? Also MO's statement could indeed mean MM was already gone by 9.30, when he did his audio check -since the door to the kids' bedroom was ajar and GM had closed it a bit.

We are discussing what appears to be the defence FF is going to run, and assuming that GM would need to be called as a witness to place MM in her bed at the first check. So he would be cross examined by FF in that case.

In any case we don't know what FF means- and why would we trust him about the 90 sec window of opportunity? His client has not yet been charged so I think FF makes all this noise to muddle the waters and/or force a charge and thus access to the files and the evidence the German prosecutors hold.

I agree he is just throwing chum in the water right now - but I expect if this goes to trial, he would challenge the Tapa's timeline.

 

[Ardoch]

We do not even know the timeline FF is talking about.

Why would anyone question GM's timeline of events?

May I remind you CB became a suspect because he "admitted" to being involved? He admitted it not once but twice, possibly even to people who don't know each other.

He has a criminal record of doing similar stuff. His phone pings in the area and also "connects" to OC at the time of the crime.
Plus HCW has even "more proof" that he hasn't revealed.

And someone is still doubting it and trying to switch the blame on GM.

Gosh!

Since I'm also taking part in this segment can I state that I am not putting any doubt nor blame on GM's statement.
I think that it's a given that most people here are not on the 'blame the parents' bandwagon.
Compared to the many other sites out there, I find that posts here are constantly made in a respectful manner both relating to the sad case and to fellow posters and long may that continue.

 

[MENDEL]

Many photos of AR in the mound search area, and possibly in another of the SY search areas, and maybe in Portimao, but I have never seen a single photo of him anywhere near the apartment.

Me neither, Red. But is it plausible he missed apartment?

 

[MENDEL]

GM to be questioned about what? Just edited to add here that the parents are considered victims in this thread and I've never heard before that it is okay to question the victims the way we are doing here by doubting his statements. It seems to me like doubting the statement of a rape victim.

So what are we questioning wrt GM? When exactly he was in the apartment or if he indeed saw MM? He did mention he saw MM at around 9.05 when he did his check. This gives the perpetrator a window from 9.05 to 10.

Where did the 9.15 come from? Also MO's statement could indeed mean MM was already gone by 9.30, when he did his audio check -since the door to the kids' bedroom was ajar and GM had closed it a bit.
In any case we don't know what FF means- and why would we trust him about the 90 sec window of opportunity? His client has not yet been charged so I think FF makes all this noise to muddle the waters and/or force a charge and thus access to the files and the evidence the German prosecutors hold.

They're questioning whether GM saw MM or not. Is that incompatible with his victim status? Any statement can be challenged if possible facts are in conflict and as far as I understand it's so. To put it more clearly, as a rule all statements are considered true irrespective of coming from victims or criminals. That doesn't mean they can't be incorrect.

 

[MENDEL]

The problem for MO, is that on the timeline, he becomes official last person to see MM

Clearly he was not willing to take that responsibility. IMO because he never saw her, and quite possibly, because he didn't check at all, or only listened at the window, which appears to be the more likely checks he was doing.

In many respects, I think we would get some clarity if MO and the rest finally testify under cross examination.

I'd like to ask something that isn't nonsense perhaps. Weren't there two possible beds for MM? Wasn't he supposed to have seen at least one of them which was empty? He even stated there was more light than expected, so there was illumination enough. How was he supposed to know how many beds were there and which one was MM's?

ETA:

Isn't this angle quite close to what MO was supposed to have seen?

 

[Chiatos]

Where in this timeline could FF's 90 seconds fit? Writing in red: McCann apartment occupied, being checked or well in sight.
19:30 McCann kids placed in bed
19:32 phone call CB starts
20:02 Phone call CB ends
After 20:30 -> parents went to the TB (they were the first to arrive)

20:45 > Mathew and Rachael arrive at the TB P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
The rest arrived after Mathew and Rachael.
Around 21:00 -> the last to arrive are David and Fiona

21:05 -> Mathew checked all apartments from the back, through the shutters of the windows (including the McCann’s) and all was well
21:05 -> Immediately after GM checked his kids (P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007 ), using his key to enter(!) by the door. The door of the bedroom was more open than when they had left the kids P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007

21:10/21:15 -> Jane Tannerman sees a man carrying away a child
21:20 -> dinner began P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

21:25 -> Mathew went into his apartment and McCann's apartment to check on the children (he entered the apartment) P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007, saw the cots, but didn’t specifically check MM’s bed. Nothing mentioned about him noticing or not noticing anything unusual to the window or shutters of the kids bedroom.

21:30 -> dinner began P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
21:30 -> KM tells Mathew and Russel that in order to check the McCann kids, they would have to enter by the back door, which was unlocked P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT
21:30 -> Mathew checked the McCann kids, entered through the unlocked sliding doors
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

21: 35 Mathew turns back, but Russel remained in the bedroom as one of his daughters was crying P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

21:40/45 -> Jane replaces her husband so he could continue to eat
+/- 21:50 -> Russel returns to the TB P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

22:00 -> KM checked the kids, using the key to enter(!) by the door and saw that the bedroom door and bedroom window were open
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
22:00 -> At around 10pm, KM went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked P.J. POLICE FILES: KATE MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

See also: P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S ROGATORY
Mathew did not check MM’s bed when inside the apartment

So: the sliding doors remained unlocked throughout the evening. The side door remained locked until 21:05 when GM entered the apartment.
Mathew made use of the unlocked sliding doors to enter (and exit) at 21:30.
When KM entered at +/- 22:00, she noticed that the side door was closed, but not locked.

Where can we fit FF's 90 seconds?

 

[Dlk79]

I'd like to ask something that isn't nonsense perhaps. Weren't there two possible beds for MM? Wasn't he supposed to have seen at least one of them which was empty? He even stated there was more light than expected, so there was illumination enough. How was he supposed to know how many beds were there and which one was MM's?

ETA:

Isn't this angle quite close to what MO was supposed to have seen?

View attachment 268291

I don't think MO got as close to the room as that picture shows. This is from his 2008 statement, my comment in brackets:

4078 'Okay. What else could you see within the room''

Reply 'Erm, there was a bed on the far side underneath the window, erm, and you could see, you could just see the tail of this bed here (MM's bed), just the edge of it'.

4078 'Sorry, I am not familiar with the room'.

Reply 'Sorry, the bed is perhaps, this bed, there is a bed along, you can see most of it (the bed under the window), apart from what was obstructed by the, by the cot'.

4078 'Yes'.

Reply 'There was a bed there. There was build-in wardrobes, I think probably where that dotted line is there'.

00.37.41 4078 'Yeah'.

Reply 'Erm, and there's another bed along here, which is where Madeleine was supposed to be, erm, and you could just maybe catch the, it was probably set back a little bit, so you could just sort of catch about sort of six or eight inches of the, so you could see the outside corner, the corner deepest into the room'.

4078 'Okay. So concentrate, if you can, on what you saw of that bed and tell me what you saw''

Reply 'Nothing, apart from that, it's just the end of the bed and that's, and that was it. And so it as just like the outside corner, there was no, couldn't see the whole length, couldn't see colours or legs or anything draping over it'.

P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD ROGATORY 09 APRIL 2008

He goes on to say:

I really don't recall anything specific about the end of that bed, apart from just registering that there was a bed against that wall and that's probably where Madeleine was'.

So, effectively from where he stood he could see the empty bed by the window, and just the very corner of MM's bed and made an assumption that's where she must have been. From his statements, it sounds like he didn't get very close to the door at all.

 

[Dlk79]

Where in this timeline could FF's 90 seconds fit? Writing in red: McCann apartment occupied, being checked or well in sight.
19:30 McCann kids placed in bed
19:32 phone call CB starts
20:02 Phone call CB ends
After 20:30 -> parents went to the TB (they were the first to arrive)

20:45 > Mathew and Rachael arrive at the TB P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
The rest arrived after Mathew and Rachael.
Around 21:00 -> the last to arrive are David and Fiona

21:05 -> Mathew checked all apartments from the back, through the shutters of the windows (including the McCann’s) and all was well
21:05 -> Immediately after GM checked his kids (P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007 ), using his key to enter(!) by the door. The door of the bedroom was more open than when they had left the kids P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007

21:10/21:15 -> Jane Tannerman sees a man carrying away a child
21:20 -> dinner began P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

21:25 -> Mathew went into his apartment and McCann's apartment to check on the children (he entered the apartment) P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007, saw the cots, but didn’t specifically check MM’s bed. Nothing mentioned about him noticing or not noticing anything unusual to the window or shutters of the kids bedroom.

21:30 -> dinner began P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
21:30 -> KM tells Mathew and Russel that in order to check the McCann kids, they would have to enter by the back door, which was unlocked P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT
21:30 -> Mathew checked the McCann kids, entered through the unlocked sliding doors
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

21: 35 Mathew turns back, but Russel remained in the bedroom as one of his daughters was crying P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

21:40/45 -> Jane replaces her husband so he could continue to eat
+/- 21:50 -> Russel returns to the TB P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

22:00 -> KM checked the kids, using the key to enter(!) by the door and saw that the bedroom door and bedroom window were open
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
22:00 -> At around 10pm, KM went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked P.J. POLICE FILES: KATE MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

See also: P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S ROGATORY
Mathew did not check MM’s bed when inside the apartment

So: the sliding doors remained unlocked throughout the evening. The side door remained locked until 21:05 when GM entered the apartment.
Mathew made use of the unlocked sliding doors to enter (and exit) at 21:30.
When KM entered at +/- 22:00, she noticed that the side door was closed, but not locked.

Where can we fit FF's 90 seconds?

Not that it really affects the window, but GM revised his account during his second interview about the front door. He says that when they left the apartment around 8.30, they left via the patio doors and that therefore, the front door was probably left unlocked. He says when he did his check around 9.05, he actually went in through the sliding patio doors, not the front door as he originally stated. Even though unlocked, the front door still can't be opened from the outside without a key.

As for when the 90 second window could be...well it could be anytime really between GM and KMs checks, other than when witnesses claim to have walked past the apartment. Without knowing what FF is basing his claim on it is hard to say.

 

[Chiatos]

FF has given away some info: apparently his client's destination after PdL was somewhere 6 km from the OC.
6 km can have two different meanings:
- 6 km by road (car) (is usually more nearby than 6 km in bird's eye view)
- 6 km in bird's eye view (is usually further away than 6 km by road)

6 km by road:

6 km in bird's eye view:

 

[snowpea666]

MO didn't look into right into the bedroom and didn't see MM. From looking at the floorplans if you glanced into the room from the hallway you'd see the twins but MMs bed would be behind the door. So MM could have been taken between GMs check and KM. If GM had left by 9.15 - the latest point on JWs statement - that adds 15 more minutes. If GM was earlier - the earliest point in JWs statement is 8.45 - then even more time is added

So it very possible she had been abducted before the MO check. He saw light from a external source but you necessarily notice a draught and whether the doors were open or not if it wasn't your flat and you were eager to check your own kids as well and get back to your meal? I don't think you'd notice enough to state.

His comment about the external light source is interesting

Very much so, with those shutters down almost no light gets in, and to say external means outside of the room so logically the shutters had to be open ??

 

[snowpea666]

Where in this timeline could FF's 90 seconds fit? Writing in red: McCann apartment occupied, being checked or well in sight.
19:30 McCann kids placed in bed
19:32 phone call CB starts
20:02 Phone call CB ends
After 20:30 -> parents went to the TB (they were the first to arrive)

20:45 > Mathew and Rachael arrive at the TB P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
The rest arrived after Mathew and Rachael.
Around 21:00 -> the last to arrive are David and Fiona

21:05 -> Mathew checked all apartments from the back, through the shutters of the windows (including the McCann’s) and all was well
21:05 -> Immediately after GM checked his kids (P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007 ), using his key to enter(!) by the door. The door of the bedroom was more open than when they had left the kids P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007

21:10/21:15 -> Jane Tannerman sees a man carrying away a child
21:20 -> dinner began P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

21:25 -> Mathew went into his apartment and McCann's apartment to check on the children (he entered the apartment) P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007, saw the cots, but didn’t specifically check MM’s bed. Nothing mentioned about him noticing or not noticing anything unusual to the window or shutters of the kids bedroom.

21:30 -> dinner began P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
21:30 -> KM tells Mathew and Russel that in order to check the McCann kids, they would have to enter by the back door, which was unlocked P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT
21:30 -> Mathew checked the McCann kids, entered through the unlocked sliding doors
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

21: 35 Mathew turns back, but Russel remained in the bedroom as one of his daughters was crying P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

21:40/45 -> Jane replaces her husband so he could continue to eat
+/- 21:50 -> Russel returns to the TB P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S 11&15 MAY 2007 STATEMENT

22:00 -> KM checked the kids, using the key to enter(!) by the door and saw that the bedroom door and bedroom window were open
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
22:00 -> At around 10pm, KM went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked P.J. POLICE FILES: KATE MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

See also: P.J. POLICE FILES: RACHAEL OLDFIELD'S ROGATORY
Mathew did not check MM’s bed when inside the apartment

So: the sliding doors remained unlocked throughout the evening. The side door remained locked until 21:05 when GM entered the apartment.
Mathew made use of the unlocked sliding doors to enter (and exit) at 21:30.
When KM entered at +/- 22:00, she noticed that the side door was closed, but not locked.

Where can we fit FF's 90 seconds?

What a mess !!

 

[MENDEL]

MO statements:

To PJ on May 4, 2007:

"That [MO] couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine [...]"

"[MO] states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex."

To Leicestershire LE on April 9, 2008:

[MO]: "Sorry, I am not familiar with the room"

He was unfamiliar with the room but described it very well 1 year before. He didn't see MM's bed but knew which one she was supposed to occupy.

 

[Dlk79]

MO statements:

To PJ on May 4, 2007:

"That [MO] couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine [...]"

"[MO] states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex."

To Leicestershire LE on April 9, 2008:

[MO]: "Sorry, I am not familiar with the room"

He was unfamiliar with the room but described it very well 1 year before. He didn't see MM's bed but knew which one she was supposed to occupy.

It's the interviewer saying he is not familiar with the room, not MO.

MO seems to be saying which bed MM was in based on inference that she was not in the bed he could see. It would be the natural assumption.

 

[C.greek]

We are discussing what appears to be the defence FF is going to run, and assuming that GM would need to be called as a witness to place MM in her bed at the first check. So he would be cross examined by FF in that case.



I agree he is just throwing chum in the water right now - but I expect if this goes to trial, he would challenge the Tapa's timeline.

Would the german prosecution allow for the victims(i.e. the parents) to be cross-examimed if the case goes to court? Assuming they wouldn't do it on their own free will?

 

[C.greek]

They're questioning whether GM saw MM or not. Is that incompatible with his victim status? Any statement can be challenged if possible facts are in conflict and as far as I understand it's so. To put it more clearly, as a rule all statements are considered true irrespective of coming from victims or criminals. That doesn't mean they can't be incorrect.

But why the doubt? He even elaborated upon his thoughts of seeing MM. Why question him? Since he is not the prime suspect here, his statements are not the ones to be questioned. If ever this goes to court, CB's statements should and not the victims. Especially since the parents are not saying they saw the perpetrator. If someone needs to be questioned, apart from CB, is those who will testify as witnesses against CB.

 

[C.greek]

I was rereading some news stories about 2013 after the crimewatch appeal. Do we know which name popped up then? Could it be a coincidence that CB's name was mentioned and he was summoned in Germany for MM's case? The article quoted below was dated oct 2013. We know that nov 2013 CB was interviewed (or not!) In germany

Police said they had had an immediate and encouraging response to the Crimewatch appeal. Redwood told viewers two separate callers had given the same name for the man featured in the efit image seen carrying a child at about 10pm. He said that there had been an "overwhelming response" from the public to the Crimewatch appeal, including calls from people who had been in Praia da Luz at the same time as the McCanns.​

Madeleine McCann appeal gets overwhelming response, say police