Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[C.greek]

Promise this will be my last message for the day: BUT isn't it kind of strange that FF has joined two FB MM conspiracy pages?!

 

[C.greek]

DDP

 

[SuperdadV8]

Promise this will be my last message for the day: BUT isn't it kind of strange that FF has joined two FB MM conspiracy pages?!

The next compatriot, we have to be ashamed of.

 

[Chiatos]

Promise this will be my last message for the day: BUT isn't it kind of strange that FF has joined two FB MM conspiracy pages?!

Has he?!?!?!?

 

[Lilly b]

Back to the Russian brothers, surely NF will know, and would of given that info to the authorities.
If you was CB, and you new you had nothing to do with the crime, you would quite happily co operate, and you would advise your lawyer, let's face it if you lived in PDL, you would know what you was doing before and after such a well publised crime, you wouldn't do one, and leave virtually just after, unless you are connected?

 

[mrjitty]

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?

That was the point of my original post

If this trial was happening in the UK, i think the prosecutor would need to call the parents as they are the only ones who can provide direct evidence that MM was indeed in 5A and then missing with the relevant timing. So then they can be x-ed

In germany - I am not sure how it works.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

I think you are missing the point that typically the prosecution needs to call witnesses and produce evidence to establish the basic facts of the crime. So in this case, it will be necessary to prove MM was in 5A earlier in the night, and then discovered missing at 10pm. And of course the defence is allowed to challenge that evidence. So what we are discussing is how the defence might approach that. Nothing more.

 

[snowpea666]

Promise this will be my last message for the day: BUT isn't it kind of strange that FF has joined two FB MM conspiracy pages?!

Because he is going to try everything to put the blame on the MC, 100% he may even say CB was hired to clean everything up ? not kidnap and not murder ? he IMO is a snake

 

[mrjitty]

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.

I think this is the overall problem with this potential witness - he doesn't establish anything because he wasn't aware that anything might be wrong.

All we really know from him is things appeared as expected

 

[mrjitty]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I think he intends to point to multiple theories of the case. e.g the lisbon trial evidence, tannerman, 1000s of global sightings, RM being made an aguido, tractorman, etc etc etc and say all that adds up to reasonable doubt.

HCW needs a silver bullet that cuts across all of that, seeing as the 5A timeline seems unresolvable.

 

[snowpea666]

I think he intends to point to multiple theories of the case. e.g the lisbon trial evidence, tannerman, 1000s of global sightings, RM being made an aguido, tractorman, etc etc etc and say all that adds up to reasonable doubt.

HCW needs a silver bullet that cuts across all of that, seeing as the 5A timeline seems unresolvable.

Absolutely, so many theories, Im living in hope he has something indeed concrete.

 

[C.greek]

I think he intends to point to multiple theories of the case. e.g the lisbon trial evidence, tannerman, 1000s of global sightings, RM being made an aguido, tractorman, etc etc etc and say all that adds up to reasonable doubt.

HCW needs a silver bullet that cuts across all of that, seeing as the 5A timeline seems unresolvable.

I believe tannerman can easily be resolved, since SY said they identified the person. As for the rest, I feel really sorry that the MCs will have to face all these again. And FF joining two FB open groups, when anyone can see all posts as a non-member, points to me to desperation.

 

[C.greek]

I think you are missing the point that typically the prosecution needs to call witnesses and produce evidence to establish the basic facts of the crime. So in this case, it will be necessary to prove MM was in 5A earlier in the night, and then discovered missing at 10pm. And of course the defence is allowed to challenge that evidence. So what we are discussing is how the defence might approach that. Nothing more.

How am I missing the point? There are clear statements that GM saw all three of his kids in his check at around 9.05. Then KM in her check at 10 found MM missing. What is it that I am missing?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Axcording to FF's admissions, CB doesn't seem to have an alibi for may the 3rd in the evening.

Would be the easiest way to present that alibi to the public, if my client is "gangster no. one" in these days and known worldwide.

Instead of that he said, that he can't tell, where his client has been. Seems like, CB isn't the most comfortable client and maybe playing games with his solicitor either.

 

[Dlk79]

I believe tannerman can easily be resolved, since SY said they identified the person. As for the rest, I feel really sorry that the MCs will have to face all these again. And FF joining two FB open groups, when anyone can see all posts as a non-member, points to me to desperation.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't say it is easily resolved. SY have never addressed how Mr Totman would have been walking the opposite direction to what JT stated. The logic of him being attributed as the man JT saw was that he carried his sleeping daughter home from the night creche that night. But since he was staying in the same block as the Tapas group, and the night creche was in the direction that JT says the man was walking, there is enough to doubt whether he really was that person she saw.

The fact SY have not addressed this anomaly suggests to me that perhaps they believe JT is mistaken in her recollection of what she actually saw, and that the man was walking the other way. It's enough for FF to throw doubt upon the whole thing in any case. There's also the issue that Mr Totman knew the McCann group, having played tennis with them. And with them having stayed in the same complex all week, FF could say that surely JT would have recognised the fellow holidaymaker if it was actually him.

Then again, such an argument could throw up the possibility that in that case the man could have been CB, so not sure whether it helps FF all that much.

 

[Anxala]

How am I missing the point? There are clear statements that GM saw all three of his kids in his check at around 9.05. Then KM in her check at 10 found MM missing. What is it that I am missing?

I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong, you're still interpreting and viewing any questioning of GM's account of that evening check as hostile to him. I can only speak for myself but it's really not.

It's about establishing as absolute fact that MM was alive and well and sleeping in her bed at the time GM said she was (rather than him maybe not actually seeing her and just looking in/listening at the door, as others on here have perfectly reasonably and sympathetically suggested), so as no one in this current investigation can come along and counter that claim with evidence to the contrary. It's crucial box ticking for an investigation.

It's like, put something ambiguous (when it's viewed in context with other ambiguities later on that evening) firmly to bed so it stops being something that continues to be questioned.

That's all it is.

 

[C.greek]

I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong, you're still interpreting and viewing any questioning of GM's account of that evening check as hostile to him. I can only speak for myself but it's really not.

It's about establishing as absolute fact that MM was alive and well and sleeping in her bed at the time GM said she was (rather than him maybe not actually seeing her and just looking in/listening at the door, as others on here have perfectly reasonably and sympathetically suggested), so as no one in this current investigation can come along and counter that claim with evidence to the contrary. It's crucial box ticking for an investigation.

It's like, put something ambiguous (when it's viewed in context with other ambiguities later on that evening) firmly to bed so it stops being something that continues to be questioned.

That's all it is.

I don't quite understand how all this questioning came about, and yes indeed trying to find now whether GM lied seems to me to be feeding these conspiracy theories that FF openly follows.

 

[mrjitty]

How am I missing the point? There are clear statements that GM saw all three of his kids in his check at around 9.05. Then KM in her check at 10 found MM missing. What is it that I am missing?

That the evidence would need to be given in open Court ...

 

[Newthoughts]

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.

I guess to get a more accurate idea of the window of opportunity given FF now seems to be suggesting it was only 90 seconds.

We know GM was the last person to say he'd seen her. MO checked for noise but not if she was there. So his timings are crucial if FF has claimed his client couldn't have had time to take her

 

[Officer Dibble]

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

Is there a link so I can find out who FF is please?