Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #33

[Consider Dudley]

dbm

 

[Consider Dudley]

Rowley said that the issue of the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation, he never said that they had dismissed it.

Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation.

Is it your belief that they consider Amaral’s theory equally as valid as stranger abduction then?

 

[Davieson]

Is it your belief that they consider Amaral’s theory equally as valid as stranger abduction then?

I don't think OG has shown any evidence to support the validity of stranger abduction any more than they have demonstrated the invalidity of GA's theory.
As far as I can see, they have decided to follow only one line of investigation, that of stranger abduction, as set down in their remit.

 

[RichardKimble]

Is it your belief that they consider Amaral’s theory equally as valid as stranger abduction then?

My belief is of no consequence, but I'm open minded and until or any one tests any theory in a court of law then all theories are possibly valid.

Rowley again:: I think it’s unique in two or three respects. First of all the way its captured attention in different countries is quite unusual. You’ll get a very high-profile case in a particular country, the way it has captured interest across countries, I think is significant. The length of it. And it’s unusual to have a case like this where you’re doing a missing persons investigation, where ten years on, we still don’t have definitive evidence about exactly what’s happened. And that’s why we’re open minded, even if we have to be pessimistic about the prospects, we are open minded because we don’t have definitive evidence about what happened to Madeleine.

 

[RichardKimble]

Just regarding the rape where he showed his face on camera, the woman had blacked out goggles on so she couldn't see him, so it's basically the same MO as the DM rape.

Anyway, it's possible for someone to have more than one MO. In fact, from his known crimes, we can already see he has more than one MO depending on the scenario - mainly whether it is planned or opportunistic.

I don't really see that as much of a defence TBH. We don't yet know the prosecutor's exact theory, but neither the MO of impulsive behaviour with children or the MO of breaking in to commit sexual assault do him any favours.

Pure speculation, which court heard that evidence.

 

[Malleux]

Pure speculation, which court heard that evidence.

It's not pure speculation at all, that's what Helge said he saw and his testimony on that was heard (and accepted) at the DM trial. That the goggles featured in the DM rape as well was one of the reasons his testimony about the other rape was seen as so relevant.

 

[RichardKimble]

It's not pure speculation at all, that's what Helge said he saw and his testimony on that was heard (and accepted) at the DM trial. That the goggles featured in the DM rape as well was one of the reasons his testimony about the other rape was seen as so relevant.

Apologies , wires crossed. But in saying that is it known that his testimony is to be heard in the other cases should they reach trial.

 

[mrjitty]

It's not pure speculation at all, that's what Helge said he saw and his testimony on that was heard (and accepted) at the DM trial. That the goggles featured in the DM rape as well was one of the reasons his testimony about the other rape was seen as so relevant.

I would not be surprised if he has more rapes

 

[Consider Dudley]

My belief is of no consequence, but I'm open minded and until or any one tests any theory in a court of law then all theories are possibly valid.

Rowley again:: I think it’s unique in two or three respects. First of all the way its captured attention in different countries is quite unusual. You’ll get a very high-profile case in a particular country, the way it has captured interest across countries, I think is significant. The length of it. And it’s unusual to have a case like this where you’re doing a missing persons investigation, where ten years on, we still don’t have definitive evidence about exactly what’s happened. And that’s why we’re open minded, even if we have to be pessimistic about the prospects, we are open minded because we don’t have definitive evidence about what happened to Madeleine.

I didn’t ask if you believed Amaral’s theory was equally as valid as any other, I asked you if it was your belief that the Met considered Amaral’s theory equally as valid as stranger abduction. Clearly they do not from everything they have said and done since the start of Operation Grange but you seemed to be suggesting otherwise? My original point was that neither the Met nor the German police consider Amaral’s theory worthy of consideration.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I don't think OG has shown any evidence to support the validity of stranger abduction any more than they have demonstrated the invalidity of GA's theory.
As far as I can see, they have decided to follow only one line of investigation, that of stranger abduction, as set down in their remit.

And that clearly indicates that they hold Amaral’s theory in low regard, which was the point I was making.

 

[RichardKimble]

I didn’t ask if you believed Amaral’s theory was equally as valid as any other, I asked you if it was your belief that the Met considered Amaral’s theory equally as valid as stranger abduction. Clearly they do not from everything they have said and done since the start of Operation Grange but you seemed to be suggesting otherwise? My original point was that neither the Met nor the German police consider Amaral’s theory worthy of consideration.

I've not suggested anything, I've posted what Rowley said.

 

[RichardKimble]

I would not be surprised if he has more rapes

Nor I, but we can only talk about what he's been convicted for, the others because of a quirk in German law aren't even regarded as charges are they ?

 

[Davieson]

And that clearly indicates that they hold Amaral’s theory in low regard, which was the point I was making.

You don't know how they view it, or why they have chosen another theory to pursue.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't think HCW will be trying to prove abduction stuff.

He has said he has evidence of murder - so I suspect the abduction will be implied, and supported by the burglar evidence (that we've heard about from journalists).

The defence will be trying to raise reasonable possibility of other theories.

Burden is on prosecution to disprove other theories as reasonable possibilities. That could be by implication. i.e the evidence of murder is so great, we can discount other explanations

 

[RichardKimble]

So in 2007 three arguidos, 2014 at least 4 were granted or made arguido, 2022 another arguido, just what does arguido imply confer on any one , certainly not guilt.

 

[mrjitty]

Nor I, but we can only talk about what he's been convicted for, the others because of a quirk in German law aren't even regarded as charges are they ?

No they currently are not charged.

 

[Davieson]

I would not be surprised if he has more rapes

Nor me. He clearly has a peculiar sexual appetite Whether that includes the sexual abuse of 3 years olds remains to be seen.

 

[Davieson]

I don't think HCW will be trying to prove abduction stuff.

He has said he has evidence of murder - so I suspect the abduction will be implied, and supported by the burglar evidence (that we've heard about from journalists).

The defence will be trying to raise reasonable possibility of other theories.

Burden is on prosecution to disprove other theories as reasonable possibilities. That could be by implication. i.e the evidence of murder is so great, we can discount other explanations

Do you not think the prosecution will need to demonstrate how MM came to be in CB's possession?
I would think that a crucial step.

 

[RichardKimble]

I don't think HCW will be trying to prove abduction stuff.

He has said he has evidence of murder - so I suspect the abduction will be implied, and supported by the burglar evidence (that we've heard about from journalists).

The defence will be trying to raise reasonable possibility of other theories.

Burden is on prosecution to disprove other theories as reasonable possibilities. That could be by implication. i.e the evidence of murder is so great, we can discount other explanations

He can't prove abduction, that is the point, only Mitchell on behalf of the McCanns in Oct 2007 said they were of the opinion she was taken out the window, Amaral never claimed or mentioned how Madeleine was removed only saying a simulated abduction, Rowley said ,however she left she was abducted, now it isn't clear if he meant the manner in which she left or 'however' as another point in the discussion.

 

[RichardKimble]

Do you not think the prosecution will need to demonstrate how MM came to be in CB's possession?
I would think that a crucial step.

Not sure, I get where @mrjitty is coming from with implied ,