Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #36

[Denis R Tandib]

Do you therefore believe everything known to the BKA and HCW is already in the public domain and that the latter is lying when he says that if we knew what he knew we’d come to the same conclusion as him?

I think the answer to this is yes… and no.

For example, we know that HB gave a compelling statement regarding CB but we don’t know specifically what he said.

Similarly, we know there is a biographical word document but we don’t know what it says.

If there is a very strong piece of physical evidence like a photo that has been found in CB’s possession then the case is far more clear cut. If this is the case, I can’t understand the time the investigation is taking, why witnesses have said the investigation is stalled or why HCW has equivocated on the charge.

 

[mrjitty]

My 02c remains that in other cases that were pre-trial, speculation about what evidence the prosecution 'must have' has frequently turned out to be wrong.

Especially what the prosecutor 'knows' is frequently an inference based on a circumstantial web of evidence rather than one killer piece of evidence.

I am especially interested in the theory that HCW "knows things" based on sourcing. His problem is proving the things not about knowing them.

As an example of this in the previous trial, the prosecutor did not have a video or image. They had people who had seen a video. The reason the testimony was effective, is they knew things they could really only have known about the offending if they really had seen the video. However this was backed by forensics.

So I rather feel we might be in a similar situation.

HCW knows the offending by sources. But he seems to lack the hard evidence to prove the relevant elements.

 

[Lyall0814]

The BKA have not told the journalists all they have. But of course the journalists would keep secrets. Otherwise there wouldn't be any trust between them. We are fed snippets though imo

There's trust between them because the media hasn't been at all critical of the investigators so far. There hasn't been even the tiniest bit of criticism - anywhere. I doubt the investigators would or will risk that unconditional support. I think they would have had to feed the tabloids more than the very meagre snippets we've seen in the past three years to keep them happy. But they haven't. So (imo) it's very likely the media knows there is no big secret or secrets.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

If they do not have a photo, "at least" they should have CB's autobiographic texts that "corroborates" HB and other testimonies. Otherwise it seems too too weak for this "show". And even so...

 

[Lyall0814]

If they do not have a photo, "at least" they should have CB's autobiographic texts that "corroborates" HB and other testimonies. Otherwise it seems too too weak for this "show".

Judges must have told them it's not enough but for how long can the prosecutors keep saying they're certain but they're unable to charge? We need some German law experts I think.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I think the answer to this is yes… and no.

For example, we know that HB gave a compelling statement regarding CB but we don’t know specifically what he said.

Similarly, we know there is a biographical word document but we don’t know what it says.

If there is a very strong piece of physical evidence like a photo that has been found in CB’s possession then the case is far more clear cut. If this is the case, I can’t understand the time the investigation is taking, why witnesses have said the investigation is stalled or why HCW has equivocated on the charge.

With respect, just because you don’t understand what this evidence could be or why it hasn’t already led to charges doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We just have to wait and see IMO

 

[Consider Dudley]

There's trust between them because the media hasn't been at all critical of the investigators so far. There hasn't been even the tiniest bit of criticism - anywhere. I doubt the investigators would or will risk that unconditional support. I think they would have had to feed the tabloids more than the very meagre snippets we've seen in the past three years to keep them happy. But they haven't. So (imo) it's very likely the media knows there is no big secret or secrets.

If the media knows that the case is built on sand and lies why in earth wouldn’t they be critical of it?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

With respect, just because you don’t understand what this evidence could be or why it hasn’t already led to charges doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We just have to wait and see IMO

Okay, we have a difference of opinion.

Important information has been leaked, if there was more, wouldn’t that have been leaked too?

It’s the gestalt that makes that helps me arrive at my opinion after looking at the investigation for three years.

If you disagree, I’m cool with that but if CB is not charged, we can “… wait and see” as long as we like but we’ll never be party to the evidence or lack thereof.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If the media knows that the case is built on sand and lies why in earth wouldn’t they be critical of it?

Possibly because of what the McCanns have been through, MSM never publish anything negative about them. I can’t recall an article critical of them or negative about the search in over ten years.

 

[Lyall0814]

If the media knows that the case is built on sand and lies why in earth wouldn’t they be critical of it?

No because they know convictions can definitely be secured on flimsy evidence. The other day Richard mentioned the convictions of Michael Stone - a very good comparison imo. He was convicted twice entirely on the evidence of prisoners who said he confessed to them.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

This is from an article written by Julian Peribanez from Metodo 3.

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[Consider Dudley]

Possibly because of what the McCanns have been through, MSM never publish anything negative about them. I can’t recall an article critical of them or negative about the search in over ten years.

Why would media criticism of the German investigation be construed as criticism of the McCanns - sorry but that makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Okay, we have a difference of opinion.

Important information has been leaked, if there was more, wouldn’t that have been leaked too?

It’s the gestalt that makes that helps me arrive at my opinion after looking at the investigation for three years.

If you disagree, I’m cool with that but if CB is not charged, we can “… wait and see” as long as we like but we’ll never be party to the evidence or lack thereof.

Perhaps the Germans are a bit more canny about the information they have "leaked". Perhaps there has been no ill discipline among their ranks (unlike in other police forces) and they have let us know only what they have chosen to let us know. Personally I find it hard to believe that HCW would go in front of the world's media repeatedly to tell bare faced lies but clearly that's the implication here - that he's bluffing.

 

[Consider Dudley]

No because they know convictions can definitely be secured on flimsy evidence. The other day Richard mentioned the convictions of Michael Stone - a very good comparison imo. He was convicted twice entirely on the evidence of prisoners who said he confessed to them.

I'm sorry but I don't understand that rationale. In any case as far as I'm aware Michael Stone is still in prison and has not been cleared of the murders for which he was convicted

 

[Mex]

Possibly because of what the McCanns have been through, MSM never publish anything negative about them. I can’t recall an article critical of them or negative about the search in over ten years.

The thing is that the present investigation is nothing to do with K&GM. It is all about a horrendous crime committed against their daughter and the investigation into who might be responsible and the evidence supporting the search.

Just because we are not privy to that information certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is questionable. My opinion

 

[Mex]

No because they know convictions can definitely be secured on flimsy evidence. The other day Richard mentioned the convictions of Michael Stone - a very good comparison imo. He was convicted twice entirely on the evidence of prisoners who said he confessed to them.

In this particular case more than most there will be no such thing as 'flimsy' evidence.
The onus of proof is with the prosecution and as can be seen from the five serious cases presently on hold, the defence are not being lackadaisical in policing their client's interests.

 

[Lyall0814]

I'm sorry but I don't understand that rationale. In any case as far as I'm aware Michael Stone is still in prison and has not been cleared of the murders for which he was convicted

He is very much still in prison but through both of his trials most media declared the evidence to be powerful and convincing. Just like they will about the evidence against CB, if it ever does go to a trial. I'm very cynical, I think the journalists just want there to be a trial. It would be a huge media event. They'll back the German prosecutors all the way imo (even if they know very well there's no big evidence being kept secret)

 

[Lyall0814]

In this particular case more than most there will be no such thing as 'flimsy' evidence.
The onus of proof is with the prosecution and as can be seen from the five serious cases presently on hold, the defence are not being lackadaisical in policing their client's interests.

There's nothing special about the MM case, though it's special to us obsessives of course. The murders Stone was convicted for were every bit as high profile at the time as the MM case is now. Yet very flimsy evidence was enough to charge him and enough to convict him. I doubt German prosecutors are any more conscientious than British ones. Perhaps German courts are though. Perhaps. We'll see.

 

[Consider Dudley]

He is very much still in prison but through both of his trials most media declared the evidence to be powerful and convincing. Just like they will about the evidence against CB, if it ever does go to a trial. I'm very cynical, I think the journalists just want there to be a trial. It would be a huge media event. They'll back the German prosecutors all the way imo (even if they know very well there's no big evidence being kept secret)

I think that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory

 

[Lyall0814]

I think that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory

Nah. When German prosecutors tell the world they're 100% certain of course the journalists are going to be excited and almost all will believe them. Unless they have a reason not to, and so far only MWT amongst the media folk has bothered to have a look to see if there is one.