Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #37

[Okapi]

I don't think so.

He probably just sold his story, or couldn't resist the limelight.

He is one of the two critical witness in the videotape rape trials - he will definitely be testifying. Remember the Judge controls the witnesses.

Can that judge also put a gagging order on the witnesses discussing specific areas of their testimony? So eg HB can re-word what is already in the public domain, but crucial material is protected for the court?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

My comment had nothing to do with CB being the culprit in MM's disappearance. And all to do with the conversation into what constitutes rape and trying to find ways to say that what has been described by HB and included into the charge sheet as rape might not have been. It is clear if you read the BILD that HB talks about the teenage girl and whether you think age of consent is 14 in Portugal, this has been included in the charge sheet as rape. Finding excuses why this charge should or would be dropped, i.e. age of consent in Portugal, that she said "this Borders on rape' or implying in any way that it might have been consensual when the BKA think otherwise, or that because she hasn't come forward this might mean it was consensual, etc, is like raping this girl again. Please note not all of the above apply to your comments even though I quote your post but these are points that have been put forward in this thread. Jmo

Please take this at intended, I want to respond to your point but not without being sensitive to the difficult subject.

The police are humans, they make mistakes. In this case, the police/prosecutors charged CB but this doesn’t mean he did it. Before the statement can be made that we are raping her again (this is an unpleasant accusation), it needs to be proven she has been raped. Based on what we know this is far from certain.

This is a true crime forum, dealing with truly horrific crimes. IMO though, no matter how difficult the subject matter, we cannot critically evaluate the facts of the case if we are drawn into discussions of how this emotionally effects people - the former is sleuthing the latter is (respectfully) judgemental.

I can empathise with your point and over the years I have valued your contribution to the forum. However, I want to be able to freely discuss the facts of the case without fear that people will take offence to it.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

In 2017 MM's case was theirs to make their own decisions on how to process information received. They chose to be proactive, even to the extent of flying out to interview him in person.

They chose to be proactive in 2008 too with a dedicated line for information. Still, no action on CB until 2017. Perhaps they didn’t think he was suspicious.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It corresponds with the situation described by the only eye witness to a child being carried away from the immediate direction of apartment 5a around the time in question.

For the sake of clarity, are you suggesting that Tannerman was the abductor? A simple yes/no is a sufficient answer.

 

[Mex]

There were two.We know that the Tanner sighting is dismissed for two reasons, the most important being the holiday maker who was in the area at that time never saw anything suspicious, how is this known, DCI Redwood moving the timeline on.

The JT sighting was reported immediately to the attending police and is therefore the only immediate sighting of a child being carried away which is of relevance to MM's disappearance at a time when if acted on accordingly, might have made a difference.

It is even more relevant now that a witness has corroborated the child's silence by reporting he had been told that she didn't scream.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think what a great pity it is that procedural issues have prevented all these arguments from being appraised in a court of law instead of in the tabloids.

Yes, if only HCW et al had understood they didn’t have jurisdiction, we’d probably have had a trial by now.

 

[Lyall0814]

The JT sighting was reported immediately to the attending police and is therefore the only immediate sighting of a child being carried away which is of relevance to MM's disappearance at a time when if acted on accordingly, might have made a difference.

It is even more relevant now that a witness has corroborated the child's silence by reporting he had been told that she didn't scream.

Wittgenstein's not having that one, Mex. Witness 1 says "she wasn't screaming", but it's suspicious when anybody else subsequently says the same thing? Nah. Witness 1 told the world she didn't scream.

 

[Mex]

They chose to be proactive in 2008 too with a dedicated line for information. Still, no action on CB until 2017. Perhaps they didn’t think he was suspicious.

SY did not open MM's case until 2013 when to all intents and purposes CB's name did not leap put at them although many others certainly did.
We now know CB was on PJ radar in 2007. What a pity it was that information seems to have vanished at source.

 

[Mex]

Wittgenstein's not having that one, Mex. Witness 1 says "she wasn't screaming", but it's suspicious when anybody else subsequently says the same thing? Nah. Witness 1 told the world she didn't scream.

Regretfully, I really don't know what point you are trying to make. My bad I know, but since I don't understand can you rephrase it please.

 

[Lyall0814]

Regretfully, I really don't know what point you are trying to make. My bad I know, but since I don't understand can you rephrase it please.

JT told the world the child she saw being carried away wasn't screaming. So why is it suspicious when somebody says in 2008 the child didn't scream? Why would any police in UK or Portugal think someone repeating what JT said was suspicious?

 

[C.greek]

Please take this at intended, I want to respond to your point but not without being sensitive to the difficult subject.

The police are humans, they make mistakes. In this case, the police/prosecutors charged CB but this doesn’t mean he did it. Before the statement can be made that we are raping her again (this is an unpleasant accusation), it needs to be proven she has been raped. Based on what we know this is far from certain.

This is a true crime forum, dealing with truly horrific crimes. IMO though, no matter how difficult the subject matter, we cannot critically evaluate the facts of the case if we are drawn into discussions of how this emotionally effects people - the former is sleuthing the latter is (respectfully) judgemental.

I can empathise with your point and over the years I have valued your contribution to the forum. However, I want to be able to freely discuss the facts of the case without fear that people will take offence to it.

There was nothing emotional in my comment. There has been a rape charge for this teenager included in the charge sheet and for this specific charge there is no way to sleuth it. There must have been a reason why this and the elderly lady's rapes have been included in the charge sheet and not that of the 40 year old woman. This I think would be the most fruitful avenue to follow and not by diminishing this charge and finding excuses why this was not rape.

And for those who'd like to sleuth it further, perhaps before saying the age of consent in Portugal is 14, it be good to look at the actual law for sex between an adult and an adolescent.

 

[C.greek]

Who ever represents CB in court would have a field day then questioning why he's selling a story before a court heard it, not sure it would be seen favourably by the judges.If he's the chief prosecution witness in two of the cases, doesn't say much, once again imo.

I don't think he is the chief prosecution witness. I seem to recall (but cannot find it now) that HCW has said HB is not a chief witness. It could be why they haven't charged for the other 'rape' of the 40 year old? Maybe they have the footage?

 

[C.greek]

Ddp

 

[Okapi]

Imo charges of aggravated rape leave little room for quibbling about the nature of events. Whatever the initial interactions, the police were satisfied that these cases were to be prosecuted as sex crimes.

Just an interesting aside I wasn’t aware of, while we’re discussing the technical definition of rape.

According to Wiki (quoting a US Govt report on Germany’s human rights record):

‘Consensual sex (in Germany) is legal from the age of 14 in most cases. There is an exception if the older partner is above the age of 18, and is “exploiting a coercive situation” or offering compensation, and the younger partner is under 16. It is also illegal for someone older than 21 to have sex with someone under the age of 16 if the older person “exploits the victim’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination.”

Rape in Germany - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Hygge]

This is the original interview with Helge and Kai. I hope it has English subtitles

 

[C.greek]

Imo charges of aggravated rape leave little room for quibbling about the nature of events. Whatever the initial interactions, the police were satisfied that these cases were to be prosecuted as sex crimes.

Just an interesting aside I wasn’t aware of, while we’re discussing the technical definition of rape.

According to Wiki (quoting a US Govt report on Germany’s human rights record):

‘Consensual sex (in Germany) is legal from the age of 14 in most cases. There is an exception if the older partner is above the age of 18, and is “exploiting a coercive situation” or offering compensation, and the younger partner is under 16. It is also illegal for someone older than 21 to have sex with someone under the age of 16 if the older person “exploits the victim’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination.”

Rape in Germany - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The same applies to Portugal, so the consensual sex excuse imo should be dropped from the discussion about the unidentified teenager. Jmo

 

[Anxala]

Please take this at intended, I want to respond to your point but not without being sensitive to the difficult subject.

The police are humans, they make mistakes. In this case, the police/prosecutors charged CB but this doesn’t mean he did it. Before the statement can be made that we are raping her again (this is an unpleasant accusation), it needs to be proven she has been raped. Based on what we know this is far from certain.

This is a true crime forum, dealing with truly horrific crimes. IMO though, no matter how difficult the subject matter, we cannot critically evaluate the facts of the case if we are drawn into discussions of how this emotionally effects people - the former is sleuthing the latter is (respectfully) judgemental.

I can empathise with your point and over the years I have valued your contribution to the forum. However, I want to be able to freely discuss the facts of the case without fear that people will take offence to it.

I agree with you regarding the nature of sleuthing discusssions - 'unpleasantness' is very much part and parcel of them - but, with respect, I really think you're on a hiding to nothing with your willingness to accord CB the benefit of the doubt here.

If we believe HB's account, we're talking about a 14yr old child. Yes, child. Age of consent has bugger all to do with anything where sexual activity of an abusive and violent nature involves a 14yr old child and a man in his mid-late 20s, the age he'd have been at the alleged time this took place.

There is absolutely no mitigating factor to be found here, no 'but was she compliant? did she agree to it?' argument. By virtue of her age, she was not in a position to consent to what she was subjected to here. No ifs no buts, it's rape.

 

[C.greek]

And another thing to sleuth, what if this teenager has been identified by BKA, but she has not come forward nor does she want to have any part in this? If she has been identified, would the BKA be obliged to call her as a witness?

 

[Lyall0814]

This is the original interview with Helge and Kai. I hope it has English subtitles

No chance

The autotranslate seems to think he's talking about God. Very strange.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

I don't think he is the chief prosecution witness. I seem to recall (but cannot find it now) that HCW has said HB is not a chief witness. It could be why they haven't charged for the other 'rape' of the 40 year old? Maybe they have the footage?

HB and MS are not central pieces of MM investigation. HCW told it to SF on Sexta às 9. IMO, as I already posted here some pages behind, it may suggests that the evidence BKA might have is maybe stronger than only "poor" testimonies corroborated by eventual CB's autobiograpihic texts/chats.