Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[mrjitty]

I noticed that HCW is winding back his conviction on the case too. Let’s not forget that he has stated that they had enough evidence to charge - IIRC in Oct 2021. Almost two years later and he doesn’t know if they will charge. Either he was bluffing or he now doubts the evidence he relied upon to make the statement. I think the former. It was a weak ploy, easily read by CB. Made much easier if he is innocent in relation to MM.

I’ve said it for a while now that HCW, as the mouthpiece of the prosecutors office, has seriously over played his hand. The case was built around HeB’s statement. They were further convinced by the DM case stacking up with forensics, and the potential coincidences of the Jag and phone call - both possibly red herrings. The star witness may have made statements but given his new position, he might not be that convincing in front of a judge.

For me, there is little reason to continue to believe there a case against CB for anything to do with MM. Whatever mirage there was has more or less disappeared.

If the MM case against CB is dropped, it would be good to see how the Portuguese and OG respond.

I've begun to wonder if they have another witness as well.

HeBs evidence seems much to lightweight to build any serious prosecution around (unless he held back in the Spiegel interview). IMO he possible just told them who to look at. Maybe CB said something more detailed to someone else?

That could explain why they had so much conviction in the theory but no charges have dropped. They can't corroborate

 

[Mex]

I noticed that HCW is winding back his conviction on the case too. Let’s not forget that he has stated that they had enough evidence to charge - IIRC in Oct 2021. Almost two years later and he doesn’t know if they will charge. Either he was bluffing or he now doubts the evidence he relied upon to make the statement. I think the former. It was a weak ploy, easily read by CB. Made much easier if he is innocent in relation to MM.

I’ve said it for a while now that HCW, as the mouthpiece of the prosecutors office, has seriously over played his hand. The case was built around HeB’s statement. They were further convinced by the DM case stacking up with forensics, and the potential coincidences of the Jag and phone call - both possibly red herrings. The star witness may have made statements but given his new position, he might not be that convincing in front of a judge.

For me, there is little reason to continue to believe there a case against CB for anything to do with MM. Whatever mirage there was has more or less disappeared.

If the MM case against CB is dropped, it would be good to see how the Portuguese and OG respond.

I think your interpretation of events is interesting but inaccurate.

For example I don’t understand the generalisation of the bias and mistrust expressed against the German prosecutor in his stance in prosecuting serious crimes against women and children when the evidence allows.

HCW has evidence hence his reluctance to be pushed into sharing what it is until he is good and ready to use it, and good on him for that. Nor can he be certain that it will be acceptable to judges when submitted to then when it is time to use it to indict a suspect.
The man just cannot win. Allegedly unequivocal statements have been received with disdain and alleged unfairness towards the suspect. Toned down statements allow accusations to be made of a weakness in the case against the suspect or no case at all.

HB is not a “star witness” in MM’s case. HCW confirmed that fact in the interview he gave to the Murdoch Times in which the importance ascribed to HB in other media outlets not behind a paywall (particularly Murdoch’s Sun) was categorically downplayed.

The MM case has been in the making since 2007 when she disappeared.

CB has always had a part to play although that was not in the public domain until 2020 when we were told that he had been on the Policia Judiciaria radar then.

It is risible to imagine that there has not been a substantial amount of intelligence and evidence built up in a case against him. Particularly at the time when CM and others gave his name to the police in 2017 and the police kept it all very confidential. Even managing successfully prosecute CB for the aggravated rape and torture of DM without the association with MM investigation being allowed to interfere with due process and the resultant delivery of Justice.

I agree with you about interest in the Portuguese attitude should the opportunity for that to arise. I don’t think the Portuguese drove a coach and horses through their Statute of Limitations for nothing.

My opinion

 

[Mex]

I've begun to wonder if they have another witness as well.

HeBs evidence seems much to lightweight to build any serious prosecution around (unless he held back in the Spiegel interview). IMO he possible just told them who to look at. Maybe CB said something more detailed to someone else?

That could explain why they had so much conviction in the theory but no charges have dropped. They can't corroborate

I think you've got it right. Logic dictates that of course they have other witnesses.

MM's case does not date from 2017. It has been active since 2007, was officially opened by SY in 2013 and officially reopened by the PJ in 2013.

Time will tell exactly what evidence in the MM case is on file so no need for impatience. It will all slot nicely into place when the time is right or it won't.
But a child abduction case not solved at the time is going to be a hard one to come to grips with all these years down the line.

The police and prosecutors are to be congratulated for the work they have carried out over the years despite the resistance they have faced over the years and still do.

In the meantime there are five cases all firmed up and ready to go. I'm a bit impatient about getting those underway as opposed to worrying about speculating on a case which is still obviously being worked on.

My opinion

 

[Davieson]

I think you've got it right. Logic dictates that of course they have other witnesses.

MM's case does not date from 2017. It has been active since 2007, was officially opened by SY in 2013 and officially reopened by the PJ in 2013.

Time will tell exactly what evidence in the MM case is on file so no need for impatience. It will all slot nicely into place when the time is right or it won't.
But a child abduction case not solved at the time is going to be a hard one to come to grips with all these years down the line.

The police and prosecutors are to be congratulated for the work they have carried out over the years despite the resistance they have faced over the years and still do.

In the meantime there are five cases all firmed up and ready to go. I'm a bit impatient about getting those underway as opposed to worrying about speculating on a case which is still obviously being worked on.

My opinion

I'm not sure how you think they are affected by any so called resistance.

 

[Lilly b]

I think your interpretation of events is interesting but inaccurate.

For example I don’t understand the generalisation of the bias and mistrust expressed against the German prosecutor in his stance in prosecuting serious crimes against women and children when the evidence allows.

HCW has evidence hence his reluctance to be pushed into sharing what it is until he is good and ready to use it, and good on him for that. Nor can he be certain that it will be acceptable to judges when submitted to then when it is time to use it to indict a suspect.
The man just cannot win. Allegedly unequivocal statements have been received with disdain and alleged unfairness towards the suspect. Toned down statements allow accusations to be made of a weakness in the case against the suspect or no case at all.

HB is not a “star witness” in MM’s case. HCW confirmed that fact in the interview he gave to the Murdoch Times in which the importance ascribed to HB in other media outlets not behind a paywall (particularly Murdoch’s Sun) was categorically downplayed.

The MM case has been in the making since 2007 when she disappeared.

CB has always had a part to play although that was not in the public domain until 2020 when we were told that he had been on the Policia Judiciaria radar then.

It is risible to imagine that there has not been a substantial amount of intelligence and evidence built up in a case against him. Particularly at the time when CM and others gave his name to the police in 2017 and the police kept it all very confidential. Even managing successfully prosecute CB for the aggravated rape and torture of DM without the association with MM investigation being allowed to interfere with due process and the resultant delivery of Justice.

I agree with you about interest in the Portuguese attitude should the opportunity for that to arise. I don’t think the Portuguese drove a coach and horses through their Statute of Limitations for nothing.

My opinion

There's many other witnesses that can be called upon, ex's and remember the undertaker guy

 

[Davieson]

There's many other witnesses that can be called upon, ex's and remember the undertaker guy

I'm afraid I don't. Can you remind me ?

 

[Lilly b]

I'm afraid I don't. Can you remind me ?

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-...ored*-with-chief-suspect-christian-brueckner/

 

[Mex]

I'm not sure how you think they are affected by any so called resistance.

To enumerate the many instances of resistance to Operation Grange runs the risk of deflecting from topic
Suffice to say since it's inception there have been those who have lobbied Incessantly against the means of advancing the MM investigation using petitions and parliamentary lobbying. In fact anything within their power to obstruct they did. It is a mindset foreign to German investigators who by law must investigate when and where evidence of crime is found.

Perhaps the psyche of it goes someway towards explaining why there are those who fail to understand the role of the German prosecutor who has statute at his back directing his actions.


MM

Question for Home Office​

Question
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 6 December 2021 (HL4255), whether funding for Operation Grange has now ceased; and if not, (1) for what reason it has been extended, and (2) how much longer funding will continue.

Answer​

Lord Sharpe of Epson
The Home Office continues to provide funding for Operation Grange; in 2022/23 we will provide up to £303k funding to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to cover continuing costs. The Home Office maintains an ongoing dialogue with the MPS regarding funding for Operation Grange and all applications are made and considered in line with Special Grant processes.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-09-06/HL2204/

Petitions
UK Government and Parliament

Authorise an open Public Inquiry into Operation Grange​

It is reported that Operation Grange has been funded £12M (of tax payers money).
The Met Police state The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The inquiry shall review the effectiveness of the MET remit meeting the three key objectives.
More details
The focus of the MET review was the the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
-The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
-UK Law Enforcement agencies,
-Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The UK public should understand the effectiveness of this review, including; what lines of inquiry were followed especially those from the Portuguese Law Enforcement, lines of inquiry closed down and new lines of inquiry opened.
This petition was rejected

Why was this petition rejected?​

There’s already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept a new petition when we already have one about a very similar issue.

Archived Petition: Authorise an open Public Inquiry into Operation Grange

It is reported that Operation Grange has been funded £12M (of tax payers money). The Met Police state The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness. The inquiry shall review the effectiveness of the MET remit meeting the three key objectives.

petition.parliament.uk

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think your interpretation of events is interesting but inaccurate.

For example I don’t understand the generalisation of the bias and mistrust expressed against the German prosecutor in his stance in prosecuting serious crimes against women and children when the evidence allows.

HCW has evidence hence his reluctance to be pushed into sharing what it is until he is good and ready to use it, and good on him for that. Nor can he be certain that it will be acceptable to judges when submitted to then when it is time to use it to indict a suspect.
The man just cannot win. Allegedly unequivocal statements have been received with disdain and alleged unfairness towards the suspect. Toned down statements allow accusations to be made of a weakness in the case against the suspect or no case at all.

HB is not a “star witness” in MM’s case. HCW confirmed that fact in the interview he gave to the Murdoch Times in which the importance ascribed to HB in other media outlets not behind a paywall (particularly Murdoch’s Sun) was categorically downplayed.

The MM case has been in the making since 2007 when she disappeared.

CB has always had a part to play although that was not in the public domain until 2020 when we were told that he had been on the Policia Judiciaria radar then.

It is risible to imagine that there has not been a substantial amount of intelligence and evidence built up in a case against him. Particularly at the time when CM and others gave his name to the police in 2017 and the police kept it all very confidential. Even managing successfully prosecute CB for the aggravated rape and torture of DM without the association with MM investigation being allowed to interfere with due process and the resultant delivery of Justice.

I agree with you about interest in the Portuguese attitude should the opportunity for that to arise. I don’t think the Portuguese drove a coach and horses through their Statute of Limitations for nothing.

My opinion

I made no mention of any case other than MM in my post. If the prosecutors can bring other cases to trial then good luck to them but they are not the topic of this forum.

Please help me understand how the tone of the spokesperson’s media communications in relation to MM have deteriorated from an imminent certainty to perhaps not being charged at all. He has assured the public that CB killed MM, unequivocally.

If he has other witnesses who can assert CB’s guilt, why has the position on charging Jenn downgraded so much. After all, when HeB was a confirmed witness the case was ostensibly strong, now that he is showing reluctance to support the case, charges seem far less likely.

IMO, with HeB we wouldn’t have seen a charge for MM, without him, we almost certainly won’t.

 

[mrjitty]

He has assured the public that CB killed MM, unequivocally.

RSBM

IMO this is what the media must hold the prosecutors' office accountable for. Braunschweig made big allegations, outside of the charging/judicial process. As we enter the fourth year it is absolutely correct that the media should be asking hard questions, especially if Witness 0 is seeking to back away from the tip that started it all.

Of course the prosecutor might not be able to give satisfactory answers because it is an active investigation. But what I really don't like is a prosecutor discussing secret evidence and saying yeah this evidence doesn't matter but we have some other great evidence oh yeah but maybe not enough to prove the case... all very odd IMO

I am still wondering what could be the evidence that means they know it was a murder and CB did it, yet doesn't rise to proving the case. One strong possibility is witness testimony IMO.

 

[Davieson]

To enumerate the many instances of resistance to Operation Grange runs the risk of deflecting from topic
Suffice to say since it's inception there have been those who have lobbied Incessantly against the means of advancing the MM investigation using petitions and parliamentary lobbying. In fact anything within their power to obstruct they did. It is a mindset foreign to German investigators who by law must investigate when and where evidence of crime is found.

Perhaps the psyche of it goes someway towards explaining why there are those who fail to understand the role of the German prosecutor who has statute at his back directing his actions.


MM

Question for Home Office​

Question
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 6 December 2021 (HL4255), whether funding for Operation Grange has now ceased; and if not, (1) for what reason it has been extended, and (2) how much longer funding will continue.

Answer​

Lord Sharpe of Epson
The Home Office continues to provide funding for Operation Grange; in 2022/23 we will provide up to £303k funding to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to cover continuing costs. The Home Office maintains an ongoing dialogue with the MPS regarding funding for Operation Grange and all applications are made and considered in line with Special Grant processes.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-09-06/HL2204/

Petitions
UK Government and Parliament

Authorise an open Public Inquiry into Operation Grange​

It is reported that Operation Grange has been funded £12M (of tax payers money).
The Met Police state The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The inquiry shall review the effectiveness of the MET remit meeting the three key objectives.
More details
The focus of the MET review was the the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
-The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
-UK Law Enforcement agencies,
-Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The UK public should understand the effectiveness of this review, including; what lines of inquiry were followed especially those from the Portuguese Law Enforcement, lines of inquiry closed down and new lines of inquiry opened.
This petition was rejected

Why was this petition rejected?​

There’s already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept a new petition when we already have one about a very similar issue.

Archived Petition: Authorise an open Public Inquiry into Operation Grange

It is reported that Operation Grange has been funded £12M (of tax payers money). The Met Police state The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness. The inquiry shall review the effectiveness of the MET remit meeting the three key objectives.

petition.parliament.uk

These seem legitimate concerns over public expenditure, rather than anything more sinister.
IMO

 

[RichardKimble]

RSBM

IMO this is what the media must hold the prosecutors' office accountable for. Braunschweig made big allegations, outside of the charging/judicial process. As we enter the fourth year it is absolutely correct that the media should be asking hard questions, especially if Witness 0 is seeking to back away from the tip that started it all.

Of course the prosecutor might not be able to give satisfactory answers because it is an active investigation. But what I really don't like is a prosecutor discussing secret evidence and saying yeah this evidence doesn't matter but we have some other great evidence oh yeah but maybe not enough to prove the case... all very odd IMO

I am still wondering what could be the evidence that means they know it was a murder and CB did it, yet doesn't rise to proving the case. One strong possibility is witness testimony IMO.

Maybe the Sun's pieces are attempting to hold HCW to count, it's interesting he felt the need to respond.

Witness testimony of what CB is alleged to have said not the actual fact, one thing not one of the leaked or otherwise bits have any of them said CB actually took MM out of 5a.She didn't scream hardly cuts the mustard imo.

 

[Mex]

These seem legitimate concerns over public expenditure, rather than anything more sinister.
IMO

The links provided which are a modicum of those available which substantiate your questioning of the single word "resistance" in reference to very active and organised internet campaigns which attempted to shut down the investigation into a missing child from inception till now.

Money was never the issue.

The antipathy directed toward the German prosecutor who operates investigating crime under a different culture from those who strive with every fibre of their being to resist funding to investigate the crime against MM is thus explained although not understood.

MM's case stood no chance of being solved without the money spent on Operation Grange. The German approach saw evidence of the crime of aggravated rape which immediately led to them taking the necessary action to investigate, prosecute and solve. Keeping a very dangerous sexual deviant off the streets as a direct result.

What can be wrong with that result!

My opinion

 

[Mex]

Maybe the Sun's pieces are attempting to hold HCW to count, it's interesting he felt the need to respond.

Witness testimony of what CB is alleged to have said not the actual fact, one thing not one of the leaked or otherwise bits have any of them said CB actually took MM out of 5a.She didn't scream hardly cuts the mustard imo.

You have exactly hit on the reason why alleged withdrawal of HB's hearsay evidence (which is admissible under the German Code) will not make a dent in any future prosecution of the MM case.

His initial value was in identification and corroboration which has been thoroughly investigated.
I doubt if he would even be called as a witness.

My opinion

Snip
Page 612
For example, hearsay is admissible in German courts, and it is up to the court to determine whether or not the evidence is convincing. 2 Additionally, rules such as the "opinion rule," precluding conclusory factual statements by lay witnesses, and the "best evidence rule," requiring original documentation to prove the contents of a writing, do not apply in German courts.'3

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=ilr

 

[Davieson]

The links provided which are a modicum of those available which substantiate your questioning of the single word "resistance" in reference to very active and organised internet campaigns which attempted to shut down the investigation into a missing child from inception till now.

Money was never the issue.

The antipathy directed toward the German prosecutor who operates investigating crime under a different culture from those who strive with every fibre of their being to resist funding to investigate the crime against MM is thus explained although not understood.

MM's case stood no chance of being solved without the money spent on Operation Grange. The German approach saw evidence of the crime of aggravated rape which immediately led to them taking the necessary action to investigate, prosecute and solve. Keeping a very dangerous sexual deviant off the streets as a direct result.

What can be wrong with that result!

My opinion

Nothing wrong with that, albeit a mere drop in the ocean.
To my mind though, there is much more to policing than concentrating on a handful of deviants and deploying large resources against said deviants is always at the expense of other equally important offences

 

[WestLondoner]

It is quite easy to underthink this case as well as to overthink it. A lot more than most cases, probably. But for my money, possibly all that has happened is that the German prosecutors received some quality intelligence from a snitch - or more than one snitch - about what happened to MM. Intelligence itself - e.g. "I was CB's mate, and he dunnit" - is not evidence usable in court. But it may lead you to evidence: you now know to look at where and how a named person lived, worked, travelled, operated.

So this intelligence about CB provided tangible leads for once: his name, odd bits of property usable as hiding places, his van, a local beauty spot by a lake.

This is consistent in particular with one quite important observation they've made - that HB is not core to the case. This would be so if what he had done was identify where usable evidence might be found. If so, the prosecutor's intended case is indeed not reliant on him. His value is that his information may lead the prosecutor to evidence, having which, they don't actually need him.

This probably wasn't information of the poor quality you get from some nutter who watches a TV documentary about e.g. the Suzy Lamplugh abduction. And suddenly "remembers" stuff about it with perfect recall fourteen years later having been completely silent in the meantime. No, this was better: specific places for police to go look.

I suspect that in the meantime, what's happened is that the promising new information has been looked into...and come up completely empty. There's been no word of anything found at CB's allotment shed, in his van, or at the lake. These are all places we know have been searched. But the tangible leads have all led, er, nowhere.

On a site like WS it is hugely tempting to imagine that murders can be fathomed out by the application of facts and logic. I suspect unfortunately that this is almost never true, and that what you need is either a smoking hot evidence trail, or, when it's this long ex post, a snitch. Perhaps all the BKA ever had was a really convincing and well-informed snitch, whose information has unfortunately not helped.

The BKA's communications strategy around this has been baffling. I really do not understand what they gained operationally from announcing, way back when, that they reckoned they had their man. It seems possible to me that what we are seeing now is them trying to walk back from their "CB dunnit" position and gradually dismount therefrom. If their source is flaking, they are quite right to say that this doesn't matter; he was never a witness, only an informant. The trouble now is that, assuming Germany has equivalent provisions to UK and other law around the right to a fair trial, it seems unlikely CB could ever be charged even if he did this, because he's been convicted by insinuation already.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

You have exactly hit on the reason why alleged withdrawal of HB's hearsay evidence (which is admissible under the German Code) will not make a dent in any future prosecution of the MM case.

His initial value was in identification and corroboration which has been thoroughly investigated.
I doubt if he would even be called as a witness.

My opinion

So why then has the spokesperson for the prosecutors office changed the the position relating to charges.

This is a very important point. He has proclaimed that CB is guilty, repeatedly and with complete conviction that charges would be laid.

It’s not okay that now he is winding back these statements. He has given hope to the child’s parents and the the concerned public.

If HeB’s evidence is not important, we should still be hearing statements that the book of evidence is building, that the case against CB is strengthening and we should have some indication on when charges could be laid.

The fact is, we are not. We are experiencing an endless timeframe and doubt that charges will be laid.

This is indefensible IMO and HCW and his colleagues should have their feet held to the fire… very closely.

 

[mrjitty]

You have exactly hit on the reason why alleged withdrawal of HB's hearsay evidence (which is admissible under the German Code) will not make a dent in any future prosecution of the MM case.

His initial value was in identification and corroboration which has been thoroughly investigated.
I doubt if he would even be called as a witness.

My opinion

Snip
Page 612
For example, hearsay is admissible in German courts, and it is up to the court to determine whether or not the evidence is convincing. 2 Additionally, rules such as the "opinion rule," precluding conclusory factual statements by lay witnesses, and the "best evidence rule," requiring original documentation to prove the contents of a writing, do not apply in German courts.'3

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=ilr

Statements against interest (e.g a confession) are normally admissible in the US/UK as well as an exception to hearsay. As described by HeB in his interview, the question is more whether it was a confession, as it requires interpretation as to what CB meant.

Hearsay | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[RichardKimble]

It is quite easy to underthink this case as well as to overthink it. A lot more than most cases, probably. But for my money, possibly all that has happened is that the German prosecutors received some quality intelligence from a snitch - or more than one snitch - about what happened to MM. Intelligence itself - e.g. "I was CB's mate, and he dunnit" - is not evidence usable in court. But it may lead you to evidence: you now know to look at where and how a named person lived, worked, travelled, operated.

So this intelligence about CB provided tangible leads for once: his name, odd bits of property usable as hiding places, his van, a local beauty spot by a lake.

This is consistent in particular with one quite important observation they've made - that HB is not core to the case. This would be so if what he had done was identify where usable evidence might be found. If so, the prosecutor's intended case is indeed not reliant on him. His value is that his information may lead the prosecutor to evidence, having which, they don't actually need him.

This probably wasn't information of the poor quality you get from some nutter who watches a TV documentary about e.g. the Suzy Lamplugh abduction. And suddenly "remembers" stuff about it with perfect recall fourteen years later having been completely silent in the meantime. No, this was better: specific places for police to go look.

I suspect that in the meantime, what's happened is that the promising new information has been looked into...and come up completely empty. There's been no word of anything found at CB's allotment shed, in his van, or at the lake. These are all places we know have been searched. But the tangible leads have all led, er, nowhere.

On a site like WS it is hugely tempting to imagine that murders can be fathomed out by the application of facts and logic. I suspect unfortunately that this is almost never true, and that what you need is either a smoking hot evidence trail, or, when it's this long ex post, a snitch. Perhaps all the BKA ever had was a really convincing and well-informed snitch, whose information has unfortunately not helped.

The BKA's communications strategy around this has been baffling. I really do not understand what they gained operationally from announcing, way back when, that they reckoned they had their man. It seems possible to me that what we are seeing now is them trying to walk back from their "CB dunnit" position and gradually dismount therefrom. If their source is flaking, they are quite right to say that this doesn't matter; he was never a witness, only an informant. The trouble now is that, assuming Germany has equivalent provisions to UK and other law around the right to a fair trial, it seems unlikely CB could ever be charged even if he did this, because he's been convicted by insinuation already.

It's easy to see how HeB probably overplayed his importance, but there again HCW gives oxygen to him by responding.

 

[mrjitty]

It is quite easy to underthink this case as well as to overthink it. A lot more than most cases, probably. But for my money, possibly all that has happened is that the German prosecutors received some quality intelligence from a snitch - or more than one snitch - about what happened to MM. Intelligence itself - e.g. "I was CB's mate, and he dunnit" - is not evidence usable in court. But it may lead you to evidence: you now know to look at where and how a named person lived, worked, travelled, operated.

So this intelligence about CB provided tangible leads for once: his name, odd bits of property usable as hiding places, his van, a local beauty spot by a lake.

This is consistent in particular with one quite important observation they've made - that HB is not core to the case. This would be so if what he had done was identify where usable evidence might be found. If so, the prosecutor's intended case is indeed not reliant on him. His value is that his information may lead the prosecutor to evidence, having which, they don't actually need him.

This probably wasn't information of the poor quality you get from some nutter who watches a TV documentary about e.g. the Suzy Lamplugh abduction. And suddenly "remembers" stuff about it with perfect recall fourteen years later having been completely silent in the meantime. No, this was better: specific places for police to go look.

I suspect that in the meantime, what's happened is that the promising new information has been looked into...and come up completely empty. There's been no word of anything found at CB's allotment shed, in his van, or at the lake. These are all places we know have been searched. But the tangible leads have all led, er, nowhere.

On a site like WS it is hugely tempting to imagine that murders can be fathomed out by the application of facts and logic. I suspect unfortunately that this is almost never true, and that what you need is either a smoking hot evidence trail, or, when it's this long ex post, a snitch. Perhaps all the BKA ever had was a really convincing and well-informed snitch, whose information has unfortunately not helped.

Nice post. I agree. The problem at this point is unless they are still getting live tips, how are they taking the case forward? The reservoir search is apparently an example of new, cogent info, that apparently led to nothing. So are they really still waiting for someone to give that tip or for the body to be discovered by accident? (it happens)

At some points soon I imagine they either have to charge or scale down. Personally I feel they need to charge given the claims made.

The BKA's communications strategy around this has been baffling. I really do not understand what they gained operationally from announcing, way back when, that they reckoned they had their man. It seems possible to me that what we are seeing now is them trying to walk back from their "CB dunnit" position and gradually dismount therefrom. If their source is flaking, they are quite right to say that this doesn't matter; he was never a witness, only an informant. The trouble now is that, assuming Germany has equivalent provisions to UK and other law around the right to a fair trial, it seems unlikely CB could ever be charged even if he did this, because he's been convicted by insinuation already.

I think this is not such a big issue as the Judges will be presumed not to be influenced by prior publicity