Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[Lilly b]

I suppose there is the grim possibility that she was stolen to order, abused by the payer (and possibly payee too) and then murdered by the latter, and the gruesome episode possibly also monetised on the dark web. Seems a complicated scenario and much more likely imo this was an opportunistic crime, possibly undertaken without much forethought given to an exit strategy. Effectively disposing of the evidence would be the only way to minimise the likelihood of being caught. IMO

I'm more on he did it as opportunity arose. And for the his own pleasure, and then had to (excuse my words ) get rid.
I don't think anyone else involved imo

 

[Lilly b]

I'm more on he did it as opportunity arose. And for the his own pleasure, and then had to (excuse my words ) get rid.
I don't think anyone else involved imo

@Consider Dudley , I think that meant I'm of similar opinion to you

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I agree. Even more unlikely in this case if we're to accept the central premise of the investigation, which is that -

A. HCW says he has proof that MM was abducted and murdered by CB. That eliminates the idea that she was a victim of a paid-for abduction since a paid-for abduction would involve a 3rd party ie. the payer to whom MM would have been passed on to by CB.

B. Since CB is allegedly the one who both abducted and murdered her, that surely renders null and void also the idea that another unknown person was hired to dispose of her body since CB would have to be the hirer of such a person!

It's illogical nonsense.

What if the central premise results in an incorrect conclusion? So far to me it looks like this:

1. CB is a bad man
2. A phone number used by CB at some point in the past was used on 3 May
3. A car owned by CB was reregistered by AB on 4 May
4. CB has allegedly confessed to abducting and murdering MM
5. CB is being investigated for these crimes

Conclusion
CB killed and murdered MM.

I don’t think this passes muster but I can see why people think it might.

 

[Consider Dudley]

What if the central premise results in an incorrect conclusion? So far to me it looks like this:

1. CB is a bad man
2. A phone number used by CB at some point in the past was used on 3 May
3. A car owned by CB was reregistered by AB on 4 May
4. CB has allegedly confessed to abducting and murdering MM
5. CB is being investigated for these crimes

Conclusion
CB killed and murdered MM.

I don’t think this passes muster but I can see why people think it might.

I think by “CB is a bad man” one needs to consider and exand on what his “badness” reveals about himself. That he enjoys sexual coercion, control and violence for one thing, that he enjoys sexually abusing children is another. He is “the perfect patsy” apparently, however despite this the police have yet to discover enough incontrovertible evidence to charge (which is remiss of them if their intention was to frame him for a crime he didn’t commit).

 

[Davieson]

I think by “CB is a bad man” one needs to consider and exand on what his “badness” reveals about himself. That he enjoys sexual coercion, control and violence for one thing, that he enjoys sexually abusing children is another. He is “the perfect patsy” apparently, however despite this the police have yet to discover enough incontrovertible evidence to charge (which is remiss of them if their intention was to frame him for a crime he didn’t commit).

Maybe things just haven't panned out as prosecutors/police intended. The essential evidence wasn't there as they expected and they are still scratting around in the hope that something will turn. IMO

 

[Consider Dudley]

Maybe things just haven't panned out as prosecutors/police intended. The essential evidence wasn't there as they expected and they are still scratting around in the hope that something will turn. IMO

Maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate on what's going on wrt to the prosecutor/police. I guess it all depends on who or what you believe at the end of the day, and much of that belief will IMO be based on preconceived notions of what fate befell Madeleine on 3rd May 2007, beliefs formed well before the German investigation began.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think by “CB is a bad man” one needs to consider and exand on what his “badness” reveals about himself. That he enjoys sexual coercion, control and violence for one thing, that he enjoys sexually abusing children is another. He is “the perfect patsy” apparently, however despite this the police have yet to discover enough incontrovertible evidence to charge (which is remiss of them if their intention was to frame him for a crime he didn’t commit).

No embellishment of badness proves anything in relation to MM, only evidence that he abducted and murdered her will do that.

I made no accusations of him being a patsy or the BKA intending to frame him. I don’t think either are true.

My point is that based on what we know, the reasoning that CB is guilty is flawed.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate on what's going on wrt to the prosecutor/police. I guess it all depends on who or what you believe at the end of the day, and much of that belief will IMO be based on preconceived notions of what fate befell Madeleine on 3rd May 2007, beliefs formed well before the German investigation began.

Any such beliefs can be dismissed with a guilty conviction of CB.

 

[Davieson]

Maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate on what's going on wrt to the prosecutor/police. I guess it all depends on who or what you believe at the end of the day, and much of that belief will IMO be based on preconceived notions of what fate befell Madeleine on 3rd May 2007, beliefs formed well before the German investigation began.

I don't consider it speculation to say that prosecutors haven't got the evidence they want and hoped for.
If they had, their investigation would be closed and charges forthcoming.
All this talk about getting the other charges out of the way first is just bunkum. The other charges have only come first because they haven't sufficient to stand up in court as regards MM
IMO

 

[RichardKimble]

Maybe things just haven't panned out as prosecutors/police intended. The essential evidence wasn't there as they expected and they are still scratting around in the hope that something will turn. IMO

Going back to the appeal in 2020, this obviously never bore fruit.

Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons, apart from the sus- pect, who have concrete knowledge of the course of the crime and maybe also of the place where the body was left. We explicitly ask these persons to contact us and provide information.

 

[Consider Dudley]

No embellishment of badness proves anything in relation to MM, only evidence that he abducted and murdered her will do that.

I made no accusations of him being a patsy or the BKA intending to frame him. I don’t think either are true.

My point is that based on what we know, the reasoning that CB is guilty is flawed.

It may not prove anything but it is surely relevant. If his badness was purely down to being a burglar and a drug dealer then IMO that makes him a less likely candidate for the abduction, rape and murder of a child than someone with a track record which also includes violent sexual crime and child molestation. I mentioned "the perfect patsy" because in the eyes of some he ticks all the boxes, and some of those boxes are the crimes I highlighted but which you appeared to prefer to gloss over by use of just the one word to describe him, ie: "bad".

 

[Consider Dudley]

Any such beliefs can be dismissed with a guilty conviction of CB.

That is stating the obvious, yes, although on second thoughts... really?

 

[Consider Dudley]

I don't consider it speculation to say that prosecutors haven't got the evidence they want and hoped for.
If they had, their investigation would be closed and charges forthcoming.
All this talk about getting the other charges out of the way first is just bunkum. The other charges have only come first because they haven't sufficient to stand up in court as regards MM
IMO

Either you know that for a fact, or it's speculation.

 

[Davieson]

It may not prove anything but it is surely relevant. If his badness was purely down to being a burglar and a drug dealer then IMO that makes him a less likely candidate for the abduction, rape and murder of a child than someone with a track record which also includes violent sexual crime and child molestation. I mentioned "the perfect patsy" because in the eyes of some he ticks all the boxes, and some of those boxes are the crimes I highlighted but which you appeared to prefer to gloss over by use of just the one word to describe him, ie: "bad".

As far as I'm aware, there isn't really any evidence that MM was a victim of violent sexual crime or child molestation.

 

[Davieson]

Either you know that for a fact, or it's speculation.

You do understand what IMO means ?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

That is stating the obvious, yes, although on second thoughts... really?

It would for me, I’d just be happy to get a conclusion.

 

[Davieson]

It would for me, I’d just be happy to get a conclusion.

Me too.
I would also hope that if CB was tried and acquitted, it would be accepted that he not involved in any way with MM's disappearance/

 

[Consider Dudley]

As far as I'm aware, there isn't really any evidence that MM was a victim of violent sexual crime or child molestation.

IMO that's a disingenuous reading of the facts. When a child goes missing from their bed in the middle of the night never to be seen again and their parents have been ruled out, as has woke and wandered, then that doesn't leave many other explanations. Of course she could have been taken by someone with a fixation on little girls that wasn't sexual, to be kept alive for and played with like a dolly such as happened to the girl abducted from a tent in Australia, so granted that is a possibility though highly unlikely IMO as Madeleine would now be an adult and probably her abductor would have lost interest in her by now.

 

[Consider Dudley]

You do understand what IMO means ?

Yes - it means "in my opinion".

 

[Consider Dudley]

Me too.
I would also hope that if CB was tried and acquitted, it would be accepted that he not involved in any way with MM's disappearance/

And if he was tried and found guilty of Madeleine's abduction and murder I assume there would be no doubt at all in anyone's minds that he was the perpetrator?