Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #6

[peanutJelly]

Yeah I see what you mean.
The women g/f's he got involved with at least 1 has quoted that their sex life was "normal" - That depends on what her perception of a normal sex life means I guess and yes. there would have been a possibility that he could have separated the two sides of his sex life and kept the other, darker side hidden. I would imagine the darker side may have been acted out on his more vulnerable g/f's and those who were maybe a little bit more savvy, he would have been a little more guarded with.
JMO

She also might want to avoid being publicly seen in the media to enjoy sexual preferences not widely deemed’normal’?! IMO

 

[tedtink]

She also might want to avoid being publicly seen in the media to enjoy sexual preferences not widely deemed’normal’?! IMO

Good point - there is that too!

 

[JediJim]

I'm not sure if I read somewhere here saying that there was a missing holdall. Might be wrong.

It was reported somewhere that GM had a blue holdall with him for tennis that was also taken.GM denied ever taking one.
None of the sightings stated a holdall either , otherwise that would have been the golden piece of information.
Who knows why this was made up....

 

[JediJim]

As I said before there are so many aspects of the MM case. Were hotel staff involved? Was it an insider abduction? Was it planned? Was CB the culprit?...

 

[Anxala]

Because they have most of the evidence they NEED. But still must place HIM in the area at the time - and not just someone who could have been using his phone.

etd

Re them having 'most of the evidence', do they though? What's your basis for suggesting that? Because him being found to having been there on the day and in the immediate area still doesn't seem to me to be something that would nail him.

If he's said he wasn't but it turns out (with concrete evidence) he was, that's still no proof that he was involved with the disappearance of MM.

Please don't think for a second I'm trying to make a case for his innocence. I'm absolutely not. I'm just (and genuinely always) trying to make a case for logic.

 

[JediJim]

Re them having 'most of the evidence', do they though? What's your basis for suggesting that? Because him being found to having been there on the day and in the immediate area still doesn't seem to me to be something that would nail him.

If he's said he wasn't but it turns out (with concrete evidence) he was, that's still no proof that he was involved with the disappearance of MM.

Please don't think for a second I'm trying to make a case for his innocence. I'm absolutely not. I'm just (and genuinely always) trying to make a case for logic.

No you’re right. CB may have been in the area and is an unsavoury character, but that doesn’t make him automatically guilty. I wonder what else they have ? Are they still trying to find the person who owned the phone numbers?

 

[tedtink]

Re them having 'most of the evidence', do they though? What's your basis for suggesting that? Because him being found to having been there on the day and in the immediate area still doesn't seem to me to be something that would nail him.

If he's said he wasn't but it turns out (with concrete evidence) he was, that's still no proof that he was involved with the disappearance of MM.

Please don't think for a second I'm trying to make a case for his innocence. I'm absolutely not. I'm just (and genuinely always) trying to make a case for logic.

OK, I think it would be much easier if you went back over at least #5 and #6 and read all the posts & the theories in detail. I think that would take less time than me writing it here. It may be better read the posts yourself and form your own theories on this rather than take mine as read as there's an awful lot of info on here as well as links etc. Sometimes having to repeat oneself over and over can get a little vexing

 

[Dlk79]

Re them having 'most of the evidence', do they though? What's your basis for suggesting that? Because him being found to having been there on the day and in the the immediate area still doesn't seem to me to me to be something that would nail him.

If he's said he wasn't but it turns out (with concrete evidence) he was, that's still no proof that he was involved with the disappearance of MM.

Please don't think for a second I'm trying to make a case for his innocence. I'm absolutely not. I'm just (and genuinely always) trying to make a case for logic.

German LE have said they have 90% of the evidence they need. And, also they believe they know CB murdered MM and how, but have no forensic evidence which is ideally what they would love to have.

Being there on the day might not "nail" him, but it builds the case. As I said in my previous post, he must have given an account of his movements around the time of the abduction when he was questioned back in 2013, if it can be proven that account is false, then it's another damning indictment to add to the list.

German LE don't have any forensic evidence and aren't guaranteed to get any so they need to work every angle. They have other evidence we don't know about yet, in the absence of a body and a murder scene, these are the final pieces to the puzzle they want to be able to make their case.

German law works by putting all the evidence in front of a judge and they alone decide, whether they think that person is guilty or not. As the prosecutor, HCW knows what level of evidence would be required to get a conviction.

 

[haden]

Forgive me it was the grandfather who was quoted as saying that Kate may have used calpol - I think this started a much wider speculation into the case against the Mccanns at the time.

Madeleine McCann Disappearance: MADELEINE'S GRANDFATHER ADMITS KATE “MAY HAVE USED CALPOL”

I don't understand what you are trying to imply? Calpol is NOT a sedative. This is a mild children's version of paracetamol. It is given to children in all sorts of situations, even to two months old babies.

 

[tedtink]

German LE have said they have 90% of the evidence they need. And, also they believe they know CB murdered MM and how, but have no forensic evidence which is ideally what they would love to have.

Being there on the day might not "nail" him, but it builds the case. As I said in my previous post, he must have given an account of his movements around the time of the abduction when he was questioned back in 2013, if it can proven that account is false, then it's another damning indictment to add to the list.

German LE don't have any forensic evidence and aren't guaranteed to get any so they need to work every angle. They have other evidence we don't know about yet, in the absence of a body and a murder scene, these are the final pieces to the puzzle they want to be able to make their case.

German law works by putting all the evidence in front of a judge and they alone decide, whether they think that person is guilty or not. As the prosecutor, HCW knows what level of evidence would be required to get a conviction.

Very helpful thank you.

 

[Kikixxxx]

Re them having 'most of the evidence', do they though? What's your basis for suggesting that? Because him being found to having been there on the day and in the immediate area still doesn't seem to me to be something that would nail him.

If he's said he wasn't but it turns out (with concrete evidence) he was, that's still no proof that he was involved with the disappearance of MM.

Please don't think for a second I'm trying to make a case for his innocence. I'm absolutely not. I'm just (and genuinely always) trying to make a case for logic.

If they can tell he answered a call just before the abduction, I would think they also have access to whom he called in the days afterwards too, maybe there’s something quite telling in that info, even things he possibly googled etc. (I’m thinking grace millanes case here, he was googling suspicious places nearby, which was obviously areas to dispose a body) but again he could just deny he had the phone at all. in which case all that info would be irrelevant because it ‘wasn’t him’ ... but if whoever this person is can confirm it was CB using the phone that night, well that might make all the difference.... I believe HCW said they had “90% evidence he did the deed”

 

[tedtink]

I don't understand what you are trying to imply? Calpol is NOT a sedative. This is a mild children's version of paracetamol. It is given to children in all sorts of situations, even to two months old babies.

I'm not trying to imply anything! - read the whole thread.

 

[MENDEL]

IMHO Germans have no evidence at all. They think CB did it from small talk. He was there. He must have done it. But no evidence at all.

Making CB such high profile is desperate action in hope thus they will be able to gather evidence from so many people aware of the case. So far we could only have a nice insight into his private life and minor crimes and not so minor, but no murder, no kidnapping.

This is high stake. If they don't get evidence, his lawyer will have an easy (and profiting) case against FRG.

 

[tedtink]

IMHO Germans have no evidence at all. They think CB did it from small talk. He was there. He must have done it. But no evidence at all.

Making CB such high profile is desperate action in hope thus they will be able to gather evidence from so many people aware of the case. So far we could only have a nice insight into his private life and minor crimes and not so minor, but no murder, no kidnapping.

This is high stake. If they don't get evidence, his lawyer will have an easy (and profiting) case against FRG.

Gosh, surely the credibility & reputation of German LE would go down the pan then, after this media frenzy and stories about CB?
Why take such a risk? The best they could get would be a conviction for possessing child *advertiser censored*.

etd

 

[MENDEL]

Gosh, surely the credibility & reputation of German LE would go down the pan then, after this media frenzy and stories about CB?
Why take such a risk?

Because the prize is quite rewarding. Finding abductor of MM and prove all that happened to her is the dream of any investigator. And they think they have the culprit, so the risk will be no evidence, something they thought unlikely. But after all these days, evidence continues to be zero.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Re them having 'most of the evidence', do they though? What's your basis for suggesting that? Because him being found to having been there on the day and in the immediate area still doesn't seem to me to be something that would nail him.

If he's said he wasn't but it turns out (with concrete evidence) he was, that's still no proof that he was involved with the disappearance of MM.

Please don't think for a second I'm trying to make a case for his innocence. I'm absolutely not. I'm just (and genuinely always) trying to make a case for logic.

It may not seem like proof on the front of things, but it gives the LE reason to suspect based on if and why he lied about his whereabouts on 3/5/07 in his original statement - and there is an original statement if he was questioned in 2013. He obviously gave himself an alibi and was cleared of suspicion. Then in 2017, a “friend” comes forward with information linking CB to MM, he tells them what he heard and what he saw. He also links CB to an unsolved rape in the same resort at this time, and this information turns out to be factual. So they have enough cause to believe that what this friend told them about CB and MM is true also. Phone records put his phone in PdL. His original statement might say “I wasn’t in the area, my girlfriend had my phone” and that’s why they mention that specifically. But now they have the statement from the friend, they have enough cause to believe he was lying. This friend has obviously told LE how he killed her, as that is what they have said they are so certain of. Based on the friends true statement linking him to the rape. They just need the other person from the call to come forward and confirm it wasn’t his girlfriend using his phone that night and they can prove he lied in 2013. Why would someone lie about their whereabouts if they had nothing to hide?

 

[MENDEL]

Mr. Wolters is clearly doing bluff. Which prosecutor won't start a case when they have 90% evidence?

So far, all evidence is small talk, a phone call in PDL area and a criminal profile...

 

[tedtink]

Because the prize is quite rewarding. Finding abductor of MM and prove all that happened to her is the dream of any investigator. And they think they have the culprit, so the risk will be no evidence, something they thought unlikely. But after all these days, evidence continues to be zero.

Evidence continues to be 'zero' because WE don't know what they actually have. We can only speculate on the info they have and what they've asked for, imo they're not asking for much.
I beg to differ

 

[reviloyepmi]

Because the prize is quite rewarding. Finding abductor of MM and prove all that happened to her is the dream of any investigator. And they think they have the culprit, so the risk will be no evidence, something they thought unlikely. But after all these days, evidence continues to be zero.

You definitely get the sense the way German LE has drip-fed information to the public over the past few days has been done to keep up pressure on the case in the hope it results in more evidence.

I'm hoping this is so they can make the case air-tight rather than because they have no evidence at all but I guess we'll wait and see.

 

[reviloyepmi]

Mr. Wolters is clearly doing bluff. Which prosecutor won't start a case when they have 90% evidence?

So far, all evidence is small talk, a phone call in PDL area and a criminal profile...

The German legal system requires you share all evidence with the defendant as soon as you charge them, which might explain why they're holding off on charging.