Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #8

[SouthAussie]

"We don't have the body, or any part of the body, but we do have evidence to say that the suspect killed Madeleine McCann" ..... the German prosecutor's words, spoken in English right from his mouth.

Apologies if this has been mentioned already. I have missed a few pages when reading back. But I just saw the prosecutor saying this on our morning TV news.

 

[MENDEL]

I find this quite interesting,the analysis of the van pictures! It takes this discussion (and yes the important of the TL ) to a complete new level. @MENDEL ,imo you seem to be an expert in footage.May I might ask what your skills are regarding to this subject?

Thanks for the compliment, WW. As any member here I wish I could offer some help in finding MM. As to skills, I have none in the area, but I like investigation very much and pictures are a perfect tool. Analyzing details is addictive.

 

[shonyakay]

I’m still thinking I’m confused why this is so mega important? I’m thinking for the timeline, maybe possibilities for where Maddie was taken, but also feels like a side story while we continue to wait for more concrete news. Better than football shirts I guess but wonder if we’re getting side tracked ?!?

MC talked about the van below and he said he hasn't ruled out the possibility of MM being in it. If MM were in it, anywhere one could place it (while CB could have been driving it) would be important. The picture was released by the Met police. I don't know who took it or when. I do think the Malaga port area (that the posters here have discovered) looks like the place it was taken at.

Detective Chief Inspector Mark Cranwell interview; INT Detective... Stock Footage Video - Getty Images

 

[MENDEL]

"We don't have the body, or any part of the body, but we do have evidence to say that the suspect killed Madeleine McCann" ..... the German prosecutor's words, spoken in English right from his mouth.

Apologies if this has been mentioned already. I have missed a few pages when reading back. But I just saw the prosecutor saying this on our morning TV news.

GA is quite massacred these days, but he's certain in one thing: you have absolutely no facts to start anything. The only fact is that the child disappeared. You have nothing to tell she was abducted by peds, she was bought by a rich family who wished a blonde girl, she left house and falled in a well, or all this was arranged by diplomatic authorities for some political purpose (like Carré could put it), whatever. Technically speaking you cannot charge anyone for something you don't have any facts.

 

[Kiranerys]

Thanks for clearing that up. So we should see him standing trial some time soon then?

Have you read all the threads Major? ( genuine question, not snark!) German law is different to UK,they have to prove to a judge that the evidence they have is likely to end in conviction before they are allowed to charge him,they only have 90% at the moment,which would most likely be more than enough here for the cps,but Germany needs more.
If this was UK I would be more sceptical, but indeed no reason for the Germans to put their necks on the line for presenting one of their citizens as a viable suspect if they have nothing apart from the fact that he is a paedophile and was there at the time. JMO

 

[NCanning]

Yes, I get that, I’m just not sure what we’re trying to contribute. Have questions been asked about where the photo was taken?

I agree and I never said it wasnt. Will rephrase and say that I really hope professional investigators have already managed to find it out for themselves before now if it is important.

Otherwise I worry how effective they are if members of a forum have it sussed before the authorities do.

The LE may have made assumptions about the photo or location that are incorrect, they may not have deemed the location to be important and so discounted it, or they may know the location. They may have published this photo hoping for this kind of info, without specifically asking for it. They may also be waaaaay ahead of us re this photo.
Either way, they should be given the info - just in case.

 

[MajorLang]

Thats what the police are aiming for of course

Was it not reported that CB was driving a "Tiffin Allegro" motor home at the time of MM dissapearance?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11964573/madeleine-mccann-witness-christian-b

 

[Joolz1975]

The LE may have made assumptions about the photo or location that are incorrect, they may not have deemed the location to be important and so discounted it, or they may know the location. They may have published this photo hoping for this kind of info, without specifically asking for it. They may also be waaaaay ahead of us re this photo.
Either way, they should be given the info - just in case.

I know and I mentioned earlier in the thread to email it over so certainly not disagreeing with anything you said. Let's just hope if it is of importance that they have all the information they need surrounding it.

 

[Aluev]

Just read this and found this part interesting:

Today’s article on Queensland Times

Mr Wolters told Hayes he assumes that Maddie is dead, however is "not allowed" nor able to reveal all the details of their evidence.
"Yes. We don't have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann," Mr Wolters said, adding they knew of her death two years ago.

This sounds definite to me. They have some sort of evidence of her killing but not enough to charge him with the crime and they've had this for two years now. If they had just suspected sexual assault why be so definitely positive of her death? It must be photos or videos but by just finding this piece of evidence on CBs property doesn't nececarily mean that it can be proven that he himself committed the crime. They need more supporting evidence.

"We don't have the body, or any part of the body, but we do have evidence to say that the suspect killed Madeleine McCann" ..... the German prosecutor's words, spoken in English right from his mouth.
Apologies if this has been mentioned already. I have missed a few pages when reading back. But I just saw the prosecutor saying this on our morning TV news.

@SouthAussie This is the article with the link to the 60 Minute special. Could you be so kind and watch it to see what new info is revealed? (It can only be streamed from within Australia).

 

[SouthAussie]

@SouthAussie This is the article with the link to the 60 Minute special. Could you be so kind and watch it to see what new info is revealed? (It can only be streamed from within Australia).

Yes, I will watch in a little while - while I am having my morning coffee - before I set off for work.

 

[MajorLang]

Have you read all the threads Major? ( genuine question, not snark!) German law is different to UK,they have to prove to a judge that the evidence they have is likely to end in conviction before they are allowed to charge him,they only have 90% at the moment,which would most likely be more than enough here for the cps,but Germany needs more.
If this was UK I would be more sceptical, but indeed no reason for the Germans to put their necks on the line for presenting one of their citizens as a viable suspect if they have nothing apart from the fact that he is a paedophile and was there at the time. JMO

Thanks for that, I was not aware of German evidence requirements. I do hope that he appears in court as he may when cross examined explain exactly what happened and put the record straight once and for all.

 

[Arnie M]

I wonder why MSM are focusing on the German guy when it was reported that there were "Hundreds of Paedophiles" in the area at the time MM went missing:

Maddie cop says ' hundreds of paedophiles' in Algarve when toddler vanished

~Police say the child is deceased
~This comes while investigating CB
~That is why the focus is on him
~I suspect they have watched some recovered CB video to determine this

 

[MENDEL]

Mr. Wolters says 3 contradictory statements in a row:

1. 'In Germany we are very reserved, I am not sure how it is in the UK, we keep everything to ourselves until we press charges.'

2. The prosecutor also confirmed there is 'no forensic evidence' the child is dead, but there is 'concrete evidence' she has not survived her 13-year disappearance.

3. 'Based on our investigation, 99.9 per cent of us believe she is dead,' he told the Der Westen newspaper.

First he says they don't disclose any information before charges, then offers information (concrete but not forensic evidence). Then he says 99.9% (not 100%) believe, which means there's no evidence. If you have evidence you treat it as certain, not a belief. If you have evidence his Jaguar was registered to another person on May 4, 2007 then you won't say "99.9% of us believe it was registered". So I don't know what to think about him.

Kate and Gerry McCann hit back at German prosecutor's claims | Daily Mail Online

 

[shonyakay]

Just read this and found this part interesting:

Today’s article on Queensland Times

​

This sounds definite to me. They have some sort of evidence of her killing but not enough to charge him with the crime and they've had this for two years now. If they had just suspected sexual assault why be so definitely positive of her death? It must be photos or videos but by just finding this piece of evidence on CBs property doesn't nececarily mean that it can be proven that he himself committed the crime. They need more supporting evidence.



@SouthAussie This is the article with the link to the 60 Minute special. Could you be so kind and watch it to see what new info is revealed? (It can only be streamed from within Australia).

Regarding the Queensland article this caught my eye...

Between 9pm and 10pm, when Maddie was abducted, investigators also claimed to have discovered a mobile phone which was allegedly used by Brueckner in the immediate area of her hotel room - implying he was at the scene.

Me: Is this phone usage in addition to the call he received at 7:32 p.m. that lasted until 8:02 p.m. or were the writers of the article just off on the time?

 

[sleuth-d-]

Regarding the Queensland article this caught my eye...

Between 9pm and 10pm, when Maddie was abducted, investigators also claimed to have discovered a mobile phone which was allegedly used by Brueckner in the immediate area of her hotel room - implying he was at the scene.

Me: Is this phone usage in addition to the call he received at 7:32 p.m. that lasted until 8:02 p.m. or were the writers of the article just off on the time?

a mobile phone found at the scene? if that paragraph about the phone is correct, expect that news to be published around the world in the very near future. if, as you say the writers have got their story wrong... then it will probably not be repeated.

 

[MENDEL]

Regarding the Queensland article this caught my eye...

Between 9pm and 10pm, when Maddie was abducted, investigators also claimed to have discovered a mobile phone which was allegedly used by Brueckner in the immediate area of her hotel room - implying he was at the scene.

Me: Is this phone usage in addition to the call he received at 7:32 p.m. that lasted until 8:02 p.m. or were the writers of the article just off on the time?

IMO that's imprecise information related to call logged. In 2007 the best you could have was an antenna coverage. And they logged all calls made (days 3 and 4 I believe) through PDL antenna, but you can't tell where mobile was within the coverage area.

 

[MajorLang]

Mr. Wolters says 3 contradictory statements in a row:

1. 'In Germany we are very reserved, I am not sure how it is in the UK, we keep everything to ourselves until we press charges.'

2. The prosecutor also confirmed there is 'no forensic evidence' the child is dead, but there is 'concrete evidence' she has not survived her 13-year disappearance.

3. 'Based on our investigation, 99.9 per cent of us believe she is dead,' he told the Der Westen newspaper.

First he says they don't disclose any information before charges, then offers information (concrete but not forensic evidence). Then he says 99.9% (not 100%) believe, which means there's no evidence. If you have evidence you treat it as certain, not a belief. If you have evidence his Jaguar was registered to another person on May 4, 2007 then you won't say "99.9% of us believe it was registered". So I don't know what to think about him.

Kate and Gerry McCann hit back at German prosecutor's claims | Daily Mail Online

I also don't know what to think about the McCanns lawyer in Portugal. It says he is pressing for the Germans to reveal what they know-Again would that endanger the case if this was made public?

 

[shonyakay]

a mobile phone found at the scene? if that paragraph about the phone is correct, expect that news to be published around the world in the very near future. if, as you say the writers have got their story wrong... then it will probably not be repeated.

I didn't even notice the wording like that until you just mentioned it. Now looking at it again, it does seem like they could be stating a phone was found at the scene.

I took it as they were stating that there was some phone usage by him from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. when it is believed Madeleine vanished. I know LE stated the phone call he received was from 7:32 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.

 

[Aluev]

Hmmm, is it possible the phone was found in Germany among CBs possessions and its IMEI was recognized as one that was linked to the Madeleine McCann investigation?

Regarding the Queensland article this caught my eye...

Between 9pm and 10pm, when Maddie was abducted, investigators also claimed to have discovered a mobile phone which was allegedly used by Brueckner in the immediate area of her hotel room - implying he was at the scene.

Me: Is this phone usage in addition to the call he received at 7:32 p.m. that lasted until 8:02 p.m. or were the writers of the article just off on the time?

 

[BellMat]

I’d advise some caution re. 60 Minutes Australia. It’s more tabloid-leaning than high quality investigative journalism.

Their show repeated errors and assumptions we’ve seen misreported in other media eg. saying CB discussed abusing a child in an online chat room — it was actually a Skype conversation they found on his laptop.