Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #18

[buggiegirl]

What strikes me is difficult is you need proof of actual death, and proof of the illegal act by the accused that killed the victim.

So in this case you need some evidence that creates a strong inference of death, plus something that ties CB specifically to the victim.

Horrid to think about but there are plenty of things that could happen on camera and leave no doubt the person involved is dead afterwards.

 

[Chiatos]

The broadcast

Sexta às 9. Alegado assassino de Madeleine Mccann alterou fisionomia em 2007

So the pervert (CB) who attacked the little/young girl in Portugal on April 7th, 2007 had a bandaged arm and longer/protruding teeth
CB had a scar on his arm when he gave the lifters a lift to Spain and longer/protruding teeth.
And towards the end of 2007 he travelled to Würzburg to have his teeth revised ... changing his appearance.

 

[MENDEL]

Chiatos, how do you know it was CB who attacked the little girl?

I think they exaggerated. He had to do maxillary surgery and they only offered evidence that in 2019 he looks older than in 2007.

 

[Chiatos]

Chiatos, how do you know it was CB who attacked the little girl?

I think they exaggerated. He had to do maxillary surgery and they only offered evidence that in 2019 he looks older than in 2007.

How can you ask me how I know? Of course I don't know. I wasn't there.
I'm describing what has been presented by sexta9. CB is suspect in the case of the girl in Portugal.
Covid-19. A situação ao minuto do novo coronavírus no país e no mundo
[between 25:00 and 27:00]

 

[Dlk79]

Because he was asked a stupid question?

"My client affirms his innocence" is a typical formulation. But he was asked if CB admitted guilt. You simply never have that conversation, unless the client is pleading guilty.

In my bar training we learned never to have a discussion with the client about guilt because if the client says he is guilty, but wants to plead not guilty, you can no longer represent him.

Personally I don't see it as a stupid question. He was asked whether his client tells him that he had nothing to do with MM's disappearance. That's not the same as murder, which is the charge they are pressing for. FF spoke about suspecting HB being the key witness well before anything was mentioned about him in the media, how did he know about that? I suspect because CB told him.

Let me ask you a question, if your client was in CBs position and you were aware of an apparent confession he had made, would you not ask him about it? In order to prepare a defence you would surely want to know what he may have said and to whom, correct? Assuming FF has had that conversation with CB, it would make no sense for CB to deny all knowledge if he knows damn well he has said something to someone.

Of course, we don't know what CB will have told FF about it. He might claim it was just a joke. But then, HCW and BKA have spoke of him saying something only the abductor could know. And there's the possibility of a video in existence, which if true, CB would know about. He may therefore have admitted to some knoweldge or involvement of the abduction but not of the murder. It may be that if police do proceed with a charge, he and FF plan deny the murder but admit to a lesser charge to do with her abduction. We just don't know at this stage.

Also, don't forget, his original lawyers prior to FF quit with no real explanation as to why. It could well be to do with what you say and that during their conversations with CB it became clear he was in fact guilty and that's why they could no loger represent him if he planned to deny it anyway. In any case, being in the law profession, I'm sure you are more than aware of how unscrupulous many lawyers are and they would not care about knowing their client is guilty but plans to plead not guilty.

I just found it odd that he has been asked the same question before and given an emphatic answer that CB denies all involvement. He could have easily repeated that (just like HCW has done on the video question) but instead he paused for a very long time, then chose a carefully worded answer that deliberately avoided saying whether CB denies any involvement in the disappearance.

 

[MENDEL]

How can you ask me how I know? Of course I don't know. I wasn't there.
I'm describing what has been presented by sexta9. CB is suspect in the case of the girl in Portugal.
Covid-19. A situação ao minuto do novo coronavírus no país e no mundo
[between 25:00 and 27:00]

Yes, I know he's suspect but you said CB attacked the girl, not that he's a suspect.

 

[SuperdadV8]

I'm still genuinely curious as to how proof that CB was 'in the area' on the evening concerned is still being regarded as crucial info?

I'm also genuinely curious as to why the supposedly high-minded and serious HCW continues to engage with what is essentially a clearly sensationalist tabloid news show?

IMO they know, almost the only chance to make progress in the investigation after almost 3 years, is keeping the case in the media to achieve someone in the public to come out or give further clues.

Due to the fact, he uses portugese and partially british media (HCW hasn't that kind of appearance in german media!), they must think that maybe only someone from portugal or britain, that lived in portgual, will lead to further steps in the case.

That fits HCW's opinion, that MM died in portugal, so not to many german people could give any clues. So he uses that target group and the widespread media channels, they usually consume.

 

[Chiatos]

Yes, I know he's suspect but you said CB attacked the girl, not that he's a suspect.

Aha! Well I don't know whether he attacked her or only exposed himself. I would have to read more about it.

But his "old teeth" and his arm at the time fit the description given by the girl.

 

[Dlk79]

I'm still genuinely curious as to how proof that CB was 'in the area' on the evening concerned is still being regarded as crucial info?

I'm also genuinely curious as to why the supposedly high-minded and serious HCW continues to engage with what is essentially a clearly sensationalist tabloid news show?

German police interviewed him over MM back in 2013. One of the first questions they would have asked is where he was that night. I doubt very much he told them he was outside the Ocean Club. So in the first instance, it would be proof that he lied about where he was and that would be incriminating in itself.

If it proceeds to court, ultimately a judge will decide whether they believe CB is guilty or not and previously lying about his whereabouts would be a huge red flag. Whatever the undisclosed evidence is that they have that proves MM's death, it would appear the link to CB is not strong enough on its own. For example, if it was a video found on one of his memory sticks but that doesn't show him clearly, the defence could claim it was someone else who made it. But then if police can place CB at the scene on the night as well, in the eyes of a judge there's a lot more weight to CB being the maker of the video.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

“Sexta às 9”, Sep.18th, RTP1.
Just “more rice”…
Nothing really new. Or nothing that we didn’t know already. Lateral puzzles.
You all here have already summarized the essential points.
I’ve retained:
- HCW: “In my opinion MM died in Portugal”
- HCW: “MS and HB are not main witnesses in MM’s case”
- HCW: Affirmative answer to the question if he has material evidence that MM is dead
- FF: The endless pause and hesitation…before he answers defensively. His body language…frozen.
- NF: What was the real relationship between her and CB in 2007? Algarve…Hanover?! It seemed that HCW did not give her much importance, but could this link still bring any clue?

Part 2, next week.
Hope (but I don’t believe) it could, at least, show any additional/potential track.

 

[Anxala]

German police interviewed him over MM back in 2013. One of the first questions they would have asked is where he was that night. I doubt very much he told them he was outside the Ocean Club. So in the first instance, it would be proof that he lied about where he was and that would be incriminating in itself.

If it proceeds to court, ultimately a judge will decide whether they believe CB is guilty or not and previously lying about his whereabouts would be a huge red flag. Whatever the undisclosed evidence is that they have that proves MM's death, it would appear the link to CB is not strong enough on its own. For example, if it was a video found on one of his memory sticks but that doesn't show him clearly, the defence could claim it was someone else who made it. But then if police can place CB at the scene on the night as well, in the eyes of a judge there's a lot more weight to CB being the maker of the video.

^ I said a long time ago on a distant thread precisely that, that CB might have claimed to have been 'miles away elsewhere' on that evening and that could be the reason why his whereabouts at the time were/are so important. But even if he was proved to be 'in the area', that still doesn't put him in/outside the apartment from which MM disappeared. And that's the bit that continues to perplex me as far as this investigation goes. Placing him there (if conclusive mobile mast evidence exists that does precisely and conclusively that) is still, nevertheless, just placing him there - 'in the area'.

A red flag for sure, but still not anything imo that any judge of worth could or would accept or regard as proof of anything other than 'circumstantial' in such a high profile case.

 

[MENDEL]

Excuse me, Sir, but is there any proof CB was at PDL on May 3, 2007 apart from a logged call from a mobile presumed to belong to him?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Excuse me, Sir, but is there any proof CB was at PDL on May 3, 2007 apart from a logged call from a mobile presumed to belong to him?

IMO just the phone call and the testimony of his former pal/girlfriend.

"The Sun reports the night before the three-year-old went missing, the suspect told the woman: “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow."

Madeleine McCann was 'killed soon after she was abducted', says German prosecutor

 

[NewAvenger]

Frustrating case, I know. I've been keeping in mind CB's track record as a pedophile but I've also been keeping in mind that LE have yet to confirm whether abuse was involved, though its been suggested. I'm also thinking more about what CB shared with HB. He told him he was involved, but would he tell somebody he abused and killed a tot and expect a positive reaction? We have a sadistic child molestor and a missing toddler in the same area. 2 + 2 = 4. Why though would his friends not raise the alarm until HB was out of prison, 10 years on? CB must have had some real dirt on them for them to be hesitant to report him.

 

[Dlk79]

^ I said a long time ago on a distant thread precisely that, that CB might have claimed to have been 'miles away elsewhere' on that evening and that could be the reason why his whereabouts at the time were/are so important. But even if he was proved to be 'in the area', that still doesn't put him in/outside the apartment from which MM disappeared. And that's the bit that continues to perplex me as far as this investigation goes. Placing him there (if conclusive mobile mast evidence exists that does precisely and conclusively that) is still just placing him there.

A red flag for sure, but still not anything imo that any judge of worth could or would accept or regard as proof of anything other than 'circumstantial' in such a high profile case.

On it's own, no, it isn't going to mean much but HCW clearly sees it has hugely significant going so far as to make it the main focus of the appeal and saying that it's the piece of evidence they want to issue an arrest warrant and question CB.

It's all about building the case. They already have material evidence MM is dead and "some evidence" that CB "did the deed". There is also apparently a confession from CB to someone plus a lot more I expect. What they obviously don't have at this stage is proof of CB being near the scene. If he has given an alibi previously they cannot yet disprove then their case is weakened. Take that away and prove CB lied and I can easliy see how significant that would be in the eyes of a judge if there is plenty of other evidence pointing to CB.

I'm reminded of an incident that happened where I used to live. This guy stole a car and led the police on a dangerous chase through the estate where I lived. The police knew him well and even saw it was him driving during the chase. He managed to lose them and they were unable to charge him as he simply denied all knowledge, saying he'd been home all night. They did eventually charge him though. He was found guilty and jailed after they picked him up on a cctv camera near to where the car was stolen. That was all it took to sway it.

 

[MENDEL]

IMO just the phone call and the testimony of his former pal/girlfriend.

"The Sun reports the night before the three-year-old went missing, the suspect told the woman: “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow."

Madeleine McCann was 'killed soon after she was abducted', says German prosecutor

That's The Sun talking. She thought about that years after MM disappeared, so you can't be sure which day the girl is talking about unless she gives quite conclusive clues. Then, the only evidence so far is a logged call from a mobile we aren't sure if it belonged to CB and was in his hand. If she could prove BARD she heard that on May 2, 2007 you had a strong (if not sinister) clue against CB, but I'm afraid she can't.

ETA:

Couldn't CB be talking about his 100.000€ job? He also told her he would leave for some time and after that we know he fled to Hannover Kleingarten with NF. Just a random thought of mine.

 

[Monic]

I think HCW was very clear, Madeleine is death!

And they think to know that CB is the one. They just need more proof!!

Also HCW is very smart, to not question CB, they need time to investigate.
They choose this way very precisely.
Now, they don't need to share what they have got, to the lawyer..
It will take more months to look for the puzzle pieces..

 

[redplanet]

So the pervert (CB) who attacked the little/young girl in Portugal on April 7th, 2007 had a bandaged arm and longer/protruding teeth
CB had a scar on his arm when he gave the lifters a lift to Spain and longer/protruding teeth.
And towards the end of 2007 he travelled to Würzburg to have his teeth revised ... changing his appearance.

If CB has no bandage on his arm at Malaga (30 Mar 2007), and if he is the perp with a bandage on his arm at Salema (7 Apr 2007), is it possible he injured his arm in the intervening days?

 

[MENDEL]

If CB has no bandage on his arm at Malaga (30 Mar 2007), and if he is the perp with a bandage on his arm at Salema (7 Apr 2007), is it possible he injured his arm in the intervening days?

Great point, Red.

Unfortunately I guess it will be hard to check medical records from his area in the Algarve after 13 years.

But maybe some witness from the time may remind that.

 

[Dlk79]

That's The Sun talking. She thought about that years after MM disappeared, so you can't be sure which day the girl is talking about unless she gives quite conclusive clues. So, the only evidence so far is a logged call from a mobile we aren't sure if it belonged to CB and was in his hand. If she could prove BARD she heard that on May 2, 2007 you had a strong clue against CB, but I'm afraid she can't.

How do you know that she can't? Given how masive the story was at the time, I'd have thought it may well stick in her mind that it was the day before when she last saw CB. To give that date in the first place she must have had some trigger to recall when it happened. We only have second hand information from an apparent friend, we don’t really know what happened altogether or what she told police.

It was said that the conversation happened over dinner so its even possible she might well have used a debit card to pay in a restaraunt that night for example and there would then be proof of the date with the bank. There could be any number of things that prove the date it happened for all we know, I don't know on what basis you can state she can't prove it happened on the 2nd?

On another point, the phone number was discovered during the course of interviewing CB's associates about MM and they found it was a number he was known to have used in 2007. So the link to the number isn't as tenuous as you make out. For the Prosecutor, it's more a case of proving BARD that he had possesion of the phone on that particular night.