Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #19

[C.greek]

Red, Herr Wolters said before he needed the caller to put CB's number in his hand. Yesterday he conceded at "Sexta às 9" he still doesn't have that info. Conclusion: that number isn't in CB's hand forensically speaking.

From the info that was posted here - translations of parts of the interview- and articles that appeared in daily mail and the sun, this is not what HCW conceded. He said they have not been able to identify the person on the other end of the line. Interestingly enough, there was no mention anymore of putting the phone to CB's hand, quite the opposite I would say. HCW said they want to know the content of this long conversation between CB and that person. Not to prove that CB was there. Imo this change of words in combination with not answering the question about whether they have evidence that CB was in the apartment, adding that they do have more evidence, means that they are certain the phone was in CB's hands.

 

[MENDEL]

And this is something that hasn't been shared publically and that they don't need to ask Madeleine's parents if it was true.
I wonder what that is?

It mustn't be in PJ files and must be something you don't have to ask parents. Once no LE is supposed to know what happened to MM after disappearance that claim is very enigmatic indeed.

 

[MENDEL]

I presume something taken from the apartment, or maybe done to the apartment. Could be something as simple as “I broke that chair arm when I tripped in the dark” or something the McCann’s reported was taken, other than Madeleine, that they were asked not to make public.

Buggie, the parents alleged that nothing else was taken from 5A. Anything broken would be forensic evidence.

 

[Lusitana]

It mustn't be in PJ files and must be something you don't have to ask parents. Once no LE is supposed to know what happened to MM after disappearance that claim is very enigmatic indeed.

A birth mark/scar?

 

[MENDEL]

From the info that was posted here - translations of parts of the interview- and articles that appeared in daily mail and the sun, this is not what HCW conceded. He said they have not been able to identify the person on the other end of the line. Interestingly enough, there was no mention anymore of putting the phone to CB's hand, quite the opposite I would say. HCW said they want to know the content of this long conversation between CB and that person. Not to prove that CB was there. Imo this change of words in combination with not answering the question about whether they have evidence that CB was in the apartment, adding that they do have more evidence, means that they are certain the phone was in CB's hands.

C.greek, Herr Wolters was heard yesterday saying that finding who called didn't advance one step. He hopes whoever called may recall such a long call. If he knew who called why should he say he needed to know the contents? Those are different ways to tell the same thing and the thing is who called in first instance.

 

[haden]

A birth mark/scar?

What you mention would be either in files or they would need to ask the parents.
This evidence is something that doesn't match the two.
It could be a witness who saw him there. Maybe Mrs Fenn's niece recognized him or similar.

 

[haden]

C.greek, Herr Wolters was heard yesterday saying that finding who called didn't advance one step. He hopes whoever called may recall such a long call. If he knew who called why should he say he needed to know the contents? Those are different ways to tell the same thing and the thing is who called in first instance.

NF was reported as buying new sims before making calls. Maybe it was her with a new sim card again?

 

[haden]

It mustn't be in PJ files and must be something you don't have to ask parents. Once no LE is supposed to know what happened to MM after disappearance that claim is very enigmatic indeed.

IMO if it was in PJ files then it is not known only to him.
This is something known only to him from the crime scene or about the victim.

 

[MENDEL]

NF was reported as buying new sims before making calls. Maybe it was her with a new sim card again?

Possible but no such concrete information is available so far according to last known Herr Wolter's statement.

 

[Lusitana]

What you mention would be either in files or they would need to ask the parents.
This evidence is something that doesn't match the two.
It could be a witness who saw him there. Maybe Mrs Fenn's niece recognized him or similar.

I was thinking about a birth mark or scar in a very "concealed" part of the body, though. I don't know.

 

[C.greek]

C.greek, Herr Wolters was heard yesterday saying that finding who called didn't advance one step. He hopes whoever called may recall such a long call. If he knew who called why should he say he needed to know the contents? Those are different ways to tell the same thing and the thing is who called in first instance.

The identity of the caller has not advanced- but this time round it appeared, to me at least, that he doesn't need to identify the caller in order to place CB at OC. So, different priorities for different reasons.


I quote from daily mail
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8775111/amp/Madeline-McCann-investigators-say-not-need-youngsters-body-prosecute-German-suspect.html

"Mr Wolters said: 'We have the number that called him but we haven't managed to attribute that number to anyone at the moment.

'We don't know what the conversation was about and we don't know the relationship between the people who spoke.

'We are searching for a witness to establish the content of the conversation which lasted nearly half an hour and so was quite a long conversation."

 

[MENDEL]

The identity of the caller has not advanced- but this time round it appeared, to me at least, that he doesn't need to identify the caller in order to place CB at OC.

Herr Wolters is not a very chatty guy. He answers strictly according to questions. IMO no safe inference can be done that things are anything different from his interview aired yesterday.

 

[MENDEL]

Just for the record, GNR paper shown yesterday on "Sexta às 9" @29.17 states NF was heard on November 14, 2007.

 

[C.greek]

Herr Wolters is not a very chatty guy. He answers strictly according to questions. IMO no safe inference can be done that things are anything different from his interview aired yesterday.

Again a quote from HCW
"But you have to believe me when I say we have more evidence."

More evidence since when? What does he mean?

 

[C.greek]

Just for the record, GNR paper shown yesterday on "Sexta às 9" @29.17 states NF was heard on November 14, 2007.

What is meant by 'was heard'?

 

[haden]

Again a quote from HCW
"But you have to believe me when I say we have more evidence."

More evidence since when? What does he mean?

'Here in Germany our Public Ministry only divulges things when they are solid.'

More details than has been reported

 

[haden]

I was thinking about a birth mark or scar in a very "concealed" part of the body, though. I don't know.

Yes but how would the German police know this was true? They would need to ask MM's parents but they did not

 

[haden]

Possible but no such concrete information is available so far according to last known Herr Wolter's statement.

I think this would be the next on their agenda thanks to SF. Unless Germans are protecting NF for some reason and don't suspect her at all.

 

[MENDEL]

Again a quote from HCW
"But you have to believe me when I say we have more evidence."

More evidence since when? What does he mean?

I think it means more evidence than what they are talking about.

ETA: updated on #350.

 

[haden]

Just for the record, GNR paper shown yesterday on "Sexta às 9" @29.17 states NF was heard on November 14, 2007.

What was the reason for GNR to be speaking with her?