Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[mrjitty]

The situation during GM check is: MM definitely present alive and well. The situation during MO2 check is: unknown which room MM was in, unknown whether she was even still in the apartment, and unknown whether she was safe and well.

We don't even really know if MO was in the apartment. Initially he says he wasn't

 

[mrjitty]

^ Yes, on balance (I suggested possible 'footage' earlier), I agree with that for all the objective reasoning that would point to it being unlikely - not least a moral obligation on their part to pass something so crucial on to the McCanns/the Met. Which hasn't happened.

So that leaves 'conversations' (online/txts) as the likely basis of their conviction that CB's the one. Hmm.

Yes I think that is it, which makes me worry that MCW has wandered into a hall of mirrors here. If CB was simply a braggart, Wolters will never find the conclusive evidence he needs.

 

[Dlk79]

It feels like people are confusing credibility and relevance. The statements of the McCanns and MO are highly credible - no reason to doubt their truth or accuracy. But how much do they actually tell us? How relevant are they beyond giving a window of time?

The second or third hand comment from a gf may or may not be as credible. But it is way more relevant in that It tells us something about CB..

There are are telling differences in the details given in GM and MOs initial statements. The most significant being that GM entered an appt he was familiar with and went into the children's bedroom for a reason - noticing nothing that unduly worried him.

MO entered an unfamiliar appt and glanced at the middle of the bedroom because, unaware of what unusual would look like, why would you risk waking someone else's children .

What is lacking is any attempt to clarify those details to clear them up.

GM says the door was 'half open' rather than ajar as left - odd. He wondered if MM has gone to sleep in their room so as not to be disturbed by her siblings so he entered the room and did his visual check. All was well. He didn't notice anything else untoward.

As he went into a room he'd have left and spent time there I'd assume he'd have noticed anything more unusual in lighting levels, changes in windows or shutters open.

MO says the door was 'open' - degree unspecified - and there was enough light in the bedroom to see the twins.

He didn't see MM suggesting he didn't go into the room but as all was quiet he deduced all was well. As you would. Looking at the layout of the flat you wouldn't even need to go right to the door to see the twins. Seeing the twins would not mean seeing the window either.

So we can't deduce let alone confirm anything from bright enough to see the twins. That covers a multitude of light levels and GM also saw his children. That could well have been the same.


MO said the light was not from an artificial source inside the flat but an external one. Again nothing can be deduced. We don't know if that's normal

MO also said it seemed to him that the shutters of the 'master' bedroom were open but he wasn't sure about the window. Not mentioned by GM.

But again this lacks info. What bedroom is that exactly? I assumed that to mean KM and GMs room but again it isn't clear. If their door was open would that might have been noticeable but there was a bathroom was in the way.

If it was their room does it mean anything at all? Would their shutters normally be open? I would certainly like sunlight in my bedroom but would be happy to block it out in my kids room to keep them asleep till a reasonable hour.

But if 'master' bedroom refers to the children's room based on size rather than occupancy was it in that room that he sensed open shutters? If it was then it becomes more relevant.

MO wouldn't have then shut the door on someone else's children in someone else's flat. He'd have left it. So for all we know the situation he left could have been identical to what KM found and MM already gone.

So I don't think you can conclude that what MO saw was different to what KM saw. I don't think you can say it was similar to what GM saw. All you can say is the window in which MM was taken was between 9.05 and 10.

So nobody needs to doubt any single thing in the Tapas statements to conclude that they don't really tell us that much. It's not a slur it's a simple statement of fact. The comment about the horrible job tells us much more but it doesn't tell us whether it's accurate or not.

Fair points. Only thing I would add, when MO refers to the 'master' bedroom, I'm pretty sure that he is talking about MM's room, not the parents' room. One reason he might be confusingly referring to it as the master room is that in his apartment (which was nextdoor), the layout was similar except that the kids and parents were all in same bedroom. That room was positioned directly nextdoor to MM's room. I also think MM's room was bigger than the parents' anyway.

 

[Dlk79]

We don't even really know if MO was in the apartment. Initially he says he wasn't

That's not correct. Are you confusing the fact that he did two checks? One outside the apartments around 9 and one inside around 9.30.

This is taken from MO's very first statement on the 4th of May.

"That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine."

"...At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open."

P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

 

[redplanet]

That's not correct. Are you confusing the fact that he did two checks? One outside the apartments around 9 and one inside around 9.30.

This is taken from MO's very first statement on the 4th of May.

"That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine."

"...At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open."

P.J. POLICE FILES: MATTHEW OLDFIELD'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

Note: he believed (mistakenly) that MM's bedroom has two windows.

 

[redplanet]

Fair points. Only thing I would add, when MO refers to the 'master' bedroom, I'm pretty sure that he is talking about MM's room, not the parents' room. One reason he might be confusingly referring to it as the master room is that in his apartment (which was nextdoor), the layout was similar except that the kids and parents were all in same bedroom. That room was positioned directly nextdoor to MM's room. I also think MM's room was bigger than the parents' anyway.

MO 2008 at about 0:41. From the context, this describes the south (G+K) bedroom:
" I remember sort of being able to pivot here and be able to see this room door was open as well and those shutters weren't down, they were just curtains and that was fairly, fairly light as well."

 

[Lilly b]

This is a good link, the pictures are good and informative

Maddie McCann case could be blown wide open by new DNA tests, expert claims

 

[Chiatos]

Note: he believed (mistakenly) that MM's bedroom has two windows.

My interpretation of what he meant with two windows: two window panes.
Two window panes in one opening.

 

[redplanet]

^ Yes, on balance (I suggested possible 'footage' earlier), I agree with that for all the objective reasoning that would point to it being unlikely - not least a moral obligation on their part to pass something so crucial on to the McCanns/the Met. Which hasn't happened.

So that leaves 'conversations' (online/txts) as the likely basis of their conviction that CB's the one. Hmm.

Another variation: maybe HCW has found online conversations by CB which contain information which would only be possible to know if CB was in the apartment that evening. One possibility is maybe HCW has acquired from PJ the FULL-resolution crimescene photos.??? Perhaps there is a match between something in one of those photos and something mentioned in an online conversation???

 

[Newthoughts]

BIB

I disagree as a general principle. Even earnest witnesses are frequently incorrect.

The timeline evidence reminds me a lot of the Pistorius witnesses. Due to the contradictions, multiple witnesses must be wrong about stuff. But it is so hard to know who is accurate about what. That'w why testing the witnesses in Court is so important - but unfortunately these witnesses all contaminated their evidence in advance.

It's why I believe 5A is a total wild goose chase, and there are no answers to be had there.

Whatever the case against CB, it has nothing to do with moving doors

I have to admit I agree in principle. I also think we notice what we expect to notice and ignore what we don't. Isn't there a famous experiment where people are counting footballs bouncing around a screen and fail to notice a gorilla walking by and waving? Even the most credible of witnesses is not going to notice salient points.

 

[Lilly b]

I have to admit I agree in principle. I also think we notice what we expect to notice and ignore what we don't. Isn't there a famous experiment where people are counting footballs bouncing around a screen and fail to notice a gorilla walking by and waving? Even the most credible of witnesses is not going to notice salient points.

Yes, I've seen that, and some witness statement are not from may, they are later months, and some peoples statements have changed, and none of these statements have been proven, not everyone remembers correctly and some people lie
Don't know if you have watched the likes of judge Judy

 

[Newthoughts]

Another variation: maybe HCW has found online conversations by CB which contain information which would only be possible to know if CB was in the apartment that evening. One possibility is maybe HCW has acquired from PJ the FULL-resolution crimescene photos.??? Perhaps there is a match between something in one of those photos and something mentioned in an online conversation???

IMO only I don't think there is anything in the appt that hadn't been pulled apart by the press. Or that OC staff or various helpers wouldn't have been aware of. Even if it isn't fully in the public domain - enough people would have been in there to mean more people than CB would know it and therefore it could make it's way to online chats.

To generate an investigation into CB specifically and to feel confident enough to make a public admission that they've done so makes me think the stuff they've heard - either from online chat or reports of confession by CB - is very specifically something that only he could know. Meaning something they to know.

My guess would whatever happened to her that night. My guess is something found in his cache of images. That is then linked to something linking him specifically. Possibly confession, possibly online chat.

I do wonder if it's online chat - was it obtained in a way that could be used in court hence the need to link him to the locality that night?

 

[C.greek]

Further to my prior points I reviewed KM’s statement from 6 May:

When asked about the schedule of her children she says that in England Madeleine slept in a room by herself and the twins slept in another room. At home the twins go to bed between 7 and 7.30 PM, Madeleine half an hour later. During the holidays, the three children went to bed at 7:30PM. She says that during the holidays it is relatively easy to put the three children to sleep when they had not slept during the day and were tired after the day's activities. When on holiday the twins and Madeleine went to sleep at the same time. They never went out to eat unless the three were actually asleep. Normally when they left the apartment the three children had been asleep close to 1 hour. With the exception of what has been described above, during the holidays, she does not remember if any of the children was awake during the night. However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2 ' 2:30 AM and went to her parents. During holidays it was normal for the children to be awake by 7:30/8:00, in England, at home, they would normally wake between 7 and 7:30 AM.

Regarding a British custom of having a behaviour chart for the children, she says that she has several notes about Madeleine because with some regularity she gets up during the night. This situation was reported from April 2006 up to her birthday that same year, when she stopped having this problem. These notes correspond to the stars given on the nights Madeleine did not get up and go to her parents' room. When she had 20 stars she got a present and if she woke up at night and did not stay in her bed, she did not get a star.

Continuing:

K says that on the 3rd they left the apartment leaving the children sleeping. Knowing that Madeleine sometimes woke and got up, she did not worry about leaving her alone, because when this happened, and it wasn't always, it was around 2 ' 3 AM at which time they would be back in the apartment.

It wasn’t normal for her to wake until the early hours. When she does wake up, she goes to her parents ... they are trying to train her to stop doing this.

When she woke in the night earlier in the holiday, she went into see her parents.

I don’t think she got up went to the loo and then went back to bed and fell asleep. Without parents in the apartment, I think it’s likely she would have cried, loudly, until she was comforted.

That's very helpful! It is exactly like my little one does. She won't wake up before 3 in the morning. Even if we talk loudly next to her or if the phone rings. She is in deep sleep during these first 5 hours of sleep.

 

[redplanet]

IMO only I don't think there is anything in the appt that hadn't been pulled apart by the press. Or that OC staff or various helpers wouldn't have been aware of. Even if it isn't fully in the public domain - enough people would have been in there to mean more people than CB would know it and therefore it could make it's way to online chats.

To generate an investigation into CB specifically and to feel confident enough to make a public admission that they've done so makes me think the stuff they've heard - either from online chat or reports of confession by CB - is very specifically something that only he could know. Meaning something they to know.

My guess would whatever happened to her that night. My guess is something found in his cache of images. That is then linked to something linking him specifically. Possibly confession, possibly online chat.

I do wonder if it's online chat - was it obtained in a way that could be used in court hence the need to link him to the locality that night?

Yes that's a good point - if even one searcher or policeman saw a certain object in the flat that evening, then that object's existence may have reached the public domain.

 

[Anxala]

Another variation: maybe HCW has found online conversations by CB which contain information which would only be possible to know if CB was in the apartment that evening. One possibility is maybe HCW has acquired from PJ the FULL-resolution crimescene photos.??? Perhaps there is a match between something in one of those photos and something mentioned in an online conversation???

It's possible, I suppose. But that's just not how what HCW has (or claims to have) comes across to me. And that's based solidly on his own 'I don't know this, I can't say that' vagueness as far as the 3rd May is concerned.

That suggests to me that his focus is not remotely on 3rd May or anything 3rd May-related, and particularly not on angle of doors or nature of closed/open/closed windows in 5A and/or who went when/where to check anything and/or who may or may not have been hiding under a bed or in a wardrobe.

None of ^ that seems remotely pertinent to the direction of the investigation that Wolters himself, in his very own words, comes across as pursuing.

JMO of course.

 

[C.greek]

It's possible, I suppose. But that's just not how what HCW has (or claims to have) comes across to me. And that's based solidly on his own 'I don't know this, I can't say that' vagueness as far as the 3rd May is concerned.

That suggests to me that his focus is not remotely on 3rd May or anything 3rd May-related, and particularly not on angle of doors or nature of closed/open/closed windows in 5A and/or who went when/where to check anything and/or who may or may not have been hiding under a bed or in a wardrobe.

None of ^ that seems remotely pertinent to the direction of the investigation that Wolters comes across as pursuing.

JMO of course.

Where do you think his focus is?

 

[Anxala]

Where do you think his focus is?

I'm genuinely not sure.

He's claimed from the off that MM is dead and that CB is responsible for her death. He then also says that while he's 100% sure of that, the evidence he has is not enough to charge CB with her murder.

I wonder, seriously, what to make of that at this late stage.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I have to admit I agree in principle. I also think we notice what we expect to notice and ignore what we don't. Isn't there a famous experiment where people are counting footballs bouncing around a screen and fail to notice a gorilla walking by and waving? Even the most credible of witnesses is not going to notice salient points.

This experiment shows that when you are sufficiently occupied with something, you become unaware of other things. It’s not about what people notice or don’t notice in the context we are discussing, it’s more about how limited our consciousness is. The link below shows a really great example of it.

 

[Dlk79]

Regarding the comment "knowledge of the crime only the suspect could know". I don't think this necessarily means what most of us assumed. To begin with, I can’t find any direct quote from HCW relating to it. From what I can see in the Sun article, the remark has been interpreted from something Julian Reichelt (Editor of the Bild newspaper) has said, and even here it gives no direct quote. Instead it paraphrases.

Madeleine McCann cops 'don't know where body is buried but know how she was killed'
Mr Reichelt said today Christian B has "knowledge" of the case that only the suspect could know.

Their source, according to the article is an interview he gave on the TV show, Good Morning Britain. I can't find the full recording of that interview, but did manage to find a transcript of it. This is the bit where I think the Sun have got Mr. Reichelt's "quote" from but from reading it, it sound to me like they have misquoted/misrepresented what he meant.

"Well, from what we know this is all evidence that is so-called suspect knowledge, which means that ONLY the suspect in this case will know about these details and that’s why German police and German authorities have been absolutely sealed. We’ve talked to our top political sources in the past days about this. Even they weren’t told about these pieces of evidence that made clear to German authorities as they have pointed out that Madeleine McCann is dead. They have not revealed anything about that to anyone outside the investigation because from what we understand, they’re still trying to leverage that against the suspect but also use it to verify with any possible lead that would come in now, anyone who may have witnessed from 13 years ago to verify if the details these witness may be providing actually correspond with the so called suspect knowledge to make sure that they are really on to something and not after 13 years following another dead lead."

My understanding of what he's saying here is simply that the evidence the German police have uncovered is something that only they (the investigative team) and the supsect (whoever was responsible for MM's disappearance) will know exists. In other words, the details of whatever they've found is being kept totally secret from everyone outside of the investigative team. It "might" still mean that CB has revealed some detail of the crime which police have been able to verify as true, but it may not either.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It feels like people are confusing credibility and relevance. The statements of the McCanns and MO are highly credible - no reason to doubt their truth or accuracy. But how much do they actually tell us? How relevant are they beyond giving a window of time?

The second or third hand comment from a gf may or may not be as credible. But it is way more relevant in that It tells us something about CB..

There are are telling differences in the details given in GM and MOs initial statements. The most significant being that GM entered an appt he was familiar with and went into the children's bedroom for a reason - noticing nothing that unduly worried him.

MO entered an unfamiliar appt and glanced at the middle of the bedroom because, unaware of what unusual would look like, why would you risk waking someone else's children .

What is lacking is any attempt to clarify those details to clear them up.

GM says the door was 'half open' rather than ajar as left - odd. He wondered if MM has gone to sleep in their room so as not to be disturbed by her siblings so he entered the room and did his visual check. All was well. He didn't notice anything else untoward.

As he went into a room he'd have left and spent time there I'd assume he'd have noticed anything more unusual in lighting levels, changes in windows or shutters open.

MO says the door was 'open' - degree unspecified - and there was enough light in the bedroom to see the twins.

He didn't see MM suggesting he didn't go into the room but as all was quiet he deduced all was well. As you would. Looking at the layout of the flat you wouldn't even need to go right to the door to see the twins. Seeing the twins would not mean seeing the window either.

So we can't deduce let alone confirm anything from bright enough to see the twins. That covers a multitude of light levels and GM also saw his children. That could well have been the same.


MO said the light was not from an artificial source inside the flat but an external one. Again nothing can be deduced. We don't know if that's normal

MO also said it seemed to him that the shutters of the 'master' bedroom were open but he wasn't sure about the window. Not mentioned by GM.

But again this lacks info. What bedroom is that exactly? I assumed that to mean KM and GMs room but again it isn't clear. If their door was open would that might have been noticeable but there was a bathroom was in the way.

If it was their room does it mean anything at all? Would their shutters normally be open? I would certainly like sunlight in my bedroom but would be happy to block it out in my kids room to keep them asleep till a reasonable hour.

But if 'master' bedroom refers to the children's room based on size rather than occupancy was it in that room that he sensed open shutters? If it was then it becomes more relevant.

MO wouldn't have then shut the door on someone else's children in someone else's flat. He'd have left it. So for all we know the situation he left could have been identical to what KM found and MM already gone.

So I don't think you can conclude that what MO saw was different to what KM saw. I don't think you can say it was similar to what GM saw. All you can say is the window in which MM was taken was between 9.05 and 10.

So nobody needs to doubt any single thing in the Tapas statements to conclude that they don't really tell us that much. It's not a slur it's a simple statement of fact. The comment about the horrible job tells us much more but it doesn't tell us whether it's accurate or not.

I’m done on the door position, I think I’ve provided valid points and supporting info for the theory of CB being in 5A for an extended period. I actually think that all the comings and goings of the tapas group and other people in the area, he was kind of trapped in there, waiting for a safe time to exit.

I completely disagree with your point about relevance vs credible. If you accept that a statement is not credible, it doesn’t matter how relevant it is.

To explain my point, I think we need to assume that CB a German was talking to his English GF who in turn told her English friend and finally the friend told it to the reporter. In this scenario, it is almost certain that original intention of CB’s words changed before they were reported. Now imagine that the word “Terrible” was changed to “Horrible” through the various tellings. Now, the statement is, “I have a terrible job to do tomorrow ... you won’t see me for a while ... I’m going to make some money.” This could mean that he has decided to do a delivery job back to Germany and it’s a long drive. How relevant is it now?

While mistakes may be made, first hand accounts, where the sources are supplied are more credible and therefore more relevant than rumours published by people who want to sell newspapers.