Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[Newthoughts]

Of course we disagree - media relations is about narrative, which of course the journalists control more than the speaker

So in this interview, he seeks no information but rather seeks to defend himself

But then what is the point of the interview in terms of the case?

This is precisely what I warned about - the media focus has become about HCW and no longer about seeking information

I must admit I don't agree. I can't see any evidence of him defending himself. I just see him pointing out, yet again, that he has some kind of evidence which he cannot divulge for operational reasons. That's it

 

[Trivento]

HCW seems like an honest efficient guy...if there's things we don't understand think we have to give him benefit of doubt...am sure he knows what he's doing...just hope it leads to something positive in the MM case.

 

[peanutJelly]

Hopefully they will at least release another picture for us to analyse during this interlude. Or maybe FF will release updated hand drawn cell art complete with yoghurt decor.

 

[Okapi]

Of course we disagree - media relations is about narrative, which of course the journalists control more than the speaker

So in this interview, he seeks no information but rather seeks to defend himself

But then what is the point of the interview in terms of the case?

This is precisely what I warned about - the media focus has become about HCW and no longer about seeking information

The BBC has shaped the narrative, yes. It's the problem with the 24/7 breaking news landscape and clickbait psychology. There is a degree of sensationalism in the tone of the article and I agree that the quotes from HCW sound defensive.

But I think he is holding his course and sticking to his own script, he hasn't deviated from the same basic message. And the appeal remains in public consciousness.

The strategy may not make sense from our POV, but I don't think this is reckless grandstanding. There's a method in his madness, IMO.

 

[Dlk79]

Of course we disagree - media relations is about narrative, which of course the journalists control more than the speaker

So in this interview, he seeks no information but rather seeks to defend himself

But then what is the point of the interview in terms of the case?

This is precisely what I warned about - the media focus has become about HCW and no longer about seeking information

Why does HCW need to appeal for information to make an interview worthwhile? He's already said what they are looking for several times and it hasn't changed. It's not necessary that he has to keep repeating it every time he's asked for another interview. And as I pointed out, you/we don't know that he didn't anyway, none of us has seen the full interview. We only know those 2 excerpts the BBC decided were worthy to include in the news article (and note they didn't bother to show the context of what they were being answered in relation to).

There's a strategy called the 5 why's that is used in industry to determine the real route cause(s) or reason for a given issue. It's usually used as an interrogative strategy for Quality or Health and Safety failures but it can usually be applied to most conundrums by asking 'why?' 5 times to each given response.

Applying it to your question, I would answer as follows.

Q. If he is not seeking information, what is the point of doing the interview.

A. Because the BBC requested it. Why?
A. Because there is a massive media interest in this suspect. Why?
A. Because it is one of the biggest mysteries of the last 20 years and a highly respected and credible Prosecutor (HCW) has said in no uncertain terms CB killed MM and they have secret evidence to prove it. Why?
A. Because HCW wanted everyone to take the claim seriously and generate a huge media storm. Why?
A. Exposure, the more people the news reaches, the likelier they are to recieve new evidence to help their case.

For me, his strategy is as simple as that. You could equally answer the same 5 why's from the aspect of why HCW agreed to the interview, and IMO it would come back the the same root reason. Keeping these interviews going where he releases tiny news-worthy quotes, without actually giving anything new away, enhances the public interest and keeps the appeal alive.

 

[redplanet]

HCW: "we have some evidence that he killed mm but I am not able to say on which day exactly". @11:43
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

 

[redplanet]

HCW: "I am not able to say whether the british and the portuguese police have the same evidence we have" @11:19
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

 

[redplanet]

What if hypothetically BKA maybe found at a CB germany location a cache which included adult clothing/apparel he might have worn around may 2007, and what if they referred this to their own skilled EVRD resources??? (hypothetically)

 

[axelcruze]

What if hypothetically BKA maybe found at a CB germany location a cache which included adult clothing/apparel he might have worn around may 2007, and what if they referred this to their own skilled EVR

Maybe CB or CB in disguise wearing these clothes in the background of tourist pics ? Or could be the digital data / usb sticks they are referring to.

 

[axelcruze]

Maybe CB or CB in disguise wearing these clothes in the background of tourist pics ? Or could be the digital data / usb sticks they are referring to.

 

[redplanet]

If one of the central interlocking pieces of their partly-completed jigsaw puzzle comes from EVRD then that might explain needing more?

 

[Newthoughts]

Why does HCW need to appeal for information to make an interview worthwhile? He's already said what they are looking for several times and it hasn't changed. It's not necessary that he has to keep repeating it every time he's asked for another interview. And as I pointed out, you/we don't know that he didn't anyway, none of us has seen the full interview. We only know those 2 excerpts the BBC decided were worthy to include in the news article (and note they didn't bother to show the context of what they were being answered in relation to).

There's a strategy called the 5 why's that is used in industry to determine the real route cause(s) or reason for a given issue. It's usually used as an interrogative strategy for Quality or Health and Safety failures but it can usually be applied to most conundrums by asking 'why?' 5 times to each given response.

Applying it to your question, I would answer as follows.

Q. If he is not seeking information, what is the point of doing the interview.

A. Because the BBC requested it. Why?
A. Because there is a massive media interest in this suspect. Why?
A. Because it is one of the biggest mysteries of the last 20 years and a highly respected and credible Prosecutor (HCW) has said in no uncertain terms CB killed MM and they have secret evidence to prove it. Why?
A. Because HCW wanted everyone to take the claim seriously and generate a huge media storm. Why?
A. Exposure, the more people the news reaches, the likelier they are to recieve new evidence to help their case.

For me, his strategy is as simple as that. You could equally answer the same 5 why's from the aspect of why HCW agreed to the interview, and IMO it would come back the the same root reason. Keeping these interviews going where he releases tiny news-worthy quotes, without actually giving anything new away, enhances the public interest and keeps the appeal alive.

Yep. Wish I could have put it as articulately as you but that is exactly what I think as well. For your response to why did the BBC request it - massive media interest makes it the best distraction from bad domestic news. I can't help thinking that that poor little girl has become a go to distraction for much of the British press when other news is bad.

 

[mrjitty]

I must admit I don't agree. I can't see any evidence of him defending himself. I just see him pointing out, yet again, that he has some kind of evidence which he cannot divulge for operational reasons. That's it

He's gone further this time - claiming readers would agree about guilt if they knew what he knew.

That is a provocative quote.

Of course it may not have been properly translated, or has been taken out of context

 

[mrjitty]

For me, his strategy is as simple as that. You could equally answer the same 5 why's from the aspect of why HCW agreed to the interview, and IMO it would come back the the same root reason. Keeping these interviews going where he releases tiny news-worthy quotes, without actually giving anything new away, enhances the public interest and keeps the appeal alive.

RSBM

I agree from a comms perspective that what you outline is a valid strategy.

But there also exists the risk in any media strategy that the narrative drifts away from you. My criticism is that HCW is becoming the story via careless framing.

Now of course there may well be translation and cultural issues here, and I also doubt HCW has ever handled international media at this level.

Perhaps also, he is now so confident, none of this will be an issue for him, because he has conviction charges will drop.

 

[mrjitty]

The BBC has shaped the narrative, yes. It's the problem with the 24/7 breaking news landscape and clickbait psychology. There is a degree of sensationalism in the tone of the article and I agree that the quotes from HCW sound defensive.

While all this is true, any media pro is aware of this, and will structure their briefings accordingly.

But I think he is holding his course and sticking to his own script, he hasn't deviated from the same basic message. And the appeal remains in public consciousness.

The strategy may not make sense from our POV, but I don't think this is reckless grandstanding. There's a method in his madness, IMO.

My criticism is more his framing.

Better to focus on the positive story here. Tips came in, they are working on it, and feel confident. By giving a new and more controversial quote about his evidence, that became the lede.

he's now placed himself at the centre of the story, instead of keeping it about CB

But of course HCW is not someone who has handled intense international media before.

 

[Ardoch]

While all this is true, any media pro is aware of this, and will structure their briefings accordingly.



My criticism is more his framing.

Better to focus on the positive story here. Tips came in, they are working on it, and feel confident. By giving a new and more controversial quote about his evidence, that became the lede.

he's now placed himself at the centre of the story, instead of keeping it about CB

But of course HCW is not someone who has handled intense international media before.

I'm still edging towards him wanting any amount of information right up to when/if a decision is taken to charge him.
If he (HCW) appears too positive some victim might think.... well they've got enough, I won't have to come forward. JMO

 

[Dlk79]

RSBM
I agree from a comms perspective that what you outline is a valid strategy.
But there also exists the risk in any media strategy that the narrative drifts away from you. My criticism is that HCW is becoming the story via careless framing.

Now of course there may well be translation and cultural issues here, and I also doubt HCW has ever handled international media at this level.

Perhaps also, he is now so confident, none of this will be an issue for him, because he has conviction charges will drop.

You talk about the "risk" and "danger" of HCWs strategy/comments, but in terms of what? Ultimately the goal here is to convict CB, so what is the worst you think might happen in that regard?

We know the best case scenario, the coverage he's helping to maintain unearths new evidence? But what's the worst case scenario?

I can't see how it's likely to jeopardise being able to convict CB. And if CB wants to sue for defamation, he needs to be able to prove the things said about him are undeniably untrue, which I doubt he is able to. You say that the story becomes more about him (which I don't really think is true), but what is the tangible risk to that? What actual problem is that going to cause the investigation?

IMO, the biggest risk is that HCW ruins his reputation, and if that's the risk he's willing to take in order to try to solve this case then I think that's something to be admired rather than lambasted.

I don't see that his comments are especially defensive or provocative, but even if they were slightly, is it that big an issue? It's a tactic you often see people like sports coaches employing ahead of a big game. They'll say something slightly controversial about the opposition and steal all the headlines. It serves two purposes, firstly it unsettles the opposition and second, it takes the attention and pressure away from your team by having the attention focussed on you. Not saying that's what HCW is doing here necessarily, but I wouldn't particularly have any issue with it if it was.

 

[Trivento]

Have often pondered about the reports of the pockmarked face man seen loitering around 5A prior MM disappearance...believe from TS ( the young girl )and a young mum British tourist ( maybe JW ) .
Described the man as heavily pockmarked / pitted skin face / ugly / disgusting even / large nose ( by one of them..other said normal nose )
Am not wanting to do any favours to CB but when looking at pics of him these are not adjectives that come to mind at all.
Unless he had some ‘ bad skin ‘ days at the time..or witness recollections a bit skewed for some reason..?
Or could have been an accomplice..or just another unrelated dodgy character hanging around.
Curious though...

 

[Dlk79]

Have often pondered about the reports of the pockmarked face man seen loitering around 5A prior MM disappearance...believe from TS ( the young girl )and a young mum British tourist ( maybe JW ) .
Described the man as heavily pockmarked / pitted skin face / ugly / disgusting even / large nose ( by one of them..other said normal nose )
Am not wanting to do any favours to CB but when looking at pics of him these are not adjectives that come to mind at all.
Unless he had some ‘ bad skin ‘ days at the time..or witness recollections a bit skewed for some reason..?
Or could have been an accomplice..or just another unrelated dodgy character hanging around.
Curious though...

Could be unrelated but it's hard to get a good impression of his skin from a lot of the photos, although in some it does look marked. Should also note the following comment made by MT, his best friend at the time-

"It was only when Micha watched the in-depth Netflix documentary in March last year on the case, that he finally realised Christian may have snatched Maddie.

“I knew immediately that he was guilty. The part where the female tourist talked about the man turning up at her door while her child played by the front door, the creepy guy with acne and blonde hair… I just knew it was Christian.”
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-...with-him-in-algarve-and-spains-andalucia/amp/

So it would seem MT thinks this description of his demenaour and skin is accurate. Interestingly though, the bit in the documentary he refers to (where the man turns up at the door with the kid playing) is not the same bit where they talk about the man with acne/pockmarks, it doesn't mention that person having pockmarked skin at all. That's a different part of the documentary, the sightings by the young girl and the young mother that you mentioned, that he is talking about. So either he is getting muddled or he's falling over his 'story' of when he truly realised CB might have been responsible for MM's disappearance.

 

[Okapi]

While all this is true, any media pro is aware of this, and will structure their briefings accordingly.



My criticism is more his framing.

Better to focus on the positive story here. Tips came in, they are working on it, and feel confident. By giving a new and more controversial quote about his evidence, that became the lede.

he's now placed himself at the centre of the story, instead of keeping it about CB

But of course HCW is not someone who has handled intense international media before.

These are fair points, but I don't know how much control he has over the final slant. The classic "taken out of context" problem.

I must admit the omission of any renewed appeal for witnesses etc is very odd. But I don't know if BBC or HCW has chosen to overlook that.