Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[redplanet]

No, I don't think so. From the context of the question asked (proof of CB being in PDL on the 3rd), I think he's just saying the evidence they have that CB killed MM does not give proof of when it (the death) happened.

So, for example, if the proof was a photo/video of MM's body taken post-mortem, it is not possible to tell what date/time she was actually killed (even if the photo/video itself had a date/time stamp to show when it was actually taken, that would still be the case).

Agreed.
And from his not knowing the exact day, one can deduce that it is impossible that HCW knows for certain it was DIA (because if he knew that he would automatically know the exact day). So either he knows it was not DIA, or he is uncertain whether or not it was DIA, those are the two possible states of knowledge.

 

[Dlk79]

Agreed.
And from his not knowing the exact day, one can deduce that it is impossible that HCW knows for certain it was DIA (because if he knew that he would automatically know the exact day). So either he knows it was not DIA, or he is uncertain whether or not it was DIA, those are the two possible states of knowledge.

Or he knows it was DIA but cannot prove that BARD from the concrete and/or admissable evidence they have. The question was specifically about whether they can 100% place CB in PDL that night. If HB for example has told them that CB confessed to a DIA scenario, that's not necessarily 100% proof since he (or CB) could have been lying. But the concrete proof they do have is that CB killed MM, so it is logical to assume CB must have been there that night, even though this evidence does not give proof of the date it happened.

 

[Tekno]

I wonder why the GNR dogs were never taken more seriously with their indications? At seperate times, 1 using MM scent of a swimming towel whilst the other was given MM pinky/orange blanket off the bed. Both dogs did the same thing, in the block, they both showed more interest in the door of apt 5J. But they both then took identical paths across to block 4, down a pathway to a public carpark. With both dogs losing interest at the same lamp post. I personally would of said "lost the scent at the lamp post",. Whoever is responsible for writing up the reports on these findings, to me, seems to be discrediting the dogs a lot. Things like "bear in mind, these dogs are really used to searching countryside and not the streets" and also saying that the 2nd dog was probably just going off on the scent of the 1st dog. I don't believe any of that. They wouldn't be sniffer dogs if that was the case. I think LE missed an opportunity from that 1st night re the route the perpetrator took getting to a vehicle. My opinion only.

The man ‘watching’ 5A as witnessed by various people, was standing at the lamppost where the dogs stopped. I have always thought it possible that this person had prior contact with Madeleine, which led the dogs to her scent (perhaps on his clothing) at that spot.

 

[Ardoch]

Madeleine McCann cops won't charge suspect yet because of double jeopardy law

".......prosecutors admit they are wary of charging the prime suspect in their investigation because of Germany’s strict double jeopardy law.

Speaking exclusively to our sister paper ..... chief prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said:

“If we file charges and he is acquitted, then the case is dead forever."

"A case in Bremen illustrated how rigid the German double jeopardy law can be....."

Apologies if that's been posted before.

Is it not more likely that HCW is being cautious rather than overly confident?
I also think that the LE - and appropriate departments, are sifting through vast amounts of material that's possibly come to light in the last couple of years. JMO

 

[Anxala]

I just don't understand why Wolters is still giving regular interviews to such random (and more often than not, seriously tabloid) sources? He's not saying anything new, he's not providing any new insights into the investigation, he's just saying, more or less, the exact same things he's been saying since the investigation was made public.

It seems such a strange way to conduct an investigation.

I'm trying (but failing) to think of another serious criminal case where the prosecution has made itself so indiscriminately available.

 

[SuperdadV8]

I just don't get why Wolters is still giving regular interviews to such random (and more often than not, seriously tabloid) sources? He's not saying anything new, he's not providing any new insights into the investigation, he's just saying, more or less, the exact same things he's been saying since the investigation was made public.

It seems such a strange way to conduct an investigation.

Agreed, of course!

Two possibilities IMO.

1. In fact, lack of evidence and bluffing.
2. Enough evidence of MM, but trying to put more cases in that fairway.

HCW isn't a small town Sheriff....

He won't blame somebody, because he isn't capable of findig a better or the real one.

 

[mrjitty]

I just don't understand why Wolters is still giving regular interviews to such random (and more often than not, seriously tabloid) sources? He's not saying anything new, he's not providing any new insights into the investigation, he's just saying, more or less, the exact same things he's been saying since the investigation was made public.

It seems such a strange way to conduct an investigation.

I'm trying (but failing) to think of another serious criminal case where the prosecution has made itself so indiscriminately available.

Exactly

This kind of media strategy makes no sense, compared to structured briefings

 

[Dlk79]

Exactly

This kind of media strategy makes no sense, compared to structured briefings

Structured briefings to say what!? He's not told us anything new we didn't already know 5 months ago! How's he going to justify calling a briefing or press conference to repeat what he's already said.

The whole point of an appeal is to reach out to as many people as possible. And he's done that effectively, and continues to do so by giving these little interviews where he gives little snippets for the press to print more stories and increase the exposure. I don't know why some people here find that concept hard to understand. The media strategy makes perfect sense unless you close your ears to the obvious reason!

He entertains the tabloids and the mainstream TV shows with comments and interviews exactly because that's where the audience is! That's how he can reach the optimum amount of people. It's about reaching numbers in the hope of a lead.

 

[Anxala]

I'd suspect the question posed by the BBC reporter was quite critical/accusatory in nature, probably something along the lines of "what do you say to the people who claim you have no real evidence against the suspect?" or "how can you be so sure CB is guilty?".

I think that's very probably true. So, that raises the question why?

Why do you think the BBC would be antagonistic towards him? Do they see this investigation as holding their own (OG) up to an unfavourable light? Is it down to ego/arrogance, a reluctance to accept that another police force in another country may have solved a case they dismally failed to do, despite the millions of pounds at their disposal, over a period of 13 years?

Or is it something else?

 

[Dlk79]

I think that's very probably true. So, that raises the question why? Why would the BBC be antagonistic towards him? Do they see this investigation as holding their own (OG) up to an unfavourable light? Is it down to ego/arrogance? Because I don't understand why one police force would be dismissive or contemptuous of another one when their joint remit is supposedly the same?

Does there need to be a conspiracy or underlying motive? A lot of people (here included) are questioning HCW and their case following their initial bombshell statements. Isn't it kind of the natural thing to ask a question about? Sounds like what you would ask him

 

[Anxala]

Ah. Ok then. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Anxala]

HCW isn't a small town Sheriff....

I agree.

That's not how he comes across to me either.

Despite everything (and I do go very back and forth on him, as you know, and his very peculiar and unsettling tabloid-friendly methodology), he does still come across as someone who passionately believes in and is guided by what he believes he knows and has in his corner.

 

[SuperdadV8]

Come on people, the discussion drifts away from the basic situation IMO. Yes, some things of prosecutors strategy is discussable.

But the usual strategies doesn't seem to have worked for almost 14 years and two countries.

Let's give it a try. We are all on tenterhooks, okay? Because we have the same intentions. To find out, where Madeleine is or what has happened to her, right?

 

[Newthoughts]

HCW not knowing which day exactly, would this eliminate all death-in-apartment theories?

I would say so.

 

[Newthoughts]

Exactly

This kind of media strategy makes no sense, compared to structured briefings

Why would he give structured briefings? This isn't a live hunt for CB or MM. CB is safely behind bars for a good few years

I think the reason he is giving interviews is far simpler. He's being asked by people to give them.

There has always been interest in this case. Long before this there were periodic shows about it where old investigators were interviewed. Now they have a new person to question and one with far more knowledge and a suspect. No wonder they're interested .

 

[Newthoughts]

I think that's very probably true. So, that raises the question why?

Why do you think the BBC would be antagonistic towards him? Do they see this investigation as holding their own (OG) up to an unfavourable light? Is it down to ego/arrogance, a reluctance to accept that another police force in another country may have solved a case they dismally failed to do, despite the millions of pounds at their disposal, over a period of 13 years?

Or is it something else?

I think the answer is far simpler. Take the heat of the govt by digging up an interesting distraction.

 

[redplanet]

Or he knows it was DIA but cannot prove that BARD from the concrete and/or admissable evidence they have. The question was specifically about whether they can 100% place CB in PDL that night. If HB for example has told them that CB confessed to a DIA scenario, that's not necessarily 100% proof since he (or CB) could have been lying. But the concrete proof they do have is that CB killed MM, so it is logical to assume CB must have been there that night, even though this evidence does not give proof of the date it happened.

Possibility of intruder causing DIA in 5A.
Cadaver dog alerts in 5A.
Might the two things be connected?

 

[Newthoughts]

Possibility of intruder causing DIA in 5A.
Cadaver dog alerts in 5A.
Might the two things be connected?

What does DIA mean

 

[Dlk79]

What does DIA mean

Death In Apartment

 

[redplanet]

Just saying, if hypothetically BKA acquired some clothing/apparel/items which they believe their suspect may have worn/handled back in may 2007, what sort of inspection would they have conducted on those items?

IMO probably numerous items retrieved from the factory site etc would have been inspected by BKA's own four-legged experts.