Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[tedtink]

I agree that this is what is meant. Still Keela's alerts did not provide any corroborated evidence and Eddie's alerts could be due to a variety of scenarios... but he does mention that he thinks these are from cross contamination. So back to square 1 re the dogs.

IMO MG is not suggesting there definately IS cross contamination.
In any EVRD search there COULD be cross contamination,MG is acutely aware of that and would have included it in his report.
This is why PJ would have checked regarding any previous deaths in 5a etc.

 

[mrjitty]

In our case I believe we need to see what the German legal system is and take it from there. There is no reason discussing the dogs if for example in the German legal system they cannot play any role. Or we need to consider that there is no jury.
IMO Dog alerts without any other piece of evidence to prove death occurred in 5a by someone else than CB can hardly constitute even circumstancial evidence. This BARD is something I do not quite understand to be honest so I would gladly hear your opinion. Especially from the moment that HCW has stated that they have material evidence CB killed MM. Unless this occurred in 5a, which IMO did not, this would make the dog alerts which as their handler already said were soft and could be due to cross contamination, mute. How would the dog alerts which could have been due to a variety of reasons throw the case that HCW has against CB out?

BIB

So this is precisely the scenario that excites my inner nerd. Let's assume HCW has some evidence that CB killed MM outside 5A. Maybe a confession, some suspicious actions (e.g. planning a robbery) and even digital evidence.

Let's say CB's defence is he never did the burglary, was boasting, and got the digital material on the web. Part of CB's defence will be someone else did the murder. He does not need to prove that - merely raise if as a reasonable possibility, in which case guilt is not proved BARD.

I can imagine a McStay case style defence where FF instructs DNA modellers like TrueAllele to tease out the profiles from the inconclusive analysis.

So then you might be able to produce Keela (blood dog) locating blood of MM (according to TrueAllele expert evidence) and supporting Eddie (cadaver dog). If this evidential foundation could be raised, then the onus would be on HCW to prove it was not a real possibility, in so far as it competes with his theory.

Of course it may well be the case that HCW has a case so strong he can prove MM did not die in 5A - in which case we will finally have confirmation the dogs were wrong. Those are the kind of answers everyone is looking for!

 

[tedtink]

BIB

So this is precisely the scenario that excites my inner nerd. Let's assume HCW has some evidence that CB killed MM outside 5A. Maybe a confession, some suspicious actions (e.g. planning a robbery) and even digital evidence.

Let's say CB's defence is he never did the burglary, was boasting, and got the digital material on the web. Part of CB's defence will be someone else did the murder. He does not need to prove that - merely raise if as a reasonable possibility, in which case guilt is not proved BARD.

I can imagine a McStay case style defence where FF instructs DNA modellers like TrueAllele to tease out the profiles from the inconclusive analysis.

So then you might be able to produce Keela (blood dog) locating blood of MM (according to TrueAllele expert evidence) and supporting Eddie (cadaver dog). If this evidential foundation could be raised, then the onus would be on HCW to prove it was not a real possibility, in so far as it competes with his theory.

Of course it may well be the case that HCW has a case so strong he can prove MM did not die in 5A - in which case we will finally have confirmation the dogs were wrong. Those are the kind of answers everyone is looking for!

TrueAllele could really help finally resolve the inconclusive analysis, but like you've said before, 5a may be irrelevant to what HCW has on CB.
But could equally be important for FF.

 

[tedtink]

Would I be correct to say CB sold his vw camper van in 2015, and that the police have it?

And remember earlier this year, in July a retired teacher claims she saw mm in a supermarket around 3 to 4 years ago, she also claimed to see the vw there to.
She has done interview, but remained anonymous, and would just give her name as Maria, now I could be totally incorrect, but his ex girlfriend was called Maria, we don't know for definite her nationality, we know she was older, but could it be? Could she be trying to help him?

CB didn't own the T3 camper, he was just borrowing it.
Presumably from BP who owned the scrapyard from where the camper was seized by LE.

 

[C.greek]

BIB

So this is precisely the scenario that excites my inner nerd. Let's assume HCW has some evidence that CB killed MM outside 5A. Maybe a confession, some suspicious actions (e.g. planning a robbery) and even digital evidence.

Let's say CB's defence is he never did the burglary, was boasting, and got the digital material on the web. Part of CB's defence will be someone else did the murder. He does not need to prove that - merely raise if as a reasonable possibility, in which case guilt is not proved BARD.

I can imagine a McStay case style defence where FF instructs DNA modellers like TrueAllele to tease out the profiles from the inconclusive analysis.

So then you might be able to produce Keela (blood dog) locating blood of MM (according to TrueAllele expert evidence) and supporting Eddie (cadaver dog). If this evidential foundation could be raised, then the onus would be on HCW to prove it was not a real possibility, in so far as it competes with his theory.

Of course it may well be the case that HCW has a case so strong he can prove MM did not die in 5A - in which case we will finally have confirmation the dogs were wrong. Those are the kind of answers everyone is looking for!

The dogs need not be wrong in this scenario though!

 

[C.greek]

IMO MG is not suggesting there definately IS cross contamination.
In any EVRD search there COULD be cross contamination,MG is acutely aware of that and would have included it in his report.
This is why PJ would have checked regarding any previous deaths in 5a etc.

They only checked about previous deaths, nothing else though. From what we have both quoted it appears Grime finds it a more likely scenario that it was cross contamination in his opinion. And quote:
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."

 

[Lilly b]

Dm

 

[Lilly b]

Re. Carola Titze. Attached are pictures and identikit.

 

[C.greek]

TrueAllele could really help finally resolve the inconclusive analysis, but like you've said before, 5a may be irrelevant to what HCW has on CB.
But could equally be important for FF.

Hmmm Trueallele is not always admissible in courts. And the inconclusive DNA results I think came from the car and not so much the samples in 5a.

 

[C.greek]

View attachment 277561

This must be NS IMO

 

[Tekno]

Well we don’t know hairstyle at that time but eye shape, nose and mouth look similar

I also think it does. The identikit was supplied by witnesses who saw her leaving the venue with a man. Brückner would have been +- 18 years of age at the time. His hairstyle at a younger age resembles the identikit. IMO.

This must be NS IMO

Yes, Nicole F.

 

[SuperdadV8]

I also think it does. The identikit was supplied by witnesses who saw her leaving the venue with a man. Brückner would have been +- 18 years of age at the time. His hairstyle at a younger age resembles the identikit. IMO.

Yes, Nicole F.

He was born 1976, so he must have been +/- 20 in 1996.

 

[Lilly b]

I also think it does. The identikit was supplied by witnesses who saw her leaving the venue with a man. Brückner would have been +- 18 years of age at the time. His hairstyle at a younger age resembles the identikit. IMO.

Yes, Nicole F.

We have seen this pic before, but it was just to show him younger, we could never decide who the woman was?

 

[Dave55]

In Grimes profike from the files he days Keela will only alert to blood dried in situ. He, says that Eddie will alert to blood that has been diluted with water... ie wiped away with a wet cloth first.
That means eddies alert could be to blood even if keela does not alert.
Just more doubt and reinforces the need for corroboration

 

[tedtink]

They only checked about previous deaths, nothing else though. From what we have both quoted it appears Grime finds it a more likely scenario that it was cross contamination in his opinion. And quote:
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."

Yes, 'cadaver scent contaminant' IS the 'smell of death' regardless of how it got there.
ETD

My bold........
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.(Smell of death)

This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios (imo a sofa or item of 2nd hand furniture that could have belonged to someone who may have died in the past) and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence." (already discussed)

P.J. POLICE FILES: EDDIE & KEELA MARTIN GRIME REPORT

 

[redplanet]

CB didn't own the T3 camper, he was just borrowing it.
Presumably from BP who owned the scrapyard from where the camper was seized by LE.

Was the T3 camper seized by the PJ?
If so, I am interested to know: did the PJ then give the T3 camper to the BKA?

 

[tedtink]

Was the T3 camper seized by the PJ?
If so, I am interested to know: did the PJ then give the T3 camper to the BKA?

Unsure which LEA seized it.

"The son, who did not want to be named, said: ‘Christian sold my dad the van around 2015 and we used it afterwards as our family vehicle.

‘It was a little rusty but had a good engine.

‘It was here till the police arrived one day. They took it away but didn’t say why. I found out about the Madeleine McCann connection through the papers."

Maddie McCann suspect sold his VW campervan in 2015 to a car scrapyard


Lot's of conflicting media reports regarding the ownership of the T3.
For instance CB said he'd borrowed it (Malaga trip)
BP's son is quoted as saying CB sold it to them in 2015.

BKA saying.........."Note: The accused was not the owner of the vehicle. The holder is to be excluded as a suspect."

Do BKA mean CB was never the owner of the vehicle/ not the owner at the time of the crime?



BKA - Fahndung nach Personen - Verschwinden der Madeleine McCANN am 03.05.2007 in Praia da Luz / Portugal – Zeugen gesucht

 

[Lilly b]

Was the T3 camper seized by the PJ?
If so, I am interested to know: did the PJ then give the T3 camper to the BKA?

I think CB sold it for 5k to BP, in 2015??? Then confiscated, not sure which police force have it, but that should be easy to find on Google

 

[Lilly b]

Unsure which LEA seized it.

"The son, who did not want to be named, said: ‘Christian sold my dad the van around 2015 and we used it afterwards as our family vehicle.

‘It was a little rusty but had a good engine.

‘It was here till the police arrived one day. They took it away but didn’t say why. I found out about the Madeleine McCann connection through the papers."

Maddie McCann suspect sold his VW campervan in 2015 to a car scrapyard


Lot's of conflicting media reports regarding the ownership of the T3.
For instance CB said he'd borrowed it (Malaga trip)
BP's son is quoted as saying CB sold it to them in 2015.

BKA saying.........."Note: The accused was not the owner of the vehicle. The holder is to be excluded as a suspect."



BKA - Fahndung nach Personen - Verschwinden der Madeleine McCANN am 03.05.2007 in Praia da Luz / Portugal – Zeugen gesucht

Who was bp's son?

 

[redplanet]

I agree - this makes no sense at all.

According to GA the dog was disposed on the morning of 10 May. The dogs do not arrive until August. So he supposedly contaminated the scene with dead dog scent, then waits several months?

The invented theory also fails because all the possessions (which had been in the apartment at the same time as the intruder) had been already removed from the apartment about 5 days previously.