Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #701
Abduction (in legal use) is the illegal removal of a child from its parents or guardians.



Child Abduction Act 1984

Maybe SuperDad can clarify German Law.

Criminal Code (StGB)
Section 235 Deprivation of Minors

(1) A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine is punishable by anyone who a person under the age of eighteen by force, by threatening a sensitive evil or by cunning or

a child without being a relative,

withdraws or withholds from parents, one of the parents, the guardian or the carer.

(2) Anyone who gives a child to parents, one parent, guardian or carer

withdraws to take it abroad, or

withheld abroad after it has been brought there or it has gone there.

(3) In the cases of Paragraph 1 No. 2 and Paragraph 2 No. 1, the attempt is punishable.

(4) A prison sentence of one year up to ten years is to be recognized if the offender

the act puts the victim at risk of death or serious damage to health or considerable damage to physical or mental development, or

commits the act against payment or with the intention of enriching himself or a third party.

(5) If the perpetrator causes the victim's death by the act, the penalty shall not be less than three years' imprisonment.

(6) In less serious cases under subsection 4, imprisonment of between six months and five years, and in less serious cases under subsection 5, imprisonment for between one and ten years.

(7) In the cases of paragraphs 1 to 3, the removal of minors will only be prosecuted upon request, unless the prosecuting authority considers ex officio intervention to be necessary due to the special public interest in prosecution.
 
  • #702
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
I promise this will be my last post re the dogs... :rolleyes:

Quote
" Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication."

This in my mind means that what Eddie indicated is not the scent of death as in a dead body being present in 5a but contamination of surfaces and objects that at some time came in contact with a cadaver. For example the sofa would be a perfect place if 2nd hand for cross contamination of the clothes of the MCs that were later placed in the cupboard. I might be completely wrong of course...
 
  • #703
Criminal Code (StGB)
Section 235 Deprivation of Minors

(1) A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine is punishable by anyone who a person under the age of eighteen by force, by threatening a sensitive evil or by cunning or

a child without being a relative,

withdraws or withholds from parents, one of the parents, the guardian or the carer.

(2) Anyone who gives a child to parents, one parent, guardian or carer

withdraws to take it abroad, or

withheld abroad after it has been brought there or it has gone there.

(3) In the cases of Paragraph 1 No. 2 and Paragraph 2 No. 1, the attempt is punishable.

(4) A prison sentence of one year up to ten years is to be recognized if the offender

the act puts the victim at risk of death or serious damage to health or considerable damage to physical or mental development, or

commits the act against payment or with the intention of enriching himself or a third party.

(5) If the perpetrator causes the victim's death by the act, the penalty shall not be less than three years' imprisonment.

(6) In less serious cases under subsection 4, imprisonment of between six months and five years, and in less serious cases under subsection 5, imprisonment for between one and ten years.

(7) In the cases of paragraphs 1 to 3, the removal of minors will only be prosecuted upon request, unless the prosecuting authority considers ex officio intervention to be necessary due to the special public interest in prosecution.

Presumably this only applies to victims who are 'alive' at the time of the offence?
 
  • #704
In german law you just can abduct a person, that is alive yes!

Otherwise it would be "just" disturbing the peace of the dead, what is a crime in germany too.
 
  • #705
In german law you just can abduct a person, that is alive yes!

Otherwise it would be "just" disturbing the peace of the dead, what is a crime in germany too.

Or even theft, because the dead body is property of the bereaved.
 
  • #706
From the nz herald, its the other girlfriend he was dating, still in Portugal


nzherald.co.nz
Happy New Year Aotearoa! The Herald wishes you a great start to 2021

voyager-logo.svg
Website of the Year
SUBSCRIBE

WORLD
Maddie McCann murder suspect's chilling message to girlfriend day before 3yo disappeared
10 Jun, 2020 03:00 AM3 minutes to read
P2WIIV5RTUOWYP4GDFD2A4OBGI.jpg

"It's a horrible job but it's something I have to do and it will change my life. You won't be seeing me for a while."

NZ Herald

An ex-girlfriend of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Bruckner has broken her silence, claiming he told her he had a nasty job to do the night before McCann disappeared.

The British woman is one of two British former girlfriends of the child sex offender who have now given evidence to police.

Bruckner's former partner claims her conversation with him the night before McCann disappeared didn't feel right, and opened up about the chilling conversation.

"I have a horrible job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow," she claims he said.

It's a horrible job but it's something I have to do and it will change my life. You won't be seeing me for a while."

She also told how she asked him if he had snatched Madeleine McCann — and he warned: "Just don't go there."

The woman and another former partner of the now 43-year-old paedophile were both dating him while he was in the Praia da Luz area of Portugal.


"It's a horrible job but it's something I have to do and it will change my life. You won't be seeing me for a while."
Both live in fear of the paedophile and drug dealer who beat them up.

Three years after McCann's disappearance, the suspect's other former girlfriend said he was a dead ringer for some of the photofits of the Maddie suspects.

She jokingly asked him "You did it Christian, didn't you?"

A friend of his former partner claims "He blanked the question and shrugged — then added, 'Just don't go there'."

"It was said at a time when everyone had a theory about the Madeleine mystery and everyone had a story.

There's a bit more, I just can't copy the link, sorry, hope this is allowed
 
  • #707
Agree.
GA hardly went into 5a whilst the MC's were still residing there wafting his limp and lifeless miniature schnauzer around.
No pun intended.

I shouldn't laugh but... :D

Crikey though, I know the low opinion some people on here have of GA, but the suggestion that he might have actively taken his poor little dead dog into 5A and shoved it here, there and everywhere and/or strategically placed it in the garden in order to create a cadaver scent so as to back up his theory is really just beyond... well... just beyond. Beyond beyond!

Anyway, Happy New Year, All. :D
 
Last edited:
  • #708
Happy new year to all of you honest sleuthers!

Stay healthy!
 
  • #709
Now and then Sleuthers are questioning whether HCW suspects CB of "only" killing MM or abducting and killing her.

It's quite easy to understand that BKA suspects him of both crimes;
HCW: Wir haben viele Beweisen dass das Mädchen durch Christian B. getötet wurde.
[16:20] Sexta às 9 Episódio 28 - de 18 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP
+
HCW: repeated more than once that as far as BKA knows, CB acted on his own. (SF disputes that, but this is BKA's point of view for the time being.)
Sexta às 9 Episódio 28 - de 18 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP
Sexta às 9 Episódio 29 - de 25 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP

+

HCW said that MM died after her disappearance, most probably in Portugal, and that he doesn't know the date of her decease.
I can't find the source anymore, but we all know that he has said that.

=
BKA/HCW suspected CB of abduction and murder.
When people are questioning if CB is guilty of "abduction", I don't think anyone is disputing that CB took MM from 5A. It's just that if she was already dead at this point, it is not technically an "abduction".

The other points (about the death being in Portugal, not having proof of the date she was killed) have been discussed on this thread numerous times now, and I don't think any of those arguments rule out CB having killed MM in the apartment as an option. Not having proof of the date she was killed does not rule it out.

People hear things and interpret them how they think makes the most sense to them. For example, you said -

"HCW said that MM died after her disappearance"

Can you provide a link to where he has actually said that? He said she was killed relatively quickly. That could still mean while in the apartment, or after she was taken.
 
  • #710
  • #711
When people are questioning if CB is guilty of "abduction", I don't think anyone is disputing that CB took MM from 5A. It's just that if she was already dead at this point, it is not technically an "abduction".

^ Well I am! There's not a single piece of evidence that we know of to confirm that he did. Unless of course you have evidence to suggest otherwise? In which case, supply it.

Not having proof of the date she was killed does not rule it out.

It may not for you but it absolutely does for me.

But then I'm taking HCW at his significant "we don't know the exact day MM was killed" words as objective fact, based presumably on what he knows, rather than what comes across as a very subjective and rather entrenched perspective on your part.
 
Last edited:
  • #712
Interesting to compare these 2 responses.

Sexta às 9 Episódio 28 - de 18 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP
@24:08
"CB acted alone?"
(translated from german) "As far as we know, yes"

'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm
@21:05
"Do you believe the suspect acted alone?"
"I am not able to comment on this at the moment".
In the weeks between these 2 interviews perhaps the investigation's level of certainty (that the suspect acted alone) reduced slightly???
 
  • #713
^ Well I am! There's not a single piece of evidence that we know of to confirm that he did. Unless of course you have evidence to suggest otherwise? In which case, supply it.
Wow! Either you are deliberately trying to misconstrue my point, or you have not paid any attention to what the debate was about.

We are talking specifically about why some people are debating whether CB could be guilty of murder but not of abduction.

So when I say "I don't think anyone is disputing" that CB took her from the room, by "anyone" I am referring only to the people who are theorising that he did kill her but not abduct her. In other words, none of us are suggesting that it was someone else took her from the room and that CB killed her afterwards. We are saying, if she was already dead when taken, that means there was no abdcution.
 
  • #714
It may not for you but it absolutely does for me. But then I'm taking HCW at his words and assuming he's in possession of info that we're not privy to.
Is this another dig? Are you saying I'm not taking HCW at his words? Explain why. There is the possibility of course that HCW doesn’t actually know where and when MM was killed. Only that she was killed and that CB was responsible. And that he is being careful to avoid the word 'abduction' because of that.
 
Last edited:
  • #715
In the weeks between these 2 interviews perhaps the investigation's level of certainty (that the suspect acted alone) reduced slightly???
That's what I was thinking. but also in the first interview he spoke in his native language, in the other in English? Is that true? If so, we are lost in translation maybe
 
  • #716
^ Well I am! There's not a single piece of evidence that we know of to confirm that he did. Unless of course you have evidence to suggest otherwise? In which case, supply it.
It may not for you but it absolutely does for me.
So what are you suggesting? It would be interesting to know.
 
  • #717
When people are questioning if CB is guilty of "abduction", I don't think anyone is disputing that CB took MM from 5A. It's just that if she was already dead at this point, it is not technically an "abduction".

The other points (about the death being in Portugal, not having proof of the date she was killed) have been discussed on this thread numerous times now, and I don't think any of those arguments rule out CB having killed MM in the apartment as an option. Not having proof of the date she was killed does not rule it out.

People hear things and interpret them how they think makes the most sense to them. For example, you said -

"HCW said that MM died after her disappearance"

Can you provide a link to where he has actually said that? He said she was killed relatively quickly. That could still mean while in the apartment, or after she was taken.
HCW says that he does not know the date of her decease.
That means that he believes that MM died after having left the apartment. If he believed MM died in the apartment, then he would be sure that she died on May 3rd.
Obviously he can't believe that MM had died on the 2nd of May.
The assumed time of disappearance from the apartment is 21:10 according to sexta9 when visiting HCF in Germany. MM must have died after that hour and somewhere outside of the apartment.

So yes, in his own wording, he says that MM died after having been taken.
And therefore she was abducted while still alive.
 
Last edited:
  • #718
HCW says that he does not know the date of her decease.
That means that he believes that MM died after having left the apartment.
Otherwise he would believe that she would have died on the 3rd of May. Obviously he can't believe that MM had died on the 2nd of May.
The assumed time of disappearance from the apartment is 21:10 according to sexta9 when visiting HCF in Germany.

So yes, in his own wording, he says that MM died after having been taken.
And therefore she was abducted while still alive.
Firstly, you are making the assumption that it can't be a death in the apartment, else HCW would know that. He may not know where and when it happened. If their evidence is just proof of CB killing MM and not much else, that doesn’t specifically mean that the death must have happened after the apartment.

Secondly, he is answering a question specifically about how confidently they can place CB in PDL on the 3rd. He only uses the proof of death at CB's hands argument as a way to re-inforce the probability of CB therefore being there on the 3rd. But, as a caveat he admits this particular evidence does not specifically identify the date the death occurred. So for example, if the evidence they have is a port mortem photo of MM, obtained from a source attributable to CB, then that would fit. It gives them confidence that CB is responsible and was there in PDL on the 3rd, but the evidence itself gives no accurate indication of when the death had occurred. Even if the photo EXIF data showed a date of the 4th, would it realistically be possible to determine when the death had occurred from that photo alone?

So no, he hasn't actually said MM died after leaving the apartment. That's just how you're interpreting it. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that your assumption can't be correct. It might well be, but the point is, HCW hasn't explicitly said that MM died after being abducted from the apartment. And the other comments that might suggest that, can be interpreted in very many ways.
 
Last edited:
  • #719
In the weeks between these 2 interviews perhaps the investigation's level of certainty (that the suspect acted alone) reduced slightly???
I think HCW got a little rattled in this interview, around the point when he was asked about the mast radius. The questions posed to him were a lot more concise and covered specificities he hadn't had to answer in other interviews. I think he clammed up a little, and refused to comment on things he has already answered before. As well as the point you made on the accomplice, he also wouldn't comment on whether PJ and SY had the same evidence as them, even though he said previously that they didn't.

Of course, things might well have changed since then which explains his conflicting responses, or he has been told to not comment on them again, or he was simply rattled and went on the defensive to not give anything away.
 
  • #720
I think HCW got a little rattled in this interview, around the point when he was asked about the mast radius. The questions posed to him were a lot more concise and covered specificities he hadn't had to answer in other interviews. I think he clammed up a little, and refused to comment on things he has already answered before. As well as the point you made on the accomplice, he also wouldn't comment on whether PJ and SY had the same evidence as them, even though he said previously that they didn't.

Of course, things might well have changed since then which explains his conflicting responses, or he has been told to not comment on them again, or he was simply rattled and went on the defensive to not give anything away.


I agree about this. Normally he deals with journalists who don't know the case well. Apart from Brunt, most of them will not have been on the crime beat back then, or don't know specifics.

The Aussie journo is someone who knows the details inside out, and that was reflected in the quality of questions.

This is why, IMO, he couldn't answer about the mast evidence - i think the journalist knew more than him. That doesn't mean BKA doesn't have an answer - it just means HCW wasn't across the detail, or didn't want to share some things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
2,270
Total visitors
2,350

Forum statistics

Threads
633,061
Messages
18,635,753
Members
243,394
Latest member
nadine2024
Back
Top