Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

[vermisstekindersuche]

Honestly I'm UPSET and starting to be really annoyed with this.

HCW/BKA talks about "secret evidence", doesn't "show" anything credible but the majority of you guys do trust him and his investigation.

Now the same HCW goes to podcasts/documentaries and states that CB doesn't have anything to do with little Inga case and a bunch of people that trust HCW "blindly" on MM case simply don't believe him when he says CB is ruled out of little Inga. This is NOT REASONABLE because if one trusts BKA/HCW one should trust on what they state. Believing just when it's convinient for our goals just shows the mentality of some people here.

Same goes for when HCW stated recently that there was no videos/photos of MM with CB and people do still insist that there might be providing multiple intrepretations for what HCW did state (despite the fact that i'm not bother with this in particular so i couldn't care less).

Also feel that this is a lack of respect toward me because i've been participating here for almost 1 year now and even if you guys don't like me at all i'm trying to contribute to this thread/discussion so i don't see any reason for other people here sharing the same forum/thread to keep on bringing a subject that upsets me particularly without any reasonable motivation.

They should simply do here at WS the same that they are doing at allmystery (de). Simply put a warning that CB it's not a suspect/person of interest for Inga case and end of the subject. Keep posting this kind of message over and over again on a case that is not even linked to this thread is pointless. On allmystery they are simply erasing the posts and that's it. It's the same as random naming someone a suspect of something else - against the TOS of the forum - without grounds for doing so. LEA discarded CB on Inga. Simple. Same way we can't discuss for example MM parents as the ones who could be linked to MM disapearance. If a person is not named by MSM shouldn't be considered a "suspect" even more when - in case on little Inga - that CB guy was rulled out, it's not a suspect, it's not under investigation, nothing is going to happen no matter what you guys wish/want.

AGAIN and to finalize, little Inga might very well went out by herself (most likely) and not taken at all, also even if She was taken there are many options/possibilities that are obviouse and were mentioned by Her father on the latest interview.

Don't see any reason at all to be pushing this any further - don't see any reason for some people to "want" for CB to be involved in this, as people couldn't even show that he in reallity killed anyone to start with.

IF and only IF they can charge CB over MM people should be questioning other stuff, like LEA normaly do. On little Inga case they did make this step ahead of time and already ruled him out even if he wasn't even charged yet for MM case. Save us trouble/time in the event that he is ever charged/guilty (of MM case).

Apart from upsetiing me (greatly - and i'm not joking) and maybe make CB more likely to be guilty of MM case in the mind of some i don't see any point of keeping on pushing this further. It would be the same or even worse than naming a random person as a suspect. At least CB was "investigated" over Inga (properly investigated) and ruled out, whatever you guys believe or not, whatever you guys like it or not.

Just to say that you wouldn't find it very funny to think that someone you care for could had been abused/tortured for says by a guy, at least for me if the guy is ruled out it's a GOOD THING and not a BAD thing. People saying otherwise just show in fact how much they care.

And also, the name is Inga, not Inge,

 

[vermisstekindersuche]

Saying that CB is involved in our little Inga case would just be as bad as saying that K and G are involved on MM case. If you don't like the 2nd I don't like the 1st and WS TOS should be the same on both. If you guys want to "play" fair at least respect that and keep on-topic.

 

[mrjitty]

I honestly think most (if not all) the tabloid stories we see with his 'quotes' are ones in which they've approached him for comment, normally asking to respond to whatever MM related article is doing the rounds. I don't think he is actually approaching them.

RSBM - I agree that is what is happening, but it shows his lack of coherent media strategy.

And ok, I do get why some people might find his willingness to engage so readily with the tabloids odd. But he's not usually giving anything anyway that we didn't already know. Yes, he could just refuse to comment, but then people would start jumping on that as some sign that the case must be failing, given how open he was (and needed to be for the appeal) at the start. The tabloids especially so!

I am more surprised and his lack of coherent strategy. He can put an official statement on his website full of accurate quotes for all outlets. He can distribute an update to a dozen select media in both languages. He can do a TV hit which would be covered.

Instead he is just doing reactive PR - responding to requests. That tells you something. He isn't really interested in guiding the narrative, and he is getting only low quality coverage,

The media are HCWs greatest ally in getting a successful appeal. And in the same breath, they could also be his worst enemy if they choose to start pursuing another angle to report this case from. We've seen it before. The tabloids don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, that's just a bonus for them. That's why I only tend to take the "direct quotes" seriously. If they add something like "sources said..." I treat it with a large degree of scepticism. And anything that sounds like groundbreaking news without any source to back it up, I pretty much ignore. That's just how the tabloids roll unfortunately and it's not for HCW to police that.

My concern from the start was that he would not manage the UK media pack properly. We saw that happen in the first year of the case as well.

When you look at what he is now doing his latest messaging is not about CB and trying to get info, but rather about defending his approach. That happened because of the ill judged interview with Olive Press guy.

In other words, HCW is becoming the story - and that was always the risk when he decided to jump in to this case. The latest "exclusive" has steadied the ship and bought some more time I guess, by resetting expectations to 2022, but I do think the media will turn against him eventually if he doesn't come up with the goods.

And whether HCW might be privately frustrated that stories are getting twisted, the truth still is that with every story that gets printed, it's an opportunity that another potential witness might be reached. And ultimately that is the BKA's end goal.

If he really wanted this, he could have done another broad media drop as an appeal and case update. He had a news worthy statement in that he has enough to charge but is looking for more.

The fact that he hasn't made another appeal, says to me that isn't his strategy now.

My suspicion is for instance that they know who the phone call was probably with - they need that person to come forward. But they haven't.

 

[WestLondoner]

Amaral refers to the conclusion of the initial investigation in which the main evidence against tthe McCanns was the cadaver dog alerts.. Amaral is a total fool.. I have no horse in the race.. I'm open to all possibilities... But I know what evidence is and I van recognise an idiot when I see one

If his evidence is the dogs, then the dogs would have to be cross-examined in the witness box. That sounds like a laugh:

PROSECUTION: Did you find evidence that Madeleine had died in the apartment?
FIDO: Woof! Woof woof!
PROSECUTION: Is that a yes or a no?
FIDO: Woof!
DEFENCE: Objection, m'lord. The witness should answer clearly.
FIDO: Woof woof woof woof!
JUDGE: I agree.
DEFENCE: What, with "Woof woof woof woof"?
JUDGE: No, I agree with you.
PROSECUTION: Well, how about this, your honour. All dogs like walkies, right?
FIDO: Woof woof woof woof! Woof! Woof woof!
JUDGE: Right. And?
PROSECUTION: So if I ask Fido if he'd like to go walkies -
FIDO: Woof woof woof woof! Woof! Woof woof!
PROSECUTION: - and he barks more than once, that obviously means "yes". One bark means "no."
JUDGE: Shouldn't you put a lead on him so he knows you're not lying about walkies?
PROSECUTION: Good idea your honour (he puts a lead on Fido).
DEFENCE: Objection, m'lord. Counsel is leading the witness.
FIDO: Woof woof woof woof! Woof! Woof woof!
JUDGE: Can nobody shut that bl00dy dog up?
GONCALO AMARAL (from the cheap seats): Dog is witness. Dog should be heard. (grabs dog and throws it down a flight of steps. Loud crack is heard).
CLERK OF THE COURT: The witness is dead, your honour. It seems he threw himself down some steps.
PROSECUTION: Amaral, fool, that was our main witness!
GONCALO AMARAL: Is other dogs. You wanna nother dog? I got dog outfit.
JUDGE: This court is adjourned. I need to go walkies.

 

[Dlk79]

RSBM - I agree that is what is happening, but it shows his lack of coherent media strategy.



I am more surprised and his lack of coherent strategy. He can put an official statement on his website full of accurate quotes for all outlets. He can distribute an update to a dozen select media in both languages. He can do a TV hit which would be covered.

Instead he is just doing reactive PR - responding to requests. That tells you something. He isn't really interested in guiding the narrative, and he is getting only low quality coverage,



My concern from the start was that he would not manage the UK media pack properly. We saw that happen in the first year of the case as well.

When you look at what he is now doing his latest messaging is not about CB and trying to get info, but rather about defending his approach. That happened because of the ill judged interview with Olive Press guy.

In other words, HCW is becoming the story - and that was always the risk when he decided to jump in to this case. The latest "exclusive" has steadied the ship and bought some more time I guess, by resetting expectations to 2022, but I do think the media will turn against him eventually if he doesn't come up with the goods.



If he really wanted this, he could have done another broad media drop as an appeal and case update. He had a news worthy statement in that he has enough to charge but is looking for more.

The fact that he hasn't made another appeal, says to me that isn't his strategy now.

My suspicion is for instance that they know who the phone call was probably with - they need that person to come forward. But they haven't.

But put an offical statement out to say what? He hasn't told us anything of great significance in 12 months. IMO he told us everything he was willing to make public at the start and everything since then has just pretty much been reiterating those same things. The wording might change slightly but what have we actually learned in the last 12 months from any of the "quotes" from HCW that we didn't already know? Not a lot. Not enough to be calling a press conference IMO.

I agree he is taking a reactive approach but I personally don't see that as being as big of an issue as others might do. He'd rather not have to be making new statements or responding to requests at all I'm sure, they just want to get on with the investigation. But I don't think he is doing the 'wrong' thing necessarily by feeding the lions. They're going to print their 'stories' regardless so I can see why he keeps them fed with just enough to keep them at bay without actually revealing anything new.

You call it low quality coverage, and mostly its is but whether he gave any comment or not, that low quality coverage would still likely be printed. I'm not saying it's part of BKA's strategy to deliberately go down this route to get any crappy article out there for publicitly. But they can't tame the beast that is the tabloids and so I think they are content, for now, to just keep them on side. As you rightly say, they could turn on him at any time.

His comment about them "now having enough to charge" does, on the face of it, sound significant. Whether it's worthy of some sort of official press statement... I'm not sure, especially when they're also saying they're going to continue to collect more evidence before charging. Assuming it is true, and not a misinterpretation/mistranslation by the press or something like that, perhaps he didn't really want to reveal that. But in light of other stories casting doubt on their investigation, maybe they thought they needed to put some stronger statement out there to show they are not just on some wild goose chase.

Who knows. I'm not chamioning HCW's strategy especially, but just saying that I can understand why he responds when the tabloids come looking for a comment.

Out of interest, why do you think they might know who the phone caller was?

 

[Chiatos]

"Just days after investigators said they were ‘100 per cent’ sure they had the right suspect, a former detective on the case has thrown a spanner in the works."

Not GA, but a former MET Detective giving his tuppence worth.

Huge flaw in Maddie McCann find

Why would any difference between "concrete evidence" in Britain and Germany pose a problem?
After all, CB is German and locked up in Germany.

 

[mrjitty]

But put an offical statement out to say what? He hasn't told us anything of great significance in 12 months. IMO he told us everything he was willing to make public at the start and everything since then has just pretty much been reiterating those same things. The wording might change slightly but what have we actually learned in the last 12 months from any of the "quotes" from HCW that we didn't already know? Not a lot. Not enough to be calling a press conference IMO.

I agree he is taking a reactive approach but I personally don't see that as being as big of an issue as others might do. He'd rather not have to be making new statements or responding to requests at all I'm sure, they just want to get on with the investigation. But I don't think he is doing the 'wrong' thing necessarily by feeding the lions. They're going to print their 'stories' regardless so I can see why he keeps them fed with just enough to keep them at bay without actually revealing anything new.

You call it low quality coverage, and mostly its is but whether he gave any comment or not, that low quality coverage would still likely be printed. I'm not saying it's part of BKA's strategy to deliberately go down this route to get any crappy article out there for publicitly. But they can't tame the beast that is the tabloids and so I think they are content, for now, to just keep them on side. As you rightly say, they could turn on him at any time.

His comment about them "now having enough to charge" does, on the face of it, sound significant. Whether it's worthy of some sort of official press statement... I'm not sure, especially when they're also saying they're going to continue to collect more evidence before charging. Assuming it is true, and not a misinterpretation/mistranslation by the press or something like that, perhaps he didn't really want to reveal that. But in light of other stories casting doubt on their investigation, maybe they thought they needed to put some stronger statement out there to show they are not just on some wild goose chase.

Who knows. I'm not chamioning HCW's strategy especially, but just saying that I can understand why he responds when the tabloids come looking for a comment.

Out of interest, why do you think they might know who the phone caller was?

His statement about having enough to charge is newsworthy, and if he did an official release, then there would be reliable quotes to go on.

It gets technical (which is my line of work) but he could manage the media narrative much more actively.

The reason he isn't doing so, is likely because he actually isn't seeking any public assistance at the moment (my guess) and also lack of experience (e.g. with foreign media).

So he does what is easy, which is respond reactively when they come looking for quotes.

I think they know who the caller is because they haven't repeated their appeal for info. My guess is they wanted specific people to come forward.

 

[Chiatos]

The problem at this point is the absurdity of HCW's media strategy

He could have done a proper on the record press briefing to all major outlets, in which case we'd have primary reporting in both German and English, from reputable outlets, where we could reply on accurate quotes.

Instead he apparently have an exclusive to the Mirror.

This is getting beyond what one would consider appropriate/normal behaviour from an investigative body.

HCW's press conference of last year counts most of all. He made a clear statement.
Plus his interview with SF and other interviews registered on film or any pod casts.
Only the Mirror can prove that the Mirror has actually spoken to HCW.

I kind of disregard that kind of information and follow the info coming directly from HCW's mouth.
Up to now, HCW has been very clear and determined.

 

[mrjitty]

HCW's press conference of last year counts most of all. He made a clear statement.
Plus his interview with SF and other interviews registered on film or any pod casts.
Only the Mirror can prove that the Mirror has actually spoken to HCW.

I kind of disregard that kind of information and follow the info coming directly from HCW's mouth.
Up to now, HCW has been very clear and determined.

Yeah but again if the Mirror had actually misquoted him, in what they are claiming is an on the record exclusive, it would be simple for him to correct the record by publishing a statement on his website.

So I assume the Mirror stuff is accurate (by mirror standards)

 

[mrjitty]

But if we strip it all back and focus on the basic truths, what we know is that MM disappeared without a trace. We have a number of witnesses that place her alive and well in the OC on the 4th, and that by 10 o'clock that night she was gone.

So, what is the most logical conclusion given those circumstances alone? Surely it has to be that someone took her. And when you are looking for the most logical candidate, a paedophile is what makes the most sense. It's more plausible than any other theory such as MM wandering off, the parents covering up a death, the Tapas 7 all colluding to construct a false timeline to protect the McCanns or MM being kidnapped for some adoptive parents etc IMO. Even GA admits that CB is the 'perfect suspect' precisely because it all fits neatly into that sexual motive theory which 'most' people suspected from the start. But whereas he thinks a paedophile has just been engineered to be the fall guy, the truth is it's actually highly likely that a paedophile would be the culprit.

RSBM

The ongoing issue is that competing theories must be supported or not supported by evidence, in order for us to favour one or another.

So we can't evaluate one theory of the case over another, if we don't know what the evidence is.

I can't tell if CB is more logical than 'wandering off" when I have (at this stage) zero evidence supporting an abduction by CB (or anyone else).

Especially where I am sceptical, is assuming LE have it right based on unsubstantiated claims, when we already went down that road before. Why should we trust HCW has it right compared to PJ?

PJ, and the media got it wrong twice before (RM first, then parents).

So basically, I just don't think we can say how one theory is better than another, in absence of corroboration

This is not merely theoretical

e.g how will HCW rule out "wandering off" unless he can tie CB explicitly to murder.

 

[WestLondoner]

The case against CB is a bit like the case against John Cannan in the Suzy Lamplugh disappearance. As Dlk79 lucidly sets out, he was the right sort of offender with the right sort of backstory and criminal habits to have done this, and he was definitely in the area at the right time, but nobody noticed this for 10 years or whatever.

But so far there's been (in public at any rate) no actual evidence. Basis the above, if I were a prosecutor and that was all I had, I'd contact the parents and explain who I thought had done it and why, and I'd also outline why no conviction was likely.

That HCW has gone further this in public suggests that he does have more than that, but not enough more to be sure.

Hearsay accounts from other lags don't really cut it. They're dishonest too; they may try to trade information for favours or earlier release, they may fabricate something to damage or incriminate a prisoner they personally dislike (cf John Cannan's supposed prison nickname of "Kipper" - based on one unchecked and quite unlikely account 14 years later), or if they did hear a yarn from someone, the someone may have been an attention-seeking fantasist.

 

[Chiatos]

Yeah but again if the Mirror had actually misquoted him, in what they are claiming is an on the record exclusive, it would be simple for him to correct the record by publishing a statement on his website.

So I assume the Mirror stuff is accurate (by mirror standards)

Then again, in The Mirror's latest claims, there are still no inconsistencies with HCW's previous statements.

 

[Anxala]

Why would any difference between "concrete evidence" in Britain and Germany pose a problem?
After all, CB is German and locked up in Germany.

It surely would in terms of getting the case to court. Fairly strict criteria govern getting a case to trial under German law -

*The first phase of a German criminal prosecution is pre-trial investigation to determine if there are grounds for a formal indictment. If a prosecutor determines that there is, the case is transferred to the appropriate German court, where the presiding judge decides if the evidence warrants a trial.

So basically, the prosecutors have to bring seriously convincing evidence before the judge in order for the judge to give the ok. We know the BKA has no what is regarded as concrete evidence - no body, no dna match and, from what HCW has implied to date, no video/CCTV connecting CB to MM. In the absence of any of the latter, what have they got that will convince the judge that they have the right man?

HCW has made it very clear that the delay is directly connected to finding as much evidence as possible so as not to fail at the first and crucial fence, bearing in mind the double jeopardy law.

*Above quote from here - How To Germany - German Law and the German Legal System

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is closed. Check back in a day or so.

Time Outs are being issued for rudeness, bickering and personalizing. Many posts have been removed, and if it starts up again, this thread will be closed until there is a major development in this case.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thread is open again.

Common courtesy dictates that all members post in line with the Terms of Service they agreed to upon joining Websleuths. Those Terms of Service (aka The Rules,) are linked in my signature for easy reference.

Please post accordingly. Members who violate our rules face a temporary loss of posting privileges or permanent ban from Websleuths.

 

[Zuleika]

Portuguese tv channel CMTV announced during an interview on Thursday
there's to be meeting between the PJ and German authorities tomorrow and Tuesday .

 

[mrjitty]

Portuguese tv channel CMTV announced during an interview on Thursday
there's to be meeting between the PJ and German authorities tomorrow and Tuesday .

Interesting to know what comes of this!

 

[Denis R Tandib]

His statement about having enough to charge is newsworthy, and if he did an official release, then there would be reliable quotes to go on.

It gets technical (which is my line of work) but he could manage the media narrative much more actively.

The reason he isn't doing so, is likely because he actually isn't seeking any public assistance at the moment (my guess) and also lack of experience (e.g. with foreign media).

So he does what is easy, which is respond reactively when they come looking for quotes.

I think they know who the caller is because they haven't repeated their appeal for info. My guess is they wanted specific people to come forward.

Do you think one of the T7 bought a Portuguese SIM?

 

[Lilly b]

Do you think one of the T7 bought a Portuguese SIM?

I don't

 

[WestLondoner]

I have been reading Jon Clarke's book. It rambles a lot with his accounts of how hard it was to find the girlfriend of the bloke whose dad's neighbour sold a winnebago to a mate of CB's cellmate's ex-girlfriend, so for £7.99 be warned. It's also not "his" search for MM's abductor as his activity consists of reacting to leaks and press statements.

What does emerge, though, is the obvious:

- MM was probably abducted by a career criminal after being left in insufficiently secure premises.

- The Portuguese police were incompetent, corrupt, and the sole, totally unsubstantiated source of all accusations against the McCanns and their friends, against whom there is zero evidence.

- The only convictions brought have been against two police officers heading the investigation.

- CB fits the bill very well, with or without the assistance of associates.

I remain baffled as to why anyone seeks anything more out-there to explain this.