Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

[Dlk79]

Isn't it a matter of puzzlement that CB doesn't appear to be the least perturbed by what Wolters is saying/claiming ?

No. Sociopaths and psychopaths don't behave in a 'rational' manner. Besides, how do you know he is not perturbed? Because of some cartoons he drew? His ranting letter calling for the Prosecutors to be sacked sounds to me like he might be a little perturbed.

If I were being publicly accused of murdering a child and I knew I was innocent, I'd be asking to speak to the police in order to give my account and clear my name. I wouldn't be taunting the police that they haven't been able to find any "forensic" evidence yet. If CB is innocent, he could nip all the speculation in the bud by providing an alibi for his whereabouts on the 3rd. It was national news, his phone was pinged in the town that night. If he didn't do it he would have at least have thought about where he was around that time given his proximity to the area, so he would still be able to recount now where he was when this happened. But no, according to his lawyer you could order "a holy drink in hell" before CB would cooperate with the prosecutors.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

If you use the search function, members with expertise in this area have previously posted about how this ‘taunting’ isn’t uncommon in criminals with NPD/ASPD.

 

[Anxala]

Isn't it a matter of puzzlement that CB doesn't appear to be the least perturbed by what Wolters is saying/claiming ?

To be fair, we can't assume anything here since only CB himself (and possibly his lawyer, FF) know how perturbed (or not) he is by Wolters, regardless of the bravado nature and tone of what he's make public.

That's not to say of course that it's a bluff either...

I agree it's an 'unusual' approach to take though, if guilty.

 

[Lilly b]

Isn't it a matter of puzzlement that CB doesn't appear to be the least perturbed by what Wolters is saying/claiming ?

Let's say he is Used to being in prison, used to getting caught, used to not getting caught, used to appearing in front of judges, used to taking risks, and it seems not fazed by anything, each time he went to prison, he came out and offended again, and again, and so we now have a 40 year old guy, no family, no friends, that we are aware of.
With no one to blame, but himself. And just think now he is world famous, wonder how he is really feeling?

 

[Anxala]

Let's say he is Used to being in prison, used to getting caught, used to not getting caught, used to appearing in front of judges, used to taking risks, and it seems not fazed by anything, each time he went to prison, he came out and offended again, and again, and so we now have a 40 year old guy, no family, no friends, that we are aware of.
With no one to blame, but himself. And just think now he is world famous, wonder how he is really feeling?

Those are good and pertinent points, Lilly. Could be he has no effs to give at this stage?

Although I imagine his lawyer does though (have effs to give, that is) as whatever CB says publicly reflects somewhat on him too.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Just gonna leave this here…

Maddie suspect 'told judge he was a sexual predator' before she disappeared

The Daily Fail and old news, but if true it gives an insight into his arrogance.

 

[Dlk79]

Although I imagine his lawyer does though (have effs to give, that is) as whatever CB says publicly reflects somewhat on him too.

The same lawyer who said he would never let CB look after one of his kids. And who also said CB will never speak to investigators because he has nothing to hide?

 

[Betty_Boop88]

The same lawyer who said he would never let CB look after one of his kids. And who also said CB will never speak to investigators because he has nothing to hide?

He supposedly would let him look after his dogs, though*


*His dogs are hunting dogs

 

[Anxala]

Did he left unsolicited or has been kicked out? Does somebody know?

Does it matter?

The same lawyer who said he would never let CB look after one of his kids. And who also said CB will never speak to investigators because he has nothing to hide?

Yes, the same lawyer who made no bones about CB being a wrong 'un. For which I admired and continue to respect him for treating people like thinking adults instead of trying to distract from the known mess that CB is.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Does it matter?



Yes, the same lawyer who made no bones about CB being a wrong 'un. For which I admired and continue to respect him for treating people like thinking adults instead of trying to distract from the known mess that CB is.

BBM
This seems like such an obvious defence tactic, though. Hold your hands up that yes, the man is warped, so it’s no surprise he’s in the frame. But give enough so you can deny that he’s warped enough to be guilty of what he’s being accused of.

Aye the man can look after FF’s dogs, but they’re hunting dogs and will bite the willy off him if he tries anything. His weans can’t, so he wouldn’t let CB look after them.

 

[Dlk79]

Yes, the same lawyer who made no bones about CB being a wrong 'un. For which I admired and continue to respect him for treating people like thinking adults instead of trying to distract from the known mess that CB is.

Well what else is he going to say? CB is an upstanding citizen? The man has a rap sheet as long as his arm, containing many despicable crimes. Pointing out the obvious hardly warrants admiration and respect in my view.

FF has an obvious motive to say the things he says, even if he doesn't really believe them. It's his job to get CB off whether he is guilty or not. The BKA on the other hand, have no motive to say what they say unless they truly believed it. JMO.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Well what else is he going to say? CB is an upstanding citizen? The man has a rap sheet as long as his arm, containing many despicable crimes. Pointing out the obvious hardly warrants admiration and respect in my view.

FF has an obvious motive to say the things he says, even if he doesn't really believe them. It's his job to get CB off whether he is guilty or not. The BKA on the other hand, have no motive to say what they say unless they truly believed it. JMO.

You can always say it so much more eloquently, @Dlk79

 

[WestLondoner]

If you use the search function, members with expertise in this area have previously posted about how this ‘taunting’ isn’t uncommon in criminals with NPD/ASPD.

It's an entirely unrelated case but a few years ago, a guy who was quite a well known Napoleonic historian was jailed after police found thousands of kiddy images on his laptop.

His defence was that everyone was a paedo apart from himself. That was his actual defence at his trial. The police, civilian police workers, social services, the witnesses, his brother, a fellow historian who had disagreed with him, been libelled by him and won damages, the judge in that libel trial - they were all paedos in league to steal his mother's house. All the evidence was fabricated. The police planted the photos. And so on.

He was so completely unhinged, and of course unrepentant, that before release he was sectioned for life. The arrogance, though, reminds me of CB's loony antics. We can be quite sure that whatever the German authorities have put out there, they have done so advisedly. The idea that they should now recant because a convicted rapist is concerned about his reputation is simply laughable. He has no good name left to lose.

 

[WestLondoner]

Well what else is he going to say? CB is an upstanding citizen? The man has a rap sheet as long as his arm, containing many despicable crimes. Pointing out the obvious hardly warrants admiration and respect in my view.

FF has an obvious motive to say the things he says, even if he doesn't really believe them. It's his job to get CB off whether he is guilty or not. The BKA on the other hand, have no motive to say what they say unless they truly believed it. JMO.

Absolutely. Conceding his client is lowlife is conceding nothing at all because we already have it from a court that he's lowlife. So rather than hopelessly trying to retry those cases, his lawyer just concedes something we already knew, and then tries to make this look like a piece of plain dealing in his part, so that we buy the rest as well.

Which we don't

 

[Dlk79]

Absolutely. Conceding his client is lowlife is conceding nothing at all because we already have it from a court that he's lowlife. So rather than hopelessly trying to retry those cases, his lawyer just concedes something we already knew, and then tries to make this look like a piece of plain dealing in his part, so that we buy the rest as well.

Which we don't

Exactly. Admit an undeniable fact then follow it up with "but....." to make your follow up statement sound more credible. Completely transparent lawyer tactics IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

Obviously CB won't talk to police unless HCW and friends disclose key evidence.

Even if innocent, he'd be stupid to give an interview without that basis - indeed as I understand, a formal interview where he is a suspect would require disclosure of evidence in order to ask key questions

So I don't think him "clearing his name" via a voluntary interview is a realistic option right now, precisely because he is the suspect and anything he says would be admissible in a case against him - requiring disclosure.

 

[cascade]

Obviously CB won't talk to police unless HCW and friends disclose key evidence.

Even if innocent, he'd be stupid to give an interview without that basis - indeed as I understand, a formal interview where he is a suspect would require disclosure of evidence in order to ask key questions

So I don't think him "clearing his name" via a voluntary interview is a realistic option right now, precisely because he is the suspect and anything he says would be admissible in a case against him - requiring disclosure.

Exactly.

How is CB supposed to defend himself when he doesn't even know what he's being charged with? That's just the wrong way around.

 

[Dlk79]

I don't expect that would talk to police but HCW did open that door to him if CB wanted to speak to them informally.

My point really was that if CB had a verifiable alibi for the night in question, he could easily inform police or put a statement out through his lawyer if he was at all bothered about his name being unfairly dragged through the mud when he was innocent and could prove it.

Instead, we have CB and FF making rather odd statements and issuing mocking cartoons. I'm still waiting for FF to tell us this bombshell revelation that clears his client and that's going to knock us all off our chairs....

 

[WestLondoner]

To be utterly and scrupulously fair to CB, there is perhaps an argument that by naming him, the authorities have prejudiced his chances of having a fair trial. Under UK law, and I don't know how similar German law is in this regard, that would be the only basis for his objecting to being named. His hurt feelings and good name would not, because in case he hasn't noticed, he's a convicted rapist and he has whatever good name rapists have, which is none at all.

If I say Boris Johnson murders bunny wabbits it's libel, because it goes to his good name. But if I say it after he has been convicted of murdering bunny wabbits, then it's fine because he's lost his good name, and anyway it's true.

So CB could possibly argue at any trial or appeal that the prosecutor's statements had biased the court against him. Depending on what evidence the prosecution actually presents, that contention could prove to be technically arguable, but also completely beside the point.

If the evidence for his guilt is a video of a dead MM in a location that can be tied to him, for example, then any claim he is being convicted on malicious hearsay can be debunked. The retort is simply No, he's being convicted off photos that tie him explicitly to a murder.

You don't disclose to a suspect the nature and source of what you have on them, so there's no reason for HCW to say any more than he has. At the same time I have never heard of a prosecutor who thought he had too much evidence and who therefore appealed to witnesses to stop coming forward. So despite my zero knowledge of German law, HCW sounds pretty rational to me...

 

[mrjitty]

This starts to get in the weeds, but say CB actually is innocent, as his lawyer, there is no way I would present the defences evidence without it being an on the record interview where the prosecution has to disclose in its questioning (otherwise it all becomes inadmissible at trial).

I am not that familiar with the german system, but at least in the UK, the police would have to make relevant disclosures in order to ask CB questions in an official interview.

It would be very silly for FF to disclose his defence, without knowing what the prosecution case is - particularly becuse FF does not know if CB is actually guilty, or whether such disclosures might highlight other crimes.

Just for arguments sake, if CB's defence is he did a burglary somewhere else that night, you'd be very foolish to put this out in public other than in an official interview.