Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #28

[SuperdadV8]

Agreed.
Finding a couple of butts that CB may have toked on would be just more circumstantial evidence to add to the list, might have placed him closer to 5a but like you say, they don't have a time stamp.

Right. If being found in the garden or the balcony, or maybe in the parking lot close to 5A, it could be a strong clue. But far away from being a kind of "gamechanger" IMO.

 

[Pixie Child]

Agreed.
Finding a couple of butts that CB may have toked on would be just more circumstantial evidence to add to the list, might have placed him closer to 5a but like you say, they don't have a time stamp.

Depends on how long DNA would last in the conditions and the cleaning schedule. If a maintenance man swept an area at a particular time, they could potentially narrow it down to a window of time.

If they had it, CB would have to explain when & why he was there. Just one more detail in the totality of the evidence.

 

[tedtink]

Depends on how long DNA would last in the conditions and the cleaning schedule. If a maintenance man swept an area at a particular time, they could potentially narrow it down to a window of time.

If they had it, CB would have to explain when & why he was there. Just one more detail in the totality of the evidence.

One possible reason is that HCW has circumstantial evidence that ties CB to 5a and that the cigarette butts could have confirmed what he's already been told.

For instance, is part of the verbal testimony, from HB or whoever, that CB had told him he'd clanged off a few rollies in a certain spot before entering 5a?

Could an accomplice have signaled at a certain spot, when the coast was clear, by lighting up.

HCW can't back up the verbal testimony as the butts weren't collected and analysed.

Who knows - If the focus is on the dog ends, there's a reason why.

JMO.

 

[Dlk79]

the below quote from Dlk79 is very apt:



so, that's the point - why does he suggest to re-test 2 other samples, and dismisses the one with the red flag of its association with a spot related to another crime? this is not just an analyst speaking... this is guided forensics analysis as to what the police are interested in recovering. there is an objective!

taken from the actual report:

Objective
The objective of the laboratory examination was to examine the presented objects with respect to the presence of blood, cellular material and hair that may prove to be [have been] from Madeleine McCann or one or other member of her family, or from any of the Portuguese police who had been active [working/present] at the crime scene.

That's what I don't get either. He says in the one sample found that police "should" re-test the "matches" using the SGMplus technique adding the samples would "likely" be eliminated after this was done. I don't have an issue with that statment, the SGMplus test used at the time I believe used 10 profile markers, as opposed to the old SGM test which only used 6. So statistically speaking, once they got data for the other 4 markers, it was more "likely" than not that there would no longer be a match. That's a statement of mathematical fact but it's not to say they wouldn't still match either, hence the recommendation to investigate further making absoute sense. Otherwise, why bother checking any of the profiles on the old SGM system at all if you are just then going to discount any matches?

But then in the second sample they found, he doesn't recommend carrying out an SGMplus test. He says that "as that sample was processed with the old SGM system I consider the match to be of negligible significance". But what is the difference here? Both samples went through the same elimination process and both still showed "matches" with profiles on the database based on the 6 markers common to both tests. So why recommend carrying out re-tests for the one but then state "I consider" the second sample not to matter. Based on what? The only reason he gives is that it was from the old SGM system... but so was the other one.

If there's more to it than that, he should state the reasons in the report really. Maybe it's because the original sample wasn't linked to an actual individual, only another crime scene. So perhaps it wasn't possible to re-test it using the newer technique because the original sample had been destroyed whereas for the other one, I suppose they could approach the individual in question to get a DNA swab.

 

[C.greek]

That's what I don't get either. He says in the one sample found that police "should" re-test the "matches" using the SGMplus technique adding the samples would "likely" be eliminated after this was done. I don't have an issue with that statment, the SGMplus test used at the time I believe used 10 profile markers, as opposed to the old SGM test which only used 6. So statistically speaking, once they got data for the other 4 markers, it was more "likely" than not that there would no longer be a match. That's a statement of mathematical fact but it's not to say they wouldn't still match either, hence the recommendation to investigate further making absoute sense. Otherwise, why bother checking any of the profiles on the old SGM system at all if you are just then going to discount any matches?

But then in the second sample they found, he doesn't recommend carrying out an SGMplus test. He says that "as that sample was processed with the old SGM system I consider the match to be of negligible significance". But what is the difference here? Both samples went through the same elimination process and both still showed "matches" with profiles on the database based on the 6 markers common to both tests. So why recommend carrying out re-tests for the one but then state "I consider" the second sample not to matter. Based on what? The only reason he gives is that it was from the old SGM system... but so was the other one.

If there's more to it than that, he should state the reasons in the report really. Maybe it's because the original sample wasn't linked to an actual individual, only another crime scene. So perhaps it wasn't possible to re-test it using the newer technique because the original sample had been destroyed whereas for the other one, I suppose they could approach the individual in question to get a DNA swab.

He was asked to analyse the samples to find a match with specific individuals - i.e MM and her parents (because of the blood alerts!) and in order to eliminate the police officers that were there. This was his line of work, not to find anyone else who might have been the abductor for example since the suspects then were the parents. This is why I call it a guided forensics analysis with the objective clearly stated in his brief. I think the other two samples 4a and b were related to a female individual - could have been a police officer at the scene or one of those who voluntarily gave a swab sample? Though if the latter why would the DNA been analysed with the old SGM system?

I think we are missing info in the pj files - the 9a&b samples were out of the blue later linked to the 2yo boy. When they sent the samples, there was an indication (underlining) of those previous occupants of 5a whose samples were taken. The boy's name was not underlined, only his dad's.

 

[tedtink]

It's an old article.........

"In the end, the recommendations of this team were: in the case of murder, wait for the results of the traces sent to England, as well as understand the reliability of the results obtained through the dogs of the English trainer;on the other hand, in the case of abduction, they proposed, in the absence of evidence, to wait for new elements that could reach the process and that could open other lines of investigation.

The laboratory results both in Portugal and in England would arrive shortly afterwards to show that the biological traces collected in the car could be as much from Maddie as from her brothers.In Portugal, after analyzing all the evidence, there was only one left, which may now be crucial to understand whether Brueckner was in the Ocean's Club apartment.The one that didn't match the date at all: a saliva stain found on Maddie's bedspread."

O criminoso perfeito? Como Brueckner passou ao lado da investigação e 13 anos depois parece ser a chave do mistério Maddie

 

[Pixie Child]

[QUOTE="tedtink, post: 17403898

Who knows - If the focus is on the dog ends, there's a reason why.

JMO.[/QUOTE]

It suggests that the mobile phone, witness evidence & evidence of death is weak. Early days - they haven’t interviewed CB yet - but BKA having made a big play may be looking to shift blame to PJ for their inability to prosecute.

 

[SuperdadV8]

Let's keep calm buddies! Just because there is an announced documentary, we still do not know if we are any step further since june 2020!

As i said, Jutta R. has been involved in the Estonia case for almost 30 years!

Any outcome? Nope!

Let's watch it in about a week and start to discuss the content!

 

[Dlk79]

A source told the Sun: "She says she was not with him the day Madeleine disappeared but spoke with him and again said he seemed normal."

If she didn't see him that day but spoke with him, presumably this was by phone? I wonder if they know what phone number he used for this and at what time. If he was in PDL during this period that he spoke to her, the call will appear in the data log.

 

[C.greek]

If she didn't see him that day but spoke with him, presumably this was by phone? I wonder if they know what phone number he used for this and at what time. If he was in PDL during this period that he spoke to her, the call will appear in the data log.

Perhaps she has provided the phone number - and could be different from the one the BKA say he was using at the time? And this is how the MWT doc could say "he was not using that phone number on that day"?
But even if he was in PdL in the morning/afternoon, that doesn't say much... since he appears to have been staying there. What would be interesting is corroborating his 2013 statement

 

[C.greek]

Let's keep calm buddies! Just because there is an announced documentary, we still do not know if we are any step further since june 2020!

As i said, Jutta R. has been involved in the Estonia case for almost 30 years!

Any outcome? Nope!

Let's watch it in about a week and start to discuss the content!

And what are we going to do in the meantime?

 

[frank-cole]

If she didn't see him that day but spoke with him, presumably this was by phone? I wonder if they know what phone number he used for this and at what time. If he was in PDL during this period that he spoke to her, the call will appear in the data log.

Good point, I wonder if her testimony could be corroborated or not corroborated by the phone data. It’s interesting that she claims to have good recall, especially given that it was, from her perspective, a normal day in May 15 years ago. There wouldn’t have been a point of reference to attribute such good recall. I don’t remember clear details on how my next door neighbour was acting 15 years ago.
If she was with him for extended periods of time, especially on the day after, with such good recall, she may be able to shed light on CB’s justification to re-register his car.

Although I very much doubt he’d have broadcasted that he’d got a friend to agree to have the car registered too, nor would he have re-registered it in the presence of another person. Just my opinion

 

[mrjitty]

If you were living in or around PdL, you might well remember what you were doing around the time this case broke.

 

[frank-cole]

If you were living in or around PdL, you might well remember what you were doing around the time this case broke.

That’s a good point. I doubt it would have been a 9/11 or JFK moment but perhaps that accounts for her recall. On the flip side, I remember what I was doing & where I was on 9/11, but I don’t remember how my neighbour was acting on that day

 

[Lilly b]

If she didn't see him that day but spoke with him, presumably this was by phone? I wonder if they know what phone number he used for this and at what time. If he was in PDL during this period that he spoke to her, the call will appear in the data log.

So this person I'm presuming is the holiday fling, but we know the night or day before he was with a different girl friend, the one he said I have an awful job to do tomorrow, and you won't see me for a while

 

[RichardKimble]

So this person I'm presuming is the holiday fling, but we know the night or day before he was with a different girl friend, the one he said I have an awful job to do tomorrow, and you won't see me for a while

An excuse maybe , he's hardly likely to tell the first girl he's off for a dalliance with another girl, and I might be in bed all day.

 

[Tekno]

Good point, I wonder if her testimony could be corroborated or not corroborated by the phone data. It’s interesting that she claims to have good recall, especially given that it was, from her perspective, a normal day in May 15 years ago. There wouldn’t have been a point of reference to attribute such good recall. I don’t remember clear details on how my next door neighbour was acting 15 years ago.
If she was with him for extended periods of time, especially on the day after, with such good recall, she may be able to shed light on CB’s justification to re-register his car.

Although I very much doubt he’d have broadcasted that he’d got a friend to agree to have the car registered too, nor would he have re-registered it in the presence of another person. Just my opinion[/QUOTE
There wouldn’t have been a point of reference to attribute such good recall.
Perhaps she had her birthday around 3 May 2007, therefore remembering CB was with her? IMO.

 

[Tekno]

There wouldn’t have been a point of reference to attribute such good recall.
Perhaps she had her birthday around 3 May 2007, therefore remembering CB was with her? IMO.

 

[C.greek]

Maddie suspect Christian B has ‘NUMBER of people willing to provide alibi’

A number of people supposedly according to an unnamed source would be willing to provide an alibi to CB...

And the source (i would imagine FF?!) goes on

“Officers in the Algarve have long believed German cops are trying to pin this case on the wrong person,” the source added.

“Detectives in Praia da Luz ruled him out years and years ago - not least because his story about where he was and what he was doing checked out.”

But didn't PJ knock on his door and he was not there?! Or they even said he was never on their radar?!

 

[SuperdadV8]

Maddie suspect Christian B has ‘NUMBER of people willing to provide alibi’

A number of people supposedly according to an unnamed source would be willing to provide an alibi to CB...

And the source (i would imagine FF?!) goes on

“Officers in the Algarve have long believed German cops are trying to pin this case on the wrong person,” the source added.

“Detectives in Praia da Luz ruled him out years and years ago - not least because his story about where he was and what he was doing checked out.”

But didn't PJ knock on his door and he was not there?! Or they even said he was never on their radar?!

In some way a imagine a HCW smirking all day long about all the people talking about having found out bombshells or built up alibis without having any clue about the content of the files.