Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #28

[C.greek]

I find it very hard to believe that an innocent person would ask the prosecutor to prove their guilt in such an obnoxious manner. They would protest their innocence explaining that they didn't do it, that they were not even close to the crime scene, that they have absolutely nothing to do with the crime. Instead here in these 7(!) Letters CB is so frustrated that he lets things out because of his narcissism. These letters are so telling of his personality and what he is capable of doing. Jmo

 

[C.greek]

"This public propaganda against me has been going on for (almost a year and a half now). However, I myself have not been heard on a single accusation so far."

HCW has repeatedly stated the accused can speak to them any time. FF had said never, my client would never speak... he is only frustrated he doesn't know the evidence they hold against him.

Has FF spoken lately?

Maddie suspect mocks cops saying they have NO evidence he snatched her

 

[altojack]

CB is over talking, making himself appear to be story telling, why not straight to the point "I am not involved ".

Mocking the cops isn't going to help him either. Dig deeper CB, you like digging holes don't you.

 

[mrjitty]

Maddie suspect mocks cops saying they have NO evidence he snatched her

He wrote: "Even if at the moment attempts are being made to create a shattering overall picture of me with bought-in witnesses, it is the essential questions, the decisive questions, that will never be answered with a 'yes'.

"Was I or my vehicle clearly seen near the crime scene on the night of the crime? Are there DNA traces of me at the crime scene?

“Are there DNA traces of the injured party in my vehicle? Are there any other traces of the damaged party in my possession? Photos? And, not to forget, is there a dead body?

This is an extract from one of the 7 letters CB wrote to Jutta Rabe. The language is quite telling IMO. Jutta explained in the documentary that in all of these letters she received, not once does he actually deny the crime, or give an alibi. Instead he boasts that the BKA won't be able to prove it.

It shows a narcissistic personality, and whether guilty or not, he gives the impression of revelling in the notoriety. Another strange comment he made in the letters was along the lines of:

"What do you think? Am I innocent or did I commit the perfect crime?"

This is why I wonder if he is a fantasist who is enjoying all this - after all, he doesn't have much else to occupy himself these days. Being the guy who maybe murdered MM is his claim to fame.

it is the essential questions, the decisive questions, that will never be answered with a 'yes'.

This could be interpreted as a fairly decisive denial. In other words, he is sure they will never find what they are looking for, which is "evidence of the perfect crime" or maybe he just didn't do it.

 

[mrjitty]

Seems he’s not bothering to deny anything, he’s challenging BKA to prove that he did it. Answering questions with questions, a basic deflection strategy. Can he really be so confident to be convinced he made no mistakes and left no trail anywhere, or is he wanting to find out what evidence they do have that could incriminate him?!

Well there is one way he could be so confident.

 

[C.greek]

Well there is one way he could be so confident.

Because he is a narcissist and thinks he is better than everyone else. He claimed he was never caught because he followed some rules. In reality, he was caught many times over and over. He is not a fantasist, he is a psychopath. There is no fantasy involved in many of his crimes- he is a convicted child offender, and a convicted brutal rapist. Where is the fantasy there?

 

[C.greek]

This is why I wonder if he is a fantasist who is enjoying all this - after all, he doesn't have much else to occupy himself these days. Being the guy who maybe murdered MM is his claim to fame.



This could be interpreted as a fairly decisive denial. In other words, he is sure they will never find what they are looking for, which is "evidence of the perfect crime" or maybe he just didn't do it.

The decisive denial is that he thinks they do not have these. He is frustrated because he thinks he is so much better than anyone else. But they did get his hair from the crime scene in the rape, they have gotten a partial fingerprint from HB. he just thinks he cleans very well after each crime, that is his certainty. And who chooses what are the decisive questions? Certainly not him. He is losing the ball, he wants to have control. Jmo

 

[C.greek]

interestingly, and I don't know if this was mentioned in the documentary, which I have yet to see, one of the letters that CB wrote was addressed to both JR and MWT!

ETA: and in one of the (quite brief) letters to JR, CB even says that MWT has sent him a letter and that he will reply to both of them

 

[SuperdadV8]

This behavior of CB and the statements from the letters look to me either like a kind of manipulative behavior, or some kind disorder. Never a straight answer can mean everything or nothing. He could say "I'm innocent", but he rather choses to play with his counterparts. That's for sure.

Now, after 2 new documentaries, i do have some questions. The landlord of the Braunschweig allotment repeatedly told that HE (CB) came up in a fully loaded small car with the termination of his contract and told to him: "WE'RE out of here!". So who is the second person? Was there a second person at all?

The newest documentary throws an unfavorable light on NF, some new witnesses would like to have recognized her to own the ominous number, HCW seeks for the owner/caller e.g..

But NF's father DF is still giving lots of interviews, that connect his daughter to CB to the time of MM's disappearance, whilst NF threatens journalists to leave or she will call for the police in an angry manner. That's odd to me. Either there isn't the best relationship between NF and DF, or he wants to protect his daughter in some way. Both would be kind of chilling to me!

 

[Dlk79]

This could be interpreted as a fairly decisive denial.

How can it be decisive if it's down to interpretation? Surely something is either decisive or it's not, same as he is either guilty or not. He can't be "fairly" guilty.

The other key word in his statement is the world "clearly". If he was not there to be seen, the word is superfluous. "Was I seen" is more assertive than "Was I clearly seen" so why add that caveat if he knows he wasn't there? It's almost as though he knows someone did see him or at least suspects someone is going to say they did. Both J Tanner and M Smith have said they would not recognise the man they saw again if they were shown his photograph. Maybe that is even what he is referring to or perhaps one of the witnesses JJ, AW or CT who he would no doubt claim are mistaken.

 

[RichardKimble]

Seems he’s not bothering to deny anything, he’s challenging BKA to prove that he did it. Answering questions with questions, a basic deflection strategy. Can he really be so confident to be convinced he made no mistakes and left no trail anywhere, or is he wanting to find out what evidence they do have that could incriminate him?!

It could be argued since 2013 when he first came on to the radar to the present day with no questioning of him in regards to Madeleines disappearance, he didn't have anything to do with it, or he's covered his tracks well.

 

[RichardKimble]

Maybe irrelevant regarding possible 'pool man' but I just found this.............

"A Sun on Sunday probe this week has found that at least two members of staff at the complex where the McCanns stayed had criminal records.
Both were interviewed by Portuguese police, whose probe was derailed as they wrongly focused on Madeleine’s parent Kate and Gerry, both doctors aged 52 from Rothley, Leics.
One of the staff members was in their apartment – 5A – carrying out repair work two days before Madeleine went missing.
He has a previous conviction – like Christian B – for drug trafficking."

Ex-lawyer says 'psychopathic' Christian B could be behind Maddie's abduction

Which one ?

When asked about the events being investigated he says that he only saw the girl's mother once. This happened during the exercise of his functions, and after instruction from his superiors he went to apartment 5 A.

His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.

When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.

P.J. POLICE FILES: MARIO DOMINGOS MOREIRA

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Seems he’s not bothering to deny anything, he’s challenging BKA to prove that he did it. Answering questions with questions, a basic deflection strategy. Can he really be so confident to be convinced he made no mistakes and left no trail anywhere, or is he wanting to find out what evidence they do have that could incriminate him?!

It seems he is going with questions to what is being reported in the media, to what he is accessing and reading. After all these years he can be sure that BKA will not find any of those evidences.
But there was also just an hair in the rape case...

 

[C.greek]

I found this clip from the documentary on the information about the whereabouts and the ping of CB's phone. If I understand it correctly, this IT-specialist says that based on which cell mast documented the call, the distance of the phone that pinged could not be further than 6kms away. If it were further than 6kms away another mast would have documented the call. is my understanding correct?

SAT.1 investigativ - Das Rätsel um das Telefon von Christian B.

 

[SuperdadV8]

I found this clip from the documentary on the information about the whereabouts and the ping of CB's phone. If I understand it correctly, this IT-specialist says that based on which cell mast documented the call, the distance of the phone that pinged could not be further than 6kms away. If it were further than 6kms away another mast would have documented the call. is my understanding correct?

SAT.1 investigativ - Das Rätsel um das Telefon von Christian B.

Yes, because if the caller had been out of the 6km radius, his phone would have "pinged" in a nearby vodafone mast and not the PDL mast.

 

[C.greek]

the full transcription of the part of the letter where he says this is either the perfect crime or he is innocent, is pretty interesting actually

CB writes:

"Entweder liegen hier die perfekten Verbrechen vor, die es laut spezialisten jedoch nicht gibt, oder ich bin unschuldig. "

translation (German native speakers, feel free to correct me):

"Either the crimes here are perfect, but according to specialists these don't exist, or I'm innocent."


He is talking about more than one crime (!), whereas HCW has accused him of one crime in the case of MM, and then comes the narcissist comment that specialists (who are they?) think that perfect crimes do not exist!
I find this statement in the commas about the specialists, very very telling! JMO, but he thinks he does commit perfect crimes, that he is untouchable and that he can even prove the 'specialists' wrong.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Out of curiosity, was there any mention of the DM or HB rape cases in the letters, either by JR or CB? His defence for MM was that he sold drugs so didn’t get involved in other crime so as not to draw attention to himself, but surely JR could have refuted that by bringing up his conviction for DM’s rape and when he was scooped in the playground at Messines?

 

[C.greek]

Out of curiosity, was there any mention of the DM or HB rape cases in the letters, either by JR or CB? His defence for MM was that he sold drugs so didn’t get involved in other crime so as not to draw attention to himself, but surely JR could have refuted that by bringing up his conviction for DM’s rape and when he was scooped in the playground at Messines?

yes I am going through screenshots of the letters. One of them starts with talking about the rape case of DM, replying to a question that JR asked him in a previous letter.

 

[mrjitty]

Because he is a narcissist and thinks he is better than everyone else. He claimed he was never caught because he followed some rules. In reality, he was caught many times over and over. He is not a fantasist, he is a psychopath. There is no fantasy involved in many of his crimes- he is a convicted child offender, and a convicted brutal rapist. Where is the fantasy there?

Psychopaths typically live within delusions of their own creation.

Maybe he is guilty of one of the most famous and terrible crimes ever, and got away with it for nearly 15 years (so far). He seems to be basking in that spotlight of "the perfect crime".

But maybe (even given the terrible crimes he has committed), he's just a low life who never amounted to anything. A low level drug dealer. A petty crook. The kind of sicko who commits disgusting sex crimes like 1000s of other lowlifes every year.

Hopefully a trial will finally answer these questions.

 

[mrjitty]

How can it be decisive if it's down to interpretation? Surely something is either decisive or it's not, same as he is either guilty or not. He can't be "fairly" guilty.

The other key word in his statement is the world "clearly". If he was not there to be seen, the word is superfluous. "Was I seen" is more assertive than "Was I clearly seen" so why add that caveat if he knows he wasn't there? It's almost as though he knows someone did see him or at least suspects someone is going to say they did. Both J Tanner and M Smith have said they would not recognise the man they saw again if they were shown his photograph. Maybe that is even what he is referring to or perhaps one of the witnesses JJ, AW or CT who he would no doubt claim are mistaken.

This is the problem in trying to read too much into these letters IMO

They can be interpreted in different ways