Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #28

[SuperdadV8]

had a thought about that - initially the tip off could have been that CB snatched MM and sold her to a paedophile ring (based on MT's statements, or even HB's and why not DF). It could also be that this is what he had told them in his 'confession', that he snatched her and sold her.

If they were going initially with that in mind, they could have potentially tried to struck a deal with CB (who was still in prison) if he would name the other people involved...

in the meantime and as the investigation progressed, they must have found other incriminating evidence that would support their murder investigation.

thoughts?

Possible, of course!

But possible as well, a suspect with a deranged mind trying to put some fuel into the fire of the "sold to paedophile ring" - theory, just to try to cover up that he killed a little girl for his own urges. Or the urges of Holger, just like in his chat-fantasies.

Sowing the seeds of doubt!

 

[Pixie Child]

The most significant revelation from yesterday's doc (if true) was the former friend who claimed the phone number the BKA were looking for in the appeal (ending 683) actually belonged to NF.

"If" this is correct, then I find it very difficult to believe this is only now being discovered. The BKA have interviewed NF at least 3 times in the past 5 years and the appeal for the number was over a year and a half ago. Since then, HCW has repeatedly insisted they have not found the other caller.

I made a comment previously about how HCW reacted when SF put it to him whether the number could have belonged to NF. The pause, the shift in his eyes as he tries to think on his feet about how to respond, I thought was all very curious. He was not expecting that question. You can see it in the below link at 23:30.

Sexta às 9 Episódio 28 - de 18 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP

I'm really do wonder if the whole number appeal was a bluff from the BKA that they hoped to turn to their advantage, and that they've actually known for quite some time who called CB that night. Is this what HCW meant about not wanting to let CB know what they had on him in case he tried to "change his story". Did NF initially give him his 'alibi' back in 2013 and has now admitted he was not in Foral? Were BKA hoping for him to repeat this claim publicly about where he supposedly was?

It seems no coincidence that NF has only crawled out of the woodwork for an interview with the Mail, just as this documentary and these claims were about to air. She is more key to this case than has been made out IMO.

ETA: Just saw the quote that HCW has apparently made about the documentary : "Nothing new was presented". Which presumably includes the revelation that the number belonged to NF....

I think NF or her daughter still has that sim. MWT said it was used in the UK recently when NF’s FB showed her in the UK.

MWT also said it was used to register a Kik a/c whose user photo strongly resembled NF’s daughter.

NF is lucky she made that call as she now has an alibi.

Maybe because it’s a burner SIM, they wanted callers to confirm that NF was using that phone - to corroborate NF’s evidence.

 

[C.greek]

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?

CB has lost the ball imo. His "decisive questions" have no bearing at all. I liked what JR said at the end of the documentary

The judiciary always asks three questions in a crime:
1. Did the suspect have a motive?
2. Did the suspect have the opportunity? [to commit the crime]
3. Does the suspect have the ability to commit the crime?

These appear to be decisive questions of importance and relevance to a crime.

 

[C.greek]

Possible, of course!

But possible as well, a suspect with a deranged mind trying to put some fuel into the fire of the "sold to paedophile ring" - theory, just to try to cover up that he killed a little girl for his own urges. Or the urges of Holger, just like in his chat-fantasies.

Sowing the seeds of doubt!

well, it might work with some of his followers...

 

[C.greek]

I think NF or her daughter still has that sim. MWT said it was used in the UK recently when NF’s FB showed her in the UK.

MWT also said it was used to register a Kik a/c whose user photo strongly resembled NF’s daughter.

NF is lucky she made that call as she now has an alibi.

Maybe because it’s a burner SIM, they wanted callers to confirm that NF was using that phone - to corroborate NF’s evidence.

really?? have somehow missed that. what is a Kik a/c?

oh well, she doesn't really though have an alibi, does she? the call finished at 8, plenty of time to get to PdL...

 

[Pixie Child]

I think NF or her daughter still has that sim. MWT said it was used in the UK recently when NF’s FB showed her in the UK.

MWT also said it was used to register a Kik a/c whose user photo strongly resembled NF’s daughter.

NF is lucky she made that call as she now has an alibi.

Maybe because it’s a burner SIM, they wanted callers to confirm that NF was using that phone - to corroborate NF’s evidence.

really?? have somehow missed that. what is a Kik a/c?

oh well, she doesn't really though have an alibi, does she? the call finished at 8, plenty of time to get to PdL...

Kik is some German social media site I think.

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1278631408454504448?s=21

True. It was a long call with someone supposedly driving. Police must have told her he was in Tomar that day to jog her memory.

 

[Zuleika]

really?? have somehow missed that. what is a Kik a/c?

oh well, she doesn't really though have an alibi, does she? the call finished at 8, plenty of time to get to PdL...

You think CB having spoken to one of his g/f's which is perfectly normal ,then goes off into the OC apts area " on the rob" , comes together with Madeleine whether preplanned or not , takes her off without leaving a trace ?
Or do you think he was either Tanners man or Smiths man ?

 

[C.greek]

You think CB having spoken to one of his g/f's which is perfectly normal ,then goes off into the OC apts area " on the rob" , comes together with Madeleine whether preplanned or not , takes her off without leaving a trace ?
Or do you think he was either Tanners man or Smiths man ?

does it matter if I think he was either Tannerman or Smithman?

I liked the 3 qs as I quoted above that JR said the judiciary asks when judging a crime:

1. was there a motive?
Yes, he was a convicted child sex abuser with him mentioning of his will to snatch and kill a young girl. he is also a convicted rapist, so a sadist generally

2. was there opportunity?
Yes, he was close to OC, knew it as well having worked there as a repairman, and observing the coming and goings of the parents looking after their children, whom were left alone sleeping in the flat. there was a window of opportunity to commit the crime

3. did he have the ability to commit the crime?
yes, he was known as the 'climber', was fit and healthy, a seasoned burglar who knew how to get in and out of apartments

jmo

What do you mean without leaving a trace?

ETA: if it is so perfectly normal to be speaking to his girlfriend at the time, why did he presumably lied in his 2013 statement saying he was in another place (Tomar?). What was he doing in PdL talking on the phone for 30 minutes, when at the time it appears he was in a relationship with NF and he was sleeping at her place? it is not like he was living in PdL at the time. and supposedly if we are to believe NF's interview, that day he was travelling from Tomar to Foral. What was he doing in PdL? where was he at the night of the 3rd of May? and as far as the BKA is concerned there is no alibi.

 

[Pixie Child]

does it matter if I think he was either Tannerman or Smithman?

I liked the 3 qs as I quoted above that JR said the judiciary asks when judging a crime:

1. was there a motive?
Yes, he was a convicted child sex abuser with him mentioning of his will to snatch and kill a young girl. he is also a convicted rapist, so a sadist generally

2. was there opportunity?
Yes, he was close to OC, knew it as well having worked there as a repairman, and observing the coming and goings of the parents looking after their children, whom were left alone sleeping in the flat. there was a window of opportunity to commit the crime

3. did he have the ability to commit the crime?
yes, he was known as the 'climber', was fit and healthy, a seasoned burglar who knew how to get in and out of apartments

jmo

What do you mean without leaving a trace?

ETA: if it is so perfectly normal to be speaking to his girlfriend at the time, why did he presumably lied in his 2013 statement saying he was in another place (Tomar?). What was he doing in PdL talking on the phone for 30 minutes, when at the time it appears he was in a relationship with NF and he was sleeping at her place? it is not like he was living in PdL at the time. and supposedly if we are to believe NF's interview, that day he was travelling from Tomar to Foral. What was he doing in PdL? where was he at the night of the 3rd of May? and as far as the BKA is concerned there is no alibi.

If they had found his DNA, the likelihood is that he could have claimed it was from his maintenance work or his burgling.

 

[Chiatos]

If they had found his DNA, the likelihood is that he could have claimed it was from his maintenance work or his burgling.

And that's how he could have been cleared from any suspicion.
But still, why is there no trace of him in the pjfiles (the public part, the part we know)?

 

[C.greek]

If they had found his DNA, the likelihood is that he could have claimed it was from his maintenance work or his burgling.

like he claimed about the hair in DM's house having travelled there through a cat

 

[C.greek]

And that's how he could have been cleared from any suspicion.
But still, why is there no trace of him in the pjfiles (the public part, the part we know)?

there is no trace of him also in the private one about the 600 paedophiles, according to JC who has seen these files.

 

[SuperdadV8]

like he claimed about the hair in DM's house having travelled there through a cat

What should he say instead? From a former burglary implies, that he knew the crime scene! Could be counterproductive!

 

[Anxala]

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?"

I have the feeling CB is some kind of fantasist and loser. Likely with substance abuse issues.

Now he has some notoriety and an audience for his nonsense.

^ That's how he's coming across to me too (based on letter extract above @Dlk79 ), someone desperate for and loving the attention and seeing it as an opportunity to pit his 'superior' mind against a 'bumbling' police force.

 

[Anxala]

For those who've watched the Sat1 doc, did it reveal FF as the alleged incompetent lawyer, as per that earlier trailer screenshot of CB's letter to Jutta Rabe?

 

[tedtink]

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

They can be interpreted in different ways

They can be interpreted by understanding and trying to put oneself in the mind of someone with alleged ASPD & narcissism, who reportedly enjoys 'violent sex' with his girlfriend and talks of 'torturing' children.
DM's rape was sexually sadistic, no doubt CB derived pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering and humiliation - It's about absolute control over a victim who cannot defend themselves.


That's not a fantasist IMO.

JMO

 

[C.greek]

For those who've watched the Sat1 doc, did it reveal FF as the alleged incompetent lawyer, as per that earlier trailer screenshot of CB's letter to Jutta Rabe?

There was no mention of that part of the letter as far as I have seen. Trying to transcribe the letters from screenshots has caused me a migraine today... will try again tomorrow with fresh eyes

 

[tedtink]

One statement in one of his letters is interesting!

"Zu Ihrer zweiten Frage. Mir wurde tatsächlich und unmissverständlich vor einiger Zeit in der JVA Zeugenschutz angeboten."

Translation:

"To your second question. I was actually and unequivocally offered witness protection some time ago in prison."

What was the question?

 

[tedtink]

Possible, of course!

But possible as well, a suspect with a deranged mind trying to put some fuel into the fire of the "sold to paedophile ring" - theory, just to try to cover up that he killed a little girl for his own urges. Or the urges of Holger, just like in his chat-fantasies.

Sowing the seeds of doubt!

Or it was just a lie and another attempt at deflection.

JMO

 

[C.greek]

What was the question?

No idea if I have IDed the letter correctly- @SuperdadV8 it's the one which starts with the rape of the 72 year old and goes on to say he will be in jail for 7 years etc etc right?

Eta: sorry somehow it didn't appear : there was no question mentioned... just started second or third paragraph with :"With regards to your second question..."