Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #28

[C.greek]

This is bizarre. So they have footage of the rape? Which essentially proves it wasn’t CB? So where the feck did the footage come from?

this must be a misunderstanding from DerWesten. there is no such footage, otherwise this would have been a much easier investigation. and it refers to an article from a few days ago about the two rapes that @SuperdadV8 briefly discussed

 

[C.greek]

DDP

 

[JB1510]

this must be a misunderstanding from DerWesten. there is no such footage, otherwise this would have been a much easier investigation. and it refers to an article from a few days ago about the two rapes that @SuperdadV8 briefly discussed

It’s a mistake re a birthmark on his buttock , HB is on record saying it was a birthmark or pull in his tights , she also said she believed she must of been followed from the pub and that he filmed the attack , she also mentioned she believed he had been in her apartment before .More info in the audio clip in link .

Tubridy floored by ‘bravery’ of woman sharing her harrowing rape ordeal live on air

 

[mrjitty]

A bit more from HCW about the documentary

HCW: "Nothing new was presented. The broadcast therefore has virtually no significance for our investigation".

BIB

Good advice from HCW here methinks ...

 

[Tekno]

Did anybody manage to screenshot those new images of him that look around the 2015/16 time . Thanks

 

[C.greek]

BIB

Good advice from HCW here methinks ...

Well, we didn't know a lot of what was broadcast!

They managed to get an interview with probably one of the key witnesses that no other journalist had succeeded.
It's not only good advice, it is also a reminder that the BKA know much more than what they have presented.

 

[Pimlipo]

Sorry for my stereotypical English ignorance, but anyone know where I can watch the documentary with English subtitles?? I wish I knew more languages!

 

[C.greek]

Well, we didn't know a lot of what was broadcast!

They managed to get an interview with probably one of the key witnesses that no other journalist had succeeded.
It's not only good advice, it is also a reminder that the BKA know much more than what they have presented.

 

[Pixie Child]

Would HB have quizzed him though? Or just nod and listen to his mumbling?

WRT the Belgian ring, just mentioned it, saying there was this intelligence 3 days before MM disappeared, and tried to contact SY about that to no avail. Just left it open as a possibility

What if , and now I am seriously speculating, the truth lies somewhere in the middle? That he did act initially as a middleman but it was too good an opportunity to miss for himself? OMG i can't believe I am writing these
Jmo

Would HB have quizzed him though? Or just nod and listen to his mumbling?

WRT the Belgian ring, just mentioned it, saying there was this intelligence 3 days before MM disappeared, and tried to contact SY about that to no avail. Just left it open as a possibility

What if , and now I am seriously speculating, the truth lies somewhere in the middle? That he did act initially as a middleman but it was too good an opportunity to miss for himself? OMG i can't believe I am writing these
Jmo

I would hope that the confession to HB gives us the context - as in whether it was a job.

I’m interested in Jutta Rabe’s mention of Belgium because I saw one report that said CMK had connections to Belgium as well as AUS, US, PY.

There’s also this article which goes just slightly further than similar articles when it says PY Police were told CMK ‘participated in the kidnapping’.

Instan a tomar con cautela cooperación en caso Madeleine

 

[mrjitty]

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.

This is aimed at JR and not you.

These 3 points are verging on TV crime show nonsense.

The judiciary has to approach the case via legal principles

1. Is it proved MM is dead? This can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

2. How did she die? Was she murdered? This is a critical question in the case

3. Did CB do it?

A lot of what we are currently seeing is circular logic and propensity reasoning i.e. CB is the kind of person who does sex abuse, therefore he has the ability to do this murder, therefore he did this murder.

That kind of reasoning is not allowed in criminal trials.

I am still waiting for any single piece of evidence that CB did a murder. Any murder.

That's why I suggest HCW is correct - this stuff has little to no value.

In england a lot of this stuff would not be admissible. Especially the profiling stuff.

 

[C.greek]

I just watched the Talk after the documentary. One thing I found interesting: that JR approached FF and then he cancelled the interview inexplicably.

 

[C.greek]

This is aimed at JR and not you.

These 3 points are verging on TV crime show nonsense.

The judiciary has to approach the case via legal principles

1. Is it proved MM is dead? This can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

2. How did she die? Was she murdered? This is a critical question in the case

3. Did CB do it?

A lot of what we are currently seeing is circular logic and propensity reasoning i.e. CB is the kind of person who does sex abuse, therefore he has the ability to do this murder, therefore he did this murder.

That kind of reasoning is not allowed in criminal trials.

I am still waiting for any single piece of evidence that CB did a murder. Any murder.

That's why I suggest HCW is correct - this stuff has little to no value.

In england a lot of this stuff would not be admissible. Especially the profiling stuff.

I think both first 2 questions can be answered by circumstantial evidence, while I would think the 3rd one is where JR's 3 questions could come in.
There would be inference in this case that MM is dead after 15 years with no trace and from the 'concrete' evidence that the BKA have, to which we are not privy (and why should we?).

 

[C.greek]

Sorry for my stereotypical English ignorance, but anyone know where I can watch the documentary with English subtitles?? I wish I knew more languages!

on you tube, perhaps you could put automatically translated subtitles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UglvsYIDA

 

[mrjitty]

I think both first 2 questions can be answered by circumstantial evidence, while I would think the 3rd one is where JR's 3 questions could come in.
There would be inference in this case that MM is dead after 15 years with no trace and from the 'concrete' evidence that the BKA have, to which we are not privy (and why should we?).

Her number 3 is essentially propensity reasoning.

You can't argue he is a pedo therefore he had motive/ability to do a murder.

This kind of profile stuff is useful in IDing suspects, but much of that stuff is inadmissible.

By way of example, if he is charged for HB, then the attack on the American woman is likely to be admissible under UK rules because the facts are very similar. But the same cannot be said re the facts in the MM case.

Obviously in Germany there is no jury, but it is still the same legal principles.

my .02c

 

[C.greek]

Her number 3 is essentially propensity reasoning.

You can't argue he is a pedo therefore he had motive/ability to do a murder.

This kind of profile stuff is useful in IDing suspects, but much of that stuff is inadmissible.

By way of example, if he is charged for HB, then the attack on the American woman is likely to be admissible under UK rules because the facts are very similar. But the same cannot be said re the facts in the MM case.

Obviously in Germany there is no jury, but it is still the same legal principles.

my .02c

but it is not only that he is a convicted child sex abuser - it is also his chats with panikspatz where he discusses actually murdering a child and I would imagine other similar chats/videos or whatever they have on him that would show his motive.

in the case of Libby, they did take into consideration his previous flashing to show how he would be capable of rape and murder. Of course in that case, they did find her body and his DNA, but his motive and ability to commit rape and murder was inferred from his previous exposures.

ETA: the motive though can also be inferred from the brutal sadistic rapes of his other victim, DM and (if he is charged) with HB's. The chat with panikspatz actually says a lot about his MO. He (wants)films how his victims are tortured. And in the case of DM this certainly happened - and if he is charged with HB's rape - the same appears to be the case.

A fantasist doesn't act upon his urges. In the case of CB, he did act upon his urges, proved by his conviction for the rape of DM.

 

[mrjitty]

but it is not only that he is a convicted child sex abuser - it is also his chats with panikspatz where he discusses actually murdering a child and I would imagine other similar chats/videos or whatever they have on him that would show his motive.

I agree the chat could be admissible.

in the case of Libby, they did take into consideration his previous flashing to show how he would be capable of rape and murder. Of course in that case, they did find her body and his DNA, but his motive and ability to commit rape and murder was inferred from his previous exposures.

In the Libby case, the previous offences were admissible because they proved why he was lurking around late at night - contradicting his version.

I agree they go to motive, but they don't prove "ability to commit murder" - that is not legitimate reasoning.

Rape was proved in that case by semen. He had never done a rape before, so the prior offences did not prove that at all, nor can they be used in that way.

ETA: the motive though can also be inferred from the brutal sadistic rapes of his other victim, DM and (if he is charged) with HB's. The chat with panikspatz actually says a lot about his MO. He (wants)films how his victims are tortured. And in the case of DM this certainly happened - and if he is charged with HB's rape - the same appears to be the case.

A fantasist doesn't act upon his urges. In the case of CB, he did act upon his urges, proved by his conviction for the rape of DM.

I agree the DM case will be admissible in the rape of HB if charged.

But I doubt it clears the bar for similar fact evidence in respect of an abduction case.

Where his priors are likely to be relevant is if the prosecution theory is burglary. So a history of breaking into places would be relevant for those purposes.

 

[Pimlipo]

on you tube, perhaps you could put automatically translated subtitles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UglvsYIDA

yeah I tried that but it’s only german subtitles. Thanks though!

 

[Pixie Child]

This is aimed at JR and not you.

These 3 points are verging on TV crime show nonsense.

The judiciary has to approach the case via legal principles

1. Is it proved MM is dead? This can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

2. How did she die? Was she murdered? This is a critical question in the case

3. Did CB do it?

A lot of what we are currently seeing is circular logic and propensity reasoning i.e. CB is the kind of person who does sex abuse, therefore he has the ability to do this murder, therefore he did this murder.

That kind of reasoning is not allowed in criminal trials.

I am still waiting for any single piece of evidence that CB did a murder. Any murder.

That's why I suggest HCW is correct - this stuff has little to no value.

In england a lot of this stuff would not be admissible. Especially the profiling stuff.

I agree that much of the evidence against CB would be deemed prejudicial in a UK Jury trial. It will be different before a Judge who knows what importance to attach to past crimes, character, confessions, etc.

If he was tried in UK, the case would revolve around eye-witnesses, phone evidence, contradictions in his alibi and the confessions & comments he made specifically re MM. We would hear nothing about his paedophilia or his burglary.

Because a Judge can’t be influenced by media, we will get a lot of gory details during trial about him. This case is as much as about convincing the public as a Judge.

 

[tedtink]

By way of example, if he is charged for HB, then the attack on the American woman is likely to be admissible under UK rules because the facts are very similar. But the same cannot be said re the facts in the MM case.

BBM
Why cant it?
If they focus specifically on the sadistic nature of those rapes? Not age of victim. We know from the DM rape that he tortures.
If he's prosecuted for the HB rape that's more propensity evidence, they said they know how MM died, or think they know.
CB mentioned torturing a child in the chat.
His stash of pics might reveal child torture.
MS said the video's he saw were like the women were being tortured.

Torture runs through this as a main theme and his crimes had obviously escalated from molesting a child at the age of 17, to saying he wants to torture a child.

A tortured child cannot be returned to a parent without serious consequences for the perp, what exactly was he planning to do with the child afterwards?

JMO

 

[C.greek]

yeah I tried that but it’s only german subtitles. Thanks though!

when you put German subtitles, click again on the 'captions' or settings and you should see 'auto-translate'