Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #28

[Chiatos]

Thank you, this is a perfect article!

From the above article:
for those asking repeatedly why the accused has not been interrogated yet, as if it means something:
"The pretrial investigation is conducted unilaterally by the prosecutor and the police. The investigation can be conducted in secret, without the knowledge of the suspect; there is no formal announcement to the suspect that he has become the object of a criminal investigation. The prosecutor is obliged to provide the suspect with the opportunity to present his side of the case only before the conclusion of the investigation (§ 163a sec. 1 CCP);"

So, HCW is doing everything by the book!



No, Panikspatz is having therapy and is in parole because he cooperated as far as it has been mentioned in msm

Do you have any idea how come two panikspatzes have passed by?
Number 66 and number 86?
(Or am I losing my marbles?)

 

[C.greek]

Do you have any idea how come two panikspatzes have passed by?
Number 66 and number 86?
(Or am I losing my marbles?)

there was a mistake - there is one Panikspatz66

 

[C.greek]

CB had previous, means, motive, opportunity & he confessed but there are at least 2 problems - forensics & eyewitnesses.

1. A lot of DNA & fingerprints were found in & none belonged to him (or his dog?) despite his leaving forensic traces at the HB & D? crime scenes.

2.a. He’s probably not Tannerman - JS will be called for the Defence.

b. He’s probably not Smithman. The Smiths put Smithman at 175-180cm (5’7 to 5’9). CB is taller - 183cm (6’) per JC. The Smiths will also be called by the Defence to say it likely wasn’t CB they saw.

c. The eyewitnesses who could identify him (CT & TS, J sisters) saw him outside the abduction timeframe.

1. they found a single hair in DM and supposedly a partial fingerpring in HB. Who says there is nothing that could tie him to 5a. but by the way, the BKA are not talking about abduction, the crime they are investigating is murder. so if they have evidence for murder, there is no need to prove how she was abducted jmo
2b. that's not such a great difference in height, 3 cm over or under is not evidential proof.
2c. why would they need eyewitnesses for that specific timeframe? his phone pinged in PdL and his lover did not see him that night... actually it appears nobody saw him that night...

 

[mrjitty]

So bad character and previous MO can be admissible... it's good that we talk about this specific legal system that applies to the case. Otherwise we reach wrong conclusions and we speculate unnecessarily on what can be judged important or not

Let's not forget what I posted

I stated that JR was engaged in propensity reasoning which is a form of legal/logical fallacy.

I then illustrated this via reference to the rule against similar fact evidence in the UK/US etc - as this is the law I qualified under.

A judge won't engage in propensity reasoning wherever sitting in London or Munich.

The fallacy remains the same.

 

[mrjitty]

CB had previous, means, motive, opportunity & he confessed but there are at least 2 problems - forensics & eyewitnesses.

1. A lot of DNA & fingerprints were found in & none belonged to him (or his dog?) despite his leaving forensic traces at the HB & D? crime scenes.

2.a. He’s probably not Tannerman - JS will be called for the Defence.

b. He’s probably not Smithman. The Smiths put Smithman at 175-180cm (5’7 to 5’9). CB is taller - 183cm (6’) per JC. The Smiths will also be called by the Defence to say it likely wasn’t CB they saw.

c. The eyewitnesses who could identify him (CT & TS, J sisters) saw him outside the abduction timeframe.

This is my greatest impatience with the entire case.

How shall HCW circumvent all this?

 

[Pixie Child]

1. they found a single hair in DM and supposedly a partial fingerpring in HB. Who says there is nothing that could tie him to 5a. but by the way, the BKA are not talking about abduction, the crime they are investigating is murder. so if they have evidence for murder, there is no need to prove how she was abducted jmo
2b. that's not such a great difference in height, 3 cm over or under is not evidential proof.
2c. why would they need eyewitnesses for that specific timeframe? his phone pinged in PdL and his lover did not see him that night... actually it appears nobody saw him that night...

The signs so far seem to point to their having no forensics eg. the complaint about cigarette butts not being collected.

In the absence of the body, forensics, photos or deep web comms, I think they will need to link him to the abduction. If he is linked to the abduction, her murder can be inferred.

I accept there isn’t a lot of difference. You’d have to see him in real life to judge. I have the impression that people would describe CB as tall & thin with dirty blonde hair.

His presence in PdL is not enough. They will have to get him closer with Azimuth data. Even then, OC employees were coming & going and AFAIK no-one who might have recognized him seems to have seen him that night.

 

[C.greek]

Let's not forget what I posted

I stated that JR was engaged in propensity reasoning which is a form of legal/logical fallacy.

I then illustrated this via reference to the rule against similar fact evidence in the UK/US etc - as this is the law I qualified under.

A judge won't engage in propensity reasoning wherever sitting in London or Munich.

The fallacy remains the same.

I am not forgetting anything!
I am not sure how previous MO, i.e. sadistic rapes with torturing for which he has been convicted (DM) and for which there are documents proving he was engaged in his thinking (chats) would be considered propensity reasoning...

I understand what you are saying about JR, and of course you are right - this is media!

but nothing legally procludes the judges to take this evidence into consideration, as far as the German laws are concerned. and this is important imo to consider. in Germany they would even accept inadmissible and illegaly obtained evidence, so it would be no surprise if they did indeed consider also the MO of CB.

 

[C.greek]

The signs so far seem to point to their having no forensics eg. the complaint about cigarette butts not being collected.

In the absence of the body, forensics, photos or deep web comms, I think they will need to link him to the abduction. If he is linked to the abduction, her murder can be inferred.

I accept there isn’t a lot of difference. You’d have to see him in real life to judge. I have the impression that people would describe CB as tall & thin with dirty blonde hair.

His presence in PdL is not enough. They will have to get him closer with Azimuth data. Even then, OC employees were coming & going and AFAIK no-one who might have recognized him seems to have seen him that night.

IMO it is important that we do not know what the BKA have that would have allowed the judges to make this public appeal for CB as the suspect in a murder investigation. I am not sure if they would indeed need to link him to the abduction.

 

[mrjitty]

In the absence of the body, forensics, photos or deep web comms, I think they will need to link him to the abduction. If he is linked to the abduction, her murder can be inferred.

Or if there is something that can place him in possession of the victim, then both the murder and the abduction can be inferred.

 

[C.greek]

Or if there is something that can place him in possession of the victim, then both the murder and the abduction can be inferred.

but what would that something be?

eta: according to CB, they have no photos

 

[tedtink]

So NF is not CB's alibi.
But, what if he intended her to his alibi by by telling her that he was driving back from Tomar?

This could suggest MM was pre-planned.

Maybe he never went to Tomar at all.

CB writes to MWT and tells him him was having a holiday fling with an 18 year old. If he was driving back from Tomar why not say that?

But we know that alibi doesn't stack up either according to what her now husband says.

JMO

EPISODE 3: TESTING THE ALIBI Christian B gives Mark a possible alibi revealing that he had a holiday fling with a German 18 year old girl the week of Madeleine’s disappearance.

 

[Pixie Child]

This is my greatest impatience with the entire case.

How shall HCW circumvent all this?

The confession to HB is their best evidence.

I hope they checked the 5a dog hair for the Kangal breed.

I hope they can find & test the Mercedes van & 2nd winnebago.

I hope they have more than we know in his chats with his paedophile mates and they can either produce comms or get one to testify against him.

He did document everything and I hope they are still checking databases and perhaps something will show up.

 

[tedtink]

but what would that something be?

eta: according to CB, they have no photos

The Spain sighting, Alcossebre -

From JC's book

"This led to a request via SOCA (the Serious Organised Crime Association) to search for the German owner of the van. ‘We request the Spanish police check the location for any CCTV or witnesses,’ reported the PJ files. ‘We request German vehicle details. Can the vehicle be circulated for stop and check to be carried out if seen?’ However, I’ve tried to look further into the request and don’t believe police ever acted on it properly"
"While I know Spanish police did turn up at the restaurant and German police were requested to track down the number plate BMS 1049, the only conclusion I could find was a handwritten note on top of the printed request from SOCA, in the PJ files, which said, ‘Spanish police traced a German man who is not connected to the missing girl.’ No names, nothing more."

After meeting with JC the witness says........

‘The Christian guy. When I saw his photo in the press, I knew immediately it was him that day ... I’m sure he was driving that van and I’ve seen him around here a few times since.’..........



MY SEARCH FOR MADELEINE: One Reporter’s 14-Year Hunt To Solve Europe’s Most Harrowing Crime
Jon Clarke

 

[C.greek]

in one of the letters:

"The case of the 72-year-old is, as you aptly stated, really important to me. I now have a 7-year prison sentence, although it is now clear that I am not or could not be the perpetrator. This case should interest you more than before, as it is one of your questions."

"obwohl mittlerweile feststeht, dass ich als Täter gar nicht in Frage komme bzw kommen konnte."

when did it become clear that he is not the perpetrator? He has been convicted for DM's brutal rape...

have I understood it and transcribed it correctly?

and then he somehow goes on a tantrum telling JR that he is surprised she hasn't researched this well.

 

[C.greek]

So NF is not CB's alibi.
But, what if he intended her to his alibi by by telling her that he was driving back from Tomar?

This could suggest MM was pre-planned.

Maybe he never went to Tomar at all.

CB writes to MWT and tells him him was having a holiday fling with an 18 year old. If he was driving back from Tomar why not say that?

But we know that alibi doesn't stack up either according to what her now husband says.

JMO

EPISODE 3: TESTING THE ALIBI Christian B gives Mark a possible alibi revealing that he had a holiday fling with a German 18 year old girl the week of Madeleine’s disappearance.

maybe because they have the info that his phone pinged in PdL that evening? so we could say I lied to NF, because I was with the fling, and I arrived in PdL met the fling there and went someplace else 30 minutes away???

but the point is that he has already given his whereabouts to the police in 2013, so I am not sure if he can change what he had said then... is there any way we can find that 2013 statement?

 

[C.greek]

ddp

 

[Anxala]

Or if there is something that can place him in possession of the victim, then both the murder and the abduction can be inferred.

And that's pretty much what HCW has always implied, that what they have on CB is conclusive in terms of him having had contact with MM and therefore leaving no doubt as to his responsibility for her murder.

Since HCW's said they have no video evidence that connects CB and MM, that leaves what? Video image/s of MM post abduction (date wise) found in CB's possession? Still image/s of MM post abduction found in his possession? An (image of or an actual physical) item of her clothing found in his possession?

What else that's not reliant on hearsay can HCW have that's so compelling?

 

[mrjitty]

And that's pretty much what HCW has always implied, that what they have on CB is conclusive in terms of him having had contact with MM and therefore leaving no doubt as to his responsibility for her murder.

Since HCW's said they have no video evidence that connects CB and MM, that leaves what? Video image/s of MM post abduction (date wise) found in CB's possession? Still image/s of MM post abduction found in his possession? An (image of or an actual physical) item of her clothing found in his possession?

What else that's not reliant on hearsay can HCW have that's so compelling?

The only thing I can think of is that CB, perhaps in his writings, revealed a piece of knowledge about that evening that means his confession wasn't mere fantasy - he had to have been in 5A.

But like you say, these various statements/writings are hearsay/unreliable and thus not enough

 

[onemoremiletogo]

All in all a hand full of nothing?!
Another doc, another year to come but no "concrete" evidences...

It seems he will be charged for other crimes in the next months. And then? Charge by inherence in MM case? CB's confession?

How "simple" may have been the plan, the act but how can he escaped unnoticed...and how difficult has been to depuzzling this...surreal.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

I do not know if CB committed Madeleine's crime or not.

But have questions.

The only evidences HCW has are a criminal profile and a call which alleged situated CB in PdL?

If he has better evidence than that, why did he make an appeal for witnesses?

By the way, given data on a suspect (cars, phones, etc) for people to remember is something like constructing a self fulfillment prophecy.