Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #29

[SuperdadV8]

What's 'low level' child abuse in your opinion?

Child abuse ist being seen as "low level"?

Interesting....

 

[tedtink]

We will not be dealing with the vagaries of an ignorant jury. These will be professional judges who understand the law and will assess evidence accordingly.

Rather like the professional Judges who convicted CB of rape when the footage wasn't available then?
They obviously didn't believe his travelling hair story either.

 

[Davieson]

What's 'low level' child abuse in your opinion?

Something without physical contact.

If CB says he didn't have the phone and can't come up with the name of the person who may have, it could be inferred that CB did have the phone.

What if he said it was stolen ?

 

[tedtink]

Something without physical contact.

Right.

That's still sexual abuse FYI.
There's nothing 'low level' about it IMO, but up to you if you want to minimise that type of behavior.

 

[Chiatos]

You have the wrong end of the stick.
Prosecution will have to provide irrefutable evidence that Brueckner had that phone at that time. If they can do that then he will have to attempt to demonstrate why that is not so.
If they cannot do that, then it is worthless Suspicion is not enough. He could claim he has no knowledge of that number.

I can see that we are in agreement:
If the prosecutors include the phone thing, they won't do that based on suspicions.

Subsequently, CB will have to mention a name in order to demonstrate that not he, but someone else had the phone instead. He will also have to demonstrate that the phone was given back in time to ping at 6km.

 

[Lilly b]

I'd love to know what GA is thinking now ,.

 

[RichardKimble]

Why the need for the phone to be in CB's hand at 8 pm, if its suggested pre planning of something how does that time suggest burglary/ abduction between circa 9 pm and 10 pm ? The phone in his at 8pm only proves the phone in his hand at that time.

 

[Dlk79]

We will not be dealing with the vagaries of an ignorant jury. These will be professional judges who understand the law and will assess evidence accordingly.

You're now trying to distance yourself from your original comment that the Prosecutors have to provide "irrefutable" evidence else it is "worthless". That isn't correct, is it?

Judges aren't stupid, they've heard every excuse in the book. They will decide based on what they think is the most credible argument.

 

[Dlk79]

Something without physical contact.

His very first sexual assault on a little girl in Germany did involve physical contact. He put his hand up her skirt.

The photos he took of his ex girlfriends daughter also showed physical contact in a similar manner.

 

[Alternative Paradox]

We have the calls published in the PJ files, between 21:00 and 21:20, and between 21:45 and 22:15 (from memory) ... No receive or send calls for that number.

If there was another call with that number between 20:02 and 21:00 or between 21:20 and 21:45 I think HCW would publish this one ...

So, it will be not possible to know where CB was after 20:02 based on phone signals (if he really had the phone) ... Anf of course if it will be possible the area would be large (4 squared miles or so).

Just for clarification, there does not need to be a call made or received in order for the position of a mobile to be known. Back in 2007 era, it was possible to locate both a stationary and moving mobile phone to within 3 metres (and do it 'live' too - we followed one of Vodafone's director's phone handing off between base stations as he was driving down the A3, A303 and A34 in the UK on his way from home to HQ in Newbury as a demonstration)

When a mobile is powered on, it immediately sends out an "anybody there? it's me" ping that will be picked up by the nearest base stations, who then escalate the IMEI up the command chain to that phone's HLR (Home Location Register which may or may not be in-country) that will validate the phone and thus it will be 'allowed' to connect to the network (paid up, not stolen etc). The pings happen continually. All mobiles work this way irrespective of telecom provider.

So, theoretically and if the data is still extant (a VERY big if), it would be possible to follow the movements of a given mobile phone, also given that there are sufficient base stations pinged to allow triangulation, as it hands off between base stations locally. Would be a hell of a data mining job though!

 

[Davieson]

Why the need for the phone to be in CB's hand at 8 pm, if its suggested pre planning of something how does that time suggest burglary/ abduction between circa 9 pm and 10 pm ? The phone in his at 8pm only proves the phone in his hand at that time.

And that he was in the general area of PDL, which wouldn't be surprising considering that he was living in the area.
I believe it's supposed to demonstrate opportunity. Along with several thousand others.

 

[Chiatos]

What if he said it was stolen ?

Right, stolen, used at 5A and then given back to CB at 6 km from 5A.
Stolen by a known thief and CB would have to be familiar with his or her name.

 

[tedtink]

Ah 2007 - I remember those days of keeping a phone in a 'sock puppet' before the phone cases were invented.

 

[Alternative Paradox]

So, theoretically and if the data is still extant (a VERY big if), it would be possible to follow the movements of a given mobile phone, also given that there are sufficient base stations pinged to allow triangulation, as it hands off between base stations locally. Would be a hell of a data mining job though!

...and the fact that nothing has happened with regards to this suggests either the data no longer exists (or wasn't collected in detail at the time) or there were insufficient base stations pinged.

 

[Davieson]

Right, stolen, used at 5A and then given back to CB at 6 km from 5A.
Stolen by a known thief and CB would have to be familiar with his or her name.

Who makes this claim ?

 

[Dlk79]

Why the need for the phone to be in CB's hand at 8 pm, if its suggested pre planning of something how does that time suggest burglary/ abduction between circa 9 pm and 10 pm ? The phone in his at 8pm only proves the phone in his hand at that time.

It proves he was in PDL shortly before the crime. If his 'alibi' is that he was not in PDL at all that night, demonstrating that he is lying about his whereabouts would be very damning in a Judge's eyes.

 

[Davieson]

It proves he was in PDL shortly before the crime. If his 'alibi' is that he was not in PDL at all that night, demonstrating that he is lying about his whereabouts would be very damning in a Judge's eyes.

He's not going to say that though unless he thinks he can prove it.

 

[RichardKimble]

And that he was in the general area of PDL, which wouldn't be surprising considering that he was living in the area.
I believe it's supposed to demonstrate opportunity. Along with several thousand others.

Wolters seems sure CB commited murder which accounts for his movements at the point of killing but can't account for his movements before the fact, somethings amiss here.

 

[Chiatos]

Who makes this claim ?

Read it as: CB and his phone were reunited at 6 km. So if a thief had stolen his phone, the same thief would have to have joined CB at 6km. Whether or not he returned the phone openly.
It is FF who claimed that CB was at a 6km distance based on a ping from his phone. Whereas BKA claims his phone pinged at 5A.

CB cannot use the "someone stole my phone" story without naming the thief.

 

[Dlk79]

He's not going to say that though unless he thinks he can prove it.

Well according to MWT, CB has already given him a detailed account of where he was and what he was doing on the 3rd.

We also don't know what CB said to police back in 2013 when he was summoned as a witness and asked to account for his whereabouts. This was well before the phone evidence was known so he may well have lied about being somewhere else. Given that HCW wants to put the phone in his hand at 8pm, it suggests CB probably didn't say he was in PDL at that time since they would have that evidence from his own admission.