Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #29

[Davieson]

According to NF interview he used his Winnebago that night, so where was his VW? Also at NFs home?
And I have never heard again of the other VW His ex mentioned
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-suspects-brit-ex-22178338

If that is so, it's surprising that nobody seems to have seen it as it must have stood out in a place like PDL

 

[Chiatos]

So effectively MWT is saying part of CB's alibi could be the phone pinging 22miles away whilst in CB#s possession but it may not have been in CB's possession when it pinged close to 5A. Genius.

Well, that's more or less what FF had said previously too: CB's phone had pinged at a distance of 6km, so how could he have been at 5A?
However: if it were true that the phone pinged at 5A while not in CB's possession, then it is up to FF/CB to disclose who had "borrowed" his phone at the time. If they don't or can't disclose anything in that direction, the alibi will fail.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

The BKA appeal in 2020 was designed to place the handset in CB's possession at 8pm

CB was likely using a recently-stolen handset. This is the type of GPS technology which was available in 2007.
Collect GPS location data with the free Nokia Sports Tracker software | ZDNet

"The Nokia Sport Tracker software allows you to connect your mobile device to a GPS receiver and use it to record location-based data. Speed, distance, and time are stored automatically to your training diary and you can then export your excercise route to Google Earth"

If CB bought and used that type of software before May 2007 ...

 

[Deleted member 268165]

Duplicated .... DBM

 

[Deleted member 268165]

Well, that's more or less what FF had said previously too: CB's phone had pinged at a distance of 6km ...

It could be Lagos or Barao de Sao Joao?

6 km at 20:02? You can be in 5A at 21:00, even walking ...

 

[Davieson]

Well, that's more or less what FF had said previously too: CB's phone had pinged at a distance of 6km, so how could he have been at 5A?
However: if it were true that the phone pinged at 5A while not in CB's possession, then it is up to FF/CB to disclose who had "borrowed" his phone at the time. If they don't or can't disclose anything in that direction, the alibi will fail.

Not necessarily, the prosecution would need to disclose why they were so sure that Brueckner had the phone at that time.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

Not necessarily, the prosecution would need to disclose why they were so sure that Brueckner had the phone at that time.

That is right. Prosecution has the burden of proof.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

It could be Lagos or Barao de Sao Joao?

6 km at 20:02? You can be in 5A at 21:00, even walking ...

My feeling from the early beginning.

 

[Chiatos]

Not necessarily, the prosecution would need to disclose why they were so sure that Brueckner had the phone at that time.

The prosecution certainly will, if they include this particular. And then it will be up to FF/CB to prove that:
- instead of CB, someone else had the phone while being at 5A
- that someone else returned the phone to CB in time for it to ping at 6 km

CB will have to come up with a name.....

 

[Davieson]

The prosecution certainly will, if they include this particular. And then it will be up to FF/CB to prove that:
- instead of CB, someone else had the phone while being at 5A
- that someone else returned the phone to CB in time for it to ping at 6 km

CB will have to come up with a name.....

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.

 

[Dlk79]

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.

That's not correct. Mobile phone evidence is used all the time in court cases to place individuals at a crime scene. How can a Prosecutor in any case provide 'irrefutable' evidence that the person had the phone on them at that time?

All they would normally do is have to prove that the phone belonged to that person. Then its up to the suspect to either dispute that the phone belonged to them or give a reason for who else had it at the time. Sure, CB could choose to do neither and just say silent on that question, but the Judge will almost certainly just assume he did have the phone on him, if it has been proven he was the owner of that number. It's common sense.

The reason HCW wants to definitively put the phone in CB's hands at 8pm is so that he can't claim someone else had it. Even if he is unable to do that, the phone evidence WOULD still be used should it go to trial and the Judge WILL ask CB to explain it. It is then up to him to give an account and the Judge will determine if they believe it or not.

 

[Davieson]

That's not correct. Mobile phone evidence is used all the time in court cases to place individuals at a crime scene. How can a Prosecutor in any case provide 'irrefutable' evidence that the person had the phone on them at that time?

All they would normally do is have to prove that the phone belonged to that person. Then its up to the suspect to either dispute that the phone belonged to them or give a reason for who else had it at the time. Sure, CB could choose to do neither and just say silent on that question, but the Judge will almost certainly just assume he did have the phone on him, if it has been proven he was the owner of that number. It's common sense.

That's not what I said


Can they prove that it belonged to him ?
The man's a drug dealer, among other things Not likely to be registered to him and might even be stolen.

 

[DrQ]

IMO CB has managed to fly under the radar for quite some time. It is harder to hit a moving target so with all of his back and forth travels to different countries, it is more difficult to follow his breadcrumbs. On one hand he slithers from place to place but his Jaguar and camper are not generally considered vehicles that "blend". He also managed to survive with sporadic employment. One theory passed around is that he was robbing the apartment and saw MM. Speculation is that she was sleeping and he took her. IMO she may have woken up and saw him and he felt he needed to take her. I know everyone on WS has heard me beat the drum on WHY on cases. Why take this child connected to for WHAT purpose can sometimes lead to the WHO. CB is the candidate for now. Hopefully, they will finally bring this to closure for the family and all of those who have worked tirelessly over the years.

 

[Dlk79]

Can they prove that it belonged to him ?

Well they obviously have some evidence to indicate he was using that number, it's not just a wild guess is it? HCW said they "know" he was using that number and described it as his "own normal, personal number". Which I read to mean that friends of his at the time were probably using this number to contact him.

The logic is still the same though. The Prosecutor will explain to the court why it is they believe he was using that number, if CB's defence want to dispute it, they will have to give an explanation to the court. The Judge then decides whether they think the explanation is credible or not.

 

[Davieson]

The why interests me as well.
He has convictions for child abuse, but they have all been fairly low level.
Abduction/disposal of Madeleine is a big step up from that, so what triggered it ?

 

[Davieson]

Well they obviously have some evidence to indicate he was using that number, it's not just a wild guess is it? HCW said they "know" he was using that number and described it as his "own normal, personal number". Which I read to mean that friends of his at the time were probably using this number to contact him.

The logic is still the same though. The Prosecutor will explain to the court why it is they believe he was using that number, if CB's defence want to dispute it, they will have to give an explanation to the court. The Judge then decides whether they think the explanation is credible or not.

Which is what I said earlier.

 

[Dlk79]

Which is what I said earlier.

Not really. You said:

Prosecution will have to provide irrefutable evidence that Brueckner had that phone at that time

And

If they cannot do that, then it is worthless

The evidence is not worthless just because it isn't irrefutable. It's up to the judge to make a determination of what they think is most likely.

 

[tedtink]

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.

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.

 

[tedtink]

The why interests me as well.
He has convictions for child abuse, but they have all been fairly low level.
Abduction/disposal of Madeleine is a big step up from that, so what triggered it ?

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

 

[Davieson]

Not really. You said:


And


The evidence is not worthless just because it isn't irrefutable. It's up to the judge to make a determination of what they think is most likely.

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.