Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

[mrjitty]

But it doesn't though, Wolters admits in May the phone cannot be placed in Luz, he also concedes that any one other than the registered user could be using the phone,ergo if CB was using the phone he cannot be placed in Luz.
Wolters also concedes that there is no link between the cars and Madeleine.

50 minutes in.

No access outside UK

I mean 2-3 years ago, they developed a theory of the case, and found evidence that seemed to prove they were on the right track. They expected to find the hard evidence, but never did.

Maybe the public appeal was a bust

 

[Davieson]

"National security" has been quoted as a reason to refuse to answer freedom of information questions, so It wouldn't surprise me.

I'm still mulling over this National Security response to FoI request.

Why should such a reason be put forward to block FoI unless there was a need to protect someone considered important to Government?
It is not likely to be either of the McCanns, as they are simply not important enough,
This leads me on to the idea that Operation Grange could have been set up to obstruct the identification of this unknown person, hence the insistence from the start of concentrating on stranger abduction. Indeed the British might have been obstructing the Portuguese investigation from the start, although in a covert way.

All very conspiratorial, I accept, but what better way to continue this action than to divert attention onto a convenient patsy that everyone can hate and who is unlikely to be able to affect National Security in any way.

Purely my own opinion of course.

 

[mrjitty]

I've never understood the supposed significance of the Jaguar car change of ownership.
It might be a strange thing to do, though he did deal in cars, but how does it imply guilt ?

I speculated at the time that it might just have been a coincidence.

CB was doing a scam of having the car registered in Germany, so he did not have to go through the hassle of registering it in Portugal. You can only register a car to your registered home address (Germany has a weird set of rules because you have to be registered to live at an address). As CB did not live in germany, and presumably thus had no "wohnsitz", he relied on acquaintances to register the car for him.

If someone refused to do this anymore (e.g, they got infraction notices related to the plates), then he would have needed to get someone else to do it, and being in a different city, means he got new plates.

So rather than being worried about the jag plates being linked to the case, it could have been an unrelated scam.

I actually know of several upstanding law abiding citizens who are nevertheless registered to the wrong address - its common for schools!

 

[mrjitty]

Agree. The worst. Back to a dismal square one with no resolution in sight and the same old same old conspiracies doing the rounds.

I don't know re the evidence being made public in the absence of a charge but I can't think of a 'platform' that would allow it to be released without it ever having being made official (ie. documented and presented before a judge)? But jmo.

I'm sure someone with legal knowledge on here will have a more informed view on this.

Even the accused does not have access to the evidence so I can't see it being made public given the prosecutor thinks he is guilty. They will sit on it and hope for a break one day.

See you in 5 years!

 

[RichardKimble]

Even the accused does not have access to the evidence so I can't see it being made public given the prosecutor thinks he is guilty. They will sit on it and hope for a break one day.

See you in 5 years!

It'll rear its head again soon, with Wolters seemingly releasing a press release about unrelated cases , and no doubt some will want to link them.

 

[G-Unit]

I'm still mulling over this National Security response to FoI request.

Why should such a reason be put forward to block FoI unless there was a need to protect someone considered important to Government?
It is not likely to be either of the McCanns, as they are simply not important enough,
This leads me on to the idea that Operation Grange could have been set up to obstruct the identification of this unknown person, hence the insistence from the start of concentrating on stranger abduction. Indeed the British might have been obstructing the Portuguese investigation from the start, although in a covert way.

All very conspiratorial, I accept, but what better way to continue this action than to divert attention onto a convenient patsy that everyone can hate and who is unlikely to be able to affect National Security in any way.

Purely my own opinion of course.

By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 18, 09 02:55 PM

A few days ago I received an interesting letter from Leicestershire police about the Madeleine McCann investigation.

I had asked them, in July, if they had got any warrants (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to use surveillance powers - such as phone tapping and email interception on behalf of the Portuguese police.

The force initially stalled saying it needed to "consult other Agencies" before replying.

After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".

I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.

To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".

A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Freedom Of Information *

Theres more if you follow the link.

 

[enquirer6]

Wolters may be holding back,on purpose.
I think it's a photo too, and cb will deffo know what pictures he took and of who and when

Why would he holding back, though?

 

[Davieson]

Two possible reasons
1 he's really not confident about what he's got convincing a judge.
2 He wants to get these other charges out of the way first.

 

[Niner]

Two possible reasons
1 he's really not confident about what he's got convincing a judge.
2 He wants to get these other charges out of the way first.

I would say #2 - and I wish he would hurry up & charge this guy....

 

[Lilly b]

Why would he holding back, though?

Well, cb is in prison, so he doesn't have to rush things,. Better to take your time and get things right.

 

[enquirer6]

That's true, but I still feel, if Wolters was completely sure of his ground, he would press ahead and charge.

 

[enquirer6]

At least by English law, when it is clear there has been a screw-up by someone who has played a major part in securing convictions in a criminal enquiry, the people convicted are exonerated. A classic example was Roy Meadow's infamous and discredited mantra: one death is a tragedy, two deaths is suspicious, three deaths is murder that saw countless women, actually victims of losing their babies to cot-deaths, convicted for their 'murders'. Those convictions were overturned and, certainly, Sally Clarke, was released from prison.

In the McCann case, the Portuguese judge in the first-instance ruling was, I think, in no doubt that the whole basis of the 'case' against the McCanns rested on the work of a freelance, corrupt and incompetent English dog-handler, and found in favour of the McCanns as was right, just and proper. Every judicial proceeding since has glossed over, ignored or disregarded that fact, to overrule that expemplary first-instance ruling.

 

[Davieson]

At least by English law, when it is clear there has been a screw-up by someone who has played a major part in securing convictions in a criminal enquiry, the people convicted are exonerated. A classic example was Roy Meadow's infamous and discredited mantra: one death is a tragedy, two deaths is suspicious, three deaths is murder that saw countless women, actually victims of losing their babies to cot-deaths, convicted for their 'murders'. Those convictions were overturned and, certainly, Sally Clarke, was released from prison.

In the McCann case, the Portuguese judge in the first-instance ruling was, I think, in no doubt that the whole basis of the 'case' against the McCanns rested on the work of a freelance, corrupt and incompetent English dog-handler, and found in favour of the McCanns as was right, just and proper. Every judicial proceeding since has glossed over, ignored or disregarded that fact, to overrule that expemplary first-instance ruling.

I thought the first judge wouldn't let Gerry talk about the dogs

 

[SuperdadV8]

Dear Websleuths Members and Guests,
My apologies for interrupting your discussion.
Due to a major downturn in advertising dollars last month, we are very short this month on our server bill.

If we do not pay the server bill then Websleuths goes dark

We need to raise 1,900.00 to be able to make our payment.
We have two full servers. We do this to ensure you do not have trouble when you come to Websleuths.
The good news is this month is looking much better but for now, I need your help.
Let me stress I do not want anyone to donate one single penny unless you can afford to do so.
There are three ways to donate
PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
Venmo name Tricia-Griffith-14
Cash App $tgrif14

Please do not discuss on this thread.
Go Here if you have any questions.

I deeply appreciate all you do for Websleuths.com
Sincerely,
Tricia Griffith
Owner/Manager/Websleuths.com
Email me: [email protected]

Thank's for the info Tricia!

Let's keep up the flag!

 

[enquirer6]

I thought the first judge wouldn't let Gerry talk about the dogs

It was the handler at fault, not the dogs.

 

[Davieson]

It was the handler at fault, not the dogs.

That may be so but was he allowed to talk about the handler either ?

 

[enquirer6]

That may be so but was he allowed to talk about the handler either ?

Why would he not be? If Grime had deployed the dogs the way Harrison, part of whose dog was supposed to have been to determine the schedule of searches, had wanted, there would never have been inspections of: the McCanns' rented villa or hire car; clothing. And especially not the same clothing twice in different spots.

Grime signalled his intent to 'get in' an inspection of clothing with the lie in his profile, deliberately undated, that he had a cadaver dog that could be used for such purposes. In having the dogs 'inspect' the same clothing twice in different spots, Grime was rehearsing the modus operandi he would repeat, some years later, in Detroit and the Bianca Jones case.

 

[mrjitty]

We don't have to speculate about what the first instance judge held - anyone can read the judgement or the summaries in the Supreme Court judgement, or the ECHR judgement.

The first instance trial judge held that legally, GA's speech was limited by a duty of confidentiality. This was overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in getting the trial court to question the factual foundation against them - that was the problem they had throughout the appeals, because the appeal courts don't rehash the evidence.

 

[Anxala]

By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 18, 09 02:55 PM

A few days ago I received an interesting letter from Leicestershire police about the Madeleine McCann investigation.

I had asked them, in July, if they had got any warrants (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to use surveillance powers - such as phone tapping and email interception on behalf of the Portuguese police.

The force initially stalled saying it needed to "consult other Agencies" before replying.

After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".

I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.

To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".

A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Freedom Of Information *

Theres more if you follow the link.

For me, this is just another reason why a failure to charge CB will render so many contentious and unresolved elements of the past investigations utterly null and void and consigned to a never to be questioned past.

Charge CB, let the evidence against him be known, allow it to be held up to to the legitimate light (and fight) it deserves. Let it all be up for scrutiny, the present and the past.

Surely anyone who has an interest in the resolution of this case would want that?

 

[mrjitty]

I thought the first judge wouldn't let Gerry talk about the dogs

I think there is some confusion about what role the trial judge had

His job was not to evaluate all the evidence of the investigation like some kind of de facto criminal trial. As far as the trial court was concerned, the dog alerts were evidenced by video, documents and testimony. What weight to place on that evidence was up to investigators, not the Court.

This was why the plaintiffs tried to rely on being 'cleared' by the second investigatory team as there was no real way for them to prove their innocence in court.