Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

[mrjitty]

It was the handler at fault, not the dogs.

In any case, GM is not a dog expert and is not qualified to give expert evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

For me, this is just another reason why a failure to charge CB will render so many contentious 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.

My gut feeling is this will never be charged until the body turns up.

 

[Lilly b]

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

At times in life, patience is required
Many are feeling anxious as there is no news, but it will come

 

[enquirer6]

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.

Why isn't there, or (more accurately) why shouldn't there be some obligation to print material that corresponds with facts, particularly where reputations hinge on what is printed?

To begin, a credit; Amaral unequivocally dismissed 'before May 3rd' as, of course, he should have.

After that, he mangled and misrepresented the work of Mark Harrison beyond recognition, suggesting that a search was made for Madeleine's body close to apartment 5a at Harrison's behest. In fact, Harrison took orders from Amaral's boss, the (now late) Encarnacido to search for Madeleine's concealed and deceased remains, and did so, ruling out burial (at least on the beach) and making plain he had no real idea what happened to Madeleine.

How Amaral concluded that (sic) we talked about death by others, not murder, I have no clue. Mark Harrison was clear that he was instructed, by Encarnacido, to investigate, alone, that Madeleine had been murdered and buried. Harrison even offered, strictly on request, to investigate other possibilities or scenarios. Nothing in the files, at least on line, suggest he was invited to do so.

Amaral's account in his book of soothing the furrowed brow of his distraught wife, who discovered the body of their pet dog on the beach, before attempting to dig a hole to bury it, discovering how hard the ground was to dig, and concluding from that that Gerry must have hidden Madeleine's body, is blatant plagiarism of Mark Harrison's work, who ruled out brial.

The Portuguese prosecutors are clear that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger and PJ Inspector Joao Carlos places Gerry in the Tapas Restaurant at the moment of Kate's alert.

Amaral's book is a travesty of those conclusions. from which he has been allowed to profit.

 

[misty48]

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.

IMO the McCanns were in a catch-22 situation. To prove their innocence without Madeleine or her body being found would have meant a trial in a criminal court, possibly on a murder charge with an outcome similar to the Ciprianos. If they had been charged I think they would appealed that they couldn't have received a fair trial due to all the unfavourable "evidential" leaks from inside the investigation. No trial = no proof of innocence. Rather calculated and cunning.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

The current situation has divided people into two groups. Those believing that HCW has a photo (or a least witnesses stating they have seen one) and those who don’t believe he has this evidence.

From HCW’s protracted investigation and his less-confident recent comments it seems clear that if there is a photo its link to CB is a weak one.

The below post from @Dlk79 provides a strong argument, based on direct quotes from HCW, that he has a photo.

Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

From this line of thought, if we assume that the photo exists, and:

1. It was taken shortly after MM was abducted;
2. CB is indirectly linked to this photo;
3. It shows MM deceased;
4. The location can be identified as Portugal.

How can these facts implicate CB but not be enough to charge him? This is my thinking relative to the above points.

1. There is no EXIF data attached to the photo. In 2007 it would have given the exact time and date the image was captured. HCW would then be more definitive in his comments relating to MM’s time of death.

The image therefore must show something that indicates when it was taken. The obvious point here would be that MM is still wearing the Eyore Pyjamas. If not then comparisons with other recent photos of things like hair length could be made and provide an approximation of when the image was taken.

2. The obvious thought here is that it was obtained from the box factory search. If so, the EXIF data must have been deleted and/or it must have been copied from the capture device i.e. camera or phone. I say this because if it was on a device owned or known to be used by CB, it is a strong evidential link to him.

In the case with his girlfriend’s daughter, the photos were found stored on the Casio camera he owned. This could have caused him to clear other older devices but it wasn’t something he was doing prior to this case and the MM offence pre dates this one.

It’s also possible that the image was found or given to the BKA from an online source. It could have been a copy of a copy (over several generations) and the EXIF data could have been lost in one of the duplication processes. If this is the case, then there would need to be something in the photo that links it to CB, probably the location - see point four below.

3. The options here are a) she has injuries impossible to survive, b) she is in the process of being killed by an unidentifiable assailant c) the image is post mortem and shows signs of discolouration/early stages of decomposition d) (only for completion) she is shown deceased in some other way e.g. frozen as in GA’s suggestion.

4. Without certainty on timing and with no geolocation via EXIF data, I think we can rule out a vehicle as the location that links CB to the offence - a car or, more likely, a VW T3 could be anywhere.

The location therefore must be somewhere unambiguously identifiable as Portugal. It must be private and almost certainly indoors. It must be a location familiar to CB.

Also important to consider is the objective of the photo. Was it a sicko trophy or was it proof that a problem had been dealt with, the latter might be applicable to an abduction to order gone wrong theory.

Given all this, I think it’s that the image was found during the box factory search.

Further, I think that the farmhouse is a good possibility for the location - we know the BKA have photos of it because they were part of the appeal. He wasn’t renting it at this time but the abduction it was within a year of him living there and within six-months of him getting out of prison. Very easy access from the OC and suitably out of the way. As we know, CB is very capable of breaking in to places.

This would satisfy what HCW has said. But, IMO, even if CB had the photo and it was taken at a place where he once lived, it would not prove he killed MM - this is could be the problem for HCW.

I’m not saying this is true but even if it was, I don’t think he would be charged on this evidence.

Is it possible that HCW is trying to pressure CB to provide an explanation on how else he could have this photo in his possession (box factory) if he is not responsible for MM’s abduction and death? Could this explain the extended wait and perhaps comments like “…. We have the evidence to charge”?

 

[RichardKimble]

IMO the McCanns were in a catch-22 situation. To prove their innocence without Madeleine or her body being found would have meant a trial in a criminal court, possibly on a murder charge with an outcome similar to the Ciprianos. If they had been charged I think they would appealed that they couldn't have received a fair trial due to all the unfavourable "evidential" leaks from inside the investigation. No trial = no proof of innocence. Rather calculated and cunning.

Which would suggest Amaral's legal team had a far better understanding of the relevant laws than the McCann's lawyers.

 

[RichardKimble]

Is it possible that HCW is trying to pressure CB to provide an explanation on how else he could have this photo in his possession (box factory) if he is not responsible for MM’s abduction and death? Could this explain the extended wait and perhaps comments like “…. We have the evidence to charge”?

Snipped.

CB isn't going any where, what pressure can he feel, with all the publicity over the last 15 yrs and what is known about the events of the night of 3/05/2007 the BKA will have to have a water tight case and then some . His lawyer if half decent would jump on any thing that introduces the slightest doubt, we've recently read that, if true about CB not having supposed marking's on his legs and possibly ruling him out of the Irish woman's rape , and this would then render him innocent of the rape of the American woman because the BKA say that case and the Irish lady's rape were done by the same person. We'll know more soon if Wolters is true to his word about an upcoming press release.

 

[Davieson]

I think it will be a measure of Wolters reliability.
If he is unable to proceed with the rape charge, then to my mind his chances of getting charges laid over Madeleine are diminished.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Snipped.

CB isn't going any where, what pressure can he feel, with all the publicity over the last 15 yrs and what is known about the events of the night of 3/05/2007 the BKA will have to have a water tight case and then some . His lawyer if half decent would jump on any thing that introduces the slightest doubt, we've recently read that, if true about CB not having supposed marking's on his legs and possibly ruling him out of the Irish woman's rape , and this would then render him innocent of the rape of the American woman because the BKA say that case and the Irish lady's rape were done by the same person. We'll know more soon if Wolters is true to his word about an upcoming press release.

I think the only crimes we will hear from HCW on will be the exposure in playground (he was caught in the act) and potentially the assault of the ten-year-old girl on the beach (several eye witnesses).

Unfortunately, I don’t think the HB case is going anywhere. I’m not buying the partial hand print.

In terms of pressure HCW has put CB firmly in the frame for the murder of the world’s most famous missing person case.

Additionally CB has been given progressively less comfortable conditions in prison.

Is it to try and make him talk? We don’t know but clearly HCW has gaps in his case and CH can fill them.

More importantly, in my original post I was wondering if there is an option where CB is involved in the case bug is not the abductee or murderer.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think it will be a measure of Wolters reliability.
If he is unable to proceed with the rape charge, then to my mind his chances of getting charges laid over Madeleine are diminished.

On the HB case I think the amount of time it’s taken suggests problems. I think the partial palm print was from JC at Olive Press so it’s dubious. HCW May charge but I doubt it.

With MM, even if HCW has a photo which matches the comments detailed in DLK’s post, I don’t think there is any chance of a murder charge… still very possible it could be someone else.

 

[jbinator]

Thoughts on this case

1. CB was in the area when MM went missing.
2. CB had previously offended sexually against minors.
3. Has committed many robberies and a convicted rape in the building Madeline went missing from.
4. CB was active on dark web.
5. CB is alleged to have admitted to snatching MM.
6. If we assume HCW has a photo then this would all be enough for a 99.9% probability CB is the culprit.

But it still wouldn’t be enough for a conviction. Tough case. RIP MM.

 

[RichardKimble]

Thoughts on this case

1. CB was in the area when MM went missing.
2. CB had previously offended sexually against minors.
3. Has committed many robberies and a convicted rape in the building Madeline went missing from.
4. CB was active on dark web.
5. CB is alleged to have admitted to snatching MM.
6. If we assume HCW has a photo then this would all be enough for a 99.9% probability CB is the culprit.

But it still wouldn’t be enough for a conviction. Tough case. RIP MM.

Point 3, nope, rape was in Luz but not the same building and the evidence of robberies in the same building ? so that reduces the odds to 83% .

 

[Davieson]

Has CB been convicted of burglar in Portugal or was it just what people said he'd done ?
The media has reported all sorts of stories about CB and it is sometimes difficult to know where the truth lies.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Has CB been convicted of burglar in Portugal or was it just what people said he'd done ?
The media has reported all sorts of stories about CB and it is sometimes difficult to know where the truth lies.

He was convicted of diesel theft in 2006. No convictions for burglary. MS stated that he was a prolific burglar so much so the called him ‘The Climber’ on his ability to get into buildings.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Thoughts on this case

1. CB was in the area when MM went missing.
2. CB had previously offended sexually against minors.
3. Has committed many robberies and a convicted rape in the building Madeline went missing from.
4. CB was active on dark web.
5. CB is alleged to have admitted to snatching MM.
6. If we assume HCW has a photo then this would all be enough for a 99.9% probability CB is the culprit.

But it still wouldn’t be enough for a conviction. Tough case. RIP MM.

1. Yes in the Algarve but I’m not sure it’s confirmed he was in Luz on the night.
2. Yes but no convictions for abduction and obviously murder.
3. As RK says below.
4. Stated by HB I think and then there is the Skype call - but why would this make him guilty of abduction and murder?
5. Yes to HB and on the tenth anniversary but people admitting to murders they didn’t commit is common.
6. Possible he has a photo and possible he is the culprit but having a photo wouldn’t necessarily give HCW a conviction and that’s why he hasn’t charged him yet.

Yes agree with your final comment.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

As it’s been more than 7 years since MM ‘disappeared’ why hasn’t there been a Coroner’s inquest in the UK into the circumstances leading to her ‘disappearance’, and the key witnesses at that time being questioned under oath?

 

[Davieson]

As it’s been more than 7 years since MM ‘disappeared’ why hasn’t there been a Coroner’s inquest in the UK into the circumstances leading to her ‘disappearance’, and the key witnesses at that time being questioned under oath?

Which court would have jurisdiction? It might be worth a FoI request to find out why there has been no inquest

 

[RichardKimble]

Given its not been established what crime as been committed against Madeleine this may apply.


Where a British national dies as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide overseas, jurisdiction for the investigation is most likely to remain with the authorities in that country. In these circumstances a coronial investigation in England and Wales will only take place if the body is repatriated, reported to the coroner, and the death is violent, unnatural, or of unknown cause.

Murder, manslaughter and infanticide of British nationals abroad: memorandum of understanding (MoU)

www.gov.uk

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

Who can make a claim​

You can make a claim if you’re the missing person’s:

• spouse or civil partner
• parent
• child
• sibling

If none of these apply, you’ll need to prove to the court that you have enough of a connection to the missing person (‘sufficient interest’), for example you’re a distant relative and you have a birth certificate to prove it.

What else must be true to make a claim​

To make a claim one or more of the following must also apply:

• you’re the missing person’s spouse or civil partner and you treat England or Wales as your permanent home (‘domicile’) on the date you make the claim
• you’re the missing person’s spouse or civil partner and you’ve been living in England or Wales for the whole year before the date you make the claim
• the missing person treated England or Wales as their permanent home (‘domicile’) on the date they were last known to be alive
• the missing person was living in England or Wales for the whole year before the date they were last known to be alive