Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #33

[Malleux]

Its good to see that there is a general understanding that the phone call is of little, if of any use.

Au contraire, it's of huge significance.

As Heri aptly explained, the log places the phone in the confines of PDL (not 35km away as some people seem to believe). Other masts would have picked up the call if it was further away.

The issue is with that is... CB claims he never went back to PDL after he was released from prison in 2006. So how was his phone there that night?

 

[Davieson]

Au contraire, it's of huge significance.

As Heri aptly explained, the log places the phone in the confines of PDL (not 35km away as some people seem to believe). Other masts would have picked up the call if it was further away.

The issue is with that is... CB claims he never went back to PDL after he was released from prison in 2006. So how was his phone there that night?

You have a cite for that ?
The data only places the phone within the vicinity of PDL and does not identify the user.

 

[Lyall0814]

Au contraire, it's of huge significance.

As Heri aptly explained, the log places the phone in the confines of PDL (not 35km away as some people seem to believe). Other masts would have picked up the call if it was further away.

The issue is with that is... CB claims he never went back to PDL after he was released from prison in 2006. So how was his phone there that night?

I don't think it was possible to accurately predict in the days of few masts which one a call would connect to. I remember the evidence of expert David Bristowe in the Huntley trial, who explained about some locations being 'hot spots' in which a phone would always connect to a mast far away instead of the closest one.

I'm not sure Mr Bristowe would think the evidence the prosecutors have in this case is great.

But it doesn't have to be great if a judge or judges are in the mood to treat the evidence as more important than it actually is. It's definitely useful to HCW and the other prosecutors.

 

[Malleux]

You have a cite for that ?
The data only places the phone within the vicinity of PDL and does not identify the user.

Watch from the 1 hour mark. CB's letter to MWT. He says he comes out of prison in Dec 2006 "and from that point on, he does not return back to Praia da Luz"

Yes, the phone does not necessarily identify the user. But if the Prosecutors can prove he was the user of the phone prior to this - which it appears they can - the court doesn't just give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.

Phone evidence plays a major part in court cases nowadays and it is generally accepted that the phone is assumed to be with the owner unless they can provide a plausible explanation.

 

[Davieson]

Watch from the 1 hour mark. CB's letter to MWT. He says he comes out of prison in Dec 2006 "and from that point on, he does not return back to Praia da Luz"

Yes, the phone does not necessarily identify the user. But if the Prosecutors can prove he was the user of the phone prior to this - which it appears they can - the court doesn't just give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.

Phone evidence plays a major part in court cases nowadays and it is generally accepted that the phone is assumed to be with the owner unless they can provide a plausible explanation.

Thanks for the cite.
CB would not be allowed his phone while in prison, so prosecution would need to prove he was in possession of it once he left prison.

 

[Malleux]

Thanks for the cite.
CB would not be allowed his phone while in prison, so prosecution would need to prove he was in possession of it once he left prison.

Yes fair point, but it depends how the Judge sees it. If the Prosecutors can prove he was using it after coming out of prison, the Judge is not naive and would likely assume he was still using it that evening unless he can come up with another explanation. But yes, this is probably why they want the other caller, to take any doubt away ahead of going to trial.

From the MWT doc, it seems like CB's defence is trying to claim the phone was in the possession of his friend BP. So, talk of CB being outside of PDL while on the phone seems redundant, he's going with the claim he didn't have it at all at that time IMO.

 

[Malleux]

I don't think it was possible to accurately predict in the days of few masts which one a call would connect to. I remember the evidence of expert David Bristowe in the Huntley trial, who explained about some locations being 'hot spots' in which a phone would always connect to a mast far away instead of the closest one.

I'm not sure Mr Bristowe would think the evidence the prosecutors have in this case is great.

But it doesn't have to be great if a judge or judges are in the mood to treat the evidence as more important than it actually is. It's definitely useful to HCW and the other prosecutors.

That was to do with the 2 masts being in fairly close proximity and the connection favouring the slightly further mast because of local obstructions between the phone and the closer mast. It wouldn't apply in this situation when the masts are so far apart.

 

[Lyall0814]

That was to do with the 2 masts being in fairly close proximity and the connection favouring the slightly further mast because of local obstructions between the phone and the closer mast. It wouldn't apply in this situation when the masts are so far apart.

The other mast was quite far away, about 6 miles in or near another village. I have Bristowe's evidence from that trial somewhere, I'll dig it out.

 

[Malleux]

The other mast was quite far away, about 6 miles in or near another village. I have Bristowe's evidence from that trial somewhere, I'll dig it out.

Yes, the masts were 5 miles apart. That's not far. It's all to do with signal strength based on what is between the phone and the masts. In Soham there were certain so-called 'blackspots' in some areas that caused phones to connect to the futher mast because of landmark obstructions to the closer mast. Is there any evidence of that in PDL?

 

[Lyall0814]

I don't know, I'm not a mobile phone engineer/expert. I know it's not as simple as the media would have us believe though. At least not in 2007. Lot more masts around these days of course.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If the Prosecutors can prove he was using it after coming out of prison,

I’m pretty confident he gave that number to the German radio group he took to Spain. The one from the Daily Mail video. This was in April 2007 so after he was released from prison and before MM’s disappearance. I also believe they can confirm him using the number after 3 May,

From the information @Janosch gave re LE’s arrest, a few pages back, it doesn’t look like CB gave the same 680 number on 9 May 2007.

If this is right, it would be easy for CB’s defence to argue the phone had been lost or stolen between the Spain trip and 3 May.

@Janosch is the number that CB gave at Faro airport a mobile number? Do you have any thoughts on why it’s not the 680 number?

 

[Malleux]

I don't know, I'm not a mobile phone engineer/expert. I know it's not as simple as the media would have us believe though. At least not in 2007. Lot more masts around these days of course.

Don't ever trust what the media says. Go by the direct quotes is the best bet and form your own opinion. For example, HCW has never said the phone call places CB right outside 5A, but some people seem to think that claim has come from him directly.

 

[Malleux]

I’m pretty confident he gave that number to the German radio group he took to Spain. The one from the Daily Mail video. This was in April 2007 so after he was released from prison and before MM’s disappearance. I also believe they can confirm him using the number after 3 May,

From the information @Janosch gave re LE’s arrest, a few pages back, it doesn’t look like CB gave the same 680 number on 9 May 2007.

If this is right, it would be easy for CB’s defence to argue the phone had been lost or stolen between the Spain trip and 3 May.

@Janosch is the number that CB gave at Faro airport a mobile number? Do you have any thoughts on why it’s not the 680 number?

Yes, I think it's quite possible he gave this number to the radio group too.

HCW also admitted to MWT they knew of another woman who was calling him on this number.

And apparently (according to MWT anyway) there is documented proof that CB's good friend BP was in possession of this phone for the duration that CB was in prison.

IMO there is little hope that CB can deny this phone was his...

 

[Denis R Tandib]

IMO there is little hope that CB can deny this phone was his...

I don’t think he will deny it but if HCW can’t put it in his hand at the time of the call, I’m not sure how strong it is as evidence.

 

[Malleux]

I don’t think he will deny it but if HCW can’t put it in his hand at the time of the call, I’m not sure how strong it is as evidence.

It is still strong IMO. Not irrefutable, no, and I think that's why they want verification from another party that it was undeniably him on that call.

At the end of the day though, it is about the SUM of all the evidence. It's not about whether the defendent can claim plausible benefit of doubt over each individual piece of evidence. That isn't how trials work, it's a judgement based on everything.

 

[misty48]

I’m pretty confident he gave that number to the German radio group he took to Spain. The one from the Daily Mail video. This was in April 2007 so after he was released from prison and before MM’s disappearance. I also believe they can confirm him using the number after 3 May,

From the information @Janosch gave re LE’s arrest, a few pages back, it doesn’t look like CB gave the same 680 number on 9 May 2007.

If this is right, it would be easy for CB’s defence to argue the phone had been lost or stolen between the Spain trip and 3 May.

@Janosch is the number that CB gave at Faro airport a mobile number? Do you have any thoughts on why it’s not the 680 number?

08231 is the STD code for Königsbrunn, Augsburg. I guess CB was reluctant to share his Portuguese mobile number with Faro police.

 

[Malleux]

The court, in the state of Lower Saxony, confirmed the decision, saying the fact that Brueckner had registered a place of residence in the state of Saxony-Anhalt meant it fell outside Braunschweig's jurisdiction.

Just to say this extract is slighlty misleading from reuters. CB had not "registered" a place of "residence" in Saxony-Anhalt. This is what the point of contention was in the recent judgement.

He was the registered "land owner" of the property (and had been since 2009ish while registered living elsewhere) but it was not officially registered as a place of residence. And nor could it be because it can't qualify as a residential address. His last official registered address was Braunschweig.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

08231 is the STD code for Königsbrunn, Augsburg. I guess CB was reluctant to share his Portuguese mobile number with Faro police.

Do you know if it’s the number for AB - where he reregistered the Jag?

Here is what doesn’t add up to me. We have to reconcile that CB planned and executed the abduction of MM without leaving any evidence and without being seen yet this same individual reregistered his car the following day and supported his teenager lover was she was arrested within a week.

Can the same person be so smart and so dumb at the same time?

 

[misty48]

Do you know if it’s the number for AB - where he reregistered the Jag?

Here is what doesn’t add up to me. We have to reconcile that CB planned and executed the abduction of MM without leaving any evidence and without being seen yet this same individual reregistered his car the following day and supported his teenager lover was she was arrested within a week.

Can the same person be so smart and so dumb at the same time?

I don't know whose landline the number is/was, only that the STD code is allocated to an area in Augsburg.
During the MWT documentary recently screened on Paramount Plus, MWT spoke to AB on Skype/Zoom. AB said that CB had mailed him the Jag documents two weeks prior as he (CB) could no longer register the car in Munich. AB said that CB told him he was looking for a job and apartment in Germany. If that is true, then Madeleine McCann herself wasn't even on his radar when the re-registration was planned.This may be a coincidence as we know CB did return to Germany within days of Madeleine's disappearance but he certainly didn't stay there permanently during the remainder of 2007.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I don't know whose landline the number is/was, only that the STD code is allocated to an area in Augsburg.
During the MWT documentary recently screened on Paramount Plus, MWT spoke to AB on Skype/Zoom. AB said that CB had mailed him the Jag documents two weeks prior as he (CB) could no longer register the car in Munich. AB said that CB told him he was looking for a job and apartment in Germany. If that is true, then Madeleine McCann herself wasn't even on his radar when the re-registration was planned.This may be a coincidence as we know CB did return to Germany within days of Madeleine's disappearance but he certainly didn't stay there permanently during the remainder of 2007.

That’s interesting. I think the reregistering of the Jag has been used as part of the story to imply guilt. If what you’re saying is correct then IMO, it’s more likely to show innocence… CB is out on Thursday night abducting and murdering a toddler then Friday, instead of lying low, he picks up his “To do” list and completes his car registration… a few days later he helps LE with her arrest at the airport… all while there is a hunt for MM by authorities and the world’s media is there covering a massive story, all in the same area.

I’m not sure the Jag is a strong piece of evidence either.