Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #34

[Davieson]

Jane reported, in good faith, what she saw. It is for detectives, investigating Madeleine's abduction, to make of that report what they will.

Only Tanner knows if that statement is true.

 

[RichardKimble]

Jane reported, in good faith, what she saw. It is for detectives, investigating Madeleine's abduction, to make of that report what they will.

They did which is why the focus moved to Smithman, incidentally Wolters makes no mention of either.

 

[RichardKimble]

Only if Tanner's sighting was at 9.50 ish can it be realistically linked to the Smith sighting.
This pre- supposes that there actually was an abduction at around that time.

Indeed the BKA make no mention of times.

 

[Davieson]

Indeed the BKA make no mention of times.

Have the Germans ever really commented on the alleged abduction ? Wolters seems to mainly talk about murder.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Indeed the BKA make no mention of times.

I think the appeal says between 9:20pm and 10:00pm.

 

[Davieson]

I think the appeal says between 9:20pm and 10:00pm.

Which suggests that they haven't read OG's conclusion, or don't agree with it or are hedging their bets regarding time.

 

[enquirer6]

Only if Tanner's sighting was at 9.50 ish can it be realistically linked to the Smith sighting.
This pre- supposes that there actually was an abduction at around that time.

As I've already pointed out, what's written online can't be taken at face value, not because of the unreliability of witnesses, but because of the unreliability of the people who uploaded this stuff online.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

I think the appeal says between 9:20pm and 10:00pm.

Between 21:10 and 22:00

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Have the Germans ever really commented on the alleged abduction ? Wolters seems to mainly talk about murder.

I think they will try to avoid any discussion on the abduction. As @mrjitty has said on several occasions, it will be inferred if they have strong evidence of murder. Although, you can be sure that FF will be pushing the point if it goes to trial.

 

[RichardKimble]

As I've already pointed out, what's written online can't be taken at face value, not because of the unreliability of witnesses, but because of the unreliability of the people who uploaded this stuff online.

We know they are accurate enough for OG to quote times.

 

[Davieson]

We know they are accurate enough for OG to quote times.

I'm also sure that anything that is grossly inaccurate will have been publicly refuted, with supporting evidence to prove it wrong.

 

[UK Girl]

I'm also sure that anything that is grossly inaccurate will have been publicly refuted, with supporting evidence

I was just thinking if they are wrong why have they never been disputed?

 

[Davieson]

I was just thinking if they are wrong why have they never been disputed?

Confusion is good, or something to that effect.
Better to sow doubt by suggesting that some thing is wrong than having to produce evidence to prove it.

 

[Lyall0814]

As I've already pointed out, what's written online can't be taken at face value, not because of the unreliability of witnesses, but because of the unreliability of the people who uploaded this stuff online.

"Surprisingly accurate" was how Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan described what's online, and I reckon they would have gladly said the opposite if they'd been able to.

(But nobody ever claimed 100% accuracy in translations - that's impossible even for professionals)

 

[Davieson]

"Surprisingly accurate" was how Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan described what's online, and I reckon they would have gladly said the opposite if they'd been able to.

(But nobody ever claimed 100% accuracy in translations - that's impossible even for professionals)

Unless it alters the whole meaning of the text, the odd 'wrong' word is neither here nor there. IMO

 

[Davieson]

I understand that the McCanns had the file translated for themselves. I haven't noticed any significant issues being highlighted, which suggests to me that by and large, the files are fine.
I have also noticed that its only those who support the McCann position who seem to make these complaints about mistranslation.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is about Christian Bueckner as the suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.

Dogs and the McCanns are off topic in this discussion.

Also, stop the snark and bickering in this thread.

Thank you.

 

[Mex]

re funding of lawyers, is there a Dark Web version of crowd funding ?

No-one is saying so no-one knows where the funding for CB's legal defence comes from, so that supposition may be as good as any.
What we do know is that it has been taking place over a number of years and prior to anyone here ever having heard of CB.

 

[Davieson]

No-one is saying so no-one knows where the funding for CB's legal defence comes from, so that supposition may be as good as any.
What we do know is that it has been taking place over a number of years and prior to anyone here ever having heard of CB.

I don't understand. What has been taking place for a number of years ? Is there proof or is it just opinion ?

 

[Mex]

I think they will try to avoid any discussion on the abduction. As @mrjitty has said on several occasions, it will be inferred if they have strong evidence of murder. Although, you can be sure that FF will be pushing the point if it goes to trial.

No doubt CB legal teams will be pushing for every point they can think of whether it is an irrelevance or not.

As far as I am led to believe it has not been stated by anyone who matters that CB is suspected of abduction but that he is suspected of child murder.

The confirmation of precisely for what he may face indictment regarding MM will have to wait for the time being for the answer to that.