Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

[mrjitty]

He's definitely the only one, and given the gung ho way the prosecutors first went public (three years ago next week) it would be an almighty climbdown now for them to have to admit they can't backup what they claimed.

But if he's convicted on the other charges that makes it a lot easier for them to admit the MM case remains unsolved. They can claim the aim was always just to keep him off the streets as long as possible. They will spin it to leave most people in no doubt they still think he was responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine, and that will have to be enough for those who had so much faith in them. (jmo)

Just as one example - if they close the HB cold case, that is an excellent result IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I will be very surprised if we hear anything about the results of the Dam search. As soon as HCW said that they would inform the public if nothing was found but would not say anything if they did find something, I thought that was a weird dodgy thing to say.

It will be a travesty if CB is not charged.

I agree. We'll hear nothing, or CB will be charged.

 

[Davieson]

I will be very surprised if we hear anything about the results of the Dam search. As soon as HCW said that they would inform the public if nothing was found but would not say anything if they did find something, I thought that was a weird dodgy thing to say.

It will be a travesty if CB is not charged.

It might also be a travesty if he is charged. Will depend on strength of relevant evidence.

 

[Lyall0814]

It might also be a travesty if he is charged. Will depend on strength of relevant evidence.

They'll know what German judges think of the evidence they've gathered so far, and it appears to have been judged to be not enough. If it was going to be decided by a jury they'd likely go for it (imo). As we all know convictions have been secured on next to no evidence apart from alleged confessions in high-profile cases in the UK. Juries are always under huge pressure. The higher the profile of the case the greater is the pressure.

 

[enquirer6]

It might also be a travesty if he is charged. Will depend on strength of relevant evidence.

It might also be a travesty if he is charged. Will depend on strength of relevant evidence.

Why?

There will be further enquiries if there are leads to follow, but these will not be made public.

If there is no further work to do, the authorities will say as much.

All seems pefectly logical to me.

This is a useful link, I think:

Unlawful disclosure of facts subjudice (Section 353d, German Criminal Code) | Lewik

www.lewik.org

3. publicly communicates verbatim essential parts or all of the indictment or other official documents of a criminal proceeding, a proceeding to impose a summary fine or a disciplinary proceeding before they have been addressed in a public hearing or before the proceeding has been concluded.

What has complicated the issue in the Madeleine case is that, by the time of the German involvement, so much that would normally, by German rules, had German law-enfocement been managing the case from the start, been kept under wraps, was in the public domain.

So Herr Wolters had to adapt things slightly to a set of cirumstances that were not those he would usually have to deal with.

But from the point of the investigation that is novel to Germany, usual German rules will apply.

 

[Mex]

BIB. Fine. But it is clear why FF would conduct an active defence in charged cases, it's a fundamental of criminal procedure to defend on both form and substance. It's literally his job.

He is not really conducting an active defence in my opinion, he is orchestrating obstruction as the best he can do to delay the inevitable. If the system allows it and for the moment it does, then it could certainly be considered as part of his job. But ultimately he will have to work in a court refuting evidence and that will be of interest.
Allegedly there are four sets of lawyers working on CB's case. That is interesting too.

 

[Mex]

Just as one example - if they close the HB cold case, that is an excellent result IMO.

I agree with that sentiment. But the hold up to that and the other four cases on hold is the jurisdiction problem.

 

[Dave55]

Yep, found it in the Daily Mail article. I’ll take a look at it and see what it says.

He is not really conducting an active defence in my opinion, he is orchestrating obstruction as the best he can do to delay the inevitable. If the system allows it and for the moment it does, then it could certainly be considered as part of his job. But ultimately he will have to work in a court refuting evidence and that will be of interest.
Allegedly there are four sets of lawyers working on CB's case. That is interesting too.

 

[Lyall0814]

Mex, nobody was thinking about GA when Der Spiegel TV and the Aussie Sixty Minutes show were giving the likes of Mark Hofmann the opportunity to say just whatever he wished to say, trying to link CB to other unsolved murders etc. Sixty Minutes as good as incites someone - "anyone? please!" - to say they saw CB stood outside 5a. GA said very little in comparison to the prosecutor office's propaganda campaign (which is exactly what it looked like).

 

[RichardKimble]

Mex, nobody was thinking about GA when Der Spiegel TV and the Aussie Sixty Minutes show were giving the likes of Mark Hofmann the opportunity to say just whatever he wished to say, trying to link CB to other unsolved murders etc. Sixty Minutes as good as incites someone - "anyone? please!" - to say they saw CB stood outside 5a. GA said very little in comparison to the prosecutor office's propaganda campaign (which is exactly what it looked like).

if it's not him then it's the 4 legged friends, which thankfully get shut down quickly.

 

[Malleux]

Where has Wolters ever mentioned 5a or alluded to please.

You seem to be missing the point. If the investigators DO have knowledge of what happened in 5A, why on earth would they "allude" or draw any attention to it?

If they have information about what they think took place in 5A, there's no reason they'd tell us as this stage. It won't help with the public appeal but it could seriously damage their case if they were to let the suspect's defence know what intel they had (and from who/where it came).

HCW hasn't brought the subject himself as far as I'm aware but it has been implied that the Investigators suspect CB went into 5A himself. Christian Hoppe of the BKA suggested CB may have gone in there with the initial intention of burglary before deciding to take MM, for example.

HCW has been pressed on 5A by interviewers and each time he clams up and refuses to give any details. He was asked whether they had anything placing CB in the apartment and responded something like "I have an answer" but doesn't want to say anything as it would lead to a thousand more questions. Mark S. asked him about the dog alerts and whether a death in the apartment at CB's hands could fit in with their theory. Again, he said he cannot comment on it. Most recently, SF outright asked him whether they thought CB was only the murderer and not the one who actually went into 5A and took MM. He responded "to the details, I don't want to tell you anything at the moment". Nor should he. What purpose would it serve at this stage, other than satiating nosey parkers and giving CB's defence a heads up on what they know?

 

[C.greek]

You seem to be missing the point. If the investigators DO have knowledge of what happened in 5A, why on earth would they "allude" or draw any attention to it?

If they have information about what they think took place in 5A, there's no reason they'd tell us as this stage. It won't help with the public appeal but it could seriously damage their case if they were to let the suspect's defence know what intel they had (and from who/where it came).

HCW hasn't brought the subject himself as far as I'm aware but it has been implied that the Investigators suspect CB went into 5A himself. Christian Hoppe of the BKA suggested CB may have gone in there with the initial intention of burglary before deciding to take MM, for example.

HCW has been pressed on 5A by interviewers and each time he clams up and refuses to give any details. He was asked whether they had anything placing CB in the apartment and responded something like "I have an answer" but doesn't want to say anything as it would lead to a thousand more questions. Mark S. asked him about the dog alerts and whether a death in the apartment at CB's hands could fit in with their theory. Again, he said he cannot comment on it. Most recently, SF outright asked him whether they thought CB was only the murderer and not the one who actually went into 5A and took MM. He responded "to the details, I don't want to tell you anything at the moment". Nor should he. What purpose would it serve at this stage, other than satiating nosey parkers and giving CB's defence a heads up on what they know?

I agree. HCW has said as much as is needed for the public appeal and to get more Intel from people who knew CB or tourists who were in PdL at the time. (This doesn't leave much speculation as to whether they believe CB abducted MM, they do hence the request from tourists for example - but it would help their case if they can prove bard that CB was there).

In his interviews he is being vague as to all details he is being asked to give out - the only thing he has said (speaking for the BKA) wrt to the MM case is that they believe CB murdered MM. All other things are MSM guesses And speculations. Jmo

 

[Consider Dudley]

He doesn't need an alibi for that

The prosecutor says he did a murder on an unspecified date, and maybe not even in Portugal.

The prosecutor also says CB acted alone so it stands to reason that unless Madeleine left the apartment on her own and wandered around aimlessly until the next day, a cast iron alibi for the evening of 3rd May 2007 would be very useful indeed.

 

[C.greek]

What do the German investigators need to show in order to get a search warrant in Portugal?

 

[Consider Dudley]

Where has Wolters ever mentioned 5a or alluded to please.

He mentioned the received phone call to CB’s number being adjacent to the OC on 3rd May 2007.

 

[Davieson]

The prosecutor also says CB acted alone so it stands to reason that unless Madeleine left the apartment on her own and wandered around aimlessly u til the next day, a cast iron alibi for the evening of 3rd May 2007 would be very useful indeed.

Would an alibi for the evening of the 3rd only be useful if he is accused of abduction ?
If he isn't actually charged with abduction, an alibi for that time is irrelevant.

 

[SuperdadV8]

What do the German investigators need to show in order to get a search warrant in Portugal?

Same requirements, as if the operation had been taken out on german ground.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Would an alibi for the evening of the 3rd only be useful if he is accused of abduction ?
If he isn't actually charged with abduction, an alibi for that time is irrelevant.

If he acted alone and murdered his victim (as posited by HCW) do you not also think it highly likely that he abducted her also, given that the childs parents claim that the window they left closed was open when they discovered their daughter gone?
In any case I’m getting bored with this discussion. Of course a cast iron alibi that puts CB at some considerable distance from Apt5a and pursuing some non abduction/murdering related activity would be extremely useful to him. He even recognized this himself by volunteering one.

 

[Anxala]

I don’t think the alibi will be important. None of us could prove where we were 9-10pm on 3.5.07. (Maybe with a laptop from the time.) It would only be significant if he was questioned within a week of the crime.

The Defence won’t put CB on the stand to give evidence of his movements. They will put Lena on the stand to question her about his activities & demeanour in that time. She will be asked if there was a night she expected him and he didn’t come.

What will be more significant is what his mobile phone records show. Can they plot his movements that week? They have witness evidence of him stalking the apartment. Will the phone evidence support that?

The Prosecution may wish to focus on murder but they will also be conscious of setting out a narrative that is persuasive to the Judge, McCanns and the public.

^ But do they have this, the number of the phone/s he was using at the time and all the corresponding records? And has CB been verified as the person seen stalking the apartment or is it just that someone who matched the CB profile at the time was seen skulking nearby prior to MM's disappearance?

Agree re the alibi, not having one for the evening in question is not remotely proof of guilt... although, HCW has said that as far as he's concerned, CB acted alone... in which case, he's either saying CB took and later murdered MM on some unknown date, or someone took MM and passed her on to CB who later murdered her on some unknown date... but that would also mean he didn't act alone...

That's a gap I feel needs to be filled to satisfy everyone.

It's a rather confusing narrative as stands.

 

[C.greek]

Same requirements, as if the operation had been taken out on german ground.

meaning? how much detail is needed?