Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #36

[Mex]

My prior post was about the Selema Beach attack on the ten year-old girl in 2007.

IIRC, this was witnessed by the girl’s family. It was not a rape.

Therefore, I do not understand the point you are making because it is irrelevant to the discussion subject.

If you scroll back to your point of reference you will see you said ~
"I am refereeing to the two alleged rapes at the farmhouse. The only evidence for these crimes are statements from HB and MS - both convicted criminals."

To which my response was ~
""I think it is perfectly possible that the evidence given to the police by CB's criminal friends has been validated if it was used in the charges made against him for aggravated rape."
So no problems there as far as I can see about relevance to the subject under discussion. Looks like the continuity is spot on.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If you scroll back to your point of reference you will see you said ~
"I am refereeing to the two alleged rapes at the farmhouse. The only evidence for these crimes are statements from HB and MS - both convicted criminals."

To which my response was ~
""I think it is perfectly possible that the evidence given to the police by CB's criminal friends has been validated if it was used in the charges made against him for aggravated rape."
So no problems there as far as I can see about relevance to the subject under discussion. Looks like the continuity is spot on.

No, that was for a seperate discussion. Thanks.

 

[Mex]

I agree.

On the first point (BBM): I’m not fluent in legalese, but I can’t understand how a charge of sexual crime can stand without the assumption of a victim? Am I missing something obvious? Genuine question.

On the second emboldened part: I had forgotten that their testimony supported CB’s earlier rape conviction. It does give weight to their allegations.

The experts in this are those who agreed to indicting CB. So one has to go along with that on the premise that they know the law and know what they are doing.

I have to admit to puzzlement.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Five crimes have been established as having occurred according to the Germans, therefore by my calculations that equals five possible or probable victims of a crime, regardless of whether or not they have all come forward. I don’t therefore understand what point you are making unless it’s that the testimony of the two convicted criminals (who helped put CB away for another rape) have either misinterpreted the videos of rape they claim to have seen, or that they point blank invented them. We know that one of their previous claims was supported by forensic evidence and found to be true by the court, and this appears to lend credibility to their other claims at least as far as the BKA are concerned, or so it would seem.

Five alleged crimes which are do not currently have valid charges. So in reality no crimes have been established, there are only accusations.

My prior response to you was to point out that I had acknowledged the difficulty of victims of sexual crime to come forward - it’s understood that many cannot face the ordeal and I sympathise with this unreservedly.

The broader context of my post was that it is incorrect to suggest that alleged victims of crimes are awaiting justice if they haven’t reported the crime in the first place - neither you nor I know if a crime has been committed, there is even a known victim who is claiming that is the case.

Continuing, the only reason these crimes are known to us is from the statements of two convicted criminals - this is a fact.

Therefore, given there are no identified victims, there is no physical evidence of crimes being committed, and there aren’t even any current charges, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that in the two rape cases the assertion that victims are awaiting justice is incorrect.

 

[UK Girl]

One thing is he did not play a part, another is the evidence BKA may have is still not enough to charge (maybe never?!). As I refer above, I "no longer" see the first scenario as possible. JMO.

who knows? I am just not confident at the moment personally. Hopefully you are correct.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

If you scroll back to your point of reference you will see you said ~
"I am refereeing to the two alleged rapes at the farmhouse. The only evidence for these crimes are statements from HB and MS - both convicted criminals."

To which my response was ~
""I think it is perfectly possible that the evidence given to the police by CB's criminal friends has been validated if it was used in the charges made against him for aggravated rape."
So no problems there as far as I can see about relevance to the subject under discussion. Looks like the continuity is spot on.

Maybe police found the HB/MS videos?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Maybe police found the HB/MS videos?

Maybe similar videos but prior to CB going into jail, he didn’t clear out his house so I’m doubtful he made and kept copies of these videos. Just MO.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Five alleged crimes which are do not currently have valid charges. So in reality no crimes have been established, there are only accusations.

My prior response to you was to point out that I had acknowledged the difficulty of victims of sexual crime to come forward - it’s understood that many cannot face the ordeal and I sympathise with this unreservedly.

The broader context of my post was that it is incorrect to suggest that alleged victims of crimes are awaiting justice if they haven’t reported the crime in the first place - neither you nor I know if a crime has been committed, there is even a known victim who is claiming that is the case.

Continuing, the only reason these crimes are known to us is from the statements of two convicted criminals - this is a fact.

Therefore, given there are no identified victims, there is no physical evidence of crimes being committed, and there aren’t even any current charges, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that in the two rape cases the assertion that victims are awaiting justice is incorrect.

I think the German Police and HCW would disagree with your assertion.

 

[mrjitty]

People are getting very mixed up on all this 2019 'video tape' evidence and it's turned into Chinese whispers

To my knowledge only FAZ has a detailed account of the trial evidence and it's been posted before. Here are my notes.

1. First witness contacted british police about rape video/CB in 2018. In the video he saw 'an older woman in a holiday apartment, speaking english' and the teenager in the farmhouse. This caused PJ to check cold cases and they found the 2005 rape including forensics which were a match for CB
2. The Court held that witness 1 did not see the American woman on video - he saw someone else, but it was so similar to the American rape it could not be made up.
3. Witness 2 (accomplice) did not come forward but was arrested later. Saw the teenager. Also saw a 45-50yr old "italian woman"
4. Court held both witnesses credible, and saw different rapes (3 total).
5. Held none of them was the American woman. Key reason was difference in weight, and american woman did not report swimming googles.
6. 2023. CB indicted for "holiday apartment woman" and "teenager" and HB. Identity of victims unknown.
7. "italian woman" rape was not indicted. Possibly because witness less credible or not enough evidence of rape in testimony. we don't know.
8. PJ already checked their cold cases back in 2018 so presumably did not find "holiday apartment woman" or "teenager".
9. Presumably public appeal did not locate the victims.

Seeing Braunschweig Court held that witness 1 could not have invented the rape he saw because it was so similar to what american woman reported, i assume HCW is now trying to prosecute that 'holiday apartment' rape and the 'teenager' based 100% on that logic.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe police found the HB/MS videos?

Possible, but i think they would have had this evidence post box factory search so it would have been in the 2019 trial.

 

[mrjitty]

I think the German Police and HCW would disagree with your assertion.

There is a risk, prosecuting on this basis, that CB ends up convicted on a rape where the victim didn't actually exist.

For example, if "holiday apartment woman" and American woman are in fact the same person and the witness remembered wrong.

In the American rape case, we had corroborating forensics, and victim testimony, which the witness supports via testimony of a rape he had seen and 'could not have made up'. Here we don't have that.

I get the logic of prosecuting these 2 cases, but I am a bit sketchy on it - I think a lot depends on the exact evidence which we have not heard. At least on the teenager they corroborate each other, but it would be interesting how much damage counsel could do on examination

 

[Okapi]

People are getting very mixed up on all this 2019 'video tape' evidence and it's turned into Chinese whispers

To my knowledge only FAZ has a detailed account of the trial evidence and it's been posted before. Here are my notes.

1. First witness contacted british police about rape video/CB in 2018. In the video he saw 'an older woman in a holiday apartment, speaking english' and the teenager in the farmhouse. This caused PJ to check cold cases and they found the 2005 rape including forensics which were a match for CB
2. The Court held that witness 1 did not see the American woman on video - he saw someone else, but it was so similar to the American rape it could not be made up.
3. Witness 2 (accomplice) did not come forward but was arrested later. Saw the teenager. Also saw a 45-50yr old "italian woman"
4. Court held both witnesses credible, and saw different rapes (3 total).
5. Held none of them was the American woman. Key reason was difference in weight, and american woman did not report swimming googles.
6. 2023. CB indicted for "holiday apartment woman" and "teenager". Identity of victims unknown.
7. "italian woman" rape was not indicted. Possibly because witness less credible or not enough evidence of rape in testimony. we don't know.
8. PJ already checked their cold cases back in 2018 so presumably did not find "holiday apartment woman" or "teenager".
9. Presumably public appeal did not locate the victims.

Seeing Braunschweig Court held that witness 1 could not have invented the rape he saw because it was so similar to what american woman reported, i assume HCW is now trying to prosecute that 'holiday apartment' rape and the 'teenager' based 100% on that logic.

Thanks Mr Jitty.

I have been struggling to reconcile how ‘The Five’ could include three offences of aggravated rape (one being HazelB) yet no information about the alleged victims in the public domain.

So your last paragraph may be the tangible or credible missing link to justify the inclusion of ‘holiday apartment woman’ and ‘the teenager’ by the Prosecution on the charge sheet Beyond the mere allegation by HB and MS.

German prosecutors charge Madeleine McCann suspect with sex offences

 

[Denis R Tandib]

People are getting very mixed up on all this 2019 'video tape' evidence and it's turned into Chinese whispers

To my knowledge only FAZ has a detailed account of the trial evidence and it's been posted before. Here are my notes.

1. First witness contacted british police about rape video/CB in 2018. In the video he saw 'an older woman in a holiday apartment, speaking english' and the teenager in the farmhouse. This caused PJ to check cold cases and they found the 2005 rape including forensics which were a match for CB
2. The Court held that witness 1 did not see the American woman on video - he saw someone else, but it was so similar to the American rape it could not be made up.
3. Witness 2 (accomplice) did not come forward but was arrested later. Saw the teenager. Also saw a 45-50yr old "italian woman"
4. Court held both witnesses credible, and saw different rapes (3 total).
5. Held none of them was the American woman. Key reason was difference in weight, and american woman did not report swimming googles.
6. 2023. CB indicted for "holiday apartment woman" and "teenager". Identity of victims unknown.
7. "italian woman" rape was not indicted. Possibly because witness less credible or not enough evidence of rape in testimony. we don't know.
8. PJ already checked their cold cases back in 2018 so presumably did not find "holiday apartment woman" or "teenager".
9. Presumably public appeal did not locate the victims.

Seeing Braunschweig Court held that witness 1 could not have invented the rape he saw because it was so similar to what american woman reported, i assume HCW is now trying to prosecute that 'holiday apartment' rape and the 'teenager' based 100% on that logic.

Please correct this then if I’m wrong.

HB’s statement of the rapes he had viewed on CB’s camera were similar to DM’s (American woman) description of her attack. Therefore, he was credible in implicating CB as the offender in this crime. The hair found at the scene of this attack, later confirmed by DNA to be CB’s, provided strong evidence that CB was guilty.

HB also saw the video of the older lady 70-80 years old in the holiday apartment and he viewed the younger German woman at the farmhouse.

MS also viewed the younger German woman but not the 70-80 year old. He viewed a video with a 45-50 year old woman asking for help, possibly in Italian.

This means, the charge for the 70-80 year old is based exclusively on HB’s statement of an attack similar to the one DM described.

The charge for the younger German woman is based on corroborating statements from HB and MS. This one is different in MO as it is happened in CB’s own home and he was visible in the footage throughout the attack.

There is no charge for the attack of the Italian woman which was only viewed by MS. Possibly because, on his own, he is an unreliable witness - I’ve seen videos of him and IMO, this is very probable.

If this is all they have for these charges, I don’t think it will be too difficult for FF to get an acquittal.

 

[mrjitty]

Please correct this then if I’m wrong.

HB’s statement of the rapes he had viewed on CB’s camera were similar to DM’s (American woman) description of her attack. Therefore, he was credible in implicating CB as the offender in this crime. The hair found at the scene of this attack, later confirmed by DNA to be CB’s, provided strong evidence that CB was guilty.

HB also saw the video of the older lady 70-80 years old in the holiday apartment and he viewed the younger German woman at the farmhouse.

MS also viewed the younger German woman but not the 70-80 year old. He viewed a video with a 45-50 year old woman asking for help, possibly in Italian.

This means, the charge for the 70-80 year old is based exclusively on HB’s statement of an attack similar to the one DM described.

The charge for the younger German woman is based on corroborating statements from HB and MS. This one is different in MO as it is happened in CB’s own home and he was visible in the footage throughout the attack.

There is no charge for the attack of the Italian woman which was only viewed by MS. Possibly because, on his own, he is an unreliable witness - I’ve seen videos of him and IMO, this is very probable.

If this is all they have for these charges, I don’t think it will be too difficult for FF to get an acquittal.

This is my understanding.

 

[Hygge]

Was the wooden beam where the girl was tied in CBs former house ever tested for dna? Although it may have been cleaned, it looks it has many grooves and slits.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Was the wooden beam where the girl was tied in CBs former house ever tested for dna? Although it may have been cleaned, it looks it has many grooves and slits.

The house has been extensively renovated since 2006 - pretty much rebuilt.

 

[Hygge]

The house has been extensively renovated since 2006 - pretty much rebuilt.

But the beam may still be there? It was allegedly a crime scene. Unluckily we don’t know

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think the German Police and HCW would disagree with your assertion.

They can think what they want. Until they get a conviction for the offences with unidentified victims they are allegations NOT established crimes.

 

[Consider Dudley]

They can think what they want. Until they get a conviction for the offences with unidentified victims they are allegations NOT established crimes.

I don’t know why you feel the need to be so strident about this point, you could make it about every alleged victim in every case awaiting trial. As far as the police are concerned there are five victims, and I don’t know why it should be a problem to anyone to say so.

 

[frank-cole]

I don’t know why you feel the need to be so strident about this point, you could make it about every alleged victim in every case awaiting trial. As far as the police are concerned there are five victims, and I don’t know why it should be a problem to anyone to say so.

I agree, they are all victims & should be treated that way. I think there’s a big difference between legally innocent & factually innocent.
German prosecutors only charge when the chances of a conviction outweigh the chances of acquittal & they only get involved in investigations when there’s evidence of an offence.
IMO they certainly wouldn’t have made these arrests if they didn’t have a strong chance of conviction. That’s why I think many of us may be missing a trick here, especially in regards to the 2 further rape charges. There’s very little open-source information regarding the 2 unidentified victims but that doesn’t mean there isn’t compelling evidence behind the scenes. IMO there must be other evidence because they charged CB. Only time will tell but it’s very hard to make sense of those 2 charges until all of the facts are established. The other 3 cases seem more straightforward. JMO