Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #38

[Denis R Tandib]

Then any defence that puts forward the idea that JT said it was RM she saw carrying away a child from the apartment is doomed to failure as it isn't backed up by anything resembling a verifiable fact.

This depends on whether other people will take the stand and say that she did identify Smithman as RM. one thing is certain, she wasn’t in that disguised refrigerated van on her own.

This is part of the issue of not having physical/DNA evidence in this case - all the rumours of investigations past are brought back into play and it’s a long dark journey without an end.

 

[RichardKimble]

IMO it doesn't matter to the defence what PJ can and can't justify.

They can point to a publication where the lead detective claims a positive ID. Presumably they can call that witness. Of course JT may now claim she made a mistake under pressure, or never gave the positive ID.

But if your point is to muddy the waters, such confusion is perfect. It is surely hard for the court to discount a possibility that JT saw the abductor.

Personally I don't think she did see the abductor, but I don't feel I can rule it out based on what I know.

Then the issue is the guy JT saw bears no resemblance to CB,imo who ever JT saw it was not CB.Confusion is good and no doubt the defence is on it.

 

[Consider Dudley]

This depends on whether other people will take the stand and say that she did identify Smithman as RM. one thing is certain, she wasn’t in that disguised refrigerated van on her own.

This is part of the issue of not having physical/DNA evidence in this case - all the rumours of investigations past are brought back into play and it’s a long dark journey without an end.

Firstly, JT did not have anything to do with id’ing Smithman and secondly one would hope that the case against CB would be a whole lot stronger if in the end it all boiled down to what JT says she did or didn’t see that night. I think the idea that her testimony or those of others in the disguised van that night would have any bearing on the case against CB is frankly laughable but I accept that opinions vary and as I said before as we are all simply speculating it seems pointless to continue arguing about it.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Firstly, JT did not have anything to do with id’ing Smithman and secondly one would hope that the case against CB would be a whole lot stronger if in the end it all boiled down to what JT says she did or didn’t see that night. I think the idea that her testimony or those of others in the disguised van that night would have any bearing on the case against CB is frankly laughable but I accept that opinions vary and as I said before as we are all simply speculating it seems pointless to continue arguing about it.

Obviously the Smithman point was a mistake but thanks for pointing it out.

I think you are making an embellishment of my point. If CB’s defence need to introduce another suspect, then RM has previously been a suspect and it can likely be proven at trial that a key witness identified him carrying a child away from 5A wearing pink pyjamas on at 9:15 p.m., 3 May 2007.

While it’s laughable to think that an esteemed criminal defence lawyer like FF would use this theory as his sole defence strategy, it is an example of one which could create doubt if HCW doesn’t have physical evidence - which he doesn’t.

IMO, CB will not face trial for MM without DNA evidence or the body so for me, it will fall into another possible but unlikely answer to the mystery.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Obviously the Smithman point was a mistake but thanks for pointing it out.

I think you are making an embellishment of my point. If CB’s defence need to introduce another suspect, then RM has previously been a suspect and it can likely be proven at trial that a key witness identified him carrying a child away from 5A wearing pink pyjamas on at 9:15 p.m., 3 May 2007.

While it’s laughable to think that an esteemed criminal defence lawyer like FF would use this theory as his sole defence strategy, it is an example of one which could create doubt if HCW doesn’t have physical evidence - which he doesn’t.

IMO, CB will not face trial for MM without DNA evidence or the body so for me, it will fall into another possible but unlikely answer to the mystery.

What I think is unlikely is that the German investigation has divulged to the public all the evidence it has gathered on CB and therefore I think anyone making a judgement on his likely involvement or not is doing so from a position of incomplete knowledge.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

What I think is unlikely is that the German investigation has divulged to the public all the evidence it has gathered on CB and therefore I think anyone making a judgement on his likely involvement or not is doing so from a position of incomplete knowledge.

I didn’t make any judgement on CB’s involvement; I explained why I didn’t think he would go to trial.

Whatever evidence the German’s have in relation to MM, we know it’s not as strong as the evidence in the DM case or the other five charges that were thrown out because he hasn’t been charged.

Like @Anxala, I would really welcome the Germans charging CB with out physical evidence and can see no reason anyone genuinely interest in a resolution to the case would object.

Unfortunately, IMO, it will never happen.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I didn’t make any judgement on CB’s involvement; I explained why I didn’t think he would go to trial.

Whatever evidence the German’s have in relation to MM, we know it’s not as strong as the evidence in the DM case or the other five charges that were thrown out because he hasn’t been charged.

Like @Anxala, I would really welcome the Germans charging CB with out physical evidence and can see no reason anyone genuinely interest in a resolution to the case would object.

Unfortunately, IMO, it will never happen.

I must have misunderstood you when you wrote "IMO, CB will not face trial for MM without DNA evidence or the body so for me, it will fall into another possible but unlikely answer to the mystery."
What will be a possible but unlikely answer to the mystery?
Further I am perplexed by the suggestion that anyone anywhere would object to the Germans charging CB, apart from his own friends, family and supporters.

 

[Lyall0814]

I must have misunderstood you when you wrote "IMO, CB will not face trial for MM without DNA evidence or the body so for me, it will fall into another possible but unlikely answer to the mystery."
What will be a possible but unlikely answer to the mystery?
Further I am perplexed by the suggestion that anyone anywhere would object to the Germans charging CB, apart from his own friends, family and supporters.

Don't be perplexed. Critics of justice systems exist everywhere. Very many of them post here at WS.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I must have misunderstood you when you wrote "IMO, CB will not face trial for MM without DNA evidence or the body so for me, it will fall into another possible but unlikely answer to the mystery."
What will be a possible but unlikely answer to the mystery?
Further I am perplexed by the suggestion that anyone anywhere would object to the Germans charging CB, apart from his own friends, family and supporters.

Have you misunderstood me again?

I don’t object to him being charged, I only object to him being convicted in the media by prosecutors that are unable to back up their claims with a charge.

ETA and BIB, the whole public accusation of CB which will forever be unresolved due to the lack of a charge.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Then the issue is the guy JT saw bears no resemblance to CB,imo who ever JT saw it was not CB.Confusion is good and no doubt the defence is on it.

Egg face doesn’t look like RM neither. The best option for HCW would be to follow the PJ and OG and to try and discredit anything she has said.

 

[Davieson]

Egg face doesn’t look like RM neither. The best option for HCW would be to follow the PJ and OG and to try and discredit anything she has said.

I think that was exactly the intent of OG and it possibly worked in that she never said another word on the matter in public.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Don't be perplexed. Critics of justice systems exist everywhere. Very many of them post here at WS.

I've seen no evidence on this thread since I started posting that anyone doesn't want the case solved and the perpetrator(s) brought to justice which is why I find the suggestion somewhat perplexing. Is this a commonly held view then?

Have you misunderstood me again?

I don’t object to him being charged, I only object to him being convicted in the media by prosecutors that are unable to back up their claims with a charge.

ETA and BIB, the whole public accusation of CB which will forever be unresolved due to the lack of a charge.

No I have not misunderstood you, because I did not say at any point that you objected to him being charged. Where I may have misunderstood you is where you wrote it was unlikely that the theory that CB was the perpetrator was the solution to the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.

 

[mrjitty]

personally i think CB ought to be charged in the interests of justice.

The prosecutor has made big claims. These should be tested in court.

it's been 3 years now.

 

[mrjitty]

Obviously the Smithman point was a mistake but thanks for pointing it out.

I think you are making an embellishment of my point. If CB’s defence need to introduce another suspect, then RM has previously been a suspect and it can likely be proven at trial that a key witness identified him carrying a child away from 5A wearing pink pyjamas on at 9:15 p.m., 3 May 2007.

While it’s laughable to think that an esteemed criminal defence lawyer like FF would use this theory as his sole defence strategy, it is an example of one which could create doubt if HCW doesn’t have physical evidence - which he doesn’t.

IMO, CB will not face trial for MM without DNA evidence or the body so for me, it will fall into another possible but unlikely answer to the mystery.

In the various US trials I have followed the defence has actively advanced SODDI evidence.

Unlike in those cases, personally i don't believe in the MM case, the alternate theories can be directly discounted by calling witnesses. Explaining is losing

HCW needs something clear that proves only CB can be the killer.

The confession/admission evidence won't be enough, IMO

This is why they were digging up the reservoir - to find that physical piece of evidence. My opinion is they don't have any physical evidence. What they may have is a lot more phone evidence than we know of.

 

[Lyall0814]

I've seen no evidence on this thread since I started posting that anyone doesn't want the case solved and the perpetrator(s) brought to justice which is why I find the suggestion somewhat perplexing. Is this a commonly held view then? You would

No I have not misunderstood you, because I did not say at any point that you objected to him being charged. Where I may have misunderstood you is where you wrote it was unlikely that the theory that CB was the perpetrator was the solution to the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.

I mean critics of justice systems in other cases post at WS, I didn't mean they all post about MM. Of course not. I think it's fair comment for someone to say they have little or no faith in the German investigation, based on what we've seen since 2020, and it's fair for those people to hope there will be no trial. No MM-related trial that is. The other charges are separate and not involved in the thoughts about how the the MM investigation has proceeded.

 

[Consider Dudley]

personally i think CB ought to be charged in the interests of justice.

The prosecutor has made big claims. These should be tested in court.

it's been 3 years now.

As do I but only if and when the evidence is sufficient that a conviction is highly likely.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

As do I but only if and when the evidence is sufficient that a conviction is highly likely.

A trial would be useful in finally resolving the case whether CB is likely to be convicted or not.

 

[Davieson]

A trial would be useful in finally resolving the case whether CB is likely to be convicted or not.

If CB was found not guilty, would the case be resolved ? I think not as uncertainty as to the real culprit (s) would remain

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If CB was found not guilty, would the case be resolved ? I think not as uncertainty as to the real culprit (s) would remain

If CB is tried with only circumstantial prosecution case, it could lead to many people being questioned under oath. Therefore, even if CB were found not guilty, the trial process could help find the real perpetrator.

 

[RichardKimble]

If CB is tried with only circumstantial prosecution case, it could lead to many people being questioned under oath. Therefore, even if CB were found not guilty, the trial process could help find the real perpetrator.

Lets call some one witness A, they are british, similarly Witness B is Portuguese, can a subpoena be issued against them?