Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[Consider Dudley]

Circumstantial evidence plus one hair obtained a conviction in the DM case.

How could a convicted paedophile who has admitted to witnesses that he was responsible for crimes against MM explain that he has the only known photograph of MM, the world’s most famous missing person, after 10pm, 3 May, 2007.

IMO, physical evidence changes everything about the case and we know HCW doesn’t have any.

A hair puts CB in the rape victim’s bed, hers and other evidence that it’s him spports a successful conviction. What crime does a photo of Madeleine post disappearance prove, beyond all reasonable doubt? I mean it *might* be enough to convince a judge to convict but probably makes sense to look for more irrefutable evidence, especially if time is on your side.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

A photograph is probably mainly intelligence. If taken while part of a burglary nothing will be learned from the background.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting CB took a photo while burglaries 5A. Several people seem to be suggesting that the lack of progress in the case demonstrates that there aren’t any incriminating photos linking CH to the MK case.

Preferably there would be forensic evidence physically linking the abused with the abuser.

I agree that this would be preferred by a prosecutor wanting to charge CB for an offence against MM but we know that there is no such evidence.

This is my point. There is no physical evidence linking CB to MM, therefore it’s almost certain he will not be charged. Any photo or forensics would make the MM case similar to that of DM and we would have seen a charge - a couple of years saw CB suspected, charged and convicted.

The BKS have been investigating CB for nearly seven years with MM and all we’ve heard from the prosecution is less certainty.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting CB took a photo while burglaries 5A. Several people seem to be suggesting that the lack of progress in the case demonstrates that there aren’t any incriminating photos linking CH to the MK case.


I agree that this would be preferred by a prosecutor wanting to charge CB for an offence against MM but we know that there is no such evidence.

This is my point. There is no physical evidence linking CB to MM, therefore it’s almost certain he will not be charged. Any photo or forensics would make the MM case similar to that of DM and we would have seen a charge - a couple of years saw CB suspected, charged and convicted.

The BKS have been investigating CB for nearly seven years with MM and all we’ve heard from the prosecution is less certainty.

I have not seen any indication from the German investigation that they are less certain CB is involved in Madeleine’s disappearance thsn they were in 2020.

 

[Davieson]

I have not seen any indication from the German investigation that they are less certain CB is involved in Madeleine’s disappearance thsn they were in 2020.

They've stated their belief and are sticking by it.
Even if the case is abandoned or he was charged and found not guilty, they will not admit that they were wrong in their belief.

IMO

 

[RichardKimble]

There is no evidence that Madeleine has been harmed, this is the message still portrayed on the Findmadeleine .com, now from that it's not a stretch to say that the McCanns have not been notified of any death despite the words of HCW, now either he is being entirely insensitive to the McCanns or perpetrating a fraud in saying she is dead what'll be?.

 

[mrjitty]

Circumstantial evidence plus one hair obtained a conviction in the DM case.

How could a convicted paedophile who has admitted to witnesses that he was responsible for crimes against MM explain that he has the only known photograph of MM, the world’s most famous missing person, after 10pm, 3 May, 2007.

IMO, physical evidence changes everything about the case and we know HCW doesn’t have any.

Agreed.

It would be a strong case. Sure the defence could argue he downloaded it from the internet but that is hardly believable IMO

Just noting that the hair is actually circumstantial eveidence as well.

 

[Anxala]

You may be right if HCW really does have a wealth of circumstantial evidence but I thought you didn’t believe that? A photo of Madeleine on CB’s hard drive even taken post disappearance is not sufficient evidence to make a conviction for abduction and/or murder stick even with other circumstantial evidence IMO.

^ What I believe has no bearing on anything. We're discussing what evidence we think HCW has that leads him to the conclusion that CB abducted and murdered MM. HCW clearly has evidence. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the evidence he has is strong enough to charge CB. Three years and counting down the line, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it isn't.

 

[RichardKimble]

Circumstantial evidence plus one hair obtained a conviction in the DM case.

How could a convicted paedophile who has admitted to witnesses that he was responsible for crimes against MM explain that he has the only known photograph of MM, the world’s most famous missing person, after 10pm, 3 May, 2007.

IMO, physical evidence changes everything about the case and we know HCW doesn’t have any.

Agreed.

It would be a strong case. Sure the defence could argue he downloaded it from the internet but that is hardly believable IMO

Just noting that the hair is actually circumstantial eveidence as well.

Given there is no indication of one image why therefore if we're speculating can there not be more than one out there on the dark web and the provenance cannot be proven.In this day of the digital age anything is possible.

 

[Mex]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting CB took a photo while burglaries 5A. Several people seem to be suggesting that the lack of progress in the case demonstrates that there aren’t any incriminating photos linking CH to the MK case.


I agree that this would be preferred by a prosecutor wanting to charge CB for an offence against MM but we know that there is no such evidence.

This is my point. There is no physical evidence linking CB to MM, therefore it’s almost certain he will not be charged. Any photo or forensics would make the MM case similar to that of DM and we would have seen a charge - a couple of years saw CB suspected, charged and convicted.

The BKS have been investigating CB for nearly seven years with MM and all we’ve heard from the prosecution is less certainty.

Actually we know nothing about the evidence available to German investigators because they have not told us what it is. One cannot make blanket assumptions about it.

What we do know is that

• MM's case is still ongoing and is an active one
• which has been subject to unrelated procedural delay the circumstances of which might well set processing it back by anything up to two years and perhaps beyond.
• German law differs greatly from the system in America, Britain and Portugal given that once an indictment has been issued the defence team are entitled to access all the evidence.

CB is going nowhere for the next couple of years as he is still serving the sentence handed down to him for rape.

What is the rush anyway?
Police and prosecutors are still working MM's case. And I do not think they will relish highly sensitive evidence rattling around in the system between now and sometime in the future. Particularly when CB and his team of defenders have other fish to fry in another part of the German legal process.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

They've stated their belief and are sticking by it.
Even if the case is abandoned or he was charged and found not guilty, they will not admit that they were wrong in their belief.

IMO

They are now saying he may not be charged. Previously, they were saying they had evidence to charge him.

 

[Mex]

They've stated their belief and are sticking by it.
Even if the case is abandoned or he was charged and found not guilty, they will not admit that they were wrong in their belief.

IMO

They have investigated the allegations which flagged up CB's name to them in relation to crime against MM.

Their investigation has uncovered supporting evidence against him.

Belief just doesn't come into it. Only a chain of evidence does the trick and that is what investigators are working from to crack this reputably "unsolvable" case.

My opinion

 

[Davieson]

They have investigated the allegations which flagged up CB's name to them in relation to crime against MM.

Their investigation has uncovered supporting evidence against him.

Belief just doesn't come into it. Only a chain of evidence does the trick and that is what investigators are working from to crack this reputably "unsolvable" case.

My opinion

Of course belief comes into it.
Wolters et al believe their interpretation of the evidence they have even though it has not been proved to be so.

 

[Mex]

^ What I believe has no bearing on anything. We're discussing what evidence we think HCW has that leads him to the conclusion that CB abducted and murdered MM. HCW clearly has evidence. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the evidence he has is strong enough to charge CB. Three years and counting down the line, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it isn't.

It will be good to see what the evidence is when the system allows.

Till then it has to be accepted that the CB defence teams' delaying strategy has worked to a degree. Which has allowed prosecutors and BKA time to strengthen their case. And why wouldn't they do just that if given the time?

 

[Mex]

Of course belief comes into it.
Wolters et al believe their interpretation of the evidence they have even though it has not been proved to be so.

I agree to an extent.

CB was initially introduced to the public domain as a "scapegoat". A description given to him prior to any investigation checking evidence against him in MM's case but after his conviction for the DM rape which he carried out during his residency in Luz. In a villa in close proximity to apartment5.

There is a belief system in operation which doesn't rely on evidence to support it. Whereas the German investigation has followed the chain of evidence against CB.

My opinion

 

[Davieson]

I agree to an extent.

CB was initially introduced to the public domain as a "scapegoat". A description given to him prior to any investigation checking evidence against him in MM's case but after his conviction for the DM rape which he carried out during his residency in Luz. In a villa in close proximity to apartment5.

There is a belief system in operation which doesn't rely on evidence to support it. Whereas the German investigation has followed the chain of evidence against CB.

My opinion

It only remains to be seen if there is a continuous unbroken chain or a series of discontented links.
For example, is there a provable physical link between MM and CB ?

 

[RichardKimble]

It only remains to be seen if there is a continuous unbroken chain or a series of discontented links.
For example, is there a provable physical link between MM and CB ?

IMO, without remains there is not a realistic chance of an indictment.

 

[Mex]

There is no evidence that Madeleine has been harmed, this is the message still portrayed on the Findmadeleine .com, now from that it's not a stretch to say that the McCanns have not been notified of any death despite the words of HCW, now either he is being entirely insensitive to the McCanns or perpetrating a fraud in saying she is dead what'll be?.

If

It only remains to be seen if there is a continuous unbroken chain or a series of discontented links.
For example, is there a provable physical link between MM and CB ?

There may very well be. No-one knows what the evidence is but the investigators and that is as it should be.

<modsnip>

 

[Mex]

IMO, without remains there is not a realistic chance of an indictment.

I disagree with that assessment based on the fact that not only are indictments made but successful prosecutions occur in cases where there are no physical remains.

Makes a case more difficult - but it does happen.

There are also cases where remains do not help the investigation because the only evidential value they have is proof of death.

Which is why the German investigation has some firm indication that MM is dead and CB killed her. Or they would not have named him as suspect in her murder.

My opinion

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I disagree with that assessment based on the fact that not only are indictments made but successful prosecutions occur in cases where there are no physical remains.

Makes a case more difficult - but it does happen.

There are also cases where remains do not help the investigation because the only evidential value they have is proof of death.

Which is why the German investigation has some firm indication that MM is dead and CB killed her. Or they would not have named him as suspect in her murder.

My opinion

Can you mention any murder case in the last 25 years where a conviction has been obtained without any forensics, physical evidence or the body?

 

[sandy_80]

Can you mention any murder case in the last 25 years where a conviction has been obtained without any forensics, physical evidence or the body?

what about the robert durst case ?