Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #40

[Denis R Tandib]

I really don't think HeB is pivotal to the MM case.
He has given pointers and the police have followed them through to evidence and in DM's case proof of CB's sexually motivated violence.

HeB gave only descriptions of rapes and torture - nothing else. He had no idea of DM's identity or that of other victims, the police had to verify everything for themselves by finding the evidence supporting the description of the assaults.

Snip
HeB told Bild that he had lost the videos from CB's apartment but has provided testimony to Scotland Yard, headquarters of the Metropolitan Police in London, detailing what is depicted in them

Madeleine McCann witness claims suspect in her kidnapping drunkenly confessed to crime

A German man with apparent information about Madeleine McCann's disappearance told a newspaper this week that suspect Christian Brueckner had confessed to kidnapping her.

www.foxnews.com

He’s the only reason they have a case.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

If it’s possible for a jigsaw or crossword puzzle to be 90% solved or completed, then why not a criminal investigation?

In a puzzle you know in advance the quantity of pieces.
IMO a criminal case is 100% solved, or not.

 

[mrjitty]

In a puzzle you know in advance the quantity of pieces.
IMO a criminal case is 100% solved, or not.

To be fair there are cases where LE knows what happened but can’t prove it. Often because the body remains hidden.

 

[Consider Dudley]

If you think it’s rational to form a conclusion based on unknown evidence, that’s up to you. I don’t think it is and will remain sceptical until I see or hear something that changes my mind.

So far, it can all be explained away as coincidences and empty words.

I’m not forming a conclusion based on unknown evidence though am I? CB isn’t some random that we know nothing about, nor have the police remained completely tight lipped about what their position is wrt to CB. Do you think their conclusions are irrational too? I think it’s entirely irrational to conclude after three years of being investigated that CB is innocent of this crime simply because no charge has yet been brought..

 

[Consider Dudley]

In a puzzle you know in advance the quantity of pieces.
IMO a criminal case is 100% solved, or not.

IMO you are wrong. For example they could know that person X came into contact with Child A post disappearance and that they were abused but not know how person X managed to abduct Child A or if anyone else was involved or where their body is or even if they are dead. The mystery is part solved because police know child A fell into the hands of an abuser whose id they know, that is a large part of the puzzle solved. A criminal case has a finite number of piece like a jigsaw - the pieces are who, how, when, where, why, each requiring evidence or better still proof.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I’m not forming a conclusion based on unknown evidence though am I? CB isn’t some random that we know nothing about, nor have the police remained completely tight lipped about what their position is wrt to CB. Do you think their conclusions are irrational too? I think it’s entirely irrational to conclude after three years of being investigated that CB is innocent of this crime simply because no charge has yet been brought..

Do you think CB is responsible?

It’s difficult to say if the police are irrational because I don’t know what information they have.

It’s more a case of do I trust what they say. Based on the public information - no I don’t. I don’t understand the media campaign nor the timeframe.

It’s a high-profile case and I am open to mistakes having been made.

I don’t understand your final point. I said I thought the following point from @RichardKimble was the only rational way to think at the moment. That any conclusion that CB is guilty based on public information is conjecture. I stand by these points.

“I want justice for MM, remember her, I just don't think the answer is in a German jail, happy to be proved wrong.”

 

[Denis R Tandib]

IMO you are wrong. For example they could know that person X came into contact with Child A post disappearance and that they were abused but not know how person X managed to abduct Child A or if anyone else was involved or where their body is or even if they are dead. The mystery is part solved because police know child A fell into the hands of an abuser whose id they know, that is a large part of the puzzle solved. A criminal case has a finite number of piece like a jigsaw - the pieces are who, how, when, where, why, each requiring evidence or better still proof.

Child abuse crime solved if they have evidence.

Abduction unsolved.

I cannot understand if there is another crime but based on your example, I don’t think there is one.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Do you think CB is responsible?

It’s difficult to say if the police are irrational because I don’t know what information they have.

It’s more a case of do I trust what they say. Based on the public information - no I don’t. I don’t understand the media campaign nor the timeframe.

It’s a high-profile case and I am open to mistakes having been made.

I don’t understand your final point. I said I thought the following point from @RichardKimble was the only rational way to think at the moment. That any conclusion that CB is guilty based on public information is conjecture. I stand by these points.

“I want justice for MM, remember her, I just don't think the answer is in a German jail, happy to be proved wrong.”

As I understand it you think it’s irrational to believe that justice for MM can be found in a German jail, so my final point addresses that point. Perhaps that’s not what you meant though?

 

[Consider Dudley]

Child abuse crime solved if they have evidence.

Abduction unsolved.

I cannot understand if there is another crime but based on your example, I don’t think there is one.

Based on my example there is an abuser but likely bigger crimes such as abduction and murder remain unsolved. You could prosecute the abuser for having child abuse images or even for commiting abuse on a child but you might want to hold fire until you have cast iron evidence of abduction and murder to ensure the victim receives proper justice and their family have all the answers and the perpetrator is incarcerated for the maximum length of time.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

As I understand it you think it’s irrational to believe that justice for MM can be found in a German jail, so my final point addresses that point. Perhaps that’s not what you meant though?

Please read my post again. It’s not hard to understand - thanks.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Based on my example there is an abuser but likely bigger crimes such as abduction and murder remain unsolved. You could prosecute the abuser for having child abuse images or even for commiting abuse on a child but you might want to hold fire until you have cast iron evidence of abduction and murder to ensure the victim receives proper justice and their family have all the answers and the perpetrator is incarcerated for the maximum length of time.

But individual crimes are either solved or not. They aren’t part solved; they are unsolved. They are solved when successfully prosecuted.

There has always been clues in the MM case but it remains unsolved.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Please read my post again. It’s not hard to understand - thanks.

I’ve read it several times and you are saying that the only rational position is agreeing with Richard Kimble who wants justice for Madeleine but doesn’t think justice can be found in a German prison. What other interpretation can I infer from this?

 

[mrjitty]

IMO you are wrong. For example they could know that person X came into contact with Child A post disappearance and that they were abused but not know how person X managed to abduct Child A or if anyone else was involved or where their body is or even if they are dead. The mystery is part solved because police know child A fell into the hands of an abuser whose id they know, that is a large part of the puzzle solved. A criminal case has a finite number of piece like a jigsaw - the pieces are who, how, when, where, why, each requiring evidence or better still proof.

I've often wondered if that have a witness who claims to have seen physical evidence, but they have not recovered said evidence.

In the rape case, the witness claimed to have seen a video of an offence so similar to the one alleged, that the court found he could not have made up the testimony and the offence against a different victim must have occurred. So in that case the identity of the victim in the video was not critical.

That might be a problem in MM case.

 

[Consider Dudley]

But individual crimes are either solved or not. They aren’t part solved; they are unsolved. They are solved when successfully prosecuted.

There has always been clues in the MM case but it remains unsolved.

Well unsurprisingly I disagree. Some crimes have a number of complex components and can be partly solved while certain aspects remain unsolved, they don’t always even need to go to court to be solved (see historical crimes where the perpetrator has died for example). At the moment I would agree that as far as the public is concerned the MM case is unsolved because we aren’t privy to all the evidence the police have nor any of the details of exactly what happened to her, but some of us are prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt when they say they are certain CB was involved and that they have solved part of the mystery. Like Richard Kimble I am happy to be proved wrong, but in the meantime I don’t think there’s anything irrational about such a stance.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I've often wondered if that have a witness who claims to have seen physical evidence, but they have not recovered said evidence.

In the rape case, the witness claimed to have seen a video of an offence so similar to the one alleged, that the court found he could not have made up the testimony and the offence against a different victim must have occurred. So in that case the identity of the victim in the video was not critical.

That might be a problem in MM case.

With no physical or forensic evidence to support the statement, it’s a big problem.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Well unsurprisingly I disagree. Some crimes have a number of complex components and can be partly solved while certain aspects remain unsolved, they don’t always even need to go to court to be solved (see historical crimes where the perpetrator has died for example). At the moment I would agree that as far as the public is concerned the MM case is unsolved because we aren’t privy to all the evidence the police have nor any of the details of exactly what happened to her, but some of us are prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt when they say they are certain CB was involved and that they have solved part of the mystery. Like Richard Kimble I am happy to be proved wrong, but in the meantime I don’t think there’s anything irrational about such a stance.

What you called partly solved, I call clues. Solved means the problem (crime) is dealt with or finalised. Until that point, it’s unsolved, which was @Janosch original point.

 

[mrjitty]

With no physical or forensic evidence to support the statement, it’s a big problem.

Agreed. But it's a common problem in cases based on informants.

If you don't have a wire, and can't find supporting physical evidence you don't have much.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Agreed. But it's a common problem in cases based on informants.

If you don't have a wire, and can't find supporting physical evidence you don't have much.

Which is why it will be so interesting to see if progresses to a trial. I don’t have much hope.

 

[Consider Dudley]

What you called partly solved, I call clues. Solved means the problem (crime) is dealt with or finalised. Until that point, it’s unsolved, which was @Janosch original point.

it’s a semantic argument which are usually the most tedious. Let’s call it quits

 

[Denis R Tandib]

it’s a semantic argument which are usually the most tedious. Let’s call it quits

Okay .