Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #40

[Denis R Tandib]

And even then those are often disbelieved, that the officials are lying to us, or just idiots who don’t know what they are talking about.

I’m certainly not of that opinion.

My position is that there has been media interfering, misreporting and intentional misdirection from the beginning of this case and it continues to this day.

 

[Consider Dudley]

AB has mentioned that it wasn’t the 4 May.

I was unaware of that and would be interested in reading the article in which this is discussed.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I’m certainly not of that opinion.

My position is that there has been media interfering, misreporting and intentional misdirection from the beginning of this case and it continues to this day.

So you accept as truth everything told to you by the officials as long as you can see their lips moving? Hmm… if you say so!

 

[Davieson]

So you accept as truth everything told to you by the officials as long as you can see their lips moving? Hmm… if you say so!

Everyone seems to have their own truth theses days.
I would prefer to say I would accept it as an official fact rather than necessarily the truth.
For example, I've no doubt that Wolters believes what he says to be true, even if it later proves not to be

 

[onemoremiletogo]

I was unaware of that and would be interested in reading the article in which this is discussed.

If this is true, anyway, something related with re-registration of Jaguar should have happened on 4th May. I don't see how BKA was "fabricating" that. And again, IMO not another "coincidence".

 

[Consider Dudley]

Everyone seems to have their own truth theses days.
I would prefer to say I would accept it as an official fact rather than necessarily the truth.
For example, I've no doubt that Wolters believes what he says to be true, even if it later proves not to be

In which case it is an “official fact” that CB re-registered the Jaguar on 4th May 2007. The Met said so.

 

[Davieson]

In which case it is an “official fact” that CB re-registered the Jaguar on 4th May 2007. The Met said so.

Certainly - until shown otherwise. Pretty much the same with anything really.
I'm not clear what significance this document change or the car itself has to the case, but it may become clear eventually

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Everyone seems to have their own truth theses days.
I would prefer to say I would accept it as an official fact rather than necessarily the truth.
For example, I've no doubt that Wolters believes what he says to be true, even if it later proves not to be

For example, the apology to the McCanns from the PJ. Do I believe the PJ met with GM? Yes. Do I believe there was a formal apology? No.

This is because there is no source from the PJ on record stating it. There are also reports denying the apology.

So someone is clearly misreporting, either accidentally or intentionally. Given the history, I prefer to believe there was no apology - if there was, where is the PJ press release or formal commentary.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

In which case it is an “official fact” that CB re-registered the Jaguar on 4th May 2007. The Met said so.

That’s not true. CB didn’t re-register the Jag at all. He would have needed to supply the paperwork well in advance of the registration date and who knows what his direction to AB was.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If this is true, anyway, something related with re-registration of Jaguar should have happened on 4th May. I don't see how BKA was "fabricating" that. And again, IMO not another "coincidence".

I am sure CB wanted to transfer ownership of the Jag at some point around Apr or May 2007.

I’m just not sure he could have specifically organised to do so on the 4 May, due to the bureaucracy involved.

So, it’s seems likely to me that 4 was announced to reinforce the suspicions against CB. Not so much fabricating, rather, bending.

 

[RichardKimble]

I am sure CB wanted to transfer ownership of the Jag at some point around Apr or May 2007.

I’m just not sure he could have specifically organised to do so on the 4 May, due to the bureaucracy involved.

So, it’s seems likely to me that 4 was announced to reinforce the suspicions against CB. Not so much fabricating, rather, bending.

Why some see it as suspicious is strange , there's a paper trail , now if the car had been found burnt out that would be a different matter.Still here we are some 3 and a half years later still no charges ,if any in sight, HCW in the recent docu never talked of charges only the investigation maybe ending next year, or maybe not.
.

 

[Consider Dudley]

For example, the apology to the McCanns from the PJ. Do I believe the PJ met with GM? Yes. Do I believe there was a formal apology? No.

This is because there is no source from the PJ on record stating it. There are also reports denying the apology.

So someone is clearly misreporting, either accidentally or intentionally. Given the history, I prefer to believe there was no apology - if there was, where is the PJ press release or formal commentary.

You can’t count reports denying the apology because they don’t come from an official source.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

You can’t count reports denying the apology because they don’t come from an official source.

The official report from the PJ that @RichardKimble posted up thread stated the extent of the operation - there was no mention of an apology.

IMO, there is enough doubt surrounding the apology for me to believe it didn’t happen.

But, if you ask Clarence Mitchell, I’m sure he’ll give you a different answer.

 

[Consider Dudley]

The official report from the PJ that @RichardKimble posted up thread stated the extent of the operation - there was no mention of an apology.

IMO, there is enough doubt surrounding the apology for me to believe it didn’t happen.

But, if you ask Clarence Mitchell, I’m sure he’ll give you a different answer.

So you believe Pj official announcements about the visit to the McCanns but not Met official announcements about the Jag re-registration. That’s fine, your prerogative. We all pick and choose what and who we believe and don’t believe, it’s pointless pretending otherwise.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

So you believe Pj official announcements about the visit to the McCanns but not Met official announcements about the Jag re-registration. That’s fine, your prerogative. We all pick and choose what and who we believe and don’t believe, it’s pointless pretending otherwise.

I have given you reasonable explanations why I don’t believe the apology and the date of the Jag registration.

More broadly, my position is clear: I am sceptical CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance. Until evidence proving he was is released, I will continue to doubt sloppy unattributed media reporting some of which I think is paid PR. Until then, I will continue to suspect the involvement of other people in the case who acted suspiciously around the time of the disappearance. The only sensible way to think IMO.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I have given you reasonable explanations why I don’t believe the apology and the date of the Jag registration.

More broadly, my position is clear: I am sceptical CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance. Until evidence proving he was is released, I will continue to doubt sloppy unattributed media reporting some of which I think is paid PR. Until then, I will continue to suspect the involvement of other people in the case who acted suspiciously around the time of the disappearance. The only sensible way to think IMO.

There is no evidence that Clarence Mitchell is still in the employ of the McCanns (which it doesn’t take a mind reader to work out is your inference from your recent posts). I find it incredible that you would prefer to suspect those who have already been exhasutively investigated by LE and cleared from all suspicion, but each to their own I guess. It’s quite clear to me that all agencies currently investigating Madeleine’s disappearance are very much on the right track, and I sincerely hope they are able to bring the perpetrator(s) to justice at some point in the future.

 

[Davieson]

There is no evidence that Clarence Mitchell is still in the employ of the McCanns (which it doesn’t take a mind reader to work out is your inference from your recent posts). I find it incredible that you would prefer to suspect those who have already been exhasutively investigated by LE and cleared from all suspicion, but each to their own I guess. It’s quite clear to me that all agencies currently investigating Madeleine’s disappearance are very much on the right track, and I sincerely hope they are able to bring the perpetrator(s) to justice at some point in the future.

I don't share your certainty, but maybe we'll see in the fullness of time.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I don't share your certainty, but maybe we'll see in the fullness of time.

I do hope so. I also hope that should the BKA succeed in bringing a successful conviction against their only suspect in this case that that will be the end of the matter, however I am also pretty certain that it wouldn’t and that a small section of online commentators will continue to be convinced that there’s been a stitch up and a cover up perpetrated by the High Ups.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Sceptical CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance...

I have given you reasonable explanations why I don’t believe the apology and the date of the Jag registration.

More broadly, my position is clear: I am sceptical CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance. Until evidence proving he was is released, I will continue to doubt sloppy unattributed media reporting some of which I think is paid PR. Until then, I will continue to suspect the involvement of other people in the case who acted suspiciously around the time of the disappearance. The only sensible way to think IMO.

This is beyond the fact of BKA will be able or not to bring charges to the unique current suspect. IMO you are really counting they will not be able to prove to keep repeating you do not believe he did it. There are only simple coincidences on CB, any eventual suspicion is media circus.
But then you also say other/others acted suspiciously and may have done it - you are really writing this! But maybe with less "coincidences"...Maybe there was a time when you thought it was CB but now it's not. Counter-ways...and not sure if you are (just) spicing up the discussion to just keep it alive. IMO, reality check (even if puzzle not 100% solved and proven). It's "all" so obvious. I believe he did it!

 

[RichardKimble]

None of us know whether CB is responsible for MM's disappearance. We may never know for sure.
I trust that what people will do is accept the outcome of the judicial process, whether or not it actually goes to trial.

The thing which is a bit perplexing to me at least is prior to 2007 CB seems to have been a prolific sex offender, only one of the charges he's facing is since then, (2017) he's done time in Germany it seems in 2016 /2017 for sex related crimes, so did the alleged murder temper his desire ? What was he doing between 2007 and 2016?