Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #40

[mrjitty]

It would be somewhat ironic after reckoning GA supplied SF with dodgy info that JC himself would be the recipient of the same.

It just shows the risks of trusting too heavily the claims of prosecutors who haven't filed the said evidence in Court yet. We've just seen this issue blow up in the Morphew case where the prosecutor was making all kinds of statements off the record to 'journalists' off the record.

I am not so naive to realise that this doesn't go on a lot, and it is not necessarily a bad thing as then journalists know what angles to work, but it is strange, if then you go and assert those things as true on the record.

For instance in Delhi, it seems a lot of media knew about a critical piece of evidence in the case, but this was never put in the media, until the arrest dropped and the prosecutor stated its existence.

 

[Anxala]

RSBM - This is why I am highly sceptical of JC.

Should the Courts put CB away for a long time or even indefinitely (i am not sure how likely that is but let's assume he can get indefinite detention) what advantage would a confession bring? I find it highly unlikely a prisoner would be rewarded for confessing to child murder? That is a far more serious crime that what he has been charged with so far. I have never heard of such a negotiation!

It's ludicrous. As is anyone who takes anything JC says seriously and/or as representative of informed fact.

 

[Anxala]

IMO BKA don't need a confession as they already have enough evidence to convict CB of Madeleine's murder. Details they do need, which I think only CB can supply, via negotiation, are
a)location of the body &
b) name(s) of person/people who paid CB to abduct & kill Madeleine.

Re (b), where has this come from? That CB was carrying out someone else's order? Where have you gotten this from? What's the source? Genuine ask. ?

As for this:

BKA don't need a confession as they already have enough evidence to convict CB of Madeleine's murder

The BKA clearly does not have enough evidence to charge CB since if they did, they would have charged him long ago and we would not still be having this discussion.

 

[misty48]

Re (b), where has this come from? That CB was carrying out someone else's order? Where have you gotten this from? What's the source? Genuine ask. ?

As for this:


The BKA clearly does not have enough evidence to charge CB since if they did, they would have charged him long ago and we would not still be having this discussion.

Your first point - he reportedly told his ex-girlfriend Maria at dinner on May 2nd that he has "a horrible job to do tomorrow in Luz". Job implies employment and CB was motivated by money (he wanted to make a million). In addition to that, reports that witness protection of some degree is required for at least a few of those who are testifying in the one-perp one-victim cases indicates that there is reason to believe there is more than meets the eye to the MM case. IMO.
Your second point - without a body and people knowing the motive for murder, a cloud of suspicion would remain over both the McCanns and the motives of BKA investigating CB. IMO.

 

[Davieson]

Your first point - he reportedly told his ex-girlfriend Maria at dinner on May 2nd that he has "a horrible job to do tomorrow in Luz". Job implies employment and CB was motivated by money (he wanted to make a million). In addition to that, reports that witness protection of some degree is required for at least a few of those who are testifying in the one-perp one-victim cases indicates that there is reason to believe there is more than meets the eye to the MM case. IMO.
Your second point - without a body and people knowing the motive for murder, a cloud of suspicion would remain over both the McCanns and the motives of BKA investigating CB. IMO.

I can't see the motive for someone to order abduction followed by murder of MM.
I can see CB being 'employed' to remove a dead body - the dirty job, and I can see him carrying out an abduction for money, but if he then killed her, then he wouldn't get paid.
It doesn't make sense to me, but then none of it does.
There is much still hidden. IMO
Maybe a trial will reveal what really happened.

 

[RichardKimble]

Your first point - he reportedly told his ex-girlfriend Maria at dinner on May 2nd that he has "a horrible job to do tomorrow in Luz". Job implies employment and CB was motivated by money (he wanted to make a million). In addition to that, reports that witness protection of some degree is required for at least a few of those who are testifying in the one-perp one-victim cases indicates that there is reason to believe there is more than meets the eye to the MM case. IMO.
Your second point - without a body and people knowing the motive for murder, a cloud of suspicion would remain over both the McCanns and the motives of BKA investigating CB. IMO.

Wasn't it alleged he was a pool cleaner, maybe he had a particular dirty pool to clean.

ETA can't find the pool bit, but he supposedly worked as a handyman.Which doesn't tie in with the express piece

Access Restricted

I

Police set to interview former handy men who worked at Madeleine holid

POLICE probing Madeleine McCann’s disappearance want to interview two odd-job men who worked at the Algarve holiday club where she vanished.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Megnut]

For those who believe CB is responsible for MN's disappearance, do you believe he stalked and targeted her specifically?

Was he tipped in, by an insider giving him intell? Which units, which spoils...

Was it an intended burglary, turned abduction crime of opportunity?

Where did he take her? Initially.

As much as I hate the thought, I think he casually walked away from the resort, kept her hidden in his camper, carried on as if she wasn't, until he could be alone with her probability at the campsite.... for days.

The other crimes he's accused of reveal a sour, sadistic streak.

IMO this fits that MO.

JMO

 

[Hygge]

MT also tells us that CB spoke about selling children to Morocco so it’s not so unlikely. He could have changed his mind not to give her to other child traffickers and kept her for his own. Wouldn’t be unusual if you have a pervert mind like him.

 

[mrjitty]

Is there any evidence that selling kids to Morocco is a real thing ever?

 

[Officer Dibble]

Your first point - he reportedly told his ex-girlfriend Maria at dinner on May 2nd that he has "a horrible job to do tomorrow in Luz". Job implies employment and CB was motivated by money (he wanted to make a million). In addition to that, reports that witness protection of some degree is required for at least a few of those who are testifying in the one-perp one-victim cases indicates that there is reason to believe there is more than meets the eye to the MM case. IMO.
Your second point - without a body and people knowing the motive for murder, a cloud of suspicion would remain over both the McCanns and the motives of BKA investigating CB. IMO.

It's been so long now I can't remember - did CB seem flush with money after his horrible job in Luz?

 

[Hygge]

Is there any evidence that selling kids to Morocco is a real thing ever?

Unluckily there is child trafficking all over the world. Collin Sutton believed this theory

 

[Anxala]

Your first point - he reportedly told his ex-girlfriend Maria at dinner on May 2nd that he has "a horrible job to do tomorrow in Luz". Job implies employment and CB was motivated by money (he wanted to make a million). In addition to that, reports that witness protection of some degree is required for at least a few of those who are testifying in the one-perp one-victim cases indicates that there is reason to believe there is more than meets the eye to the MM case. IMO.
Your second point - without a body and people knowing the motive for murder, a cloud of suspicion would remain over both the McCanns and the motives of BKA investigating CB. IMO.

^ That's heresay though, that he said that. No way of knowing if true or not.

Thanks for response but I can't see any logic in it. But let's go with this 'horrible job' thing for the sake of argument:

A 'horrible job' would not be an abduction for someone as amoral as CB. A horrible job would far more likely imply something darker, something along the lines of receiving and disposing of a dead body (as suggested above by @Davieson). But a 'horrible job tomorrow' in that scenario would mean the child was already dead the day before she allegedly disappeared. Because she would have had to be for CB to have been hired in advance of the child's disappearance. Can we rule that out as a possibility? If not, it takes us down a very complicated road.

And there's no rationale to back up CB being hired to abduct and murder a child. Abduct, yes, and then pass on to whoever had hired him. Otherwise he doesn't get paid, right, which is the motivation. Which means murdering her makes no sense. If she was subsequently murdered, then surely the finger of suspicion would be pointed at the hirer, not the abductor? And there would be a chain of prime suspects here, not just one, and the BKA would be all over it.

HCW has said time and time again that CB acted alone. That no one else is being looked at in connection with the disappearance of MM. He is their abductor and murderer. Either of the above scenarios would raise huge questions as to the credibility and competence of the BKA investigation.

 

[Tekno]

Your first point - he reportedly told his ex-girlfriend Maria at dinner on May 2nd that he has "a horrible job to do tomorrow in Luz". Job implies employment and CB was motivated by money (he wanted to make a million). In addition to that, reports that witness protection of some degree is required for at least a few of those who are testifying in the one-perp one-victim cases indicates that there is reason to believe there is more than meets the eye to the MM case. IMO.
Your second point - without a body and people knowing the motive for murder, a cloud of suspicion would remain over both the McCanns and the motives of BKA investigating CB. IMO.

^ That's heresay though, that he said that. No way of knowing if true or not.

Thanks for response but I can't see any logic in it. But let's go with this 'horrible job' thing for the sake of argument:

A 'horrible job' would not be an abduction for someone as amoral as CB. A horrible job would far more likely imply something darker, something along the lines of receiving and disposing of a dead body (as suggested above by @Davieson). But a 'horrible job tomorrow' in that scenario would mean the child was already dead the day before she allegedly disappeared. Because she would have had to be for CB to have been hired in advance of the child's disappearance. Can we rule that out as a possibility? If not, it takes us down a very complicated road.

And there's no rationale to back up CB being hired to abduct and murder a child. Abduct, yes, and then pass on to whoever had hired him. Otherwise he doesn't get paid, right, which is the motivation. Which means murdering her makes no sense. If she was subsequently murdered, then surely the finger of suspicion would be pointed at the hirer, not the abductor? And there would be a chain of prime suspects here, not just one, and the BKA would be all over it.

HCW has said time and time again that CB acted alone. That no one else is being looked at in connection with the disappearance of MM. He is their abductor and murderer. Either of the above scenarios would raise huge questions as to the credibility and competence of the BKA investigation.

Wolters believes that Brückner was commissioned to kidnap McCann for a pedophile sex ring that then killed her—likely because of the media attention to her case, which would have made it impossible to sell her on or use her in illegal under-age .

Madeleine McCann Was Sold to a Pedo Ring Who Killed Her Says Prosecutor

 

[Denis R Tandib]

^ That's heresay though, that he said that. No way of knowing if true or not.

Thanks for response but I can't see any logic in it. But let's go with this 'horrible job' thing for the sake of argument:

A 'horrible job' would not be an abduction for someone as amoral as CB. A horrible job would far more likely imply something darker, something along the lines of receiving and disposing of a dead body (as suggested above by @Davieson). But a 'horrible job tomorrow' in that scenario would mean the child was already dead the day before she allegedly disappeared. Because she would have had to be for CB to have been hired in advance of the child's disappearance. Can we rule that out as a possibility? If not, it takes us down a very complicated road.

And there's no rationale to back up CB being hired to abduct and murder a child. Abduct, yes, and then pass on to whoever had hired him. Otherwise he doesn't get paid, right, which is the motivation. Which means murdering her makes no sense. If she was subsequently murdered, then surely the finger of suspicion would be pointed at the hirer, not the abductor? And there would be a chain of prime suspects here, not just one, and the BKA would be all over it.

HCW has said time and time again that CB acted alone. That no one else is being looked at in connection with the disappearance of MM. He is their abductor and murderer. Either of the above scenarios would raise huge questions as to the credibility and competence of the BKA investigation.

Misty’s original points were that the BKA only need the location of the body and the details of who hired CB to commit the abduction.

These points stem from one all edged comment from an ex and the rumour about witness protection.

I don’t think Misty is on their own trying to make a theory work but, IMO, it’s a huge leap.

I think it’s likely that the witness protection info stems from the BKA trying to keep key witnesses away from the media.

The horrible job comment is such vague comment that it could mean abducting a child but it could also mean changing the clutch on a Bedford CF van - CB has more experience as a mechanic than a kidnapper from what we know.

We’re all guessing what happened and arguing against particular theories is easier than coming up with them. However, the prosecutor is certain CB acted alone and at this stage has been unable to lay charges. I think forming a theory based on this information is much safer ground.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It's been so long now I can't remember - did CB seem flush with money after his horrible job in Luz?

He reportedly took ownership of the Tiffin at around the same time.

 

[misty48]

^ That's heresay though, that he said that. No way of knowing if true or not.

Thanks for response but I can't see any logic in it. But let's go with this 'horrible job' thing for the sake of argument:

A 'horrible job' would not be an abduction for someone as amoral as CB. A horrible job would far more likely imply something darker, something along the lines of receiving and disposing of a dead body (as suggested above by @Davieson). But a 'horrible job tomorrow' in that scenario would mean the child was already dead the day before she allegedly disappeared. Because she would have had to be for CB to have been hired in advance of the child's disappearance. Can we rule that out as a possibility? If not, it takes us down a very complicated road.

And there's no rationale to back up CB being hired to abduct and murder a child. Abduct, yes, and then pass on to whoever had hired him. Otherwise he doesn't get paid, right, which is the motivation. Which means murdering her makes no sense. If she was subsequently murdered, then surely the finger of suspicion would be pointed at the hirer, not the abductor? And there would be a chain of prime suspects here, not just one, and the BKA would be all over it.

HCW has said time and time again that CB acted alone. That no one else is being looked at in connection with the disappearance of MM. He is their abductor and murderer. Either of the above scenarios would raise huge questions as to the credibility and competence of the BKA investigation.

There is much hearsay from different sources which implicate CB. In isolation, each remark could be taken with a pinch of salt but when viewed together they provide a more damning picture.
"She didn't even scream"
"I know what happened to MM"
"The child is dead now & that's a good thing"
"Pigs eat humans too".
It's a fact MM was still alive on May3rd 2007 - something which even GA himself acknowledged in his books. Therefore, any suggestion that CB was hired to remove an already-deceased child on or before May 2nd is not up for debate.
Abduction = the act of removing the child without parental or carers' consent. CB allegedly did that on his own when he removed Madeleine from 5A. There is no indication there were 2 abductors but there may have been more than one accessory.
Murder - also a solo act.
When HCW said CB is their only suspect that may well be because legal jurisdiction does not permit BKA investigation of any non-German citizens or residents in respect of other crimes connected to Madeleine which occurred in Portugal. Furthermore, in May 2017, the statute of limitations in Portugal for sexual abuse kicked in. It wasn't long after that HeB came forward and I still wonder what prompted this.
If someone paid a suitable, chosen individual to abduct a child, for use by a paedophile ring, then that damaged child would need to be disposed of afterwards, dead or alive. Who better to do that job than the person who took the child in the first place, leaving that person to bear sole responsibility? I realise how unpleasant all this sounds but honestly don't believe BKA have spent all the man hours they've invested if this was a one-man one-victim isolated crime.
All my opinion.

 

[RichardKimble]

There is much hearsay from different sources which implicate CB. In isolation, each remark could be taken with a pinch of salt but when viewed together they provide a more damning picture.
"She didn't even scream"
"I know what happened to MM"
"The child is dead now & that's a good thing"
"Pigs eat humans too".
It's a fact MM was still alive on May3rd 2007 - something which even GA himself acknowledged in his books. Therefore, any suggestion that CB was hired to remove an already-deceased child on or before May 2nd is not up for debate.
Abduction = the act of removing the child without parental or carers' consent. CB allegedly did that on his own when he removed Madeleine from 5A. There is no indication there were 2 abductors but there may have been more than one accessory.
Murder - also a solo act.
When HCW said CB is their only suspect that may well be because legal jurisdiction does not permit BKA investigation of any non-German citizens or residents in respect of other crimes connected to Madeleine which occurred in Portugal. Furthermore, in May 2017, the statute of limitations in Portugal for sexual abuse kicked in. It wasn't long after that HeB came forward and I still wonder what prompted this.
If someone paid a suitable, chosen individual to abduct a child, for use by a paedophile ring, then that damaged child would need to be disposed of afterwards, dead or alive. Who better to do that job than the person who took the child in the first place, leaving that person to bear sole responsibility? I realise how unpleasant all this sounds but honestly don't believe BKA have spent all the man hours they've invested if this was a one-man one-victim isolated crime.
All my opinion.

Two or three points, abduction as defined by the Oxford English is taking someone away by force or deception.
There's no indication of an abductor only that MM disappeared in as yet unexplained circumstances.
Finally the charges CB currently facing is indicative that he's a sexual deviant acting alone ,if he's involved in the girls disappearance then he acted alone ,all opinion.

 

[RichardKimble]

Misty’s original points were that the BKA only need the location of the body and the details of who hired CB to commit the abduction.
We’re all guessing what happened and arguing against particular theories is easier than coming up with them. However, the prosecutor is certain CB acted alone and at this stage has been unable to lay charges. I think forming a theory based on this information is much safer ground.

Snipped by me.


IMO there is no need for convoluted theories, Mitchell explained it in simple terms back in 2007 on behalf of the family, "some one got into the apartment and took MM out the window as their means of escape" this surely is where the BKA must start if indeed it happened that way ,although crime scene photos don't back it up.

 

[Davieson]

Snipped by me.


IMO there is no need for convoluted theories, Mitchell explained it in simple terms back in 2007 on behalf of the family, "some one got into the apartment and took MM out the window as their means of escape" this surely is where the BKA must start if indeed it happened that way ,although crime scene photos don't back it up.

Yes, the BKA are doing what I would call a retro-fit. Instead of following the evidence from the crime scene and identify the culprit, they've got a suspect, implicated by a 'friend' and are trying to fit him into the crime, without much apparent success.

IMO

 

[Anxala]

We’re all guessing what happened and arguing against particular theories is easier than coming up with them. However, the prosecutor is certain CB acted alone and at this stage has been unable to lay charges. I think forming a theory based on this information is much safer ground.

Agree. I would say though that arguing against theories which have known flaws and fact fails is important, just so they stop gaining legs. Speculation is fine, it's all we have, but I can't see the benefit of time spent on speculation that ignores and/or twists known facts as it ultimately takes us no further forward. JMO.