Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #41

[Denis R Tandib]

What do you mean?

RSBM - he doesn’t think CB is responsible.

 

[JB1510]

We’ve been led to believe that there is a high bar for an indictment in Germany and this is supported with a conviction rate of mid-eighty percent in serious crimes like rape and murder.

However, in the last trial, we saw weak evidence supporting that trial - particularly the anonymous rape crimes.

I think the prosecutors believe they already have enough for an indictment in the MM case. It’s also still an active investigation - the investment in the recent searches was signed off to add to a strong case, not fix a weak one IMO.

I don’t think CB is responsible for MM’s abduction or murder. I am open to him having involvement in her disappearance but not as we are being led to believe.

The motivation to keep him locked up and get him to trial is strong. It’s being backed up with cash. Time will tell but I think we’ll see him in court.

My biggest fear is of an anticlimax. I think once we all see the evidence, we’ll have a different view to that of the prosecutors.

What is your thought with being open to CB involvement in M’s disappearance?

 

[Megnut]

Some evidence that CB entered 5A to take MM would be a start

An absence of such evidence doesn't automatically absolve him.

There is apparently an absence of evidence in that regard, period. Not just of him. Of anyone. Which is why people question whether there was an abduction but it's just easily the case that the abductor left not forensic evidence. I can think of many similar cases. Quick entry. Hats, gloves.

No phone, no car (at least in the immediate area).

Something brought CB into focus here and I think there is circumstantial evidence placing him without the area, there's circumstantial evidence lining him to a desire to commit exactly this sort of crime, and I think there is something linking him physically to MM -- a photo, a fiber, a storage cavity in his campervan -- that is itself circumstantial and requires a great deal of inference.

I do think the expectation was he be found guilty of the previous charges and imprisoned, which would ease the pressure for trying him for MM's disappearance.

I think the case of MM is solved. Whether it's chargeable (the efficacy is proving it BARD) is a different issue entirely.

JMO

 

[Davieson]

An absence of such evidence doesn't automatically absolve him.

There is apparently an absence of evidence in that regard, period. Not just of him. Of anyone. Which is why people question whether there was an abduction but it's just easily the case that the abductor left not forensic evidence. I can think of many similar cases. Quick entry. Hats, gloves.

No phone, no car (at least in the immediate area).

Something brought CB into focus here and I think there is circumstantial evidence placing him without the area, there's circumstantial evidence lining him to a desire to commit exactly this sort of crime, and I think there is something linking him physically to MM -- a photo, a fiber, a storage cavity in his campervan -- that is itself circumstantial and requires a great deal of inference.

I do think the expectation was he be found guilty of the previous charges and imprisoned, which would ease the pressure for trying him for MM's disappearance.

I think the case of MM is solved. Whether it's chargeable (the efficacy is proving it BARD) is a different issue entirely.

JMO

I never said it did, but I don't find the lack of that evidence convincing.

A plausible narative has been constructed by the prosecution, but none of it shows any physical connection between CB and MM.
There's plenty of wishful thinking about compromising photographs and other such digital material, but until it is forthcoming, I remain sceptical of his involvement.

 

[Davieson]

I don't think abduction and death can be separated and certainly it would be strange to put the cart before the horse and claim murder without first explaining and proving contact.

 

[RichardKimble]

An absence of such evidence doesn't automatically absolve him.

There is apparently an absence of evidence in that regard, period. Not just of him. Of anyone. Which is why people question whether there was an abduction but it's just easily the case that the abductor left not forensic evidence. I can think of many similar cases. Quick entry. Hats, gloves.

No phone, no car (at least in the immediate area).

Something brought CB into focus here and I think there is circumstantial evidence placing him without the area, there's circumstantial evidence lining him to a desire to commit exactly this sort of crime, and I think there is something linking him physically to MM -- a photo, a fiber, a storage cavity in his campervan -- that is itself circumstantial and requires a great deal of inference.

I do think the expectation was he be found guilty of the previous charges and imprisoned, which would ease the pressure for trying him for MM's disappearance.

I think the case of MM is solved. Whether it's chargeable (the efficacy is proving it BARD) is a different issue entirely.

JMO

BBM so you agree there's an absence of evidence of an abduction?

 

[Megnut]

BBM so you agree there's an absence of evidence of an abduction?

An absence of forensic evidence. No cctv that we know of, no cellphone or vehicle data, no DNA or fingerprints.

But the most obvious detail -- MM isn't there. While she may actually have let herself out the front door, she didn't disappear herself. Other possibilities were investigated, and I think what remains is an abductor who was quick and didn't touch or disturb anything with bare hands. Why WOULD there be DNA left behind?

Whoever abducted her got away. Late at night, few people out and about. This crime today, there'd be cctv everywhere. Whoever did it must have had a vehicle nearby... a means to remove her from the area and a reason to do so.

JMO

 

[Davieson]

An absence of forensic evidence. No cctv that we know of, no cellphone or vehicle data, no DNA or fingerprints.

But the most obvious detail -- MM isn't there. While she may actually have let herself out the front door, she didn't disappear herself. Other possibilities were investigated, and I think what remains is an abductor who was quick and didn't touch or disturb anything with bare hands. Why WOULD there be DNA left behind?

Whoever abducted her got away. Late at night, few people out and about. This crime today, there'd be cctv everywhere. Whoever did it must have had a vehicle nearby... a means to remove her from the area and a reason to do so.

JMO

This is what makes it so difficult.
How thorough was the initial investigations ?
These were only conducted by the PJ, as OG made no effort to investigate anything other than abduction, as per their initial remit.
The Germans had no interest in anyone other than CB so they certainly didn't go back to square one, so everything was based on the original PJ work.

The Portuguese conclusion was unknown crime, unknown perpertrator, so they certainly didn't insist on abduction.

So who ruled out everything other than abduction ? (Rhetorical question, I'm pretty sure I know who)

 

[frank-cole]

Some evidence that CB entered 5A to take MM would be a start

Thanks Denis.

 

[Davieson]

open forum

 

[sl77]

There is apparently an absence of evidence in that regard, period. Not just of him. Of anyone. Which is why people question whether there was an abduction but it's just easily the case that the abductor left not forensic evidence.

You'd have to be a picnic short of sandwiches to think two professional parents killed their daughter and then spend 18 years keeping her in the press.

 

[Anxala]

I don't think abduction and death can be separated and certainly it would be strange to put the cart before the horse and claim murder without first explaining and proving contact.

Well yes. HCW said (he believes) that CB abducted and murdered MM. I'm also pretty sure he said that CB acted alone. Proof of both would be required in order to rule out the possibility that someone/anyone else was involved in her disappearance.

Proof of abduction is as crucial as proof of murder imo.

 

[Anxala]

I don't believe they've got anything. Sorry, it makes me sad and mad but I just don't.

I believe they believe that what they have is compelling. It's just whether or not a judge agrees with them and this case proceeds to trial.

 

[Anxala]

We’ve been led to believe that there is a high bar for an indictment in Germany and this is supported with a conviction rate of mid-eighty percent in serious crimes like rape and murder.

However, in the last trial, we saw weak evidence supporting that trial - particularly the anonymous rape crimes.

I think the prosecutors believe they already have enough for an indictment in the MM case. It’s also still an active investigation - the investment in the recent searches was signed off to add to a strong case, not fix a weak one IMO.

^ I really hope you're right on that one and MM finally gets the trial she deserves.

I tended to view the recent activity as last desperate measures, but I like your take that it came from positive rather than negative investment.

 

[Megnut]

This is what makes it so difficult.
How thorough was the initial investigations ?
These were only conducted by the PJ, as OG made no effort to investigate anything other than abduction, as per their initial remit.
The Germans had no interest in anyone other than CB so they certainly didn't go back to square one, so everything was based on the original PJ work.

The Portuguese conclusion was unknown crime, unknown perpertrator, so they certainly didn't insist on abduction.

So who ruled out everything other than abduction ? (Rhetorical question, I'm pretty sure I know who)

IMO it's why the case was stalled for so long.

It's just not unheard of, that children are abducted. From the same room as a sibling. From the same tent parents are in.

More investigation isn't going to unearth evidence that isn't there. But why would there be evidence?

I think the biggest evidence, besides she's still missing, is that she was not found, having been unalived early on, which got would expect if it was accidental, a panicked cover up, or a local crime of opportunity. Where you might find her body hidden within the complex or adjacent to it.

Yes, it's a little of building a case from the backside. If there is even an iota connecting CB to that resort or MM herself, now suddenly it's possible. And if it's possible, you keep investigating.

No one is going to convict on, say, a button -- compelling but a million ways to introduce reasonable doubt. So you keep investigating and building it out. With enough disparate "buttons" an outline can take shape. It can be enough to solve a case. To know who done it, maybe ever some of how who done it done it.

But if it's not enough buttons at trial, he goes free and can never be tried for it again (I'm assuming double jeopardy applies here).

Because he hasn't been charged doesn't mean there's NO evidence against him. It just might be a nose short.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

You'd have to be a picnic short of sandwiches to think two professional parents killed their daughter and then spend 18 years keeping her in the press.

I know you were replying to just a snip of my post so I wasn't to clarify the context, so it's not miscontrued. I think it's fallacious to think that, if there's no forensic evidence of an abduction, she was never abducted. I don't believe that for a second.

In fact, I think the absence of DNA lends itself to a fast abduction by someone with a skillset to target, gain entry, snatched and go. Petty cash, small child. Same degree of difficulty if you have the skillset.

How do they narrow it down to CB and not just any man who was bent on stealing valuables and/or little girls? MOO You don't. They didn't. MOO. Bur if you find something, anything that cconercts CB to the area or yo the child, now you work backwards and front wards until you exhaust the avenue.

As a suspect IMO, the more they investigate(d) him, the more obvious it becomes -- him and no other.

And by the nature of whatever that something, anything is, I don't think it points to abduction for hire, like he was a middle man to CSA trafficking, or abduction for adoption. I suspect they have convincing evidence that she did not survive...him.

JMO

 

[Davieson]

IMO it's why the case was stalled for so long.

It's just not unheard of, that children are abducted. From the same room as a sibling. From the same tent parents are in.

More investigation isn't going to unearth evidence that isn't there. But why would there be evidence?

I think the biggest evidence, besides she's still missing, is that she was not found, having been unalived early on, which got would expect if it was accidental, a panicked cover up, or a local crime of opportunity. Where you might find her body hidden within the complex or adjacent to it.

Yes, it's a little of building a case from the backside. If there is even an iota connecting CB to that resort or MM herself, now suddenly it's possible. And if it's possible, you keep investigating.

No one is going to convict on, say, a button -- compelling but a million ways to introduce reasonable doubt. So you keep investigating and building it out. With enough disparate "buttons" an outline can take shape. It can be enough to solve a case. To know who done it, maybe ever some of how who done it done it.

But if it's not enough buttons at trial, he goes free and can never be tried for it again (I'm assuming double jeopardy applies here).

Because he hasn't been charged doesn't mean there's NO evidence against him. It just might be a nose short.

JMO

Equally it could be someone else who hasn't even come to light.
OG ran through hundreds of people of interest in theit investigation and came up with no one.

 

[frank-cole]

IMO it's why the case was stalled for so long.

It's just not unheard of, that children are abducted. From the same room as a sibling. From the same tent parents are in.

More investigation isn't going to unearth evidence that isn't there. But why would there be evidence?

I think the biggest evidence, besides she's still missing, is that she was not found, having been unalived early on, which got would expect if it was accidental, a panicked cover up, or a local crime of opportunity. Where you might find her body hidden within the complex or adjacent to it.

Yes, it's a little of building a case from the backside. If there is even an iota connecting CB to that resort or MM herself, now suddenly it's possible. And if it's possible, you keep investigating.

No one is going to convict on, say, a button -- compelling but a million ways to introduce reasonable doubt. So you keep investigating and building it out. With enough disparate "buttons" an outline can take shape. It can be enough to solve a case. To know who done it, maybe ever some of how who done it done it.

But if it's not enough buttons at trial, he goes free and can never be tried for it again (I'm assuming double jeopardy applies here).

Because he hasn't been charged doesn't mean there's NO evidence against him. It just might be a nose short.

JMO

Yes. Stranger abduction was always the only plausible scenario. It’s the only one that makes sense. Unfortunately the suspect is the worst type of abductor. Cleo Smith was abducted from a tent by an eccentric doll collector. Christian B is a sadistic child molestor. There are different levels & tragically it was the worst possible outcome for MM.

Separating out the logical & the silliness, it is far more likely that a case would be circumstantial, it won’t be like the end of criminal drama where the lead character puts it all together & finds all the silver bullets. The real world rarely works like that & as we’ve seen, corroborating digital evidence can be brushed aside without a moments thought. Expectations will change & evolve.

The risk is high which is unfortunate because MM & her family deserve justice.

 

[frank-cole]

You'd have to be a picnic short of sandwiches to think two professional parents killed their daughter and then spend 18 years keeping her in the press.

Agree. It’s a game of playing pretend detective with a lot of time to do so.

A man in the area, seen lurking at the OC the days before, who was obsessed with abducting very young blond girls, is the prime suspect. Not particularly challenging to connect those dots. Seemingly a lot of effort to un-connect them though. Simplest hypothesis is usually the right one.

 

[Megnut]

Equally it could be someone else who hasn't even come to light.
OG ran through hundreds of people of interest in theit investigation and came up with no one.

I think that IS what they were doing prior to CB, because they had no leads. But something turned up that connected CB to thst resort, that day, and/or MM, and they're would be no reason for him to have anything that links ever tangentially (i.e. circumstantially) to MM. And that was the lead they needed, and gave them a direction for investigation, from which they've yet been able to eliminate him.

I believe the case of MM's disappearance has been solved. It just hasn't been charged or tried.

That he was acquitted in the recent trial does not even kind of move the needle for me. I believe those crimes were also solved, but for evidentiary exclusions, didn't reach BARD. I'm satisfied that he remains the number one suspect.

Much the same here, limited evidence makes any case hard to try, and the risk for acquitted is high.

That he was not found guilty and has a rapidly approaching release date ups the pressure-- to change him when it might be difficult to admit what evidence they do have and risk acquitted-- or press forward.

He isn't collared because they could fit him up for a crime he didn't commit. He's the only suspect. And for good reason.

All MOO