Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #41

[C.greek]

Gone is not synonymous with abducted. Children disappear but only a very small percentage are abducted by strangers. This is an important reason to not believe CB was the abductor until its proven he is.

Well, it's not a common occurrence for children aged 3 to disappear ...

 

[Hexe]

MM was not found back in any street of PDL. Is that proof enough to you? She was GONE.

And we still don't know for sure why.

 

[C.greek]

And we still don't know for sure why.

Because she was abducted

 

[Hexe]

Because she was abducted

That was not proven yet.

 

[C.greek]

That was not proven yet.

There is no reason to prove that. A 3 year old went missing, was not found, all people around her were dismissed from the investigation as being responsible for her disappearance, hence she was abducted. We can discuss whether CB abducted her or if there is anyone else who could have done it but having again a discussion about whether she was abducted seems boring. I don't think there is anything more to discuss about that jmo

 

[Hexe]

If the witness had been just a minute earlier she would have walked into him and the child he carried right outside the premises from which the child had been removed.

If you mean JT then the man she saw was just a holidaymaker carrying his own child.

Madeleine McCann police spent years trying to ID man GP said was him

 

[Hexe]

There is no reason to prove that.

Well, this is a fact based forum, therefore the hypotheses, even the most probable ones, should not be presented as if they are proven facts. That's all I wanted to say.

 

[Davieson]

There is no reason to prove that. A 3 year old went missing, was not found, all people around her were dismissed from the investigation as being responsible for her disappearance, hence she was abducted. We can discuss whether CB abducted her or if there is anyone else who could have done it but having again a discussion about whether she was abducted seems boring. I don't think there is anything more to discuss about that jmo

I doubt the judges will agree with you.

 

[Mex]

Well, this is a fact based forum, therefore the hypotheses, even the most probable ones, should not be presented as if they are proven facts. That's all I wanted to say.

The facts are that MM is missing and CB is under police suspicion of being responsible for whatever happened to her.

Most of the evidence against CB which warrants his status as prime suspect in child murder is not yet in the public domain.

What was a dead case is now a very live one.
My opinion

 

[tedtink]

If we waited for ‘proof’ of everything before we posted, they’d be no point to Websleuths.
That’d be like waiting for every trial to be completed and having all known ‘facts’ on the table before we even discussed a case.

 

[Davieson]

I think it fine to discuss things as long as opinion isn't stated as fact.

 

[Mex]

If you mean JT then the man she saw was just a holidaymaker carrying his own child.

Madeleine McCann police spent years trying to ID man GP said was him

When Dr.T came forward to say that he had long thought he might have been the man seen by JT coming from the direction of the room from which MM vanished.

The immediate outcome of his statement that he was carrying his child home was

• vindication for JT
• after years of opprobrium directed at her there was at last proof positive that she had indeed seen a man carrying a pyjama clad female child directly outside apartment 5A

Now all that remains to be explained is why it was that Dr.T was walking home in the wrong direction.

 

[Anxala]

Well, this is a fact based forum, therefore the hypotheses, even the most probable ones, should not be presented as if they are proven facts. That's all I wanted to say.

Quite. The thread title alone says 'suspect'. As in, someone suspected of carrying out a crime but about whom there's as yet no proof that he actually committed that crime.

It's perfectly reasonable, in the absence of a charge, a trial and a conviction, to continue to view CB as a suspect and discuss him accordingly.

Facts are dependent upon proof.

 

[Hexe]

Quite. The thread title alone says 'suspect'. As in, someone suspected of carrying out a crime but about whom there's as yet no proof that he actually committed that crime.

It's perfectly reasonable, in the absence of a charge and a trial, to continue to view CB as a suspect and discuss him accordingly.

I never said we should not discuss CB as a suspect. I said we should not state as a fact something that has nit been proven to be a fact. That's all.

 

[Anxala]

I never said we should not discuss CB as a suspect. I said we should not state as a fact something that has nit been proven to be a fact. That's all.

And I was and am100% agreeing with you.

CB remains a suspect with all the legal 'caveats' that suspects of a crime are entitled to, not least innocence until proven otherwise.

 

[frank-cole]

That's because abductions are carried out in secret, the abductor wants to remain unseen.
Causing an RTA is an accidental event. How many witnesses have been heard about things going on in the streets the evening that MM went missing? How many have mentioned seeing an RTA happen in the cosy streets of PDL?

Yes. Time of day, location & how busy it was are all obvious factors.

If only the cctv from the nearby hotel would have been secured quickly. That may well have provided the answer to this.

 

[frank-cole]

If we waited for ‘proof’ of everything before we posted, they’d be no point to Websleuths.
That’d be like waiting for every trial to be completed and having all known ‘facts’ on the table before we even discussed a case.

That’s why I like websleuths because it’s not a circular echo chamber & irrespective of the efforts, discussion about the suspect cannot be curtailed. Hence no need to run around justifying

 

[frank-cole]

I never said we should not discuss CB as a suspect. I said we should not state as a fact something that has nit been proven to be a fact. That's all.

CB prime suspect - fact. Hence the sleuthing.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

What about the little blonde boy, and if course Joanna, her body was never found

RH almost certainly drowned. JC was a local, sad circumstances but I don’t think we can conclude anything about that.

These cases were thrown into the limelight by the prosecutors to build the public case against CB.

They are unfortunate but random acts.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Well, it's not a common occurrence for children aged 3 to disappear ...

And it’s far far more uncommon for them to be abducted.

If we’re sleuthing, we should be looking at clues and how they connect.

Stating that there were prowlers and CB is a prowler therefore he is related to the disappearance of MM is nonsense.