Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #42

[RichardKimble]

A question to be asked his how have the BKA determined MM was abducted?

 

[RichardKimble]

I don't obviously know but IMO they know with whom he was traveling and could interview her.

My guess, CB isn't talking. And that night not be important to CB. He'll either remain silent or lie, neither of which is terribly helpful. But if she is talking, she has the potential to be a top shelf witness.

If she had previously (even unwittingly) alibied him for those nights, she may have come to realize that, in fact, there were hours -- key hours -- where in retrospect, she no longer could.

A factoid like that would take CB from having an alibi to having had an opportunity to be elsewhere, which opens the door --

JMO

How do the BKA know of her? How would she become a focus for an alibi?

 

[Hexe]

Cat burglars bread and butter is getting in and out fast, taking quickly what is of value to them. Easy to carry, all the better.

Except that CB is not a cat burglar, more like an opportunistic thief.

 

[Megnut]

Except that CB is not a cat burglar, more like an opportunistic thief.

A difference without a distinction?

 

[Hexe]

A difference without a distinction?

There is a huge distinction in context of what you said earlier.

Cat burglars bread and butter is getting in and out fast, taking quickly what is of value to them. Easy to carry, all the better.

Cat burglar relies on a swift entry and retreat, a small time oportunistic thief not necessarily.

 

[Davieson]

Just like in the recent cases where CB was found not guilty, that's a far cry from finding him innocent. It's just wildly unfortunate, that the Prosecution couldn't reach BARD, not exactly surprising since their best evidence was inadmissable.

In this case, I think there is scant physical evidence, admissible or otherwise. That doesn't mean no one did it. It means someone did who managed to leave little trace.

Happened long enough ago that modern evidence like security footage just didn't exist in abundance like it does now. And even if it did, it may have been long overwritten before their primary suspect emerged.

If they don't feel they have enough evidence to charge and convict, IMO they don't say 'oh, well', they don't release to the public what they do have, they just continue to 'work the case', perhaps waiting on new witnesses to come forward, new tips to come in, more evidence to surface.

Smart to continue the investigation. If CB is in fact responsible for disappearing MM (and worse), it's possible he didn't act alone. May have have inside information, for example. And not even that there was a child to take, but that certain guests left their units unattended, perfect for burglarizing.

Cat burglars bread and butter is getting in and out fast, taking quickly what is of value to them. Easy to carry, all the better.

That he had not been charged IMO is not a measure of his culpability but more a reflection on quality of presentable evidence. That does not means he's innocent. Flase equivalency.

JMO

That could apply to every trial where a verdict of Not Guilty is returned.
Police and prosecution are always certain that the accused is guilty, or at least they should be.

 

[frank-cole]

You are talking about evidence we armchair detectives think it’s all. We do not know what they have but maybe some day we will know I hope.
But when you ask why a prosecutor is sure he has no alibi, evidence would be my first answer.

Yes - This isn’t a story of 1 fame hungry villain prosecutor with nothing but a grudge & a phone ping.

They say they have evidence MM is dead. Therefore I think they’ll have evidence MM is dead.

The 2 sides won’t agree, no matter how strong the evidence turns out to be.

 

[Davieson]

Yes - This isn’t a story of 1 fame hungry villain prosecutor with nothing but a grudge & a phone ping.

They say they have evidence MM is dead. Therefore I think they’ll have evidence MM is dead.

The 2 sides won’t agree, no matter how strong the evidence turns out to be.

I don't think that is true, but the evidence must be brought forward for evaluation.
IMO blind belief in police or prosecutor is foolish

 

[RichardKimble]

I don't think that is true, but the evidence must be brought forward for evaluation.
IMO blind belief in police or prosecutor is foolish

The evidence in the trial of CB in the unrelated crimes was vaunted as strong, when it came to it wasn't .

 

[C.greek]

I don't think that is true, but the evidence must be brought forward for evaluation.
IMO blind belief in police or prosecutor is foolish

To whom? Who should evaluate the evidence? Us, armchair sleuths? I don't think so. If a German court allowed this public appeal/ hunt for tips in 2020, which is in itself quite grande, since usually this is reserved for terrorists, I trust the prosecution had enough evidence. That this evidence is not BARD, is neither here nor there. It is just unfortunate for MM's parents and MM, who will not be served justice. Jmo

 

[Davieson]

To whom? Who should evaluate the evidence? Us, armchair sleuths? I don't think so. If a German court allowed this public appeal/ hunt for tips in 2020, which is in itself quite grande, since usually this is reserved for terrorists, I trust the prosecution had enough evidence. That this evidence is not BARD, is neither here nor there. It is just unfortunate for MM's parents and MM, who will not be served justice. Jmo

Obviously not amateurs.
Has it been stated that prosecutors applied to the Court for permission to launch the appeal?
Even if they did, it isn't clear what evidence they presented.

 

[C.greek]

Obviously not amateurs.
Has it been stated that prosecutors applied to the Court for permission to launch the appeal?
Even if they did, it isn't clear what evidence they presented.

They could not have launched this public appeal on their own. They definitely needed a court order. The court found this evidence compelling - otherwise this public appeal would never have happened. This is the sole reason I trust they have evidence that CB is the prime suspect in MM's disappearance. But that this evidence is not BARD is very very unfortunate

 

[Hexe]

They could not have launched this public appeal on their own. They definitely needed a court order.

In Germany the Prosecutor's Office to my best knowledge does not need a court order to launch a witness appeal.

 

[frank-cole]

I don't think that is true, but the evidence must be brought forward for evaluation.
IMO blind belief in police or prosecutor is foolish

I disagree. But we can test this & can use very recent history to do.

Trial - pre verdict - insinuations that Hazel was mistaken, liar, associated with IRA, mob & all the rest of it.
Not guilty, vitriol . Then a premature presumption that prosecution had no evidence.

Then we saw some of dismissed evidence . R*pe stories, a scar where Hazel said, Edited pictures of himself naked wearing mask - exactly as Hazel described & so on.

Post verdict.
‘Truth seekers’ - quiet
Hazel case - use new thread, less traffic.

Do you agree that the reality was that the prosecution did have evidence, Hazel wasn’t lying & that she was right about position of scar?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated thanks.

 

[frank-cole]

Except that CB is not a cat burglar, more like an opportunistic thief.

Both.

Not just opportunistic. Made a living from theft.

 

[frank-cole]

They could not have launched this public appeal on their own. They definitely needed a court order. The court found this evidence compelling - otherwise this public appeal would never have happened. This is the sole reason I trust they have evidence that CB is the prime suspect in MM's disappearance. But that this evidence is not BARD is very very unfortunate

Inga is another example.

Why would prosecutors be involved in 1 & not the other?

 

[frank-cole]

Just like in the recent cases where CB was found not guilty, that's a far cry from finding him innocent. It's just wildly unfortunate, that the Prosecution couldn't reach BARD, not exactly surprising since their best evidence was inadmissable.

In this case, I think there is scant physical evidence, admissible or otherwise. That doesn't mean no one did it. It means someone did who managed to leave little trace.

Happened long enough ago that modern evidence like security footage just didn't exist in abundance like it does now. And even if it did, it may have been long overwritten before their primary suspect emerged.

If they don't feel they have enough evidence to charge and convict, IMO they don't say 'oh, well', they don't release to the public what they do have, they just continue to 'work the case', perhaps waiting on new witnesses to come forward, new tips to come in, more evidence to surface.

Smart to continue the investigation. If CB is in fact responsible for disappearing MM (and worse), it's possible he didn't act alone. May have have inside information, for example. And not even that there was a child to take, but that certain guests left their units unattended, perfect for burglarizing.

Cat burglars bread and butter is getting in and out fast, taking quickly what is of value to them. Easy to carry, all the better.

That he had not been charged IMO is not a measure of his culpability but more a reflection on quality of presentable evidence. That does not means he's innocent. Flase equivalency.

JMO

Yep - Hazel case conversations were no different. Turned out the prosecution did have evidence & more importantly help show the victim wasn’t a liar.

CB is linked to MM case, which is why I think perceptions on suspect & also (sadly) victims are questionable.

Cautious using Hazel case as example to relate links between suspect, his previous & MM prosecution is probs a breach so won’t labour on point.

If the prosecution have image clearly showing murdered victim they’ll know following

Victim deceased
Victim murdered
Where image found
Who’s property found amongst
History of person who had the image

That may not be enough for conviction but certainly enough to answer questions above. Does it prove that she didn’t die accidentally? Does it prove that a couple of people weren’t involved? I think it clearly does prove that.
Then the baddie is no longer HCW it becomes ‘didn’t happen no conviction’ or conspiratorial/establishment & narrative adjustment.

OJ not guilty doesn’t mean OJ innocent.

My opinion of evidence & aftermath

 

[Hexe]

Both.

Not just opportunistic. Made a living from theft.

Source of that claim?

 

[Davieson]

I disagree. But we can test this & can use very recent history to do.

Trial - pre verdict - insinuations that Hazel was mistaken, liar, associated with IRA, mob & all the rest of it.
Not guilty, vitriol . Then a premature presumption that prosecution had no evidence.

Then we saw some of dismissed evidence . R*pe stories, a scar where Hazel said, Edited pictures of himself naked wearing mask - exactly as Hazel described & so on.

Post verdict.
‘Truth seekers’ - quiet
Hazel case - use new thread, less traffic.

Do you agree that the reality was that the prosecution did have evidence, Hazel wasn’t lying & that she was right about position of scar?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated thanks.

I'm sure HaB believed what she said. However the court decided that it wasn't sufficient for conviction.
Indeed that was their response to all the charges, so obviously prosecution evidence ultimately didn't amount to much

 

[Hexe]

Then we saw some of dismissed evidence . R*pe stories, a scar where Hazel said, Edited pictures of himself naked wearing mask - exactly as Hazel described & so on.

HB did not say anything about any scar. She said the man that attacked her had a birthmark on his thigh. Then the tabloids, quoting "unnamed sources", claimed CB had the birthmark surgically removed what allegedly left a scar. Nothing was ever oficially confirmed though.