Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #42

[frank-cole]

Source of that claim?

His conviction for stealing fuel.
Opportunistic thieves don’t walk around with flexible tubes & fuel containers. You don’t siphon fuel opportunistically.

As I said he’s both. Premeditating & opportunistic.

 

[Hygge]

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

The judgment is not yet final as long as an appeal is pending.

 

[C.greek]

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

It's the BKA actually and not just the prosecutor's office that launched the witness appeal.

Eta as far as I remember mrjitty who knew the legalities in Germany had indicated that there was a process before such an appeal is made public. I don't recall what exactly but perhaps someone with knowledge of the legal system in Germany could help.

 

[Hexe]

His conviction for stealing fuel.
Opportunistic thieves don’t walk around with flexible tubes & fuel containers. You don’t siphon fuel opportunistically.

As I said he’s both. Premeditating & opportunistic.

Stealing fuel s not exactly a cat burglary.

 

[Hexe]

It's the BKA actually and not just the prosecutor's office that launched the witness appeal.

Uh, not exactly. You can read The official communicate sent to the press by the Peosecutor's Office, or pop on the BKA official site where the page dedicated to Maddie's case ends with the words:

Das Bundeskriminalamt sowie die Staatsanwaltschaft Braunschweig bitten um Ihre Mithilfe bei der weiteren Aufklärung der Tatumstände.

In English:

The Federal Criminal Police Office and the Braunschweig Public Prosecutor's Office request your assistance in further clarifying the circumstances of the crime.

Considering it's the prosecutor's office that supervises the investigation by the BKA, not the other way round, court order was not required. If you have any evidence showing there was such an order, feel free to provide it here.

 

[RichardKimble]

Scars have all been discussed before in the trial thread, this is about the alleged link of MM to CB, simple question what convinces anyone there was an abduction?

 

[Lilly b]

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

A different day, a different judge, could of been a different outcome, we will never know

 

[RichardKimble]

A different day, a different judge, could of been a different outcome, we will never know

If, buts and maybes, life in general.

 

[C.greek]

Stealing fuel s not exactly a cat burglary.

It was CB himself who said so. And many witnesses who have come forward.

Uh, not exactly. You can read The official communicate sent to the press by the Peosecutor's Office, or pop on the BKA official site where the page dedicated to Maddie's case ends with the words:


In English:



Considering it's the prosecutor's office that supervises the investigation by the BKA, not the other way round, court order was not required. If you have any evidence showing there was such an order, feel free to provide it here.

Exactly, both BKA and the prosecutor's office the fact they 'identified' the suspect would have only been permitted if a court order is issued, is that not so?

 

[frank-cole]

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.

If my memory serves me right, each of the following people have spoken about the scar that Hazel saw on CB’s leg.

Hazel
CB’s defence lawyer
The judge
The prosecution lawyer

 

[frank-cole]

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

That’s a brilliant politician’s answer.

I understand why you’re reluctant to commit to an answer.

 

[Hexe]

If my memory serves me right, each of the following people have spoken about the scar that Hazel saw on CB’s leg.

Hazel
CB’s defence lawyer
The judge
The prosecution lawyer

Well, then bring in the sources!

 

[frank-cole]

Scars have all been discussed before in the trial thread, this is about the alleged link of MM to CB, simple question what convinces anyone there was an abduction?

No probs the point has been made - it’s done.

IMO -CB wasn’t hatched at the beginning of the MM case. He has a criminal history & a pattern of offending. IMO without considering those things it’ll make for a blinkered, one dimensional, pseudo debate. Not ideal for sleuthing but onwards we go.

 

[Hexe]

Exactly, both BKA and the prosecutor's office the fact they 'identified' the suspect would have only been permitted if a court order is issued, is that not so?

No.

 

[frank-cole]

Well, then bring in the sources!

With respect, all of these things are easily obtainable & have been discussed at length previously. Therefore you’ll find any of these things in seconds.

I am quite cautious when repeatedly asked for sources for simple things. Because we’ve had game playing on this thread before. It follows the tune of repeatedly asking for easily obtainable sources & then hitting the report button if one isn't given.

I can’t go down that road I’m afraid.

 

[Hexe]

With respect, all of these things are easily obtainable & have been discussed at length previously. Therefore you’ll find any of these things in seconds.

With respect, I asked for sources precisely because I could not find them on my own. The closest thing I was able to find was mention of "a scar or birthmark and a tattoo".

 

[lebvidox]

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

That's such a bummer because EVEN those who entertain the abduction theory should have realized at this point that if they had solid evidence this girl was dead they wouldn't need to prosecute CB, they could simply upgrade the case from a 'missing child' to a 'dead child' (if you find the remains or whatever of a girl that's been missing for almost 2 decades, you don't need to know who did it, that's an entirely different matter).

If you have EVIDENCE that MM is dead, every other investigative avenue that considers this girl could still be alive and seen elsewhere should be closed. I can not think of a case - let alone a high profile case like this - where any investigator would sit on this for YEARS. That's just not realistic.

 

[lebvidox]

IMO -CB wasn’t hatched at the beginning of the MM case. He has a criminal history & a pattern of offending. IMO without considering those things it’ll make for a blinkered, one dimensional, pseudo debate. Not ideal for sleuthing but onwards we go.

There’s no realistic scenario for one to have evidence that MM is dead without the remains being located or a tape of MM being killed and/or her corpse being buried in an undisclosed location (the perpetrator’s face was either covered or did not appear on camera).

If you catch a serial rapist and killer who lived right next door from the resort MM was last seen and the remains of 20 other 3 year old girls are dug from the backyard of this property but none of that is a match to MM’s DNA, that still wouldn’t be evidence that MM is dead (or killed by this fella). You could convict him on those 20 other cases, but not on MM.

Odds are this creep also killed MM but buried the body elsewhere. But it could be that MM was a victim of other creeps that are in the radio of any town or city, or that her demise was not related to an outsider as well. Everything is possible. The problem with locking in on a ‘boogieman’ is to forget that other boogiemen are also out there.

There are many cases where serial killers were caught and tried to take credit for other high-profile crimes for the sake of ‘rising their public status’ (they knew they would be locked away for life, they had nothing else to lose). But if they can’t provide some independent information as in something LE never shared with the public and only the killer could know or, better yet, lead them to the remains, then the confession shouldn't be deemed credible.

Because even those who are 100% behind the abduction theory wouldn't want the "wrong fellow" to be found guilty for MM's demise, right? Even if for the sake of some other psychopath walking free and making other victims in the community? Boiling every discussion regarding CB to "he has a criminal history and pattern of offending", IMO, is what leads to most pseudo debates: it prevents the discussion from going beyond the established behaviors of this person's criminal history.

 

[RichardKimble]

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.

The official find MM page still says there is no evidence that any harm as come to MM, OG still consider it a missing persons case, therefore its inconceivable the BKA have evidence to the contrary and have not shared it imo.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

There’s no realistic scenario for one to have evidence that MM is dead without the remains being located or a tape of MM being killed and/or her corpse being buried in an undisclosed location (the perpetrator’s face was either covered or did not appear on camera).

If you catch a serial rapist and killer who lived right next door from the resort MM was last seen and the remains of 20 other 3 year old girls are dug from the backyard of this property but none of that is a match to MM’s DNA, that still wouldn’t be evidence that MM is dead (or killed by this fella). You could convict him on those 20 other cases, but not on MM.

Odds are this creep also killed MM but buried the body elsewhere. But it could be that MM was a victim of other creeps that are in the radio of any town or city, or that her demise was not related to an outsider as well. Everything is possible. The problem with locking in on a ‘boogieman’ is to forget that other boogiemen are also out there.

There are many cases where serial killers were caught and tried to take credit for other high-profile crimes for the sake of ‘rising their public status’ (they knew they would be locked away for life, they had nothing else to lose). But if they can’t provide some independent information as in something LE never shared with the public and only the killer could know or, better yet, lead them to the remains, then the confession shouldn't be deemed credible.

Because even those who are 100% behind the abduction theory wouldn't want the "wrong fellow" to be found guilty for MM's demise, right? Even if for the sake of some other psychopath walking free and making other victims in the community? Boiling every discussion regarding CB to "he has a criminal history and pattern of offending", IMO, is what leads to most pseudo debates: it prevents the discussion from going beyond the established behaviors of this person's criminal history.

This forum stems from accusations against CB from the prosecutors. These statements have never been supported with action. The case is dead because there is no credible evidence.

For many posters on this forum, the public appeal and subsequent media statements rule out any other scenario than CB.

It’s question of what people need to see to prove a suspects guilt. The probability that CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance is incredibly small. Zero direct evidence confirming his guilt has been shared publicly. There have been thousands of sightings of MM alive. There have been hundreds of theories and suspects over the years.

This mostly falls on deaf ears. People are convinced it’s CB and alternative scenarios are dismissed - because the prosecutor’s spokesperson said he killed her.