Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #6

[mrjitty]

Assuming the german Prosecutor is correct and CB is guilty, my thought experiment is the case has been beset by a fog of war from the start

e.g Why did Gerry not reveal the patio door was unlocked from the start? Was this to conceal his own negligence in a moment of high stress in a foreign country because it was almost certainly the point of ingress? But then in a calmer moment, he realised that his chum obviously had entered the apartment without a key, so he came clean on it?

Were the "whooshing curtains " enhanced for similar reasons?

Did Tanner, convinced she saw the perp, massage her evidence a bit?

Did the group, still a bit drunk and under high stress, autosuggest timings to each other, so as to align with Tanners wild goose chase - but under the belief Tanner "must have seen the guy in the act"?

If CB is guilty, pretty much all of the Tapas evidence is a waste of time IMO. He most likely struck before 10, entered through the patio door, and had as much as 20 mins. He didn't need accomplices or any complicated surveillance schemes. He just walked in and walked out. No one saw him. He had a car parked close by and left.

 

[haden]

Whoa. Missing staff keys.
Never heard that.

I remember reading this somewhere in the files and I remember being suspicious. The keys were kept in the maintenance room and the maintenance guys could take them the night before their work.
I also remember reading that a washing machine was replaced during McCanns stay and the two guys came to do the job.
Mind you, they arrived only 4-5 days before Madeleine went missing.

 

[haden]

Whoa. Missing staff keys.
Never heard that.

I remember reading this somewhere in the files and I remember being suspicious. The keys were kept in the maintenance room and the regime wasn't extremely strict - the maintenance guys could take them the night before their work.
I also remember reading that a washing machine was replaced during McCanns stay and the two guys came to do the job.
Mind you, they arrived only 4-5 days before Madeleine went missing.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes, I mentioned that possible scenario of a position switch through the window earlier in the threads. There is still some debate about whether the man who came forward was actually the person Tanner saw. PJ dismissed him early on in the investigation mainly because he said it "may have been him" bringing his daughter back from the night creche, but the man Tanner saw was actually walking in the direction of the creche. Based on where his apartment was he would have been going the opposite way.

BIB. Yes.

Which is why one would give a penny to know what conversations the Met had with Tanner.

For my money, in order for the Met to rule out the Tanner sighting on national television, Tanner must have conceded this point.

 

[tedtink]

Vandalised exterior offices on Pickhuben Hamburg belonging Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image | Shutterstock

Vandalised exterior offices on Pickhuben Hamburg belonging Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image | Shutterstock

the offices of the new lawyers representing CB have been vandalized, smashed windows and graffiti etc

Because they have chosen to represent CB?

 

[PS8800]

Vandalised exterior offices on Pickhuben Hamburg belonging Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image | Shutterstock

Vandalised exterior offices on Pickhuben Hamburg belonging Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image | Shutterstock

the offices of the new lawyers representing CB have been vandalized, smashed windows and graffiti etc

Well that didn't take long.

 

[mrjitty]

It was very reliable. The man she saw came forward with proof of what he and his pyjama-clad daughter were wearing at the time:

A British father considered the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping for six years blew open the case after coming forward to police with his child's distinctive frilly pyjamas. The mystery man's involvement was ruled out after detectives realised he was taking his own two-year-old daughter home from a crèche and had not snatched Maddie.

Madeleine McCann kidnapping: innocent British father mistaken for key suspect | Daily Mail Online

Can people start checking 'facts' and providing links occasionally. There are things being presented as fact on here that have never been proven or disproven e.g the front door being unlocked and missing staff keys.

BIB

Though it raises two very big questions.

1. Why did she ID Murat? A great example of the unreliability of witnesses.

2. Where did she actually see him and what direction was he going?

 

[haden]

Apartment key theft cover-up by resort staff in Madeleine McCann case

This is the news report about the missing keys but there is some about it in the files, too

 

[Dlk79]

It was very reliable. The man she saw came forward with proof of what he and his pyjama-clad daughter were wearing at the time:

A British father considered the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping for six years blew open the case after coming forward to police with his child's distinctive frilly pyjamas. The mystery man's involvement was ruled out after detectives realised he was taking his own two-year-old daughter home from a crèche and had not snatched Maddie.

Madeleine McCann kidnapping: innocent British father mistaken for key suspect | Daily Mail Online

Can people start checking 'facts' and providing links occasionally. There are things being presented as fact on here that have never been proven or disproven e.g the front door being unlocked.

This guy and his wife claim they came forward at the very beginning to say it "may have been him" and they claim to have told the police this more than once. So why did it take 6 years of "Tannerman" all over the TV as the prime suspect for LE to say, "oh yeah, it was just that guy all along"?
Why did Madeleine McCann cops waste years investigating GP sighting?
I'm not saying it definitely wasn't him, but something is not right there.

As for the front door being unlocked, it's in the PJ file on GMs statement saying he probably didn't lock it.

Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 10 MAY 2007

Which lets be honest, means it wasn't locked. Even if he wasn't sure, they would have realised after MM had gone when they would have inevitably checked everything.

 

[PS8800]

Because they have chosen to represent CB?

One would assume so...

 

[Kikixxxx]

Because they have chosen to represent CB?

i think so, i translated what the graffiti says, its pretty much "you should be ashamed of yourselves"

 

[tedtink]

I remember reading this somewhere in the files and I remember being suspicious. The keys were kept in the maintenance room and the regime wasn't extremely strict - the maintenance guys could take them the night before their work.
I also remember reading that a washing machine was replaced during McCanns stay and the two guys came to do the job.
Mind you, they arrived only 4-5 days before Madeleine went missing.

They repaired a blind in the front bedroom and yeah something about the washing machine.

 

[JediJim]

Apart from CB being a suspect, 13 years on were not much wiser about MMs disappearance.

 

[Andreee]

Good girl and great observation. I wonder whether she has given a positive ID recently.

I must say that this 12 year old almost-teen gave an excellent and impressive witness statement! Kudos to her and her powers of observation. Who says young people can't do well as witnesses!

 

[sleuth-d-]

I agree on many points, I was one of the first to question Brunt's article and then pointed out he had changed it once it became apparent he was talking rubbish.

And again, the letter thing. Lots of conflicting accounts about that. But I don't doubt there IS a letter of some sort, and I also believe the bit about the Jag being in Germany at the time of the abduction in those same articles, can't see any reason to say that if it weren't what the reporters were told.

The problem is we need to try and identify in this media onslaught what is accurate and what has been hyped/misrepresented, hopefully we can do that here as I think there is some correct information coming through the Press. Only point I was trying to make is I don't think it's fair to discount everything, we just need to be very careful when we analyse the information coming out and question if it sounds credible.

very good post, imo. agree with all that. and isn't it what this website is all about - analyse the available information and try to make sense of it.
for instance, the msm publish lots of imagery, which i find very informative. it is also possible to read between the lines of what is said. and there are useful facts, even within the garbage that is written.

 

[Owlpellet]

Because they have chosen to represent CB?

Easier than breaking the windows of the prison I guess

 

[LittleRose]

i think so, i translated what the graffiti says, its pretty much "you should be ashamed of yourselves"

Maybe this is why the first lawyer quit.

 

[Dlk79]

Yes, it's possible that the window was only opened to provide an emergency escape route to be used if someone came in unexpectedly and interrupted the abductor

Or to check the coast was clear before going out through the door.

 

[mrjitty]

nothing wrong with self-promotion, if his lab's analysis can back it up wth results.
no problem if you don't want to go into detail, although you appear to be implying something about the quality of his lab's results?

The technology is interesting - I am more expressing cynicism over the idea that Portugal should involve him based on his claims when European police forces themselves have access to leading technology.

It also illustrates general confusion over what is actually under discussion.

In many cases, partial, low quality or mixed samples are tested which return unclear results. The most obvious being a mixture of profiles from different people. So say you recover a poor quality sample which includes the DNA of the offender plus 2 other people. And say it was degraded due to the suspect cleaning up.

In the McStay case, this guy did not do the recovery of the samples.

What he does is take the partial profiles results that the lab has come up with, and runs them through very complex computer modelling to try to find the signal in the noise. So for example he will tell the model to assume there are 3 people there, and to separate out the profiles. Without going into the detail, in the McStay case the idea was exculpatory. To show there were multiple people none of whom were the accused. In much of his work the idea is to show guilt. To separate out the DNA profile of the accused from the noise.

Why this stuff is controversial is that the modelling is not really susceptible to Court oversight as the tech is quite bleeding edge.

So this guy might analyse the data and claim "Ta da! its CB!" but whether that is true or simply the result of assumptions in his model appears to be questionable.

Nevertheless he has helped with many prosecutions in the US

 

[tedtink]

I must say that this 12 year old almost-teen gave an excellent and impressive witness statement! Kudos to her and her powers of observation. Who says young people can't do well as witnesses!

Very perceptive too - a word she used for him......."DISGUSTING".......