I can't recall who asked whether it was just tabloids reporting his name, but it seems most of the British press, including broadsheets like the Financial Times, have his name and picture on their front pages tomorrow.
Suspect in Madeleine case 'unmasked' in papers
If this guy was convicted of a sexual crime against a child for the first time at 17, and then goes on to re-offend, not just once, but allegedly several times, and commits other crimes such a burglary and drug trafficking, why on earth was he a free man,roaming the EU?
I’m usually open to coincidence but that’s shaping up quite convincingly. It’s definitely not enough though. I’m assuming they know more and they’re holding it back as the litmus test for any witnesses that now come forward.
It's kind of revealing that the Met cold case review actually came up with nothing.
This is all based on a tipoff!
Also, he was known to be routinely breaking into holiday homes and rooms at that place and time. IIRC, in spite of living there for over a decade, the DM says he left Portugal after the crime (not sure exactly when).So what do we know for certain?
Childand found guilty of sexual assault against a child.
In the area and nearby at the time of the crime.
Changed the registered owner for the Jag the day after MM’s disappearance.
History of violent sex crime - convicted of violent rape.
Speculative film evidence of at least one further rape.
Reported confession in a bar - from the same witness who appears credible given the concurrent information regarding the rape of the elderly woman.
I’m usually open to coincidence but that’s shaping up quite convincingly. It’s definitely not enough though. I’m assuming they know more and they’re holding it back as the litmus test for any witnesses that now come forward.
RSBM
Right. The trouble I have had with all the Maddie suspects down the years, including Murat, is that they tend to be based on propensity reasoning rather than hard evidence. At law school you learn to be very careful about propensity because it leads easily to logical fallacies.
Here is why.
In my hometown there are (sadly) any number of sex offenders. So when a sex offence takes place, it is intellectually easy to pick one of the sex offenders in the neighbourhood and say "this is the kind of guy that does sex offending" therefore he probably did it. But maybe it was an offender unknown to us, or maybe there was not even a sex offence committed
This is why this kind of evidence is typically not allowed at trial, and why police tend to pursue a theory of the case and try to discover hard evidence to link an offender.
My problem with this case is the same one that plagued PJ and to my knowledge the Met never got past this either. If your theory of the case is abduction, then your investigation should produce evidence of an abduction, and clues as to identity. Sadly nothing ever came to light, but instead some forensic evidence of death in the apartment. This is why theory of the case has always tended to focus on removal of a body, rather than abduction, based on the little evidence known.
So now we have a tip off, and a load of sound and light that this is the kind of guy who would do this.
But i am not yet seeing anything which connects this guy directly to the disappearance. And if police had it, then surely he would be charged already?
I really hope they have something they are not telling us about
This is new...
In 2016, the Braunschweig district court sentenced him to 15 months for “sexual abuse of a child in the act of creating and possessing child pornographic material”.
It was inferred I know but this paper appear to be confirming that he made or makes child.
Link: Madeleine McCann suspect managed to flee to Portugal, Italy and Germany despite 26-year criminal past
Me too. Although the very large scale appeal to the public makes me wonder if they actually do.
Do we know, when this guy got arrested for the rape of the 72 year old, whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty? I may be reading things wrong, but if he confessed to the two crimes to his pal, but they only have DNA evidence from one, obviously that's the only one they could charge him with.
He can't have confessed anything about Madeleine to the police, otherwise they wouldn't need to go public to find the girlfriends name or the owners of the phone numbers. So did he admit to the other rape, or was he convicted on forensics?
Sadly this kind of reporting is exactly what worries me
The tabloids create the suspicion he must be guilty because he did other bad crimes
Sadly this kind of reporting is exactly what worries me
The tabloids create the suspicion he must be guilty because he did other bad crimes
Do we know, when this guy got arrested for the rape of the 72 year old, whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty? I may be reading things wrong, but if he confessed to the two crimes to his pal, but they only have DNA evidence from one, obviously that's the only one they could charge him with.
He can't have confessed anything about Madeleine to the police, otherwise they wouldn't need to go public to find the girlfriends name or the owners of the phone numbers. So did he admit to the other rape, or was he convicted on forensics?
RSBM
Right. The trouble I have had with all the Maddie suspects down the years, including Murat, is that they tend to be based on propensity reasoning rather than hard evidence. At law school you learn to be very careful about propensity because it leads easily to logical fallacies.
Here is why.
In my hometown there are (sadly) any number of sex offenders. So when a sex offence takes place, it is intellectually easy to pick one of the sex offenders in the neighbourhood and say "this is the kind of guy that does sex offending" therefore he probably did it. But maybe it was an offender unknown to us, or maybe there was not even a sex offence committed
This is why this kind of evidence is typically not allowed at trial, and why police tend to pursue a theory of the case and try to discover hard evidence to link an offender.
My problem with this case is the same one that plagued PJ and to my knowledge the Met never got past this either. If your theory of the case is abduction, then your investigation should produce evidence of an abduction, and clues as to identity. Sadly nothing ever came to light, but instead some forensic evidence of death in the apartment. This is why theory of the case has always tended to focus on removal of a body, rather than abduction, based on the little evidence known.
So now we have a tip off, and a load of sound and light that this is the kind of guy who would do this.
But i am not yet seeing anything which connects this guy directly to the disappearance. And if police had it, then surely he would be charged already?
I really hope they have something they are not telling us about