Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #19

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrjitty said:
The problem is, if you ask me "did you call this person on this number at this time 13 years ago" - there is no way I can testify to that, unless I have some way to place it based on other events. There would need to be something very specific to place the call.
Click to expand...

You mightn’t recall a specific call on 3/5/07 but you could say CB was an acquaintance and you did call him occasionally to chat. Alternatively, you might say NF (or someone in the friends group) was an acquaintance and you used to call her on that number.
 
axelcruze said:
Why is it not good? surely if he's innocent it's good that he's cleared.....
Click to expand...
What I mean is it is not good for HB that she may not get closure, I don't know what DNA they had as I thought all that was destroyed by PLE ? Potential DNA evidence from a rape which the victim believes may have been committed by the Madeleine McCann suspect was destroyed on the orders of Portuguese prosecutors DNA from rape victim believes may have been Madeleine McCann suspect destroyed
 
Please apologise, but whenever i read the term:

"A source close to the investigation....",

my heartrate slows down and i need a good coffee, not to sleep away instantly.

Supplementary i'm still waiting for FF's bombshell, because meanwhile my buttocks hurt so much, due to the long sitting and holding tight on my chair, as much as i can.
 
mrjitty said:
So the evidence that the number was CB and thus placing him in PdL that earlier that evening, is basically this note in a diary?

No wonder they need the other person on the call.
Click to expand...

Detectives in Portugal are convinced junkie Euclides Montiero was involved. Police say signals from his phone show he was near the McCanns' holiday flat when the three-year-old vanished in 2007.
But his family said the waiter swapped and sold mobiles to escape detection as he mixed with drug dealers. His sister Paula said he must have passed the phone to someone else before Madeleine disappeared as she "knows" he was nowhere near at the time. Paula said: "He was always swapping or selling his phones around that time. "The phone isn't proof he was near Madeleine McCann's apartment. I know he wasn't there."

Isn't this the same story for CB but with different names. When a house is left open at night, all sorts of people could wander in and take a child, it seems it's such a bloody difficult case because there is no evidence. They have a pretty good suspect in custody so it makes sense to smoke him out if it is him, if he knows he has nothing to lose. Obviously i have no idea what the material evidence is, it could be a dead body image, but i'm guessing they cannot pin it on CB.
 
Last edited:
snowpea666 said:
What I mean is it is not good for HB that she may not get closure, I don't know what DNA they had as I thought all that was destroyed by PLE ? Potential DNA evidence from a rape which the victim believes may have been committed by the Madeleine McCann suspect was destroyed on the orders of Portuguese prosecutors DNA from rape victim believes may have been Madeleine McCann suspect destroyed
Click to expand...

Snow, samples are analyzed and afterwards kept or destroyed depending on many things.

Results are permanent and can be compared with all suspects at any time.
 
SuperdadV8 said:
Please apologise, but whenever i read the term:

"A source close to the investigation....",

my heartrate slows down and i need a good coffee, not to sleep away instantly.

Supplementary i'm still waiting for FF's bombshell, because meanwhile my buttocks hurt so much, due to the long sitting and holding tight on my chair, as much as i can.
Click to expand...
Super, you should have placed a soft cushion to go with your chair!
:D
 
MENDEL said:
Herr Fülscher's announced revelation may never come.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure of that too. And i'm sure, that there is no closer source to the investigation, than the hired british lawyers.

The HazelB case is said to be investigated by Braunschweig prosecuters. Their strategy of making investigation results public is already known and nothing else is going public, what HCW isn't making public by himself.

So, just lurking for klicks, when nothing new has been proclaimed by institutions that are really in charge. Not even from FF!
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure, Super. Just a hunch. He probably announced the revelation because he didn't mean revealing it but rather pressing for some negotiation.
 
mrjitty said:
The problem is, if you ask me "did you call this person on this number at this time 13 years ago" - there is no way I can testify to that, unless I have some way to place it based on other events. There would need to be something very specific to place the call.
Click to expand...

mrjitty said:
The problem is, if you ask me "did you call this person on this number at this time 13 years ago" - there is no way I can testify to that, unless I have some way to place it based on other events. There would need to be something very specific to place the call.
Click to expand...
But you would have something to place it based on other events. The day after there would have been the major news story that a child had disappeared. There would have been the added detail that they were abducted from a place where you'd been calling.

I couldn't tell you what I was doing last week but I can tell you exactly what I was doing the day I heard princess Diana was dead. More personally - I could tell you exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard a student at the University my daughter attended had gone missing. Both were significant events one was both significant and it's location resonated with me.
 
MENDEL said:
I'm not sure, Super. Just a hunch. He probably announced the revelation because he didn't mean revealing it but rather pressing for some negotiation.
Click to expand...

Very likely! Hard to imagine, that Supersolicitor FF takes two flights to PDL and solves the case, because he got crucial info from a anonymous source!

In all that time of talking and assuming journalists and solicitors, the case stays in the minds of the whole world.

Time for prosecuters to make some progress hopefully and some people start talking.

I'm okay with that!
 
Of course a source Super-solicitor can't tell.

Two trips to PDL means CB already opened his mouth and is cooperating.

No Super-solicitor would do that for an uncooperative client.
 
MENDEL said:
Of course a source Super-solicitor can't tell.

Two trips to PDL means CB already opened his mouth and is cooperating.

No Super-solicitor would do that for an uncooperative client.
Click to expand...

Maybe that, maybe a super-solicitor that uses the media attention for own purposes would do that, although he knows, his client isn't the most honest criminal he has ever represented or that everything points out to a trial, mostly based on circumstancial evidence.

Lawyers need clients to buy food, as we all do. Solicitors do need clients to buy their food, as we all do. Or feed their four legged daughters called Bettina.
 
Neither CB nor any of his friends are choir boys. We know CB committed crimes. What we want to know is if he's connected to MM's disappearance. Circumstantial evidence can be very strong evidence when all joined together. Most crime are solved that way.
 
MENDEL said:
Neither CB nor any of his friends are choir boys. We know CB committed crimes. What we want to know is if he's connected to MM's disappearance. Circumstantial evidence can be very strong evidence when all joined together. Most crime are solved that way.
Click to expand...

Obviously you're right!

But one thing doesn't fit IMO. Claiming innocence by saying in almost the same sentence, that there will be no cooperation, doesn't seem straight! If there is a proven alibi, why not promoting it before it get's to an interrogation or a trial? Instead of that, blaming witnesses credibility.

Before or after that, almost secret travel to the crime scene. Talking to doubtful persons. Is FF looking for the truth, or a way to spread reasonable doubt to get his client out of possible trouble?

It maybe is a strategy that could work, yes. Fine, job done! But it's no strategy that can convice everyone, that his client is innocent.

So IMO he is preparing for war, not for the truth! Permitted, of course!

But even as a solictor, you are a body of justice. Not a tool of a criminal.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 138 more.
Total: 3,709 (members: 139, guests: 3,570)

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,570
Total visitors
3,709
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,387
Messages
18,046,631
Members
229,990
Latest member
pettylogic
Back
Top