Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

[Lyall0814]

Explain why not. What does CB lose by divulging his cast iron alibi that means he was nowhere near Apartment 5 a on the night of 3rd May 2007? It’s blatantly obvious he doesn’t have one imo.

"Before our client cooperates with the prosecutor's office you could order holy water as a drink in hell" - CB's lawyer.

Clearly they think if any information or names are mentioned to the prosecutors those people will 'mysteriously' soon have media from all over the continent harassing them?

(I agree with you, he probably doesn't have one. But I can understand why they've said nothing about it if he has)

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Explain why not. What does CB lose by divulging his cast iron alibi that means he was nowhere near Apartment 5 a on the night of 3rd May 2007? It’s blatantly obvious he doesn’t have one imo.

Rather demanding! Please be respectful.

Because his legal counsel will be advising that he could unnecessarily incriminate himself, he may wish to remain silent in the future (depending on the prosecution case), he doesn’t know the evidence against him or the actual charge so it could be harmful to his case down the track etc.

In short, it would be very stupid to give the prosecution any evidence without them charging him.

 

[C.greek]

Obvious perhaps but the best legal course of action, certainly not.

All this discussion about an alibi started because CB himself and his lawyers and MWT found one (without ever being asked for one) that was though as it transpired a week off... there is no reason to refute that he doesn't have one for the night of the 3rd or for the days following the 3rd. And imo I don't see the reason why we should keep discussing this jmo

Madeleine McCann: Suspect Christian B claims he has an alibi which can be backed by woman

Christian B says he was having sex in his camper van with a woman at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

news.sky.com

 

[Consider Dudley]

Rather demanding! Please be respectful.

Because his legal counsel will be advising that he could unnecessarily incriminate himself, he may wish to remain silent in the future (depending on the prosecution case), he doesn’t know the evidence against him or the actual charge so it could be harmful to his case down the track etc.

In short, it would be very stupid to give the prosecution any evidence without them charging him.

My sincere apologies for any disrespect you detected in my previous post.
So CB will keep his cast iron alibi secret until he has been charged and is in court and will reveal it for the first time there with a triumphant flourish. The case will crumble and CB will march out of court with his held held high, a free man. A nice fantasy.

Odd that in his boastful, whingeing letters he doesn’t even claim to have a cast iron alibi (never mind divulge it), even if only to make the BKA sweat a little bit. Odder still that if never charged he will take this cast iron alibi to his grave, letting the wider public believe he was the man responsible for Madeleine’s abduction.

Oh well, he’s an odd man and this is an odd case, so I guess anything’s possible!

 

[onemoremiletogo]

YES! Without any reservation I have doubts CB might not responsible for MM’s disappearance.

It would behove you or anyone else that thinks otherwise to go back in time to late 2007. At that time, it was reported that MM’s blood and cadaver odour were found in 5A and the McCanns were made formal suspects.

Until I see someone convicted, I’m sceptical of everything related to this case.

The dogs again?! The McCs again?! GA's/PJ surreal novel?! Sorry I thought you would support any alternative narrative.

 

[Consider Dudley]

"Before our client cooperates with the prosecutor's office you could order holy water as a drink in hell" - CB's lawyer.

Clearly they think if any information or names are mentioned to the prosecutors those people will 'mysteriously' soon have media from all over the continent harassing them?

(I agree with you, he probably doesn't have one. But I can understand why they've said nothing about it if he has)

Yes, granted, CB’s team did try it once I seem to remember and that particular cast iron alibi proved to be nothing of the sort, hence perhaps their reticence to reach for another - that experience must have been a bit embarrassing.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Those five cases, in case CB found guilty in any of those, will serve to strengthen the MM's case prosecution?

If so, it will be a logic fallacious. Each case must be considered separately. CB could have commited a lot of crimes, and not the one we are discussing here.

Separately, yes, unless any inherence, modus operandi, similiarities in any of his "possessions"/background could be captured?! Not sure.

 

[Davieson]

Explain why not. What does CB lose by divulging his cast iron alibi that means he was nowhere near Apartment 5 a on the night of 3rd May 2007? It’s blatantly obvious he doesn’t have one imo.

Does he need one? Is it a crime not to have an alibi for a certain time and date ?

I see it as the prosecution's task to demonstrate he was there at a certain time, not for him to show that he wasn't there

 

[onemoremiletogo]

IMO they fatally need to wait until charge comes (if comes...) to then "try to fabricate" the alibi they do not have.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Yes, granted, CB’s team did try it once I seem to remember and that particular cast iron alibi proved to be nothing of the sort, hence perhaps their reticence to reach for another - that experience must have been a bit embarrassing.

Amateur, I would say.

 

[Okapi]

Let it lie The topic is a black hole.

I’m coming to that conclusion after an hour trawling thread 22. Far out, it would take me a year to catch up to here, not to mention how on earth to corral so many contradictions! I will let seeking dogs lie.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Does he need one? Is it a crime not to have an alibi for a certain time and date ?

I see it as the prosecution's task to demonstrate he was there at a certain time, not for him to show that he wasn't there

I don’t think I have ever suggested it’s a crime not to have an alibi but if you re-read my posts you will be able to see the rationale I give for giving one, if such a thing exists.

 

[jbinator]

What do you all think CB meant by “filet forensics”

I’ve been thinking he’s a sadistic , so could it be he meant “boneless forensics”in that filet in a dictionary is a boneless piece of meat.
A dig that the German LE have no body/bones….

Or is there something even more sinister in that he knows there’s photos of him with a piece of MM an arm or something along those lines and they can’t prove it’s her. But it’s definitely a child.

This would support why the Germans are certain he killed MM along with the other evidence they have but can’t prove it beyond all doubt.

CB likes to play games so it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s having a dig at them.

Also interesting in his drawing with the petals/flower

There are more guilty petals than innocent ones….

 

[C.greek]

What do you all think CB meant by “filet forensics”

I’ve been thinking he’s a sadistic , so could it be he meant “boneless forensics”in that filet in a dictionary is a boneless piece of meat.
A dig that the German LE have no body/bones….

Or is there something even more sinister in that he knows there’s photos of him with a piece of MM an arm or something along those lines and they can’t prove it’s her. But it’s definitely a child.

This would support why the Germans are certain he killed MM along with the other evidence they have but can’t prove it beyond all doubt.

CB likes to play games so it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s having a dig at them.

Also interesting in his drawing with the petals/flower

There are more guilty petals than innocent ones….

Interesting about the petals - didn't count them tbh but it is interesting if there are more guilty ones!

 

[onemoremiletogo]

What do you all think CB meant by “filet forensics”

I’ve been thinking he’s a sadistic , so could it be he meant “boneless forensics”in that filet in a dictionary is a boneless piece of meat.
A dig that the German LE have no body/bones….

Or is there something even more sinister in that he knows there’s photos of him with a piece of MM an arm or something along those lines and they can’t prove it’s her. But it’s definitely a child.

This would support why the Germans are certain he killed MM along with the other evidence they have but can’t prove it beyond all doubt.

CB likes to play games so it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s having a dig at them.

Also interesting in his drawing with the petals/flower

There are more guilty petals than innocent ones….

Or fish with no bones!? as underwater fauna...

 

[RichardKimble]

Does he need one? Is it a crime not to have an alibi for a certain time and date ?

I see it as the prosecution's task to demonstrate he was there at a certain time, not for him to show that he wasn't there

Indeed why does he need one for a crime he's not even been charged with, questioned about, all Wolters has said he believes CB killed the girl he's not actually accused him of such as yet .Wolters has never which date he killed her, so for which day would an alibi be relevant for ? Wolters has had never said he believes CB took Madeleine out of 5a, so why does he need an alibi ?

 

[Mex]

Those five cases, in case CB found guilty in any of those, will serve to strengthen the MM's case prosecution?

If so, it will be a logic fallacious. Each case must be considered separately. CB could have commited a lot of crimes, and not the one we are discussing here.

It is a learned judge or judges who is expected to hear all five cases and I think they will be judged pertaining to the separate evidence which will be presented in court.

These are individual cases each one unique to itself none of which are dependent on any one of the others when judged.

All that is unique to each case is the identity of the suspect.

It has been decided there was enough evidence to lay individual charges in each case and that is the basis on which they will be heard in court. They stand alone just as the MM stands alone.

For example the evidence in HB's case stands separate and alone from the evidence which convicted him in DM's.

The evidence in MM's case should it come to trial is for that trial and no other. I have confidence in the German justice system. Why is it then that even before it is tested in this one case the assumption is that this man will suffer a miscarriage of justice?

There is something insidious about this. My opinion

 

[Consider Dudley]

Indeed why does he need one for a crime he's not even been charged with, questioned about, all Wolters has said he believes CB killed the girl he's not actually accused him of such as yet .Wolters has never which date he killed her, so for which day would an alibi be relevant for ? Wolters has had never said he believes CB took Madeleine out of 5a, so why does he need an alibi ?

Why did he attempt to supply one then, when he claimed to be having sex with some girl in a camper van that night? HCW has suggested that CB was close to or adjacent to Apt5a that night, so an alibi that proves he wasn’t bursts that particular balloon doesn’t it?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Not really for the quotes you attributed to HCW I don't think. I just wanted to check for myself where HCW said those two things you quoted.

I have posted them before but perhaps you weren't reviewing the forum at that time - not sure.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I have posted them before but perhaps you weren't reviewing the forum at that time - not sure.

Were they on audio/video rather than from a written report? I have tried googling both and got no results, nor for those dates, but that’s probably me not looking properly.