Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

Status
Not open for further replies.
All i really take from the various comments on the evidence from HCW:

He doesn't have any forensics ... i.e from a crime scene
He has direct evidence (witness) but not to the crime
He has digital evidence of some kind, but its not direct.

Given circumstantial evidence is the common and broad - it doesn't take us far.

But lack of forensic evidence from a crime scene makes this a heavy lift. What will prove death, and that CB did it?

Great question. IMO and this is purely my interpretation of what’s been stated, I think they may have the following

Photo of MM post abduction (found amongst CB’s belongings)
The BKA wanted to corroborate the cell site data. They have his phone at the scene.
I do believe the strong new evidence is proof he was at the scene. Probably a picture or video of CB in the area on the afternoon/evening.
I think they appealed for information to place him at the scene, to show a clear link between CB being there and that picture (post abduction) being taken. That would make it almost impossible for FF to argue ‘prove he took that’ or ‘he got sent that’, because the BKA will show that CB himself was in the area when it happened.

That’s purely conjecture but I think it could be what they have. I also think they may have

Detailed online confession
Further disgusting online discussions
Evidence that CB was responsible for the recent burglaries in the OC
Witness testimony from people who knew him
Eye witnesses who saw him in the area on both the day and days prior
Search history or evidence CB was fixated on the status of the investigation
Movements after the crime
Drawings/paintings by CB that are eerily similar to MM &/or what may have happened
Unusual patterns of behaviour afterward
They have bank statements of his from 2007 (seized in 2018) which may show where and when he made purchases

just my opinion.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Thanks Trivento , iPad user but I'm not going to register either .
 
Apple News + is showing an article from People magazine in the last few days called “A Cry in the Night,” alleging that LE have discovered a new suspect. I don’t have an Apple News subscription and can’t find a link to the URL. Has anyone had a chance to read the article?
 

Attachments

  • D392B779-3F81-41E4-B624-AFAE4EEC41BB.png
    D392B779-3F81-41E4-B624-AFAE4EEC41BB.png
    236.5 KB · Views: 47
Apple News + is showing an article from People magazine in the last few days called “A Cry in the Night,” alleging that LE have discovered a new suspect. I don’t have an Apple News subscription and can’t find a link to the URL. Has anyone had a chance to read the article?

I don't want to be a downer here but the likelihood of People Mag having an exclusive about a new suspect that's not CB, that's accessible only by subscription to Apple News seems, to say the very least, so very unlikely.
 
Madeleine Mccann - Suspeito de raptar Maddie confessa desejo de violar crianças
I thought it was a Skype chat, but maybe both FB and Skype?

"The conversations are part of the German process, writes Correio da Manhã."
Yes, reading through these new CM articles, I've noticed a few little things that don't quite correspond with previous reports so it's hard to know which are correct. As you say, they report it as being a Facebook conversation whereas most of the other reports on this exchange said it was on Skype. In one of the other reports it mentions that a range of messages were found on both platforms though, so I expect this is just one of those exchanges and there's been a mix up in the reporting as to which platform it appeared on.

There's a few other things too, one of the CM reports that one of the videos MS and HB found was of the DM rape and that it was even used to convict CB for the crime. I'm pretty sure that's untrue. They also seem to indicate the police later identified one of the victims as a 15 year old girl. But surely if that was true, he would have stood trial if they know who the person was?

One thing that I did find interesting relates to that online exchange with the other paedophile. In the transcript shown on CM there are three ellipsis ... shown in amongst the exchange indicating there are parts of the conversation that have been redacted. But there is an indication of what they discussed and I do wonder if the police have chosen to redact it because it points to an area where they may have found evidence.

The first ellipsis appears after the friend says he doesn't have any new videos and CB says "Ok. Anyway sending films this way is dangerous". He is obviously referring to the act of sharing paedophilia content over the internet.

The second ellipsis appears just before CB says, (according to the CM transcript): Then [before they meet] I will record a lot of films. Which is then followed by the third ellipsis.

What CM then indicates in the report (without showing the actual exchange) is that CB and the friend were discussing meeting up in three months time, and that they live in distant cities. And that CB was promising to have new videos to show him at this meeting.

We've known about this Skype exchange pretty much from the start but I don't recall seeing that detail before and it does make me wonder why it was not made public. It indicates that CB was very conscious about putting content online but was sharing cotent in person, probably on hard drives, with other paedophiles. If police have been able to track down some of these other people, it is possible they may have uncovered content that CB has given to them. CB may be totally oblivious to this too, thinking his original copies are well hidden or even destroyed.

I also find it odd that the UK tabloids are not reporting on these 'new' findings given how many non-stories they've reported over the last 12 months. The only report I've seen was from the Daily Star where they spoke about CB talking about liking danger situations and killing a person faster than an animal. But what is strange is there were other details in those CM articles, far more shocking, which they have chosen not to print.

I do wonder if some of the stuff CM are reporting is the result of PJ leaks and not something the BKA wanted in the public domain and hence why the UK tabloids have not repeated it. JMO.
 
JC's book is proving quite disappointing for this reader. I had expected an account of the history of the search and the inquiries and of why the local plod were so epically incapable. Instead he names CB upfront and it's then not a lot more than a travelogue of where he has recently been to meet and interview any sex pervert or lowlife he could find who has ever had a connection to CB. I can only read it for about half an hour at a time because it feels like a long warm swim in a cesspool.

Perhaps inadvertently, this approach gives the impression that, while it could have been CB because he's clearly the suspect from central casting, the area of Portugal in question is fizzing with so many drifter eurotrash sex criminals, living off-grid in vans and burgling, thieving and drug dealing for a living, that it could frankly have been any of them.

If the best evidence HCW has that he's the 'droid they're looking for is his phone being used in Praia da Luz, that's great but how does that prove it was CB using it? What if it was stolen or lost and it wasn't him using it? CB could surely just say that a lot of thefts happen around there, and he'd know, because he was responsible for a lot of them.

It feels to me like what we've seen and can infer so far is a strong circumstantial case against CB but, unless there's more to come out, not a lot else.
 
I do wonder if some of the stuff CM are reporting is the result of PJ leaks and not something the BKA wanted in the public domain and hence why the UK tabloids have not repeated it. JMO.

Didn't the original reporting say CM was embedded with BKA and thus it's exclusive?

While I agree CM also likely have PJ sources, I get the feeling this stuff is for Portugal consumption and the UK Tabs simply have no access to the story beyond cut and paste.

That is what I find interesting - why this co-ordination around the reported meeting?

Is the point to convince PJ to go all in on this?

The last thing PJ would want is another fiasco like the redwood PdL search
 
Apple News + is showing an article from People magazine in the last few days called “A Cry in the Night,” alleging that LE have discovered a new suspect. I don’t have an Apple News subscription and can’t find a link to the URL. Has anyone had a chance to read the article?

I've a feeling, this is from last year
 
JC's book is proving quite disappointing for this reader. I had expected an account of the history of the search and the inquiries and of why the local plod were so epically incapable. Instead he names CB upfront and it's then not a lot more than a travelogue of where he has recently been to meet and interview any sex pervert or lowlife he could find who has ever had a connection to CB. I can only read it for about half an hour at a time because it feels like a long warm swim in a cesspool.

Perhaps inadvertently, this approach gives the impression that, while it could have been CB because he's clearly the suspect from central casting, the area of Portugal in question is fizzing with so many drifter eurotrash sex criminals, living off-grid in vans and burgling, thieving and drug dealing for a living, that it could frankly have been any of them.

If the best evidence HCW has that he's the 'droid they're looking for is his phone being used in Praia da Luz, that's great but how does that prove it was CB using it? What if it was stolen or lost and it wasn't him using it? CB could surely just say that a lot of thefts happen around there, and he'd know, because he was responsible for a lot of them.

It feels to me like what we've seen and can infer so far is a strong circumstantial case against CB but, unless there's more to come out, not a lot else.

HCW already spoke about that being his need to find the owner of the other number way back when it was released. So that CB couldn’t say that it was stolen, or that ‘a girlfriend had his phone.’ There’s no longer any mention of the phone number or the owner, so that’s either been resolved or is no longer important. Or he purposefully sent us on a wild goose chase, so that they could focus elsewhere.
Thankfully, all the ‘good’ evidence is always kept for trial. We can only be made privy to information that authorities are happy with CB knowing. We already know from his drawings that he either has access to MSM or FF is keeping him briefed on everything, and HCW already said back at the start that they don’t want CB knowing what they have on him until they’re ready to go to trial. Of course they could have nothing major and are trying to ‘smoke’ CB out, but it could also tie in with the above theory that they may possess evidence that CB thought he had destroyed.
 
Interestingly, the CM articles about CB have been released as follows:
  • 18/10/21 at 21:39
  • 19/10/21 at 01:30
  • 20/10/21 at 01:30
  • 21/10/21 at 01:30
But nothing today, so far. I wonder if that’s all they’ve been given on him or is it something to do with weekend publishing?
 
Didn't the original reporting say CM was embedded with BKA and thus it's exclusive?
No, I don’t believe so. Where did you read that? I think what CM said was along the lines of they had access to some of the statements/evidence of the German investigation. There is nothing in any of the articles that include any quotes from HCW or BKA. My personal opinion is that they have a source in the PJ who have leaked some of the evidence/information that the BKA have told them about. This obviously being evidence that wasn't in the public domain (hence 'an Exclusive for CM') but is also not any of the "main" evidence which the BKA would appear to be keeping close to their chest.

That was my point about the Skype exchange. They were only able to actually 'quote' the parts of the exchange that were already released into the public domain by BKA last June, yet they somehow knew further details about what else was discussed in that exchange (about CB and the friend meeting in 3 months time to exchange content in person), the redacted parts which haven't been reported anywhere before. Again, my opinion is that those other 'details' might have been privately revealed to certain people within the PJ by the BKA and that's the source where CM have got that additional information from.
While I agree CM also likely have PJ sources, I get the feeling this stuff is for Portugal consumption and the UK Tabs simply have no access to the story beyond cut and paste.
That hasn't stopped them up to now. As soon as one paper reports a new story, all the others copy and paste their own version citing the original tabloid source. And the UK tabloids have cited stories and information from CM before. I just would have expected to have seen some more activity in the UK press about it. They've made big stories out of far less.
That is what I find interesting - why this co-ordination around the reported meeting?

Is the point to convince PJ to go all in on this?
There's not that much info about what activity is actually going on between the 2 agencies in the CM pieces. The article from the Olive Press seemed to explain more. It does sound like there's been more activity going on at the PJ though in relation to this case in the last couple of years than what most people assumed. Maybe it's just the case that BKA do now have enough to go to trial and this is the ramping up stage where they are collating all the evidence from other agencies in preparation.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-...something-small-in-madeleine-mccann-case/amp/
 
Last edited:
No, I don’t believe so. Where did you read that? I think what CM said was along the lines of they had access to some of the statements/evidence of the German investigation.

You are right - i just assumed it from this post.

Correio da Manhã published a series of articles last night written by their most senior reporter who has followed the case from the beginning .
Apparently C da M had access to the German investigation into CB and they are now publishing portions of those files.

So we don't know where this stuff came from - but I guess it is PJ

Maybe a better read is PJ see this as the chance to hand it all off to BKA and forget about it. A german can be to blame. Someone else's problem.
 
No, I don’t believe so. Where did you read that? I think what CM said was along the lines of they had access to some of the statements/evidence of the German investigation. There is nothing in any of the articles that include any quotes from HCW or BKA. My personal opinion is that they have a source in the PJ who have leaked some of the evidence/information that the BKA have told them about. This obviously being evidence that wasn't in the public domain (hence 'an Exclusive for CM') but is also not any of the "main" evidence which the BKA would appear to be keeping close to their chest.

That was my point about the Skype exchange. They were only able to actually 'quote' the parts of the exchange that were already released into the public domain by BKA last June, yet they somehow knew further details about what else was discussed in that exchange (about CB and the friend meeting in 3 months time to exchange content in person), the redacted parts which haven't been reported anywhere before. Again, my opinion is that those other 'details' might have been privately revealed to certain people within the PJ by the BKA and that's the source where CM have got that additional information from.

That hasn't stopped them up to now. As soon as one paper reports a new story, all the others copy and paste their own version citing the original tabloid source. And the UK tabloids have cited stories and information from CM before. I just would have expected to have seen some more activity in the UK press about it. They've made big stories out of far less.

There's not that much info about what activity is actually going on between the 2 agencies in the CM pieces. The article from the Olive Press seemed to explain more. It does sound like there's been more activity going on at the PJ though in relation to this case in the last couple of years than what most people assumed. Maybe it's just the case that BKA do now have enough to go to trial and this is the ramping up stage where they are collating all the evidence from other agencies in preparation.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-...something-small-in-madeleine-mccann-case/amp/

Yes, there doesn't seem much in the UK press about what cm is publishing, or GA book, I mean of the stuff coming from cm is pretty hardcore stuff, so maybe that's why, and it's more to do with CB's passed, not about MM directly, if you get me. If they did print anything about the stuff from cm, it's just duplicating stuff in effect.
 
Yes, there doesn't seem much in the UK press about what cm is publishing, or GA book, I mean of the stuff coming from cm is pretty hardcore stuff, so maybe that's why, and it's more to do with CB's passed, not about MM directly, if you get me. If they did print anything about the stuff from cm, it's just duplicating stuff in effect.

Is the majority of the info on CB in the videos attached to the CM reports ? Thanks
 
Yes, there doesn't seem much in the UK press about what cm is publishing, or GA book, I mean of the stuff coming from cm is pretty hardcore stuff, so maybe that's why, and it's more to do with CB's passed, not about MM directly, if you get me. If they did print anything about the stuff from cm, it's just duplicating stuff in effect.
Maybe, but they've printed loads of other stories about CB's past, and the comments from CB's friend in those CM articles are definitely newsworthy enough, at least in terms of the benchmark of what they've printed previously. In terms off duplicating stuff, I don't think they'd care about that, especially since hardly anyone in the UK will have read these CM articles.

The GA stuff, I kind of understand why they haven't printed. He is a disgraced cop, with a clear agenda in trying to discredit the CB investigation. I have actually read through his articles in CM too and they are quite pathetic.

For instance, he makes a big deal about the DM attack not being a rape in order to promote his conspiracy theory that this is all some big fit-up of CB. He states that the "gynaecologist's report stated that there was no rape".... Really? I'm not an expert but they would surely only carry out such an examination if the victim had claimed to have been raped? So what is he claiming, that DM lied about being raped? The truth is more likely that the examination was simply unable to find any severe trauma or forensic traces rather than concluding that "no rape" took place. Can a medical exam even assert that?

There's a load of other stuff too that is straight out of the conspiracy nut factory. Insinuating that MM was a victim of long term sexual abuse because her speech wasn't advanced enough for her age. Similarly that MM was physically abused by KM because of a red mark on her arm. Then in the same breath, he claims the photo in question has been photoshopped as the child's body is of an older child. So which one is it? Is the mark on the arm her arm or someone else's arm.

The man is a disgrace IMO. He's doing everything he can to sow doubt and promote his theory of a fit up. So yes, I can understand why the UK press aren't giving his opinions much attention.
 
Maybe, but they've printed loads of other stories about CB's past, and the comments from CB's friend in those CM articles are definitely newsworthy enough, at least in terms of the benchmark of what they've printed previously. In terms off duplicating stuff, I don't think they'd care about that, especially since hardly anyone in the UK will have read these CM articles.

The GA stuff, I kind of understand why they haven't printed. He is a disgraced cop, with a clear agenda in trying to discredit the CB investigation. I have actually read through his articles in CM too and they are quite pathetic.

For instance, he makes a big deal about the DM attack not being a rape in order to promote his conspiracy theory that this is all some big fit-up of CB. He states that the "gynaecologist's report stated that there was no rape".... Really? I'm not an expert but they would surely only carry out such an examination if the victim had claimed to have been raped? So what is he claiming, that DM lied about being raped? The truth is more likely that the examination was simply unable to find any severe trauma or forensic traces rather than concluding that "no rape" took place. Can a medical exam even assert that?

There's a load of other stuff too that is straight out of the conspiracy nut factory. Insinuating that MM was a victim of long term sexual abuse because her speech wasn't advanced enough for her age. Similarly that MM was physically abused by KM because of a red mark on her arm. Then in the same breath, he claims the photo in question has been photoshopped as the child's body is of an older child. So which one is it? Is the mark on the arm her arm or someone else's arm.

The man is a disgrace IMO. He's doing everything he can to sow doubt and promote his theory of a fit up. So yes, I can understand why the UK press aren't giving his opinions much attention.

Also the sad news of another missing girl, it would not seem appropriate to have all the stuff in the English press at this time
 
Maybe, but they've printed loads of other stories about CB's past, and the comments from CB's friend in those CM articles are definitely newsworthy enough, at least in terms of the benchmark of what they've printed previously. In terms off duplicating stuff, I don't think they'd care about that, especially since hardly anyone in the UK will have read these CM articles.

The GA stuff, I kind of understand why they haven't printed. He is a disgraced cop, with a clear agenda in trying to discredit the CB investigation. I have actually read through his articles in CM too and they are quite pathetic.

For instance, he makes a big deal about the DM attack not being a rape in order to promote his conspiracy theory that this is all some big fit-up of CB. He states that the "gynaecologist's report stated that there was no rape".... Really? I'm not an expert but they would surely only carry out such an examination if the victim had claimed to have been raped? So what is he claiming, that DM lied about being raped? The truth is more likely that the examination was simply unable to find any severe trauma or forensic traces rather than concluding that "no rape" took place. Can a medical exam even assert that?

There's a load of other stuff too that is straight out of the conspiracy nut factory. Insinuating that MM was a victim of long term sexual abuse because her speech wasn't advanced enough for her age. Similarly that MM was physically abused by KM because of a red mark on her arm. Then in the same breath, he claims the photo in question has been photoshopped as the child's body is of an older child. So which one is it? Is the mark on the arm her arm or someone else's arm.

The man is a disgrace IMO. He's doing everything he can to sow doubt and promote his theory of a fit up. So yes, I can understand why the UK press aren't giving his opinions much attention.

And the stuff Re mm, is ridiculous, he says kids that can't speak properly are reported to the police or something stupid like that, he's defo a baffoon, just wants money for his retirement, he handled those first few hours and days disgracefully, he was totally out of his depth imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
4,251
Total visitors
4,451

Forum statistics

Threads
592,429
Messages
17,968,783
Members
228,767
Latest member
Dont4get
Back
Top