I've always suspected Redwood spent time with JT and she ended up recanting her statement. Like you say, otherwise none of it can be explained.
Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26
- Thread starter Taskforce88
- Start date
- Status
I've always suspected Redwood spent time with JT and she ended up recanting her statement. Like you say, otherwise none of it can be explained.
Dlk79
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 9,984
Where?
JT said she could not identify the man's face. The artist impression was an egg with hair. So I don't really see how FF can use this as a defence unless he has some way to show this man couldn't have been CB.
Like I say, he doesn't have to show the man couldn't have been CB. He just needs to raise the possibility it could reasonably have been someone else. That is easy to do when JT said it was RM (easy to prove by calling PJ detectives/case records). The whole point is we have no real way of knowing who the hell that person was - but the parents own website still says that person might be the abductor.
It's classic throw mud on the wall stuff.
IMO HCW cannot afford to get in the weeds on this stuff
Anyway - that's my 02c until we find out what the hell HCW has up his sleeve
onemoremiletogo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 904
Excellent posts!
I'm following and supporting your overall narrative and view on CB, BKA evidence, NF as "accomplice", no alibi, FF theory, etc. I want to believe that is the most likely scenario but I'm still having some doubts (or I'm just missing any info) on one or two points.
- Footage of MM (alone): isn't this too "obvious" so that it had not been leaked before (e.g.CB on darkweb)? I'm afraid concrete evidence may lie only on witness testimonial...
- Has CB really cooperated in 2013? I thought he had never attended.
At that date there was no concrete evidence by BKA, but shouldn't CB have shown more concern exposing himself to police's questions?!
- The provocative drawings: aren't they a signal of CB's confidence in the sense of he actually has eliminated any and all possible evidence?
Dlk79
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 9,984
But that's what I'm saying, how do you know JT said it was RM? I don't believe she ever did. In fact, in that article I linked, she specifically says she didn't. And in her rogatory interview, she explicity says she doesn't think the man was RM. If she had really ID'd RM, it would be in the PJ files, why on earth wouldn't it be? JT has never signed any statement to say she thought Tannerman was RM.
So where did this story come from? Take a wild guess... Amaral's book. JT was put in a surveillance car and they got RM to walk past the car to see if she recognised him as being Tannerman. This part is true, JT confirms it in the rogatory interview but she doesn't claim to have ID'd RM. In fact she said it didn't "jog any memories". GA has a different account, even though he wasn't even in the car with her. According to him, JT said it was definitely the same man because she recognised the way he walked. What a load of crap. If that was true, they would have made her put it in writing as evidence, without a doubt.
FF cannot use Tannerman as a defence on the basis that that person could have been 'anyone' since 'anyone' could include CB. And I don't see how he can claim that JT thought it was RM when she claims that she never did and when she is on the record as saying she doesn't think it was him. Is FF really going to want to get into that debate in court, what GA claims JT said versus what JT claims she said. There's nothing in the police files to back up GA's account so that is surely going to ring alarm bells with any judge if they were to try and claim it in court.
Last edited:
Dlk79
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 9,984
It's just a theory but it would explain so many other things that the BKA have done and said. We have evidence from CB's skype chat that he was wary of posting videos over the net and was arranging to meet another paedophile in person to share content. So I think it's entirely plausible that such content would never find its way on to the DW. CB certainly wouldn't want it on there and if he had shared it privately, they would presumably have been instructed the same. Besides, it may have been CB's own personal trophy, that he never shared with anyone but hid somewhere like his other content, but possibly at a different time. But again, I'm not 100% convicted to there being video/photo evidence, I just think it's a genuine possibility.
Yes, I remember this being reported that he never attended. I think it appeared on some documentary originally but it seems like there was some misunderstanding about that. In JC's book, he interviews HCW and asks him directly about this interview in 2013. HCW confirms it did take place. It was a summons so CB had no option but to attend really. HCW says the Braunschweig police department interviewed him at BKA's request. CB answered their questions and they compiled a report which was then sent back to BKA who in turn passed the report onto the British Police who were the ones that originally requested that he be questioned.
Well perhaps he does think he has eliminated any evidence to connect him. He seems to be mocking the fact they can't find 'forensic' evidence. Maybe he knows they won't find any because of how he disposed of the body and that the 5A search is done and dusted with nothing found belonging to him. HCW has spoken about keeping their evidence secret because they don't want CB to know what they have on him. And BKA will have thought very carefully about the tactics in this appeal and what information they put out there. It may even be they are deliberately making it look like they don't know things that they actually do. They don't necessarily need forensic evidence to get a conviction though. Who knows what's really going through CB's mind regarding these drawings though. It seems more like a pressure tactic IMO.
I think we are down to just repeating the same points.
The evidence she did will be PJ officials. There will exist documentation relating to the ID operation, subsequent search warrant etc - a case had to be made to a judge.
Maybe they made it up, maybe they didn't. Personally I doubt it. But it's great stuff for the defence if HCW is reduced to claiming PJ are making up their claim that JT IDed the suspect (then much later claimed she never did).
The defence only has to raise evidential foundation for reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove who anyone definitively was or wasn't.
That is my last comment on this as I think we both made our views clear.
Yes. These are just free gifts for the defence. The Met made a televised Crime Watch appeal for info on this person as a key sighting. All of this will be admissible in the defence case.
Of course potentially it could be CB. But if you are the defence engaged in mudslinging, it's a great chance to say "wait" this person was IDed as someone else!
If I were the defence, I would want to call the Smiths to say who they think they saw and whether it was CB - seeing the Met said this was a key sighting of a potential abductor.
This is why HCW needs to head all this off at the pass and prove none of this stuff matters, because he has the definitive proof CB murdered the victim, no matter who all these other people are.
I hope HCW does eventually make a move in this case.
Until he does so, it just feels like we have to guess whether he has that crucial photo / video / something else
My problem with trusting him so much, is this is a case where the authorities promised much before, and came up short. So I don't see why we should assume he is all over it, just because it's the germans.
I worry quite a bit of what he has done so far, suggests it's another media driven fishing expedition.
Until he does so, it just feels like we have to guess whether he has that crucial photo / video / something else
My problem with trusting him so much, is this is a case where the authorities promised much before, and came up short. So I don't see why we should assume he is all over it, just because it's the germans.
I worry quite a bit of what he has done so far, suggests it's another media driven fishing expedition.
Dlk79
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 9,984
Yes, I agree it's a circular topic so we'll leave it there. But I would point out that it wasn't "much later" that JT claimed she never pointed the finger at Murat. The article I linked was from November 2007, while RM was still an Arguido. And as far as I can tell, it's the first time she'd spoken about it since the apparent surveillance van "ID" took place.
JMO but what I think actually happened at the ID was along the lines of JT saying hmm/maybe/could have been him I suppose, similar walk etc etc. Then GA has heard this account second hand (since he wasn't there) and dressed it up as something a lot more assertive. Like I said, if it was anything solid, it would have been added to the file against him IMO.
Last edited:
Betty_Boop88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 3,844
Well this was the whole point of the first appeal, was it not?
The appeal we hear nothing more about - and as they’re doing mock trials now - the appeal we either have to take as resolved or unsolved.
Last edited:
Dlk79
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 9,984
In this instance, at court I think the onus would fall more to the defence to prove he wasn't using it. BKA can prove it's his phone and mobile phone location data is strong evidence in a court case, it's used a lot to convict criminals. And it would normally be assumed the owner is the one in possession of the phone unless it can be shown otherwise. It's not one of those instances where the defence have only got to show there is reasonable doubt he might not have been using it. It's going to form part of his alibi and account of his movements. The defence argument will be evaluated by a Judge, not a jury, and they will adjudicate based on whether they find the defence's argument plausible or not. If they are to claim CB wasn't using the phone, they will have to provide the judge with some kind of reasonable explanation about who was using it if they are to stand any chance of a judge believing them. And unless they can provide a witness to testify they were the one using it, I can't see the judge looking kindly upon that defence. If anything it would likely discredit their case.
I don't think they would even try to deny it if they know he was in PDL, they don't need to. They can just say, yes I was in PDL, but so were thousands of other people, doesn't mean I had anything to do with MM. Also, we don't know if BKA have other supporting evidence that he was in PDL. Where did CB claim he was in his 2013 interview? What did he tell all his friends about where he was at that time, we know they discussed the MM case? What about the original eyewitnesses like JJ, TS & CT, do any of them claim that CB was indeed the person they saw lurking? What about the current appeal, has anyone else been able to place him there?
In short, IMO I don't think BKA are going to even need to prove that CB was in PDL. If he was there and he took that half hour call, I think the defence will admit it anyway. Trying to claim someone else had the phone when they have no way to prove it is simply not a risk worth taking when it's not even conclusive evidence that he had anything to do with MM.
The phone is an example of circumstantial evidence and drawing obvious inferences from circumstantial evidence.
If HCW can prove the phone belonged to CB, then the Judge will almost certainly infer that CB was the one using it, as a reasonable and obvious inference based on facts established.
That effectively raises an evidential burden on the defence to introduce evidence that it was not CB to rebut that potential inference. e.g if it was a burner phone, not tied to any contract, he could attempt to argue he had a newer phone at the time and had given/sold that handset to someone else.
It's difficult to know exactly how HCW will prove that was CBs number at the time.
I tend to agree with @Dlk79
FF will probably accept the number was CB, but dispute locational data, and what can be inferred from it. Given CB lived locally the existence of the call mainly proves he was around that day - IMO
If HCW can prove the phone belonged to CB, then the Judge will almost certainly infer that CB was the one using it, as a reasonable and obvious inference based on facts established.
That effectively raises an evidential burden on the defence to introduce evidence that it was not CB to rebut that potential inference. e.g if it was a burner phone, not tied to any contract, he could attempt to argue he had a newer phone at the time and had given/sold that handset to someone else.
It's difficult to know exactly how HCW will prove that was CBs number at the time.
I tend to agree with @Dlk79
FF will probably accept the number was CB, but dispute locational data, and what can be inferred from it. Given CB lived locally the existence of the call mainly proves he was around that day - IMO
We should factor in, it this was a burner phone, the point of the appeal may have been to establish this was in fact CBs number.
One of the challenges so many years later, will be proving that aspect. I wonder if they are able to prove it via call records from so many years ago - e.g. could you dig up a landline call say from his work place or associates to that number?
But thinking of my own life, if you ask me who had this burner number that i called over a decade ago from my contract phone - i would have no clue.
Jenesaisquoi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 5,713
I may not know friends’ mobile numbers ten tears later, but I may know that there are only certain people that I phone between 9pm and 8am. And there will only be a few people that I may phone daily. So there may be ways of working out from call patterns who’s who, imo.
Betty_Boop88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 3,844
Would someone even remember their own burner phone number, so many years later?
We have no way of knowing - until trial - if it was a burner number or his own number. I’m in two minds about it, so bear with me. Yous know I love to ramble…
In his interview with JC, HCW talks about how in 2007 you could register a mobile phone under the name “Mickey Mouse” in Portugal, no ID needed to be shown. CB stole phones and SIM cards. If he stole the €100k, we know NF bought a burner phone, according to the two victims in her car. We could infer from all this that the number used on the night was most likely temporary.
However, proving the number was his wasn’t part of the appeal - it was to put the phone in his hand, so he couldn’t say someone else was using his phone on the night. So he couldn’t say he gave his phone to a girlfriend to use. They appear to already know that he used this number. The appeal was to prove he was using that number on the night. That it was him that received the 30min phone call. That doesn’t sound like a burner number to me, JMO.
If it was a burner phone and temporary number, surely you’d assume that the number wouldn’t have been given out freely, or that kind of defeats the purpose? So we could assume there were no calls from his work or landlines etc. So if you did have that number… Why? Why would you have the temporary number of a thief, a number that was only to be used for one night? And the one night it just so happened to be used, a 3yo girl went missing? If it was a burner, then that sounds like you’re looking for an accomplice more than anything, because surely that would be the only other person that would have a criminal’s burner number? An accomplice that HCW claims they aren’t looking for - whether that’s because they genuinely believe he acted alone or because they already know who the accomplice is and have her heavily guarded is another matter.
I’ve always taken the wording of the appeal and HCW’s subsequent interviews about it to mean that it wasn’t a burner number but CB’s own number. But then it’s always possible they’re trying to ‘trap’ someone. If it wasn’t a burner number, that suggests to me that the abduction wasn’t planned. If CB is guilty, of course.
Yeah - there's so many unknowns will all of this.
But I do wonder how they intend to prove it was his phone (if it wasn't contract, and he didn't need to show ID to get the SIM)
Contemporaneous is easy because his associates would have that number saved - but years later? Maybe PJ noted his number all the way back in those days?
But I do wonder how they intend to prove it was his phone (if it wasn't contract, and he didn't need to show ID to get the SIM)
Contemporaneous is easy because his associates would have that number saved - but years later? Maybe PJ noted his number all the way back in those days?
- Status