Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[Chiatos]

I agree the article is very ambiguous and believe this is possibly deliberate.

Answering what I can, I think the suggestion is that the first woman they mention is this person -
P.J. POLICE FILES: KELSIE HARRIS WIFE OF MATTHEW FAZACKERLEY

It matches in the sense she is British, her address is located right next to the Ocean club and the date of her statement is exactly 13 days after MM went missing. As you can see, it mentions nothing about this apparently overheard conversation in this statement. It's possible I suppose it has been redacted or forms part of the missing PJ files but would seem unlikely.

As for who the rest of the people are in the report, that's up to interpretation. In this story, the 'her' is abviously meant to imply they are talking about MM. The overhead 'man' could be anyone. Some might infer that if it is the witness we think, she could possibly be referring to the same man she made her initial statement about. There is bad blood between them and he did live in the vicinity of where the conversation is claimed to have taken place. That's all conjecture though.

The other bit, about the phonecall at the bar? I've no idea. It sounds like first witness is claiming to have been told about a seperate incident where a dead body was also discussed.

Or, it could be that they are actually talking about the same oveheard conversation. It might be saying that it was actually some other unknown woman who had overheard this conversation about having to get rid of a dead body. This unknown woman then told the pub owner about it on a phone call. And this British witness then learnt about this call (possibly from the bar owner directly or someone else he told about it) several days later, and that is what she is actually recounting about in her statement. Not that she overheard it herself but saying that someone else had.

It's all really unclear and a bit woolly. Not sure whether it could be an interesting lead or if it's just total nonsense. I haven't seen the claim reported anywhere else other than in this Express article and it doesn't really sound like they know all the facts either.

Thanks a lot for this elaborate explanation.

Makes me think..... if her would have been meant to be a dead MM, that would mean that the phoning couple were speaking of transportation of a dead body.
Why did you bring her here?=Why did you bring the dead body here (from elsewhere)?
Or would they have meant: why did you bring MM (alive) to the Algarve?

Anyhow, I hope German LE will make some progress.

 

[Dlk79]

Thanks a lot for this elaborate explanation.

Makes me think..... if her would have been meant to be a dead MM, that would mean that the phoning couple were speaking of transportation of a dead body.
Why did you bring her here?=Why did you bring the dead body here (from elsewhere)?
Or would they have meant: why did you bring MM (alive) to the Algarve?

Anyhow, I hope German LE will make some progress.

The claimed quote is -

“Why did you bring her here? Now we will have to dispose of the body.”

JMO, but in that context, it sounds like he is meaning "why have you brought her to this place instead of leaving her where she was killed?" since the part about "Now we will have to dispose of the body" implies there was an option to not dispose of a body, but now they have no choice.

 

[Chiatos]

The claimed quote is -

“Why did you bring her here? Now we will have to dispose of the body.”

JMO, but in that context, it sounds like he is meaning "why have you brought her to this place instead of leaving her where she was killed?" since the part about "Now we will have to dispose of the body" implies the preferred option would have been to not dispose of a body, but now they have no choice.

Yes that's my understanding as well.
So the dead body would have been transported from A to B (location "here") and would have had to be transported once again, from B to C (disposal location).

 

[Anxala]

This has reminded me of (I can't remember which country's) LE requesting holiday makers to check their holiday photos/videos, but they specifically mentioned British tourists.
And now FF's remarks about the Brits will be 'falling off their chairs' comment....
I wonder if his comment is somehow linked with the request/appeal to British holiday makers?
Curious.

It is curious and very open to very particular speculation that points directly back to that week in April/May 2007.

Objectively, maybe they're going on the basis that Brits in PdL at that time of year (before the season is in full swing) are predominantly families looking for a 1/2 week break, who will likely be accommodated fairly close to each other, will use the same creche/playgroups facilities, will sit by the same pool, will participate maybe in the same outdoor activities, will eat/drink at the same cafes/restaurants/pubs etc so are more likely to have had contact of some sort or another with and/or recollections about other British holidaymakers and their 'movements' there at the time?

Subjectively, the combo of the LE's specific request and FF's 'Brits falling off chairs' comment does seem to point to something very significantly 'British' related that has emerged from both their investigations.

As always, jmo and random thoughts.

 

[redplanet]

I agree the article is very ambiguous and believe this is possibly deliberate.

Answering what I can, I think the suggestion is that the first woman they mention is this person -
P.J. POLICE FILES: KELSIE HARRIS WIFE OF MATTHEW FAZACKERLEY

It matches in the sense she is British, her address is located right next to the Ocean club and the date of her statement is exactly 13 days after MM went missing. As you can see, it mentions nothing about this apparently overheard conversation in this statement. It's possible I suppose it has been redacted or forms part of the missing PJ files but would seem unlikely.

As for who the rest of the people are in the report, that's up to interpretation. In this story, the 'her' is abviously meant to imply they are talking about MM. The overhead 'man' could be anyone. Some might infer that if it is the witness we think, she could possibly be referring to the same man she made her initial statement about. There is bad blood between them and he did live in the vicinity of where the conversation is claimed to have taken place. That's all conjecture though.

The other bit, about the phonecall at the bar? I've no idea. It sounds like first witness is claiming to have been told about a seperate incident where a dead body was also discussed.

Or, it could be that they are actually talking about the same oveheard conversation. It might be saying that it was actually some other unknown woman who had overheard this conversation about having to get rid of a dead body. This unknown woman then told the pub owner about it on a phone call. And this British witness then learnt about this call (possibly from the bar owner directly or someone else he told about it) several days later, and that is what she is actually recounting about in her statement. Not that she overheard it herself but saying that someone else had.

It's all really unclear and a bit woolly. Not sure whether it could be an interesting lead or if it's just total nonsense. I haven't seen the claim reported anywhere else other than in this Express article and it doesn't really sound like they know all the facts either.

Yes IMO it may be deliberately ambiguous, with some of the details being very inaccurate. However beneath it is possibly a real event?

 

[tedtink]

He said: "We need help from the people, from British tourists that might have been between 1995 and 2007 in Praia da Luz. Only with these calls we can solve the case of Madeleine McCann."


Madeleine McCann: German prosecutor has 'evidence' British girl is dead

I think he asked for information from British Tourists as it was a Sky News (UK based) interview and was being broadcast to a British speaking audience.

Maybe he has put out similar requests on other EU news channels asking for other people of different nationalities to come forward too.

He said: "We think our suspect has done more crimes possibly against British, Irish or American people. All these people are asked to call us so we can solve these cases."

 

[redplanet]

Yes that's my understanding as well.
So the dead body would have been transported from A to B (location "here") and would have had to be transported once again, from B to C (disposal location).

Or if preceded by live abduction that adds another location: From A (apartment), to X, to B("here"), to C.

 

[Dlk79]

Or if preceded by live abduction that adds another location: From A (apartment), to X, to B("here"), to C.

The only issue I see with that is the use of "we" in the sentence. Supposing an abduction did take place, and that the perp took her from A to X. Then a death happened. And now the perp takes her to B. Why would the man say "Now we need to dispose of the body"? Surely it's he needs dispose of the body! If the man had already taken her from the immediate risk of the crime scene, whatever happened next, he could have disposed of the corpse himself and so it is, and was, his responsibility. On the other hand, if someone turned up for immediate help because they had just killed someone, I can understand why the other person might use the term "we" need to get rid of the body in the sense it was unanticipated and they feel obligated to help. JMO.

 

[redplanet]

The only issue I see with that is the use of "we" in the sentence. Supposing an abduction did take place, and that the perp took her from A to X. Then a death happened. And now the perp takes her to B. Why would the man say "Now we need to dispose of the body"? Surely it's he needs dispose of the body! If the man had already taken her from the immediate risk of the crime scene, whatever happened next, he could have disposed of the corpse himself and so it is, and was, his responsibility. On the other hand, if someone turned up for immediate help because they had just killed someone, I can understand why the other person might use the term "we" need to get rid of the body in the sense it was unanticipated and they feel obligated to help. JMO.

Yes it implies the speaker automatically decides to help the perp (the opposite action being to phone police).
If this story happened evening 3rd it might make some sense, but the newspapers seem to place it on a later date??

 

[Chiatos]

The results from the "saliva stain" are intriguing and no wonder that the Germans are interested to investigate these results further.
As I read the report, a match was found with an unknown individual connected to another(?) crime. Besides the match for child Charlie.

“various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL9A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based on additional information obtained from the result; however, one remains (namely, bar code 80004801). It has matched with a sample of a spot recovered from a crime and cannot, at this time, be associated with a specific individual. Nevertheless, as that sample was processed with the old SGM system I consider the match to be of negligible significance.
All matches obtained from other samples were eliminated.
P.J. POLICE FILES: JOHN ROBERT LOWE F.S.S REPORT

See here the text in Portuguese (translated for the PJ).
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA2_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_2_p335.jpg

 

[Dlk79]

Yes it implies the speaker automatically decides to help the perp (the opposite action being to phone police).
If this story happened evening 3rd it might make some sense, but the newspapers seem to place it on a later date??

I agree. If the overheard conversation was about MM and it took place a few days later, it doesn't really make much sense in any scenario. Why would the killer/abductor go back to PDL, close to the original crime scene with a body when the town was by now swarming with interest?

It makes the most sense if it happened just after the event. This is why I suggested that the Express perhaps has its facts confused. It could be that the witness who spoke to SY about it didn't actually overhear the remarks herself, but that she learnt about it a few days later via someone else, and this is where the bar owner and phone call come into it. Maybe she even learnt about it after she gave her original statement. The woman herself would not give any comments to the Express about it so where did they actually get their 'facts' about what exactly happened and when?

 

[redplanet]

I agree. If the overheard conversation was about MM and it took place a few days later, it doesn't really make much sense in any scenario. Why would the killer/abductor go back to PDL, close to the original crime scene with a body when the town was by now swarming with interest?

It makes the most sense if it happened just after the event. This is why I suggested that the Express perhaps has its facts confused. It could be that the witness who spoke to SY about it didn't actually overhear the remarks herself, but that she learnt about it a few days later via someone else, and this is where the bar owner and phone call come into it. Maybe she even learnt about it after she gave her original statement. The woman herself would not give any comments to the Express about it so where did they actually get their 'facts' about what exactly happened and when?

Yes IMO the story is probably blurred in multiple ways: who heard it, date heard, location heard, even the sex of speaker.
And just thinking, if the supposedly overheard words are true they are probably not a relaxed intellectual question, but a louder exasperation forming part of an argument???

 

[redplanet]

I wonder if BKA have asked their own German Spurhunde experts to study the British dogs' alerts in the context of intruder-did-it? (When asked about the Brit dogs in a radio interview they declined to comment).

 

[Newthoughts]

I agree. If the overheard conversation was about MM and it took place a few days later, it doesn't really make much sense in any scenario. Why would the killer/abductor go back to PDL, close to the original crime scene with a body when the town was by now swarming with interest?

It makes the most sense if it happened just after the event. This is why I suggested that the Express perhaps has its facts confused. It could be that the witness who spoke to SY about it didn't actually overhear the remarks herself, but that she learnt about it a few days later via someone else, and this is where the bar owner and phone call come into it. Maybe she even learnt about it after she gave her original statement. The woman herself would not give any comments to the Express about it so where did they actually get their 'facts' about what exactly happened and when?

To be brutally honest the Express is one of the very worse of the British Tabloids. Given it's up against the Daily Mail and the Sun that takes some doing. So dates and times need checking

 

[Anxala]

To be brutally honest the Express is one of the very worse of the British Tabloids. Given it's up against the Daily Mail and the Sun that takes some doing. So dates and times need checking

^ It really is.

As objectionable as *The Sun and The DM are, they at least show all their 'colours' upfront and roll with the deserved punches. As surprised as I am to say this (considering my past posts), I think I can actually understand why both the LE and FF might actually be using the *former to get their message across.

The Express imo is the equivalent of a powerful playground bully looker-on who really wants what the powerful bully has but is too cowardly to step up and stand beside the bully and instead waits for the bully to make his mistakes so he can then slide slyly in and capatalize on them.

 

[redplanet]

My guess is Express maybe got the story from Correio da Manha who also published a variation of it

 

[Victoria Chambers]

The conversation saying "why did you bring her here?- Now we will have to dispose of the body"
..Sounds to me like 'her' and 'the body' are 2 seperate individuals.. or would it not be worded like "why did you bring her here? Now we will have to dispose of her' ?? Also, why would anybody say 'WE' and not 'YOU' unless they were an accomplice? Although, apparently CB acted alone! None of it makes any sense!
Does anybody know if CB is fluent in the English language please? X

 

[Victoria Chambers]

The criminologist Heriberto J Gonzalez has a blog type page that goes back years. He has acquired alot of useful information on this case. He say that Block 5 had a burglary 17 days prior and an attempted burglary 7 days prior to MM vanishing in 5L and 5G. He says they are inside jobs with the latter having been attempted the very 1st time that the family left the room after booking in! He also says that between 2002-2010, Twenty Eight British families had incidents involving not only small children but teenagers and young women, all victims of assault or attempted assault. I wonder why it stops at 2010? Perhaps authorities are hoping for such families to still come forward with info on this individual, see if it all ties in somehow.

I don't know what it is but I just feel something is way off with the whole CB suspect, worked alone and whatnot. So it cannot be denied what he stands guilty of in the past. I know time can evolve into escalation but I see no similarities in drug trafficker - diesel thief - burglar- rapist - child killer?? That is an erratic life of crime with no MO to speak of. Without forensic evidence, having only the word of HB is equivalent to having nothing imo. X

 

[redplanet]

The criminologist Heriberto J Gonzalez has a blog type page that goes back years. He has acquired alot of useful information on this case. He say that Block 5 had a burglary 17 days prior and an attempted burglary 7 days prior to MM vanishing in 5L and 5G. He says they are inside jobs with the latter having been attempted the very 1st time that the family left the room after booking in! He also says that between 2002-2010, Twenty Eight British families had incidents involving not only small children but teenagers and young women, all victims of assault or attempted assault. I wonder why it stops at 2010? Perhaps authorities are hoping for such families to still come forward with info on this individual, see if it all ties in somehow.

I don't know what it is but I just feel something is way off with the whole CB suspect, worked alone and whatnot. So it cannot be denied what he stands guilty of in the past. I know time can evolve into escalation but I see no similarities in drug trafficker - diesel thief - burglar- rapist - child killer?? That is an erratic life of crime with no MO to speak of. Without forensic evidence, having only the word of HB is equivalent to having nothing imo. X

"first time the family left the room" cannot be 5G (elderly resident). Probably you mean 5L? Is that the apartment where a stranger knocked on the door claiming to be looking for a german family? This sounds to me like a burglar checking a place he was about to burgle?

 

[redplanet]

"On April 16 (2007), a British couple who had just arrived in the resort received a knock on the door from a fair-haired man who claimed to be looking for a German family. Hours later their apartment was burgled."
This was 5L, same block as 5A.