For me the issue is the Tapas evidence is such a hot mess, it would seem very hard to get a conviction unless you can do an end run around it.
So for instance, if you find something belonging to MM buried at CB's garden for arguments sake, then you can do an endrun as prosecutor. We don't know how he got in, or what exactly happened, or what Tapas are talking about, but at the end of the day CB must have been in 5a
I think if you don't have that, then FF is just going to say what about Smithman and Tannerman and the 1000s of sightings all over the world.
IMO, I think the evidence HCW has
will circumvent the Tapas accounts. Although to be honest, I don't see them as being that big of an issue anyway. There is a large enough window for MM to have been taken by CB even allowing for all the group's various comings and goings and a plausible way for him to get in and out without being seen. And there is no evidence that the Tanner and Smith sightings were of MM, so I don't see that the defence are going to be able to rely on that a great deal. Same goes for the hundreds of various sightings afterwards that proved fruitless.
IMO one of the most interesting comments from HCW came in the attached podcast.
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm
The interviewer asks HCW whether it is "100% certain" that CB was in PDL on the 3rd. HCW answers:
"I cannot say this in percent. We have some evidence that he killed Madeleine McCann but I'm not able to say on which day exactly. So because of the fact his mobile phone was in the area where Madeleine McCann lived and was kidnapped, we think that he was in the Ocean club on the 3rd of May 2007."
Later, when questioned about why BKA treat the case as a murder investigation while SY continue to treat it as a missing person's case, he says:
"Our evidence is so strong that we can say there was a murder of Madeleine McCann and so we have a murder investigation"
This implies to me that they are working backwards from the murder. Other than the phonecall, they don't have much to actually place CB in the area on that night. But what they do have is evidence that he killed her and so it is therefore logical that he was also the one who took her.
The comment about being unable to prove "which day" she was killed is the interesting part. It sounds to me like this evidence is specific and goes beyond any confession or autobiographical account. If it was that, you'd think they'd apply the same amount of certainty to CB being in PDL that night as they do to him having murdered her but he's deliberately separating those points. Plus SY know about the confession via HB since they were the ones who interviewed him, so it must go beyond that and BKA has repeatedly alluded to them not having shared certain evidence with SY and PJ. So what specific evidence could they have that proves she was murdered, but that doesn't allow them to say when the death happened, or that CB was the one who took her?
I know it's a contentious point, but some kind of image of MM deceased would make a lot of sense of those comments, as well as many other things the BKA have said and done during this case. It may have been found on a device uncovered during the various searches or from one of his paedophile associates with whom he was trading content in person. They would still need to prove that CB was the originator of the material to guarantee a conviction and if he doesn't appear in those images, his defence would presumably be that either the device or the content is not his own. I don't agree with the view that BKA would have had to inform the parents for them to identify the body. That isn't a legal requirement and there are enough images of MM in the public domain for them to be able to identify her themselves. Plus it would cause a media storm if that news got out and a real headache and pressure put on BKA if they still needed more evidence to charge CB. Alternatively, perhaps the image doesn't even show MM's face, but other details such as a timestamp are enough to infer it is almost certainly her body while still not telling them the "exact" day she was killed on.
HCW has come out to say they don't have video images of the "act" (i.e. the murder itself) nor images of CB and MM "together" and I personally find that comment a little suspicious. He knows there's been a lot of conjecture about whether they have videos/photos of MM and he has been asked about it several times. His answer is always the same. He is not allowed to confirm or deny. So I'm not convinced that his latest comment is a divergence from his previous stance and final clarification that they don't actually have
any images, but rather he's stating they don't have any images that "on their own" would obviously be enough to convict CB. Otherwise, why not just state they don't have
any videos/images at all if he wanted to clarify that point?
Interestingly too, this is the only time I've heard HCW mention a kidnapping but he still doesn't directly accuse CB of it. Although that's probably what they believe, I think HCW has deliberately avoided accusing CB of an abduction/kidnapping specifically because they don't want to get involved in proving that aspect of the crime. And IMO it possibly goes back to wanting to circumvent all the mess of the Tapas timelines/accounts etc or even that they don't actually know what happened in the apartment. He's only trying to charge for murder, because that's the element of the crime they have evidence for, not the actual taking of MM, even though that could be inferred. CB's defence could argue all they want about whether he could have abducted MM from 5A but it doesn't matter because BKA aren't charging him with that, it's only the murder they are pursuing, which is a separate act. JMO.
