Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

[worldwatcher]

Worth a mention..
Last year,when CB was pointed out as a suspect of the kidnapping of MM ,he was also investigated of possible involvement of the disappearance of 7 yo Jaïr Soares.

Published today:

Perpetrator Schiedammer Park murder heard in Jaïr Soares case

The Public Prosecution Service has heard a new suspect in the case of the disappearance of Jaïr Soares on the Monster beach in 1995.

According to De Telegraaf, it concerns Wik H., who was previously sentenced to 18 years in prison and TBS in the Schiedammer Park murder case. The Public Prosecution Service confirms to the newspaper that someone is being heard, but does not want to say anything about his background....”
WOS.nl - Dader Schiedammer Parkmoord gehoord in zaak Jaïr Soares

Wik H. was 16 years old at the time of the disappearance. He lived in Hoek van Holland, about 10 kilometers from the scene of the accident.
DPG Media Privacy Gate


ETA:
After watching Nieuwe wending mysterie Jaïr Soares: dit weten we van Wik H.,it seems that Wik H can no longer be prosecuted, the case has expired and WH was a minor when Jair disappeared.

 

[Dlk79]

Madeleine McCann investigators ‘100% convinced’ suspect killed her

"If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence"

Not new news but the more I read that quote, the more convinced I get that they may genuinely have a picture of MM deceased. I admit that could well be a totally incorrect assumption but the wording of that statement just feels quite telling.

Circumstantial evidence simply means it does not prove the fact outright, but from that evidence it is more than reasonable to infer the fact.

"A video of the act" means the murder itself, and he is referring to the live motion aspect of it happening (a video, not a picture). In other words, they haven't "seen" the unfolding murder event itself take place with their own eyes. So their proof that MM was murdered comes from inference evidence, which (excluding a verbal witness account of it) would have to come from proof that she was indeed seen dead after the event you'd think. In the absence of forensics, and asuming it goes beyond first hand witness testimony, such proof could surely only come from a post-murder video or photo. I can't think of any other logical way they could be assured of her death. Second hand witness testimony of an apparent confession on it's own would not be enough to declare the certainty over her death that they have done, or at least you would have thought.

"A picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera" is an even more curious statement. It's very specific and quite separate to the first statement in it's obviousness. If there are videos or pictures in existence, they could show any number of things to incriminate CB. It could be in CB's house. It could show CB disposing of an unidentifiable body. Or CB talking on camera out of shot as the video is showing MM etc.

He could have just said something like "if we had a picture of Madeleine and Brueckner on camera...", which would have sounded much more encompassing while still damning. But he doesn't, he adds the clauses that she would have to be dead and that it would have to show CB and her at the same time.

To me the way the statement is made, it makes it sound like they have one but not the other. And surely for it to be incriminating and for them to be adamant that MM is dead, it would have to be they have a picture of MM deceased.

Either that or they have corroborating witnesses who have seen the events that transpired, either in person or on video.

 

[Ausgrlz]

Madeleine McCann investigators ‘100% convinced’ suspect killed her

"If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence"

Not new news but the more I read that quote, the more convinced I get that they may genuinely have a picture of MM deceased. I admit that could well be a totally incorrect assumption but the wording of that statement just feels quite telling.

Either that or they have corroborating witnesses who have seen the events that transpired, either in person or on video.

I have thought this since early in the investigation when it was said that the manner of MM’s death had similarities with two other murders which CB was being investigated for. How would they know the manner if they didn’t have an image. I have thought the reason they are seeking more evidence may also be not just to tie CB further to the crime but also perhaps prevent the use of this image in court. Just my opinion obvs.

 

[Dlk79]

Interesting to note too that Julian Peribañez, the Metodo3 investigator, was also of the opinion that the JC and MM cases were linked and both involved the sale to an organised ring. After 8 months on the ground in Portugal investigating multiple suspects and leads in the MM case, he still maintains to this day that he belief is that MM's disappearance involved a paedophile ring. The below piece discusses some of what was included in the Netflix documentary.

Who Is Julian Peribañez And What DID He Uncover About The Madeleine McCann Case? | Oxygen Official Site

Peribañez later tracked down João's former cellmate and recorded an interview with the unnamed man, who claimed the girl was alive but had been sold to a foreign family.

“I know that he received quite a lot of money,” the cellmate can be heard saying in the video played in the documentary. He also claimed to have seen a photo of the girl after she disappeared. In the image, he said, she appeared to be in a room that was “not from somewhere poor.”

The documentary speculated that McCann may have met a similar fate and could have been the victim of sex trafficking.

“This was the biggest moment for me on the case, because it really gave me proof that there was an organization working in Portugal and it also gave us a hope of trying to find that network. And if we could find the network, we could find Madeleine,” Peribañez said.

Typically, he said, sex trafficking victims are from lower class backgrounds, suggesting the value for Madeleine could have been significant and possibly worth the risk to the abductor.

“My idea is that the value that Madeleine had was really high because if they took her it was because they were going to get a lot of money,”

In the actual documentary, it explains that when Peribañez sought further help from the ex-cellmate, he declined, saying he feared reprisals from both the PJ and from the people who had bought JC.

 

[SuperdadV8]

Interesting to note too that Julian Peribañez, the Metodo3 investigator, was also of the opinion that the JC and MM cases were linked and both involved the sale to an organised ring. After 8 months on the ground in Portugal investigating multiple suspects and leads in the MM case, he still maintains to this day that he belief is that MM's disappearance involved a paedophile ring. The below piece discusses some of what was included in the Netflix documentary.

Who Is Julian Peribañez And What DID He Uncover About The Madeleine McCann Case? | Oxygen Official Site

Peribañez later tracked down João's former cellmate and recorded an interview with the unnamed man, who claimed the girl was alive but had been sold to a foreign family.

“I know that he received quite a lot of money,” the cellmate can be heard saying in the video played in the documentary. He also claimed to have seen a photo of the girl after she disappeared. In the image, he said, she appeared to be in a room that was “not from somewhere poor.”

The documentary speculated that McCann may have met a similar fate and could have been the victim of sex trafficking.

“This was the biggest moment for me on the case, because it really gave me proof that there was an organization working in Portugal and it also gave us a hope of trying to find that network. And if we could find the network, we could find Madeleine,” Peribañez said.

Typically, he said, sex trafficking victims are from lower class backgrounds, suggesting the value for Madeleine could have been significant and possibly worth the risk to the abductor.

“My idea is that the value that Madeleine had was really high because if they took her it was because they were going to get a lot of money,”

In the actual documentary, it explains that when Peribañez sought further help from the ex-cellmate, he declined, saying he feared reprisals from both the PJ and from the people who had bought JC.

The problem is, that it seems to be very unlikely that a judge in germany would allow a public inquiry in a murder case, if the evidence presented by the prosecutors just point out to a abduction or human trafficking for a paedo ring.

HCW spoke about the murder verdict very clearly, IMO.

 

[Dlk79]

The problem is, that it seems to be very unlikely that a judge in germany would allow a public inquiry in a murder case, if the evidence presented by the prosecutors just point out to a abduction or human trafficking for a paedo ring.

HCW spoke about the murder verdict very clearly, IMO.

Personally, I don't think they have evidence of ring involvement, only of CB's involvement. But that's not to say they know he was acting on his own behalf, the information they have seems to be limited. For example, lets say the secret evidence they have is a picture of MM dead, maybe found on a device or an associate of CB. And on top of that they have the circumstantial evidence of CB's past, plus his phone pinging in the area, and an account he has given to an associate that he was involved in her disappearance. All of that would constitute a strong case against CB for her murder. But at the same time, none of that necessarily gives a clue as to whether he acted alone or was part of a ring. Hence HCW's comment about whether he acted alone being - "as far as we know". That's not definitive, he is saying that based on the evidence they have, they don't (yet) have anything specific to suggest otherwise. The quote about him working alone was misrepresented in the Press as being definitive, when it's not what HCW actually said. Besides, even if they did have evidence of ring involvement, I can imagine many reasons why they would avoid making that public right now given the furore that would incite. Especially if that evidence came to light via ongoing prosecution cases.

Until recently, I've been of the opinion that CB did indeed act alone, but HCW's comment in JC's book has caused me to re-think what we assumed we'd been told previously. JC tells HCW about his theory of a high-level paedophile ring being responsible for MM's disappearance and of a PJ cover up involving people who investigated the Cipriano case. HCW responds -
‘Could be, could be. And one certainly starts to wonder about the people who are involved in these sorts of crimes – the crimes of child abuse and child *advertiser censored*. So I would never exclude the possibility that certain (high level) people were involved in this.’

Now that could be just a meek concession in order to appease the interviewer, but if he knew for a fact he could rule out that scenario, I would have expected him to do so in all honesty. If their theory relied on it not being a ring abduction, and that there is no PJ cover up, why would you make a comment that leaves that possibility wide open?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Personally, I don't think they have evidence of ring involvement, only of CB's involvement. But that's not to say they know he was acting on his own behalf, the information they have seems to be limited. For example, lets say the secret evidence they have is a picture of MM dead, maybe found on a device or an associate of CB. And on top of that they have the circumstantial evidence of CB's past, plus his phone pinging in the area, and an account he has given to an associate that he was involved in her disappearance. All of that would constitute a strong case against CB for her murder. But at the same time, none of that necassarily gives a clue as to whether he acted alone or was part of a ring. Hence HCW's comment about whether he acted alone being - "as far as we know". That's not definitive, he is saying that based on the evidence they have, they don't (yet) have anything specific to suggest otherwise. The quote about him working alone was misrepresented in the Press as being definitive, when it's not what HCW actually said. Besides, even if they did have evidence of ring involvement, I can imagine many reasons why they would avoid making that public right now given the furore that would incite. Especially if that evidence came to light via ongoing prosecution cases.

Until recently, I've been of the opinion that CB did indeed act alone, but HCW's comment in JC's book has caused me to re-think what we assumed we'd been told previously. JC tells HCW about his theory of a high-level paedophile ring being responsible for MM's disappearance and of a PJ cover up involving people who investigated the Cipriano case. HCW responds -
‘Could be, could be. And one certainly starts to wonder about the people who are involved in these sorts of crimes – the crimes of child abuse and child *advertiser censored*. So I would never exclude the possibility that certain (high level) people were involved in this.’

Now that could be just a meek concession in order to appease the interviewer, but if he knew for a fact he could rule out that scenario, I would have expected him to do so in all honesty. If their theory relied on it not being a ring abduction, and that there is no PJ cover up, why would you make a comment that leaves that possibility wide open?

Yes, of course!

It could be a picture of MM alive as well. In front or even in a T3 Westfalia. This, together with an abscence of almost 15 years, points out of her being dead. That fits HCW's statement like "All we have points out to the assuption of MM being not alive anymore". I think it must be circumstancial.

But i also assume that HCW wasn't that honest, whilst being asked about the ominous two russians. He said that they are interested in them because they want to speak with everybody that has been closer to CB at the time.

It doesn't fit MS's statement that he has been asked by BKA about them with a straight link to murder.

AFAIK, there is a lot of info over the net about very vile darkweb footage from eastern europe. I assume some kind of market for some of that footage.

CB came out of prison in the end of 2006. Hard to think that he made company with paedo-rings that may work on a wider scale. But with some other creatures that are interested in making much money with less effort?! Maybe! 8 months behind bars for some saved bucks by stealing Diesel must have been some kind of annoying to him?

And again i ask myself, why an english speaking child went missing, athough there are enough native children roaming the streets of portugal.

I believe in some kind of order. Maybe not of the child herself, but something else that has to do with an english-spoken communication maybe. In some way i always have to remember the chat between CB and the "panikspatz".

We'll see....!

Gequält und getötet - Mordvideos im Internet

 

[C.greek]

Madeleine McCann investigators ‘100% convinced’ suspect killed her

"If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence"

Not new news but the more I read that quote, the more convinced I get that they may genuinely have a picture of MM deceased. I admit that could well be a totally incorrect assumption but the wording of that statement just feels quite telling.

Circumstantial evidence simply means it does not prove the fact outright, but from that evidence it is more than reasonable to infer the fact.

"A video of the act" means the murder itself, and he is referring to the live motion aspect of it happening (a video, not a picture). In other words, they haven't "seen" the unfolding murder event itself take place with their own eyes. So their proof that MM was murdered comes from inference evidence, which (excluding a verbal witness account of it) would have to come from proof that she was indeed seen dead after the event you'd think. In the absence of forensics, and asuming it goes beyond first hand witness testimony, such proof could surely only come from a post-murder video or photo. I can't think of any other logical way they could be assured of her death. Second hand witness testimony of an apparent confession on it's own would not be enough to declare the certainty over her death that they have done, or at least you would have thought.

"A picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera" is an even more curious statement. It's very specific and quite separate to the first statement in it's obviousness. If there are videos or pictures in existence, they could show any number of things to incriminate CB. It could be in CB's house. It could show CB disposing of an unidentifiable body. Or CB talking on camera out of shot as the video is showing MM etc.

He could have just said something like "if we had a picture of Madeleine and Brueckner on camera...", which would have sounded much more encompassing while still damning. But he doesn't, he adds the clauses that she would have to be dead and that it would have to show CB and her at the same time.

To me the way the statement is made, it makes it sound like they have one but not the other. And surely for it to be incriminating and for them to be adamant that MM is dead, it would have to be they have a picture of MM deceased.

Either that or they have corroborating witnesses who have seen the events that transpired, either in person or on video.

I have been thinking of that quote as well. I am wondering if they have footage or a picture of something with MM that would have signified she couldn't have survived that? I don't want to write more about that. But it could potentially be something that CB wrote on the chat?

 

[SuperdadV8]

I have been thinking of that quote as well. I am wondering if they have footage or a picture of something with MM that would have signified she couldn't have survived that? I don't want to write more about that. But it could potentially be something that CB wrote on the chat?

Due to the fact, that CB seems to be keen into recording his sexual and sadistic deeds, there is a possibility he recorded MM as well, IF he really turns out to be responsible for her disappearance.

Even if he just abducted her in order of somebody else, it seems to be possible to have taken a picture of her as proof, to get the money for her or something like that.

After being interrogated about MM in 2013 by german police, he doesn't seem to get rid of everything, but should have buried it at the Neuwegersleben site.

I would like to know, if the buried dog has been "Charlie". Charlie still seemed to be alive in Hannover Linden, around 2011, but also in portugal. I still think the "cushion-dog" on the BKA pics, that have been made into the ramshackle farmhouse near PDL, must be Charlie. So the dog must have been alive in 2006. How old get these kind of dogs. Between 10 and 13 years maybe?

So it could be Charlie that was buried in Neuwegersleben and maybe around the end of 2013 or in 2014, when he knew the police seem to have a link between him and MM. And he was already in Braunschweig at the time, because his former pal Björn told about CB talking about the subpoena.

Also in Braunschweig former employee Lenta J. told the media about CB's temper whilst everybody was talking about MM as well and his statement, that the girl is dead now and that is a good thing in his opinion. I'm not sure, but i assume that must have been around 2014.

So, to get to the point now:

In my opinion it's possible, that on the buried data carriers and Charlie COULD be some evidence about his former crimes between the end of 2006 and 2013/2014.

Obviously not the murder of MM, or him being recognizeable murdering her, or just one single pic of MM being alive, that could not be part of any picture set of her, available on the internet. So the prosecutors are asking themselves, from where CB got that picture that isn't available somewhere else.

It would prove contact, but not the murder itself. He could always say, he abducted her to order and doesn't know more about what happened to her. Hard to prove the opposite without a body.

And the timeline could fit that assumption as well. The neuwegersleben raid has been made in the end of february 2016 and in the IG case.

The data carriers had to be investigated. After finding child *advertiser censored* on them it is very likely, that the footage has been sent to the BKA, unit cybercrime. After investigating all of this huge amount of footage, BKA may have detected some border-crossing relations and became active in the MM case around 2017, what fits HCW's statements, that BKA investigated CB in 2017 and his unit from 2018 and on.

So it could fit the existence of footage theory, yes! Just remember the reported bar confession from 2017, telling somebody to know everything about her and then showing him a rape video of a elderly woman?! Maybe he couldn't show him MM, because her footage was buried at neuwegersleben at the time?

We'll see.....

 

[Zuleika]

I don't believe anyone is clever enough to have pulled this alleged abduction off solo outwitting three police forces or so it seems .
FF's remark " you will fall off your chair " (or was it you English will etc.) implies CB either has a very good alibi or information to impart .

 

[SuperdadV8]

I don't believe anyone is clever enough to have pulled this alleged abduction off solo outwitting three police forces or so it seems .
FF's remark " you will fall off your chair " (or was it you English will etc.) implies CB either has a very good alibi or information to impart .

CB has information, of course! And FF as well. FF and JS, that makes two good and partially well known defence lawyers, don't need to take over the case for achieving reputation or publicity. Both have no need to claim, that there will be no coorporation of CB so far.

And HCW knows more as well, because otherwise there wouldn't be any need to say, that CB could contact them 24/7 if he wants to talk about something. Pretty obvious IMO.

The question is, if CB abducted MM to order for somebody else, or if he abducted her to fulfill a special order IMO.

Shortly after her disappearance he had a big van, boasted about hiding children or dope in it, trying to be a "businessman".

Being the only perp connected into this disappearance, doesn't need the offer for coorporation, made by HCW....?! What more coorporation can a single suspect do, than making a confession. Who would do that?That doesn't make too much sense IMO.

And it doesn't fit the couriosity into the 30 minute phonecall shortly before the poor girl went missing.

I assume, HCW tried to make CB talk about what he knows, by making him public as the one who not just snatched, but also killed her. Unfortuneatly that didn't work out.

But if i might be correct in this, why didn't it worked out? Why does CB keeps quiet? Is he afraid to talk? Why is the child dead "now", as he told to Lenta J.?

Powerful connections, that could harm his life, even in prison? Is that still a conspiracy therory? Who pays for his defence?

I'm pretty curious, if there will be a charge in the future, especially if the investigations won't be closed.

The worst result will be some kind of "accident" in prison, that would stop finding out the truth in general.

For sake, he is kept in solitary confinement for his own protection, AFAIK!

We'll see....

 

[SuperdadV8]

Still no final result in this other case in relation to the alleged murdered girl, with a lot of striking similarities and a well situated spaniard with connection to darkweb-based german paedos, who was capable of paying lots of money for vile things according to children.

"During the trial it became known that the Spaniard was being investigated for murder in another case. The 33-year-old is said to have arranged to meet another man in Belarus to abuse and kill a girl. It is unclear who the girl and the alleged accomplice are. The Spaniard let it be known through his lawyer that he rejected the allegations. The judiciary is investigating. The trigger for the suspicion were apparently films and videos that the police found on the man."

Staufen-Prozess: Zehn Jahre Haft für Spanier

Seems to be, that there must be lots of possible businesses for a "businessman" that is able to transport children and nobody will find them and could catch him....

 

[SuperdadV8]

And finally, isn't it interesting, that many of these convicted darkweb-paedoforum-paedophiles over the last two years are confessing pretty shortly after being charged?

Of course, it could decrease the punishment, if they do this and the poor minor victims do not have to go to court as witnesses and have to tell their story. Even if the sentence still includes safety confinement after lots of years in prison.

Is that based on honest empathy for the victims or the hope, the justice system doesn't keep to dig further???

We'll see....

 

[katydid23]

CB has information, of course! And FF as well. FF and JS, that makes two good and partially well known defence lawyers, don't need to take over the case for achieving reputation or publicity. Both have no need to claim, that there will be no coorporation of CB so far.

And HCW knows more as well, because otherwise there wouldn't be any need to say, that CB could contact them 24/7 if he wants to talk about something. Pretty obvious IMO.

The question is, if CB abducted MM to order for somebody else, or if he abducted her to fulfill a special order IMO.

Shortly after her disappearance he had a big van, boasted about hiding children or dope in it, trying to be a "businessman".

Being the only perp connected into this disappearance, doesn't need the offer for coorporation, made by HCW....?! What more coorporation can a single suspect do, than making a confession. Who would do that?That doesn't make too much sense IMO.

And it doesn't fit the couriosity into the 30 minute phonecall shortly before the poor girl went missing.

I assume, HCW tried to make CB talk about what he knows, by making him public as the one who not just snatched, but also killed her. Unfortuneatly that didn't work out.

But if i might be correct in this, why didn't it worked out? Why does CB keeps quiet? Is he afraid to talk? Why is the child dead "now", as he told to Lenta J.?

Powerful connections, that could harm his life, even in prison? Is that still a conspiracy therory? Who pays for his defence?

I'm pretty curious, if there will be a charge in the future, especially if the investigations won't be closed.

The worst result will be some kind of "accident" in prison, that would stop finding out the truth in general.

For sake, he is kept in solitary confinement for his own protection, AFAIK!

We'll see....

"The question is, if CB abducted MM to order for somebody else, or if he abducted her to fulfill a special order IMO."

I don't think it will matter that much, whether they can prove he killed her or passed her on to someone else---I think he will get maximum punishment either way. And abducting a child to give her to someone else, is just as grievous a crime. JMO

 

[Tekno]

CB has information, of course! And FF as well. FF and JS, that makes two good and partially well known defence lawyers, don't need to take over the case for achieving reputation or publicity. Both have no need to claim, that there will be no coorporation of CB so far.

And HCW knows more as well, because otherwise there wouldn't be any need to say, that CB could contact them 24/7 if he wants to talk about something. Pretty obvious IMO.

The question is, if CB abducted MM to order for somebody else, or if he abducted her to fulfill a special order IMO.

Shortly after her disappearance he had a big van, boasted about hiding children or dope in it, trying to be a "businessman".

Being the only perp connected into this disappearance, doesn't need the offer for coorporation, made by HCW....?! What more coorporation can a single suspect do, than making a confession. Who would do that?That doesn't make too much sense IMO.

And it doesn't fit the couriosity into the 30 minute phonecall shortly before the poor girl went missing.

I assume, HCW tried to make CB talk about what he knows, by making him public as the one who not just snatched, but also killed her. Unfortuneatly that didn't work out.

But if i might be correct in this, why didn't it worked out? Why does CB keeps quiet? Is he afraid to talk? Why is the child dead "now", as he told to Lenta J.?

Powerful connections, that could harm his life, even in prison? Is that still a conspiracy therory? Who pays for his defence?

I'm pretty curious, if there will be a charge in the future, especially if the investigations won't be closed.

The worst result will be some kind of "accident" in prison, that would stop finding out the truth in general.

For sake, he is kept in solitary confinement for his own protection, AFAIK!

We'll see....

‘Why is the child dead "now", as he told to Lenta J.?’ This has intrigued me for some time, SuperD. CB told Lenta and others in 2017, “she (Madeleine) is dead now. To me, that means more or less, circa 2017. Mr Wolters however said, MM was killed within days of being taken.

 

[SuperdadV8]

‘Why is the child dead "now", as he told to Lenta J.?’ This has intrigued me for some time, SuperD. CB told Lenta and others in 2017, “she (Madeleine) is dead now. To me, that means more or less, circa 2017. Mr Wolters however said, MM was killed within days of being taken.

He didn't! He never quoted that! The question is, why some media did....

 

[C.greek]

He didn't! He never quoted that! The question is, why some media did....

Maybe 'now' is not implying anything significant? And we should not take it literally?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Maybe 'now' is not implying anything significant? And we should not take it literally?

Well...probably.

But why? Just bragging around...?

 

[Zuleika]

Could have meant CB had contact with whoever MM was given to and knew that she was dead "now " meaning after some time had elapsed .
Or even resignedly speaking I.e . what his own knowledge told him that a paedophile would have disposed of her .

 

[Zuleika]

Double post