The current situation has divided people into two groups. Those believing that HCW has a photo (or a least witnesses stating they have seen one) and those who don’t believe he has this evidence.
From HCW’s protracted investigation and his less-confident recent comments it seems clear that if there is a photo its link to CB is a weak one.
The below post from
@Dlk79 provides a strong argument, based on direct quotes from HCW, that he has a photo.
Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26
From this line of thought, if we assume that the photo exists, and:
- It was taken shortly after MM was abducted;
- CB is indirectly linked to this photo;
- It shows MM deceased;
- The location can be identified as Portugal.
How can these facts implicate CB but not be enough to charge him? This is my thinking relative to the above points.
1. There is no EXIF data attached to the photo. In 2007 it would have given the exact time and date the image was captured. HCW would then be more definitive in his comments relating to MM’s time of death.
The image therefore must show something that indicates when it was taken. The obvious point here would be that MM is still wearing the Eyore Pyjamas. If not then comparisons with other recent photos of things like hair length could be made and provide an approximation of when the image was taken.
2. The obvious thought here is that it was obtained from the box factory search. If so, the EXIF data must have been deleted and/or it must have been copied from the capture device i.e. camera or phone. I say this because if it was on a device owned or known to be used by CB, it is a strong evidential link to him.
In the case with his girlfriend’s daughter, the photos were found stored on the Casio camera he owned. This could have caused him to clear other older devices but it wasn’t something he was doing prior to this case and the MM offence pre dates this one.
It’s also possible that the image was found or given to the BKA from an online source. It could have been a copy of a copy (over several generations) and the EXIF data could have been lost in one of the duplication processes. If this is the case, then there would need to be something in the photo that links it to CB, probably the location - see point four below.
3. The options here are a) she has injuries impossible to survive, b) she is in the process of being killed by an unidentifiable assailant c) the image is post mortem and shows signs of discolouration/early stages of decomposition d) (only for completion) she is shown deceased in some other way e.g. frozen as in GA’s suggestion.
4. Without certainty on timing and with no geolocation via EXIF data, I think we can rule out a vehicle as the location that links CB to the offence - a car or, more likely, a VW T3 could be anywhere.
The location therefore must be somewhere unambiguously identifiable as Portugal. It must be private and almost certainly indoors. It must be a location familiar to CB.
Also important to consider is the objective of the photo. Was it a sicko trophy or was it proof that a problem had been dealt with, the latter might be applicable to an abduction to order gone wrong theory.
Given all this, I think it’s that the image was found during the box factory search.
Further, I think that the farmhouse is a good possibility for the location - we know the BKA have photos of it because they were part of the appeal. He wasn’t renting it at this time but the abduction it was within a year of him living there and within six-months of him getting out of prison. Very easy access from the OC and suitably out of the way. As we know, CB is very capable of breaking in to places.
This would satisfy what HCW has said. But, IMO, even if CB had the photo and it was taken at a place where he once lived, it would not prove he killed MM - this is could be the problem for HCW.
I’m not saying this is true but even if it was, I don’t think he would be charged on this evidence.
Is it possible that HCW is trying to pressure CB to provide an explanation on how else he could have this photo in his possession (box factory) if he is not responsible for MM’s abduction and death? Could this explain the extended wait and perhaps comments like “…. We have the evidence to charge”?
drive.google.com
photo.stackexchange.com
findmadeleine.com
