Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

[C.greek]

And yet many are convinced of his guilt without seeing any of this evidence.

I think this has more to do with trust rather than anything else. Speaking for myself I trust the prosecutors when they say they believe CB murdered MM the same way I trusted GA in the initial stages of the PJ investigation that the parents were involved, because abduction by strangers is very very rare... however, the way the PJ investigation was handled was a joke (saying this with hindsight) and I really believe the BKA when they say they have evidence that CB killed MM. They have been working on this for 6-7 years and have seemingly have found evidence of his vile profile which fits with the profile of someone capable of committing such heinous crimes.

 

[Davieson]

I think this has more to do with trust rather than anything else. Speaking for myself I trust the prosecutors when they say they believe CB murdered MM the same way I trusted GA in the initial stages of the PJ investigation that the parents were involved, because abduction by strangers is very very rare... however, the way the PJ investigation was handled was a joke (saying this with hindsight) and I really believe the BKA when they say they have evidence that CB killed MM. They have been working on this for 6-7 years and have seemingly have found evidence of his vile profile which fits with the profile of someone capable of committing such heinous crimes.

Trust rather than knowledge. Trust can easily be misplaced.
In the end it comes down to belief.
E.G. I believe what Wolters says because he seems to know what he's talking about. He may be b*llshitting me but I believe him because I want to believe him

 

[Lyall0814]

I don't think we have seen any of the evidence against CB ... and that is exactly as it should be.

I think you'll find you have if it ever goes to trial, we saw it in June 2020. We haven't seen anything much since, that is true.

 

[Mex]

And yet many are convinced of his guilt without seeing any of this evidence.

For me it is deja vu. Many were convinced to believe the guilt of K and GM without seeing any of the evidence which eventually cleared them. Many are convinced of the innocence of of CB without seeing any of the evidence which led to him becoming a murder suspect.

The common denominator in both is GA.

 

[frank-cole]

RSBM

With respect, that's such condescending and patronising nonsense. You are as much attached to your theory, with as much/little evidence to back it up as those of us who're on the fence for perfectly valid historical reasons.

If HCW brings this case home with irrefutable evidence, I, as someone who seriously doubts CB's involvement here, will absolutely embrace it and be glad that this case has finally been put to bed. I'm equally sure those 'people' - those you see and think you have some superior right to dismiss as permanent doubters - will feel exactly the same way as I do.

All we care about and all we're always looking and asking for is irrefutable evidence of guilt.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I had no intention of striking a cord but on reflection I’m not surprised that I did so.

I stand by my opinion on the matter & I fully expect there’ll be some reluctance to accept a guilty verdict regardless of how irrefutable that evidence might me. But that reluctance will only come to people who subscribe the sort of theory Amaral profited from. In any case, if the evidence is strong enough for a conviction it’ll be far more substantial than any of the reasonings anybody has to the contrary. Which in turn will help people come to the rational conclusion. I don’t think all people will hypocritically remain subscribed to a theory when the evidence implicating CB is at a much higher threshold than that of which they judge other things.

I think some already anticipate how they’ll behave should there be a CB conviction. The reluctance will already be seeded & I fully expect to see that when the evidence, however strong it is, is made public.

Being that my opinion is very bold & it may frustrate people, I’ll now refrain from bringing this up on this thread.

I appreciate your response & wish you well.

 

[Mex]

Trust rather than knowledge. Trust can easily be misplaced.
In the end it comes down to belief.
E.G. I believe what Wolters says because he seems to know what he's talking about. He may be b*llshitting me but I believe him because I want to believe him

I don't think it matters either way. Whatever we believe is an irrelevance. The guys who have the say are the judges and they will have all the evidence available to enable them to make an informed judgement.

 

[frank-cole]

would you consider circumstantial evidence to be irrefutable evidence?

On other threads in the past we explored this by sharing our opinions on other cases to see if our decision making process regarding those crimes was to a lesser or greater degree than how we judge the McCann case.

Joanna Cipriano’s murder was one we discussed. Many people agreed with the verdict & the hypothesis of how the crime occurred, however they wouldn’t accept that CB was guilty in the McCann case if he was convicted with the same level of evidence.

I found it really interesting how we all judged other crimes in comparison to the MM case. For some reason, regardless of what anybody’s opinion was, the standard & expectation people required in the MM case was either a whole lot higher or slightly lower.

 

[C.greek]

Trust rather than knowledge. Trust can easily be misplaced.
In the end it comes down to belief.
E.G. I believe what Wolters says because he seems to know what he's talking about. He may be b*llshitting me but I believe him because I want to believe him

No, belief has no place here. I trust the scientists not because I believe in them nor do I have the necessary knowledge to judge by myself whether when they say (a stupid example) the earth is round it really is. I trust them because that is what a civilised society is all about - trust those with relevant qualifications, skills and knowledge. We cannot be all- knowledgeable.

 

[Lyall0814]

For me it is deja vu. Many were convinced to believe the guilt of K and GM without seeing any of the evidence which eventually cleared them. Many are convinced of the innocence of of CB without seeing any of the evidence which led to him becoming a murder suspect.

The common denominator in both is GA.

You might actually be his biggest supporter, you're boosting his ego more than anyone.

 

[mrjitty]

IMO if it ends up being a no-body trial, without forensics, they are going to need a lot of decent circumstantial evidecne

The confession witnesses themselves didn't directly see any part of the crime - again we can only make inferences from their potential testimony.

It really seems a heavy lift to me, unless they have some digital evidence.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Caso Maddie: procurador alemão garante que foi encontrado “algo que pode ter interesse”

O procurador alemão responsável pelo caso Madeleine McCann garante que foram encontrados indícios nos três dias de buscas na Barragem do Arade, no Algarve.

tvi.iol.pt

Maybe already shared somewhere but this was reported in TVI channel here in Portugal as HCW's first words after the searches. Something of potential interest(?) to the investigation...I'm not sure about the translation to portuguese and the real substance of this short report.

 

[Mex]

i see it logically,
as we are only at the suspect stage - the evidence isn't strong enough for anything more. atm.
if the evidence was strong enough - in the opinion of the prosecutors/judges - we would be at arrest/charge/trial right now.

equally, no prosecutor will have the luxury to continue to look for the 'full story' and 'every fact' just out of their individual professional standards or curiosity. they may want to in an ideal world. but realistically, and financially, their job is to bring provable cases to trial. isn't it just getting to the shortest line to 'provability''?
and they will always have a pile of other cases to get onto. imo.

separate questions re: delay.
if any suspect is found guilty of murdering MM what will the sentence be - surely no need to wait until suspect's current sentence runs its course?
also, why delay when there are parents that want closure?

I follow your reasoning but mine differs somewhat. Had the jurisdiction situation not arisen when it did I think we would be far further down the road to charges being laid.

Getting provable cases to trial is a priority for prosecutors. Witness the five criminal cases currently awaiting a trial date as result of the jurisdiction problem. The prosecutors most definitely did not drag their heels on those and I think we are only aware of the supposed tardiness because of expectations. Which for all we know may be unrealistic.

As far as delay goes I agree 100% that should CB be found guilty, it would be ridiculous to wait until present sentences run their course. I don’t think it would happen though.

Having waited so long for their daughter I think the family priority would be accurate information and certainty as to her fate. The only way they are going to get that might very well be at the conclusion of this investigation and the revelation of the facts.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

You might actually be his biggest supporter, you're boosting his ego more than anyone.

Perish the thought!

 

[Okapi]

The original is in German only. I haven't seen an officially translated press release

"Ein zuvor genau festgelegtes Gebiet entlang des Stausees wurde vollständig nach möglichen Beweisstücken abgesucht."

Previously could just mean they had a tip off and photos CB had taken there, so they knew where to search. It could just mean they didn't need to go there and search on the spot for the area.

Jmo

Yes, thank you @C.greek

I referred to the English translation posted upthread @Anxala (apologies to the OP, can’t recall just now who posted it).

You’re absolutely right, I forgot to leave linguistic wiggle room and it may just be a lost-in-translation. Maybe our German sleuthers can clarify?

The LE narrative has been carefully opaque so far, so it would be an unlikely accidental reveal. But if it was, like I said, I think that a photo of a forest is harder to pinpoint exactly than a verbal description/confirmation of the location. Jmo.

 

[mrjitty]

I really don't know how it's usually done. This is quite an irregular case and the public appeal also shows the complexity of it. We had tried to find in the past similar public appeals for information in Germany but these were usually for fugitives! To go forward with the public appeal and not having being sued by CB's lawyers for the comments made by BKA and its spokesperson means something. What this something is I don't know... jmo

I don't know the answer to this but I suspect one of the issues is that the defence of the Braunschweig office would be truth of the allegations - but the evidence is protected by the investigation. So maybe it is too hard to start a claim because FF would not be able to get discovery of the factual foundation. Don't know how that works in the german context though.

 

[mrjitty]

I am not a native German speaker alas, but I think it could mean both. even if they meant longer, no difference really. they will continue working on this

One of the problems is this stuff is quite contextual e.g if your wife asks you "is dinner far away" you might peer into the oven and say ruefully "es wird noch länger dauern"

 

[mrjitty]

No, belief has no place here. I trust the scientists not because I believe in them nor do I have the necessary knowledge to judge by myself whether when they say (a stupid example) the earth is round it really is. I trust them because that is what a civilised society is all about - trust those with relevant qualifications, skills and knowledge. We cannot be all- knowledgeable.

I agree with this.

I think we have to trust in the institutions. I just don't like the business of announcing guilt without charges. I've also never seen this before, and it would not be able to happen in the UK.

 

[Janosch]

Plus, how many, besides Brueckner, with a profile that exactly matches someone capable of what happened to Madeleine?

The profile is not evidence.

In a particular case you may have a lot of murders of children, and the killer in this particular case may be a good neighbor, father of two children, who goes to mass every Sunday ...

 

[Janosch]

Trust rather than knowledge. Trust can easily be misplaced.
In the end it comes down to belief.
E.G. I believe what Wolters says because he seems to know what he's talking about. He may be b*llshitting me but I believe him because I want to believe him

In HCW we trust.

 

[mrjitty]

The profile is not evidence!

In a particular case you may have a lot of murders of children, and the killer in this particular case may be a good neighbor, father of two children, who goes to mass every Sunday ...

Yes!

In criminal law, the rule against propensity evidence/reasoning was one of the most fascinating areas of study for me.