Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

[Consider Dudley]

Given that article you reference is a week or so after MWT's sensationalized exclusive to the Sun (below), I can only assume that this is the source. BTW, no quotes from MWT, nothing verbatim in the article, just words from someone flogging a documentary.

I do think we can say CB or FF have not shared an alibi but that's just my opinion.

Inside Madeleine McCann suspect Christian B's explosive TV claim he has 'alibi'

THE parents of missing Madeleine McCann last night welcomed news that caged Christian B has been made an official suspect. Kate and Gerry also said they hoped their daughter was still alive. B was …

www.thesun.co.uk

According to the article the source is “Madeleine McCann: Prime Suspect, by US network AMC Crime“ - is that MWT’s documentary? The article goes on to say

A source close to the case in Germany, where B is in prison, said: “He has had nearly two years to explain himself but has constantly declined to comment.

“It’s baffling as to why he should maintain that silence then finally come up with an explanation now.

“And it’s even more odd that he should give the details to a TV documentary rather than the authorities.”

ETA the alibi came from CB himself as detailed in a four page letter to MWT Madeline McCann investigator sure Christian Brueckner didn't do it

 

[Shadowtrix]

Interesting about the petals - didn't count them tbh but it is interesting if there are more guilty ones!

I noticed this, too.

 

[Monic]

He has no solid alibi, the woman confirmed that they spend most of the evenings together, but can not be sure if they were together on 3th of may.

 

[Monic]

I also don´t think that CB did this, Is this not more the work of a woman?

 

[enquirer6]

I also don´t think that CB did this, Is this not more the work of a woman?

How do you conclude, more the work of a woman?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

According to the article the source is “Madeleine McCann: Prime Suspect, by US network AMC Crime“ - is that MWT’s documentary? The article goes on to say

A source close to the case in Germany, where B is in prison, said: “He has had nearly two years to explain himself but has constantly declined to comment.

“It’s baffling as to why he should maintain that silence then finally come up with an explanation now.

“And it’s even more odd that he should give the details to a TV documentary rather than the authorities.”

ETA the alibi came from CB himself as detailed in a four page letter to MWT Madeline McCann investigator sure Christian Brueckner didn't do it

Is there any direct quote of what CB said in the letter?

MWT is known to embellish things and make mistakes.

My point is that there is no actual alibi provided by either CB or FF. There has been some terrible reporting on this case too.

 

[Pixie Child]

I also don´t think that CB did this, Is this not more the work of a woman?

The site has a pagan, ritual feel. I could see flowers floating downriver in the last scene of one of his movies. It could also be like reliving it for him, returning to the scene of the crime.

Equally, it could be a woman or MC.

Presumably that photo was widely available in Luz as a photo and a poster.

 

[Janosch]

Separately, yes, unless any inherence, modus operandi, similiarities in any of his "possessions"/background could be captured?! Not sure.

IMO, similar or same modus operandi in two cases could help to focus the investigation, but only modus operandi by itself do not explain that the two cases were commited by the same person.

 

[Pixie Child]

How do you conclude, more the work of a woman?

It’s a bit crafty. What is the white material?

The woman I mentioned previously as a potential ‘German mother of 2’ makes dolls.

 

[Mex]

Rather demanding! Please be respectful.

Because his legal counsel will be advising that he could unnecessarily incriminate himself, he may wish to remain silent in the future (depending on the prosecution case), he doesn’t know the evidence against him or the actual charge so it could be harmful to his case down the track etc.

In short, it would be very stupid to give the prosecution any evidence without them charging him.

As I understand it, the non adversarial system in force in Germany insists that prosecutors must actively seek out any exonerating evidence as well as incriminating evidence. And if there was a firm alibi this would very likely result in no charges and no trial.

Therefore it would be extraordinary if the accused didn't take advantage of the system.

 

[frank-cole]

As I understand it, the non adversarial system in force in Germany insists that prosecutors must actively seek out any exonerating evidence as well as incriminating evidence. And if there was an firm alibi this would very likely result in no charges and no trial.

Therefore it would be extraordinary if the accused didn't take advantage of the system.

Yes the prosecutors have to follow that process & look for evidence that would rule out their suspect. Since 2017 they’ve found nothing to rule him out. They’d also already spoken to this reported ‘alibi’ on 2 occasions. As it materialised it wasn’t actually an alibi in the first place - but it does go to show the level of detail the BKA have gone to & the amount of witnesses they’ve spoken to. They’ll know an alibi doesn’t exist because they have material evidence against CB, but it’s encouraging to know so many people have been able to put their story forward. MWT IMO seems rather gullible & likes to bring forward a controversial story because it sells. MWT is the perfect person to believe &/or see the value in promoting a bogus alibi.

I think the German system allows it such that if a suspect presents corroborated evidence to eliminate themselves as a suspect - they’ll check & then quickly close the investigation. The fact team CB haven’t done this speaks volumes IMO

IMO it would be inexcusably egocentric & very reckless to roll the dice with an ‘alibi’ at the very last minute when the case is in front of 5 judges. It’s not a risk any defence would take or need to take if such alibi existed.
It would be senseless to withhold an alibi.

IMO they’ll wait for the evidence files & try to construct a counter narrative & possibly an alibi. IMO they won’t be able to construct a valid alibi because of the evidence - they’ll probably move to ‘suggest’ there was a third party if they can find a way to work it in to a defence. IMO the third party would be vague & non identifiable. FF may love a good technicality & a bit of rule book administration but IMO when it comes to arguing the evidence. he’ll come up short. Just as he did in the DM case appeal. He went for a technicality, he had no answer for the evidence.

I expect lots of stop-starts which will all be around technicality - but IMO all cases will get passed this phase & at that point it’ll be relatively straightforward for the prosecution. With the likely moaning letters from CB & conspiratorial comments from FF, following.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Is there any direct quote of what CB said in the letter?

MWT is known to embellish things and make mistakes.

My point is that there is no actual alibi provided by either CB or FF. There has been some terrible reporting on this case too.

That would have had to have been one massive “embellishment“, given the detail that MWT claims was in the letter. Do you actually think MWT was making it up? Because I don’t. It’s pretty clear to me that CB was desperate to provide an alibi back then and it backfired.

 

[Mex]

My sincere apologies for any disrespect you detected in my previous post.
So CB will keep his cast iron alibi secret until he has been charged and is in court and will reveal it for the first time there with a triumphant flourish. The case will crumble and CB will march out of court with his held held high, a free man. A nice fantasy.

Odd that in his boastful, whingeing letters he doesn’t even claim to have a cast iron alibi (never mind divulge it), even if only to make the BKA sweat a little bit. Odder still that if never charged he will take this cast iron alibi to his grave, letting the wider public believe he was the man responsible for Madeleine’s abduction.

Oh well, he’s an odd man and this is an odd case, so I guess anything’s possible!

I think that the system is such that surprises and court room dramatics are specifically ruled out. If there is alibi evidence it will be known about long before it is presented in open court.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Yes the prosecutors have to follow that process & look for evidence that would rule out their suspect. Since 2017 they’ve found nothing to rule him out. They’d also already spoken to this reported ‘alibi’ on 2 occasions. As it materialised it wasn’t actually an alibi in the first place - but it does go to show the level of detail the BKA have gone to & the amount of witnesses they’ve spoken to. They’ll know an alibi doesn’t exist because they have material evidence against CB, but it’s encouraging to know so many people have been able to put their story forward. MWT IMO seems rather gullible & likes to bring forward a controversial story because it sells. MWT is the perfect person to believe &/or see the value in promoting a bogus alibi.

I think the German system allows it such that if a suspect presents corroborated evidence to eliminate themselves as a suspect - they’ll check & then quickly close the investigation. The fact team CB haven’t done this speaks volumes IMO

IMO it would be inexcusably egocentric & very reckless to roll the dice with an ‘alibi’ at the very last minute when the case is in front of 5 judges. It’s not a risk any defence would take or need to take if such alibi existed.
It would be senseless to withhold an alibi.

IMO they’ll wait for the evidence files & try to construct a counter narrative & possibly an alibi. IMO they won’t be able to construct a valid alibi because of the evidence - they’ll probably move to ‘suggest’ there was a third party if they can find a way to work it in to a defence. IMO the third party would be vague & non identifiable. FF may love a good technicality & a bit of rule book administration but IMO when it comes to arguing the evidence. he’ll come up short. Just as he did in the DM case appeal. He went for a technicality, he had no answer for the evidence.

I expect lots of stop-starts which will all be around technicality - but IMO all cases will get passed this phase & at that point it’ll be relatively straightforward for the prosecution. With the likely moaning letters from CB & conspiratorial comments from FF, following.

Superb!

 

[enquirer6]

As I understand it, the non adversarial system in force in Germany insists that prosecutors must actively seek out any exonerating evidence as well as incriminating evidence. And if there was a firm alibi this would very likely result in no charges and no trial.

Therefore it would be extraordinary if the accused didn't take advantage of the system.

Herr Wolters has certainly said that it is as much his job to look for evidence that might acquit as well as that might convict.

I'm fairly certain he has also said that he has found none of the former.

 

[enquirer6]

Superb!

Agreed!

I've only just caught up with Frank-cole's post, which is the much fuller version of my post above.

Excellent explanation.

 

[enquirer6]

Yes the prosecutors have to follow that process & look for evidence that would rule out their suspect. Since 2017 they’ve found nothing to rule him out. They’d also already spoken to this reported ‘alibi’ on 2 occasions. As it materialised it wasn’t actually an alibi in the first place - but it does go to show the level of detail the BKA have gone to & the amount of witnesses they’ve spoken to. They’ll know an alibi doesn’t exist because they have material evidence against CB, but it’s encouraging to know so many people have been able to put their story forward. MWT IMO seems rather gullible & likes to bring forward a controversial story because it sells. MWT is the perfect person to believe &/or see the value in promoting a bogus alibi.

I think the German system allows it such that if a suspect presents corroborated evidence to eliminate themselves as a suspect - they’ll check & then quickly close the investigation. The fact team CB haven’t done this speaks volumes IMO

IMO it would be inexcusably egocentric & very reckless to roll the dice with an ‘alibi’ at the very last minute when the case is in front of 5 judges. It’s not a risk any defence would take or need to take if such alibi existed.
It would be senseless to withhold an alibi.

IMO they’ll wait for the evidence files & try to construct a counter narrative & possibly an alibi. IMO they won’t be able to construct a valid alibi because of the evidence - they’ll probably move to ‘suggest’ there was a third party if they can find a way to work it in to a defence. IMO the third party would be vague & non identifiable. FF may love a good technicality & a bit of rule book administration but IMO when it comes to arguing the evidence. he’ll come up short. Just as he did in the DM case appeal. He went for a technicality, he had no answer for the evidence.

I expect lots of stop-starts which will all be around technicality - but IMO all cases will get passed this phase & at that point it’ll be relatively straightforward for the prosecution. With the likely moaning letters from CB & conspiratorial comments from FF, following.

IMO it would be inexcusably egocentric & very reckless to roll the dice with an ‘alibi’ at the very last minute when the case is in front of 5 judges. It’s not a risk any defence would take or need to take if such alibi existed.
It would be senseless to withhold an alibi.

Exellent point.

 

[Dave55]

IMO, similar or same modus operandi in two cases could help to focus the investigation, but only modus operandi by itself do not explain that the two cases were commited by the same person.

I think it depends how similar the attacks were

 

[Davieson]

IMO it would be inexcusably egocentric & very reckless to roll the dice with an ‘alibi’ at the very last minute when the case is in front of 5 judges. It’s not a risk any defence would take or need to take if such alibi existed.
It would be senseless to withhold an alibi.

Exellent point.

Of course CB doesn't need an alibi.

Its up to prosecutor to demonstrate that he was in 5A in order to abduct MM

 

[Consider Dudley]

Of course CB doesn't need an alibi.

Its up to prosecutor to demonstrate that he was in 5A in order to abduct MM

That’s good because despite volunteering one prev to MWT he clearly doesn’t have one.