Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixie Child said:
I would prosecute every client he had to see if they have any info to proffer.

They need to search every property & piece of land that he frequented.

UK police were unable to get satellite imagery from NRO. It’s possible that BKA will have more luck tracing his vehicle movements albeit we may never hear about it.
Click to expand...
Alexander Zaspel, dealer to Sylt and ‘Julia’ from Oranienburg, the between.
 
onemoremiletogo said:
Every piece of land...is this really feasible, sustainable?! Even if only in Algarve, even if only in that area (Lagos, Barão de São João, PdL, Messines, Silves) ...even if it was just the wells.
Even if they get closer, will they really be able to find forensics?!

IMO, the photos BKA should have and maybe try to look deeper into CB's "expressions":
- make corpse disappear quickly
- fillet forensic
- the daisy "guilty", "not guilty"
Click to expand...
Great points. I’ll try to make this as non-crass as I can. He strikes me as somebody who likes to re-live his crimes - hence the writings & taking pictures. IMO it’s possible that he may have a picture of himself, doing something rather graphic, in a place of significance to this investigation. Horrible place to go with this topic - but I wouldn’t be surprised if some pictures, even if they appear random, will have significance to CB. 20000 pictures found
RichardKimble said:
They seems to be for some reason a thought process that guarantees a guilty verdict on an innocent man(in regards the Madeleine case) based on stories from various outlets and alleged experts who have studied the man's past crimes ,musings on his alleged writings without him even had the benefit of an arrest, a trial nor a conviction.Is that what the WS site is about, guilty until proven otherwise, If it's him then it's him but let's have the evidence first.

He might have been in Luz, he might have used a phone, he might have visited the reservoir soon after the 3/05/2007 lots of mights but it seems the actual was or did is out of reach.All jmo.
Click to expand...
Thanks. IMO there’s a big difference between legally innocent & factually innocent.

I tend to resist drawing any conclusion from tabloid spin & the typical nuances. I stick to the verbatim comments from those with access to all of information & all of the evidence. German prosecutors only get involved in there’s strong enough evidence collected to warrant a prosecution. In this case it’s a capital offence - murder. HCW wouldn’t be allowed to publicly announce that CB is the killer & they’re 100% certain. He’s always described the evidence as strong, concrete, material or key. IMO there’s no question that CB is responsible. I think that in the whole of Portugal on 3/5 May 2007 there would have been very few men as dangerous to little girls as CB was. Tragically that incredibly dangerous man was stood right outside the apartment a little girl would go missing from. JMO
 
frank-cole said:
Inevitably, I think, there will be a reluctance to accept a guilty verdict & that’ll be regardless of what detail & how incriminating the evidence is. There will certainly be people who remain attached to their theory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Anxala said:
RSBM

With respect, that's such condescending and patronising nonsense. You are as much attached to your theory, with as much/little to back it up as those of us who're on the fence for 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 as permanaent 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.
Click to expand...
would you consider circumstantial evidence to be irrefutable evidence?
 
frank-cole said:
Great points. I’ll try to make this as non-crass as I can. He strikes me as somebody who likes to re-live his crimes - hence the writings & taking pictures. IMO it’s possible that he may have a picture of himself, doing something rather graphic, in a place of significance to this investigation. Horrible place to go with this topic - but I wouldn’t be surprised if some pictures, even if they appear random, will have significance to CB. 20000 pictures found

Thanks. IMO there’s a big difference between legally innocent & factually innocent.

I tend to resist drawing any conclusion from tabloid spin & the typical nuances. I stick to the verbatim comments from those with access to all of information & all of the evidence. German prosecutors only get involved in there’s strong enough evidence collected to warrant a prosecution. In this case it’s a capital offence - murder. HCW wouldn’t be allowed to publicly announce that CB is the killer & they’re 100% certain. He’s always described the evidence as strong, concrete, material or key. IMO there’s no question that CB is responsible. I think that in the whole of Portugal on 3/5 May 2007 there would have been very few men as dangerous to little girls as CB was. Tragically that incredibly dangerous man was stood right outside the apartment a little girl would go missing from. JMO
Click to expand...
It alleged the incredibly dangerous man has you put it was rightout side the apartment,
 
C.greek said:
would you consider circumstantial evidence to be irrefutable evidence?
Click to expand...
I see a distinction between irrefutable evidence and an irrefutable case.

Sometimes, an irrefutable case can be made from individual pieces of evidence, none of which, in its own right, would be enough to convict.

I think the conviction of Peter Voisey for the abduction, from a bath, of a little girl illustrates the point.

His mobile phone placed him in the vicinity of the crime at the time the crime was convicted, no doubt with hundreds of others.

There was a very weak dna link but, of course, dna might have definitively ruled him out. And the possibility of a chance match to someone innocent from a small population of people in the vicinity of the crime at the time the crime was committed, would be very small.

Police took a footprint from the wet bathroom floor that exactly matched the tread of a pair of shoes he owned.

Lastly, the evidence of the little girl who, thank goodness, survived her ordeal, was never revealed but she was, apparently, an excellent witness.

For example, she might have been able to describe details of the interior of his car that matched.

None of those pieces of information, in its own, would have been enough to convict.

But everything combined made for a compelling case.
 
Last edited:
enquirer6 said:
I see a distinction between irrefutable evidence and an irrefutable case.

Sometimes, an irrefutable case can be made from individual pieces of evidence, none of which, in its own right, would be enough to convict.

I think the conviction of Peter Voisey for the abduction, from a bath, of a little girl illustrates the point.

His mobile phone placed him in the vicinity of the crime at the time the crime was convicted, no doubt with hundreds of others.

There was a very weak dna link but, of course, dna might have definitively ruled him out. And the possibility of a chance match to someone innocent from a small population of people in the vicinity of the crime at the time the crime was committed, would be very small.

Police took a footprint from the wet bathroom floor that exactly the tread of a pair of shoes he owned.

Lastly, the evidence of the little girl who, thank goodness, survived her ordeal, was never revealed but she was, apparently, an excellent witness.

For example, she might have been able to describe details of the interior of his car that matched.

None of those pieces of information, in its own, would have been enough to convict.

But everything combined made for a compelling case.
Click to expand...
The only relevant piece from that is the possibility of the phone near 5a.
 
C.greek said:
would you consider circumstantial evidence to be irrefutable evidence?
Click to expand...

Define it, detail it, and then I'll consider it.

That's the problem, we have no idea what this circumstantial evidence amounts to. And we're never going to be any the wiser until/if HCW shows his hand and tells us what it is that he knows that we don't know that makes him 100% sure etc etc etc. Which he won't and can't do if/until he has the evidence he needs to take it before a judge because that's the only way we'll ever learn what evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, he has.

I'll remain very solidly on my fence in the interim.
 
Last edited:
RichardKimble said:
We know of all the sexual deviants in the area ?
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that his closest friends have all said he is definitely capable of having committed this crime.

Eta that neither MT, BP nor CP, would get something out of this.
 
RichardKimble said:
The only relevant piece from that is the possibility of the phone near 5a.
Click to expand...
And his profile. Actually the case of Voisey has a few similarities with CB...

"Voisey, who was also known as Peter Smith, was originally questioned as part of a wide sweep of local people who might be of interest because he was a registered sex offender. Police were first aware of him as a sneak thief, committing high risk burglaries with a chance of discovery, but in 2001, he had been convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in a swimming pool changing room in Cheshire. He was not initially considered a priority lead, as he had been classified low risk due to good behaviour. Voisey initially appeared good natured, and had a good account of his movements. He continued to strenuously deny any involvement when interviewed further.

With no strong evidence, Voisey was convicted from a multitude of lesser clues. This included his local knowledge and his mobile phone records, which proved he was not where he claimed to be at the time. The trainer print had been matched to a pair he owned, only five of which had been sold in the North East that year. He had made a cryptic diary entry for the day in question, "Phew it's over, chill now", which he claimed referred to Christmas. He had also owned a red Astra, although this was scrapped before it could be seized as evidence. It was also concluded, although a partial match, that there was a high chance of the DNA found being Voisey's."

Willington Quay child abduction case - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
RichardKimble said:
We know of all the sexual deviants in the area ?
Click to expand...
Actually these should have been the first persons of interest in the original investigation as is always the case (concurrently with eliminating the parents)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 3,585 (members: 78, guests: 3,507)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
3,507
Total visitors
3,585
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,110
Messages
17,963,358
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top