Madeleine McCann

splinter65 · 23-07-2020 11:34PM

limnam wrote: »

huh

Never stated anyone was guilty.

I think you keep mixing me up with someone else. As you've stated this a few times now.

I’m not mixing you up with anyone. Did you watch the program? Any thoughts?

Banana Republic. · 23-07-2020 11:37PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Trolls worked really really hard for years to distort the real story of the abduction of M MCCann. Hatemongering in all its glory. In a way they will have to take quite a large chunk of responsibility for the German being free all this time.
They hammered home the lies surrounding the parents for so long and so comprehensively that if there was anyone who did suspect Bruekner it’s possible they dropped their suspicion on the grounds that it was only a matter of time before the McCanns were charged.

I disagree there, the police forces screwed up royally , I think you are giving the trolls way too much credit. It was up to the police to work together and put out info to strengthen their leads and get ppl looking in the right areas.

limnam · 23-07-2020 11:41PM

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m not mixing you up with anyone. Did you watch the program? Any thoughts?

Ah OK, so you're aware you're making up lies.

Grand so.

No haven't seen it.

limnam · 23-07-2020 11:47PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

I disagree there, the police forces screwed up royally , I think you are giving the trolls way too much credit. It was up to the police to work together and put out info to strengthen their leads and get ppl looking in the right areas.

Shur they wouldn't commit to a re-construction. When they did. They argued with each other on camera on what happened.

People "forgetting" things in statements.

CB was sent on the to the UK police in 2007 no ?

They sat on it for 13 years not doing a washer about it.

There all as bad as each other

LillySV · 23-07-2020 11:57PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

I disagree there, the police forces screwed up royally , I think you are giving the trolls way too much credit. It was up to the police to work together and put out info to strengthen their leads and get ppl looking in the right areas.

The English cop even said that tonite ... they were all wrong

irishproduce · 24-07-2020 12:03AM

So in 2013 CB was flagged in a "concrete' tip off to German police following the McCann's appearance on a TV show in Germany.
There wasn't anything to go on though so it was shelved.

Fast forward to 2016 and the German police find USB drives buried that contain videos and pictures of child sexual abuse material including photos and videos of CB.

Then in 2017 in a bar in Germany, a patron could hear a conversation where a man was heard commenting on the the news about the anniversary of Madeline's disappearance. In this commentary it was implied that this person both knew about Madeline's disappearance and asserted that she wouldn't be found. This tip off identified the person as CB.

Now the Germans get involved further. It's now too much to not investigate. An investigation is opened.

Through their enquiries it is established that this man has previous convictions for sexual offences against children including showing his genitals to children (which seems to have kicked off a chain of events in 2017) and for raping an old woman less than 2 miles from where Madeline disappear from.

Now the problem is placing him there in the area in order to be involved in Madeline's disappearance. 2000 miles away from his place in Germany.

So they establish that the Portuguese are in possession of the three days' worth of phone traffic around the apartment in Playa da Luz where Madeline was and set about getting access to that through the British authorities.
They have a set of phone numbers that CB used over the years. There are thousands of phone transactions to go through but they're looking for just a limited range.
To find any of his related numbers in the area over those days would be extraordinary.

They find his number pinging off a mast at the exact time Madeline disappeared

Wow. Just wow.

Imagine what that felt like for the German person who identified it going through the records. Both a shuddering and exciting moment at the same time.

Subsequently it is established that he changed registration on his car the next morning following Madeline's disappearance adding further to the suspicion.

I mean come on. After 13 years all these things are beginning to line up. Three police forces are involved and all working both independently and together. A lot of effort is going in now.

The comments from the German prosecutor about his phone being at the apartment area in 2007 that they would like to know who called the phone because they would like to know was it they spoke to, because "it might not have been CB in possession of the phone at that time" shows you that they have an open mind about things they don't know yet for sure.
Contrast that with their assertion that Madeline is dead and they have concrete proof of that. They don't have the same open mind on that. Maybe because unlike who was using the phone that night, they do know about Madeline's demise.

You really would have to conclude that they have more than the rest of us know.

It is nearly overwhelming now. They are so close I'd say.

As an edit.
The usbs found in 2016 obviously don't have Madeline on them because they didn't get involved until 2017 following the bar conversation.

MonsterCookie · 24-07-2020 12:12AM

irishproduce wrote: »

You really would have to conclude that they have more than the rest of us know.

It is nearly overwhelming now. They are so close I'd say.
.

But but but...never forget the parents are responsible no matter what.

I agree, it’s very promising. When you look at the totality of it all. Just hope they get enough to bring it to a conclusion. It’s down to balance of probability vs putting it beyond reasonable doubt at this stage.

punchdrunk · 24-07-2020 12:15AM

irishproduce wrote: »

The comments from the German prosecutor about his phone being at the apartment area in 2007 that they would like to know who called the phone because they would like to know was it CB they spoke to, because "it might not have been CB in possession of the phone at that time" shows you that they have an open mind about things they don't know.

I think it’s rather they know that a defence lawyer could argue it may not have been him in possession of it...”he was a drinker,drunk that night, his friend borrowed it...etc”

I think they have more evidence than we know and confirming it was CB on the phone would mean they have enough physical evidence (they must have photos/videos) combined with the cell tower data for a conviction- means, motive and opportunity

But you have to put him in possession of the phone...

Rock77 · 24-07-2020 12:15AM

irishproduce wrote: »

So in 2013 CB was flagged in a "concrete' tip off to German police following the McCann's appearance on a TV show in Germany.
There wasn't anything to go on though so it was shelved.

Fast forward to 2016 and the German police find USB drives buried that contain videos and pictures of child sexual abuse material including photos and videos of CB.

Then in 2017 in a bar in Germany, a patron could hear a conversation where a man was heard commenting on the the news about the anniversary of Madeline's disappearance. In this commentary it was implied that this person both knew about Madeline's disappearance and asserted that she wouldn't be found. This tip off identified the person as CB.

Now the Germans get involved further. It's now too much to not investigate. An investigation is opened.

Through their enquiries it is established that this man has previous convictions for sexual offences against children including showing his genitals to children (which seems to have kicked off a chain of events in 2017) and for raping an old woman less than 2 miles from where Madeline disappear from.

Now the problem is placing him there in the area in order to be involved in Madeline's disappearance. 2000 miles away from his place in Germany.

So they establish that the Portuguese are in possession of the three days' worth of phone traffic around the apartment in Playa da Luz where Madeline was and set about getting access to that through the British authorities.
They have a set of phone numbers that CB used over the years. There are thousands of phone transactions to go through but they're looking for just a limited range.
To find any of his related numbers in the area over those days would be extraordinary.

They find his number pinging off a mast at the exact time Madeline disappeared

Wow. Just wow.

Imagine what that felt like for the German person who identified it going through the records. Both a shuddering and exciting moment at the same time.

Subsequently it is established that he changed registration on his car the next morning following Madeline's disappearance adding further to the suspicion.

I mean come on. After 13 years all these things are beginning to line up. Three police forces are involved and all working both independently and together. A lot of effort is going in now.

The comments from the German prosecutor about his phone being at the apartment area in 2007 that they would like to know who called the phone because they would like to know was it they spoke to, because "it might not have been CB in possession of the phone at that time" shows you that they have an open mind about things they don't know yet for sure.
Contrast that with their assertion that Madeline is dead and they have concrete proof of that. They don't have the same open mind on that. Maybe because unlike who was using the phone that night, they do know about Madeline's demise.

You really would have to conclude that they have more than the rest of us know.

It is nearly overwhelming now. They are so close I'd say.

As an edit.
The usbs found in 2016 obviously don't have Madeline on them because they didn't get involved until 2017 following the bar conversation.

Excellent post for anyone who hasn’t seen the programme and is not up to speed.

Rock77 · 24-07-2020 12:19AM

punchdrunk wrote: »

I think it’s rather they know that a defence lawyer could argue it may not have been him in possession of it...”he was a drinker,drunk that night, his friend borrowed it...etc”

I think they have more evidence than we know and confirming it was CB on the phone would mean they have enough physical evidence (they must have photos/videos) combined with the cell tower data for a conviction- means, motive and opportunity

But you have to put him in possession of the phone...

It might be just me but..... let’s say the person he phoned comes forward and they say it was CB they talked to that night, that’s not enough to convict him is it? Seems odd to me, he committed crimes in the past and he was in the same town that night so he definitely committed this crime..

MonsterCookie · 24-07-2020 12:22AM

Rock77 wrote: »

It might be just me but..... let’s say the person he phoned comes forward and they say it was CB they talked to that night, that’s not enough to convict him is it? Seems odd to me, he committed crimes in the past and he was in the same town that night so he definitely committed this crime..

True, but they probably have more info than they have released. Maybe other phone calls or some of the images could corroborate.

Rock77 · 24-07-2020 12:24AM

MonsterCookie wrote: »

True, but they probably have more info than they have released. Maybe other phone calls or some of the images could corroborate.

Yeah I would hope they have more but do you think they would charge him if they didn’t have anything more but could prove he used the phone that night?

punchdrunk · 24-07-2020 12:30AM

Rock77 wrote: »

It might be just me but..... let’s say the person he phoned comes forward and they say it was CB they talked to that night, that’s not enough to convict him is it? Seems odd to me, he committed crimes in the past and he was in the same town that night so he definitely committed this crime..

well they would be an eyewitness (earwitness?) and it would depend how reliable they would appear to a jury, this might influence a prosecutor proceeding with a case

So Realistically there’s two scenarios here as I see it.

1- he had an accomplice and that’s who was on the phone (zero chance of them coming forward)

2- he needed an excuse to hang around on the street while he scoped out the place, so to fit in more he rings a friend/girlfriend and shoots the **** for a bit while watching, this person has no knowledge of what he’s about to do (there’s some hope there of them coming forward)

MonsterCookie · 24-07-2020 12:31AM

Rock77 wrote: »

Yeah I would hope they have more but do you think they would charge him if they didn’t have anything more but could prove he used the phone that night?

No. I think they need more than that but I’ve no experience of these things. I would assume they need to show he had direct contact : witnesses, DNA or a confession to quote from the programme tonight.

punchdrunk · 24-07-2020 12:35AM

MonsterCookie wrote: »

No. I think they need more than that but I’ve no experience of these things. I would assume they need to show he had direct contact : witnesses, DNA or a confession to quote from the programme tonight.

They’ve asserted that she’s dead, they seem sure of that for a reason, photos/video of her but without him identifiable in any of it would be my hunch.

That plus the cell towers would be enough for a conviction I’d say

irishproduce · 24-07-2020 12:40AM

punchdrunk wrote: »

well they would be an eyewitness (earwitness?) and it would depend how reliable they would appear to a jury, this might influence a prosecutor proceeding with a case

So Realistically there’s two scenarios here as o see it.

1- he had an accomplice and that’s who was on the phone (zero chance of them coming forward)

2- he needed an excuse to hang around on the street while he scoped out the place, so to fit in more he rings a friend/girlfriend and shoots the **** for a bit while watching, this person has no knowledge of what he’s about to do (there’s some hope there of them coming forward)

Just as a point of note, the documentary said the phone called him. He didn't call them. It was an incoming call. But your point is valid.

punchdrunk · 24-07-2020 12:48AM

irishproduce wrote: »

Just as a point of note, the documentary said the phone called him. He didn't call them. It was an incoming call. But your point is valid.

Didn’t catch that, interesting.
I suppose he could have prearranged a call without the other person knowing the motive
Was text data recorded too I wonder? (Not the content of the messages but a traffic log)

irishproduce · 24-07-2020 12:56AM

punchdrunk wrote: »

Didn’t catch that, interesting.
I suppose he could have prearranged a call without the other person knowing the motif,
Was text data recorded to I wonder? (Not the content of the messages but a traffic log)

I think the suspicion might be that the caller was calling him with the guiding information he needed to proceed with his plan. The caller was possibly somewhere locally too (we haven't been told where the caller called from. Was it locally too? possibly watching the McCann group in the restaurant). What the plan was isn't clear because the UK police guy said that normally, child abduction is purely opportunity for most offenders.

punchdrunk · 24-07-2020 01:02AM

irishproduce wrote: »

I think the suspicion might be that the caller was calling him with the guiding information he needed to proceed with his plan. The caller was possibly somewhere locally too (we haven't been told where the caller called from. Was it locally too? possibly watching the McCann group in the restaurant). What the plan was isn't clear because the UK police guy said that normally, child abduction is purely opportunity for most offenders.

Interesting that they’ve kept the info on the other caller/call location back, you’d imagine as a way of verifying any new tips coming forward

irishproduce · 24-07-2020 01:11AM

punchdrunk wrote: »

Interesting that they’ve kept the info on the other caller/call location back, you’d imagine as a way of verifying any new tips coming forward

I think you're exactly right there. They haven't told us or the documentary makers (or media) where the other call came from, only the number. They might not know, if it was from out of town but you'd imagine they have that since that call would have had a location too when it was recorded as having called CBs phone. Anyone coming forward with information on it would have to verify where it called from in order to be taken forward as valid information.

Banana Republic. · 24-07-2020 07:53AM

irishproduce wrote: »

So in 2013 CB was flagged in a "concrete' tip off to German police following the McCann's appearance on a TV show in Germany.
There wasn't anything to go on though so it was shelved.

Fast forward to 2016 and the German police find USB drives buried that contain videos and pictures of child sexual abuse material including photos and videos of CB.

Then in 2017 in a bar in Germany, a patron could hear a conversation where a man was heard commenting on the the news about the anniversary of Madeline's disappearance. In this commentary it was implied that this person both knew about Madeline's disappearance and asserted that she wouldn't be found. This tip off identified the person as CB.

Now the Germans get involved further. It's now too much to not investigate. An investigation is opened.

Through their enquiries it is established that this man has previous convictions for sexual offences against children including showing his genitals to children (which seems to have kicked off a chain of events in 2017) and for raping an old woman less than 2 miles from where Madeline disappear from.

Now the problem is placing him there in the area in order to be involved in Madeline's disappearance. 2000 miles away from his place in Germany.

So they establish that the Portuguese are in possession of the three days' worth of phone traffic around the apartment in Playa da Luz where Madeline was and set about getting access to that through the British authorities.
They have a set of phone numbers that CB used over the years. There are thousands of phone transactions to go through but they're looking for just a limited range.
To find any of his related numbers in the area over those days would be extraordinary.

They find his number pinging off a mast at the exact time Madeline disappeared

Wow. Just wow.

Imagine what that felt like for the German person who identified it going through the records. Both a shuddering and exciting moment at the same time.

Subsequently it is established that he changed registration on his car the next morning following Madeline's disappearance adding further to the suspicion.

I mean come on. After 13 years all these things are beginning to line up. Three police forces are involved and all working both independently and together. A lot of effort is going in now.

The comments from the German prosecutor about his phone being at the apartment area in 2007 that they would like to know who called the phone because they would like to know was it they spoke to, because "it might not have been CB in possession of the phone at that time" shows you that they have an open mind about things they don't know yet for sure.
Contrast that with their assertion that Madeline is dead and they have concrete proof of that. They don't have the same open mind on that. Maybe because unlike who was using the phone that night, they do know about Madeline's demise.

You really would have to conclude that they have more than the rest of us know.

It is nearly overwhelming now. They are so close I'd say.

As an edit.
The usbs found in 2016 obviously don't have Madeline on them because they didn't get involved until 2017 following the bar conversation.

Put perfectly as I said he is now Red Hot. Key pieces keep coming together, I’d say he’s trying to get out of jail as quickly as possible then go into hiding from this charge.

weldoninhio · 24-07-2020 07:57AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s so clear that even if he gave a full confession and forensic evidence to implicate him was found, there would be some here who would still have doubts not find it credible.
Yet these same people pounce on any tiny suspicion, add arms and legs onto it and STILL push this as legitimate ‘evidence’ that the parents did it.

But yeah, I guess it depends which side of the fence you’re sitting on.

He hasn’t confessed and they don’t have any forensic evidence to convict him though.

Banana Republic. · 24-07-2020 08:02AM

irishproduce wrote: »

I think the suspicion might be that the caller was calling him with the guiding information he needed to proceed with his plan. The caller was possibly somewhere locally too (we haven't been told where the caller called from. Was it locally too? possibly watching the McCann group in the restaurant). What the plan was isn't clear because the UK police guy said that normally, child abduction is purely opportunity for most offenders.

I had initially ruled that it of the opportunistic abduction but after the lawyer or investigator explained how a lot of abductions happen in his experience then I started to realise this was an opportunity he took especially when you think of the conversations he has about taken a little thing (on the chat rooms) and the van convo about smuggling a small child in his van space. I think the phone call was with his girlfriend/ burglary partner in crime Nicole as they were robbers together in the area at the time. She might not have known or he didn’t even know he’d have the chance to take a child while scoping out the apartments to rob. Seems very likely he was the one carrying the limp child away and used that space in his van then with the intense media speculation he took the ultimate decision. All the pieces are fitting in perfectly ( for want of a better word)

splinter65 · 24-07-2020 08:42AM

limnam wrote: »

Ah OK, so you're aware you're making up lies.

Grand so.

No haven't seen it.

No, no lies. It’s my opinion and the fact that you don’t agree with me doesn’t mean that it’s a lie. But I think you struggle to grasp that concept anyway, the fact that you quite clearly think that the fact that witnesses can add or take from a sworn statement means that the original statement was “false” (?!) proves that.
Strange that you wouldn’t watch that program, someone like yourself with such a keen interest in exploring all the possibilities of this case.
It wouldn’t be anything to do with the fact that the program was going to draw attention away from the parents and focus on a real suspect? A whole hour and no one mentioned any of the bits of the case that you are obsessed with, mostly because they are now and always were meaningless and irrelevant to the investigation.

splinter65 · 24-07-2020 08:47AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

He hasn’t confessed and they don’t have any forensic evidence to convict him though.

But the point is that even if the police do (and we don’t know what they have, unless you know more then anyone else) the people who can’t face having been wrong for over a decade will still throw shade on the conviction.
It’s really weird being on a crime thread where posters would be inclined to defend a paedophile if if it meant that they didn’t have to concede to being wrong.
I’m not implying that that’s what you’re doing at all incidentally, but it’s noticeable in spots.

Kidchameleon · 24-07-2020 10:55AM

Meanwhile in anti McCann land... "but but but, abandoned! Neglect! On the lash! 40 questions! Bought a freezer! Sniffer dogs! Etc etc"

irishproduce · 24-07-2020 02:41PM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

I had initially ruled that it of the opportunistic abduction but after the lawyer or investigator explained how a lot of abductions happen in his experience then I started to realise this was an opportunity he took especially when you think of the conversations he has about taken a little thing (on the chat rooms) and the van convo about smuggling a small child in his van space. I think the phone call was with his girlfriend/ burglary partner in crime Nicole as they were robbers together in the area at the time. She might not have known or he didn’t even know he’d have the chance to take a child while scoping out the apartments to rob. Seems very likely he was the one carrying the limp child away and used that space in his van then with the intense media speculation he took the ultimate decision. All the pieces are fitting in perfectly ( for want of a better word)

Where is the source for the chat rooms messages he was posting? I've seen that mentioned but I never read the source myself. Do you have a link to reports?

Banana Republic. · 24-07-2020 02:51PM

irishproduce wrote: »

Where is the source for the chat rooms messages he was posting? I've seen that mentioned but I never read the source myself. Do you have a link to reports?

https://youtu.be/IXsXXxRek2Q Around 2:20 mins, very good documentary from 60 mins in Australia. Check out Virgin Media App for last nights documentary.

chooseusername · 24-07-2020 03:06PM

irishproduce wrote: »

Where is the source for the chat rooms messages he was posting? I've seen that mentioned but I never read the source myself. Do you have a link to reports?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11789789/madeleine-mccann-suspect-chatroom-kidnap/

https://www.spiegel.de/suche/?suchbegriff=Madeleine+McCann&seite=1
It's probably in there someplace, I cant find it just now.
Edit:
The heading in Spiegel is " The sick world of Christian B" from June 5th This year

dark crystal · 24-07-2020 04:25PM

Just watched the documentary there now on catch-up. Not a huge amount of new information there really, but very interesting how they put everything together, timeline wise.

irishproduce wrote: »

I think you're exactly right there. They haven't told us or the documentary makers (or media) where the other call came from, only the number. They might not know, if it was from out of town but you'd imagine they have that since that call would have had a location too when it was recorded as having called CBs phone. Anyone coming forward with information on it would have to verify where it called from in order to be taken forward as valid information.

I wonder when that doc was filmed, as there was an interesting piece there a while back that the phone had been linked to another peadophile.

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1283864257910710280

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1284600463669825536

Like the legal expert who was interviewed on the episode mentioned, the likelihood of this person coming forward and very likely implicating themselves in a crime attracting a sentence of 10 years or thereabouts is extremely remote.

However, If the above report is true and this person is known, surely they could be detained for questioning? There would be no reason this person would be required to volunteer if there was evidence that he or she held the phone number they were appealing for is there?

In any event, you would hope this piece of sh*t is not released on a legal technicality in a few weeks without ever serving a day of his sentence handed down for the rape of that poor woman just so he can roam free and do the same thing or worse to someone else.

Madeleine McCann

Comments