martes, junio 16, 2020

The abduction of Madeleine McCann: strange communication

On June 16, 2020 the press reported that German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters confirmed Madeleine McCann is dead.
But The Mirror reported that Wolters said: "All I can say is there is no forensic evidence but there is other evidence which indicates she is dead" (the enphasis is mine).
How can they prove a person is dead if they do not have the body or any other related forensic evidence to present to a Judge?
In the same vein, German prosecutor Wolters seems to be unable to prove, at this point, that Christian B., the main suspect of the abduction, was at the crime scene on May 3, 2007, between 21:10 and 22:00.
They have a call between two Portuguese Vodafone prepaid card mobile phones, numbers 912.730.680 and 916.510.683. The first activated one antenna in Praia da Luz,  between 19:32 and 20:02, on May 3, 2007. But not necessarily the mobile was at the crime scene. The second activated one antenna outside Praia da Luz.
Having the mobiles prepaid cards, the name of the owners are unknown. That is why German authorities launched an appeal to the public, to see if the person using the second mobile was speaking with Christian B. on that evening.
It is good for the police to try to confirm the presence of the suspect at the crime scene. But it is also good police practice to try to rule out his presence there.
I also want to mention the big mess that can be done in Christian B. timeline, by asking the public to testimony of his presence at different places 13 years ago. In 13 years memories loss easily the notion of time, unless helped by pictures, videos, diaries or documented logs.
Criminal profile of Christian B. is impressive, but it can not be used as proof of commiting another crime, even if the similarities are overwhelming. The Judges do not decide considering "probabilities", only considering facts. If, for example, according to his or her criminal profile, there is 99% "probability" that a person commited an horrible crime, he or she is not 99% guilty, but 100% guilty or 0% guilty, after analyzing the facts.