I haven’t read anything from the prosecution correcting Fuelscher claims, have you and it would have been very easy to check.
Absolutely the Greek police said that but do you think that perhaps Busching was playing the long game with his eye on the ‘reward’ prize….but sssshhhh he wasn’t telling the police about that?
Right so let’s try and work this out:
1) Busching commits at least two rapes in the Algarve in 2004 / 2005.
2) Madeleine disappears 2007
3) Busching decides to claim the reward money by enlisting the support of Seyferth to concoct a plot framing his old mate CB by going to the McCanns detectives with details of a bogus video and a made-up story about CB confessing to taking Madeleine.
4) Nothing happens and many years pass
5) After serving time for people smuggling Busching decides to resurrect his plot to claim the reward money and tells the Greek authorities about CB’s confession and the videos depicting rapes similar to those he himself committed but with different individuals and locations involved.
6) Police check this information out and see that the details closely match those of the rape of DM reported many years before
7) DNA from that rape (committed lets not forget by Busching) turns out by some bizarre twist of fate to belong to the innocent man he accuses of committing that rape, CB.
8) CB is found guilty of a rape he didn’t commit and jailed for 7 years.
9) Further investigations reveal details of another reported rape that is similar to but not identical to the rapes described by Bushing on the video tapes,, this time that of a young Irish woman who comes to believe 100% that her rapist is CB, but unbenownst to her the rapist is actually Busching.
10) Busching together with his terminally ill accomplice Seyferth, agree to give evidence in a new trial brought against CB. They’re playing the long game (but probably not that long in Seyferth’s case) in the hopes that eventually they will get their hands on the Madeleine reward money.
11) At the trial, despite a previous court finding CB guilty on the back of Busching’s alleged video tape revelations this time the judge finds him not guilty because the judge feels the publicity surrounding the case means he could not get a fair trial, though why this could not have been ascertained before the trial ever got started is not quite clear.
12) Meanwhile the victim HB continies to claim CB was 100% her attacker, little realising that the real culprit was one of the witnesses who deliberately put himself back in the courtroom with his unsuspecting victim sitting close by in the witness box.
Phew. Complicated innit. Did I miss anything out?
