Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

[Betty_Boop88]

There’s no jury in German courts, so he can’t even argue prejudice. There may be a few ‘lay judges’, but I’d imagine the sentencing decision ultimately rests with the professional judge, who I believe takes a more active role in actually investigating cases than they would here in the UK. They aren’t just there for impartiality and sentencing (Legal Eagles please feel free to jump in and correct me if I’m wrong).

If he’s tried and found guilty, he could maybe appeal his sentence on grounds of his human right to respect of his private life being compromised, but then again, he hasn’t been ‘officially’ named in Germany. It’s every other countries’ media that has published his surname but they can’t in Germany, so I don’t know if he would even have grounds for appeal there - again, someone jump in to correct me if I have this completely wrong!

ETA - his face is plastered all over the internet, I’m sure in German media also, so maybe he would have grounds for appeal. No clue!

 

[mrjitty]

Exactly.

How is CB supposed to defend himself when he doesn't even know what he's being charged with? That's just the wrong way around.

That's been my problem with this all along.

So you certainly would advise him to keep any defence on ice, until the case is put to him. It's just a basic of natural justice.

 

[mrjitty]

There’s no jury in German courts, so he can’t even argue prejudice. There may be a few ‘lay judges’, but I’d imagine the sentencing decision ultimately rests with the professional judge, who I believe takes a more active role in actually investigating cases than they would here in the UK. They aren’t just there for impartiality and sentencing (Legal Eagles please feel free to jump in and correct me if I’m wrong).

If he’s tried and found guilty, he could maybe appeal his sentence on grounds of his human right to respect of his private life being compromised, but then again, he hasn’t been ‘officially’ named in Germany. It’s every other countries’ media that has published his surname but they can’t in Germany, so I don’t know if he would even have grounds for appeal there - again, someone jump in to correct me if I have this completely wrong!

ETA - his face is plastered all over the internet, I’m sure in German media also, so maybe he would have grounds for appeal. No clue!

The main point is no one should be expected to clear their name against secret evidence.

I am a fan of law reform to make the defence put its cards on the table pre-trial (cf the US system) but I don't have any time for the idea that people can be accused, without the prosecution showing it's case, then being expected to somehow clear their name vs secret evidence.

I say this as a general principle, rather than out of any belief CB is innocent.

What i really don't like, is the prosecutor saying he fancies CB for multiple crimes but ... well... we'll see if we charge him next year sometime.

How. shall a citizen clear themselves, if the prosecution has indeed made a mistake? especially seeing HCW may NEVER charge CB with anything?

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Apologies Jitty, I was replying to the Westender up there but it probably looks like I was replying to you!

I know I basically have CB hung, drawn and quartered for this without even knowing what they have on him but that’s my own bias. I am a believer in presumed innocence (on paper), and agree that CB can’t come out in defence of himself when questions haven’t been put to him. That’s not up to him, it’s up to the prosecution to bring what they have on him and then he can defend himself. Especially when HCW has said previously that this won’t go on forever and there will be no trial if they don’t have sufficient evidence; why would he jeopardise himself when it might not even get to trial? I believe it will now, but if I was in CB’s position I’d be making them come to me. I wouldn’t do or say anything that might be used against me in future proceedings. He’s already said more than I would with his letter and drawings.

 

[misty48]

That's been my problem with this all along.

So you certainly would advise him to keep any defence on ice, until the case is put to him. It's just a basic of natural justice.

The German police made an international public appeal in 3 languages in June 2020 for information about CB, 2 vehicles & 2 phone numbers in relation to Madeleine's reported murder. Surely, if CB has an alibi for the night in question, any person as a witness to such an alibi has a duty to come forward to BKA rather than CB's legal team. Otherwise, any such person would be guilty of withholding evidence from an ongoing investigation and possibly obstructing justice. Short of being in hospital or police custody on the night in question, I'm not sure what other form of alibi would stand up under scrutiny.
All IMO.

 

[Anxala]

The German police made an international public appeal in 3 languages in June 2020 for information about CB, 2 vehicles & 2 phone numbers in relation to Madeleine's reported murder. Surely, if CB has an alibi for the night in question, any person as a witness to such an alibi has a duty to come forward to BKA rather than CB's legal team. Otherwise, any such person would be guilty of withholding evidence from an ongoing investigation and possibly obstructing justice. Short of being in hospital or police custody on the night in question, I'm not sure what other form of alibi would stand up under scrutiny.
All IMO.

I've never gotten the impression that HCW has much interest in the comings and goings of anyone on the 3rd May or anything to do with 5A. I've posted about this in a previous thread, where he seemed/seems to be working backwards from whatever evidence he has that he believes puts CB in the frame for MM's murder. A later date.

An alibi would be useful for CB, of course, but based on what HCW has said, and the certainty with which he's said it, it presumably wouldn't make much difference in the bigger scheme of things, that bigger scheme of things being HCW repeatedly saying, regardless, that CB is responsible for the disappearance and murder of MM.

 

[Anxala]

Just to add, what intrigues me though is HCW's conviction that CB acted alone. He's stated this numerous times, said he's not looking for anyone else in connection to MM's disappearance/murder.

How can he know that for a fact if he's - as I believe he is - working backwards?

 

[misty48]

I've never gotten the impression that HCW has much interest in the comings and goings of anyone on the 3rd May or anything to do with 5A. I've posted about this in a previous thread, where he seemed/seems to be working backwards from whatever evidence he has that he believes puts CB in the frame for MM's murder. A later date.

An alibi would be useful for CB, of course, but based on what HCW has said, and the certainty with which he's said it, it presumably wouldn't make much difference in the bigger scheme of things, that bigger scheme of things being HCW repeatedly saying, regardless, that CB is responsible for the disappearance and murder of MM.

IMO if CB acted alone then only he be responsible for both the actual disappearance on 3rd May and murder at a later date, with no other person involved in the interim period. HCW has no alternative but to work backwards from the murder as German police weren't the evidence gatherers from the outset. If CB can produce a rock solid alibi for 3rd May evening, I'm not sure exactly where that would leave BKA investigation as regards CB being solely responsible for both disappearance & murder, given they have stated they have no images/videos of the killing nor details of how Madeleine died.

 

[misty48]

As an afterthought, if BKA are not looking for anyone else because CB was responsible for both the disappearance & subsequent murder, that in itself does not exclude them knowing the identities of anyone involved in crimes against Madeleine (not under their jurisdiction) during the interim period.

 

[Dlk79]

Just to add, what intrigues me though is HCW's conviction that CB acted alone. He's stated this numerous times, said he's not looking for anyone else in connection to MM's disappearance/murder.

How can he know that for a fact if he's - as I believe he is - working backwards?

Well, funny you should mention that.......

I know it seems like HCW has said CB "acted alone" a number of times but I've actually been looking back on those articles after I noticed something odd on the omny.fm podcast. There were several articles that mentioned this quote about HCW believing CB acted alone, but they all seem to originate from the same source as far as I can tell (please correct me if anyone can find another statement/article that doesn't reference his interview on the PT channel as the source). It was the Sexta as 9 interview that took place on 18th September 2020.

HCW was being asked about whether NF might have been an accomplice and he got a bit flustered IMO. It was during this exchange SF says "So for you, until now, Christian B acted alone?" to which HCW replies "as far as we know, yes". His answer is in German, and subtitled in Portuguese, so it would appear that the UK press are paraphrasing his comments somewhat.

What is odd though, is he's asked that exact same question in the podcast linked below at 21:05, just a month later, and this time he gives a different answer. Interviewer: "Do you believe the suspect acted alone?" HCW: "I'm not able to comment on this at the moment." ...hmmm.

'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

Skipping back to the Sexta interview, just before SF asks him the question about whether CB acted alone, she asks him whether it is possible that NF was the person who called CB on the 3rd. He gives an evasive answer, neither confirming or denying but what I found interesting was his initial reaction. Is it me, or does he look like a rabbit caught in the headlights? And that he is trying to think quickly on his feet about how to answer the question? It's at 23:30 of episode 28 in the link below.

Sexta às 9 Episódio 28 - de 18 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP

So... hypothetically, if BKA did actually know there was an accomplice, but that this accomplice had turned key witness, how would we expect them to play this in the press? Are they saying they are only investigating CB because the other party has been offered a deal? Do they want to throw CB and his defence team off exactly what they have on him? Appealing for the owner of a phone number when they actually already know who was on the other end and what the call was about?

I know we should take the recent CM articles with a pinch of salt, but if what CB's friend said is true, about a woman in Messines who provided CB with young girls in the care system for him to abuse... he is surely talking about NF. And this has apparently come directly from the BKA files. So if she is capable of that, and she also worked with him on the €100k robbery later that year, is it possible she was complicit to the events in 5A? CB went to live with her in Foral around this time so they were clearly in close contact.

In JC's book, he tells about trying to get an interview with NF. The guy who was supposed to go with him backed out because he feared being arrested. Apparently a number of journalists had attempted to speak to her but were all sent packing by the people living there and a bouncer-looking guy who said he worked for the secret services. Where they didn't move on immediately, police arrived on the scene within minutes to make them leave. Nobody has been able to get anywhere near her for a comment and according to her parents, she has ceased contact with all of her family since the case went public.

I could well be reading to much into all of this, and it's only a possible theory, not necessarily what I think. But if BKA did know of an accomplice (or at least someone who knew that CB was breaking into 5A but not exactly what else he ended up doing) they might not want to broadcast that if it's part of their secret evidence file.

 

[Lilly b]

Well, funny you should mention that.......

I know it seems like HCW has said CB "acted alone" a number of times but I've actually been looking back on those articles after I noticed something odd on the omny.fm podcast. There were several articles that mentioned this quote about HCW believing CB acted alone, but they all seem to originate from the same source as far as I can tell (please correct me if anyone can find another statement/article that doesn't reference his interview on the PT channel as the source). It was the Sexta as 9 interview that took place on 18th September 2020.

HCW was being asked about whether NF might have been an accomplice and he got a bit flustered IMO. It was during this exchange SF says "So for you, until now, Christian B acted alone?" to which HCW replies "as far as we know, yes".

What is odd though, is he's asked that exact same question in the podcast linked below at 21:05, just a month later, and this time he gives a different answer. Interviewer: "Do you believe the suspect acted alone?" HCW: "I'm not able to comment on this at the moment." ...hmmm.

'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

Skipping back to the Sexta interview, just before SF asks him the question about whether CB acted alone, she asks him whether it is possible that NF was the person who called CB on the 3rd. He gives an evasive answer, neither confirming or denying but what I found interesting was his initial reaction. Is it me, or does he look like a rabbit caught in the headlights? And that he is trying to think quickly on his feet about how to answer the question? It's at 23:30 of episode 28 in the link below.

Sexta às 9 Episódio 28 - de 18 Set 2020 - RTP Play - RTP

So... hypothetically, if BKA did actually know there was an accomplice, but that this accomplice had turned key witness, how would we expect them to play this in the press? Are they saying they are only investigating CB because the other party has been offered a deal? Do they want to throw CB and his defence team off exactly what they have on him? Appealing for the owner of a phone number when they actually already know who was on the other end and what the call was about?

I know we should take the recent CM articles with a pinch of salt, but if what CB's friend said is true, about a woman in Messines who provided CB with young girls in the care system for him to abuse... he is surely talking about NF. And this has apparently come directly from the BKA files. So if she is capable of that, and she also worked with him on the €100k robbery later that year, is it possible she was complicit to the events in 5A? CB went to live with her in Foral around this time so they were clearly in close contact.

In JC's book, he tells about trying to get an interview with NF. The guy who was supposed to go with him backed out because he feared being arrested. Apparently a number of journalists had attempted to speak to her but were all sent packing by the people living there and a bouncer-looking guy who said he worked for the secret services. Where they didn't move on immediately, police arrived on the scene within minutes to make them leave. Nobody has been able to get anywhere near her for a comment and she has ceased contact with all of her family.

I could well be reading to much into all of this, and it's only a possible theory, not necessarily what I think. But if BKA did know of an accomplice (or at least someone who knew that CB was breaking into 5A but not exactly what else he ended up doing) they might not want to broadcast that if it's part of their secret evidence file.

It's good to bring up things, that you think of in a different way than you may of thought a while back, sometimes things can look different with a bit more information

 

[Nikolai_ff]

Completely agree with Dlk's post. There is no need to get snarled up in the minutiae of how MM was abducted, if you can jail her killer on other evidence.

Understanding exactly how she was taken is relevant only if you think the abductor and killer were two different people. In that case you still need to identify and build a case against the abductor, because otherwise you leave him at liberty to do it again.

Is there any evidence that points to this though? It seems most likely to me that the abductor entered through an unlocked back door and exited via the bedroom window onto the street.

Highly unlikely about the window. Almost certain it was to illuminate the bedroom without having to switch on the lights and to listen if somebody was coming from the street.

 

[Nikolai_ff]

No. Sociopaths and psychopaths don't behave in a 'rational' manner. Besides, how do you know he is not perturbed? Because of some cartoons he drew? His ranting letter calling for the Prosecutors to be sacked sounds to me like he might be a little perturbed.

If I were being publicly accused of murdering a child and I knew I was innocent, I'd be asking to speak to the police in order to give my account and clear my name. I wouldn't be taunting the police that they haven't been able to find any "forensic" evidence yet. If CB is innocent, he could nip all the speculation in the bud by providing an alibi for his whereabouts on the 3rd. It was national news, his phone was pinged in the town that night. If he didn't do it he would have at least have thought about where he was around that time given his proximity to the area, so he would still be able to recount now where he was when this happened. But no, according to his lawyer you could order "a holy drink in hell" before CB would cooperate with the prosecutors.

Very good point. CB does not seem to have an alibi. Not even a flimsy one.

 

[Trivento]

Highly unlikely about the window. Almost certain it was to illuminate the bedroom without having to switch on the lights and to listen if somebody was coming from the street.

Agree ..just a gut feeling...but my hunch is also that window wasn't used as an egress of MM ( unless passed by hand through there )...think more likely left (probably in hands of an abductor ) via patio doors or front door (then closed again)..just think more signs would have been left on bed below window if had vacated appt 5A via window...am open to be proved wrong tho...
Of course could have been passed from one person to another through the window without leaving any imprints or evidence on bed or window frame below/between....

 

[Dlk79]

I find myself going back over a lot of HCW's previous statements and re-analysing what he actually says now that we know a lot more details. There was an article in the Sun on 10th June 2020 where he made an appeal to the readers. A few interesting comments come out from him in that exchange.

Madeleine McCann prosecutors call on Sun readers to help them nail prime suspect

“We have strong evidence that she is dead and she wasn’t held for a long period of time with our suspect or anyone else.”

Ok, so they seem to know that her death happened within a relatively short space of time. His comment in the other podcast that they cannot say on "which day exactly" backs that up to a degree. It seems like perhaps they can pinpoint a time when they know she was definitely deceased, which was not too long after she went missing, but they cannot pinpoint the exact time she died.

“We are sure she has been murdered and she is dead and we think our suspect is the murderer."

"Sure" she was murdered. "Think" the suspect is the murderer. It sounds like the evidence that MM is dead is separate and definitive and while it points to CB being the culprit, that fact isn't quite as solid as her being dead.

“All I can tell you is that we are sure she died in Portugal but I am not able to go into specific details.

So, first thing to note there is that despite those dubious reports earlier this year about "cops fearing" that CB may have taken MM to Germany, HCW stated from the outset that they were "sure" MM was killed in Portugal. So, it appears they know where (roughly) the killing hapenned as well as knowing it happened realtively soon after she was taken.

Next, it sounds like the reporter asks HCW about whether they think CB may have filmed MM because he was know to have recorded other victims. He answers:

“It is possible that our suspect filmed something in connection with Madeleine but we haven’t got direct evidence that he did."

This is the comment that interests me most. On first glance it appears he is saying they don't have any video/photo evidence of MM. But then if that's the case, why would he then repeatedly refuse to "confirm or deny" this possibility in all his susequent interviews? And as I've mentioned in other posts, his recent comment ruling out two distinct scenarios that they don't have ("video of the act" and "MM and CB together") only increases my suspicion of other scenarios they might have images of, such as MM's body. The key word in his above statement is "direct". The comment "we haven't got direct evidence that he did" means a very different thing to "we haven't got any evidence that he did".

In law, "direct evidence" has a very specific defintion. It means that it directly proves the key fact in question. An example of direct evidence would be an eye-witness account of a theft where the person directly saw the crime take place. Whereas "inderect evidence" means it's evidence that proves another fact, but based on that fact, there is a reasonable inference that another key fact happened. An example would be a person who got caught with the stolen goods and it being reasonable to infer that they were also responsible for the original theft.

So when HCW makes the above comment, could it be that he actually means that they do have video/photo evidence of MM but they cannot directly prove that CB was the one who filmed it? So this video is "direct evidence" that MM is dead but it is only "indirect evidence" that CB killed her. And although because of how/where they found the images it is reasonable to infer that CB filmed the material, there is no "direct evidence" that he did.

“It is possible that our suspect filmed something in connection with Madeleine but we haven’t got direct evidence that he did."

 

[mrjitty]

I could well be reading to much into all of this, and it's only a possible theory, not necessarily what I think. But if BKA did know of an accomplice (or at least someone who knew that CB was breaking into 5A but not exactly what else he ended up doing) they might not want to broadcast that if it's part of their secret evidence file.

RSBM

I would not be surprised if this is a key part of BKA's theory. We know the burglar theory was a key part of the Met theory of the case.

So if BKA then find a suspect with CB's rapsheet, that they can also directly tie to burglaries in OC - that starts to look tasty for them.

 

[mrjitty]

I find myself going back over a lot of HCW's previous statements and re-analysing what he actually says now that we know a lot more details. There was an article in the Sun on 10th June 2020 where he made an appeal to the readers. A few interesting comments come out from him in that exchange.

Madeleine McCann prosecutors call on Sun readers to help them nail prime suspect

“We have strong evidence that she is dead and she wasn’t held for a long period of time with our suspect or anyone else.”

Ok, so they seem to know that her death happened within a relatively short space of time. His comment in the other podcast that they cannot say on "which day exactly" backs that up to a degree. It seems like perhaps they can pinpoint a time when they know she was definitely deceased, which was not too long after she went missing, but they cannot pinpoint the exact time she died.

“We are sure she has been murdered and she is dead and we think our suspect is the murderer."

"Sure" she was murdered. "Think" the suspect is the murderer. It sounds like the evidence that MM is dead is separate and definitive and while it points to CB being the culprit, that fact isn't quite as solid as her being dead.

“All I can tell you is that we are sure she died in Portugal but I am not able to go into specific details.

So, first thing to note there is that despite those dubious reports earlier this year about "cops fearing" that CB may have taken MM to Germany, HCW stated from the outset that they were "sure" MM was killed in Portugal. So, it appears they know where (roughly) the killing hapenned as well as knowing it happened realtively soon after she was taken.

Next, it sounds like the reporter asks HCW about whether they think CB may have filmed MM because he was know to have recorded other victims. He answers:

“It is possible that our suspect filmed something in connection with Madeleine but we haven’t got direct evidence that he did."

This is the comment that interests me most. On first glance it appears he is saying they don't have any video/photo evidence of MM. But then if that's the case, why would he then repeatedly refuse to "confirm or deny" this possibility in all his susequent interviews? And as I've mentioned in other posts, his recent comment ruling out two distinct scenarios that they don't have ("video of the act" and "MM and CB together") only increases my suspicion of other scenarios they might have images of, such as MM's body. The key word in his above statement is "direct". The comment "we haven't got direct evidence that he did" means a very different thing to "we haven't got any evidence that he did".

In law, "direct evidence" has a very specific defintion. It means that it directly proves the key fact in question. An example of direct evidence would be an eye-witness account of a theft where the person directly saw the crime take place. Whereas "inderect evidence" means it's evidence that proves another fact, but based on that fact, there is a reasonable inference that another key fact happened. An example would be a person who got caught with the stolen goods and it being reasonable to infer that they were also responsible for the original theft.

So when HCW makes the above comment, could it be that he actually means that they do have video/photo evidence of MM but they cannot directly prove that CB was the one who filmed it? So this video is "direct evidence" that MM is dead but it is only "indirect evidence" that CB killed her. And although because of how/where they found the images it is reasonable to infer that CB filmed the material, there is no "direct evidence" that he did.

“It is possible that our suspect filmed something in connection with Madeleine but we haven’t got direct evidence that he did."

Great post.

I've wondered if he does not have such a photo/video, but has a witness who claims to have seen it.

So he has direct evidence of something that was seen. But it requires inferences for the rest.

This is similar to what happened in terms of the video of the rape. Prosecutors did not have the video, but rather witnesses who claimed to have found such a video.

 

[Zuleika]

Re the comment CB doesn't seem to have an alibi .
How do you know this? If he hasn't been charged nothing will have been offered up from his defence lawyer ?

 

[SuperdadV8]

I find myself going back over a lot of HCW's previous statements and re-analysing what he actually says now that we know a lot more details. There was an article in the Sun on 10th June 2020 where he made an appeal to the readers. A few interesting comments come out from him in that exchange.

Madeleine McCann prosecutors call on Sun readers to help them nail prime suspect

“We have strong evidence that she is dead and she wasn’t held for a long period of time with our suspect or anyone else.”

Ok, so they seem to know that her death happened within a relatively short space of time. His comment in the other podcast that they cannot say on "which day exactly" backs that up to a degree. It seems like perhaps they can pinpoint a time when they know she was definitely deceased, which was not too long after she went missing, but they cannot pinpoint the exact time she died.

“We are sure she has been murdered and she is dead and we think our suspect is the murderer."

"Sure" she was murdered. "Think" the suspect is the murderer. It sounds like the evidence that MM is dead is separate and definitive and while it points to CB being the culprit, that fact isn't quite as solid as her being dead.

“All I can tell you is that we are sure she died in Portugal but I am not able to go into specific details.

So, first thing to note there is that despite those dubious reports earlier this year about "cops fearing" that CB may have taken MM to Germany, HCW stated from the outset that they were "sure" MM was killed in Portugal. So, it appears they know where (roughly) the killing hapenned as well as knowing it happened realtively soon after she was taken.

Next, it sounds like the reporter asks HCW about whether they think CB may have filmed MM because he was know to have recorded other victims. He answers:

“It is possible that our suspect filmed something in connection with Madeleine but we haven’t got direct evidence that he did."

This is the comment that interests me most. On first glance it appears he is saying they don't have any video/photo evidence of MM. But then if that's the case, why would he then repeatedly refuse to "confirm or deny" this possibility in all his susequent interviews? And as I've mentioned in other posts, his recent comment ruling out two distinct scenarios that they don't have ("video of the act" and "MM and CB together") only increases my suspicion of other scenarios they might have images of, such as MM's body. The key word in his above statement is "direct". The comment "we haven't got direct evidence that he did" means a very different thing to "we haven't got any evidence that he did".

In law, "direct evidence" has a very specific defintion. It means that it directly proves the key fact in question. An example of direct evidence would be an eye-witness account of a theft where the person directly saw the crime take place. Whereas "inderect evidence" means it's evidence that proves another fact, but based on that fact, there is a reasonable inference that another key fact happened. An example would be a person who got caught with the stolen goods and it being reasonable to infer that they were also responsible for the original theft.

So when HCW makes the above comment, could it be that he actually means that they do have video/photo evidence of MM but they cannot directly prove that CB was the one who filmed it? So this video is "direct evidence" that MM is dead but it is only "indirect evidence" that CB killed her. And although because of how/where they found the images it is reasonable to infer that CB filmed the material, there is no "direct evidence" that he did.

“It is possible that our suspect filmed something in connection with Madeleine but we haven’t got direct evidence that he did."

Right!

The opposite of direct means indirect. According to the circumstances in the case, it could be a usually direct evidence that either could have been achieved unlawfully, or like in the MN case, footage without a prove that the perp produced it himself and not just downloaded it from the web.

Something that makes HCW a 100 % sure. A Helge B. testimony? No way IMO.

Footage of MM, very more likely....!

 

[Dlk79]

Re the comment CB doesn't seem to have an alibi .
How do you know this? If he hasn't been charged nothing will have been offered up from his defence lawyer ?

Don't forget that CB was interviewed by German police in 2013 about MM after his name was put forward following a TV appeal.

Madeleine McCann suspect 'joked he had hid her in cellar' claims sickened ex-pal

He must have surely been asked to give an account of his movements around the time of the disappearance. So given that BKA are still adamant he is guilty, he either failed to provide an alibi back in 2013 or the one he gave doesn't stand up to scrutiny IMO.