Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #27

[RichardKimble]

This point has been covered many times now.

In many jurisdictions, including Germany and incidentally the UK, police cannot conduct interviews by ambush.

They have to disclose the basis for questioning to the suspect.

This is why the suspect will present his answers in an official interview, often in writing

There is no way to know what answers the suspect will provide without knowing the allegations against him

This is why CB would be foolish to go on the record now.

This is fairly basic stuff in any jurisdiction where the accused does not have a full right to silence like the US

Continuing to claim that CB should state his alibi to answer allegations made in the media by HCW is just not realistic

MWT will not have CB directly on tape, it'll be from supposed letters or FF.

 

[RichardKimble]

So CB was looked at in the IG case,. He doesn't have an alibi for that day however,. They said said his phone didn't ping, so that's how they know his mobile number

Do you mean his phone did ping ? if so where ? We're talking which misty posted about, his number supposedly used in Luz somehow had pictures by that phone in his shed/garage under the dog ? how is that known ?

 

[C.greek]

This point has been covered many times now.
In many jurisdictions, including Germany and incidentally the UK, police cannot conduct interviews by ambush.
They have to disclose the basis for questioning to the suspect.
This is why the suspect will present his answers in an official interview, often in writing
There is no way to know what answers the suspect will provide without knowing the allegations against him
This is why CB would be foolish to go on the record now.
This is fairly basic stuff in any jurisdiction where the accused does not have a full right to silence like the US
Continuing to claim that CB should state his alibi to answer allegations made in the media by HCW is just not realistic

indeed we have discussed this many times before. Nobody is talking about interviews by ambush.
But it does not appear related to what KF said. He said that 1. FF has stated that there is no reason for HCW to lose his time interviewing CB, since CB will not say anything. 2. that if CB had an alibi and that was disclosed to BKA, the investigation could close.
Why wouldn't CB and FF disclose a watertight alibi for the day of MM's disappearance that would close the investigation?
I do not follow your argument about HCW being not realistic. Doesn't he know all the legal issues you are presenting above? Perhaps we are missing something?

ETA. I find it a bit unfair to say that these are allegations made in the media by HCW. We have discussed many times before that in order for a public prosecutor to have a public appeal for information for a suspect, the case must first pass from a judge who would be provided with the evidence already available. It is not just a public prosecutor talking to the media.

 

[C.greek]

DPD

 

[Lilly b]

Do you mean his phone did ping ? if so where ? We're talking which misty posted about, his number supposedly used in Luz somehow had pictures by that phone in his shed/garage under the dog ? how is that known ?

No I said his phone didn't ping, read what I posted

 

[RichardKimble]

No I said his phone didn't ping, read what I posted

So how do they know his number .

 

[C.greek]

So how do they know his number .

perhaps we are talking about the phone apparatus found in the box factory?

 

[Hygge]

perhaps we are talking about the phone apparatus found in the box factory?

At least they found old mobile phones and cards on his Neuwegersleben property as the old article from 2016 says
Großeinsatz in der Börde:Kinderporno-Razzia auf vermülltem Fabrikgelände

 

[C.greek]

At least they found old mobile phones and cards on his Neuwegersleben property as the old article from 2016 says
Großeinsatz in der Börde:Kinderporno-Razzia auf vermülltem Fabrikgelände

From your link, how did they find indications that the owner/user of the factory had images of child sex abuse? I am sure we have discussed this before but the initial search was because of environmental reasons. Did they find immediately the lidl bag containing the memory cards?

It also appears that CB has not been charged yet about what they have found in the box factory (only from the search in B of his apartment/allotment, ie relating to the daughter of an ex) so this raises the possibility that what they found is really significant and they would be ready to bring charges after they have combed through the whole lot or as @SuperdadV8 has stressed whether this material could be part of larger ring. Also based on JC's book the BKA revisited the factory but HCW would not disclose what they have found.

www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/10/03/book-extract-part-two-in-my-search-for-madeleine-by-jon-clarke/

 

[mrjitty]

Why wouldn't CB and FF disclose a watertight alibi for the day of MM's disappearance that would close the investigation?

CB would only present his version in an official interview, where the prosecutor presents the nature of the case against him. For whatever reason, the prosecutor has chosen not to seek this step right now. That is on the HCW. We don't ask accused to prove their innocence to a prosecutor outside the courtroom. CB is not even charged.

Otherwise we are heading into the territory where CB is being asked to prove his innocence, in response to secret evidence - the legal system just does not work this way.

I do not follow your argument about HCW being not realistic. Doesn't he know all the legal issues you are presenting above? Perhaps we are missing something? ETA. I find it a bit unfair to say that these are allegations made in the media by HCW. We have discussed many times before that in order for a public prosecutor to have a public appeal for information for a suspect, the case must first pass from a judge who would be provided with the evidence already available. It is not just a public prosecutor talking to the media.

HCW has made his allegations against CB in the media, and not in the context of an official interview with CB and all the legal protections that brings.

This is why FF has answered with his own media work, and not an official statement from CB.

To claim CB should present an official alibi outside the protections of the law for defendants in official police interviews is unrealistic. No sensible person would do this, whether guilty or innocent, having been publicly accused by the prosecutor.

 

[mrjitty]

You can game out why an accused would not present their version, whether guilty or innocent in the situation where they are already publicly accused. i.e. this is not a situation where the person is merely a witness or person of interest to the inquiry. HCW has directly accused CB of murder, not in an on the record interview where CB has legal counsel, but in the court of public opinion.

Scenario 1: CB is guilty.
Only a clown would make a public statement without knowing the case against him, because he might say something police can disprove, or he might need to resort to silence.

Scenario 2: CB is innocent.
Only a clown would make a public statement without knowing the case against him, for multiple reasons.

First he could end up inadvertently saying something that police can attack in the trial, making him look guilty when he is in fact innocent. Especially this might happen where witnesses won't stack up for him, because they already said different things to police. This can happen where a witness is lying, confused, doesn't remember or is unreliable.

But especially CB does not know how he is actually incriminated right now. So he could invest in a big "alibi" that does nothing to rebut the police case - because for example the police case doesn't relate to 5A

Especially the audience of CB to get the case "closed" is the Judge and not HCW. If he has good answers to allegations, it is much better to save these for an official interview than to gift wrap them all for HCW now.

I continue to find elements of this case pure Kafka, especially the suggestion that an accused murderer should give up protections around the right to silence, to prove his innocence outside of court, when the prosecutor is keeping his evidence secret.

But especially I find is strange to imply that this somehow makes an accused look more guilty, or that it means he has a weak case. We just don't know what the case against CB is, or how he can answer it.

 

[C.greek]

CB would only present his version in an official interview, where the prosecutor presents the nature of the case against him. For whatever reason, the prosecutor has chosen not to seek this step right now. That is on the HCW. We don't ask accused to prove their innocence to a prosecutor outside the courtroom. CB is not even charged.

Otherwise we are heading into the territory where CB is being asked to prove his innocence, in response to secret evidence - the legal system just does not work this way.



HCW has made his allegations against CB in the media, and not in the context of an official interview with CB and all the legal protections that brings.

This is why FF has answered with his own media work, and not an official statement from CB.

To claim CB should present an official alibi outside the protections of the law for defendants in official police interviews is unrealistic. No sensible person would do this, whether guilty or innocent, having been publicly accused by the prosecutor.

How do we know whether he has or has not been summoned as a witness? We know he would have presented his alibi for example in 2013. If he didn't then, how can he find one now? Maybe there are things that have happened between FF, CB and HCW we don't know about.

I don't believe the prosecutor would be so daft as to make illogical suggestions. There could be something in the legal statutes in Germany for example

And no, actually this is no media accusation. It comes from an official appeal for information on the suspect from both the SY and the BKA that had been through all the legal channels in Germany before it was made public. The fact that this rarely happens in Germany means that the evidence presented to the judge was strong enough to warrant a public appeal.

What happened afterwards, with the interviews of HCW, is unrelated to the fact that this initial formal appeal for information was an official statement of suspicion of guilt for the murder of MM by CB.

 

[mrjitty]

How do we know whether he has or has not been summoned as a witness? We know he would have presented his alibi for example in 2013. If he didn't then, how can he find one now? Maybe there are things that have happened between FF, CB and HCW we don't know about.

I don't believe the prosecutor would be so daft as to make illogical suggestions. There could be something in the legal statutes in Germany for example

And no, actually this is no media accusation. It comes from an official appeal for information on the suspect from both the SY and the BKA that had been through all the legal channels in Germany before it was made public. The fact that this rarely happens in Germany means that the evidence presented to the judge was strong enough to warrant a public appeal.

What happened afterwards, with the interviews of HCW, is unrelated to the fact that this initial formal appeal for information was an official statement of suspicion of guilt for the murder of MM by CB.

Seeing we are just going backwards and forwards lets take a slightly different tangent

If CB is actually innocent, do you think he should go public with his defence? Or save it for an official interview?

And do you think him keeping quite gives the appearance of guilt?

 

[C.greek]

You can game out why an accused would not present their version, whether guilty or innocent in the situation where they are already publicly accused. i.e. this is not a situation where the person is merely a witness or person of interest to the inquiry. HCW has directly accused CB of murder, not in an on the record interview where CB has legal counsel, but in the court of public opinion.

Scenario 1: CB is guilty.
Only a clown would make a public statement without knowing the case against him, because he might say something police can disprove, or he might need to resort to silence.

Scenario 2: CB is innocent.
Only a clown would make a public statement without knowing the case against him, for multiple reasons.

First he could end up inadvertently saying something that police can attack in the trial, making him look guilty when he is in fact innocent. Especially this might happen where witnesses won't stack up for him, because they already said different things to police. This can happen where a witness is lying, confused, doesn't remember or is unreliable.

But especially CB does not know how he is actually incriminated right now. So he could invest in a big "alibi" that does nothing to rebut the police case - because for example the police case doesn't relate to 5A

Especially the audience of CB to get the case "closed" is the Judge and not HCW. If he has good answers to allegations, it is much better to save these for an official interview than to gift wrap them all for HCW now.

I continue to find elements of this case pure Kafka, especially the suggestion that an accused murderer should give up protections around the right to silence, to prove his innocence outside of court, when the prosecutor is keeping his evidence secret.

But especially I find is strange to imply that this somehow makes an accused look more guilty, or that it means he has a weak case. We just don't know what the case against CB is, or how he can answer it.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

CB and FF have in the context of MWT doku - if indeed this is true- disputed the two main things that are already known - that the mobile number was not in the hands of CB and that CB was 30 min away during the time 9.10-10.00 pm, refuting in this way the further information provided by BKA and SY in their public appeal

"Further information on the searches:
Time of offence: 03/05/2007
Place of offence: Praia da Luz, Portugal

In order to clarify the circumstances of the offence, it is of particular importance to establish the actual whereabouts of the suspect at the presumed time of offence (between 21:10 hrs and 22:00 hrs on the day of the offence).

At the time in question, the suspect used a dark coloured Jaguar XJR 6. We do not hold any infor-mation on the specific registration of the vehicle before the offence was committed. The last known registration after the day of the offence was a city of Augsburg registration. He also used a white and yellow VW T3 Westfalia with a Portuguese registration. There is information suggesting that he may have used one of these vehicles to commit the offence.

In addition, he almost certainly used the Portuguese mobile phone number + 351 912 730 680 in the time period in question. On 03/05/2007, there was a phone call with a so far unidentified person in the area of Praia da Luz at the material time. The conversation partner used the Portuguese phone number + 351 916 510 683. The user of this number is considered an important witness, but was not staying in the area at the time of the call."

"Can you provide information on the above-mentioned telephone numbers and/or the persons using these numbers in May 2007?"

"Did you have contact with persons who have links to the vehicles, buildings and telephone numbers shown? Can you provide information on their whereabouts in the be-ginning of May 2007? "

if CB knew that the mobile number was used by someone else in May 2007, he could have come forward, even in a confidential manner.
It appears there are specific things CB and FF could answer to even if these are not in the context of a formal interview. I cannot imagine the appeal not having any legal stance.

https://www.bka.de/DE/IhreSicherhei...rhalt_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4

BKA - Fahndung nach Personen - Verschwinden der Madeleine McCANN am 03.05.2007 in Praia da Luz / Portugal – Zeugen gesucht

 

[C.greek]

Seeing we are just going backwards and forwards lets take a slightly different tangent

If CB is actually innocent, do you think he should go public with his defence? Or save it for an official interview?

And do you think him keeping quite gives the appearance of guilt?

He is not keeping quiet though - he is sending cartoons mocking the BKA and HCW, or writing letters again accusing HCW and the investigation and asking them to resign!

Madeleine McCann suspect mocks investigators with cartoon showing them using a clairvoyant | Daily Mail Online

Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner breaks silence in prison letter

 

[RichardKimble]

Just reading back through what Wolters actually said in relation to charges, he's quoted as saying we have enough to charge, you will notice he never said charge with what though , imo the evidence he said back in June 2020 which was concrete but turned to be only circumstantial is the same now, he may charge but he won't get a conviction.

Speaking exclusively to the Mirror, Mr Wolters said: “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-sneers-cops-25181683

 

[C.greek]

Just reading back through what Wolters actually said in relation to charges, he's quoted as saying we have enough to charge, you will notice he never said charge with what though , imo the evidence he said back in June 2020 which was concrete but turned to be only circumstantial is the same now, he may charge but he won't get a conviction.

Speaking exclusively to the Mirror, Mr Wolters said: “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-sneers-cops-25181683

They are investigating the murder of MM. The concrete indisputable evidence would have been a body which they do not have and have not managed to get further info on its localisation.

 

[Dlk79]

Just reading back through what Wolters actually said in relation to charges, he's quoted as saying we have enough to charge, you will notice he never said charge with what though , imo the evidence he said back in June 2020 which was concrete but turned to be only circumstantial is the same now, he may charge but he won't get a conviction.

Speaking exclusively to the Mirror, Mr Wolters said: “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-sneers-cops-25181683

It's obvious from the context that he is talking about the MM murder charge. In the original article I linked he goes on to say -

Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter.”

“All I can do is ask for your patience. I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.

“I can’t tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.”

Prosecutor '100% convinced' suspect abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann

 

[Dlk79]

If CB is actually innocent, do you think he should go public with his defence? Or save it for an official interview?

From a legal standpoint, I'd agree with you. But now he has seemingly gone public with his alibi, surely he has undermined that cautionary position of not revealing anything until HCW shows his hand? JMO but if CB is innocent and he had a solid alibi for the 3rd, I don't believe we would have got to where we are now.

If I had to guess, I reckon CB already gave this alibi back in 2013 when he was first questioned about MM. Then when BKA began the investigation in 2017, they likely tracked down the woman and told her that CB claimed he was with you on the 3rd, is it true? She has then not committed either way to say he was or wasn't. Possibly because she genuinely can't remember or maybe because if she says "no, he wasn't", she drops CB right in it and becomes an extremely important witness for the prosecution. It would be interesting to know whether the pair have had any contact with one another subsequent to their "fling".

 

[Megnut]

It's obvious from the context that he is talking about the MM murder charge. In the original article I linked he goes on to say -

Addressing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, he said: “We are confident we have the man who took and killed your daughter.”

“All I can do is ask for your patience. I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.

“I can’t tell you on which basis we assume she is dead. But for us, there’s no other possibility. There is no hope she is alive.”

Prosecutor '100% convinced' suspect abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann

To me, that almost sounds like photographic evidence.

JMO