Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #28

[Dlk79]

Because he’s giving CB enough rope to hang himself?
Perhaps he found something out on his fact-finding expedition to Portugal that didn’t sit well with him, but so long as CB keeps on denying, FF has to keep on representing?

Something that maybe makes him second guess letting CB look after his dogs?

I've been pondering certain things along this line myself. And perhaps @mrjitty can help answer on this?

My understanding is that if a client directly admits his guilt to his legal representative, then that representative is duty bound to not lie about this. I mean in the sense that, he cannot then defend the client as 'not guilty' against a charge he knows that is true.

But my question is more about what happens if a lawyer discovers information, prior to any charge or trial, that makes him believe that their client is in fact guilty. What (in theory) are the rules around this about them being able to defend that client against the charge in court? Especially if the client is facing more than one charge to be defended, but the lawyer only is 'sure' about one particular charge of which they believe their client is almost certainly guilty of.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

I've been pondering certain things along this line myself. And perhaps @mrjitty can help answer on this?

My understanding is that if a client directly admits his guilt to his legal representative, then that representative is duty bound to not lie about this. I mean in the sense that, he cannot then defend the client as 'not guilty' against a charge he knows that is true.

But my question is more about what happens if a lawyer discovers information, prior to any charge or trial, that makes him believe that their client is in fact guilty. What (in theory) are the rules around this about them being able to defend that client against the charge in court? Especially if the client is facing more than one charge to be defended, but the lawyer only is 'sure' about one particular charge of which they believe their client is almost certainly guilty of.

Very valid question. And what’s the old adage - don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answer to?
I’m also thinking that maybe FF didn’t see the Hazel Behan case being thrown at him? If even Hazel herself wasn’t aware of the partial fingerprint until now, we can’t assume FF was aware - the charge hasn’t been put to CB yet, therefore FF isn’t privy to the evidence in that case, either. I assume, anyway.

Imagine thinking you were going into the unsolvable MM case and your client is hit with a second violent rape in the midst of it all. I wouldn’t be a happy camper.

 

[Loobyloo]

I would agree with this. The concrete evidence could be statements, confessions he made that have been transmitted to the BKA, details CB wrote about in his chats/autobiographical bs which could indeed place him at the crime scene, as well as exposing his MO, and his 2013 statement which could have by now proven false.

It could also be video or photographic material showing MM harmed/deceased in a particular setting that can be linked to CB, eg one of his known homes or vehicles. German LE have only said there's no visual evidence of MM & CB together, but they've not ruled out the possibility of a recognisable location, eg the room shown in a video still that was shown in the public appeal.

 

[Dlk79]

For those unfamiliar or unaware, the speculation about autobiographical accounts from CB about his crimes comes from Chapter 26 in GA's book.

In Neuwegersleben, on January 14, 2016, CB’s neighbour calls the local police because of a nauseating smell that came from a certain place of the plot where CB resided in an autocaravan. The stink was so intense that unlike the earth it did not freeze.

30 cm (1 ft) deep the police found the dead body of a Labrador and underneath it a LIDL supermarket bag containing firewood.

It was found and apprehended in the LIDL bag 6 pen-drives and 2 memory cards which contained “photos of children, including those of an unknown child in sensual poses and, mainly, Word documents which the police responsible for the find describe as writings about serious sexual abuse against children. Later, BKA identifies these and other writings as two documents produced by the suspect with the titles of Das Buch and Das Buch 1. These books, said to be autobiographic, speak of himself and of friends and describe criminal practices. It’s unknown if we are before realities or pure fantasies, but the fact is that the finding of all this material was and is useful for the construction of a suspect.

As much as I distrust what GA has to say about anything, this claim about Das Buch and Das Buch 1 seems far too specific to be invented from thin air.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

For those unfamiliar or unaware, the speculation about autobiographical accounts from CB about his crimes comes from Chapter 26 in GA's book.

In Neuwegersleben, on January 14, 2016, CB’s neighbour calls the local police because of a nauseating smell that came from a certain place of the plot where CB resided in an autocaravan. The stink was so intense that unlike the earth it did not freeze.

30 cm (1 ft) deep the police found the dead body of a Labrador and underneath it a LIDL supermarket bag containing firewood.

It was found and apprehended in the LIDL bag 6 pen-drives and 2 memory cards which contained “photos of children, including those of an unknown child in sensual poses and, mainly, Word documents which the police responsible for the find describe as writings about serious sexual abuse against children. Later, BKA identifies these and other writings as two documents produced by the suspect with the titles of Das Buch and Das Buch 1. These books, said to be autobiographic, speak of himself and of friends and describe criminal practices. It’s unknown if we are before realities or pure fantasies, but the fact is that the finding of all this material was and is useful for the construction of a suspect.

As much as I distrust what GA has to say about anything, this claim about Das Buch and Das Buch 1 seems far too specific to be invented from thin air.

Far too specific. That didn’t come out of thin air.

 

[C.greek]

For those unfamiliar or unaware, the speculation about autobiographical accounts from CB about his crimes comes from Chapter 26 in GA's book.

In Neuwegersleben, on January 14, 2016, CB’s neighbour calls the local police because of a nauseating smell that came from a certain place of the plot where CB resided in an autocaravan. The stink was so intense that unlike the earth it did not freeze.

30 cm (1 ft) deep the police found the dead body of a Labrador and underneath it a LIDL supermarket bag containing firewood.

It was found and apprehended in the LIDL bag 6 pen-drives and 2 memory cards which contained “photos of children, including those of an unknown child in sensual poses and, mainly, Word documents which the police responsible for the find describe as writings about serious sexual abuse against children. Later, BKA identifies these and other writings as two documents produced by the suspect with the titles of Das Buch and Das Buch 1. These books, said to be autobiographic, speak of himself and of friends and describe criminal practices. It’s unknown if we are before realities or pure fantasies, but the fact is that the finding of all this material was and is useful for the construction of a suspect.

As much as I distrust what GA has to say about anything, this claim about Das Buch and Das Buch 1 seems far too specific to be invented from thin air.

I wonder whether CB names in these documents his accomplices in some way that would enable the BKA to follow up with them. It appears we have at least a couple of people from his circle who are 'protected'witnesses... and I wonder how much back in time these writings go... and how did GA become privy of this information?

ETA:The BKA identifies these and other writings as Das Buch and Das Buch 1. Would this mean that they have found copies on his computer which was confiscated when Anja pressed charges against him for abuse? Because as far as I remember that was the problematic part when they charged him with the sexual abuse of her daughter: that they charged him for what they found in his house and his camera, copies of which were also found in the box factory and they could not charge him twice for the same material (and the rest ~8000 photos/videos ).

 

[SuperdadV8]

I wonder whether CB names in these documents his accomplices in some way that would enable the BKA to follow up with them. It appears we have at least a couple of people from his circle who are 'protected'witnesses... and I wonder how much back in time these writings go... and how did GA become privy of this information?

ETA:The BKA identifies these and other writings as Das Buch and Das Buch 1. Would this mean that they have found copies on his computer which was confiscated when Anja pressed charges against him for abuse? Because as far as I remember that was the problematic part when they charged him with the sexual abuse of her daughter: that they charged him for what they found in his house and his camera, copies of which were also found in the box factory and they could not charge him twice for the same material (and the rest ~8000 photos/videos ).

They can't charge him twice for abuse and possession/production of child *advertiser censored*. But that doesn't mean that the evidence can't be used in another investigation!

 

[tedtink]

These books, said to be autobiographic, speak of himself and of friends and describe criminal practices.

I wonder if the book told a story about HB?
CB may have contacted him or rumours reached him via MS to say he may have been compromised and then HB decided to tell all on CB in order to save himself in some way?
Seems a coincidence that HB came forward in 2016 too and had supposedly held vital info back about MM for years.


JMO

 

[C.greek]

I wonder if the book told a story about HB?
CB may have contacted him or rumours reached him via MS to say he may have been compromised and then HB decided to tell all on CB in order to save himself in some way?
Seems a coincidence that HB came forward in 2016 too and had supposedly held vital info back about MM for years.


JMO

Did the BKA try to contact them then beforehand? Did HB come forward also in 2016? I also wonder whether there is any evidence he contacted police in 2008?

However HB does not appear to be a protected witness, or is he?

 

[C.greek]

They can't charge him twice for abuse and possession/production of child *advertiser censored*. But that doesn't mean that the evidence can't be used in another investigation!

I know , that's what happened with the box factory evidence and instead of charging him for the 8000 files they charged him with the few ones they found in his house...

 

[mrjitty]

I've been pondering certain things along this line myself. And perhaps @mrjitty can help answer on this?

I can only talk about my own training - which is not in germany. Things are different here with no adversarial criminal process, but also it's not Mars and similar logic tends to apply in my overvalued experience

My understanding is that if a client directly admits his guilt to his legal representative, then that representative is duty bound to not lie about this. I mean in the sense that, he cannot then defend the client as 'not guilty' against a charge he knows that is true.

In the common law jurisdictions, the lawyer is an officer of the court first and foremost, and thus the lawyer may not mislead the court. Obviously this is a fine line that counsel walks at times.

In the bar training, I was taught that if a client admits guilt to you, you then cannot put an alternate version before the court. If the client demands it, you must therefore remove yourself from the case. This is why counsel is taught not to directly ask the client this question.

But my question is more about what happens if a lawyer discovers information, prior to any charge or trial, that makes him believe that their client is in fact guilty. What (in theory) are the rules around this about them being able to defend that client against the charge in court? Especially if the client is facing more than one charge to be defended, but the lawyer only is 'sure' about one particular charge of which they believe their client is almost certainly guilty of.

In the present case, CB is not even indicted, so I am not sure if FF is officially representing CB in Court in this matter, at this time. If he isn't, then i presume he has much more freedom.

If CB were charged, in your scenario, one suspects FF has to exit the case.

The problem is, it's hard to see how he could represent his client and make the best defence possible, while simultaneously being aware of evidence which proves his guilt.

On the other hand, if he merely thinks CB could well be guilty because the prosecution has a strong case - he can still act.

These can be fine margins

e.g. in the Pistorius case, I believe counsel crossed the line to actually deceive the court about evidence which proved guilt. On the other hand, counsel could have legitimately refrained from engaging on that point, and simply asked prosecution to discharge its burden.

I guess the tldr answer is "its complicated?"

My person opinion is FF wanted the glory of acting on one of the most famous european crimes ever, but likely has zero interest in being involved in the other charges

 

[C.greek]

I've been pondering certain things along this line myself. And perhaps @mrjitty can help answer on this?

My understanding is that if a client directly admits his guilt to his legal representative, then that representative is duty bound to not lie about this. I mean in the sense that, he cannot then defend the client as 'not guilty' against a charge he knows that is true.

But my question is more about what happens if a lawyer discovers information, prior to any charge or trial, that makes him believe that their client is in fact guilty. What (in theory) are the rules around this about them being able to defend that client against the charge in court? Especially if the client is facing more than one charge to be defended, but the lawyer only is 'sure' about one particular charge of which they believe their client is almost certainly guilty of.

it appears the system is different in Germany.

Confidentiality and legal professional privilege
27. Are lawyers bound by client confidentiality rules?
All knowledge about a client gained by the lawyer during the course of their professional activity is confidential (section 43a(2), Federal Lawyers' Act and section 2, Rules of Professional Practice). An unlawful breach of confidentiality is a criminal offence and may be sanctioned with a fine or imprisonment for a period of up to two years (section 203, German Criminal Code).
A lawyer must breach confidentiality if they obtain knowledge that the client is planning to commit certain capital crimes. A failure to notify the authorities would constitute a criminal offence by the lawyer (section 138, German Criminal Code).
28. Are there any exceptions to the client confidentiality rules?
Confidentiality is not breached if the lawyer acts with the client's consent, to safeguard legitimate interests or in a socially adequate way (section 2(3), Rules of Professional Practice).
29. Are communications with lawyers protected from disclosure (that is, privileged) in judicial or other proceedings?
The confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and their client is protected by the right to refuse to testify (section 383(1), paragraph 6 and section 53(1), paragraphs 2 and 3, Code of Criminal Procedure).

Dr Jochen Lehmann, GÖRG Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, "Regulation of the legal profession in Germany: overview"
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreut...(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#co_anchor_a754847

and of course the same principles apply everywhere - that the defence lawyer's job is not to prove their client innocent but to make sure they get a fair trial. Moreover

a German lawyer is not as active in court as an American or British lawyer may be. In a German trial, the judge, not the defense counsel or the prosecutor, obtains the testimony of the witnesses. After the judge is finished, the prosecutor and the defense counsel will be permitted to question witnesses. The aim is to obtain the truth from witnesses by direct questioning rather than through the examination and cross-examination.
How To Germany - German Law and the German Legal System

So from what I have been able to find (skimmed through the
Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung / BRAO) in Germany there is no such clause or rules about the defence lawyers' duty bound. and especially the defence lawyer does not have to testify.

BRAO - nichtamtliches Inhaltsverzeichnis

 

[mrjitty]

I was listening to an interview with a former US Federal Attorney Preet Bharara recently, and he was discussing the whole business of criminals who inform/turn on others. These sources are obviously important to investigations, and are a key way law enforcement prosecute up the food chain - they also make great media stories.

However in his opinion the value of these witnesses at trial tends to be quite low, because it is easy to attack their credibility.

This is why they tend to be used to get better evidence (e.g. wearing a wire) or they have to be corroborated in other ways (also overcoming hearsay considerations).

I found it interesting because I was also reading No Stone Unturned about Necrosearch. In one no body case, the killer had confirmed he did the murder to an associate, who informed on him. But even though LE had this confession testimony from their informant, they weren't able able to gather sufficient evidence on a wire.

So this lead to the odd scenario where despite knowing most of what went down, LE simply couldn't prove it, because an uncorroborated accusation from a criminal associate isn't reliable/credible proof of the content of the confession. The case was only broken years later when a second informant told them where the body was.

I do wonder if this situation is similar.

They know how it went down, and corroborated some things. But lack of a body remains a significant problem.

I believe they went public because they were hoping to get intel on where the body might be. It really matters exactly where CB was living and visiting on those exact days.

 

[C.greek]

I was listening to an interview with a former US Federal Attorney Preet Bharara recently, and he was discussing the whole business of criminals who inform/turn on others. These sources are obviously important to investigations, and are a key way law enforcement prosecute up the food chain - they also make great media stories.

However in his opinion the value of these witnesses at trial tends to be quite low, because it is easy to attack their credibility.

This is why they tend to be used to get better evidence (e.g. wearing a wire) or they have to be corroborated in other ways (also overcoming hearsay considerations).

I found it interesting because I was also reading No Stone Unturned about Necrosearch. In one no body case, the killer had confirmed he did the murder to an associate, who informed on him. But even though LE had this confession testimony from their informant, they weren't able able to gather sufficient evidence on a wire.

So this lead to the odd scenario where despite knowing most of what went down, LE simply couldn't prove it, because an uncorroborated accusation from a criminal associate isn't reliable/credible proof of the content of the confession. The case was only broken years later when a second informant told them where the body was.

I do wonder if this situation is similar.

They know how it went down, and corroborated some things. But lack of a body remains a significant problem.

this is an interesting case - I wonder though how much hearsay confessions could count in a German trial. all I find is that indeed in German trials hearsay is considered evidence in a trial... but not how much it actually counts for a conviction.
are there any examples of German murder trials based only on circumstantial evidence?

ETA: in the hypothetical scenario that the case reaches trial: since the judge interrogates the witnesses, perhaps this could not render the testimony of a crook unreliable? moreover, since the judge has already seen the evidence beforehand and has given their okay for the trial to go ahead, how easy/possible would it be to consider it unreliable later in the process?

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Far too specific. That didn’t come out of thin air.

From what we told in a interview to CM TV, it seems that he had access to German investigation. But directly?! or through an intermediary?
He discredited the texts/books.

 

[C.greek]

I have been trying to find out more about the British ex-gf at the time of MM's disappearance.

"The woman is one of two British former girlfriends of child sex offender Christian B who were dating him while he was in the Praia da Luz area of Portugal and have now given evidence to police. Both live in fear of the German drug dealer, who beat them up..[...] One has told of a chilling conversation she had with Christian B over dinner on May 2, 2007 — the night before Madeleine, three, was abducted from her parents’ apartment in the Portuguese resort. The then 30-year-old drifter told her: “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow. It’s a horrible job but it’s something I have to do and it will change my life. You won’t be seeing me for a while.”

It was in the bar in 2010 that his other British girlfriend suggested he was a dead ringer for some of the photofits of the Madeleine suspects — and jokingly asked: “You did it Christian, didn’t you?” A friend of the girls said today: “He blanked the question and shrugged — then added, ‘Just don’t go there’.”

The text in bold doesn't make sense since his other British gf dated him in 2004/2005 and CB was very violent with her, so I have some doubts she would be making fun with him 5 years later (imo). There appears to be an 'unaccounted for' British girlfriend then, if we are to trust the Sun .

Maddie suspect told of 'horrible job to do in Praia' night before toddler vanished

 

[Lilly b]

I have been trying to find out more about the British ex-gf at the time of MM's disappearance.

"The woman is one of two British former girlfriends of child sex offender Christian B who were dating him while he was in the Praia da Luz area of Portugal and have now given evidence to police. Both live in fear of the German drug dealer, who beat them up..[...] One has told of a chilling conversation she had with Christian B over dinner on May 2, 2007 — the night before Madeleine, three, was abducted from her parents’ apartment in the Portuguese resort. The then 30-year-old drifter told her: “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow. It’s a horrible job but it’s something I have to do and it will change my life. You won’t be seeing me for a while.”

It was in the bar in 2010 that his other British girlfriend suggested he was a dead ringer for some of the photofits of the Madeleine suspects — and jokingly asked: “You did it Christian, didn’t you?” A friend of the girls said today: “He blanked the question and shrugged — then added, ‘Just don’t go there’.”

The text in bold doesn't make sense since his other British gf dated him in 2004/2005 and CB was very violent with her, so I have some doubts she would be making fun with him 5 years later (imo). There appears to be an 'unaccounted for' British girlfriend then, if we are to trust the Sun .

Maddie suspect told of 'horrible job to do in Praia' night before toddler vanished

Unfortunately I don't think we will get to find out , I don't think they would want to be made public if you get me, don't think I would want people to know if it was me .

 

[C.greek]

Unfortunately I don't think we will get to find out , I don't think they would want to be made public if you get me, don't think I would want people to know if it was me .

I meant if she really does exist... or if it was combination of different statements from different girlfriends through the years that all morphed together into one for the Sun...

 

[Lilly b]

I meant if she really does exist... or if it was combination of different statements from different girlfriends through the years that all morphed together into one for the Sun...

Sorry,. I read it wrong.

 

[Dlk79]

Bit of a nothing article from the Express but the following bit caught my eye.

“Helge looked at what was on it first and he said: ‘Manni, look at this.’ And then I saw what was on it.”

According to Sat.1, the camera – which the police never found – contained child *advertiser censored*. The pistol reportedly no longer exists.

Is that true? Did they say in the documentary that there was also CP on the camera HB and MS stole?

I assumed the Express had just got that mixed up with the other camera memory card the BKA found at the factory, but the article mentions that one as well later on. And the above extract specifically says there was CP on the camera that has never been found (which is the one HB says he left in his vehicle). Can anyone clarify what it said about it in the doc exactly?

'Terrible' Madeleine McCann suspect 'could have broken in' to resort she was taken from