Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #29

[Lilly b]

The below article from April 2021 talks about whether incriminating data uncovered from the Encrochat bust at the beginning of 2020 is admissible as Prosecution evidence in the Germans courts. Certain lawyers were appealing to the higher regional courts that the way the data was uncovered and passed to police is not constitutional with German privacy laws. On the whole, it appears the regional courts have not agreed with that assessment.

In amongst the article though, it mentions CB lawyer and says the following:

The Kiel lawyer Friedrich Fülscher criticizes the "government's eagerness to prosecute" as he describes it. In the opinion of the top judges in Hamburg, the purpose should apparently justify any means. Fülscher, 36, sits in his office in an old town house in the elegant district of Düsternbrook, the walls are adorned with caricatures of lawyers by the French artist Honoré Daumier. The lawyer is considered a specialist for tough cases, defending, among other things, members of organized crime or the alleged murderer of Madeleine McCann , who disappeared in Portugal in 2007.

Fülscher has just sent a complaint against his arrest, in which he attacks the previous case law. "The Higher Regional Court of Rostock demands that the accused provide proof of innocence. But German criminal law doesn't allow that.” If a complaint is successful, it could be painful for the criminal prosecutor. Dozens of criminals should be released despite the overwhelming evidence. But Flüscher has no illusions: "They defend their prey with all means."

EncroChat: Zweifel an Rechtmäßigkeit von Auswertung - WELT

I'm not sure if the above English translation is 100% accurate, can any German speakers clarify what is meant by the bolded sentence in the article or if anyone knows what specific 'complaint' is being referenced here?

Not sure if this answers your question, but it's about drugs, and this I copied says they may be able to use enncrochat, if it's not what you meant, sorry in advance

However, based on the judgments passed so far, investigators are confident that they will be able to continue using the EncroChat files. "The chats are so clear that the defense attorneys have little choice but to take action against the use of the data and publicly give the impression that their French colleagues have broken the law," says Sebastian Fiedler, Chairman of the Association of German Criminal Investigators. "I have the impression that many still do not want to admit how great the threat posed by organized crime really is."

 

[mrjitty]

But that doesn't seem to exactly fit with the context of what the article is all about. They are talking about the admissibility of the Encrochat data and the fact it was obtained without an initial criminal suspicion against the people it is now incriminating. I'm just not sure why FF and CB are brought into this article conversation given what it is about. Unless there is something specific in that Rostock ruling they feel is a problem for them?

I didn't get the impression it was referring to CB, as he is not held on any charges at the moment.

I guess the "Haftbeschwerde" relates to an organised crime client, arrested on drug charges?

As the article is edited, it is very unclear exactly how FF fits to the topic, so I assume he must have an Encrochat client.

 

[Lilly b]

I didn't get the impression it was referring to CB, as he is not held on any charges at the moment.

I guess the "Haftbeschwerde" relates to an organised crime client, arrested on drug charges?

As the article is edited, it is very unclear exactly how FF fits to the topic, so I assume he must have an Encrochat client.

Seemed like a ref to FF working on high profile cases, imo

 

[RichardKimble]

I seem to recall that Wolters said within 6 months in June 2020. Long past that date now and still nothing.
If he was thinking of waiting until statute of limitations ran , then he wouldn't have given a target date.

He talked of within months in July 20, its the brit press though.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/german-police-hope-wrap-up-22356231

Then in November it talked of next year , 2021.

Maddie McCann suspect Christian B may not be charged until next year, say cops

 

[Davieson]

He talked of within months in July 20, its the brit press though.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/german-police-hope-wrap-up-22356231

Then in November it talked of next year , 2021.

Maddie McCann suspect Christian B may not be charged until next year, say cops

17 months later and still no sign of charges. Some serious slippage there even if they are trying to build a stronger case.

 

[mrjitty]

Seemed like a ref to FF working on high profile cases, imo

Yes - organised crime cases which is what the article is about, as you pointed out.

CB's legal situation has nothing to do with what is being discussed in that article, as he is not detained, charged or arrested - he is serving a sentence post conviction.

So I am presuming FF was talking about one of his other clients.

 

[Dlk79]

When it comes to the tabloids, pay note of what HCW actually says (in quotation marks), rather than the tabs spin on things. If you are launching an Appeal for information, common sense would tell you that nobody can specify exactly how long it is going to take to result in a charge. It depends entirely on what happens in the Appeal. HCW has made comments along the line of we "hope", or "maybe" but that's about it. How can he be expected to say when a charge will result if it is dependent on things out of his control.

The last significant update we had was this though last October:

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

“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible.

“When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position.

“That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue. I’m not saying that what we have is insufficient now. But he’s in prison, so we don’t have this pressure on us. We have time on our hands.”

“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.

Mr Wolters dismissed as “rubbish” a recent report that the probe will end by Christmas, but said it is likely Brueckner will be charged early next year with other alleged offences in Portugal. (No direct quote for this commitment though, so take with a pinch of salt)

They include the rape of an Irish woman in the Algarve in 2004 and two incidents where he allegedly flashed at youngsters.

Asked if he was happy with the pace of the Madeleine probe, Mr Wolters said: “It could have gone better. Of course we hoped we’d get such good tip-offs that the investigation might have already ended. But the case is progressing.”

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

 

[RichardKimble]

In the same article inside quotation marks Wolters admits to below . Obviously imo they the prosecution maybe be confident but that confidence does not lead them to believe a conviction can be secured. This circumstantial is maybe a photo of a child resembling Madeleine, and CB allegedly confessing and maybe being in Luz at the time, there is a circle that cannot be squared, and unlikely to be, again imo.

“It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”

 

[Anxala]

In the same article inside quotation marks Wolters admits to below . Obviously imo they the prosecution maybe be confident but that confidence does not lead them to believe a conviction can be secured. This circumstantial is maybe a photo of a child resembling Madeleine, and CB allegedly confessing and maybe being in Luz at the time, there is a circle that cannot be squared, and unlikely to be, again imo.

“It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence. If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”

What do you make of the 'with Brueckner' bit?

It's a distinction that allows for the BKA having significant video/pics but just not ones that conclusively link CB to them.

 

[RichardKimble]

What do you make of the 'with Brueckner' bit?

It's a distinction that allows for the BKA having significant video/pics but just not ones that conclusively link CB to them.

Indeed it does, thats why its circumstantial, lets suppose some how CB has images, where's the link he was involved with them, maybe illegal to have in your possession but doesn't mean you were involved in them, thats the "with" Wolters can't obtain.

 

[C.greek]

Indeed it does, thats why its circumstantial, lets suppose some how CB has images, where's the link he was involved with them, maybe illegal to have in your possession but doesn't mean you were involved in them, thats the "with" Wolters can't obtain.

That's why they want to put the phone in his hands for sure

ETA How on earth would someone obtain such pictures if they were not involved?! If he got them off the internet, he would have talked by now jmo

 

[RichardKimble]

That's why they want to put the phone in his hands for sure

ETA How on earth would someone obtain such pictures if they were not involved?! If he got them off the internet, he would have talked by now jmo

But its all speculation that he has said images, do they exist ? "if we had a video of the act,or picture of a dead Madeleine with CB" its not even clear there is these supposed images. The film that CB was supposed to have taken of himself abusing the American woman isn't even proven to have existed.

 

[Anxala]

Indeed it does, thats why its circumstantial, lets suppose some how CB has images, where's the link he was involved with them, maybe illegal to have in your possession but doesn't mean you were involved in them, thats the "with" Wolters can't obtain.

We've (collectively) speculated at length over the various threads as to what the BKA has that would allow HCW to come out with his (paraphrasing) 'If you knew what I know, you too would be in no doubt at to his guilt'. I've always assumed it has to be something way more solid than 'hearsay' which only leaves significant imagery. But then, if they have significant imagery that proves MM is dead, surely they'd have had to pass that onto OG/the McCanns? Morally speaking.

But let's say for the sake of argument that that's what they have, how then would placing CB in the PdL vicinity on the evening of 3rd May take that guilt claim forward? How would that provide them with proof of his guilt, since there's no correlation between the two things. Even if CB said he wasn't there, him being proven (and I'm not sure he has been proven?) to have been in the PdL vicinity on the evening of 3rd May just means that he lied. It doesn't take their case forward in any significant way since it's still just more circumstantial evidence.

I'm just trying to think things through and find logic, as ever.

 

[mrjitty]

The film that CB was supposed to have taken of himself abusing the American woman isn't even proven to have existed.

RSBM

Recently I read No Stone Unturned about Necrosearch and no body cases, and something stuck out to me.

It is sometimes possible for law enforcement to know who did a murder beyond reasonable doubt, but be unable to prove it, or find the body.

In the case in question, a dealer had murdered a customer, and disposed of the body in a car in a lake. So the victim simply "went missing". Detectives knew who had done it, because a criminal associate had ratted, but could not manage to get the killer to confess to the associate on a wire, or to say exactly where the body was. The DA's office did not want to prosecute without the body, because though they knew what had happened and why, they effectively had zero evidence.

I do wonder if there is a similar dynamic here.

Some evidence existed at some stage, and some key details are known - but BKA does not hold the direct proof of them. CB could have articulated exactly what he did - but if you can't find where the body is you have very little.

In the No Stone Unturned case, this could not be resolved until a different associate tipped off where the car was put in a river.

 

[SuperdadV8]

RSBM

Recently I read No Stone Unturned about Necrosearch and no body cases, and something stuck out to me.

It is sometimes possible for law enforcement to know who did a murder beyond reasonable doubt, but be unable to prove it, or find the body.

In the case in question, a dealer had murdered a customer, and disposed of the body in a car in a lake. So the victim simply "went missing". Detectives knew who had done it, because a criminal associate had ratted, but could not manage to get the killer to confess to the associate on a wire, or to say exactly where the body was. The DA's office did not want to prosecute without the body, because though they knew what had happened and why, they effectively had zero evidence.

I do wonder if there is a similar dynamic here.

Some evidence existed at some stage, and some key details are known - but BKA does not hold the direct proof of them. CB could have articulated exactly what he did - but if you can't find where the body is you have very little.

In the No Stone Unturned case, this could not be resolved until a different associate tipped off where the car was put in a river.

You are starting to think and combine as a prosecutor, not as a solicitor in this case. I like that very much!

No offence so far!

 

[Dlk79]

Websleuths Rules

USER ACCOUNTS

A maximum of ONE account is allowed per person. If you are found to be using two or more accounts, one or more of them will be deleted and you may be banned from WS all together depending on the situation.


Just in case anyone is unaware.

 

[Dlk79]

The film that CB was supposed to have taken of himself abusing the American woman isn't even proven to have existed.

What point are you trying to make? CB was convicted of the crime regardless, based on (among other things) DNA evidence and profile tesimony of similar rapes with the same MO.

Do you think the victim was lying about the video? It's pretty easy to hide/destroy a video don't you think?

 

[Dlk79]

We've (collectively) speculated at length over the various threads as to what the BKA has that would allow HCW to come out with his (paraphrasing) 'If you knew what I know, you too would be in no doubt at to his guilt'. I've always assumed it has to be something way more solid than 'hearsay' which only leaves significant imagery. But then, if they have significant imagery that proves MM is dead, surely they'd have had to pass that onto OG/the McCanns? Morally speaking.

But let's say for the sake of argument that that's what they have, how then would placing CB in the PdL vicinity on the evening of 3rd May take that guilt claim forward? How would that provide them with proof of his guilt, since there's no correlation between the two things. Even if CB said he wasn't there, him being proven (and I'm not sure he has been proven?) to have been in the PdL vicinity on the evening of 3rd May just means that he lied. It doesn't take their case forward in any significant way since it's still just more circumstantial evidence.

I'm just trying to think things through and find logic, as ever.

Some good queries there.

The first thing I'd say though is that "circumstantial evidence" does not equate to inadequate evidence. We don't know exactly what evidence the BKA has. But it seems to be things that are mainly related to the after events of 5A.

In which case, having further circumstantial evidence that also links CB to the abduction scene itself could be critical to building the case against him. The comment HCW made early on about wanting to take away any excuse that CB could claim it was a girlfriend using the phone is highly significant IMO. Placing him in the vicinity appears to be a key factor, even though that fact in isolation is not incriminating in itself. It is the culmination of evidence that is important in establishing the sequence of what may have happened that night.

As you say, we have also discussed the photo/video angle in depth. IMO it is very significant that HCW has several times said he cannot "confirm or deny" that they have something in this regard. Even though he freely admits other aspects of evidence that they don't have.

Some of my previous thoughts and observations of HCW's comments here:

Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #26

ETA: I think the McCanns do know, or at least have have been given the overall gist of the evidence that the BKA have. That's purely my personal opinion though. I think they've been told certain things about why the BKA believe CB is responsible. But in order to protect their privacy and press intrusion while this is ongoing the authorities are alluding to them being kept in the dark. JMO.

 

[Davieson]

Is it usual for victims to be told what evidence police have against suspects ?

 

[RichardKimble]

What point are you trying to make? CB was convicted of the crime regardless, based on (among other things) DNA evidence and profile tesimony of similar rapes with the same MO.

Do you think the victim was lying about the video? It's pretty easy to hide/destroy a video don't you think?

Which other rapes ? is there a transcript of the case where the prosecution presented evidence of said tape which could not be produced.